Church of Egoism is more like it, and now even you, the Pope, is questioning Christ himself. What have I done?
Wow! You think I’m the Pope? I don’t know what to say… does this mean I’m doing a good job arguing? Like I don’t question Stirner… I’m not too keen on his whole description of races.
I think I’ve asked you that a couple of times already, but you haven’t yet told me; what does my new church believe? Could you fill me in, this is all happening so fast!
Eh, backtracking, more like an alter boy who is just starting to see cracks in the faith. You can get out before you waste so much of your life! If I remember correctly, Stirner said that the history of the world properly belongs to the Caucasian race, yeah.
Stirner is God - The Ego and His Own is the unquestionable word of God.
Coming soon… pilgrimages to the bar in Friedrichstraße.
Ha! When did I claim Stirner was 100% correct, no matter what? That is complete conjecture on your behalf.
And convert to what? Liberalism?
And I’ve disagreed with that before I came on the forums. I don’t really understand how that supports your case for my faith in Stirner.
LOL! That might be the silliest thing I’ve read so far today. Could I have an ideological statement of principle? What is the truth that the Church of Stirner advances?
We’ve been over most of this in the other thread, no reason to repeat it all.
The entire book is a doctrine, just read it. And you obviously cannot have an ideological statement of principle, its a religion, we’ve had another thread on the two.
Here’s a Hymn you can sing:
“I sing as the bird sings
That on the bough alights;
The song that from me springs
Is pay that well requites”
LOL! What are you talking about? I did read it. So religions don’t have ideological statements? OK, now this is the silliest thing I’ve read today.
Did you not read the Atheism thread?
Ideological Statement:
“I essentially meant it as a “statement of beliefs” for those espousing that ideology”
What does it have to do with a religion?
“Islam is the religion articulated by the Qur’an, a religious book considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of the single incomparable God (Arabic: الله, Allāh), and by the Prophet of Islam Muhammad’s demonstrations and real-life examples (called the Sunnah, collected through narration of his companions in collections of Hadith)” - wiki
Christianity - apostles creed:
- 1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
- 2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
- 3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
- 4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
- 5. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again.
- 6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
- 7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
- 8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
- 9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
- 10. the forgiveness of sins,
- 11. the resurrection of the body,
- 12. and life everlasting.
- Amen.
- How are these *not* ideological statements? Religions *are* ideologies.
Don’t we already have a concurrent discussion about the differences between the two, regarding faith and the like
Yep.
Only “interpretable” in the sense that some people can be wrong…but that’s like saying, given our current definitions of things, that 2 + 2 = 4 is open to interpretation. I suppose if you wanna use the were “interpretation” like that, you could, but it would render the word meaningless.
Mathematics have been rigorously defined and are provable, the same cannot be said for “force,” “aggression,” and “coercion.”
Actually I think "force, " “agression,” and “coercion” have been pretty clearly defined. Most people i’ve heard use them in my whole life have always used them in the same way. The only area of difference is “coercion” where some people believe “wage-slavery” is coercion, but their concept of wage-slavery is highly problematic because of internal contradictions (you can’t allow someone to work for a wage, of you could be forced to pay someone a certain wage so that would essentially be confiscation and/or forced labor in some cases which itself would be slavery in order to pay someone a certain wage).
Not really, even if they can agree on what defines aggression, say, unprovoked violence, the differences still remain, who decideds whether he was or wasn’t provoked. And even libertarians use the term coercion differently.
I always say the same thing to this:
What have they ever done for us?
Nothing.
Part of having the concept of coercion is the ability to properly apply it with general success. If you cannot properly apply the concept of coercion then you don’t know the concept of coercion.
Properly apply? General success? All debatable.
What is debatable about them? What is general? I mean properly applying isn’t really debatable. You wouldn’t call a cat a chair.
You obviously cannot properly apply coercion to any “general success” unless you have correctly identified what coercion is beforehand. And even libertarians disagree as to what coercion is.
mmmmm…no, it’s pretty easy to say what is provoked or unprovoked. If you go over to Walter Block’s audio on this site here he goes over it very thoroughly. If someone threatens to steal or commit an act of bodily harm to you, in earnest, then it is provocation with regards to the Non-Aggression Principle. The way I see it, this is pretty consistent with the logic of the NAP because the NAP is based on individual sovereignty or self-ownership. All rights stem from individual soveriegnty and that’s why the NAP is valid.
As for libertarians using “coercion” differently, i agree that some do…it’s a matter of which ones understand the NAP or NAA and individual sovereignty and which ones don’t.