He seems to be baiting people who are into evolutionary biology and also atheists. I get that he’s religious, but can’t he at least understand that epistemology, reason, and consistent methodology are important and not just libertarian “conclusions.” I mean, AE is about methodology and disagreement with other methodologies of even libertarianism. I don’t see why the big-tent (to the point of absurdity) mentality regarding reason and empiricism. Today’s article calls atheists “fundamentalists” and “evangelicals” (I suppose Christian fundamentalists like Gary North and evangelicals of all stripes are also bad?) and makes a straw man about atheists knowing everything in the universe. Simply eye-rolling rhetoric.
I see why people want a more civil discussion. I do, too. But I don’t think we get to that point by suppressing either side of the aisle. Nor out of blatant disrespect while demanding “tolerance” (launching a grenade and then running for the hills). And it’s not, I suspect hatred, but the suppression of discourse that has gone on for too long. Too often people want these ridiculous intellectual armistices. If that is the case, we have to share a tent with the David Ickes, the communists, and the white nationalist groups. Marching through the streets to stop the wars. But we can’t say why we do. Just do it!
The trend hasn’t been so much moving toward anti-statism (LRC has always been pretty radical in that regard, IIRC) as it has been moving away from paleoism.
I haven’t followed the site regularly for a while, but I’ve seen some of the anti-evolution stuff. That is rather embarrassing, unless you’re just trying to bring in the evangelicals.
You are misrepresenting the article, which mentions atheists and agnostics in general before going on to say “Then there are the fundamentalist atheists who unequivocally declare that there is no God(s) and therefore claim access to all the knowledge of the universe (the only way one could make such a claim). These individuals are generally intolerant of any sort of religious or spiritual beliefs” (emphasis added)
It is obvious that the article is not baiting athiests or evolutionary biologists in general. Why must you present it as such? The article was a call for toleration of religion and lack of religion, to quote: “What is important is a physical, not spiritual reality – your exhibited behavior toward and your social interactions with others”
As I see it, you are setting up the stawman. what “suppressoin of discourse” are you talking about?
I’m sure he has plenty of good scholarship and revisionism on early America. The thing is, he only opposes bad stuff when America doing it. He has referred to Maoist China as a “people’s state,” and denied that Castro is a dictator.
I disagree. He sees everything from a Marxist POV and promotes socialism. He chastizes the 19th century robber barons for using the state, yet calls for Obama to nationalize healthcare. His economics is even worse.
What’s with the consistent misreading of lewrockwell.com articles?
sicsempertyrannis insinuates that a article advocates the release of a murderer when the article clearly argued that Peltier was innocent.
John Ess takes an attack on non-tolerant athiests as an attack on atheists in general.
Cork and sicsempertyrannis take a posting of one portion of Howard Zinn as somehow “promoting” Zinn, as if quoting the work of a non-libertarian historian somehow translates to advocacy of his ideology. I don’t understand this criticism, can we no longer cite the good works of non-libertarians or is that somehow promoting statism?
If Peltier is innocent (he isnt), then so is Mumia. He himself doesnt deny he fired at the FBI agents (who were serving a warrant for an actual crime, not drug charges or other such nonsense).
OK, maybe I overstated his ‘promotion’ of Zinn (for the record, it wasnt just one). But like I said, he’s a hypocrite, and a pretty bad one. He falls into the trap of exposing right wing/centrist statism, but he flat out denies commie statism. Denying Mao or Stalin’s crimes ought to be considered the left wing version of Holocaust Denial. In the past, any time LRC used a notable point that Chomsky makes they’ve pointed out Chomsky’s blatant hypocrisy.
Forget libertarians, it may seem harsh to the deniers, but any educated person should believe in evolution if you are willing to accept any facts about the world at all. You can call it dogma and say it’s “just a theory” but that is just displaying your ignorance about science.
