[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 8teen / asmr / fur / htg / marx / mtrx / newbrit / ttgg ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


A recognized Safe Space for liberty - if you're triggered and you know it, clap your hands!

File: a1f1108908c01ae⋯.jpg (34.12 KB, 464x444, 116:111, hS0UepB_d.jpg)

 No.55565

History, I believe furnishes no example of a priest ridden people maintain g a free civil government. " - Thomas Jefferson.

 No.55568

>>55565

>OP doesn't realize that Jefferson is talking about State Established religions like Catholicism or the Church of England


 No.55569

>>55565

Then libertarianism is the problem.


 No.55588

What if they are both wrong?


 No.55591

We need to have Bolshevik-tier anti religious terror tbh


 No.55597

File: f51df0abbd7bba0⋯.jpg (41.85 KB, 163x255, 163:255, Erik_von_Kuehnelt-Leddihn.jpg)

>>55565

WRONG

Anarchism? Yes

Libertarianism as a whole? NO


 No.55598

>these triggered christcucks

ayyy


 No.55599

>>55565

>Religion is incompatible with libertarianism

Religion is incompatible with itself. It therefore cannot be logically compatible with anything else.

A religious person can be a libertarian insofar as the human mind is capable of maintaining faith in contradictory premises. A religious person can be a libertarian just as much as a religious person can be a religious person.


 No.55600

But wouldn't they have more liberty if they were able to practice their religion?


 No.55601

>>55599

>Religion is incompatible with itself.

How many Atheistic societies have there been in history that have amounted to anything? Democracy itself was invented by Pagans.


 No.55602

File: b1e32b6e71a0598⋯.jpg (145.63 KB, 1264x618, 632:309, b1e32b6e71a059866918d31c1e….jpg)


 No.55605

>>55601

Start arguing anytime.


 No.55606

>>55565

> religion is incompatible with Libertarianism

Would you mind expanding upon that thesis?


 No.55613

>>55602

>christian

>isn't holding up a pro-Israel sign

0/10 for accuracy


 No.55621

File: e677ca11007fd9e⋯.png (546.96 KB, 1299x676, 1299:676, fixed.png)


 No.55622

>>55605

I do not want to force you to practice my faith, nor do I wish to be forced to be an Atheist. If you want to burn, that's fine by me, I would encourage you to do otherwise, but I can't replace hearts of stone with hearts of flesh through force. My allegiance to the Pontiff is my own, and if you wish to persecute me for it, then I get the honor of dying a martyr.

That said, could you please name a historic Atheist society for me… because your reply makes me think you can't… and after several thousand years of human civilization, one can't help but think that if a society built on Atheism could exist, it would have by now. The belief that there is no god is far from a new idea.

>>55613

>Zionism is Christian

What are you, a Republican-shill?

Why would I bother with Israel? The Church is the new Israel…


 No.55623

File: 59d6508130e29d6⋯.gif (36.84 KB, 378x200, 189:100, Image24.gif)

File: cb51ab4cfb64c73⋯.gif (73.83 KB, 468x240, 39:20, 1055_13.gif)

File: f4f03db0a709230⋯.gif (25.89 KB, 468x240, 39:20, 1000_07.gif)

>>55621

See, you're confusing Catholics with other branches of Christianity…


 No.55624

File: eadc15bdc4b033e⋯.mp4 (1.99 MB, 640x360, 16:9, hitlerdidnothingwrong.mp4)

File: 00ac3c278c00394⋯.webm (1.1 MB, 426x240, 71:40, traditional kebab removal.webm)

File: 54f84942a727e8b⋯.webm (225.41 KB, 320x240, 4:3, youniggasarecrazy.webm)


 No.55626

>>55623

Yeah it's not like it was the catholics that went on a muderous rampage across Europe for what was essentially a medieval (((War On Terror))) and oversaw Judaism's monopolization of usury, banks and ultimately money itself. And Catholicism is doesn't have a central authority run by a marxist.


 No.55628

>>55626

>Yeah it's not like it was the Catholics that went on a murderous rampage across Europe for what was essentially a medieval (((War On Terror))) and oversaw Judaism's monopolization of usury, banks and ultimately money itself.

>Kike-on-a-Stick-tier memes

The Templars were the economic management of the Church m8. The Jews took over money when people turned from the church, not while the church was in power. Also, it wasn't a Medieval war on terror, it was quite literally a Muslim invasion. The Moors aren't some made up group m89. But hey, if you really miss them, you could always go be the Saudi's ass slave. More importantly, the motivation of the crusades wasn't Zionism. Catholics hate "Jews", just as much as we hate Muslims, though arguably less than we hate Protestants. Tolerance is just that, toleration, and it's slowly dying as time goes on, and more and more people die thanks to Allah. The pope hasn't invoked infallibility in decades either, so it's not like anything he say has to change our views. Why not learn about the Church instead of spouting Atheist and /pol/ memes?

> And Catholicism is doesn't have a central authority run by a marxist

>"Thus we find every tyrant backed by a Jew, as is every pope by a Jesuit. In truth, the cravings of oppressors would be hopeless, and the practicability of war out of the question, if there were not an army of Jesuits to smother thought and a handful of Jews to ransack pockets."

-Karl Marx

Sure thing pal. Also, aren't you a Monarchist? How do you think they established rule? It isn't called the Divine Right of Kings for nothing. How else do you expect people to be subservient to a ruler?


 No.55631

>>55628

>The Jews took over money when people turned from the church, not while the church was in power

So I take it no usury happened at all while The Church was in power? Were the jews running the banks before Christianity saved them from getting cucked by jews? The jews in Europe must have been very powerful before Christianity, considering how anti-jew the religion is…

>it wasn't a Medieval war on terror, it was quite literally a Muslim invasion

Yeah, I forgot about how those east european pagans and christians wanted to enforce Sharia Law.

>The pope hasn't invoked infallibility in decades either, so it's not like anything he say has to change our views

Sure. But he's still in an influential and esteemed position so you're not really that much better than the american judeo-christians.

>How do you think they established rule? It isn't called the Divine Right of Kings for nothing. How else do you expect people to be subservient to a ruler?

Christians didn't invent Monarchism. And even still I don't believe in a "Divine Right of Kings" under any god. One good thing about religion is that in the face of tyranny, it gives people hope that doesn't exist. People will believe that a god could side with them against the tyrant in a deus ex machina so whether they are right or not, it emboldens them to do stupid shit that goes against all self-preservation instincts but secures the liberty of their families. When some clown tells everyone that an omnipotent god says that he must be king, that defeats the purpose. It's no different to Stalin's militant atheism and in fact it is worse because the tyrant has a god and an army.

My idea of monarchism is a single leader who actually deserves the position. Heredity is okay but optional. Not a narcissist that presumes to know the opinions of a divine being. The people will follow the will of the king because he is respected and there is mutual benefit to his wise leadership, not because they think G-d chose him to enslave them and lay claim to their stuff.


 No.55632

File: 9fc2846a15b465b⋯.jpg (238.8 KB, 1198x2080, 599:1040, Tiers of the Church.jpg)

>>55631

>So I take it no usury happened at all while The Church was in power?

Given that it's a Mortal Sin (ie. The kind you go to hell for)

> Were the jews running the banks before Christianity saved them from getting cucked by jews?

What does this mean?

>The jews in Europe must have been very powerful before Christianity, considering how anti-jew the religion is…

>considering how anti-jew the religion is…

They killed Christ, and believe he is in hell boiling in excrement. THAT'S why we hate them. You don't know anything about either religion do you?

>Yeah, I forgot about how those east european pagans and christians wanted to enforce Sharia Law.

One Crusade out of all of them had this happen. The first crusade was reactionary, and in the others ones we actually were there to help Constantinople. Or should I call it Istanbul now?.. Do you really want to sit here and pretend like Islam isn't the Aggressor, especially given current events?

>Sure. But he's still in an influential and esteemed position so you're not really that much better than the american judeo-christians.

You think everyone in the Vatican is Liberal? The Cardinal considered most likely to be the next Pope said Islam is a Disease. The Vatican is not this homogeneous entity that outsiders pretend it is. Debate is frequent and healthy. Also, by this same logic you should idolize no one, and given that I see Hoppe and Rothbard depicted like they're the second coming here it's obvious Atheists have figures who also hold a position of esteem to them. Also, don't use the term "judeo-christian". Period. That term is an invention of the Jews and Zionists to act like we have common ground. We do not.

>Christians didn't invent Monarchism. And even still I don't believe in a "Divine Right of Kings" under any god.

Then it's a bit hard to justify Monarchism given that every Monarchical state in Europe and elsewhere employed this principle. And that when they lessened their stance on it by allowing democracy, one by one each monarchy crumbled.

>One good thing about religion is that in the face of tyranny, it gives people hope that doesn't exist. People will believe that a god could side with them against the tyrant in a deus ex machina so whether they are right or not, it emboldens them to do stupid shit that goes against all self-preservation instincts but secures the liberty of their families.

Yeah, sure. I mean people on here and on the right in general essentially argue that the values endorsed specifically by Western Christianity basically helped the west to become as advanced as it is, but I'm sure that it's all total BS. It's not like all other religious societies are still totally ass-backwards after centuries to thousands of years. It's not like Western Christianity was one of the biggest driving forces behind academia, scholarship, and colonialism or anything.

> When some clown tells everyone that an omnipotent god says that he must be king, that defeats the purpose. It's no different to Stalin's militant atheism and in fact it is worse because the tyrant has a god and an army.

But if the people believe that god has appointed that individual as ruler, then they will follow him quite literally religiously. The Anglican Church, The Papacy, and The Orthodox Church have stuck around through the rise and fall of dozens of other Monarchies. The Royal family has almost no relevance in politics yet are still beloved by their country, and are as such one of the only remaining Royal Bloodlines in Europe. Why do you think that is? Could it be because they are also the heads of the Church as well as heads of state? And if you didn't know that the royal family is effectively the papacy of the Anglican Church, here you go. Same goes for the Czars, who were effectively the heads of the Orthodox Church. Contrast that with Secular or Protestant rulers, which change constantly, and there you have it.

