god or no god?

[PierzStyx]

that explains why every country in the world recognizes them at every point in history, right?

It's just so obvious that we can do it without any Bible or Constitution, isn't it? Ingrained in our human soul. That explains why humans have a higher rate of murdering their peers than any other animals, right?

Not technically true in teh murder comment. Ants are f'n vicious. They wipe out entire colonies regularly.

 

[PierzStyx]

I don't claim that the Bible has to be true for the existence of a deity or deities. I still stand by my point that there is no evidence for the existence of a God.

As for the Bible or any particular claims by specific religions, generally the more concrete the claim the more absolutely the claim can be refuted. Absolute Biblical literalism is easy to refute by showing passages of the Bible that contradict each other or that are contrary to what we know from modern science. More symbolic or allegorical interpretations of the Bible are harder to contradict as believers bend their interpretation of the Bible to facts they know from more credible sources. Its pretty much impossible to refute deism as it is so vague, it claims almost nothing about the physical world.

In any case, I see no meaningful evidence for the existence of the supernatural. Certainly nothing that justifies the certainty that believers often claim to have in extremely precise details of God's nature or motivations.

Correction. there is no evidence you'll ACCEPT for the existence of God. I have four separate books, The Holy Bible (whose oldest texts are near 4,000 yrs old), the Book of Mormon ( that is 2,000 years old), the Doctrine and Covenants (which is 200 yrs old) and the Pearl of Great Price (which has documents ranging from a few thousand to a few hundred yrs old in it) all proclaiming actual visual and physical confirmation of God. To add to that I have documents from the last few years where God has been seen, touched, and talked to. All-in-all I have literally millions of pages of eyewitness accounts written down, to add to my own experiences, testifying to the absolute knowledge God exists. I have detailed, exacting descriptions of who He is, what He is like, the purpose of life, the origin of the soul, and what exactly happens after death. I have as much proof in my hands now as I do for sub-atomic particles so small they can only be discerned by their magnetic fields and not by any actual confirmation of the five senses. You simply do not wish to acknowledge it. You dismiss it because it has not happened, and you assume cannot happen, to you. You do not actually allow for the possibility of God's existence, you simply denounce it and anyone who has proof of God's existence either as a fraud, madman, or fool. This line of thinking is just as erroneous as me dismissing the existence of subatomic particles because I have never, and probably will never, observe(d) them and then denouncing you for believing in something you have never seen, smelled, touched, heard, or tasted. The error is not in the proof for God, its in the hypocrisy of your assumption.

 

[Conza88]

Yer always throwing the baby out with the bathwater, facecloth and tub.

Nope. You're guilty of the 'middle of the road'. You've set up a false paradigm, that's your problem.

“For some twenty centuries Western man has come to accept the Aristotelian theory that the sensible position is between any two extremes, known politically today as the “middle-of-the-road” position. Now, if libertarians use the terms “left” and “right,” they announce themselves to be extreme right by virtue of being extremely distant in their beliefs from communism. But “right” has been successfully identified with fascism. Therefore, more and more persons are led to believe that the sound position is somewhere between communism and fascism, both spelling authoritarianism.

The golden-mean theory cannot properly be applied indiscriminately. For instance, it is sound enough when deciding between no food at all on the one hand or gluttony on the other hand. But it is patently unsound when deciding between stealing nothing or stealing $1,000. The golden mean would commend stealing $500. Thus, the golden mean has no more soundness when applied to communism and fascism (two names for the same thing) than it does to two amounts in theft.” […]

Libertarians reject this principle and in so doing are not to the right or left of authoritarians. They, as the human spirit they would free, ascend—are above—this degradation. Their position, if directional analogies are to be used, is up—in the sense that vapor from a muckheap rises to a wholesome atmosphere. If the idea of extremity is to be applied to a libertarian, let it be based on how extremely well he has shed himself of authoritarian beliefs.

