god or no god?

[Becker]

Quite amusing the hypocrisy here. There's a thing called demonstrated preference in economics. Or in laymens terms, 'actions speak louder than words', your actions dictate you care. Care enough to respond anyway hahah.

So... you knew about the housing bubble before it burst? You've been buying gold and commodities for ages now? Yeah?

My what actions dictate I care about what?

I knew about the housing bubble, though I would say it's not fully deflated yet. This is not because I have any special knowledge of economics or the housing market, it's the extension of what I knew about markets in general. I've bought gold since 2003, not because I believe in a gold standard, but just because I believed there's people who would. I'm under no illusion that our system will change, but keep track of people's activity even if they make destructive choices, because knowing what they will do will benefit me, even if it hurts the rest.

Ooops, did I fall for your trap? Did I just admit I'm secretly an Austrian who pretends to hate Austrians? Am I an ungrateful prick who enjoys the fruits of Austrianism but bashes them behind their backs?

No. Just because I know common sense and how markets generally work, does not mean I believe ancap, libertarianism is the best way to be. Nor does it mean I want to change our economic system just because somebody says "it's right". I have too much to make knowing the current system, good luck winning or forcing people to your side.

 

[jmdrake]

Oh yes, there's no such thing as a person who dislikes both freedom and religion other than Mao.

Sure. There's also Castro, Kim Jung Il, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin and a whole host of others.

 

[jmdrake]

There isn't a NEED for oppressors, they just exist because they can get away with it. But even if there was a need, why does that prove my premise wrong? Why does that not show not all humans want and desire freedom (especially for others)?

Oppressors do what they do for a reason. They want power. If the people they were oppressing just willingly gave them their power then there wouldn't need to oppress anyone to acquire and/or maintain power.

You said possibly, when I asked if that would happen. If it's not possible, say it's not possible.

You're delusional. I never said anything about burning Bibles or the constitution.

Burning books is not oppressing people, unless books are people.

When people stand up for their rights to self expression, that's where the "burning" of people comes in.

 

[Becker]

Sure. There's also Castro, Kim Jung Il, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin and a whole host of others.

none that are not communist then?

 

[Becker]

Oppressors do what they do for a reason. They want power. If the people they were oppressing just willingly gave them their power then there wouldn't need to oppress anyone to acquire and/or maintain power.

How do you know that isn't sometimes the case? That oppression simply arose out of opportunity rather than "need"?

You're delusional. I never said anything about burning Bibles or the constitution.

I asked, and you answered, sorry that you didn't pay attention to what i said or what you replied to.

When people stand up for their rights to self expression, that's where the "burning" of people comes in.

until then then.

 

[jmdrake]

none that are not communist then?

Hmmmmm.....good question. I don't know. I'm pretty sure Hitler wasn't atheist although he wasn't Christian either. (He was an odd mix of neopaganism and Hinduism with a little fake Christianity thrown in for good measure). Sorry....I'm drawing a blank here.

 

[jmdrake]

How do you know that isn't sometimes the case? That oppression simply arose out of opportunity rather than "need"?

By definition oppression can only come about by need. If someone is a masochist and enjoys being beaten then how can the person doing the beating be an oppressor?

I asked, and you answered, sorry that you didn't pay attention to what i said or what you replied to.

Okay. My bad then.

until then then.

Well I'd rather not get to the "then" even if it's a book I really disagree with.

 

[Theocrat]

Impossible to Prove Nonexistence

convince me as to why there is or isnt a god? especially the KJV god and jesus. i am on the fence.

discuss

Let me remind the forums that there is no evidence for the nonexistence of God, so those who would appeal to lack of evidence for God have no evidence to substantiate their claim to the contrary.

 

[Becker]

By definition oppression can only come about by need. If someone is a masochist and enjoys being beaten then how can the person doing the beating be an oppressor?



Okay. My bad then.



Well I'd rather not get to the "then" even if it's a book I really disagree with.

so you recognize it's possible that there are masochists? its not some lie to justify oppression?

