The hypocrisy of Theists

[Phigure]

I'm more of an apatheist.

Obv I'm an "agnostic" (on any god, including the christian one, but when you open up the possibility of a 'god', then you're creating the possibilities of billions of different gods, so the assumption that it has to be the 'christian god' seems like a bigger leap of faith than the idea of A god itself)

But if there is something we would call a 'god' out there, then it should be supernatural by definition, and therefore completely outside of our realm of existence. Basically, even if it is 'real', we evolved in a natural world to perceive natural phenomena. So god can be both real and not real at the same time. Real in the sense that it exists, not real in the sense that what we can't perceive it. And if it lies outside of our senses, I think it's also incomprehensible to us. Probably doesn't affect us either.

This is why I don't think that faith and science are necessarily opposed to each other. They're not opposites, they're two different fields that can be practiced side by side. Like being both a tennis player and a fan of beer.

Not meant to be 'deep' or 'thought provoking', just my take on the whole thing.

definitely, well put.

although personally i do think that, although the concept of a god almost by definition falls outside the realm of being able to be disproven by observation, certain forms of a god like a personal god can be ruled out logically for various reasons (like the argument from free will, the problem of evil, etc). that still leaves an almost infinite number of other possibilities though. there's a quote from hitchens though that i think is pretty relevant: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." you can just as well say that there's an undetectable, unmeasurable unicorn sitting in your room right now, but you can effectively ignore the possibility since theres absolutely nothing to suggest even considering it.

and yeah, it's important to note that science and faith arent necessarily mutually exclusive. but again, i do think some forms of faith are incompatible with science, like a religion that claims the earth is 6000 years old

also apatheist, never heard that before. clever name

[titchbit]

There are plenty of institutions that have killed more people than any religion.

name one institution that has claimed more lives than all of the lives claimed by all the religions combined over history. The closest you can come is probably the N@zis, who, depending on how you define various parameters, killed between 6-17 million people.

While that is surely a very large number, I would contend that the number of people killed because of religion is still greater when you consider all of the religiously motivated homicides combined over all of history.

[Genevieve]

"It will at this point be strenuously objected that numerous innocent people have been murdered in the name of religion. True, alas, all too true. However, a little perspective comes not amiss at this juncture. Just how many people were killed by religious excesses, such as the Inquisition? Although estimates vary widely, the best estimates (see here) are that the number of deaths during this sad epoch, which took place over several centuries, was between 3,000 and 10,000; some experts, here, place the number as low as 2,000. Were it not murdered human beings that we are talking about, but considering solely the relative magnitudes, one might fairly say that this pales into utter insignificance compared to the devastation inflicted upon the human race by governments. According to the best estimates (see here, here, here, here, here and here), the victims of statism in the 20th century alone approached the 200 million mark. That is no misprint! To compare a few thousands of unjustified deaths with several hundreds of millions is unreasonable. Yes, even the murder of one victim is an outrage. But in comparing religion and government one must keep in mind these astronomical differences."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block103.html

Scroll down for his sources.

[neonmansion]

My initial thought was that theist are hypocritical because you view the Multiverse theory as excessive and unfounded in evidence. Yet they propose an omnipresent being that created everything and has never been observed. Sort of inconsistent, no?

I'm shocked at the level of hostility I've received. (I'm sure the next comment is "well then gtfo, stop being butthurt, your just mad people didn't buy into..") Listen, angry internet guy.. just save it. It just doesn't seem like anyone here is of the religious persuasion. And heres the thing. There are WAY too many people apologizing and contextualizing religion in missiouri and arkansas.. or saudi arabia for that matter. An internet forum that deals with a sub genre of music should at least be a place where religion can get its due criticism.

[BonerJams04]

your beliefs are your beliefs
but when you try to force them on other people, like what you are doing, is when people start getting annoyed

[titchbit]

not just the inquisition though. many many other wars. you also need to account for non-war deaths like gay people who commit suicide because of religious-imposed stigmas. there are a myriad of other situations like this where people die because of religion.

also, there were less people in the world back then, so I think a fairer number would be the percentage of the population that were killed, because they most likely would have killed more if they had the chance.

and I don't think it's fair to lump 200 million deaths together under "statism". if there was no government, we would have anarchy, and then far more people would be killed. where is that number coming from, wars? cause most wars are religiously motivated. it would be valid to compare it to the N@zi 6-17 million figure, but I don't think "statism" counts as an institution. in my opinion of course.

[neonmansion]

your beliefs are your beliefs
but when you try to force them on other people, like what you are doing, is when people start getting annoyed

OK. I'm really starting to wonder here. WHEN did I force anything on anyone?? I didn't.. you are just making shit up.

"yyour beliefs.. in my opinion.. people have there own beliefs.. don't impose your subjective beliefs"" its like a mantra or something. do you just say it on cruise control??

