Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[Johnson]

Like if you ask him "how was god proven to you Gene?" his answer is akin to "well, certain events in my life have proven that God exists because God created everything and it's obvious in how glorious things are because god created them, which proves that God exists"

[theCelestrian]

I'm sorry if I made the assumption that you knew my stance on "authority".  I have had the same point of view since the first post in this thread.  I see "government" and "authority" as being dependent upon each other.  Showing that "government" is a fiction also shows that there is no "authority".  A government without authority is no government.

This is all fine; but it doesn't address the fact that the argument is so over-general that it can be applied to any kind of abstract concept.  This again was not the primary purpose of my original line of questioning, but the fact that you believe it is logically consistent that you make broad sweeping statements of fact solely based upon your personal experience.

I have demonstrated why I feel that's dangerous, and how this kind of thinking is used to rationalize some of Humanities most egregious and atrocious acts of barbarism.  You do not seem to either feel or think this is the case, and therefore we are at an impasse here.

This will be my final comment on this particular matter.

The existence of God has been proven to me and I have stated so in the past (so I do not accept His authority as "fiction").  I've also stated that I cannot PROVE His existence to anyone else.  This is something you can only "prove" to yourself by seeking Him.  Briefly, I have had personal experiences that I can only attribute to a supernatural being (which is outside the realm of the scientific method).  I further use my personal observations of the universe to show an intelligent designer.  We can go down this road again if you wish, but I have many examples of WHY I believe God to exist, but this is something that each of us has to determine from their own perspective.  In my youth, I believed there was no God and  believed in evolution.  My journey on this ball has change my perspective a great deal.

Arguments that basically boil down to "trust me, x is true," is not an argument that has any functional use when trying to convince, persuade or otherwise reason with individuals other than yourself.

• "This is something you can only "prove" to yourself by seeking Him." - Well, all my experiences have neither proved nor disproved God, so this is out the window...
  
  
• "I further use my personal observations of the universe to show an intelligent designer." - I'm amazed you haven't taken these observations and have them published in the Scientific community - because if you can show there's an intelligent designer, then you can show, in fact, that a creator must exist.
  
  ...but that would then contradict the first bullet item, wouldn't it?
  
  
• "We can go down this road again if you wish, but I have many examples of WHY I believe God to exist, but this is something that each of us has to determine from their own perspective." - What happened to those personal observations that show Intelligent Design?  Wouldn't the observations, which by definition are quantifiable, and repeatable, help determine objective fact (read: perspective) for me?
  
  

...again, I think we're at an impasse, if for no other reason that we seem to be using the same words, but have fundamentally different meanings associated with them.  My guess is that you will take issue with my definition of "observation," and broaden it to include that which is emotional and or intangible, but this is of course, just a guess.

Feel free to respond if you like, but I think at this point the constructive potential of our discourse has past the point of diminishing returns.

 

I think the existence of a feeling or emotion (which has no form) but is believed to exist cannot be compared to an imagined authority over others called "government". 

Wrong.  Abstract concepts can very easily be compared to other abstract concepts when discussing the validity of their reality using tangibility as the frame of reference, as you did originally when you thought you had me in a "gotcha."  Let me see if I can jog your memory a bit with a re-purposed truth statement:

Government Compassion is a fiction, only the men and their actions are real.

Remember that? 

These emotions exist in the minds of the person experiencing them. 

Oh!  ....so:

These emotions Government exist in the minds of the person experiencing them. 

See, the English language allows me to do some pretty cool things.  I can take your noun, replace it with another noun, and see if the statement could still be true.  I think it's very interesting that you deny Government as a fiction, but you'll qualify emotions as less a fiction because it exists in the minds of the person experiencing them.

With this one sentence, Gene, you have completely undermined your entire argument.
Because everything can now, "exist in the minds of the person experiencing them."  The validity of Government, according to this, is now just as valid as the validity of emotions.  "Authority" is no longer a requisite, only that the person believes that what they are experiencing in their mind is "Government."

:::claps::: I don't think I could have made a more compelling point in that one single sentence as you did. So as far as this point in your discussion, I'm officially satisfied.  No further definition tweaks or non-universal qualifiers are necessary.  You and I will probably need to part ways on this point as well.

As such, we can only take their word that they have "compassion".  There are some people who don't have compassion, and for them, compassion is truly a fiction. 

So you'll take someone's word about emotions, which can be incredibly nuanced and "beyond understanding," and incapable of being objectively observed/measured except by those experiencing the emotion, but you'll summarily dismiss scientific data because "they [the scientists] can't be trusted" and the data "is overly complicated for common understanding."




edit: fixed personal -> person, and not -> no

[mikehz]

It's very telling that such personal revelations always tend to confirm bias already present in the one getting the revelation. Catholics get messages from Mary, Protestants from Jesus, and Jews from Abraham.

