Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[ChristianAnarchist]

Perhaps Aristotle was the last one to practice "real science" (ok, so that's an obvious exaggeration).  Today "science" is for the most part nothing more than a tool of the agenda masters.  If you want to follow these agendas, be my guest.  For my part, I will continue to warn those who will listen that (for the most part) they are full of BS pushing an agenda on the masses to follow a program.

And you are right, I have no argument with true science, but with this propagenda today that passes as science...

(I don't even need to address all the fraud that is hitting the wires right now about the "global warming" agenda - do I?)

[mikehz]

Science has done a hell of a lot more for humanity than has superstitious religion, which has opposed virtually every advance in medicine.

Who are you going to call next time you get some life-threatening illness--your soothsayer, or your doctor (a scientist.)

[ChristianAnarchist]

Science has done a hell of a lot more for humanity than has superstitious religion, which has opposed virtually every advance in medicine.

Who are you going to call next time you get some life-threatening illness--your soothsayer, or your doctor (a scientist.)

Yes, "superstitious" religion as, you put it has caused problems.  I prefer to call it "ignorant" religion.  A true "religion" (and I really don't like that word either) is one that tries to perceive the truth about spiritual things.

As far as an illness, it depends on what you are talking about.  For pneumonia I will go to a doctor and antibiotics will usually knock it out (if you are in reasonable health) in a day or two.  If, on the other hand, I have a terminal cancer with only a 1% chance of favorable treatment at great pain and expense, I will take the spiritual route in hopes of at least getting some comfort as I prepare for that final journey...  A "scientist" will do me no good in that situation.

[thersites]

Science has done a hell of a lot more for humanity than has superstitious religion, which has opposed virtually every advance in medicine.

Who are you going to call next time you get some life-threatening illness--your soothsayer, or your doctor (a scientist.)

Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Dresden, Pearl Harbor, 9/11, predator drones, nerve gas, bio-weapons, landmines, logistics to support max. security prisons, drug testing, high fructose corn syrup.....Disco.....

Forgive me if I'm underwhelmed by the "contribution" of science to "humanity". What religion(other than primitivist sects like the Amish or wack jobs like witnesses) opposes medicine? I don't follow unless you mean moral issues with certain areas of research, and I have those, and I'm agnostic.

Gene's critique of science as its currently composed is fully just, it is an instrument of the state controlled by money-it shouldn't be, but I doubt very much one can be a "scientist" of any repute these days without entering the official priesthood-and avoiding sacrilege. 

[Rillion]

Gene's critique of science as its currently composed is fully just, it is an instrument of the state controlled by money-it shouldn't be, but I doubt very much one can be a "scientist" of any repute these days without entering the official priesthood-and avoiding sacrilege. 

So if a government-funded scientist discovers a cure for cancer, that's bad?  The scientists who are currently working on that should quit their jobs? 

[mikehz]

Ah, the old "fallacy of accident, in which the misuse of something is confused with it's essence. Vastly more people have been saved by science than harmed by it. Chances are, you're alive due to science--not to mention well-fed and housed, and not laboring all waking hours to stay alive. (It is ironic that you are using a computer to communicate your disdain for science.)

I'll grant you that religions do eventually accept most findings of science--but only after kicking and screaming, and opposing them at every turn. At one time, studying cadavers was forbidden by the Church. Then, it was anesthesiology, under the theory that God intended humans to suffer on earth. Brain surgery was opposed. Then birth control, since it might lead to people having (and--gasp--enjoying) more sex. This last one is still opposed by many millions of Christians.

I imagine that if a cure were found for cancer, some organized religion would oppose it.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Since I have stated in the past that we already live in anarchy as we can show that "government" is a fiction (therefore nonexistent) and the authority of the "men with guns" is illegitimate, I have changed my title to "Christian Realist"...

I have done this because I do not "promote" anarchy, but I realize that we always live under anarchy.  The "realist" in me recognizes this fact as I realize the fact of gravity.  I do not "promote" gravity, I acknowledge it.  Similarly, I don't "promote" anarchy, I simply acknowledge that we live under it and try to help others open their eyes to that simple fact.

I would not, however change the title of this thread ...

[mikehz]

I see nothing particularly "fictional" about government. If the men with guns come for you, I don't think you're going to get very far by saying, "You are merely a fiction. Be off with you!" No--make no mistake about it, government is most certainly non-fictional, in the same way a book about war atrocities is non-fictional.

This is the fallacy of equivocation, in which two things that are similar in some ways are taken to be exactly the same in all ways. Government may be based on false premises, but it still exists, in a manner that fiction does not.

