The Libertarians Are Coming

[GIThruster]

Atheism is not involved with religion. It addresses the lack of belief in gods.
Not surprising you make another error regarding atheism.

You keep saying this over and over and people keep correcting you again and again. You are splitting hairs here and need to recognize that just 'cause you say it don't make it so. If you study world religions, you'll find "Atheism" in the book. If you study philosophy of religion, you'll find that all the traditional arguments in that fantastically old field, have atheist objections. The atheist position, is what is the other side of the argument for theism from design, or the historic "Problem of Evil", etc.

Note too that Atheism has it's own religious chaplains. The one from Harvard was on TV the other night. Note religions like Taoism and Buddhism are technically atheist because they don't believe in a personal Being as God. Etc. ad nauseam.

So how about you get with the program and use the title the same way everyone else does, including most atheists? You sound like you're squabbling just for the sake of seeming a dick-head.

You don;'t get to tell us all to change the way to use the language, simply to satisfy your own vanity, and once again, you are doing your best to seem a prick for the sake of being a prick. How do you suppose that makes the other atheists here feel? They're embarrassed by you, Stubby. Stop acting like a troubled child.

[Diogenes]

D,

Adams was quite familiar with atheists. He had no ill will for them in so far as I can tell.

He acknowledged that they existed in small numbers and was willing to put up with them.

So how can a people be moral without religion? You ought to ponder that question.

Have pondered it quite a lot and for a very long time. The answer keeps coming back that they can't.


Oh, there are plenty of atheists nowadays that would be regarded as moral, but as the entire society which surrounds them is suffused with Judeo-Christian ideologoy/ethics, this is not a test of an atheist only system.

Atheists intent to create their own culture don't seem to do so well.


In any case, all current atheists in Western Society are contaminated with Religion.

I have and laid down what I thought were some good rules. In any case the coming generation is not very religious so that is an important question. And of course the Libertarian Party - which is gaining philosophical if not political power (yet) is VERY atheist friendly. And given the popularity of the Paul's they also seem to be socon friendly. In my local area there is a libertarian socon who blogs occasionally that I am very friendly with. Here are some links:

http://tmbridgeland.hubpages.com/hub/Li ... il-Failure

I wrote some about him here: http://classicalvalues.com/2012/07/a-so ... tarianism/

Will check it out.

I know you hang out at Reason from time to time. You will note that those favoring Pax Americana are getting a respectful hearing. Something I had not seen in decades past. The isolationist wing is not exactly on the run. But it seems to have been trimmed some.

"Reason" is perfectly reasonable if you keep them away from opining on moral issues, on which their confirmation bias is so strong that they cannot fathom opposition arguments.

BTW given your own irreligion don't you find it ironic to be promoting religion?

Very much so. When I was a kid, I HATED being forced to go to church. It was boring and pointless in my mind. I wasn't committing any of the sins they constantly droned on about, nor did I have any intentions of doing so. It was a meaningless ritual in my younger understanding of the practice.

Now that i've become older, I have began to see the beneficial aspects of the practice. I also see how distractions (such as television) have undermined it. Back when there was nothing better to do, going to church was less boring for the populace than sitting at home.

Kind of hard to make a case for - "you should believe this, I don't." Or "it would be good for me if you believed this." Yeah. It would be good for me if you believed I was God. Gifts accepted. You CAN buy my favor. For a while. Heh.

I don't make a point to advertise agnosticism. It doesn't bother me that people believe in higher power(s), and I feel no compulsion to make them believe otherwise. I have come to recognize that a belief in a higher power is the lynch pin that keeps our society civilized. I was encouraged to discover that the founders (some of the most brilliant men of their time) have likewise recognized this.

[Diogenes]

Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.
John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson (19 April 1817)

Atheism is not involved with religion. It addresses the lack of belief in gods.
Not surprising you make another error regarding atheism.

I see no point in responding to anything you write. Your attempts at reasoning are only worthy of dismissal without consideration.


Maybe when you grow up a bit, i'll reconsider looking at your arguments.



Edit to fix broken quote brackets.