You seemed to insinuate that the article was advocating the release of a murderer and that this reflected poorly on lewrockwell.com. However, the article advocated his release because, to quote: “Mr. Peltier has served 33 years in federal confinement for a crime I believe he did not commit. The preponderance of evidence supports my belief.” The author then goes on to support his belief with evidence.
Is it somehow wrong to advocate for the release of a person you think to be innocent? Should we just accept that all persons convicted by the government are guilty?
I just don’t understand how such an article can reflect poorly on lewrockwell.com. If you have a beef with the evidence presented in the article, that’s another issue, but recognize that the author was advocating the release of someone he believes to be innocent, and that this belief can be rationally supported by evidence.
In itself, no. But I thought LRC was a weird place to post it. There are alot of morons who are gullible enough to believe Mumia is innocent, why not print those as well?
Of course its his site and he cant put whatever he wants there. But it made me realize how far the site has come.
Of course it’s fine to cite non-libertarians when they’re good on something. It is also fine for me to give my opinion that Zinn is a totalitarian (calling him a non-libertarian would probably be the understatement of the year). I’ll take Rothbard’s Conceived in Liberty over Zinn’s commie junk any day of the week.
Why not? If there is evidence out there to support such a claim, why not print it? Or have you analysed all such evidence so extensively that anyone who comes to an opposite conclusion is a moron?
So, an article appears that argues an innocent man has been convicted and held in jail for thirty years. This article argues that government lies and corruption are the cause of the convicted man’s plight. The article supports itself with evidence. This evidence is in the public record.
And this makes you realize “how far the site has come”? Why? Is the evidence presented outlandish? Is it inconceivable that government agents would lie? I’m having a hard time understanding your beef.
Atheism in general says there are no such thing as Gods. It is not “fundamentalist” atheism. All atheists, without exception, believe there is no such thing as God(s). It is a straw man to say that I claim to know everything about the universe. Or that any such thing is necessary to be an atheist. It is theists who make claims about the far reaches of space or time where God supposedly lives (if as we should suppose, He lives in the universe and atheism is a claim about that universe as is admitted by the article).
If all that matters is physical reality, then it matters how you arrive at anarchism. It also begs the question of why one should be religious at all if it has no consequence on anything. But it’s why religious justifications are not valid. You don’t see Thom Woods explaining the ABCT with the help of saints. And if he did, I would hope none would buy his book. Reason and empiricism have to be the only justifications of anarchistic views. If not, it is not reliable.
To some degree that extends to other things. For instance, if you hold reason and evidence as only conditional… then you shouldn’t be criticizing the unreason of statists when they travel off into weird bouts of strange logic. Nor for that matter, the unreason of atheists (for instance, in Marxism, Obamaism, the endless slew of people on youtube, etc.).
This is the site that used to promote MLK/civil ‘rights’ and other anti-PC revisionism, now he censors or deletes it. And yes, I consider the Free Mumia movement and its Free Leonard Peltier cousin to be silly. So perhaps its just a matter of personal taste. LRC has become less controversial and more mainstream, almost modal libertarian.
Dont get me wrong, he still has a ton of great information and several great bloggers (William Anderson, William Grigg, and for the most part Kinsella) and Gary North and others regularly write interesting pieces. But I think its lost its uniqueness as an outlet for ‘right wing’ libertarians, and slowly started to resemble other centrist libertarian sites.
Again, my point was that the author was not painting all atheists with the brush he paints “fundamentalist atheists” with. He was not referring to YOU or ME, he was referring to those atheists who claim “access to all the knowledge of the universe” and atheists who “claim that no one can be described as or declare himself an anarchist if he has a religious loyalty to a God(s).” These are the types he is referring to with the term “atheist fundamentalist” (I agree that his wording was a little imprecise, for as you say, atheism only refers to belief in God).
My point was that you portrayed the article as calling all atheists fundamentalists, which was a misreading or a misrepresentation.
p.s. I am also pretty much an atheist (more accurately an agnostic)