 

[Jtorsella]

I just need to post this because I love Christopher Hitchens and HATE Glenn Beck.

Go to 6:56 and notice Hitchens' last retort. One of the most hilarious things I have heard in a while.
More funny is at 8:05.
Even funnier is at 11:14.
Watch the entire thing. It is HILARIOUS! If there is one person who's debating style I would like to replicate, it is Christopher Hitchens.
The best parts go from 1:21 to 2:36.
I love this guy.

 

[jmdrake]

so you recognize it's possible that there are masochists? its not some lie to justify oppression?

The masochists aren't being oppressed. And it's not possible to have a country of 100% masochists. Please name one if you disagree with me. The oppressors don't go around shooting the masochists. They love the masochists. The oppressors "re-educate" and kill if that doesn't work those who don't want to be abused. Again let's go to the ant example. They have a very sucky life. But there's no reason for soldier ants to kill off worker ants because the worker and have no "spark" inside them wanting to be free. But the higher you go up the genetic tree the more likely you have animals that struggle against, and yes even kill each other. Chimpanzees kill each other all the time. Bonobos don't because they're too busy "making love not war".

 

[Conza88]

Let me remind the forums that there is no evidence for the nonexistence of God, so those who would appeal to lack of evidence for God have no evidence to substantiate their claim to the contrary.

Let me remind the forums that there is no evidence for the nonexistence of Unicorns, Elfs and Flying Spaghetti Monsters, so those who would appeal to lack of evidence for Unicorns, Elfs and Flying Spaghetti Monsters have no evidence to substantiate their claim to the contrary.

I was going to suggest you failed your class on logic, but that'd be wrong - because it implies you took one.

The burden of proof lies with you. Define this thing you call "god", and establish it's existence. Thanks.

 

[reillym]

Let me remind the forums that there is no evidence for the nonexistence of Unicorns, Elfs and Flying Spaghetti Monsters, so those who would appeal to lack of evidence for Unicorns, Elfs and Flying Spaghetti Monsters have no evidence to substantiate their claim to the contrary.

I was going to suggest you failed your class on logic, but that'd be wrong - because it implies you took one.

The burden of proof lies with you. Define this thing you call "god", and establish it's existence. Thanks.

Don't waste your time, good sir. These people seem to think that the burden of proof is on the people who don't think there are fairies up in the sky. They will never learn, they were indoctrinated from birth to believe this drivel. Most of the them are also ant-gay, anti-science bigots, so arguing with them is akin to trying to reason with a rock.

 

[Revolution9]

Don't waste your time, good sir. These people seem to think that the burden of proof is on the people who don't think there are fairies up in the sky. They will never learn, they were indoctrinated from birth to believe this drivel. Most of the them are also ant-gay, anti-science bigots, so arguing with them is akin to trying to reason with a rock.

Yer the one who believes in fairies in the sky from your description. I certainly don't. I suspect you listened to some dogma and got it all screwed up. I do know for certain that the sum total of all the activities and reactions to those activities based on what appear to be universal laws as a base substrate for expression of those energetics is what I refer to as God. To deny that is to deny that anything at all goes on.. And it goes on within you and without you. So carry on as you are wont to be.

Rev9

 

[jmdrake]

Don't waste your time, good sir. These people seem to think that the burden of proof is on the people who don't think there are fairies up in the sky. They will never learn, they were indoctrinated from birth to believe this drivel. Most of the them are also ant-gay, anti-science bigots, so arguing with them is akin to trying to reason with a rock.

Right. Global warming "science" will save the world....except I'd bet a dime to a dollar that Conza doesn't buy your nutty position on that.

 

[Becker]

Right. Global warming "science" will save the world....except I'd bet a dime to a dollar that Conza doesn't buy your nutty position on that.

science doesn't save the world, applications of it does.
scientific discovery of medicine and astrophysics don't do you any good, UNLESS you invest money to make use of it.

 

[Becker]

The masochists aren't being oppressed.

