[CNN] "I don't know, so I'm an atheist libertarian." - Penn Jillette

[erowe1]

Actually i am going to disagree with you that his libertarianism is necessarily based on positive knowledge of what is right and wrong by explaining to you how i came to my libertarian beliefs. The only thing i positively know is that I do not know everything, I can also say with a certain degree of certainty that no one knows everything. With this in mind I would rather be responsible for making my own decisions based upon incomplete information than to be stuck with a choice that someone else made with incomplete information. The reason i believe in libertarianism is that a decision based upon a specific situation rather than one based upon general demographics is more likely to be correct and if it is wrong I have no one to blame but myself.

Sorry if that was rambly but that is how my mind works on the subject.

Also i have a severe lack of faith in general. For this reason since i don't think it cannot be proven even though i feel i have no reason to believe in god i have no real desire to waste my time to prove it either way. I plan on "I don't know" being the answer i die saying on the subject.

Three observations:
1) You still base this on the positive knowledge that you don't know everything.
2) Let's be honest, that is not the only thing you positively know.
3) You carefully worded your post so as to avoid sounding overconfident about other things you think or prefer. But if you had been a bit less guarded, I bet you would have said more than just that you would rather be responsible for making your own decisions, but that controlling other people is positively wrong. At any rate, whether that's true of you or not, it's still true of Gillette, according to his own words.

Finally, I disagree with the claim that you have a lack of faith in general. You are brimming with faith in all kinds of unproven things. You may not want to be. But you are.

 

[erowe1]

Why are Religious Labels so important to you people?

Who do you mean by "you people"?

 

[ExPatPaki]

Who do you mean by "you people"?

 

[idirtify]

But by your own definition of faith, a belief held in the absence of evidence, it must be the case that confidence in the evidence of your senses and the consistent behavior of matter and energy is faith. You can't use empirical evidence to support the belief that you can rely on your senses. That would be question begging. You have to give yourself over to that confidence in the absence of evidence.

By YOUR definitions, every assertion and disagreement and argument YOU make is based on FAITH. So why should I place any more faith in yours than mine? According to the real content of your claims, I shouldn’t. For example, your claim that my senses are fallible is actually only your FAITH; which makes for a very unconvincing argument.

Apparently you think you are making arguments against other’s claims (calling them all “faith-based”), but in actuality you are discrediting every single one of your own arguments. IOW, if what you say is true, it is also true for you. Wake up and realize that your brand of “faith-logic”, that you often aim at others, actually only shoots itself in the foot. If you disagree, let’s see you try to claim that my senses are more fallible than yours – without resorting to pure faith.

So, if you don’t mind, I’d rather depend on my senses and my knowledge than your “faith-logic”.

 

[erowe1]

By YOUR definitions, every assertion and disagreement and argument YOU make is based on FAITH. So why should I place any more faith in yours than mine? According to the real content of your claims, I shouldn’t. For example, your claim that my senses are fallible is actually only your FAITH; which makes for a very unconvincing argument.

Apparently you think you are making arguments against other’s claims (calling them all “faith-based”), but in actuality you are discrediting every single one of your own arguments. IOW, if what you say is true, it is also true for you. Wake up and realize that your brand of “faith-logic”, that you often aim at others, actually only shoots itself in the foot. If you disagree, let’s see you try to claim that my senses are more fallible than yours – without resorting to pure faith.

So, if you don’t mind, I’d rather depend on my senses and my knowledge than your “faith-logic”.

I'm afraid you completely misunderstand me again. When did I say anything about my assertions being more trustworthy than anyone else's?

When did I claim that your senses are fallible?

I fully admit that I trust in reason and my senses, and that I have no basis for that trust other than a leap of faith. But then, I'm not the one who pretends not to have any faith. It's only those who do pretend that who get caught up in contradictions.

 

[idirtify]

I'm afraid you completely misunderstand me again. When did I say anything about my assertions being more trustworthy than anyone else's?

You worded no relative judgments, nor did I claim you did. BUT…since you brought it up, let’s go with it (there are so many ways to refute your “faith-logic”, it’s mind boggling). Actually your whole post says that your assertions are more credible/accurate/“trustworthy”. That’s because it’s a disagreement, and every disagreement inherently implies that it’s more accurate than the claim it disagrees with. But if you are saying, with your question, that you do not think your claims are necessarily more accurate, that is highly unusual given the amount of direct disagreements you make. I mean if you really don’t think your disagreements are any better than what you disagree with, then why persist? If fact, why post ANY disagreement?

When did I claim that your senses are fallible?

Your whole post consists of relegating your opponent’s perception (“senses”) to the realm of faith. Although you didn’t use the word “fallible”, that’s your message. Now you might be able to “confidently” make such a fallibility claim about your own perception, but you have no real basis (other than your “faith”) for making it about anyone else’s. You wanna make it about mine? Let’s see you try. (Remember, yours is all a baseless leap of faith).