>My idea of monarchism is a single leader who actually deserves the position. Heredity is okay but optional. Not a narcissist that presumes to know the opinions of a divine being.

Then expect an early insurrection the minute somebody dislikes what he does. True power must come from something deeper than just the works of men. Faith is key to obedience m8. A constitution or declaration from mere men means nothing to the people.

>The people will follow the will of the king because he is respected and there is mutual benefit to his wise leadership, not because they think G-d chose him to enslave them and lay claim to their stuff.

That's not how the Divine right of kings works and it never has been. There can be a constitution and freedom even if rule is divine. Look at the Magna Carta. Also…

>not because they think G-d chose him to enslave them and lay claim to their stuff.

>G-d

…Are you a Jew? I only know Jews that don't say God, because the Hebrew Bible lacks vowels… like YHWH instead of Yahweh… If so well played Mensch.


 No.55633

>>55631

>>55626

>>55621

You seem ignorant of historic Christian attitudes to Jews. The love of Jews is a new conception caused by the Reformation. Before that Judaism was persecuted.

Protestants love money, are licentious, and promote 'freedom'. Many also hold that Jews are still God's chosen people, rather than being superceded by Christians.


 No.55634

>>55632

>>G-d

>…Are you a Jew?

Censoring the O in God while talking about the jews is a joke. A old and tired joke, but still a joke.

I am also requesting a image of psychologist's report, I legitimately believe it should mention "autism" somewhere in it.


 No.55636

>>55634

Do you mean the one where Atheists are shown to be more prone to autism?


 No.55637

File: 6c2df1fb49a6d12⋯.jpg (30.38 KB, 720x480, 3:2, 1440988727499.jpg)

>>55636

I shouldn't reply but you might have actually misunderstood it.

No, I mean you and only you.


 No.55638

File: fb6d0a4692a6ac6⋯.pdf (298.7 KB, atheists.pdf)


 No.55639

>>55638

Its damage control form what I understand. You could quit this conversation right there and within a week nobody would even remember that you didn't understand some imageboard in-joke.


 No.55640

File: 25cafade6e44fca⋯.jpg (13.5 KB, 220x145, 44:29, throw thyself.jpg)

>>55639

>Its damage control form what I understand.

lel

>You could quit this conversation right there and within a week nobody would even remember that you didn't understand some imageboard in-joke.

You mentioned the jews once, way earlier on. Unless you're saying Christians are Jews. In which case, pic related.

It seems like you're focusing on this, to avoid any point I brought up…


 No.55641

>>55640

>It seems like you're focusing on this, to avoid any point I brought up…

The person you're actually replying to will come back anytime soon.


 No.55642

>>55641

So you're just not gonna offer anything?


 No.55664

File: bb0fd113386612f⋯.png (1.32 MB, 1200x1800, 2:3, 1451747826104.png)

File: af417bdade359a6⋯.jpg (46.53 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, bluepillstarter.jpg)

>>55632

>What does this mean?

Well you christians always harp on about how anti-semetic you are, but strangely Europe had no jews before Christianity yet after Christianity the native religions were almost entirely wiped out yet there are millions of jews. It's almost as though you're full of shit…

>Do you really want to sit here and pretend like Islam isn't the Aggressor, especially given current events?

The Northern Crusaides were unjustified. That they happened shows that the Templars were not brave protectors of Europe, but rather just good goyim fighting a banker war.

>The Vatican is not this homogeneous entity that outsiders pretend it is. Debate is frequent and healthy

That's not the point.

>Also, by this same logic you should idolize no one, and given that I see Hoppe and Rothbard depicted like they're the second coming here it's obvious Atheists have figures who also hold a position of esteem to them

Dude, what?

>Also, don't use the term "judeo-christian". Period. That term is an invention of the Jews and Zionists to act like we have common ground. We do not.

And who do you think I'm talking about?

>Then it's a bit hard to justify Monarchism given that every Monarchical state in Europe and elsewhere employed this principle.

If a king can't justify his authority on merit alone then he has no right to boss others around.

>[a whole lot of irrelevant self-aggrandeurizing shit based on misappropriating credit and full of convinient ignorances]

Wow, you sure got me there! Who needs "liberty" anyway? FUCK having a right to keep and bear arms!

>and on the right in general

Here's your shirt, brah.

>But if the people believe that god has appointed that individual as ruler, then they will follow him quite literally religiously

Oh, like how the norks follow Kimmy and the chesscucks follow Trump?

>Then expect an early insurrection the minute somebody dislikes what he does

Then he should probably do a good job and not step on too many toes, shouldn't he? If he does a good job, then the people that like what he does will protect him from the ones that disagree.

>Look at the Magna Carta.

You mean the document that was written when the "divinely ruling" king's subordinates threatened to revolt?

>…Are you a Jew?

Do you have autism?

>>55638

>dailymail

>huffingtonpost


 No.55671

>>55622

>I do not want to force you to practice my faith, nor do I wish to be forced to be an Atheist.

Yeah, that wasn't proposed. I've got no cause to interfere in your actions so long as you don't interfere in anyone else's. That has nothing to do with the fact that religion is in conflict with itself. I merely am highlighting rational points, not making policy proposals. One would think the AnCap flag would tip you off to that.

Nobody's proposing to prohibit you from declaring that one plus one is three, either, but I will point out that the claim is wrong, even if you've got every right to make it.

Be religious if you want. Input was requested on the topic, so I gave it.

>could you please name a historic Atheist society for me

Why? What does that have to do with logic?

>after several thousand years of human civilization, one can't help but think that if a society built on Atheism could exist, it would have by now

That's some tortured reasoning, right there. By that thinking, nothing new can come about, because if it could, it would have after these thousands of years.

Further, even presuming that you were right, and presuming that we even have a clear definition of what an "Atheist society" exactly is, and presuming that no there really is no such society to be found (honestly I don't see that it's relevant, so I haven't bothered; maybe there is and maybe there isn't), that still wouldn't be an argument that religion is logically compatible with itself. The assertion that there simply cannot be an Atheist society, even if somehow absurdly true, does not prove that religion is logically consistent.

It'd be like trying to prove mathematical theorems by showing that mathematicians who believe in those theorems live decent enough lives; it makes no sense.

>The belief that there is no god is far from a new idea.

Atheism is the lack of belief that there is a god, not the belief that there is no god. The logical distinction is significant.


 No.55675

Organized religion is cancer, but I don't see anything wrong with folk faith.

It's necessary for a community to believe in something greater.


 No.55677

>>55664

>Well you christians always harp on about how anti-semetic you are, but strangely Europe had no jews before Christianity yet after Christianity the native religions were almost entirely wiped out yet there are millions of jews. It's almost as though you're full of shit…

No there were Jews in Europe. The roman empire had to put down several insurrections by them actually.

>The Northern Crusaides were unjustified. That they happened shows that the Templars were not brave protectors of Europe, but rather just good goyim fighting a banker war.

Paganism was viewed as just as much a threat as Islam. In fact Islam is technically Pagan. If you want to be like every fedora ever and harp on the crusades, fine. But this whole jew conspiracy you have is fucking retarded.

>That's not the point.

So a variety of opinions is unhealthy. A homogeneous echo-chamber of a governing body is better? Even kings have advisers whom they may disagree with.

>Dude, what?

You made it sound like holding an individual in esteem is bad. Just because I have allegiance to the church doesn't mean I'm unloyal or anything. Part of Christianity is to live in a manor so that you do not violate the law of the land you are in, yet also practice.

>And who do you think I'm talking about?

So you're generalizing all Christians as Zionist? OK…

>If a king can't justify his authority on merit alone then he has no right to boss others around.

The populous doesn't always recognize merit though, and they don't always like what is good for them. To the public, Merit isn't always visible, even if the results of an action are fruitful. You need other means to demand obedience. It's Machiavelli.

>Wow, you sure got me there!

Apparently, because all you've done is gotten asshurt and haven't actually refuted anything I said.

>Who needs "liberty" anyway?

You can have liberty, just don;t call me when you're in a lake of fire.

>FUCK having a right to keep and bear arms!

This is perfectly allowed and was common place in the middle ages… smh

>Here's your shirt, brah

Cute…nice refutation.

>Oh, like how the norks follow Kimmy and the chesscucks follow Trump?

No, because one is a military dictatorship, and the other stormfags. But let's just see how many more strawmen you can build…

>You mean the document that was written when the "divinely ruling" king's subordinates threatened to revolt?

John overstepped his bounds even as a king. Divine rule doesn't mean you do entirely as you please, it just gives you more social backing than secularism. Historically, his actions went beyond even those bounds.

>Do you have autism?

No, but I'm not Atheist

>>dailymail

>>huffingtonpost

Research-paper is attached bud, I hope you find it helpful given your affliction.


 No.55678

>>55677

>Paganism was viewed as just as much a threat as Islam. In fact Islam is technically Pagan. If you want to be like every fedora ever and harp on the crusades, fine. But this whole jew conspiracy you have is fucking retarded.

The northern crusades end up with catholic invading orthordox land, and catholic attacking catholic.

It was brother war.


 No.55679

>>55671

>That has nothing to do with the fact that religion is in conflict with itself.

Could you elaborate at all? firstly because you talk about all religion like there are no differences between them. Even the popes have acknowledged similarities between all religions, but acting like religion as a whole is a homogeneous body is disingenuous. Also, when you say "conflict within it self" do you mean across religions? denominations? just general theology? what?

>I merely am highlighting rational points, not making policy proposals.

