Secular Humanism Is Naive At Best, Arrogant At Worst

[amy31416]

Religion, science, atheism, politics, feminism, nationalism, environmentalism--all of it can be and is exploited by people in power or those who want to be in power. A lot of human beings are opportunists who exploit all types of altruistic motivations of individuals to form mobs who don't have the first clue of what they're actually fighting for anymore.

But the "smart" opportunists get wealth and power, which was the end goal all along, not the ideals of whatever notion they claim. Think Al Gore. Think Dick Cheney. Think about some people we've had/have here. Thankfully most of our opportunists are dumb as a bag of hammers...or we're smarter than they think...most of us anyways.

 

[ClayTrainor]

It always amazes me when libertarians reject a top-down society but still believe in a top-down universe.

You are not alone.

I find that the parallels between the Statism/Anarchism and Theism/Atheism debates are quite profound....

Statism/Anarchism:

Statism: There ought to be central Planner(s)

Anarchism: There ought to be no Central Planner(s)


Theism/Atheism

Theism: There is a central planner(s).

Atheism: There is no central planner(s).

The difference being is/ought, and the core parallel being central planning vs. no central planning.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You are not alone.

I find that the parallels between the Statism/Anarchism and Theism/Atheism debates are quite profound....

Statism/Anarchism:

Statism: There ought to be central Planner(s)

Anarchism: There ought to be no Central Planner(s)


Theism/Atheism

Theism: There is a central planner(s).

Atheism: There is no central planner(s).

The difference being is/ought, and the core parallel being central planning vs. no central planning.

I don't think it's entirely accurate to call theism parallel to centrally planned society. Some theists believe that G-d was the first cause, but does not actively interfere in the day-to-day happenings of the universe. Also, some atheists strongly believe in central planning (think Soviet Socialism, for example).

 

[ClayTrainor]

I don't think it's entirely accurate to call theism parallel to centrally planned society. Some theists believe that G-d was the first cause, but does not actively interfere in the day-to-day happenings of the universe.

It doesn't matter if he interferes with day-to-day happenings or not. Did a single entity choose to create the universe, or was it some kind of accident on the part of this single entity?

 

[ClayTrainor]

Just noticed ur edit..

Also, some atheists strongly believe in central planning (think Soviet Socialism, for example).

.You are asserting that you can have Statist Atheists, which I certainly agree is true... but this merely demonstrates the is/ought difference in the parrallel, which my logic already accounts for.

Statism/Anarchism:

Statism: There ought to be central Planner(s)

Anarchism: There ought to be no Central Planner(s)


Theism/Atheism

Theism: There is a central planner(s).

Atheism: There is no central planner(s).

The difference being is/ought, and the core parallel being central planning vs. no central planning.

The atheists in your example, don't believe the universe is centrally planned, but believe human society ought to be centrally planned. I call them Statheists.

My point is that both Statism and Theism are based on some kind of central planning, the difference being is/ought.

 

[OrigSEOH]

No, I'm talking about human nature of central planning and building pyramids, or tall organizations, unto the gods, or the likes of Bernanke, or whoever is setting atop the hierarchy of things. Which is in possession of a mortal mind and in control the money supply for millions of people, lol. And most us seem to praise him. That is why I like the idea of tax free, opt out, voluntary systems because many orders of things can be determined from a chaotic system like ours.

What? No. I respect the findings of the scientific community, and try to use them to build webs of how things work and how the interrelate. Scientific findings must be examined and looked at with a skeptical eye, and cannot be taken blindly. When I look at a study, I actually take the time to look at their sampling techniques/methods and if I don't consider their methods to be sufficient than I will note the possibility of the conclusions but not necessarily accept them. There is no worship, only critical thinking.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Just noticed ur edit..



.You are asserting that you can have Statist Atheists, which I certainly agree is true... but this merely demonstrates the is/ought difference in the parrallel, which my logic already accounts for.



The atheists in your example, don't believe the universe is centrally planned, but believe human society ought to be centrally planned. I call them Statheists.

My point is that both Statism and Theism are based on some kind of central planning, the difference being is/ought.

Thanks for the reply. Good post, I would agree with that. (were you using the term "Statetheist" before or after Molyneux "invented" it on one of his podcasts? /curious)

 

[PaulConventionWV]

It always amazes me when libertarians reject a top-down society but still believe in a top-down universe.

There is a big difference.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Thanks for the reply. Good post, I would agree with that. (were you using the term "Statetheist" before or after Molyneux "invented" it on one of his podcasts? /curious)

I wasn't aware that Molyneux had even said that word before, let alone invent it. I believe the first time I saw that word was when I was watching some videos on InTheEndIWasRight's channel on youtube...

He made a series of videos called "Why people laugh at statists", which was a satire of Thunderf00ts popular "Why people laugh at creationists", after he heard Thunderf00t say speaking some strong statist garbage...