I fully admit that I trust in reason and my senses, and that I have no basis for that trust other than a leap of faith.

Very good. You make it quite clear that every claim you have made (and will make) is nothing more than a leap of faith. Thank you for confessing. It’s good for the soul.

But then, I'm not the one who pretends not to have any faith. It's only those who do pretend that who get caught up in contradictions.

Hold on there! Admitting that all your claims are based on your leap of faith is one thing, but CONFIDENTLY making the accusation against others is quite another. And didn’t you just get done confessing that EVERYTHING you perceive and claim is a leap of faith? And didn’t your first question imply that you don’t think any of your claims are any more accurate? Wow, how quickly you forget (that nothing emanating from your keyboard is more credible than a leap of faith).

Which brings us back to your first sentence. You claim I misunderstand you. I claim I don’t. Let’s ignore for the moment all the evidence which shows I DO understand you. And we can easily ignore that, because according to your own confession you don’t think your disagreements are any more credible than mine. So why should I put more “faith” in your claim than mine? And why are you even arguing it?

 

[ClayTrainor]

Here's the full Piers Morgan interview, for anyone interested...

 

[DamianTV]

Please ignore Idirtify, all he does is starts fights based on how he would impose his will on others. I saw a quote from him in there somewhere but am not going to bother to read it.

Oh yeah, um, so, "You People". That refers to EVERYONE. The Tropic Thunder clip is pretty funny tho.

There are a great many people out there that validate their own religous beliefs by trying to find a way to make someone else of a different religious faith or lack thereof to be a lower class of citizen than they are. It may not always go to that extent, but if I were to say that my religious preference was to worship Fried Chicken, someone else would say something that they are only saying to validate their own beliefs and not the beliefs of the other person. Believe what ever you want to believe. It is not my place to tell you what you should or shouldnt do with your life or your faith or things that dont involve me. Nor is it appropriate for me to try to apply a Label different than the one you have chosen, or your neighbor has chosen. Religious Non Intervention Policy. However, I believe that it IS my Responsibility to Defend your Right to Believe in those things, regardless if I believe or even agree with them or not.

So again, the question comes up, why is it so important that Penn Jilette wear the non self appointed label of Agnostic and not Athiest? What bearing is this really going to have on your life? Is it really that you are validating yourself and not defending his right to believe what he wants? (for those that insist he isnt what he says he is)

 

[idirtify]

Please ignore Idirtify, all he does is starts fights based on how he would impose his will on others.

Forget about bothering to cite where I did any such thing, how exactly COULD one “impose his will” by disagreeing? And maybe you should pay more attention to my exact disagreement with erowe, who is attempting to render ALL disagreements into leaps of faith. Of course erowe doesn’t realize it when erowe’s logic applies to erowe’s disagreements. But the point is: you best pick your disagreements wiser or you may someday find erowe magically turning YOUR claims into “leaps of faith”.

 

[DamianTV]

This message is hidden because idirtify is on your ignore list.

Huh? Oh, what was that? I dont even care.

 

[libertarian4321]

There is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" when asked how everything was created.

It's better to be honest and say "I don't know" than to make up a story to answer the unknown (which is what religions, all of them, do).

Or, at least, that's what I used to believe back when I was an "evil" atheist.

Having recently been touched by God's noodly appendage, I now have faith that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator.

 

[ClayTrainor]

There is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" when asked how everything was created.

It's better to be honest and say "I don't know" than to make up a story to answer the unknown (which is what religions, all of them, do).

Or, at least, that's what I used to believe back when I was an "evil" atheist.

Having recently been touched by God's noodly appendage, I now have faith that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator.

Ramen

 

[Sentient Void]

Here's the full Piers Morgan interview, for anyone interested...

These are *awesome*. penn Jillette kicking ass and taking names against religion and government (are they so different?).

Thanks, broseph. +rep

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

These are *awesome*. penn Jillette kicking ass and taking names against religion and government (are they so different?).

Thanks, broseph. +rep

They are not different. They are exactly the same (I personally believe in Christianity but you can see why at this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...tian-Anarchy-Why-I-think-it-s-the-only-answer...). While I believe that Christianity is a "true" religion, the religion called "government" is a cult. Of course, because of my belief in liberty, I don't feel justified in using force for anything but self defense so I would never "'force" my religion on anyone and I find myself in almost complete agreement with Penn...

 

[Imaginos]

Penn is great.
He should join RevolutionPac and work on his audience base on behalf of Dr. Paul.
Atheist, agnostic, and theist can work together.
Freedom is popular.
Liberty can bring people together.

 

[idirtify]

Plus reps to the last five posters in this thread, which has gotten better with each post – and makes me think there might actually be hope.

 

[silentshout]

Penn is great. Piers Morgan is not. He should just interview himself, because he sure loves to hear himself speak. Man, is he annoying during this interview.