SWEET. So as long as I can say or prove that the oppressed are masochists, what's next? I'm not the oppressor. How nice!

And it's not possible to have a country of 100% masochists.

It's not possible to have a country of 100% anything (other than human), so this point has no value.

Please name one if you disagree with me.

Please name a country that's 100% Christian
another one that's 100% sadist
another one that's 100% criminal
another that's 100% crime free.

The oppressors don't go around shooting the masochists. They love the masochists. The oppressors "re-educate" and kill if that doesn't work those who don't want to be abused. Again let's go to the ant example. They have a very sucky life. But there's no reason for soldier ants to kill off worker ants because the worker and have no "spark" inside them wanting to be free. But the higher you go up the genetic tree the more likely you have animals that struggle against, and yes even kill each other. Chimpanzees kill each other all the time. Bonobos don't because they're too busy "making love not war".

Chimpanzees kill each other all the time? Not enough to become extinct, right?
What does "higher up the the genetic tree" mean? Are you measuring advancement of animal behavior?
So humans are expected to have the HIGHEST or LOWEST kin murder rate? Just checking. (shouldn't matter , the fact you've concede there's such thing as masochists, and oppressors, really says that freedom is NOT engrained in our souls)

 

[Becker]

Let me remind the forums that there is no evidence for the nonexistence of Unicorns, Elfs and Flying Spaghetti Monsters, so those who would appeal to lack of evidence for Unicorns, Elfs and Flying Spaghetti Monsters have no evidence to substantiate their claim to the contrary.

I was going to suggest you failed your class on logic, but that'd be wrong - because it implies you took one.

The burden of proof lies with you. Define this thing you call "god", and establish it's existence. Thanks.

ironic to see you apply this, you use the same line of reasoning when arguing for your ancap positions, you insist that YOU are right until proven wrong, and the BEST evidence you can cite are commentary from non-authoritarian theoretical economicists, which I will say again, NO POWER, NO MONEY, NO INFLUENCE. you'd think that at the minimum, if they knew things more than the average economist or person, they'd be using their knowledge to their advantage and be the richest, most powerful people.

But no, they're the comic book geeks sitting at home telling people they're all wrong. Nobody cares.

 

[Revolution9]

science doesn't save the world, applications of it does.
scientific discovery of medicine and astrophysics don't do you any good, UNLESS you invest money to make use of it.

Science studies the world to be able to provide figures and theories that provide the substrate for any technologizing of any particular strata of observational knowledge. We don't even necessarily have to get the science right, just the observation of cause and effects. And money is not necessarily what needs to be invested. The construction of systems to move or change materials and energies from one for to another for the purpose of making it more useful may not need anything other than raw materials which can be gathered from the environment such as clay or a metallic ore, some wood for a fire and some labor and brainwork, like a clay pot or a copper spearhead. Of course the level of raw materials, brainwork and time invested planning and assembling an interplanetary spaceship would be many magnitudes above a fired and glazed clay pot, which is no mean feat in the scope of things, would have to be represented by a big pile of MONEY (yer capitalization)..being that money is a prime sigil for the storage of time worked and saved to be used at one's convenience. Hence the equation time==money.

Rev9

 

[Conza88]

ironic to see you apply this, you use the same line of reasoning when arguing for your ancap positions, you insist that YOU are right until proven wrong, and the BEST evidence you can cite are commentary from non-authoritarian theoretical economicists, which I will say again, NO POWER, NO MONEY, NO INFLUENCE. you'd think that at the minimum, if they knew things more than the average economist or person, they'd be using their knowledge to their advantage and be the richest, most powerful people.

But no, they're the comic book geeks sitting at home telling people they're all wrong. Nobody cares.

Negative, it's the same reasoning. There is no irony. Supporters of the state, just like theists, make a positive claim. Alright, well back it up... what is this thing you call "god"? "What is this thing called "the state" and why do you have a right to aggress against me? And force me into it's framework?"

"Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence."

— Society Without A State, Murray N. Rothbard​

Argumentum ad crumenam fallacy.