Establish this concept of emerging, of freeing — which is the meaning of libertarianism—and the golden – mean or “middle-of-the-road” theory becomes inapplicable. For there can be no halfway position between zero and infinity. It is absurd to suggest that there can be.
- Neither Left nor Right, Leonard Read​

They can be defeated by community effort.

Yeah, by the market.

​

 

[Conza88]

so Los Mata Zetas is living up to your expectations, no government, just force.

Let me ask you, what is more important, no government or non-aggression principle?

Government is aggression. Government IS force.

Los Mata Zetas - spell that out please, give us a definition, article example to the creation of the group thanks and how they operate.

Also see the above video that Rev won't watch out of a desire to remain ignorant.

You've set up a false dilemma.

 

[wd4freedom]

Reason, based upon the known physical matter and its inherent behavior would suggest that a higher intelligence must exist. Matter at the most basic level is composed of nuclear particles, "light" in the form of quantized energy, and various levels of charge based upon the relationship of the electron count relative to the nucleus charge. This basic structure then takes the form of all manner of materials we refer to as basic elements. These elements then combine in all manner of ways to form molecules, compounds, structures, and energy transmitting chains of organic chemicals. These substances then are structured in such a manner as to form intricate designs, and interrelationships so as to be self-sustaining in the consumption of energy and removal of waste thus becoming an system of "organic engines" which then are intergated into ever higher orders of complexity which then have the ability to allow a "living" thing to become aware of itself and the surrounding environment.
To me it is unfathomable to believe that this complex system of self-awareness and life propogation is able to exist without a designer of immense and omniscient intelligence which we are really too inferior to comprehend or adequately relate to given our meek and feable structure relative to such a mysterious intelligence.

 

[Becker]

Government is aggression. Government IS force.

Los Mata Zetas - spell that out please, give us a definition, article example to the creation of the group thanks and how they operate.

Also see the above video that Rev won't watch out of a desire to remain ignorant.

You've set up a false dilemma.

government is not the only aggression, so lack of government is not a guarantee of lacking aggression.
So you don't know about Los Mata Zetas?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wor...-paramilitary-matazetas-zetas-drug-war-1.html
From what we read in news articles, they are a vigilante group who has declared war on Mexican drug dealers. It's not clear whether their agenda is anti-drug, or just rival gang, but one thing we know is they didn't start the violence, nor are they involved in the government (and the government does not support their actions)

I didn't set up a false dilemma, I was just asking you, among these 2, which one is more important. Unless you're to tell me they're equally important, or it depends on other things, you should have no problem telling me which one is more important most of the time. I wasn't asking you to choose one and give up the other, I wasn't saying you can only value 2 things, or 1 thing.

 

[Conza88]

government is not the only aggression, so lack of government is not a guarantee of lacking aggression.

Obviously. And what's your point? It's whether it's justified or not. Aggression in either case isn't.

So you don't know about Los Mata Zetas? http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wor...-paramilitary-matazetas-zetas-drug-war-1.html
From what we read in news articles, they are a vigilante group who has declared war on Mexican drug dealers. It's not clear whether their agenda is anti-drug, or just rival gang, but one thing we know is they didn't start the violence, nor are they involved in the government (and the government does not support their actions)

I didn't set up a false dilemma, I was just asking you, among these 2, which one is more important. Unless you're to tell me they're equally important, or it depends on other things, you should have no problem telling me which one is more important most of the time. I wasn't asking you to choose one and give up the other, I wasn't saying you can only value 2 things, or 1 thing.

Republican or Democrat. False dilemma. Gang A, or Gang B. False dilemma. Is voluntary contracting involved? No? There's your answer.

 

[Revolution9]

Nope. You're guilty of the 'middle of the road'. You've set up a false paradigm, that's your problem.

Actually you are setting up a false paradigm with your gubmnt blitherquotefest. I said COMMUNITY. heh. Chew on that and spew.

rev9

 

[Revolution9]

Obviously. And what's your point? It's whether it's justified or not. Aggression in either case isn't.