Given the nature of the proposed concept in OP's post, you can (hopefully) imagine why I'm on the defensive though. Especially since I fully support Libertarian values, and can tell you that there is no conflict between my faith and them. I can't speak for other religions though. Whenever I see myself as potentially infringing on others, I just take the Benedict route, and that's totally fine by Catholic standards.

>Why? What does that have to do with logic?

Logically, given the 2000+ years of human history that we have on record, one can't help but imagine that an Atheist society would have come about sometime in the past., such as with democracy, monarchy, theocracy etc. The fact that there exist no records of such societies should be an indicator the they are incompatible with human nature, just as all societies before have had a form of social contract.

>That's some tortured reasoning, right there. By that thinking, nothing new can come about, because if it could, it would have after these thousands of years.

No, that's some tortured reasoning. Obviously, in regards to things like technology, it is a compounding effect. Each achievement builds upon previous ones to improve the overall purpose. When it comes to social systems however, it's quite different. Think about the market for example, it didn't just spring up out of nowhere, nor was it planned out by a single individual, rather it was chosen as an optimal system by a group of individuals based on self interest. To the same extent, this is generally how society develops. our hierarchies, beliefs and social systems all developed like this. Now, given how simple of a belief atheism is, would it not be reasonable to assume that, were this belief beneficial to mankind, it would have been more widely adopted by now? In the free market of ideas, atheism lost to religion thousands of years ago, yet we should now suddenly adopt this because "Progress"? Do you not think there may have been a reason religion was so widespread, and atheism so scarce? And i'm not even talking about Christianity here, I'm talking religion as a whole.

>Atheism is the lack of belief that there is a god, not the belief that there is no god. The logical distinction is significant.

Not in the net outcome…


 No.55685

>>55678

I've never heard it refereed to as the Northern crusades, and I mentioned them already. I thought you were referring to the movement into Scandinavia. And yeah, they were a mistake, and done for political rather than wholly religious reasons. But prior to it we fought along side the byzantine, and afterwards we were able to amend things. After all, like I said, it's Istanbul now…


 No.55686

>>55679

>firstly because you talk about all religion like there are no differences between them.

Religions more or less by definition include a belief in the supernatural, which is logically irreconcilable. The natural is that which exists, and the supernatural is by definition beyond the natural. Therefore, the assertion of the existence of the supernatural is the assertion of the existence of the nonexistent.

I do not assert that they are identical, and I recognize that there are differences between them. However, by virtue of being religions, they contain the aforementioned logical conflict. Each religion contains its own further errors, which are often efforts to reconcile the existence of the supernatural with observable reality. I do not claim them to be indistinguishable; only to be united in their errors at least by their defining characteristic.

>Given the nature of the proposed concept in OP's post, you can (hopefully) imagine why I'm on the defensive though.

That is indeed understandable. I would offer the observation that no policy prescriptions are contained in the OP, only the historical observation of a noted figure. One could argue (and I even might) that this observation is only trivially true, and of little useful insight. I would assert that a "free civil government" seems to be a concept at odds with itself, from my perspective as an AnCap, with little or no regard to the presence or absence of priests (until one goes down the path of discussion wherein a government is argued to be a religion itself, and thus its officers priests of a sort, but that conversation seems to stretch beyond the intent of the quote).

I can somewhat understand your concern, though, given the tendency of modern political though to resort at once to prohibiting whatever is argued to be undesirable.

>Logically, given the 2000+ years of human history that we have on record, one can't help but imagine that an Atheist society would have come about sometime in the past.

That is at best an inductive argument; and that's being charitable. The nature of social enforcement and general cognitive development make the development of large hogeneous Atheist groups from out of Theist societies rather unlikely. You might say this is precisely your "human nature" argument, and that may be so, but that still doesn't prove anything to do with the logic. Herd mentality appeals to people's human nature, but that doesn't mean it's logically sound. That most certainly doesn't mean that whatever the mob decides is right, despite the popularity of the idea that it is. You can't prove the validity or invalidity of a concept by attempting to appeal (especially without reliable citation) to consequences. That's a textbook fallacy.

>No, that's some tortured reasoning.

You've just asserted that your reasoning isn't tortured, but instead your reasoning is tortured. You've directly contradicted yourself in five words. I offered you precisely your own reasoning, and you both rejected and accepted it in a single sentence.

>Obviously, in regards to things like technology, it is a compounding effect. Each achievement builds upon previous ones to improve the overall purpose.

And you think culture and ideas don't follow the same principle?

>When it comes to social systems however, it's quite different.

You say this, but you don't go on to substantiate it, though you seem to believe that you have.

>Think about the market for example, it didn't just spring up out of nowhere, nor was it planned out by a single individual, rather it was chosen as an optimal system by a group of individuals based on self interest.

That's not what happened at all. "The Market" isn't a monolith, or a particular system in any meaningful regard. It's the aggregated practices, built up and constantly changing and evolving, over all of human history. Nobody "implemented" the market. The market is an abstract description of types of aggregate practices. Fractional reserve banking was new at one point, evolved alongside the development of currency and financial accounting, and still transforming to this day. Same with currency itself, business practices, trade, contracts, employment, and so on. The market is constantly transforming into something new by building upon the old; ideas building upon ideas. It is, if anything, proof that social systems constantly evolve and emerge.

>Now, given how simple of a belief atheism is, would it not be reasonable to assume that, were this belief beneficial to mankind, it would have been more widely adopted by now?

Not only are you still appealing to consequences, which is still a fallacy, but you have again mischaracterized Atheism as a belief system, implied that the simplicity of a concept equates to the ease with which it can gain traction, and provided a nonsensical image of cultural beliefs as being deliberately constructed and implemented rather than emergent and evolving.


 No.55687

>>55679

>In the free market of ideas, atheism lost to religion thousands of years ago, yet we should now suddenly adopt this because "Progress"?

You seem to have grossly misinterpreted the core of the discussion. Nobody's telling you "hey, be an Atheist in the name of Progress!". All that is being said is that logically, there is no rational reason to accept religion. Your entire argument thusfar has been to respond to that by saying that religion is successful in being popular, and therefore it must be right.

It took monotheism many thousands of years to really catch on, and Atheism isn't even much of a dedicated movement. It's characterized by what people don't believe, rather than what they do believe. It doesn't promise people anything. This lack of incentive structure makes it harder to appeal to people's irrational impulses. It has to appeal to reason, which isn't exactly very popular, especially among people who are too busy trying to get by to concern themselves with the study of formal logic.

>Not in the net outcome…

You are once again so concerned with consequences that you are willfully dismissing fundamental logic. A negative proposition is something entirely different from a positive one. You are trying to blur the distinction between opposition and negation.


 No.55688

>>55687

>You seem to have grossly misinterpreted the core of the discussion. Nobody's telling you "hey, be an Atheist in the name of Progress!". All that is being said is that logically, there is no rational reason to accept religion.

OP:

>Religion is incompatible with libertarianism

… It is in the name of "Progress", simply flown under a different banner.


 No.55689

>>55687

In ancapistan wouldn't it be more like individual faith becomes the norm because people find their own spirituality on their own or something?


 No.55695

>Religions more or less by definition include a belief in the supernatural, which is logically irreconcilable. The natural is that which exists, and the supernatural is by definition beyond the natural. Therefore, the assertion of the existence of the supernatural is the assertion of the existence of the nonexistent.

That is only insofar that you define existence from an empiricist perspective, which you seem to assert as the only logical perspective.

> would offer the observation that no policy prescriptions are contained in the OP, only the historical observation of a noted figure. One could argue (and I even might) that this observation is only trivially true, and of little useful insight.

That's not even the case though, since the assertion on this board seems to be that the only true Scotsman are anarchocapitalists, and all other forms of libertarianism less than that of Anarchism are invalid. As I stated in my first post, the notion that libertarian views as a whole are incomparable with organized religion is entirely untrue. Also, for any sort of Libertarian state, particularly Anarchist, to assert any view is incredibly with it's society is incredibly authoritarian.

>Herd mentality appeals to people's human nature, but that doesn't mean it's logically sound. That most certainly doesn't mean that whatever the mob decides is right, despite the popularity of the idea that it is.

OK then, I'll change my argument to fit your more empiricist view. The logical soundness in the case of the belief system itself isn't what I'm arguing here, what I'm arguing is that clearly when building any sort of functioning social unity, a unified set of beliefs based in theism is preferred by the vast majority of the the populous, across any sort of society, be the hierarchy strong or weak. I'm not arguing that the beliefs themselves are valid, but rather that, when it comes to building a functioning social unit, history shows that theism tends to bare more fruit with the masses and leaders alike, and this shows in most empires of the past, as well as general societies, since all of them had some form of near-homogeneous theistic belief. I terms of societies, the only empirical evidence we can draw from is sociology and history, and both support my claims. Rousseau argues for this better than I ever could in his concept of Civil Religion, I suggest you look into it.

>And you think culture and ideas don't follow the same principle?

No, being someone who works in sociology and economic, I can tell you that culture and ideas are more so cyclical than compounding. That's why I keep asserting that no idea in terms of sociology is new, because it's usually at least a derivative if not blatant rehash of a previous concept. The economy is cyclical, history is cyclical, society is cyclical. This is not a point I'm going to bend on. You can put up whatever wall of text you wish, all evidence points to the core principal of cyclical human societal development. There is a slight compounding in the splicing of various ideas, but to a negligible degree. The saying of being doomed to repeat history is more disturbingly true than you realize.


 No.55696

>>55695

>You say this, but you don't go on to substantiate it, though you seem to believe that you have.

I didn't feel I needed to given that it's rather clear through history. We have monarchies dating back to the first human society ever, to as recently as 100 years ago. That's very little change for such a huge span of time. And even then, republic systems like the US operate in a very similar manor to parliamentary monarchies. The parliamentary aspect is just an adaptation from greeco-roman republic/democratic systems, and even then it's only a partial adaptation. I didn't substantiate it because I assumed you were educated.

