Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[ChristianAnarchist]

He deleted my post about Abraham and Moses being prophets who argued with God.

I haven't deleted anything this week.  I did delete one post last week (I don't remember who's post it was - may have been yours) but it was not because of any "argument" that I could not address, it was because the poster was not being very civil.  If you cannot play nice, go to another thread.  I do not delete posts where someone has a point to make even if it's a point I don't like.  If I decide that the "point" is simply to be vulgar or offensive, I will also exercise my "discretion" as "lord of the thread"   

[theCelestrian]

Here I have to disagree.  All the things in this list do not carry an implied "authority" (except for God of course and he hasn't told me just exactly what he wants from me) which "government" always or nearly always is believed to have.  When one realizes that "government" is a fiction, one also realizes that they (the cult members who promote that belief) cannot possible have "authority" for any action.  Even "slavery" does not depend on "authority" but rather violence. 

I think we're at an impasse, and we'll probably have to settle to agree to disagree.  I will however, provide why despite your slight change in your argument - I still disagree.

Irrelevant; your argument (prior to your addendum) had nothing to do with 'authority' - merely the inherent 'reality' of the term.  This position is inconsistent; Abstract terms that denote potentials of authority are fictions, but abstract terms that do not have such an interpretive potential are in fact, less a fiction (or 'real').

You need to explain to me how 'compassion' is more real of a thing than 'government.'  Your previous litmus test for government was, "find me the person who is 'government.'"  I would encourage you to again apply your own test to that list above.


You made the claim 'government' is a fiction because there is no person named 'government;' only physical Men and their physical actions.  As support, you referred to the fact that all the effects people attribute to 'government' is actually a result of the men, not the fiction. 

You also offered Nike as an allegorical; Nike's building's and infrastructure would still be there long after "Nike" the company was gone.  All of these conditions in your previous argument can be applied to that list above, as well as any noun that is used to describe concepts that are inherantly intangible.  The fact that you acknowledge "God" as a hole in this new condition raises an interesting question, particularly given your position on personal experience:

How can someone/thing that is 'not a fiction' but never communicates His/Her desires directly have any real authority over others?  Would the perceived authority simply be an idea, a concept because you have zero methods of personally verifying that any and all claims of authority are in fact, true?

[Johnson]

Queue interchangable concepts in a quote time....

Here I have to disagree.  All the things in this list do not carry an implied "authority" (except for Government of course and it hasn't told me just exactly what it wants from me) which "God" always or nearly always is believed to have.  When one realizes that "God" is a fiction, one also realizes that they (the cult members who promote that belief) cannot possibly have "authority" for any action.  Even "slavery" does not depend on "authority" but rather violence. 

See, totally interchangable. Christian Anarchy is just another oxymoronic answer...

[anarchir]

Queue interchangable concepts in a quote time....

Here I have to disagree.  All the things in this list do not carry an implied "authority" (except for Government of course and it hasn't told me just exactly what it wants from me) which "God" always or nearly always is believed to have.  When one realizes that "God" is a fiction, one also realizes that they (the cult members who promote that belief) cannot possibly have "authority" for any action.  Even "slavery" does not depend on "authority" but rather violence. 

See, totally interchangable. Christian Anarchy is just another oxymoronic answer...

Johnson you are on a roll!

[Johnson]

edit:linked to video of some folks that aren't any more dependable than anyone else...

[anarchir]

Haha you are a classy guy. I'm glad you're in the liberty movement dude, we need more (productive and smart) people like you.

[Johnson]

I don't know about classy.... Hell, I don't even know about smart or productive.... But - classy? I'm kinda callous, tactless, and short fused with  those whom I disagree... I think that negates me being able to be called classy.... I think Branden deserves the classy award for always keeping it cool.

[theCelestrian]

I think Branden deserves the classy award for always keeping it cool.

Meh.  It's a BBS, and interestingly enough the big 3 (sex, religion, politics) don't tend to grip me emotionally as strongly as most of the people I know.  Perhaps that's because I've been talking/arguing/asking about them since I was a young child.  The FTL is also mainly a recreational place for me - and a chance for me ask some interesting questions, and potentially get some interesting answers.  Nothing more.  This thread is a perfect exemplary; even with the most eloquent, well-reasoned and potentially air-tight argument I could provide about why the Fallacy of Personal Experience is in fact a fallacy, or any of the other points I made in this thread - odds are nil that Gene (or anyone else) is suddenly going have an epiphany and embrace agnostic anarchy.

...and if it appears I never get "hot" - if you knew me in real life, you would find that I am in fact a very simple kind of guy; I say what I mean, mean what I say and generally never have a problem calling a spade as such, and can in fact get very... impassioned, particularly when I am forced to deal with incompetence at the workplace.  Kinda like this guy:



I do, however, in all things make every endeavor to try to treat individuals in a manner that I would wish to be treated.

Johnson just has a different tac - and in all honesty; it seems it is often significantly more effective than my method. 

[Johnson]

My tactic is really only driven by two main principles; impatience and frustration. Impatience firstly to save time, but secondly my impatience tactic is dependent upon audience. You seem to be communicating with Gene directly and trying to address every little argument Gene makes. I see that as a fairly pointless exercise, since Gene is a liar, and his only purpose in reading what you say at all, will be to pull one or two points from it to manipulate and intentionally misinterpret them. Then he has manipulated you into continuing on a separate branch down this long ridiculous "debate" path. You see, while you or I might actually listen to what Gene has to say about his religion and his viewpoint, Gene is only looking for a way to manipulate and misinterpret what we have to say, so that he can keep this thread going.