Republican or Democrat. False dilemma. Gang A, or Gang B. False dilemma. Is voluntary contracting involved? No? There's your answer.

It doesn't matter whether it is justified. In the real world it occurs. Maybe not in your fave fantasy paradigm loaded with a million haggard hazards, but that actually bears little resemblance to the way the real world works. Yer just incarnated in the wrong Substance Matter standalone timeline.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

Reason, based upon the known physical matter and its inherent behavior would suggest that a higher intelligence must exist. Matter at the most basic level is composed of nuclear particles, "light" in the form of quantized energy, and various levels of charge based upon the relationship of the electron count relative to the nucleus charge. This basic structure then takes the form of all manner of materials we refer to as basic elements. These elements then combine in all manner of ways to form molecules, compounds, structures, and energy transmitting chains of organic chemicals. These substances then are structured in such a manner as to form intricate designs, and interrelationships so as to be self-sustaining in the consumption of energy and removal of waste thus becoming an system of "organic engines" which then are intergated into ever higher orders of complexity which then have the ability to allow a "living" thing to become aware of itself and the surrounding environment.
To me it is unfathomable to believe that this complex system of self-awareness and life propogation is able to exist without a designer of immense and omniscient intelligence which we are really too inferior to comprehend or adequately relate to given our meek and feable structure relative to such a mysterious intelligence.

And the fact we are fooled of those atomic structures solidity with our sensory apparatus due to perceiving at about 60 frames per second, whilst the Creation appears and disappears to recreate itself 22 trillion times per second.

Rev9

 

[Becker]

Obviously. And what's your point? It's whether it's justified or not. Aggression in either case isn't.

Republican or Democrat. False dilemma. Gang A, or Gang B. False dilemma. Is voluntary contracting involved? No? There's your answer.

Aha! So you admit lack of government isn't always better, as long as there is aggression. Thank you. So your hatred for government and constant finger pointing is limited to the times the government is aggressive and the alternatives are better, for all other cases, government is better if the alternative is more aggressive, did I misrepresent your views? When is aggression EVER justified?

Lie, I never said Republican or Democrat (Ron Paul is a Republican, by the way). What do you expect or require to establish "voluntary contracting"? Are you saying citizens have to agree to and pay for Los Mata Zetas's services?

 

[Becker]

It doesn't matter whether it is justified. In the real world it occurs. Maybe not in your fave fantasy paradigm loaded with a million haggard hazards, but that actually bears little resemblance to the way the real world works. Yer just incarnated in the wrong Substance Matter standalone timeline.

Rev9

I think you mean, it doesn't matter whether HE THINKS it's justified.

 

[Revolution9]

Government is aggression. Government IS force.

Los Mata Zetas - spell that out please, give us a definition, article example to the creation of the group thanks and how they operate.

Also see the above video that Rev won't watch out of a desire to remain ignorant.

You've set up a false dilemma.

I won't watch because I came to a bloody forum to read and write. I pretty much hated TV back in the day too. Now..what the heck do you have to say. I could give a good goddamned what some other bebop is yapping about on youtube that fascinates you but leaving you remaining to not have the ability to articulate it in your own words.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

I think you mean, it doesn't matter whether HE THINKS it's justified.

Correct... as we are dealing with fields of perception and articulation here.

Best
Rev9

 

[Carson]

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

discuss

With so many people believing there is a God and a Santa Claus how could there not be?

Religion has been a phenomenal success worldwide. All of the many religions working together have set mankind on a course through history that has, by-in-large, improved all of our lives. We wouldn't be where we are today if it wasn't every one of them. Same with Santa. With so many believing how could there not be a spirit, that would not only have to be, but a spirit able to take hold of us and sweep us along like we are caught in a wave.

Even in the times when the concept is hard to completely be taken over by is it still such a bad thing to hold on to or share?

