Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[dharveymi]

The mind is what allows us to have hope in the future, a belief in something real, not unreal. That kind of hope I can take to the bank, faith I cannot.

-- Brede

Semantics.

[dharveymi]

If by "firm" you mean absolute, then you have dogmatism, or religious faith. If "firm" just means strong, yet still open to new evidence or interpretation, then it's reasonable.

I don't see any justification for equating religious faith with dogmatism.  I have changed my mind about my religious beliefs after examining them in the light of further evidence.

Main Entry: dog·ma·tism
Pronunciation: 'dog-m&-"ti-z&m, 'däg-
Function: noun
1 : positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant
2 : a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises

[Rillion]

Therefore we all have faith and we might as well believe in anything we please. 

That's right!

Umm, no.  I don't care to live in an absurd world of people believing things because they are "pleased" by them.  I would prefer that people believe things because the beliefs are reasonably concluded and justified, attempting to conform their beliefs to reality rather than reality to their beliefs.  Crazy thought, I know. 

If God put me here, and here is hell, then God put me in hell.  QED. 

I didn't say God put you here.  You weren't immaculately conceived.

You don't believe that God created everything?  Interesting...and here I thought you believed in the Bible. 

[dharveymi]

Umm, no.  I don't care to live in an absurd world of people believing things because they are "pleased" by them.  I would prefer that people believe things because the beliefs are reasonably concluded and justified, attempting to conform their beliefs to reality rather than reality to their beliefs.  Crazy thought, I know. 

Now who is living in a fantasy world?  Beliefs rule you, not the other way around.  Examine you own actions on this forum.

You don't believe that God created everything?  Interesting...and here I thought you believed in the Bible. 

I do believe in the Bible; don't presume you can dictate what I believe about the Bible.

[Rillion]

Now who is living in a fantasy world?  Beliefs rule you, not the other way around.  Examine you own actions on this forum.

When push comes to shove, there is no "me" in comparison to my beliefs.  I am  my beliefs.  But I can still obviously prefer that those beliefs be based on reality.   If you're going to go all meme theory on me, I can just as easily say that it's in our best interest for the memes for rationality and critical thinking to win out over memes for self-delusion, even pleasurable self-delusion. 

You don't believe that God created everything?  Interesting...and here I thought you believed in the Bible. 

I do believe in the Bible; don't presume you can dictate what I believe about the Bible.

It's a neat trick to claim to believe in the Bible while repeatedly denying things in it.  It's like saying "Yes, I believe in Catcher in the Rye...I just think Holden Caulfield was a 60 year old woman who lived in Egypt and had a pet dragon.  Hey, don't presume you can dictate what I believe about Catcher in the Rye!"

[dharveymi]

[
When push comes to shove, there is no "me" in comparison to my beliefs.  I am  my beliefs.  But I can still obviously prefer that those beliefs be based on reality.   If you're going to go all meme theory on me, I can just as easily say that it's in our best interest for the memes for rationality and critical thinking to win out over memes for self-delusion, even pleasurable self-delusion. 

You are your beliefs, but you can examine them and change them as well.  When you make unwarranted positive judgments about them, it makes it very difficult to do this.  I can suspend my disbelief and talk to you reasonably about yours.  You seem incapable of returning the favor.

It's a neat trick to claim to believe in the Bible while repeatedly denying things in it.  It's like saying "Yes, I believe in Catcher in the Rye...I just think Holden Caulfield was a 60 year old woman who lived in Egypt and had a pet dragon.  Hey, don't presume you can dictate what I believe about Catcher in the Rye!"

I just don't make my mind up about a book after studying very carefully the first sentence, like you, apparently, are very talented at doing.

[Rillion]

You are your beliefs, but you can examine them and change them as well.  When you make unwarranted positive judgments about them, it makes it very difficult to do this.  I can suspend my disbelief and talk to you reasonably about yours.  You seem incapable of returning the favor.

You can suspend your disbelief in what, exactly?  And what disbelief should I be suspending?  If you're suggesting I should suspend my disbelief in God or Christianity, I can do so....however every time I try to work on the basis that something in the Bible is true as written, you deny that you believe it.  So I really don't know how to talk to you on the terms of your faith, because the terms of your faith are muddy as hell.   Of course, this is a problem theists also often have when speaking to each other, if they discover a discrepancy in the way they, respectively, think about God.  It just happens that the discrepancy between your ideas and mine are a bit larger than that.

It's a neat trick to claim to believe in the Bible while repeatedly denying things in it.  It's like saying "Yes, I believe in Catcher in the Rye...I just think Holden Caulfield was a 60 year old woman who lived in Egypt and had a pet dragon.  Hey, don't presume you can dictate what I believe about Catcher in the Rye!"