[williatw]

The God Delusion Debate (Dawkins-Lennox)
http://fixed-point.org/index.php/video/ ... nox-debate

[Stubby]

Atheism is not involved with religion. It addresses the lack of belief in gods.
Not surprising you make another error regarding atheism.

You keep saying this over and over and people keep correcting you again and again. You are splitting hairs here and need to recognize that just 'cause you say it don't make it so. If you study world religions, you'll find "Atheism" in the book. If you study philosophy of religion, you'll find that all the traditional arguments in that fantastically old field, have atheist objections. The atheist position, is what is the other side of the argument for theism from design, or the historic "Problem of Evil", etc.

Note too that Atheism has it's own religious chaplains. The one from Harvard was on TV the other night. Note religions like Taoism and Buddhism are technically atheist because they don't believe in a personal Being as God. Etc. ad nauseam.

So how about you get with the program and use the title the same way everyone else does, including most atheists? You sound like you're squabbling just for the sake of seeming a dick-head.

You don;'t get to tell us all to change the way to use the language, simply to satisfy your own vanity, and once again, you are doing your best to seem a prick for the sake of being a prick. How do you suppose that makes the other atheists here feel? They're embarrassed by you, Stubby. Stop acting like a troubled child.

I really doubt that the humanist chaplains that happen to be atheist would agree that they are religious. Only the misguided fools who think atheism is another religion would think such silliness.

Atheism has no bearing on religions. As you pointed out, there are atheist religions like buddhism and raelianism etc. In other words religion and atheism are not mutually exclusive. I have made that point several times. Glad you agree.

Diogenes implied that Adams' quote about religion refers to atheism. The rejection of religion is not atheism, it is deism or are you going to be silly about the definition of deism too?. There were not many acknowledged atheists in the late 18th century, and iirc none among the Founding Fathers however there were many deists. Therefore it more likely that Adams is referring to his contemporaries among the FF who eshewd religions.

Which is exactly the point I made.

So WTF are you talking about?

[paperburn1]

I do find most atheist misquote John Adams, they tend to take only a portion of his statement and use that to ''prove" their point or infer that he was an atheist. When in fact he was using a Function of an Argument to prove his religious point later in his letters. This and numerous mis-attributed quotes have been gather to show that he was an atheist when in reality he was systemically devout.
Goff acknowledges Fielding's "persuasive argument that Adams never was a deist because he allowed the suspension of the laws of nature and believed that evil was internal, not the result of external institutions."
Frazer notes that, while Adams shared many perspectives with deists, "Adams clearly was not a deist. Deism rejected any and all supernatural activity and intervention by God; consequently, deists did not believe in miracles or God's providence....Adams, however, did believe in miracles, providence, and, to a certain extent, the Bible as revelation."Fraser argues that Adams' "theistic rationalism, like that of the other Founders, was a sort of middle ground between Protestantism and deism." By contrast, David L. Holmes has argued that John Adams, beginning as a Congregationalist, ended his days as a Christian Unitarian, accepting central tenets of the Unitarian creed but also accepting Jesus as the redeemer of humanity and the biblical account of his miracles as true.
Howard Ioan Fielding (1940). "John Adams: Puritan, Deist, Humanist". Journal of Religion 20 (1): 33–46. doi:10.1086/482479. JSTOR 1198647.
Jump up ^ Philip Kevin Goff (1993) The Religious World of the Revolutionary John Adams, PhD dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, p. 382.
Jump up ^ Gregg L. Frazer (2004) The Political Theology of the American Founding, PhD dissertation, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, California, p. 46
Jump up ^ Gregg L. Frazer (2004) The Political Theology of the American Founding, PhD dissertation, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, California, p. 50
Jump up ^ David L. Holmes (2006) The Faiths of the Founding Fathers, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 73–78, ISBN 978-0-19-530092-5

[Teahive]

Some people really like to use the word "Control" because it's loaded with their preconceived bias. I like to use the word "Defense" as in not letting people screw me over by their foolish or reckless behavior.

Talking about words loaded with bias, the problem with that kind of "defense" which takes place in what someone else considers their domain is that they will inevitably interpret it as an attack.