Take praying. Say before you go to bed you say a special prayer. Perhaps you pray to have the day go well for you and those around you. The next day you might remember your prayer and take inventory of how things went. That should put you in a reference of mind to look back on the things that went well for you and the others. That should give you a positive look at the day. Religious, or not, is that such a bad thing?

 

[reillym]

With so many people believing there is a God and a Santa Claus how could there not be?

Religion has been a phenomenal success worldwide. All of the many religions working together have set mankind on a course through history that has, by-in-large, improved all of our lives. We wouldn't be where we are today if it wasn't every one of them. Same with Santa. With so many believing how could there not be a spirit, that would not only have to be, but a spirit able to take hold of us and sweep us along like we are caught in a wave.

Even in the times when the concept is hard to completely be taken over by is it still such a bad thing to hold on to or share?

Take praying. Say before you go to bed you say a special prayer. Perhaps you pray to have the day go well for you and those around you. The next day you might remember your prayer and take inventory of how things went. That should put you in a reference of mind to look back on the things that went well for you and the others. That should give you a positive look at the day. Religious, or not, is that such a bad thing?

Argumentum ad populum. Hope you wrote this sarcastically.

 

[Conza88]

Aha! So you admit lack of government isn't always better, as long as there is aggression. Thank you. So your hatred for government and constant finger pointing is limited to the times the government is aggressive and the alternatives are better, for all other cases, government is better if the alternative is more aggressive, did I misrepresent your views? When is aggression EVER justified?

Lie, I never said Republican or Democrat (Ron Paul is a Republican, by the way). What do you expect or require to establish "voluntary contracting"? Are you saying citizens have to agree to and pay for Los Mata Zetas's services?

Nope, lol, hilarious.

​

Last part about Somalia, failed states, and anarcho-capitalism directly addresses your flawed misconception.

Ron Paul is a libertarian by the way. (Being in a Church doesn't make you a Christian)... the same way being in a garage doesn't make you car.

For it to be justified, and actually represent a DRO, or PDA it does. For it to be a free market institution or company, voluntary contracts.

 

[Conza88]

Actually you are setting up a false paradigm with your gubmnt blitherquotefest. I said COMMUNITY. heh. Chew on that and spew.

rev9

Yeah, and I said BY THE MARKET. You've chosen to completely ignore than point. Alright, so congrats.. you know there is no use for the state. Well Done.

It doesn't matter whether it is justified. In the real world it occurs. Maybe not in your fave fantasy paradigm loaded with a million haggard hazards, but that actually bears little resemblance to the way the real world works. Yer just incarnated in the wrong Substance Matter standalone timeline.

Rev9

Then you do not understand the purpose of norms, or libertarianism.. or political philosophy. Congratulations on your ignorance.

Lmao, use your same criticism for everything Ron Paul advocates. Try again.

It doesn't matter whether government actions are justified or not... It the real world it occurs...

I think you mean, it doesn't matter whether HE THINKS it's justified.

Correct... as we are dealing with fields of perception and articulation here.

Best
Rev9

Nice circle jerk you guys have going here. :o

 

[Theocrat]

Listen to One of the Greatest Debates on the Existence of God

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

discuss

 

[Revolution9]

Yeah, and I said BY THE MARKET. You've chosen to completely ignore than point. Alright, so congrats.. you know there is no use for the state. Well Done.



Then you do not understand the purpose of norms, or libertarianism.. or political philosophy. Congratulations on your ignorance.

I could give a hoot about labels. I deal with the real world and issues arising within it when I do thought experiments to derive outcomes based on real life experience. Some university edumacated clown or their professor does not impress me. They have been proven over and over that their dogma is BS. Salt of the earth common sense is pure gold compared to the base metal drivel these types spout.

Yer failure in understanding is that there is no market without a community. Several communities in proximity to each other who share the same values is generally called a state as far as governmental functions are concerned. Mind you..this is real world and not theoretical BS and autoblither.

Rev9