Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Show
| | |-+  Libertarianism and Religion
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 16   Go Down

Author Topic: Libertarianism and Religion  (Read 39146 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

mikehz

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8033
    • View Profile
    • Day by Day
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #45 on: February 12, 2009, 09:58:30 PM »

I've known plenty of Christian, and a couple of Jewish, libertarians.

I'm non-religious, myself.
Logged
"Force always attracts men of low morality." Albert Einstein

fatcat

  • Guest
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #46 on: February 12, 2009, 10:56:52 PM »

That schism is completely unnecessary.  Religion is religion. Libertarianism is a political philosphy.  They're aren't incompatible because they are not competing for the same thing.  Fascism, communism, liberarlism, conservatism, etc. are incompatible with libertarianism because they are all political philosophies.  

In a wider context they are.

Things are either true or false, beliefs are either rational or not.

Of course Libertarian beliefs don't have any inextricable connection to religion or non religion,

however, the fundamental reasoning behind both concepts are(unless you believe in a moral system based on preference and not objective standard).

Whether it is moral to arrest people for victimless crimes can be answered by logic and reason. Whether it is reasonable to believe in the existence of gods can also be addressed by those same mental tools.

The same reason I don't believe Communism is correct is the same reason I don't believe any religion is correct. All beliefs (should) come from rational critical thinking, and thereby all beliefs are on some level linked in their veracity.


The shuttering off of "religious" or "spiritual" beliefs from other beliefs is one of the most irrational, and intellectually cowardly behaviors people engage in.

To believe that certain beliefs should just be a matter of personal preference, of what "works for you", is an extreme disparagement of the value of those ideas.

Either your god exists or it doesn't. If it does, you should care about proving it, just like how libertarians should care about proving to other people. The only time I ever see people trying to diminish the objectivity of reality in this way are people who are afraid of having their beliefs proved wrong.

If you truly believe that there is some afterlife and omnipotent super being, and that having that belief is important, and may even decide where you spend eternity, you should (in my opinion), take as many chances as you can get to persuade people against the irrationality of not believing in X god.

Likewise, if you believe religions are idiotic superstition, merely a human invention based on the fear of death and the confusion over the nature of existence, then shouldn't you seek to dissuade people, especially ones you care about, for wasting literally years of their life over false rituals and irrational beliefs?

to me I don't really care what you believe, as long as you're willing to rationally debate it, and you care about whether its true or not. Everyone starts off in life with a whole bunch of faulty beliefs, its how ardently you seek to pursue truth and discard falsehood that determines how much bullshit you manage to shake off, and how accurate your view of reality is

fuck non-proselytizing theists and non-theists

« Last Edit: February 12, 2009, 11:05:56 PM by fatcat »
Logged

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #47 on: February 12, 2009, 11:08:57 PM »

Alex pulled a win? WTF?

I did?  Well, heh...  Even a stopped clock is right 730 times per year...  :roll:


Isn't that also how you prove the existence of G-d?

Belief in God is not essential for civilization nor does it constitute a competitive advantage (at least not any more).  It's not like all atheists are fags and vasectomites... 

...

... Oy vey!  I love you Jesus!  Allahu Akbar!!!

:lol:


Logged

Diogenes The Cynic

  • Cynic. Pessimist. Skeptic. Jerk.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3727
    • View Profile
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #48 on: February 13, 2009, 12:12:52 AM »

To think that religiousness and libertarianism are mutually exclusive is ridiculous. The ones claiming it is havent passed the bar on burden of proof.

I think I have successfully been able to make my religious views and political views compatable without the problems the rest of you think I would have had.
Logged
I am looking for an honest man. -Diogenes The Cynic

Dude, I thought you were a spambot for like a week. You posted like a spambot. You failed the Turing test.

                                -Dennis Goddard

blackie

  • Guest
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #49 on: February 13, 2009, 12:27:16 AM »

Belief in God is not essential for civilization nor does it constitute a competitive advantage (at least not any more).
Rights are not essential for civilization, and just because believing in something constitutes a competitive advantage doesn't mean that something exists.

How can we use science to figure out if there are rights?
Logged

Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)

  • A Cut Above The Rest
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8299
  • If government is the answer, the question is stupi
    • View Profile
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #50 on: February 13, 2009, 01:10:56 AM »

Belief in God is not essential for civilization nor does it constitute a competitive advantage (at least not any more).
Rights are not essential for civilization, and just because believing in something constitutes a competitive advantage doesn't mean that something exists.

How can we use science to figure out if there are rights?
You can't use hard science to figure that out. 

Rights exist because they are a social construct based on a dominant system of morals.
Logged
"Do not throw rocks at people with guns." —Hastings' Third Law
"Income tax returns are the most imaginative fiction being written today." —Herman Wouk 

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

John Shaw

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17244
    • View Profile
    • Think Twice Productions
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #51 on: February 13, 2009, 01:54:58 AM »

dominant system of morals.

Which should lead one to desire the discovery of a theory of objective morality. The rights derived from it would be valid, so long as the theory behind it is something more than an opinion, which it would be, being objective and all.

Logged
"btw its not a claim. Its documented fact."