[Rillion]

It's very telling that such personal revelations always tend to confirm bias already present in the one getting the revelation. Catholics get messages from Mary, Protestants from Jesus, and Jews from Abraham.

Jews get messages from Abraham?  Really?

Kind of reminds me of how when religious people experience paradolia, it's always the religious figures with whom they're familiar.  Never heard yet of a Catholic woman seeing the face of Ganesh in a grilled cheese sandwich. 

[ChristianAnarchist]

I'm sorry if I made the assumption that you knew my stance on "authority".  I have had the same point of view since the first post in this thread.  I see "government" and "authority" as being dependent upon each other.  Showing that "government" is a fiction also shows that there is no "authority".  A government without authority is no government.

This is all fine; but it doesn't address the fact that the argument is so over-general that it can be applied to any kind of abstract concept.  This again was not the primary purpose of my original line of questioning, but the fact that you believe it is logically consistent that you make broad sweeping statements of fact solely based upon your personal experience.

I have demonstrated why I feel that's dangerous, and how this kind of thinking is used to rationalize some of Humanities most egregious and atrocious acts of barbarism.  You do not seem to either feel or think this is the case, and therefore we are at an impasse here.

I absolutely agree that this is the exact "thinking" that leads to egregious acts.  EVERY act of murderous war was done in the name of some "government" (a fiction - I like to call a "cult").  It's the cult mentality of this fiction granting some authority that it does not have that leads men to believe they have justification in aggression against others.  But just because this "thinking" can and often does lead to a bad outcome does not mean that this exact thinking (when tempered with the belief in an all-loving authority) cannot lead to good outcomes.  Especially when I believe that this "authority of God" only pertains to my own relationship with him and does not grant ME authority over others..

This will be my final comment on this particular matter.

The existence of God has been proven to me and I have stated so in the past (so I do not accept His authority as "fiction").  I've also stated that I cannot PROVE His existence to anyone else.  This is something you can only "prove" to yourself by seeking Him.  Briefly, I have had personal experiences that I can only attribute to a supernatural being (which is outside the realm of the scientific method).  I further use my personal observations of the universe to show an intelligent designer.  We can go down this road again if you wish, but I have many examples of WHY I believe God to exist, but this is something that each of us has to determine from their own perspective.  In my youth, I believed there was no God and  believed in evolution.  My journey on this ball has change my perspective a great deal.

Arguments that basically boil down to "trust me, x is true," is not an argument that has any functional use when trying to convince, persuade or otherwise reason with individuals other than yourself.

Sorry, but as I stated, unless I can perform the experiment in my garage to prove what any "scientist" tells me, I'm ultimately left with the same choice... "trust me, it's true".  And I have a good many examples where men within this group called "scientists" have defrauded the people (global warming, global cooling, Peking man, exhaustion of crude oil by 1990, and multitudes of others).  I am not talking about simple mistakes in the "scientists" conclusions, I'm talking about out and out fraud...

• "This is something you can only "prove" to yourself by seeking Him." - Well, all my experiences have neither proved nor disproved God, so this is out the window...
  
  
• "I further use my personal observations of the universe to show an intelligent designer." - I'm amazed you haven't taken these observations and have them published in the Scientific community - because if you can show there's an intelligent designer, then you can show, in fact, that a creator must exist.
  
  ...but that would then contradict the first bullet item, wouldn't it?
  
  
• "We can go down this road again if you wish, but I have many examples of WHY I believe God to exist, but this is something that each of us has to determine from their own perspective." - What happened to those personal observations that show Intelligent Design?  Wouldn't the observations, which by definition are quantifiable, and repeatable, help determine objective fact (read: perspective) for me?
  
  

...again, I think we're at an impasse, if for no other reason that we seem to be using the same words, but have fundamentally different meanings associated with them.  My guess is that you will take issue with my definition of "observation," and broaden it to include that which is emotional and or intangible, but this is of course, just a guess.

Feel free to respond if you like, but I think at this point the constructive potential of our discourse has past the point of diminishing returns.

I think the existence of a feeling or emotion (which has no form) but is believed to exist cannot be compared to an imagined authority over others called "government". 

Wrong.  Abstract concepts can very easily be compared to other abstract concepts when discussing the validity of their reality using tangibility as the frame of reference, as you did originally when you thought you had me in a "gotcha."  Let me see if I can jog your memory a bit with a re-purposed truth statement:

Government Compassion is a fiction, only the men and their actions are real.