I just don't make my mind up about a book after studying very carefully the first sentence, like you, apparently, are very talented at doing.

Very clever.  I don't believe in the Bible or think the god depicted in it is a stellar individual, therefore I must not have read it very carefully.  Do you have any idea of the kind of hubris it takes to make a statement like that?  You really need to stop presuming that you know the intellectual background of people who disagree with you. 

[dharveymi]

[So I really don't know how to talk to you on the terms of your faith, because the terms of your faith are muddy as hell.   Of course, this is a problem theists also often have when speaking to each other, if they discover a discrepancy in the way they, respectively, think about God.  It just happens that the discrepancy between your ideas and mine are a bit larger than that.

Hardly, you're still talking to me, most Christians won't.  You might try to be less judgmental.  You don't bring us scripture to understand what I think about it, you bring it up (out of context) to ridicule me.  I am not judgmental of atheists.

Very clever.  I don't believe in the Bible or think the god depicted in it is a stellar individual, therefore I must not have read it very carefully.  Do you have any idea of the kind of hubris it takes to make a statement like that?  You really need to stop presuming that you know the intellectual background of people who disagree with you. 

I do presume.

[theCelestrian]

Wow, this got real nasty real fast.

Aren't we all "pro-liberty" people here, regardless of "faith" or "skepticism?"  

Harvey: You believe in the bible and have faith in the existence of God.  Awesome.  Personally as an agnostic, I simply don't know.  Doesn't mean I haven't tried, and I've become more agnostic the older I've gotten... I simply can't make a conclusion when I observe a lack of evidence that is independently and objectively observable, measurable and verifiable.

God's existence currently cannot (I doubt ever) be categorized as thus.  As you and MuslimNonarchist (For everyone: isn't it interesting it's the muslim in this thread who isn't "flaming" anyone for whatever reason.....certainly does pose an interesting subtext and challenge to the "stereotypes" to this discussion) pointed out, the "evidence" and "nature" of God is extremely personal, subjective and unique.  Doesn't make it any less powerful or "real" to the person experiencing it, it just means that I nor anyone else will truly be able to "understand" what drives your faith, and makes it all the more diffucult when trying to discuss the subject in an arena that accepts the meaning of "truth" to be something that can be observed and measured (that "arena" would be the realms of "debate" "academics" and "science").

To defend Brokor a little, it's not as easy as "quitting" the military.  If it was that simple to "defend the constitution," then what's stopping you or I from "Storming the Capital" right now to do our part to "defend ourselves" from the initiation of force perpetrated against us by the government?  The reality is always a little more grey than the black and white of the principle, something I try to say all the time.  I'm not harping on you or trying to talk down to you, but I'm sure everyone of us has something in our life that wouldn't be the most "principled" of practices.  That's what happens when we have to take part in a system the is founded on violence.

Not excusing it, but I guess I was trying to say "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," without inciting a religious angle.....at which I just failed.

Rillion:  I've always found your arguments inciteful, and I certainly see where your coming from, particularly your reticece to equivocate "faith" with "curiosity" or "experimental desire."  I would also assert that skepticism can also drive the need to "experiment." An example.... I don't know if Biodesiel will work on my (non-existant) truck, so I might try it out on something similar but smaller in scope to see if it is indeed possible and plausible.  In this case, there's no "belief in anything".... because of the lack of evidence.  Thus, the experiment is created to generate the evidence needed to form a hypothesis either way.

However, as we've seen, definitions are different things to different people.  This makes the "religious" aspect of this conversation even harder, because everyone has their own notions of what "god" "faith" "conviction" and "belief" are.  As you pointed out, this also makes debate difficult, if not impossible, because we still haven't really gotten past the "defining terms" phase to actually use in the "debate itself."

Other than that, really "whattaya' gonna' do?"  

Markuzick:  Good job so far.  I understand the arguments you're making, like Rillion I think the three of us have similar conclusions arrived from differing roads when it comes to "morality", but it's that road that I find interesting.

MuslimNonarchist:  I think you're my new best friend on this BBS right now.  You've always made disclaimers the few times you've talked about your faith in respect to making a point, and you seem genuinely interested in what everyone has to say.

....although coming from a picture and a bunch of words on a BBS, that's probably not the most "valuable" of compliments.

Brokor: Easy, big guy You like to bust balls, well turnabout is fair play.  I understand you "don't understand the theists," but remember, at the end of the day we're still all "pro-liberty" people and at the very least recognize the scope and size of the State to be a huge problem.





Sorry to have to come in and pretend that I'm Mr. Peacemaker, (EDIT: especially since I'm no "saint" myself sometimes, and will look to "cause a ruckus" every now and again.) but let's look at the last page or two of posts.... really.  I do it mostly out of self-interest:  The disucssion was really getting interesting until the current "derailment."