>It's the aggregated practices, built up and constantly changing and evolving, over all of human history. Nobody "implemented" the market

Wrong, the players must implement it, ya know, for it to exist and all. This is obvious. An aggregate system must be implemented in aggregate through natural observation and competition. In the words of Hayek "created without being designed". that being said, supply and demand are systematic functions of the market. As are competitive functions like price setting. A system doesn't need to be formalized or rigid to be a system.

>It is, if anything, proof that social systems constantly evolve and emerge.

Historically no, they don't emerge, but rather reemerge and are adapted. See the Renascence, enlightenment, and french revolution for ready examples. This is a recurring process that has happened throughout the whole of human history, and will likely continue to go on until we are dust.

>you have again mischaracterized Atheism as a belief system

Majority of modern Atheism insists that is is a derivative of Sciencism, If they believed in an absence of a higher power and nothing else, I'd see your point, but at that they may as well be Nihilists. It is a beliefe system, whether you want to accept it or not. https://www.atheists.org/


 No.55717

>>55671

>Atheism is the lack of belief that there is a god, not the belief that there is no god. The logical distinction is significant.

Agnostics also 'don't believe there is a God'. They 'lack belief in a God'. There are far more agnostics than convinced atheists.

Atheism means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. Most people find this a very unappetising belief, with little evidence. But atheists wish to actually tell people that God doesn't exist, and they are praying to nothing- they like feeling superior


 No.55718


 No.55719

>>55718

>the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

Seems like a fairly negative statement to me…


 No.55721

>>55688

>It is in the name of "Progress", simply flown under a different banner.

That's a rather bizarre reading.

>>55695

>That is only insofar that you define existence from an empiricist perspective, which you seem to assert as the only logical perspective.

Arguments from definition are a priori, not a posteriori like empiricism is. The rationalist perspective (not empiricist) is by definition the logical one, and permits by its nature other perspectives which extend beyond its scope so long as they do not conflict with it.

>That's not even the case though, since the assertion on this board seems to be that the only true Scotsman are anarchocapitalists, and all other forms of libertarianism less than that of Anarchism are invalid.

Even taking that as true as you've presented it, it still contains no policy prescriptions. In fact, Anarcho-Capitalism is incompatible with any policy prescription which consists of prohibiting religion. Sure, I can exclude the religious from my property (though that doesn't make it a good idea), but AnCap explicitly rejects such infringements upon your personal liberty.

> As I stated in my first post, the notion that libertarian views as a whole are incomparable with organized religion is entirely untrue.

And as I stated in my first post, while libertarian philosophy is logically incompatible with religious views, the capacity of human beings to function peacefully while holding contradictory viewpoints makes the practice of religion generally compatible with a libertarian social order.

I pointed out that it's philosophically confused, but absolutely no problem in practical terms so long as no breach of individual liberty is endorsed.

>The logical soundness in the case of the belief system itself isn't what I'm arguing here

Then you are not talking about what I am talking about, and your comments do not pertain to what I have said.

I've already examined and commented on your sociological theories, and have underlined what I observe to be your core logical errors, which you do not seem to have made any effort to amend. I have no further interest.

I'm glad we ironed this out.


 No.55722

File: a68f39b53465083⋯.jpg (51.42 KB, 800x654, 400:327, 57c62f767e8b6fbdeadee0e5c1….jpg)

>tfw this debate was more interesting than most of the shit that's on tv these days

Never change, /liberty.


 No.55723

As a sidenote, Christian schools that teach creationism objectively speaking give an inferior education logically, or when you account for demographics. Here libertarianism fails to bring the optimal result of efficiently providing better education and for more people.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/education-creationism-104934?o=0


 No.55724

>>55723

I will elaborate…

"Vouchers are in my opinion the single greatest threat to America as we know it. That is not hyperbole either.

When you look at the things that have made America great over the last 100+ years, one of the top reasons has been our ability to successfully socialize and integrate very large groups of immigrants into society. Our public education system has been a huge and underappreciated part of that.

Contrast the American public school system with many parts of Europe where they have allowed self-segregation by allowing students to attend religious schools instead of forcing all young people to go to school together.

In fact the communities we have failed the most have been where segregation remained. Specifically African-American's.

If we break this system we will see an increase of racism and an increase of sectarian problems in America.

Vouchers should in fact be outlawed. If you leave a child's education up to the parents, you will have unqualified uneducated people determining what is 'true" and creating future generations of unqualified uneducated people.

This is the most pressing problem in America today."


 No.55727

>>55723

https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/about/schools/PrivateSchoolResultsBrochureForNAEP2013.pdf

The article you linked to shows that Private Religious Schools provide a better education in all regards. Also, not all Christians endorse creationism. In fact, the Catholic Church has explicitly endorsed evolution, but doesn't mandate it's members take a specific stance.


 No.55729

>>55727

Obviously you haven't dove into the study and are suffering a delusional confirmation bias. Any kind of regression analysis will show that when you account for the kids who have rich and educated white dads entering school, they would have done equally well and in fact better at a regular school. Skim the cream top and put them at a private school and they will perform well even if the class were taught by trained monkeys who teach by turning on tape recorders. However, public schools hire more qualified and effective teachers, and stick with standard curriculum better which can be measured.

Private school effectively hurts your education in America, as a general rule of thumb according to the metrics. If you send your kids to one you have done them a disservice.


 No.55730

>>55729

These were standardized test results, and as stated, I got them from you're article.

>Any kind of regression analysis will show that when you account for the kids who have rich and educated white dads entering school, they would have done equally well and in fact better at a regular school.

https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2006461.asp

According to the "adjusted stats" here, there about par at the worst actually. At least in regards to Catholic and Lutheran schools. The study didn't look at Science, so I have no idea where you're getting your argument from, other than personal bias.


 No.55731

>>55724

Americans need to stop it with their boner for European schools. I went to one, and to this day, I cannot speak a proper French sentence despite French being a part of my curriculum for five years. No wonder, because we had a teacher that wasted literally half the class insulting us before she even made any pretense of teaching us something.


 No.55733

>>55731

>we had a teacher that wasted literally half the class insulting us before she even made any pretense of teaching us something.

What do you expect from French? :^)


 No.55734

>>55730

It says on that page that when you adjust for those characteristics, private schools perform either better than private schools for grade 4 math. Both were equal at grade 8 math and grade 4 reading. Private schools did do better at grade 8 reading. Perhaps this is because they teach kids by having them read the bible instead of learning real things pertaining to STEM.

>>55731

French are not the best at nurturing students. When a class ends the teachers go home and don't keep office hours, and kids are left on their own.


 No.55735

File: 814f41ac2855328⋯.png (17.23 KB, 470x298, 235:149, atheism suicide.png)

>>55734

>It says on that page that when you adjust for those characteristics, private schools perform either better than private schools for grade 4 math. Both were equal at grade 8 math and grade 4 reading. Private schools did do better at grade 8 reading.

So in fact religious schools do better, even after adjusting stuff?

> Perhaps this is because they teach kids by having them read the bible instead of learning real things pertaining to STEM.

Is this some kind of jibe? Why is axiomatically better for the average person to have studied STEM rather than learning about the Bible?

Most people will never use anything they learn at school. At least a religious education creates upstanding, moral citizens rather than soulless goyim


 No.55736

>>55735

>That muslim suicide rate

Excuse me are you serious? Is it because they're killing people before they can suicide?


 No.55737

>>55736

I'll admit I don't know where this came from.

Muslims generally are poor, have a collectivist mindset, and really believe in their religion


 No.55738

>>55737

Also they don't drink or do drugs and they probably keep in with the families

So important


 No.55753

File: d7d3308e8470f90⋯.jpg (51.57 KB, 550x386, 275:193, burj-khalifa.jpg)

>>55737

>Muslims generally are poor

Gee, almost as if relations to the means of production have an impact on their level of wealth


 No.55758

File: 5eb045a43dcba2a⋯.png (416.23 KB, 581x501, 581:501, Muh morality_There are no ….png)

>>55735

>Is this some kind of jibe? Why is axiomatically better for the average person to have studied STEM rather than learning about the Bible?

Studying science and math leads to quantifiable progress and inventions for society, while reading the bible leads to theology and gender studies.

>Most people will never use anything they learn at school.

Yeah yeah, and why even bother to teach them anything? Let's just have an ignorant population of middle schoolers who will vote for Donald Trump and the Christian Taliban and be cheated on contracts because they can't read or do accounting.

>At least a religious education creates upstanding, moral citizens rather than soulless goyim

Picture is for you. Religion is a poor source of ethics by any honest metric. In fact, it could make you more likely to go to prison.


 No.55762

>>55753

Cool story, bro. Now, could you please stop trying to take over this thread? This isn't East Germany.

>>55758

>Studying science and math leads to quantifiable progress and inventions for society

Neglecting cultural and ethical studies was exactly what created the positivist school, and is what fosters neopositivism today. The result were (and are) assholes that decry fundamental values and idiots that want to mold society into a utopia, always with no success.

>Yeah yeah, and why even bother to teach them anything? Let's just have an ignorant population of middle schoolers who will vote for Donald Trump and the Christian Taliban and be cheated on contracts because they can't read or do accounting.

Kind of like what we have nowadays, even though the great majority of children spend ten years of their lives in public schools.

Now, regarding your statistic: https://www.statista.com/statistics/234653/religious-affiliation-of-us-prisoners/

This one presents a different picture. 50% protestants, 14.5% catholics, 10% with no religious preference. That paints a different picture. So does this: http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html

>Attempts to "prove" either simplistic statement: "Religion leads to incarceration" or "Religion prevents incarceration" are polemical in nature and are neither academic in their approach nor statistially supportable. Neither statement is completely true, and both statements ignore the extremely large differences between religions. Each religious affiliation exhibits different statistical properties relating to incarceration. The actual situation in America can no more be summed up by a discussion of "atheists in prison vs. non-atheists in prison" than by analysis of "Buddhists in prison vs. non-Buddhists in prison."