Beyond that, if I don't have to pay financially for your behavior in the bedroom, and the consequences of it do not impact me adversely in some other way (such as AIDS infected blood donors, or the creation of children destined to become unwanted or criminals) then I don't see any reason why it makes any difference to me how people put their naughty bits together.

"Destined to become unwanted or criminals" sounds an awful lot like precrime. But we don't even have precogs.

[Stubby]

I don't make a point to advertise agnosticism. It doesn't bother me that people believe in higher power(s), and I feel no compulsion to make them believe otherwise. I have come to recognize that a belief in a higher power is the lynch pin that keeps our society civilized. I was encouraged to discover that the founders (some of the most brilliant men of their time) have likewise recognized this.

What does agnostocism have to do with belief? You are mixing two related but different things.

[paperburn1]

I kinda forgot what the original point for me was in this conversation.
So I am going to bow out.

[Betruger]

So how can a people be moral without religion? You ought to ponder that question.

Have pondered it quite a lot and for a very long time. The answer keeps coming back that they can't.

Horsepucky. I'm not religious and I watch things slip my grasp daily because one way or another it'd be unfair for me to take them. I mean mostly non-material things. Slacking off at work because no one would tell the difference or because everyone else is slackin. Paying with my time for others' well-being, for absolutely zero benefit to me besides a clear conscience. In fact it often gets to the point where I wonder if it really is worth it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3116678.stm

Monkeys have a sense of justice. They will protest if they see another monkey get paid more for the same task.
...
"They had never before been in any sort of situation where they were differentially rewarded," she said. "We put pairs of capuchins side by side and one of them would get the cucumber as a reward for a task." The partner sometimes got the same food reward but on other occasions got a grape, sometimes without even having to work for it."

The response was dramatic, the researchers said. "We were looking for a very objective reaction and we got one. They typically refused the task they were set," Sarah Brosnan said. "The other half of the time they would complete the task but wouldn't take the reward. That is a highly unusual behaviour. "Sometimes they ignored the reward, sometimes they took it and threw it down," she added.
The researchers were not surprised that the monkeys showed a sense of fairness, but they were taken aback that they would turn down an otherwise acceptable reward. "They never showed a reaction against their partner, they never blamed them," Sarah Brosnan said.

[GIThruster]

I have come to recognize that a belief in a higher power is the lynch pin that keeps our society civilized. I was encouraged to discover that the founders (some of the most brilliant men of their time) have likewise recognized this.

You've mentioned this very briefly before. What I got from it was, that you see the utility of religion in much the same way as Rousseau does in his Social Contract. For those who've never indulged, let me note our entire government is based on Rousseau's ideas save that we did not have religion embedded in the center of our government. This single issue forms the main difference between our government here in the US and all other previous governments. Rousseau himself argues both sides of the issue and goes out pro-religion, being essentially what the French have. A distillation of the Social Contract on this issue follows, as it should be part of everyone's understanding of political philosophy and underpin every reference to the mind of the founding fathers who were all intimate with this material. Without Rousseau, there would be no US as it exists today. And it does seem certainl that Rousseau was correct that religion is necessary to the state. Though no particular religion was instituted into the Constitution, religion and the religious were everywhere. It is the change to the fact this is no longer so, that is destroying our nation. Just as Os Guiness writes in his The Dust of Death, our nation will indeed destroy itself as the people shed their religion.

Rousseau and Religion

1. Introduction

Rousseau concludes his Social Contract with a chapter on
religion. His view on the subject is subtle and interesting; and
moreover, I maintain that it provides us with one of the keys to
Rousseau's thought. Rousseau's near-deification of the General Will
has led many analysts to argue that Rousseau's state is merely
secularized Christianity. A careful examination of this chapter may
well help us understand to what extent this thesis is correct.