[HamCrescendo]

Fuckin' alternet is the worst for these stnuc.

It aint 1550, youse aint a freethinker.

The personal is above board, its the political that is off limits nowadays.

Genevieve is worse though, apologising for religious excess and then talking up 'statism' like its a thing - It isn't. And then talking up Liberty like it is some insurmountable truth that purely comes down to Lockean property rights - it isn't.

[Genevieve]

I don't apologize for the murder of the religions of the church. I just recognize that the religion of the state has done a lot more killing.

And the usual defense of "without gov. = EVERYONE KILLS EACH OTHER" that is just that teensy bit too similar to 'WITHOUT RELIGION = NO MORALITY' doesn't really sway me much.

[Genevieve]

not just the inquisition though. many many other wars. you also need to account for non-war deaths like gay people who commit suicide because of religious-imposed stigmas. there are a myriad of other situations like this where people die because of religion.

also, there were less people in the world back then, so I think a fairer number would be the percentage of the population that were killed, because they most likely would have killed more if they had the chance.

and I don't think it's fair to lump 200 million deaths together under "statism". if there was no government, we would have anarchy, and then far more people would be killed. where is that number coming from, wars? cause most wars are religiously motivated. it would be valid to compare it to the N@zi 6-17 million figure, but I don't think "statism" counts as an institution. in my opinion of course.

Nah, most of it is just population control. Stalin, China, etc. That's 200 million in the 20th century alone compared to the 2 thousand to 10 thousand over a couple of centures of the inqisituion. So then there's also all the other state deaths you have to account for.

Like I mentioned before, most wars are religiously justified (because God was the highest authority, and people would rather bury their sons for God than a traderoute), but most wars were over resources and territory. Or you could say, just power. Religion caused a number, but it was rarely the sole purpose. Bush justified his warmongering with shit God told him, but it was more about the expansion of the military industrial complex.

But this is all something for another topic. I'm getting tired of my own anti-statism anyway. I know what I believe.

[neonmansion]

I think that this is a non-sequitur. Destruction that happened because of governments is bad but whats the alternative? I'm sorry but the only way forward is by moving towards the future, not the past. Its an act of misdirection to blame governments though. What we need instead of bad government is GOOD government.

AND, btw Genevieve, calling governments religions is just to say that Nazism were irrational ideologues. Or the North Korean government is backwards and oppressive. I think that we both agree on that. But DONT confuse those state-religions with logic, and true secularism, and the values of philosophy and science and humanism. Thats a dirty trick the Religious apologists have put into the argument by conflating Hitler with humanism.

[HamCrescendo]

ERGH

'religion of the state'


Calling someone a statist is probably even worse than calling someone on the right a FASCIST, or calling someone who thinks namecalling is bad a CULTURAL MARXIST. A meaningless term that just confers disagreement.

I've listened to Crass since I was 14 years old, I'm ahead of the 'if there was no government wouldn't there be chaos?' crowd - I just find it incredible how much shit you spit about free markets and how states are pure evil. You are a middle class european, if there was no state you would have been ripped apart by a crowd of hungry peasants by now. Pure liberalism is patently ridiculous - Just let people rot and they will become envious. You may think such envy is a sad state of affairs, they should just work harder and earn more, but governing people living in absolute poverty requires more than the Nozickian fantasy of a 'minimal state' in order to enforce the property rights you so adore.

Please Gen, I can tell you're a smart bloke but you seem so much like these fucking moronic ron paul randroids when you start talking about politics. The state is not evil, it's one of the greatest institutions history has provided us with and we must take full advantage of it, not shun it to the side. Reclaim it.

[sigbowls]

without a government would suck

jk

[neonmansion]

but i really don't wear a Fedora

[Genevieve]

I think that this is a non-sequitur. Destruction that happened because of governments is bad but whats the alternative? I'm sorry but the only way forward is by moving towards the future, not the past. Its an act of misdirection to blame governments though. What we need instead of bad government is GOOD government.

AND, btw Genevieve, calling governments religions is just to say that Nazism were irrational ideologues. Or the North Korean government is backwards and oppressive. I think that we both agree on that. But DONT confuse those state-religions with logic, and true secularism, and the values of philosophy and science and humanism. Thats a dirty trick the Religious apologists have put into the argument by conflating Hitler with humanism.

Religion and statism are both symptoms of the same human flaw in wanting answers where there aren't any and longing to create homogeny where there shouldn't be any. It's all control.

I think after 200 million deaths in one century and still having faith (lollers) in that institution is laughable. Religion gets the boot after a few failed attempts, but the state still seems to get unlimited do-overs until we get it "right".

I think we would all move forward much more as a species if we didn't enslave people to a system no one consciously agreed with in the first place.