>One atheist web page (http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm) presented statistics stating that 0.209% of federal prisoners (in 1997) stated "atheist" as their religious preference. This site said that this is far less than the 8 to 16% of the American population that are atheists. […] The atheist site, however, provided no source for the notion that "8 to 16%" of Americans are atheists. This statistic is completely without support from the available data. Gallup polls which include questions about religion have consistently shown that between 93 and 96% of Americans say that they believe in God. Presumably atheist writers would not suggest that up to half of their claimed "atheists" believe in God. The actual proportion of atheists in the United States is about 0.5% (half of one percent). This is the figure obtained from the largest survey of religious preference ever conducted: the National Survey of Religious Identification (Kosmin, 1990), which polled 113,000 people. The religious preference questions were part of questioning completely unrelated to religious preference (consumer preferences, entertainment, etc.), so the frequent retort of atheists that their numbers don't like to admit to atheism, and hence are undercounted, is unlikely.


 No.55765

File: c02f59b826eb1d4⋯.jpg (60.69 KB, 615x550, 123:110, sexist cheerios.jpg)

>>55753

>Gee, almost as if relations to the means of production have an impact on their level of wealth

Gee, it's almost more like the fact that most of these countries often have heavily authoritative governments that have restrictions on the market that almost choke the people inside has more impact on the economy then "owning the means of production" (which is entirely arbitrary, literally anything from the very computer that you're typing on can be used as a 'means of production) and that maybe doesn't actually mean much nor does it have that much to do with the situation in the Middle East.

Really activates those almonds.


 No.55768

>>55765

Fuck's up with that picture?


 No.55770

>>55768

John Greene, he's a rather popular youtuber who runs a channel called "Crash Course History", he's also a bit of an SJW and compared complaints about not being someone's first sexual partner to someone's complaints about not being the first person to eat cheerios.

As you can tell by that rather amazing level of false equivalency, he's not the sharpest tool in the shed.


 No.55773

File: e6ca0fb5cf3c551⋯.jpg (119.12 KB, 364x457, 364:457, absolutely stalin brathon.jpg)

>>55770

Thanks for the info. That's pretty disgusting, yeah. Sleeping with a girl that's not a virgin is one thing, but if she fucked fourty guys before she turned sixteen, something's probably wrong with her.


 No.55784

>>55762

You're citing a Christian website, the most dishonest kind of site which tries to convince by sophistry under the assumption Christians won't check anything they cite. The acual number of atheists in America is upwards of 3 percent today, and 5 percent agnostic according to the 2014 General Sociological Survey, and is much larger than that site claims. If religion keeps people out of jail, then should be significantly more atheists in jail.


 No.55799

>>55784

That's a blatant ad hominem, you know that?


 No.55811

>>55685

Northern crusade is the crusade done by the teutonic (and various other knightly orders) who conquer the pagan countries of Lithuanian and invade orthodox countries like Russia and even invade catholic countries like Poland.

It was a clusterfuck, teutonic knights are still badass tho.


 No.55819

>>55622

>What are you, a Republican-shill?

>Why would I bother with Israel? The Church is the new Israel…

Bait = Successful

>>55621

That's more like it, still missing something though…


 No.55823

>>55799

And yet it's true, fallacy fallacy. Anyone who trusts Christian websites and doesn't rigorously check them and test their claims is an idiot. No true skeptic can remain a Christian.


 No.55824

>>55823

Got any evidence to back your nazi-esque "do not trust the jew"-mentality up?


 No.55827

>>55823

But in the same regard, no true skeptic can totally denounce Christianity either.


 No.55839

>>55827

The skeptic rejects Christianity as ninty nine point nine nine nine nine nine percent likely to be founded on bullshit and false enough to be dismissed with the same blasé indifference as we give to Zeus and African gods. Go read Hitchens as the skeptic denounces it, and embrace a more moral economic philosophy.

http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/smith1759.pdf


 No.55840

>>55839

Might giving a reason for your atheism, preferably one that addresses the various proofs for God that philosophers have come up with?


 No.55847

>>55840

There is zero evidence for God, God or gods. I say gods because I don't even know which god you mean when just Japan has 6,000 of them in competition. Basic philosophy holds the onus is on you to prove the existence of a thing, and not on me to disprove it. (There is however overwhelming evidence against any argument the for a god who brought about the origin of our species or the universe or of the truth claims of any religion. Just read the God Delusion.)


 No.55862

Non-Christian countries is exactly how you end with with the whole Sweden and EU debacle. For people who believe in nothing, they sure have a lot to say.


 No.55866

File: 3dddf6091ed1e30⋯.jpg (113.24 KB, 531x689, 531:689, Socialism.jpg)

>>55839

>a more moral economic philosophy.

What economic philosophy do you think the Church has?


 No.55867

File: 13e66f2319455b0⋯.gif (3.35 MB, 480x270, 16:9, peter hitchens.gif)

File: 3dd47b3f141f896⋯.gif (1.06 MB, 384x500, 96:125, n4Q5Fev.gif)

File: bd0c5db0bee5029⋯.webm (7 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, Peter Hitchens.webm)

>>55839

>Go read Hitchens

I already do btw


 No.55869

>>55867

Next time read the smarter of the 2 Hitchens.

>>55866

Different churches follow different schools. Prosperity gospel is for rich conservative scrooges, Jesus was a radical Socialist who wanted you to sell everything you owned and give it to the poor, Mormonism and Catholicism are pyramid schemes.


 No.55870

>>55869

>Jesus was a radical Socialist

No, socialism involves government mechanisms. He wanted you to do it of your own accord based on faith. That was the point of the meme bruh. IT's a meme, but it accurately shows why the whole "Christian Communist/Socialist" Narrative ans worldview are BS. Governments are constructs of man, and while Christ wanted you to obey the law unless it infringed on your beliefs, Christ wanted you to put god before all men, including yourself.

>Next time read the smarter of the 2 Hitchens.

:^) the opportunity was too easy my friend.


 No.55874

>>55869

>Jesus Christ

>socialist

Socialism didn't even exist yet.


 No.55875


 No.55876

>>55847

>There is zero evidence for God, God or gods. I say gods because I don't even know which god you mean when just Japan has 6,000 of them in competition.

There are lots of proofs, the proof of the first mover or the teleological proof for example. You don't have to empirically observe something to know it exists.

>Basic philosophy holds the onus is on you to prove the existence of a thing, and not on me to disprove it.

Actually, no, it doesn't. That's not a formal rule of logic or of argumentation. It's a soft guideline. Hypothetically, if you have just gone to Mars with a friend and have already seen a blue, a green, a pink and a yellow martian, would you be in a position to sneer at a friend who claimed there were red martians, too? Everyone would call your reaction silly, even though you could say that the burden of proof rests on your friend, not you. Do you agree?

>(There is however overwhelming evidence against any argument the for a god who brought about the origin of our species or the universe or of the truth claims of any religion. Just read the God Delusion.)

That book really isn't news. Did you ever read a classical catholic scholar, Augustine or St Thomas?


 No.55898

File: c66c489ae033dad⋯.png (24.61 KB, 310x645, 62:129, PF_15.05.05_RLS2_1_310px.png)

>>55876

Dawkins refuted Augustine and the first mover argument in his book and you can look them up yourself if you want to test the problems with some ancient dark ages philosophy. I will help you though: consider the question, what if the universe always existed and has simply changed form over time? (That is what the big bang theory puts forward.)

Yes, we could doubt what someone who went to Mars saw. Ever read Hume? Skepticism meams always questioning whther you are under a delusion, or saw an illusion or went momentarilly insane, and he held that heresay and gossip can not ever be trusted. Incredible claims require incredible evidence. Everything in the bible is an incredible claim, without corresponding evidence, and written by anons you have never met.

>>55870

Jesus was a progressive who favored income redistribution, libertarians generally do not. He told you the widow who put a small do in in the offering plate gave more than a rich man who put in many, and would be correspo singly rewarded in heaven. He wanted you to join his doomsday cult because he believed the world would end within one generation.

"And I tell you the truth, some standing here right now will not die before they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom." -Mathew 16:28

Of course 2000 years have passed and this was a falsified claim. Christians have invented mental gymnastics to explain why Jesus hasn't came back yet. Of course I am just going with the assumptions to show the absurdity of the belief, I cannot be sure who wrote any of the verses in the bible, and suspect many forgeries passages. But there is no reason to believe in any of it, and if you were born in India you would believe in the Vedas and their scriptures and find the bible utterly unconvincing, just as you find theirs. We are naturally skeptical of all religious scriptures except the ones which we are indoctrinated to believe from birth.


 No.55914

>>55898

>Jesus was a progressive who favored income redistribution, libertarians generally do not.

Then you're purposefully conflating widespread charity and income redistribution. Like I've said twice now, he didn't want government to be employed for this. The kingdom is not of men but of god. He said what he said in that quote because the whole point is that god is greater than all earthly possessions, so a man who is rich and stays rich has his heart in the Material world not the spiritual, and as such has given himself over to sin. Also, if this were the case, why then would Progressives be so against Christianity?

>inb4mudslimes

The rich will have trouble getting into heaven, because the fact that the kept all their unnecessary wealth is considered a sign of where their heart lies. One does not live on bread alone, only God suffices. He didn't want us to force people through equally material laws to give up wealth, because obedience to material laws is not a demonstration of faith. We encourage charity, but we don't force it upon people (at least Catholics don't)

>"And I tell you the truth, some standing here right now will not die before they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom

It's not gymnastics, he was talking about his resurrection and ascension (into the kingdom of heaven), which happens later in Matthew. You're the ones doing gymnastics, imagining the Kingdom as earthly, even when he said explicitly:

My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom did belong to this world, my attendants [would] be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not here.”- John 18:36

>He wanted you to join his doomsday cult because he believed the world would end within one generation.