2. Rousseau's Typology of Religion

Strangely, Rousseau begins by telling us that there are two
types of religion, but winds up giving us three. "Religion, considered
in connection with societies, whether general or particular, can be
divided into two categories, the religion of the man and the religion
of the citizen." (p.181) The religion of the man is informal and
unorganized, centering on morality and the worship of God. The
Christianity of the Gospels is Rousseau's example. In contrast, the
religion of the citizen is what has been called "civil religion." This
is the religion of a single country, a national religion. Such a
religion is organized and hierarchical, with formal dogmas. It
teaches love of country, obedience to the state, and martial virtues.
The religions of ancient peoples like the Romans fit this mold.
To this list Rousseau adds a third religion. Unlike the religion
of the man, it is organized and hierarchical, with precise dogmas.
Unlike civil religion, it is independent of the state, in the sense that
it is international and has its own agenda. It may counsel
patriotism, but only in a limited fashion, because it is the religion
of many nations rather than one. A religion of this kind is a
competitor to the state for the allegiance of citizens, and it
produces internal division as a consequence. Catholicism is
Rousseau's favorite example of this kind of religion.

3. Rousseau's Critique of the Three Types

To begin with, Rousseau is clearly not hostile to religion as
such: "no state has ever been founded without religion at its base."
(p.180) But he does have serious complaints about each of the three
types of religion. Let us examine his complaints, then see what
Rousseau judges to be the least defective of the three.

To begin with, Rousseau will have no truck with the third kind
of religion - organized yet separate from the state. As Rousseau
tells us, "The third kind is so manifestly bad that the pleasure of
demonstrating its badness would be a waste of time. Everything
that destroys social unity is worthless; and all institutions that set
man at odds with himself are worthless." (p.181) The problem, in
short, is that this kind of religion competes with the state for the
total allegiance of the people; in consequence, society is divided.
Individuals might think that conscience demands disobedience to the
state, and they would have an organized hierarchy to back them up
and marshall resistance. To a convinced corporativist like Rousseau,
this is intolerable.

Let us turn now to the first type of religion, exemplified by
the Christianity of the Gospels. At the outset, Rousseau tells us
that this form of religion is not only holy and sublime but true.
While that would appear to settle the matter, it doesn't for
Rousseau. Instead, he moves on to complain that simple Christianity
is bad for the state. Christianity is other-worldly, and therefore
takes away from citizens' love for life on earth as exemplified by
the state. As Rousseau explains, "Christianity is a wholely spiritual
religion, concerned solely with the things of heaven; the Christian's
homeland is not of this world." (p.183) In consequence, Christians
are too detached from the real world to fight against domestic
tyranny. Moreover, Christians make bad soldiers, again because they
are other-worldly. They won't fight with the passion and patriotism
that a deadly army requires. Why any of this should count against
Christianity after its truth has already been conceded is hard to
understand.

We then turn to civil religion. It has much to recommend it:
"The second kind of religion is good in that it joins divine worship to
a love of the law, and that in making the homeland the object of a
citizens' adoration, it teaches them that the service of the state is
the service of the tutelary God." (pp.181-182) If the sole purpose of
religion is to butress the state, then a civil religion is the one to
pick: it inspires obedience and service, but could never become an
independent standpoint from which the state might be criticized or
called to task for misdeeds. Religion is necessary to provide the
state with moral underpinings; but if religion is separate from the
state, then there is always the danger that the decrees of religion
will fail to match those of the state, and instead positively mandate
disobedience.

Yet Rousseau cannot give a whole-hearted endorsement to civil
religion either. For one thing, "it is based on error and lies, it
deceives men, and makes them credulous and superstitious." (p.182)
Again, this would appear to be a fatal blow; but for Rousseau, it is
just one bad point to keep in mind. Civil religion also makes the
people "bloodthirsty and intolerant" and Rousseau doesn't like that
either.

4. Rousseau's Compromise and the General Will

After considering the advantages and drawbacks of different
sorts of religion, Rousseau figures out a compromise. Tolerance
should be granted to all religions that will grant it to others.
Apparently, Rousseau believes to some extent in religious tolerance;
at the very least, uniformity is no longer achievable in the modern
world. In this sense, religion becomes a matter for private
conscience.