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #52 on: February 13, 2009, 07:24:37 AM »

Rights are not essential for civilization [...]

All of pre-human and human history has been a set of experiments about human nature, and natural rights are the conclusion of those experiments.  A society which doesn't recognize any rights can't evolve beyond primitive hunter-gatherer level: why plant crops when anyone might drive you off this land at any time?

Societies that are better at recognizing those rights achieve better economic growth and, over time, dominate.  Societies that fail to recognize natural rights are like people who fail to recognize the law of gravity, they fall.  And societies that create irrational rights, like a right to a free sandwich at someone else's expense, are also at a competitive disadvantage.


Rights exist because they are a social construct based on a dominant system of morals.

There is a difference between objective laws essential for human civilization (life, liberty, property) and subjective morals, which vary from society to society.  You can have a successful society with humongous drunken bisexual orgies taking place on the streets involving animals and children.  You cannot have a successful society without self-ownership.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2009, 07:29:48 AM by Alex Libman »
Logged

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #53 on: February 13, 2009, 07:43:50 AM »

How can we use science to figure out if there are rights?

Science doesn't work that way. Clearly, you haven't studied science. *points you to the direction of philosophy* Try that instead.
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

fatcat

  • Guest
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #54 on: February 13, 2009, 09:32:17 AM »

Belief in God is not essential for civilization nor does it constitute a competitive advantage (at least not any more).
How can we use science to figure out if there are rights?

Objectivism is the scientific method applied to philosophy.

However, much of what can be said to be rights, relies on certain metaphysical presuppositions.

Although even if morals are purely a matter of personal choice and have no fundamental existent roots, it is still possible, and preferable, to have an objectively consonant set of rights than a relativist set of rights.

If you take, even just a preference for the non aggression principle, then by consistently and objectively applying it to every area of morals, you will end up with a consonant moral framework.


Also, the idea of behavioral axioms leads. I.e. the kind of people who think its okay to steal from you have already shown that they think its okay to steal, so by restituting yourself, i.e. "stealing" your stuff back, you have not breached any sort of moral engagement.

In the same way, people who initiate violence on you are explicitly demonstrating that they accept violence as an acceptable mode of interaction, in which it would be very hard to find a reason why it is not reasonable for you use violence to defend yourself.

Of course non of this leads to any fundamental stone tablet rights, but the nature of voluntary agreement, coupled with the concept of private societies means this isn't a huge problem, as it won't be very hard to find lots of people who agree to the NAP, and then any moral rulings can be judged on top of the agreement people made.


I think there is scope for objectively defined morals, based on existent concepts, although I think human understanding of the origin of energy, and the nature and origin of spacetime will need to be vastly improved, in order to fully flesh out a concept of existence, and thereby the nature of "rights" within that existence, especially as so far, the nature of consciousness and sentience through energy is very poorly understood, though clearly there are a vast amount of universal features that are conducive to this.


So far I have heard no real solid argument or proof for how people can own land. The concept of trading land already owned is perfectly consonant, but the very process of originally obtaining land ownership seems extremely arbitrary and non rational to me.

The "finders keepers" model may work, but I see no reason why you somehow are granted negative rights through the process of finding land. If I am the first man on jupiter can I claim the whole planet?
Logged

NHArticleTen

  • Guest
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #55 on: February 13, 2009, 10:02:39 AM »

Belief in God is not essential for civilization nor does it constitute a competitive advantage (at least not any more).
How can we use science to figure out if there are rights?

Objectivism is the scientific method applied to philosophy.

However, much of what can be said to be rights, relies on certain metaphysical presuppositions.

Although even if morals are purely a matter of personal choice and have no fundamental existent roots, it is still possible, and preferable, to have an objectively consonant set of rights than a relativist set of rights.

If you take, even just a preference for the non aggression principle, then by consistently and objectively applying it to every area of morals, you will end up with a consonant moral framework.


Also, the idea of behavioral axioms leads. I.e. the kind of people who think its okay to steal from you have already shown that they think its okay to steal, so by restituting yourself, i.e. "stealing" your stuff back, you have not breached any sort of moral engagement.

In the same way, people who initiate violence on you are explicitly demonstrating that they accept violence as an acceptable mode of interaction, in which it would be very hard to find a reason why it is not reasonable for you use violence to defend yourself.

Of course non of this leads to any fundamental stone tablet rights, but the nature of voluntary agreement, coupled with the concept of private societies means this isn't a huge problem, as it won't be very hard to find lots of people who agree to the NAP, and then any moral rulings can be judged on top of the agreement people made.


I think there is scope for objectively defined morals, based on existent concepts, although I think human understanding of the origin of energy, and the nature and origin of spacetime will need to be vastly improved, in order to fully flesh out a concept of existence, and thereby the nature of "rights" within that existence, especially as so far, the nature of consciousness and sentience through energy is very poorly understood, though clearly there are a vast amount of universal features that are conducive to this.


So far I have heard no real solid argument or proof for how people can own land. The concept of trading land already owned is perfectly consonant, but the very process of originally obtaining land ownership seems extremely arbitrary and non rational to me.