You know revelations was written at least 100 years later right? It was never a doomsday cult in Christ's lifetime, and still isn't.

>Of course I am just going with the assumptions to show the absurdity of the belief

So you're strawmaning Christians? I mean, I thought so, but it's nice of you to be so explicit.

>I cannot be sure who wrote any of the verses in the bible, and suspect many forgeries passages

Because you are of little faith…

>But there is no reason to believe in any of it

See above

> We are naturally skeptical of all religious scriptures except the ones which we are indoctrinated to believe from birth.

The whole reason why you need faith is because it's unbelievable. Any christian who denies this is too self-conscious to admit it. We just generally don't say this in debates with Atheists because you guys don't get it. The reason we need faith is because what is in the Bible is true, but it's beyond the perception and reason of men, so doubt will always exist. This is written in he bible, and is perfectly reflected in the material world. As are many things written in it. But even ignoring that, the whole discussion isn't about the validity of each religion, it's about religion functioning in a libertarian system, so this whole tangent of your's is pointless.

>indoctrinated to believe from birth.

I wasn't though, in fact for a significant time I was Deist, and even looked into other religions. My brother is still obsessed with astrology, and my sister is an Atheist, and they both went to Catholic Schools. I still have Voodoo crap and artifacts tucked away somewhere (i can't remember where). That was all just curiosity though, as I was basically an atheist, who gave religions some credence based on my study into sociology. I became this way when I actually sat down and read the Bible, and found a ton of things that I felt reflected modern society, as well as came to the realization of what Christianity is all about on a Religious and Philosophical level. Now, I'm the only practicing Catholic in my family.


 No.55915

>>55898

>That pic

Yes, because in that time-span we didn't become more degenerate and Communistic at all…


 No.55916

>>55898

>Jesus was a progressive

In what way? Jesus wanted people to help the poor with charity, not state-forced redistribution. It's also worth to note that there wasn't a free market 2000 years ago, it was much more of a zero-sum game than in our current capitalist society.


 No.55931

>>55914

Trust me, I get Christianity, I was once more Christian than most Christians. Faith can best defined as "pretending to believe in things you don't know about." It is a failed method for understanding the world. read anything I have mentioned or "A manual for creating Atheists." You have not taken my arguments to heart and honestly reflected on whether there is any truth in your claim to knowing things, becaude if you did think abut it you would see I have already refuted most of what you have just written.


 No.55932

File: 5917e70cccd5aa8⋯.png (32.16 KB, 700x788, 175:197, 1564582.png)


 No.55941

>>55931

AGAIN< THIS DISCUSSION HAS NEVER BEEN THE VALIDITY OF RELIGION, IT IS ABOUT RELIGION IN A LIBERTARIAN SOCIETY.

On a personal note, I could literally just copy and paste all that you just said from my perspective. I thought that was clear in what I had written, that at one point I held your perspective. I'm sorry my world view changed. But on the bright side, last I checked this was a libertarian board.

>Faith can best defined as "pretending to believe in things you don't know about." It is a failed method for understanding the world.

I take it you are a PhD Cosmologist, biologist, and Chemist then. Or do you take the authority of more knowledgeable individuals on those matters?… One might even say you have faith in their knowledge.You're giving me a reading list and acting like the these authorities somehow have more authority than the book I use. How is that not a version of faith? Unless you're an empiricist, and literally demand evidence for everything, and even then, evidence is meaningless unless it is properly understood. The media should show you that.

>You have not taken my arguments to heart and honestly reflected on whether there is any truth in your claim to knowing things, becaude if you did think abut it you would see I have already refuted most of what you have just written.

Because there is nothing in these arguments or points that I didn't either at one time believe, or haven't heard before. I'm sure the feeling is mutual and all, but that changes nothing.


 No.55943

>>55941

My sources tell you the arguments and let you make up your mind. You could invent the same arguments if you thought hard enough so the books themselves don't matter. Your sources is all appeal to authority bullshit and unprovable unlikely claims of miracles from schizophrenics and psychopaths from thousands of years ago who knew nothing we know about germ theory, logic or physics.


 No.55944

>>55943

As though atheism isn't also an appeal to authority. God knows, when you don't have the clean cut and clinically depressed one's walking on stage, you have overweight high school dropouts who leach on others.


 No.55946

>>55944

And yet most heads of philosopher departments are atheists, as are most biologists, psychologists, physicists, and in general educated people or people with smarter IQs. The fedora memes do not reflect reality demonstrated by most surveys. You of lower IQs ought to be the ones listening to us, not the reverse.


 No.55947

>>55946

That's a really sad appeal to authority / cock measuring contest.


 No.55948

File: bf422b3b527a834⋯.jpg (751.9 KB, 2276x1708, 569:427, fedora hat.jpg)

File: f62a513efcc1a93⋯.png (9.57 KB, 474x182, 237:91, religious belief among sci….png)

File: bf422b3b527a834⋯.jpg (751.9 KB, 2276x1708, 569:427, fedora hat.jpg)

>>55869

>>55898

>>55931

>>55932

>>55946

Aboslutely cringe-worthy. Please go back to reddit you living meme


 No.55949

File: 1bcba748c1142f0⋯.mp4 (7.01 MB, 634x360, 317:180, Science is a LIAR Sometime….mp4)

>>55946

This is what I mean, every argument you have is based on "Yeah well, we're more intelligent than you!"

That's all you've asserted this whole discussion. You don't know me, so I'm not gonna bother telling you anything about me personally since you won't believe me, but I'm far from an idiot, so stop trying to paint me like one.


 No.55950

>>55916

Remember, God doesn't exist, but He's also a mass-murdering death cult socialist


 No.55951

>>55950

It's sad that by the way this discussions been going I can't even tell if this is a joke or not…


 No.55955

File: fcf65290ea84443⋯.png (65.13 KB, 615x416, 615:416, matthew 24.png)

>>55951

It was a joke fam


 No.55957

>>55955

Your other post didn't load for me for some reason, I see now.


 No.55968

File: 83aa6e2ba4914a3⋯.png (636.59 KB, 1200x970, 120:97, high-school-graduation-rat….png)

>>55949

Statistically you are likely to be one though and I week work on that assumption until you say something intelligent. Less religious states are north, which are also less dysfunctional.


 No.55972

File: a0b9aece8e1ffdb⋯.jpg (65.26 KB, 634x443, 634:443, article-1371538-0B66AD7100….jpg)

>>55968

>atheism is a sign of intelligence

Yeah, and people from the cities are so enlightened aren't they. Your map be racist don't you know


 No.55976

File: 3a7184067b8c881⋯.jpg (89.08 KB, 640x468, 160:117, a-CATHOLIC-STATES-CONGREGA….jpg)

>>55968

I'm Catholic…. that should be an indicator that I'm in the north. I'm a high school grad, hence why I mocked Atheist dropouts. If we're talking about southern Christianity, It's heretical and yeah they are generally unintelligent, both in your definition, and in faith. Now that we got that out of the way, could you stop making broad generalizations about Me.


 No.55977

>>55976

I also haven't said anything anti-science this whole discussion, because the catholic church isn't anti science. We embraced evolution as a divine mechanism of god for example. We see sciences as a good thing. That's why we created the first scholastic orders. A ton of early scientific discoveries were by Catholic Monks for god sake.


 No.55978

>>55977

Might be better to just ignore these chaps tbh


 No.55979

>>55978

I know, but he's just now accused me of being a southern protestant. Which is a massive insult to a Catholic, given that they used to lynch us. We weren't welcomed with open arms into the US. If this ass-hat spent some time learning history, he might actually know not all Christians are the same.


 No.55989

>>55979

>Mun persecution complex.

And he church did nothing wrong to Galileo or Giordano Bruno, and definitely did not fight evolution for a hundred years, Carbon dating, and then the Big Bang. Praise Catholicism! You Catholics are all zombies, today I encountered another lost cause who was an idiot.


 No.55990

>>55989

>then the Big Bang

First proposed by a Belgian priest. Do you ever take the time to learn anything about what you spew or do you claim the religious are zombies based only on the word of Dawkins? There are many many reasons to hate any given religion, so speaking falsehoods is counterproductive for you.


 No.55992

>>55677

>No there were Jews in Europe. The roman empire had to put down several insurrections by them actually.

Sauce? I'm particularly interested in european jewish populations outside of the Roman Empire.

>Paganism was viewed as just as much a threat as Islam.

Yeah, I know. They were terrorists that hated Rome's freedom. They were even building WMDs in their pagan shrines. G-d Bless Rome! Deus Vult!

>Islam is technically Pagan

>this is what christians actually believe

Top kek. Bloody fake scotsmen amirite?

>So a variety of opinions is unhealthy

Well of all opinions, clearly the marxist ones have the most value. The Pope may not be an infallible dictator, but as leader his opinion is worth more than any other individual priest. That's the point you fucking retard.

>The populous doesn't always recognize merit though, and they don't always like what is good for them. To the public, Merit isn't always visible, even if the results of an action are fruitful. You need other means to demand obedience. It's Machiavelli.

So you're only here on /liberty/ to play Devil's Advocate? Cool. However, just because people don't always like what's good for them doesn't mean they won't do it without a pig breathing over their shoulder. Those that don't tend to Darwin themselves. And if merit isn't visible then that is the fault of the monarch for not being honest enough.

>just don;t call me when you're in a lake of fire.

Nice meme.

>This is perfectly allowed and was common place in the middle ages… smh

Wrong, dipshit. Even after the Magna Carta was signed only landholders had a right to bear arms.

>nice refutation.

So I am supposed to refute an irrelevand ad-populum? I'll give you a "Your mother is a whore." and that's the best I can do.

>No, because one is a military dictatorship, and the other stormfags

So it doesn't count if it's not a real personality cult? Don't try screaming about fallacies when you're scottsmanning in the very same paragraph.