[ChristianAnarchist]

I see nothing particularly "fictional" about government. If the men with guns come for you, I don't think you're going to get very far by saying, "You are merely a fiction. Be off with you!" No--make no mistake about it, government is most certainly non-fictional, in the same way a book about war atrocities is non-fictional.

You're confusing your terms.  You say "government" and then you try to back it up by "men with guns".  No one here is trying to deny the existance of "men with guns" (a true sign of "anarchy" if I ever heard of one).  What can be demonstrated beyond ANY doubt, is that any form of "government" is a total fiction.  This only exists in the minds of the men who believe in them.  As soon as the majority of people STOP believing in them, the men with guns find another fictional source of "authority" to grab on to (until people wake up to that nonsense and then that fiction is shown to also be nothing more than a wisp of smoke).

This is the fallacy of equivocation, in which two things that are similar in some ways are taken to be exactly the same in all ways. Government may be based on false premises, but it still exists, in a manner that fiction does not.

Ya, sure "governments" exist...  Have you seen any USSR lately?  How about Babylon?  No, these things are ideas that only "exist" in the minds of men.  As soon as people realize that there is no real substance to these "ideas", they vanish from consciousness (USSR).

[mikehz]

A "fiction" refers to something made up that does not exist in real life, and therefore cannot hurt you. "Gilligan's Island" is a fiction. So is "Little Women." Neither can hurt me.

Government is an organization. So is the Mafia. Both are very much real, and can certainly hurt me. But, it's silly to say that either is in any manner fictional.

[Rillion]

If "legitimate" were part of the definition of "government," then Gene might have a point.  But it isn't.  A government is simply an organization which regulates the behavior of a body of people via threat of force.  A gang is a kind of government. 

[ChristianAnarchist]

If "legitimate" were part of the definition of "government," then Gene might have a point.  But it isn't.  A government is simply an organization which regulates the behavior of a body of people via threat of force.  A gang is a kind of government. 

So you then seem to be making the claim that our "government" can be "illegitimate". 

il⋅le⋅git⋅i⋅mate
  /adj., n. ˌɪlɪˈdʒɪtəmɪt; v. ˌɪlɪˈdʒɪtəˌmeɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [adj., n. il-i-jit-uh-mit; v. il-i-jit-uh-meyt] Show IPA adjective, noun, verb, -mat⋅ed, -mat⋅ing.
Use illegitimate in a Sentence
See web results for illegitimate
See images of illegitimate
–adjective
1.    born of parents who are not married to each other; born out of wedlock: an illegitimate child.
2.    not legitimate; not sanctioned by law or custom.
3.    unlawful; illegal: an illegitimate action.
4.    irregular; not in good usage.
5.    Logic. not in accordance with the principles of valid inference.
6.    Obsolete. (formerly, in London)
a.    of or pertaining to stage plays in which musical numbers were inserted because of laws that gave only a few theaters the exclusive right to produce straight dramas.
b.    acting in or producing such productions.

So then our "government" is now "illegal" or "not sanctioned by law"...  And from whence comes this "law" that this "government" has violated?  Why from "government" of course !!  Talk about round robin.  It seem quite silly to make a claim that this fiction called "government" can be "legitimate" or "illegitimate".  For if it is the former, then it must have a "source" that IS "legitimate" and if the later, then it cannot even BE a "government" because it is "unlawful"...

[Rillion]

So you then seem to be making the claim that our "government" can be "illegitimate". 

Umm, yeah.  As in, not morally sanctionable.  In fact, one could argue that government is not legitimate by definition.  That would make a great deal more sense than arguing the opposite, as you seem to be doing.   

[ChristianAnarchist]

So you then seem to be making the claim that our "government" can be "illegitimate". 

Umm, yeah.  As in, not morally sanctionable.  In fact, one could argue that government is not legitimate by definition.  That would make a great deal more sense than arguing the opposite, as you seem to be doing.   

I'm arguing that "government" is "illegitimate" by the fact that it is a fiction, by the fact that it has no "authority" and cannot be demonstrated to have either "authority" or "substance"...

You are the one who brought up government having a distinction between "legitimate" or "illegitimate".  In past posts, I have pointed out that there is NO legitimate authority for one person to exercise force over another without consent.  (Look in my tagline for the "Question Authority" reference).

[Rillion]

I'm arguing that "government" is "illegitimate" by the fact that it is a fiction

"Legitimate" does not mean "existent" or "true."  It means "justified."   If things had to be legitimate in order to be true, then gang wars, rape, and suicide bombers wouldn't exist.   That would be a lovely world to live in, but unfortunately we don't.