The "finders keepers" model may work, but I see no reason why you somehow are granted negative rights through the process of finding land. If I am the first man on jupiter can I claim the whole planet?

not to pee on your parade...but...

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=27374.msg515632#msg515632

Clint Eastwood's Latest Interview Where He Bluntly Describes The Pussy Society!

http://screenrant.com/clint-eastwood-man-figuratively-literally-vic-4839/

http://www.esquire.com/features/what-ive-learned/clint-eastwood-quotes-0109?click=main_sr


Quote

    “My father had a couple of kids at the beginning of the Depression. There was not much employment. Not much welfare. People barely got by. People were tougher then.”

    “We live in more of a pussy generation now, where everybody’s become used to saying, “Well, how do we handle it psychologically?” In those days, you just punched the bully back and duked it out. Even if the guy was older and could push you around, at least you were respected for fighting back, and you’d be left alone from then on.”

    “I don’t know if I can tell you exactly when the pussy generation started. Maybe when people started asking about the meaning of life.”


John Wayne, Charles Bronson, Charlton Heston, and many others would say the same thing...

my sentiments exactly...

enjoy!

Logged

PaulO

  • Nobody Special
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #56 on: February 13, 2009, 02:34:10 PM »

They are the same in respect to the nature of ethics. Political theory is only possible by recognizing what ethics are consistent with it. And ethics are only possible by recognizing what epistemology is consistent with them. And epistemology is only possible by what metaphysics is consistent with it.

In essence, every political theory depends upon a metaphysics to justify everything it proposes indirectly, and the metaphysics (ethics, and epistemology) of the vast majority of religions are wholly incompatible with the ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics that justify libertarian political theory. It's just that simple.
Who is this type of post geared toward? The small minority of forum users that have extensively studied philosophy?

Back on topic: Just because the vast majority of religions as they are currently practiceed are wholly incompatible with libertarianism does not mean all religion is whollly incompatible with libertarianism.

I am a pro-liberty person who believes in a Creator. My beliefs do not require that you (or society in general) act the same as I do.
Logged

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #57 on: February 13, 2009, 02:38:03 PM »

They are the same in respect to the nature of ethics. Political theory is only possible by recognizing what ethics are consistent with it. And ethics are only possible by recognizing what epistemology is consistent with them. And epistemology is only possible by what metaphysics is consistent with it.

In essence, every political theory depends upon a metaphysics to justify everything it proposes indirectly, and the metaphysics (ethics, and epistemology) of the vast majority of religions are wholly incompatible with the ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics that justify libertarian political theory. It's just that simple.
Who is this type of post geared toward? The small minority of forum users that have extensively studied philosophy?
Everyone, because everyone has their own philosophy stated and unstated.

Quote
Back on topic: Just because the vast majority of religions as they are currently practiceed are wholly incompatible with libertarianism does not mean all religion is whollly incompatible with libertarianism.

I am a pro-liberty person who believes in a Creator. My beliefs do not require that you (or society in general) act the same as I do.
Here are three questions.

1) Which do you think is primary: Existence or Consciousness?

2) What is the justification for your ethics (Why follow them?)?

3) Do you trust your mind and your senses?
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane

PaulO

  • Nobody Special
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #58 on: February 13, 2009, 03:07:45 PM »

1) Which do you think is primary: Existence or Consciousness?
        I don't think there is a clear distinction. I'm waiting for science to learn more about the existence of
consciousness (and the consciousness of existence.)

2) What is the justification for your ethics (Why follow them?)?
        The full explanation would be very lengthy. To sum up: a large influence was the culture in which I was raised,
and my path from there to where I am now has been mostly due to personal study of nature and the Creator. 
 
3) Do you trust your mind and your senses?
        Good question, and one I have struggled with for years. The best I can say is that I do not completely trust
my senses and my experiences. I place more faith in deduction and reasoning, but I still make lots of mistakes
.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2009, 03:18:51 PM by PaulO »
Logged

Level 20 Anklebiter

  • Small, but deadly
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
Re: Libertarianism and Religion
« Reply #59 on: February 13, 2009, 03:26:36 PM »

1) Which do you think is primary: Existence or Consciousness?
        I don't think there is a clear distinction. I'm waiting for science to learn more about the existence of
consciousness (and the consciousness of existence.)

It's easy enough to know. Yell a mountain, "BREAK APART!" If it doesn't, then you know Existence is primary.


2) What is the justification for your ethics (Why follow them?)?
        The full explanation would be very lengthy. To sum up: a large influence was the culture in which I was raised,
and my path from there to where I am now has been mostly due to personal study of nature and the Creator.

But really, why follow ethics? Because it's right for X, Y, and Z reasons?
 
3) Do you trust your mind and your senses?
        Good question, and one I have struggled with for years. The best I can say is that I do not completely trust
my senses and my experiences. I place more faith in deduction and reasoning, but I still make lots of mistakes
.


If you cannot trust your senses then you can never trust your mind, one is derived from the other.
Logged
I hear thunder but there's no rain, this kind of thunder breaks walls and window pane
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 16   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Show
| | |-+  Libertarianism and Religion

// ]]>

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 31 queries.