You're asking, what's the alternative. Well, the (admittedly) fucking shithole that is Somalia has actually improved without government. Even the deathrate went down coincidentally refering the economist I mentioned before. I know people iwll tell me that I think Somalia is a great place to be and a system we need to emulate here in the west but that's not my point. Just, as the article points out that any situation that involves government will be worse than without.

And a non-state court system existed in Ireland for over a thousand years. You don't need a state for 'justice'.

ERGH

'religion of the state'


Calling someone a statist is probably even worse than calling someone on the right a FASCIST, or calling someone who thinks namecalling is bad a CULTURAL MARXIST. A meaningless term that just confers disagreement.

I've listened to Crass since I was 14 years old, I'm ahead of the 'if there was no government wouldn't there be chaos?' crowd - I just find it incredible how much shit you spit about free markets and how states are pure evil. You are a middle class european, if there was no state you would have been ripped apart by a crowd of hungry peasants by now. Pure liberalism is patently ridiculous - Just let people rot and they will become envious. You may think such envy is a sad state of affairs, they should just work harder and earn more, but governing people living in absolute poverty requires more than the Nozickian fantasy of a 'minimal state' in order to enforce the property rights you so adore.

Please Gen, I can tell you're a smart bloke but you seem so much like these fucking moronic ron paul randroids when you start talking about politics. The state is not evil, it's one of the greatest institutions history has provided us with and we must take full advantage of it, not shun it to the side. Reclaim it.

These aren't arguments, just views and assumptions people usually make about "libertarianism".

[HamCrescendo]

You're dutch right? You must know about the old laws (in Amsterdam, I believe) banning fancy cakes from being displayed in shop windows. Reason being: The poor, having just eaten rotting mouldy bread (if they're lucky, there were thousands of bread riots: only one french revolution) are incensed by such ridiculous flaunting of wealth in their streets that they become deeply envious and RIOT - requiring the force of the state to combat them.

That is the central problem with liberalism - you can read up on an endless number of theorists trying to address this problem, namely Rawls.

Please dont think I'm misinformed, I am no expert (nor are you) but I am a huge admirer of Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia. Possibly the greatest piece of political philosophy of the 20th century. Even he cant come up with an adequate response to the problem of envy - and this results in his later acceptance of some sort of welfare state.

You are an ideologue.

edit:
And as for Ireland having a non-state court system, you do know that Ireland had one of the worst slave trades ever? And their primary metric of exchange in that era was women? Justice is a very malleable concept, to the point of being meaningless.

[SCope13]

Nah, the state is pretty fucking evil lol. That being said, I think anarcho-capitalism is insanely contradictory. How are you going to enforce the private property rights ancaps love so much without a state?

[twilitez]

The state is not evil, it's one of the greatest institutions history has provided us with and we must take full advantage of it, not shun it to the side. Reclaim it.

This combined with some of your other posts has me really confused. You make sense most of the time, but do you really think this is even remotely possible?
To cut a few corners, the french revolution, democracy and all that jazz really changed close to nothing, were still the same peasants as before its just dressed up by technology.
Aristocracy is as real as it has ever been, it just changed shape slightly and switched hands in some cases, but its all over the world still. On an international scale you might call it oligarchy but the labels are not that relevant. Sometimes there is competition, more often there isn't. So theres a big chunk of this problem of envy; how can you ever justify someone making hundreds of millions a year while half the world starves. Yes thats very suggestive, but the point is the root of envy is for the most part inequality, NOT this retarded notion that all humans are selfish and greedy. And if you check the numbers inequality has been getting rather worse then better lately.

[twilitez]

Nah, the state is pretty fucking evil lol. That being said, I think anarcho-capitalism is insanely contradictory. How are you going to enforce the private property rights ancaps love so much without a state?

I prefer Preudhon's stance on this. Property is both theft and freedom.

[SCope13]

The state is not evil, it's one of the greatest institutions history has provided us with and we must take full advantage of it, not shun it to the side. Reclaim it.

This combined with some of your other posts has me really confused. You make sense most of the time, but do you really think this is even remotely possible?
To cut a few corners, the french revolution, democracy and all that jazz really changed close to nothing, were still the same peasants as before its just dressed up by technology.
Aristocracy is as real as it has ever been, it just changed shape slightly and switched hands in some cases, but its all over the world still. On an international scale you might call it oligarchy but the labels are not that relevant. Sometimes there is competition, more often there isn't. So theres a big chunk of this problem of envy; how can you ever justify someone making hundreds of millions a year while half the world starves. Yes thats very suggestive, but the point is the root of envy is for the most part inequality, NOT this retarded notion that all humans are selfish and greedy. And if you check the numbers inequality has been getting rather worse then better lately.

^^^ agree with most of that. Humans are just a capable of being kind and generous as the are evil and greedy, it's just the system incentivizes bad behavior.