Remember that? 

These emotions exist in the minds of the person experiencing them. 

Oh!  ....so:

These emotions Government exist in the minds of the person experiencing them. 

See, the English language allows me to do some pretty cool things.  I can take your noun, replace it with another noun, and see if the statement could still be true.  I think it's very interesting that you deny Government as a fiction, but you'll qualify emotions as less a fiction because it exists in the minds of the person experiencing them.

With this one sentence, Gene, you have completely undermined your entire argument.
Because everything can now, "exist in the minds of the person experiencing them."  The validity of Government, according to this, is now just as valid as the validity of emotions.  "Authority" is no longer a requisite, only that the person believes that what they are experiencing in their mind is "Government."

:::claps::: I don't think I could have made a more compelling point in that one single sentence as you did. So as far as this point in your discussion, I'm officially satisfied.  No further definition tweaks or non-universal qualifiers are necessary.  You and I will probably need to part ways on this point as well.

As such, we can only take their word that they have "compassion".  There are some people who don't have compassion, and for them, compassion is truly a fiction. 

So you'll take someone's word about emotions, which can be incredibly nuanced and "beyond understanding," and incapable of being objectively observed/measured except by those experiencing the emotion, but you'll summarily dismiss scientific data because "they [the scientists] can't be trusted" and the data "is overly complicated for common understanding."

[/quote]

I really don't disagree with your point here that both of these things (compassion and government) can only exist in the mind.  In fact, that is the exact point I am making.  HOWEVER, because you feel that "government" exists in your mind and maybe 99.99% of the people agree with you, please tell me how this "belief" in the fiction government grants ANYONE any REAL authority??  "Compassion" exists in the minds of men, but "compassion" does not pretend to have authority over people external to the one feeling the compassion.

I agree with you in this regard, if you can't see the difference in what I am saying and what you are saying, then we truly are at an impasse...

[anarchir]

What about those groups of people all having religious experiences together...while staring into the sun?

Lets delve into that...

A post critical of staring into the sun:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/12/02/knock-visions-lead-to-eye-damage/
Last month, I wrote about thousands of people at the Knock shrine in Ireland who stared at the Sun because they thought they were seeing visions of the Virgin Mary. I specifically said, "That’s a bad idea: it can cause temporary blindness, and permanent damage to the retina…"

Guess what?

Yup. A doctor in Ireland says he is seeing an unprecedented rise in the number of cases of solar retinopathy, damage to the eye from staring at the Sun. Moreover, those cases are directly linked to the Knock "visions":

A post in favor of:

http://sungazing.vpinf.com/
Solar Yoga, Native American Traditions, Aztec, Mayan and Inca Traditions, Sun Staring: The Ahmadiyah Sect of Islam, Sungazing in the Early Days of Hinduism, Jainism and Yoga, ...
“SURYA Yoga is above religion. Many Christians and Muslims are practising it,” says Acharya Jowell K Gopinath, popularly known as Surya Swami, a spiritual leader who teaches the technique of tapping the radiant energy of the Sun. Surya Yoga is said to revitalise energy and negate illnesses of the mind and body.
Surya yoga is a blend of yoga, nada (sound), rishi gyan and Buddha stage (silence). It is an advanced form of yoga that helps an individual merge with nature. The best time to practice Surya yoga is at sunrise or sunset when the harmful ultra-violet rays are not present _(OMG!). Ten minutes of daily sun-gazing is sufficient for a beginner.

Sungazing will solve world hunger (towards the bottom), and OMG the stupidity:
http://www.sungazing.com/652.html

Some of the information I read about the effects of sungazing included: a decrease in irritability, anger and frustration; an increase in memory and immunity; not to mention bold claims of complete awareness and relief from all disease.   Hey now, where do I sign up?  I was open to anything that could potentially decrease my frustrations regarding taxes and increase my ability to remember my neighbors name.  Apparently (according to HRM) the brain is able to store solar energy, therefore creating the capability to access a larger percentage of our mind. I am told we use about 6-12% of our brain's capacity (Einstein used about 20%), through the practice of sungazing imagine utilizing over 50% of your brain.   With that kind of power I might be able to balance my check book and discuss a recent film at the same time.

Sungazing will not cause relief from disease, your brain can not store "solar energy" and it is a complete myth that we use only 6-12% of our brains. We use it ALL.

And a "scientific" sungazing survey:

Have you regularly noticed, as a result of sungazing, any of the following? (okay to pick more than one, up to 6)

And finally these guys:

http://solarhealing.com/
If one continues to apply the proper sungazing practice for 6 months, they will be free from physical illnesses.  Furthermore, after 9 months, one can eventually win a victory over hunger, which disappears by itself thereafter.
 