For example...

Thunderf00t: "...the existence of a state is one of the best ways of reducing violence in societies ever invented."


Anyways, yea... that whole conflict is when I first heard of the word Statheist, and I've been using it ever since.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I wasn't aware that Molyneux had even said that word before, let alone invent it. I believe the first time I saw that word was when I was watching some videos on InTheEndIWasRight's channel on youtube...

He made a series of videos called "Why people laugh at statists", which was a satire of Thunderf00ts popular "Why people laugh at creationists", after he heard Thunderf00t say speaking some strong statist garbage...

For example...

Thunderf00t: "...the existence of a state is one of the best ways of reducing violence in societies ever invented."


Anyways, yea... that whole conflict is when I first heard of the word Statheist, and I've been using it ever since.

I don't know who actually coined the term, but Stef's vid about Statist atheists gave me the impression that he was making the word up. I could be wrong. /shrugs

 

[bunklocoempire]

Actually, it those who believe in God (as libertarians) who are the most consistent because we uphold that the one, sovereign God of the universe Who created all things, endowed us with rights, and as the universal property Owner of the universe can do whatever He pleases with His creation, without coercion from other individuals (like finite human beings).

A truth constantly ignored.

The pissing and moaning that the Owner gets from His tenants is unbelievable. Always blaming the Guy for their own problems and demanding things. When He offers a helping Hand for free they reject it 'cause it's not own their own terms.

The nerve!

Sound familiar?

Sometimes though, when they've been beaten down or have given up, they stop fighting Him, swallow their pride, and humbly take His help.



Bunkloco

 

[libertyisntdead]

A truth constantly ignored.

The pissing and moaning that the Owner gets from His tenants is unbelievable. Always blaming the Guy for their own problems and demanding things. When He offers a helping Hand for free they reject it 'cause it's not own their own terms.

The nerve!

Sound familiar?

Sometimes though, when they've been beaten down or have given up, they stop fighting Him, swallow their pride, and humbly take His help.



Bunkloco

Agreed 100%

 

[libertyisntdead]

Actually, it those who believe in God (as libertarians) who are the most consistent because we uphold that the one, sovereign God of the universe Who created all things, endowed us with rights, and as the universal property Owner of the universe can do whatever He pleases with His creation, without coercion from other individuals (like finite human beings).

Beautifully stated.

 

[idirtify]

Actually, it those who believe in God (as libertarians) who are the most consistent because we uphold that the one, sovereign God of the universe Who created all things, endowed us with rights, and as the universal property Owner of the universe can do whatever He pleases with His creation, without coercion from other individuals (like finite human beings).

Hardly! It is far more consistent to believe that Nature endows rights, rather than a universal dictator god as you just described.

 

[libertyisntdead]

Hardly! It is far more consistent to believe that Nature endows rights, rather than a universal dictator god as you just described.

Who creates nature? Why do you assume God is a dictator?

 

[Theocrat]

Wrong On Two Accounts

Hardly! It is far more consistent to believe that Nature endows rights, rather than a universal dictator god as you just described.

Nature is incapable of endowing anything because nature is not personal. Nature only tells us what is the case, not what ought to be the case. There, you have committed two logical fallacies: the fallacy of reification and the naturalistic fallacy.

 

[YumYum]

A question that I have is if we have a government based on the Bible, which parts of the law of the Old Testament would be left out?

 

[idirtify]

Who creates nature? Why do you assume God is a dictator?

Your question implies the premise that a being must have preceded Nature. But that would appear to be backwards. If anything “creates” anything, it looks like Nature creates beings. As far as what “created” Nature, we don’t know. Your question’s logic is self-defeating, since it presumes that any gap in knowledge evidences a creator-being. Among other fallacies, it proceeds directly into an infinitely regressing question: Who created the creator-being, and who created THAT creator-being, and who created THAT creator being, and so on.

I didn’t assume that god was a dictator. I was only going on Theocrat’s description: “sovereign God of the universe Who created all things, endowed us with rights, and as the universal property Owner of the universe can do whatever He pleases with His creation”.

 

[idirtify]

Nature is incapable of endowing anything because nature is not personal. Nature only tells us what is the case, not what ought to be the case. There, you have committed two logical fallacies: the fallacy of reification and the naturalistic fallacy.

Nature endows a lot. Nature endows us with the desire for freedom and the ability to achieve it. Related to that are all the talents nature endows us with, which require freedom to use, and the ability to universally agree that freedom includes allowing others their freedom (see: “rights”).

-------------------------
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/endow

en·dow
2. a. To equip or supply with a talent or quality: Nature endowed you with a beautiful singing voice.
-------------------------

Nature is also very “personal”. For example, it endowed you with everything below your belt.