The ills you describe arise from selfishness, so we create a government in response? We are stupid then. Have you read the papers, watched the news? How is government doing with it’s assigned task to protect us? The government protects us from crime? HA! HA! HA! Have you heard of the drug war? People are arrested and harrased for all kinds of stupid things when they should just be left alone. The government protects us from infringement of rights? You’re not serious, are you? How does $11 trillion in debt protect our rights? To confiscate my wealth to pay for this, that is not an infrigement of my rights? Indebting the taxpayer at the rate of $2 trillion per year is protecting my rights? I didn’t know it was so expensive to protect my rights. Creating havoc in the economy through artificial credit expansion, devaluation of the monetary unit, THAT is protecting my rights? The government protects our rights?
I understand your reply regarding human nature, but I think you can see that creating a government in reponse to those ills is counter productive*.* So, why didn’t we figure this out centuries ago?
Ha! Just as I suspected: The Emperor has no clothes!
You CAN"T articulate your own views well, you can’t articulate a clear, cogent and coherent argument against what I have argued for and you ARE a ‘parrot’.
You know that I have you by the ****'s and you hate it so all you do is launch an ad hominen.
I deal with obscurantists like you EVERY DAY. You simply don’t want to be confused by the facts.
At least you could be a respectable atheist like Kai Neilsen or former atheist turned theist Antony Flew.
Mmmhmm, he says as Michael Shermer did to Gene Cook when Cook tried the very same goading technique. Didn’t work on Shermer. Doesn’t work with me. I know how you love your failed argument, but you’ve just got to get over it.
And how about learning what an ad hominem is before I have to make you feel bad for misusing the term. Because I will. Trust me.
Ah, yes. Nothing helps a community grow like trying to intimidate new members.
Indeed. Omega I apologize for the rough reception you’ve received into this community. But please don’t let others bait you into stooping to their level.
I was rather impressed when you wrote this earlier…
…and I think you would have done well to have left it at that.
Welcome to the world of Austrian Economics. Best of luck with your studies.
For what it’s worth (and that probably isn’t much) I don’t think Omega said anything that bad and I don’t find his attempts to correlate the idea of freedom with God offensive or annoying. I don’t think any kind of action needs to be taken against him in the form of moderation and I hope he continues to post on this forum with the same vivacity that he’s shown in this thread (where he knows he’s totally outnumbered by atheists and/or agnostics and yet he continues to post.) So that’s my two cents, just saying.
Nothing like a healthy, but petty, flamewar to liven things up.
At any rate ridiculing Omega in such a way isn’t exactly inviting and certainly not productive. Even atheists can benefit from anarchic theists when the opposition is the state.
I am perplexed by part of your statement. In the beginning you say you have ‘tremendous faith’ but by the end of your statement you are equivocating and ‘don’t know’.
At any rate, my intention was never to argue for God’s existence, (though I considered the possibility that I may have to) or to proselytize, but rather to show that the idea or concept of freedom must have come from a rational mind that preceded man. Otherwise the argument is weak and incoherent.
I also posited the answer to the original question that man’s sinful nature best explains why some people don’t want to exercise their freedom, or at least allow those who do to do so absent their violence, force or coercion. Unfortunately, I took some turns in the process and never fully developed this strand of thought. Yet.
Hang out here and continue learning about AE and eventually you’ll understand what I think wilderness is eluding to. If I am guessing correctly my sentiments are the same as his.
You’re welcome. Now everyone gets to see how you attempt to rationalize not following through on the rule you wanted. No matter how you try to spin it: you’re screwed. And you’ve only yourself to blame.
If by “rather well” you mean “cowardly and inconsistent”, then you’re correct.
As a proponent of AE our arguments are grounded in solid logic. Not in any form of mysticism or nonesens. Having faith goes beyond the realm of logic, so in a sense we contradict ourselves at the core. The point is this, learning AE and understanding the conclusions it comes to is extremely valuable. But, and a big but, it will test your faith.
While I do appreciate you taking the time to clarify, I have to tell you that I’m intrigued by your statements that AE arguments ‘are grounded in solid logic’ (As opposed to what? Regular logic?). And, ‘having faith goes beyond the realm of logic, so in a sense we contradict ourselves’. Please define ‘faith’ as you are using it and how it goes beyond the realm of logic. I’m assuming you mean the ‘solid’ logic you mentioned as opposed to ‘regular’ logic.
I am not trying to antagonize here but I would like for this to be clarified for the purpose of understanding EXACTLY what you and/or other AE’s mean. Can you give me a specific example of this ‘solid’ logic that allegedly shows the inferiority (my word) of faith over and against it?
No seriously, all ‘this’ was, was a list of logic fallacies, etc. It didn’t go to a particular statement; Or, are you saying that your definition of ‘faith’ is incompatible with logic and thus commits logic fallacies? Further, are you implying that ANY definition of ‘faith’ is incompatible with logic and thus commits logic fallacies? I don’t expect you to go into intimate, exhaustive details of your own faith, but help me out here; I’m trying to understand just what it is you are trying to say. I think I have asked a fair question, nothing more.