[Johnson]

I really don't disagree with your point here that both of these things (compassion and government) can only exist in the mind.  In fact, that is the exact point I am making.  HOWEVER, because you feel that "government" exists in your mind and maybe 99.99% of the people agree with you, please tell me how this "belief" in the fiction government grants ANYONE any REAL authority??  "Compassion" exists in the minds of men, but "compassion" does not pretend to have authority over people external to the one feeling the compassion.

Along with the concepts of compassion and government, the concept of authority also exists only in the minds of those being affected by it. Even if you're holding a gun to my head, you still have only the authority over me which I grant to you. Even with a direct threat against my life, I can still choose to ignore any orders given to me and forfeit that life. Therefore a belief in the concept of government, which inherently includes the concept of authority, is as real as authority is ever going to get.
It's the same way with emotions, even though the concepts of those emotions exist solely in the minds of the people who bear those emotions, they still have an external effect on anyone around who bears any sense of empathy, and isn't a complete sociopath.

[theCelestrian]

long with the concepts of compassion and government, the concept of authority also exists only in the minds of those being affected by it. Even if you're holding a gun to my head, you still have only the authority over me which I grant to you. Even with a direct threat against my life, I can still choose to ignore any orders given to me and forfeit that life. Therefore a belief in the concept of government, which inherently includes the concept of authority, is as real as authority is ever going to get.
It's the same way with emotions, even though the concepts of those emotions exist solely in the minds of the people who bear those emotions, they still have an external effect on anyone around who bears any sense of empathy, and isn't a complete sociopath.

Johnson, thank you for taking my initial point to it's logical end; all abstract concepts, including authority are fictions when we use physicality and the actions of physical objects that litmus test.

As I said before, I'm completely satisfied with the results of this conversation, as it was most educational. I would be interested to hear, however, how Authority how this then reconciles with all of Gene's previous statements (outlined in previous posts) - and moreover, once again How an argument that applies to everything is useful for anything when seeking to use that argument for the sake of distinction and/or differentiation.

For myself, however, I will quietly find a chair in the back and listen.  Should another (completely unrelated) sub-topic of this thread surface tha's of interest to me, I shall make it known.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

It's very telling that such personal revelations always tend to confirm bias already present in the one getting the revelation. Catholics get messages from Mary, Protestants from Jesus, and Jews from Abraham.

Jews get messages from Abraham?  Really?

Kind of reminds me of how when religious people experience paradolia, it's always the religious figures with whom they're familiar.  Never heard yet of a Catholic woman seeing the face of Ganesh in a grilled cheese sandwich. 

Unfortunately no, I don't think that anyone gets messages from Abraham...

[ChristianAnarchist]

I really don't disagree with your point here that both of these things (compassion and government) can only exist in the mind.  In fact, that is the exact point I am making.  HOWEVER, because you feel that "government" exists in your mind and maybe 99.99% of the people agree with you, please tell me how this "belief" in the fiction government grants ANYONE any REAL authority??  "Compassion" exists in the minds of men, but "compassion" does not pretend to have authority over people external to the one feeling the compassion.

Along with the concepts of compassion and government, the concept of authority also exists only in the minds of those being affected by it. Even if you're holding a gun to my head, you still have only the authority over me which I grant to you. Even with a direct threat against my life, I can still choose to ignore any orders given to me and forfeit that life. Therefore a belief in the concept of government, which inherently includes the concept of authority, is as real as authority is ever going to get.
It's the same way with emotions, even though the concepts of those emotions exist solely in the minds of the people who bear those emotions, they still have an external effect on anyone around who bears any sense of empathy, and isn't a complete sociopath.

The problem is you confuse the terms "force" and "authority".  It's a common misconception and the hardest one to get people to break away from.  Sure, someone can use "force" against me and ultimately take my life.  That does not grant them any form of "authority" over me.  It simply makes them a criminal and me a victim.  Their force violates my rights which were granted (created) by our Creator.  

 

[Johnson]

Actually, I think you just proved you're the one who is confused about it...
"Authority" created through the circular logic of religion is no different from authority created using the circular logic of Government...

Authority is in both cases conceptual and granted by the subject of the authority...

I grant no more authority to you when you claim you've been granted it by God than you would to an IRS agent claiming authority granted by Government. The reason is that we don't beleive in that authority. You can claim that the authority of the authority creates the authority of that authority... But circular logic makes you look like an idiot.