But that is not the end of the story. Rousseau wants to have a
public religion in another sense. Namely, he wants all people on pain
of banishment to accept some religious doctrines, "not strictly
speaking as religious dogmas, but as expressions of social
conscience." (p.186) The state should not establish one religion, but
it should use the law to weed out any religions which are socially
harmful. All legal religions must accept: "The existence of an
omnipotent, intelligent, benevolent divinity that foresees and
provides; the life to come; the happiness of the just; the punishment
of sinners; the sancity of the social contract and the law." (p.186)
In addition, they must foreswear intolerance; not only "civil"
intolerance (The state must crush unbelievers) but also "theological"
intolerance (There is no salvation outside the church).
Rousseau makes an important exception to the last point
mandating tolerance: "unless the state is the church and the prince
is the pontiff. Such a dogma is only good in a theocratic government;
in any other, it is pernicious." (p.187, emphasis added) In principle,
then, the state may be as intolerant as it likes, so long as it is
theocratic.

This exception is particularly interesting in light of the
remainder of Rousseau's political theory. For suppose that the
General Will (in practical terms, the majority) believes that there is
no salvation outside of their church? Would it be wrong for them to
vote to establish their own view and crush all dissent? On
Rousseau's terms I can see no objection. It appears to be another
legitimate exercise of the General Will; and if the minority
disagrees, it is merely mistaken about what it wills and must be
forced to free. Rousseau's principles do not imply a theocratic
state; but so long as a majority of the people want it, it is not only
morally permissible but morally required. The charge that
Rousseau's system is just a secular version of Christianity is not
exactly correct; as a matter of fact, Rousseau's system gives a
secular justification for any form of popular intolerance, both
secular and religious.

[kunkmiester]

I read your comment several times in an effort to understand it. I failed.

Let me try, I've been thinking on it a few days. Looks like the thread has gotten ahead of me though.

You cannot do a "limited" government. It's the very nature of government to expand and increase until it's a total tyranny, or is overthrown. That's been proven out for all sorts of government all over the world ruling all sorts of people.

We're heading for a revolution. It'll happen, it's one of those things that's hard to put a good timeline on. After that revolution, people will try again to put together an enlightened government that truly serves the people (and not just the people in charge). The Constitution will be rewritten, with supposedly more and better bonds and limits to keep the government under control. It won't work. Government expands to tyranny or destruction, so in time, perhaps more time that we gave or perhaps less, it'll lead to another revolution.

To expand a bit, I feel that the growing speed of information will limit the time needed for the next cycle. The Romans had writing, the Founding Fathers had print, we have the internet. We will have the ability to see the descent into tyranny happen much sooner, understand where it's going much faster, and see the bonds breaking. That revolution will happen faster and then of course, being accustomed to the government, will place even more limits on it. Logical right? Rinse repeat.

At the end of history, we will be teaching our children how sad it was it took so much time and blood to understand the true nature of government and get rid of it all together. I don't know exactly what kind of social order they will live in, but it won't have a government, since people will get used to living without it looking over their shoulders, and it will become so dangerous but irrelevant that the government workers will just stop coming to work.

[Diogenes]

Some people really like to use the word "Control" because it's loaded with their preconceived bias. I like to use the word "Defense" as in not letting people screw me over by their foolish or reckless behavior.

Talking about words loaded with bias, the problem with that kind of "defense" which takes place in what someone else considers their domain is that they will inevitably interpret it as an attack.

Requiring people to inform a potential sex partner that they have a very serious sexually transmitted disease may feel like an attack to someone, but I don't give a sh*t if it does. Bedroom walls do not constitute a consequence free zone.

Beyond that, if I don't have to pay financially for your behavior in the bedroom, and the consequences of it do not impact me adversely in some other way (such as AIDS infected blood donors, or the creation of children destined to become unwanted or criminals) then I don't see any reason why it makes any difference to me how people put their naughty bits together.

"Destined to become unwanted or criminals" sounds an awful lot like precrime. But we don't even have precogs.

It sounds like the all too often occurrence of children growing up to be criminals because there was no father present at home to provide discipline and thereby tame the normal wild nature of young men.


You invoke "Precrime" because you are really stuck on favoring that "anything goes in the bedroom" opinion you have developed. It doesn't take a great powers of prognostication to realize that creating fatherless children is a recipe for social deconstruction.