I think he somehow feels that if this thread continues that he is somehow "winning". As though this thread will somehow be responsible for the spread of Christian anarchy.

The other principle behind my tactic is frustration. I have an endless wellspring of frustration that I can direct towards religion without any problem. I think the reasons for that are fairly clearly outlined in this blog. http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html

While I am neither an atheist, a liberal, or a gay, I feel like many if not most of the points that Greta makes about atheistic anger are extremely well put together. Of course, that's why I decided to badly read that blog entry on my YouTube channel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJG51lqExAY&feature=youtube_gdata

[theCelestrian]

My tactic is really only driven by two main principles; impatience and frustration. Impatience firstly to save time, but secondly my impatience tactic is dependent upon audience.

Agreed. I understand I get a bit...verbose, however I make no apologies for being so.

You seem to be communicating with Gene directly and trying to address every little argument Gene makes. I see that as a fairly pointless exercise, since Gene is a liar, and his only purpose in reading what you say at all, will be to pull one or two points from it to manipulate and intentionally misinterpret them.

I would like to hope that is not the case, but I imagine I'll find that out for myself soon enough.

Then he has manipulated you into continuing on a separate branch down this long ridiculous "debate" path.

I'd like to think I've kept my tac fairly focused; the denial of the Fallacy of Personal Experience being primary, and questioning the relevance of the argument that applies to everything, and therefore applies to nothing, and it's implications to "Christian Anarchy" being secondary.

You see, while you or I might actually listen to what Gene has to say about his religion and his viewpoint, Gene is only looking for a way to manipulate and misinterpret what we have to say, so that he can keep this thread going.

I understand your position here.

I think he somehow feels that if this thread continues that he is somehow "winning". As though this thread will somehow be responsible for the spread of Christian anarchy.

Fair enough, though I don't know if I share the sentiment. If all of your aforementioned allegations are true - then I would posit that having individuals read (and apparently see) the behavior would result in a net loss for Gene's particular cause. ::shrugs:: However, again I think most people have pretty much made up their minds in a lot of these regards; the faithful will continue to be thus, the Statists shall continue to attempt to rationalize aggressive, coercive violence.

The other principle behind my tactic is frustration. I have an endless wellspring of frustration that I can direct towards religion without any problem. I think the reasons for that are fairly clearly outlined in this blog. http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html

While I am neither an atheist, a liberal, or a gay, I feel like many if not most of the points that Greta makes about atheistic anger are extremely well put together. Of course, that's why I decided to badly read that blog entry on my YouTube channel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJG51lqExAY&feature=youtube_gdata

Also completely fair, nor I would I ever try to tell you how you should/should not verbally respond to those you feel have enabled the continuing perpetration of violence against other individuals who do not share the aggressor's moral/religious value set.

[Rillion]

I think spending enough time in this thread would cause anyone who started out Celestrian-like to morph into being Johnson-like. 

[theCelestrian]

I think spending enough time in this thread would cause anyone who started out Celestrian-like to morph into being Johnson-like. 

Potentially.   Though I have been here before during my last tenure at the BBS.

edit: It was like back on page 100-ish I think.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Queue interchangable concepts in a quote time....

Here I have to disagree.  All the things in this list do not carry an implied "authority" (except for Government of course and it hasn't told me just exactly what it wants from me) which "God" always or nearly always is believed to have.  When one realizes that "God" is a fiction, one also realizes that they (the cult members who promote that belief) cannot possibly have "authority" for any action.  Even "slavery" does not depend on "authority" but rather violence. 

See, totally interchangable. Christian Anarchy is just another oxymoronic answer...

Because you have yet to realize that you are already in anarchy.  Someday I hope you will realize your error.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Here I have to disagree.  All the things in this list do not carry an implied "authority" (except for God of course and he hasn't told me just exactly what he wants from me) which "government" always or nearly always is believed to have.  When one realizes that "government" is a fiction, one also realizes that they (the cult members who promote that belief) cannot possible have "authority" for any action.  Even "slavery" does not depend on "authority" but rather violence. 

I think we're at an impasse, and we'll probably have to settle to agree to disagree.  I will however, provide why despite your slight change in your argument - I still disagree.

Irrelevant; your argument (prior to your addendum) had nothing to do with 'authority' - merely the inherent 'reality' of the term.  This position is inconsistent; Abstract terms that denote potentials of authority are fictions, but abstract terms that do not have such an interpretive potential are in fact, less a fiction (or 'real').

You need to explain to me how 'compassion' is more real of a thing than 'government.'  Your previous litmus test for government was, "find me the person who is 'government.'"  I would encourage you to again apply your own test to that list above.


You made the claim 'government' is a fiction because there is no person named 'government;' only physical Men and their physical actions.  As support, you referred to the fact that all the effects people attribute to 'government' is actually a result of the men, not the fiction. 

You also offered Nike as an allegorical; Nike's building's and infrastructure would still be there long after "Nike" the company was gone.  All of these conditions in your previous argument can be applied to that list above, as well as any noun that is used to describe concepts that are inherantly intangible.  The fact that you acknowledge "God" as a hole in this new condition raises an interesting question, particularly given your position on personal experience:

How can someone/thing that is 'not a fiction' but never communicates His/Her desires directly have any real authority over others?  Would the perceived authority simply be an idea, a concept because you have zero methods of personally verifying that any and all claims of authority are in fact, true?

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. 

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. 

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

[mikehz]

I think that Gene's beating this dead horse actually tends to backfire on him. His evasion of reason, use of circular logic, and tendency to use highly fallacious arguments are obvious to even a casual reader.