>Divine rule doesn't mean you do entirely as you please

And who decided what those bounds were? Not Charlemagne or some other mortal, I hope.

>Research-paper is attached bud

Doesn't matter. I ain't clicking that shit, you newfag. >>>/4chan/

>I hope you find it helpful given your affliction.

Well I just hope you can find some help with your Stockholm Syndrome.


 No.55993

File: bfc865692c1cc41⋯.png (19.05 KB, 463x219, 463:219, 1459548822903.png)

File: d58394ca411031d⋯.jpg (1.57 MB, 3840x2160, 16:9, 1659680-Edward-Feser-Quote….jpg)

File: 085f1c48e836a8e⋯.jpg (138.29 KB, 640x916, 160:229, edward-feser-883916.jpg)

The atheism of the neopositivists is fucking cancer. This is why I turned agnostic.


 No.56000

>>55686

>The natural is that which exists, and the supernatural is by definition beyond the natural

This might go against the common definitions, but I see supernatural as simply that which is natural but not understood or proven. To believe in the supernatural is to believe theories that have sub-par scientific basis, and /x/-phille occultists are basically just investigators and researchers on untrod fronteers of science.

>>55696

>Majority of modern Atheism insists that is is a derivative of Sciencism

Irrelevant. Atheism is a negative claim while religion is positive. Fitting a specific definition besides "does not accept the claims of any religion" is not imperitive to being an atheist. You and I both know that there are many, many atheists that don't give a shit about the scientific method and have a very un-scientific worldview. Some don't even pretend to be "scientists" such as egoists.

Atheists don't necessarily believe in "an absence of a higher power" they just don't believe in the presence of a higher power. The difference is the difference between believing there is no bear in your closet and not believing there is a bear in your closet. If you believe there is no bear in your closet you will unflinchingly open the closet to prove it to your ursinist friends while if you simply don't believe there is a bear in the closet you'll just ignore the closet as always until you need your coat or you hear a grumble.

And if you regard scientism as religion then you're using some pretty abstract

definitions.

>>55731

>we had a teacher that wasted literally half the class insulting us before she even made any pretense of teaching us something.

You learned the most important part of speaking French then.

>>55847

Look, I know you're just shitposting but contrary to what the edgy christfag monarchist thinks I've seen some weird shit. Maybe it was a god, maybe it was something else entirely but for whatever it's worth, I can personally assure you that it is wrong to say that there is no evidence of any god.

>>55870

So he was a pacifist ancom?


 No.56004

>>55989

>muh Galileo

Another good meme. He didn't get into trouble for research but dictating to the Church and making fun of the Pope. And his punishment wasn't heavy

http://www.ukapologetics.net/galileo.htm

>>56000

>saying there aren't any Gods isn't a positive claim

Hehe just admit you're agnostic kiddo


 No.56008

>>55992

>Sauce? I'm particularly interested in european jewish populations outside of the Roman Empire.

http://www.livius.org/articles/concept/roman-jewish-wars/roman-jewish-wars-3/?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-great-revolt-66-70-ce

This is one of several wars btw


 No.56009

>>56000

>Irrelevant. Atheism is a negative claim while religion is positive. Fitting a specific definition besides "does not accept the claims of any religion" is not imperitive to being an atheist….

What you're describing is Agnosticism. I honestly see that as the most libertarian belief on such matters tbh, but apparently you're confused.

>And if you regard scientism as religion then you're using some pretty abstract definitions.

It isn't odd to say that most hard core Atheist look to science for all answers to the extent that one could call it their faith. As stated, I don't reject science wholesale as has been assumed apparently, but I also don't put as much blind loyalty into it as most Atheist have, nor do I see it's findings as some refutation of religion.

>So he was a pacifist ancom?

…No, he never endorsed communism. He was always aware there would be people who didn't go his way. Also, he wasn't opposed to having private property, he was opposed to greed. The difference being greed is overabundance combined with spite and selfishness, being consumed by your possessions. He wasn't against these things entirely, he and the Apostles did have private possessions after all. But it's when we put these material and petty goods ahead of God and all other things that they are a problem. This goes for all sins. Greed, Gluttony, Lust, Wrath, Pride, etc. They are fine when curtailed, but left to fester and grow is when they become an issue.


 No.56037

File: 377432a4ee05fcf⋯.png (6.39 KB, 238x211, 238:211, images.png)

>>55990

>First proposed by a Belgian priest.

I am aware, but who cares who made it, the church absolutely did fought it because of genesis. You shouldn't believe in hia ideas evolution because Darwin was an atheist and atheism is wrong, SCORE. No, the guy making the theoy had cognitive dissonance and should have logically stopped being a Christian, and your association fallacy is retarded. You are ignorant and/or dishonest and either way are not worth talking to or heeding.

>>56000

>Look, I know you're just shitposting but contrary to what the edgy christfag monarchist thinks I've seen some weird shit. Maybe it was a god, maybe it was something else entirely but for whatever it's worth, I can personally assure you that it is wrong to say that there is no evidence of any god.

Spooky stuff is not evidence of ANYTHING. There is no logical connection between a weird event and all the shit in the bible. God did not etch his words I to a stone mountain and keep them from being untranslated and miscopied and misinterpreted for thousands of years and in the corresponding violence, because either 1) he is a dick 2) he does not even exist. (Choose one, if he does exist and is the murderous tyrant in the old testament or revelation, then he is objectively evil and isn't worthy of any worshipping.)

Look at the weird illusions, the stuff we can't explain (yet)? Either you 1) believe something (real or imaginary) causes the perception, 2) or you can say GOD/supernatural forces done it. Miracles in the desert don't have scientific causes but are tricks of the devil. Thr later is what prehistoric cavemen did, and is an excuse to remain ignorant and stop thinking or searching about for answers.


 No.56049

>>56037

>Catholics are protestants maymay yet again

>implying Darwin was atheist at the time of his death

>implying the catholic church took any position at all on evolution until the 1950s, where Pius XII said "yeah it's cool bro whatever"

>the implication that science is inherently atheist and that you can prove or disprove an abstract concept or that the two can't coexist as they have for centuries upon centuries of Catholic contributions to it.

Are you going to bitch and moan about how the church hates genetics next? If you are try looking up Mendel first.


 No.56086

File: cb59d66893c3df2⋯.png (1.17 MB, 1194x674, 597:337, victims.png)

>>56037

>even though a Christian discovered the Big Bang they still hate science and persecute us every day for the Big Bang we didn't discover!

>j-just stop having cognitive dissonance so much you can't see these obvious facts!

muh lines…


 No.56111

>>56008

Wat? That all happened in Judea. It is completely irrelevant.

>>56004

>>56009

Agnostic. Atheist. Antitheist. Bah! It's all semantics if you ask me.

>It isn't odd to say that most hard core Atheist look to science for all answers to the extent that one could call it their faith

Are you claiming that atheists generally believe the scientific method is the best way to find the truth or are you talking about the fools that place all their faith in what the scientific community says yet never look into and verify the research? If the former then that's not religion but philosophy. If the latter then you're just being childish and these people do not support your claim Atheism-wide. They themselves are "religiously irreligious" but their actions do not speak for Atheism itself.

>>56037

Oh, good guess I was talking about illusions that can easily be explained by the "coding" of the human mind. I couldn't have been talking about phenomena that could only be feasibly explained by non-linear timeflow and/or sentience as a concept not being bound to individual brains and their peripherals. And you're absolutely right that I neglected to rule out divinity as an explaination simply as a cop-out because it's not as though I implied that I'm an occultist or at least hold mad respect for occultists in the very same post. Good call on Christianity too. You certainly shook my faith in Jesus Christ which I definitely have on a spiritual level as evidenced by my lack of badmouthing christians and Christianity.


 No.56121

File: 90b64fc3910a63f⋯.jpg (108.75 KB, 492x600, 41:50, buttfrustrated.jpg)

>>56037

>God did not etch his words I to a stone mountain and keep them from being untranslated and miscopied and misinterpreted for thousands of years

Please, learn your shit: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/can-we-know-what-the-original-gospel-manuscripts-really-said/

>Can we know what the original gospel manuscripts really said? Yes, we can. We can have confidence that the critical Greek texts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John represent, with a very high degree of probability, what the autographs of the gospels actually contained.


 No.56122

>>56111

>Wat? That all happened in Judea. It is completely irrelevant.

There were converts in Rome though… Jews weren't new at the time of Christians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire

>Agnostic. Atheist. Antitheist. Bah! It's all semantics if you ask me.

Then you're an idiot… There are very clear differences: Atheists are negative, Agnostics are neutral, Antitheists are antagonistic.

>Are you claiming that atheists generally believe the scientific method is the best way to find the truth or are you talking about the fools that place all their faith in what the scientific community says yet never look into and verify the research? If the former then that's not religion but philosophy.

This is semantics through and through though. You act like philosophy isn't the religion of skeptics, or that religion isn't a life philosophy.

> If the latter then you're just being childish and these people do not support your claim Atheism-wide. They themselves are "religiously irreligious" but their actions do not speak for Atheism itself.

The #NotAll argument.


 No.56123

>>56122

>The #NotAll argument.

You realize you can(and should) say this too, unless you're off to claim that even the hipsters that are only into Catholicism to worship the current Pope are real catholics?


 No.56126

File: 009491ba7a25940⋯.jpg (143.71 KB, 1273x1500, 1273:1500, Pius-X-Meme-Punch.jpg)

File: 6f4b3abf831ec66⋯.jpg (15.59 KB, 236x225, 236:225, ce2e0059a14dfbb3c17f6a74a2….jpg)

>>56123

Modernists are cancer, but I don't doubt they have faith, even if it has been perverted. They need proper guidance, and hopefully they get it.

Also, it's not like I haven't distanced myself from Protestants already, but that's more to do with the fact that they are literally a different sect of Christianity, and have vastly different beliefs then Catholic or Orthodox.