The problem with Libertarians is that they cannot fathom a scope of consequences beyond the immediate. Their minds can't, or won't follow a chain of causality past one or two iterations.

[Diogenes]

So how can a people be moral without religion? You ought to ponder that question.

Have pondered it quite a lot and for a very long time. The answer keeps coming back that they can't.

Horsepucky. I'm not religious and I watch things slip my grasp daily because one way or another it'd be unfair for me to take them. I mean mostly non-material things. Slacking off at work because no one would tell the difference or because everyone else is slackin. Paying with my time for others' well-being, for absolutely zero benefit to me besides a clear conscience. In fact it often gets to the point where I wonder if it really is worth it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3116678.stm

Did you overlook, or deliberately ignore my point that the morality of modern day atheists is the byproduct of the Ocean of Christianity surrounding them?

*YOU* cannot be an example of an atheist having morality because you cannot separate the influence of Christianity from your moral decision making process. You are contaminated, tainted, infused with Christian doctrine/practice whether you realize it or not.


The only way to test Atheism as a moral system is to have a society which is completely atheist, and therefore which has no cross contamination from Judeo-Christian morality. So far, those types of societies haven't lasted long.

Monkeys have a sense of justice. They will protest if they see another monkey get paid more for the same task.
...
"They had never before been in any sort of situation where they were differentially rewarded," she said. "We put pairs of capuchins side by side and one of them would get the cucumber as a reward for a task." The partner sometimes got the same food reward but on other occasions got a grape, sometimes without even having to work for it."

The response was dramatic, the researchers said. "We were looking for a very objective reaction and we got one. They typically refused the task they were set," Sarah Brosnan said. "The other half of the time they would complete the task but wouldn't take the reward. That is a highly unusual behaviour. "Sometimes they ignored the reward, sometimes they took it and threw it down," she added.
The researchers were not surprised that the monkeys showed a sense of fairness, but they were taken aback that they would turn down an otherwise acceptable reward. "They never showed a reaction against their partner, they never blamed them," Sarah Brosnan said.

There is an inherent tendency towards fairness with the members of one's own tribe, but it does not extend to others outside of this group. The notion that we should have concern for others outside of our own little gene pool is the consequence of Christian teachings. This can be learned, but it is not inherent.

Take a look at how monkeys behave toward each other when they are from different tribes.

[williatw]

*YOU* cannot be an example of an atheist having morality because you cannot separate the influence of Christianity from your moral decision making process. You are contaminated, tainted, infused with Christian doctrine/practice whether you realize it or not.

The only way to test Atheism as a moral system is to have a society which is completely atheist, and therefore which has no cross contamination from Judeo-Christian morality. So far, those types of societies haven't lasted long.

And therein lies the problem with someone like Dawkins. Their stubborn refusal to acknowledge the irrational impulses that drive human beings, his refusal to see that most people are not as rational as he thinks he is. Lennox tried to point that out in mentioning Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler, but Dawkins response is well they weren't necessarily atheist, and even if they were it’s beside the point because most atheist aren't like them. Yes the threat of the big bad daddy in the sky will punish you in the end if you mess up, even if no person manages to, is the basis for our laws/morals. The rise of Nazism, Communism, Fascism, etc. is the result of telling the masses that there is no afterlife, no big daddy in the sky who will ultimately hold you to account if you screw-up. The emotion based need in people to believe in something merely defaults to ideology, if there is no religion. Sure you would probably love you mother, father, sibs, relatives anyway, and to a progressively lesser degree those around you in order of your closeness to them, but when it comes to the "other" that isn't of your "tribe" Katie bar the door. I do not find Dawkins explanation for the orderliness of the Universe we live in and the way the rules/conditions seem to be setup to make life possible satisfying either. There are supposedly and infinite (or very large) no. of "multiverses" where everything is screwed-up and we just hit the winning lottery ticket universe so to speak. The fact that there is no evidence of these other universes is beside the point; it is the lesser extraordinary claim then that of a creator. If atheists like him succeed in getting rid of Judeo-Christian religion, it will either default to one of the above "ism's" or some virulent religion like Muslim extremism...love to see how someone like Dawkins would fare under the gentle rule of the Caliph.