And since you've been using this as this principle for most of your arguments... I think this thread may finally be dead... You kinda just showed yourself to be a full on tardburger.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Johnson you love to twist my meanings like taffy.  You are claiming that I say there is "authority" somewhere but I have always stated the opposite - that no "authority" exists for men to exert their will over others.  I do state that "THE CREATOR" (who ever that is and whatever form He takes) CAN CLAIM to have authority over us being as we would be His creation.  I've also stated that I ACCEPT that He has created us and I ACKNOWLEDGE His authority over us (yes, I accept that He has authority over you and He will have to deal with you, not me because I don't have any authority over you - remember?)

I've never stated that ANY authority comes from some other authority...

P.S. can you explain to me how you can be on the "FTL Creative Team" and also be a troll?

[Johnson]

Gene, the dishonesty is getting very tiring, you really should stop. These are your words.
 

I have had the same point of view since the first post in this thread.  I see "government" and "authority" as being dependent upon each other.  Showing that "government" is a fiction also shows that there is no "authority".  A government without authority is no government.  

The point that was just made Gene, was that the argument stated above goes both ways. Authority is only real if one believes in it. If one believes that government is a fiction, then the authority of government is also a fiction. If one believes that your concept of God is a fiction, then the authority of God is also a fiction.

You seem to already understand this gene, as you prove so with your next quote.

 

The existence of God has been proven to me and I have stated so in the past (so I do not accept His authority as "fiction").  I've also stated that I cannot PROVE His existence to anyone else.  This is something you can only "prove" to yourself by seeking Him.  Briefly, I have had personal experiences that I can only attribute to a supernatural being (which is outside the realm of the scientific method).

Belief and faith are all that are required for something or someone to have authority, and belief and faith are all that are required in order for a government to exist. Therefore as is clearly evidenced by your initial argument quoted clearly above, all that is required for government actually have authority is for someone to simply believe that this is not a fiction.

This is most clearly exemplified by your self, in your own beliefs in a deity whom you believe to have authority over you and others.

What is also interesting is that, while on one hand, you will expect the highest standards of evidence for anyone claiming anything is scientific... in which case you would need to be able to test anything that they say in your own personal garage laboratory... however, if someone claims something is supernatural, you will accept the word of any idiot with a book, and have absolutely no standards for testing that evidence whatsoever.
If I tell you that something is supernatural, and can then trick your five senses (because why bother using scientific equipment to try and measure anything if it's supernatural) then you will believe it. That pretty much makes you your average everyday basic sucker.

[theCelestrian]

<explication of one aspect of the argument>

The only other thing I will add in regards to this particular aspect of the conversation, because I think Johnson has the religious front covered, is that because the "door swings both ways," and the fact this argument can be applied to any and all things non-physical, this is the argument that applies to everything, and therefore nothing.  My point was that while we can all agree on the factual aspect of 'authority,' 'government,' 'compassion,' 'slavery,' ad inifitum being ficticious, particularly when using physicality (observability) as the benchmark - the argument is so universal as outlined in the last couple pages of our discourse that it is rendered completely worthless for the purposes of distinction, differentiation (because 'Anarchy' is also a fiction by our agreed upon standards) and persuasion.

Summation - If one honestly wishes to convince others that Anarchy is a better answer of governance than 'Government,' a fundamentally different argument is required.


...I honestly don't know if I can make this point (which has been avoided repeatedly) any simpler.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Celestrian, I do not try to convince anyone that "anarchy" is better than "government".  What I try to convince people of is that anarchy is the natural state of things and that we do now and always have lived in anarchy (therefore anarchy is indeed "REAL").  I attempt to make this point by showing that "government" and it's "authority" are indeed fiction.  Lack of government is anarchy.  Once someone sees this point, they are no longer fooled by the "false cult religion" called statism.

Johnson, you do not make the distinction between a fiction that is a fiction, and a reality that people believe to be a fiction.  For example, instead of "God the Creator" lets make believe we are living in "The Matrix".  The "fiction" that EVERYONE (almost) believe in is that they have a job, pay taxes, make babies, etc.  The REALITY that NO ONE (almost) believe in is the truth (there is no "government" or "authority" only force being applied to them 24-7 in abject slavery).  Now THE FACT that no one believes in the reality does not make the reality go away.  The Matrix could at any moment wipe out all human life in a matter of seconds.  Now this example is not perfect as "The Matrix" did not create the humans or then I would have to conclude that "The Matrix" would have legitimate authority by being the Creator.  Since it is not the creator, it is just a machine that is violating the rights of the people.  JUST BECAUSE NO ONE BELIEVES THAT THE MATRIX EXISTS, does not change THE FACT that it does (of course I'm using this as alegory so please don't misquote me here and claim that I believe in the matrix).