 No.56149

>>56121

We don't even know Jesus's last words or birthplace, and the 4 gospels disagree on hun breeds of non material events about Jesus's life. Read Age of Reason by Thomas Paine or Misquoting Jesus.


 No.56150

>>56122

>There were converts in Rome though…

Yes, I know. Although I was talking more about Europe beyond Rome. Foreigners settle where trade is big and it is to be expected that jews would settle in major cities on the Mediterrainian coast. It would be unfair to blame jews in Mediterranian Europe on Christianity.

Still, that does leave a big hole in that the roman jews kept their religion while the pagans did not.

>Then you're an idiot…

No u.

>This is semantics through and through though.

Then you're an idiot…

>The #NotAll argument.

t. Hypocrite

Please keep telling me about how not all christians are philo-semites, cuckolds and proto-marxists.

The point is that you were claiming that Atheism itself is based upon faith and being a sceince cultist is a prerequisite to earning a fedora. This is a ridiculous and idiotic claim. Again, you're just being a childish shitflinger in saying that.

There is a big difference between being hardcore about [thing] and being hardcore about [absence of thing]. One has 1 possibility and thus speaks for the moderates while the other has ∞-1 possibilities and thus cannot speak for all moderates.


 No.56154

File: dc9a5df55158dbc⋯.jpg (78.71 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, fedora memes.jpg)

>>56149

>Age of Reason


 No.56198

>>56150

>Please keep telling me about how not all christians are philo-semites, cuckolds and proto-marxists.

Sure, but I'm not saying they are nonexistent either. You're acting like this stereotype of Atheists doesn't exist for a reason.

>One has 1 possibility and thus speaks for the moderates while the other has ∞-1 possibilities and thus cannot speak for all moderates.

Right, but you're acting like disagreement must equal hostility. I disagree with atheists, but if they want to think that it's fine. It's not my life to throw away. Your stance on a position that ultimately has no impact on your temporal condition isn't one worthy of causing hostility over. That's the whole reason this thread is annoying. Because I don't actually care if people agree with my beliefs. The validity of Christianity (or any other religion) was never the discussion, it was "can a free society exist in a world with religion", and the answer is yes. But Atheists and Agnostics here didn't like me saying I can believe whatever I wish apparently, so this thread is still going because you're arguing like validity was the question in the first place.


 No.56199

>>56198

>You're acting like this stereotype of Atheists doesn't exist for a reason.

It does and it's representatives are annoying. But I'm saying that being this stereotype is not a prerequisite. You could argue that Atheism inevitably leads to becoming this stereotype, like how Communism inevitably leads to !reeeaaaal communism, but I would dispute that.

>But Atheists and Agnostics here didn't like me saying I can believe whatever I wish apparently

Only OP and that one guy RPing as a fedoraman said that. If you notice, I said the exact opposite: That religion ensures freedom in a non-theocratic setting.

>this thread is still going because you're arguing like validity was the question in the first place.

Sure. But to be fair, you're as much to blame because you responded to a shitpost with a semi-serious comment that sparked a squabble over Christianity and Monarchism. Had you kept posting flagbearers and hats, we wouldn't be here.


 No.56470

organized religion is a state

they may be nonviolent, however social ostrazation is hardly noncoersive

"you can always go, just leave your family and friends behind"

still leveraging people you/want need into compliance

like facebook 'networking effects'

or the EU holding its citizens' trade hostage to pressure smaller nations into joining on shitty terms. (this is also why putin is funding european nationalism)


 No.56471

>>55599

>I dont understand religion


 No.56476

>>55565

The definition of Religion among religious scholars, not theologians, but outsiders who take an active interest in the study of Religion, has never been agreed upon. Religion is a complex matter and has its roots in the formation of language, which in turn influences our habitus and the way we interact of with our environment. It is not as simple as pinpointing a belief in some god or higher power.


 No.56478

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>55989

>muh Galileo

A bit surprised, nobody mentioned Woods by now, but I guess I am the only one who posts his content here


 No.56487

>>56478

I don't watch any videos, podcasts or even check daily articles regularly. Otherwise, I'd probably post stuff from him or Hoppe, too. Woods is a respectable thinker and apparently also a pretty nice guy.


 No.56490

Religion and Libertarianism are incompatible because they take different approaches to controlling vice, self-destruction, and addiction.

The religious approach treats it like a disease, in that tempting, but self-destructive action can only be controlled by deference to moral authorities (as it sees most people as irrational actors). When somebody is patient 0 of a new vice, they usually spread it in the phase where it's still attractive, and most people are still susceptible, so by the time the self-destruction has taken hold, it has already spread. Religion's answers are shame, to encourage people to quarantine themselves, and fixed principles, to keep irrational, vulnerable people safe from vice more clever than themselves.

Libertarianism's approach is to let the self-destruction make itself apparent, and let it serve as its own warning, dissuading people from succumbing to the temptation.

Personally, I'm religious, so when I see things like the crack epidemic or STD spread, I see a failure in the libertarian approach. I'm also scientific though, so I see (yet) another failure in attempting neocortical control of decision-making, and a strike against the notion that people are the captains of their own destiny. I'm curious to see what the forum thinks though, because I've lost arguments here before.


 No.56491

>>56490

Anyone who is that intent on destroying themselves should be allowed to destroy themselves. Nothing good can come of wasting time and resources on people who are either incapable of seeing how their actions will lead to self-destruction or actively SEEK self-destruction.


 No.56493

>>56491

But those people could have been productive, happy members of society. The burden of proof is on you that we should allow innocent, healthy people to destroy themselves because they're capable of destroying themselves. This is like saying that you shouldn't wear a helmet because if your skull breaks, well, the skull deserved it. As well, this has externalities (druggies breaking into people's houses) that impact people like, say, you, who are above temptation.


 No.56495

>>56493

>But those people could have been productive, happy members of society.

Unlikely. They're most likely to be people that were ruined in their formative years and are probably beyond any help. Until they actually reach rock bottom and decide to cry for help and ACCEPT that help, they cannot be helped.


 No.56496

>>56495

So first you say they weren't worth saving, now you say they'll save themselves eventually? Make up your mind.

Still though, being ruined in formative years is pretty much synonymous with lacking fixed principle and a sense of shame (instilled by a moral authority), so you're basically just agreeing with me now that libertarianism doesn't work, unless you can be a lot more specific about ruination in childhood


 No.56497

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>56490

> like the crack epidemic

The crack epidemic was not a failure of the libertarian approach. There would have been no crack epidemic had it not been for the unconstitutional drug war.


 No.56498

>>56496

>So first you say they weren't worth saving, now you say they'll save themselves eventually? Make up your mind.

They're not worth trying to save until they themselves realize that they need to be saved and are willing to take the steps necessary to do so of their own volition.

>Still though, being ruined in formative years is pretty much synonymous with lacking fixed principle and a sense of shame (instilled by a moral authority), so you're basically just agreeing with me now that libertarianism doesn't work, unless you can be a lot more specific about ruination in childhood

Lots of things can fuck up a person in their formative years. Being forced to take on aspects of adulthood before the mind has matured properly can do irreparable damage, being subjected to serious hardship including but not limited to malnutrition, improper medical care, and incomplete education… there are LOTS of things that can fuck someone up in their formative years.


 No.56502

>>56497

Why did you link this? It contradicts your post. Around 4:10 he says explicitly that there would be more addicts, and that it's fine, because he didn't think they were worth saving. He's right that illegality breeds crime with negative externalities, but the addiction itself is what we're on about. I'll admit though, that direct illegalization or the hamfisted antidrug campaigns are the answer, but surely something could be done to take the temptation out of people's minds, and it surely wouldn't be individually profitable.

>>56498

>They're not worth trying to save until they themselves realize that they need to be saved and are willing to take the steps necessary to do so of their own volition.

>It's morally okay until it fixes itself

this is astoundingly stupid, bare rationalization. In terms of social efficiency, this philosophy is completely braindead, and if you're outside of terms of social efficiency, you're another religionposter.

>Lots of things can fuck up a person in their formative years. Being forced to take on aspects of adulthood before the mind has matured properly can do irreparable damage, being subjected to serious hardship including but not limited to malnutrition, improper medical care, and incomplete education… there are LOTS of things that can fuck someone up in their formative years.

"Being forced to take on aspects of adulthood" and "being exposed to temptation" are pretty much synonymous, even if that temptation is being tempted to neglect action, rather than to partake of it. As for the other things, those don't contradict my premise that a lack of exposure to temptation will generally prevent people from succumbing to it, and having a world after childhood wherein temptations are contained by shame is still a much better environment for those made vulnerable in such ways.

Of course, this is entirely to ignore that helping those people was a religious obligation, back when religion was mainstream, but that's another topic for another time.


 No.56503

>>56502

>I'll admit though, that direct illegalization or the hamfisted antidrug campaigns are the answer

*are not


 No.56505

>>56502

Because the implementation of the drug war caused the price of cocaine to increase due to the supply issues from the prohibition. This increase in price created an incentive for a cheaper substitute hence crack cocaine. It doesn't contradict my post at all as crack cocaine is not a direct result of libertarianism. It is the direct result of government intervention upon the market.


 No.56506

>>56505

What I was talking about had nothing to do with the transition between cocaine and crack; he EXPLICITLY says that there would be more addicts, which is what I'm talking about.

Of course, the other approach may be disproportionate punishment; it's worked for singapore pretty well, because the judgement of "is this worth the punishment" is too absurd to consider, so nobody does it, so the lawbreaking is never normalized.

Then again, handchopping for theft is tried and doesn't work in Africa, so maybe it's just a race thing.


 No.56507

>>56506

Sorry I must have misunderstood your original post wrong or something as I wasn't trying to reference the addicts just the crack part.


 No.56509

>>56507

Ah, I'd agree then




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 8teen / asmr / fur / htg / marx / mtrx / newbrit / ttgg ]