Maybe reset, try again, guys?


(EDIT: fixed "me" to "I'm")

[The Muslim Agorist]

God's existence currently cannot (I doubt ever) be categorized as thus.  As you and MuslimNonarchist (For everyone: isn't it interesting it's the muslim in this thread who isn't "flaming" anyone for whatever reason.....certainly does pose an interesting subtext and challenge to the "stereotypes" to this discussion) pointed out, the "evidence" and "nature" of God is extremely personal, subjective and unique.  Doesn't make it any less powerful or "real" to the person experiencing it, it just means that I nor anyone else will truly be able to "understand" what drives your faith, and makes it all the more diffucult when trying to discuss the subject in an arena that accepts the meaning of "truth" to be something that can be observed and measured (that "arena" would be the realms of "debate" "academics" and "science").

I find it interesting that even though, as far as I know, only one person has actually ignored me, no one, in any topic thread, has really engaged me.

[theCelestrian]

I find it interesting that even though, as far as I know, only one person has actually ignored me, no one, in any topic thread, has really engaged me.

Sorry.  There was a couple times at work I saw your posts, particularly about the language barrier, but I didn't have enough time.  I hope that short paragraph gave you a litte "engagement," as I have been reading what you've said and summed up your points as I understood them....but I also noticed you pulled back from this thread a little bit ago.

[markuzick]

If by "firm" you mean absolute, then you have dogmatism, or religious faith. If "firm" just means strong, yet still open to new evidence or interpretation, then it's reasonable.

I don't see any justification for equating religious faith with dogmatism.  I have changed my mind about my religious beliefs after examining them in the light of further evidence.

Main Entry: dog·ma·tism
Pronunciation: 'dog-m&-"ti-z&m, 'däg-
Function: noun
1 : positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant
2 : a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises

You are correct. Instead of "religious faith, or dogmatism" I should have simply said "religious dogmatism". "Religious faith" so often takes the form of "religious dogmatism" that in my mind they had become conflated. According to some of the possible definitions of "religion" and of "faith", it would be logically possible to have a rationally based system of beliefs and to label it as a "religious faith". Unfortunately, because "religious faith" is so commonly used to denote "religious dogmatism", using that phrase to describe a rational system of beliefs is almost certain to cause confusion.

This creates a problem for me. Now instead of saying that Statism is a religion, I need to say that it is a "religious dogmatism".

[Rillion]

Hardly, you're still talking to me, most Christians won't.  You might try to be less judgmental.  You don't bring us scripture to understand what I think about it, you bring it up (out of context) to ridicule me.  I am not judgmental of atheists.

My desire is not to ridicule you, but I am not obligated to respect the Bible or belief in it.  If you find that I believe in something you consider to be obviously non-factual and immoral, you are welcome to point it out to me. 

Very clever.  I don't believe in the Bible or think the god depicted in it is a stellar individual, therefore I must not have read it very carefully.  Do you have any idea of the kind of hubris it takes to make a statement like that?  You really need to stop presuming that you know the intellectual background of people who disagree with you. 

I do presume.

Yes, you said that already.  If you're going to keep "presuming," then I'm going to end the conversation because I honestly can't abide trying to have a discussion with someone who thinks he knows more about me than I do. 

[theCelestrian]

You are correct. Instead of "religious faith, or dogmatism" I should have simply said "religious dogmatism". "Religious faith" so often takes the form of "religious dogmatism" that in my mind they had become conflated. According to some of the possible definitions of "religion" and of "faith", it would be logically possible to have a rationally based system of beliefs and to label it as a "religious faith". Unfortunately, because "religious faith" is so commonly used to denote "religious dogmatism", using that phrase to describe a rational system of beliefs is almost certain to cause confusion

Hmmmm..... interesting.  Probably doesn't help that "religion" and "dogma" are often used in an almost interchangable manner in our culture.

Good job, Harvey.... and same to you, Mark.  I probably would have missed this had you not pointed it out.

[The Muslim Agorist]

I find it interesting that even though, as far as I know, only one person has actually ignored me, no one, in any topic thread, has really engaged me.

Sorry.  There was a couple times at work I saw your posts, particularly about the language barrier, but I didn't have enough time.  I hope that short paragraph gave you a litte "engagement," as I have been reading what you've said and summed up your points as I understood them....but I also noticed you pulled back from this thread a little bit ago.

Well, I bounce around in other topics, and other forums... I can't really respond to people shouting at each other in words I don't use. There's certainly no point in me getting into a debate of Bible criticism with an atheist because neither of use accept it as infallible.