Atheists, lets get real

[Quag]

it is relevant

Nope.

 

[TypicalRussian]

Denile isnt just a river in Egypt

i am a winner!

 

[TypicalRussian]

Nope.

yes it is

 

[Marrybore]

dawkins book is not very good

I get the feeling that you may have made that judgment based on pre-conceived notions...

 

[danielpalos]

...and Insist on true witness bearing from Theists.

Otherwise, Job 34:30 applies and we should not take them seriously in abortion threads.

 

[blarg]

Why an Infinite Regress Among Proper Causes is Metaphysically Impossible : Strange Notions

have anything not religiously motivated?

About : Strange Notions

and this semes unproven right off the bat

Since non-being cannot ever produce being,



and this sounds the same as a god or any uncaused cause

The intermediate causes don’t have any “tickets.” They exist and act only in virtue of passing on some causal process that none of them ultimately originates or completely explains. As causes, they are an ontological welfare class. Whether they are finite or infinite in number, they explain nothing of the thread of causation that runs through them all and links them all together as a causal chain.

you still have something that just exists because in either case

keep in mind im proposing that the ultimate origin you prefer need not necessarily be a god

 

[blarg]

i have addrssed it

ou have yet to address it thats why


any god seems more unlikely than a universe without one since your adding more things that could be different


selecting a single god in this case the christian god seems more unlikely since your adding more things that can be different

 

[blarg]

you can dig up God

did someone link please

 

[blarg]

i am a winner!

 

[zyzygy]

Ok. I have my spade. Give me the coordinates, I will dig up god. I didn't know that he was dead, what a shame!

 

[blarg]

Ok. I have my spade. Give me the coordinates, I will dig up god. I didn't know that he was dead, what a shame!

hey now just because he us underground doesn't make him dead

 

[Quag]

i am a winner!

That's weiner

 

[Quag]

yes it is

Nope.

 

[zyzygy]

hey now just because he us underground doesn't make him dead

Ok, he's doing a Saddam Hussien.

 

[ataraxia]

I'm not sure, but are you advocating for children of the 19th century to be farming from dawn to dusk daily just to survive? No thanks, give me a mine any day.

Seriously tho (yes, above was a joke), like with the NAP, all libertarians that I know, including myself, believe in age of majority and consent, without which liberty cannot work. What that age of consent is, for work, sex or anything else, is an ongoing debate, with conservative minded libertarians going with an age closer to 18 and even higher, while non-religious libertarians usually go with 16 or lower.

This is not about age of consent nor about physical aggression/violence per se. It's much broader than that. I was just giving an example from child labor issues of the 19th century- just one demographic in a position of weakness and vulnerability being exploited by those in positions of wealth and power. We can talk about the experience of African Americans in the civil rights era- where they were not allowed to vote, or send their children to the same schools as everyone else, just because more powerful demographics had more power. We can talk about systematic discrimination in the workplace against women, those of certain religions, or based on age. That's what happens when you leave everything free, every time. The powerful will exploit and abuse the weak and vulnerable with impunity. It's human nature. It's actually how all nature works. That's why it's called the freedom of the jungle.

If these systematic injustices and wrongs are not systematically corrected through a system of law, order, and justice, you create a lot of instability, both economically, socially, and politically. When people are cornered enough, have their back up against the wall long enough, and desperate enough, they will resort to violence. They will resort to vigilante justice. After all, if they can't rely on a competent and decent system of justice through their government, they will take matters into their own hands. And that really never works out for the best.

The idea that if you leave everyone and everything free all works out for the best is naive at best, and highly dangerous.

 

[ataraxia]

he is neccessaryy

reliigon is needed for society

Not really. Many modern nations are learning to do just fine without it. In fact, they are finding they do much better. It was always ultimately about political power anyway.

The six countries in the world with the most 'convinced atheists' | The Independent

 

[Trypt]

This is not about age of consent nor about physical aggression/violence per se. It's much broader than that. I was just giving an example from child labor issues of the 19th century- just one demographic in a position of weakness and vulnerability being exploited by those in positions of wealth and power. We can talk about the experience of African Americans in the civil rights era- where they were not allowed to vote, or send their children to the same schools as everyone else, just because more powerful demographics had more power. We can talk about systematic discrimination in the workplace against women, those of certain religions, or based on age. That's what happens when you leave everything free, every time. The powerful will exploit and abuse the weak and vulnerable with impunity. It's human nature. It's actually how all nature works. That's why it's called the freedom of the jungle.

If these systematic injustices and wrongs are not systematically corrected through a system of law, order, and justice, you create a lot of instability, both economically, socially, and politically. When people are cornered enough, have their back up against the wall long enough, and desperate enough, they will resort to violence. They will resort to vigilante justice. After all, if they can't rely on a competent and decent system of justice through their government, they will take matters into their own hands. And that really never works out for the best.

The idea that if you leave everyone and everything free all works out for the best is naive at best, and highly dangerous.

I think you're probably more libertarian than you think, the problem seems to be that you have ever read about libertarianism from questionable sources, rather than from the source. Everything you say I can get behind, from a fully libertarian perspective, why do you think that is? Survival of the fittest and free for all or "freedom of the jungle" is not libertarianism, not even close.

Find any known libertarian or objectivist and listen on Youtube, you'll find that 99% of the ideas are really just liberalism, classical liberalism.

 

[watsup]

I think you're probably more libertarian than you think, the problem seems to be that you have ever read about libertarianism from questionable sources, rather than from the source. Everything you say I can get behind, from a fully libertarian perspective, why do you think that is? Survival of the fittest and free for all or "freedom of the jungle" is not libertarianism, not even close.

Find any known libertarian or objectivist and listen on Youtube, you'll find that 99% of the ideas are really just liberalism, classical liberalism.

Being a libertarian is just a hobby. It’s not a viable governance option.

 

[RAMOSS]

I think you're probably more libertarian than you think, the problem seems to be that you have ever read about libertarianism from questionable sources, rather than from the source. Everything you say I can get behind, from a fully libertarian perspective, why do you think that is? Survival of the fittest and free for all or "freedom of the jungle" is not libertarianism, not even close.

Find any known libertarian or objectivist and listen on Youtube, you'll find that 99% of the ideas are really just liberalism, classical liberalism.

There is a phrase in the bible that I think covers my objections . BY their fruits , you will know them. I look at what the words of the libertarians are, and then I look how they act to others. There is a discrepancy.

 

[rahl]

no they have not

you are fully aware that they have. I gave you the refutations.

 

[rahl]

nope, it was the teleloical argument that argues design, not the cause of the universe

no, it was the cosmological argument, and it was refuted.

 

[ataraxia]

I think you're probably more libertarian than you think, the problem seems to be that you have ever read about libertarianism from questionable sources, rather than from the source. Everything you say I can get behind, from a fully libertarian perspective, why do you think that is? Survival of the fittest and free for all or "freedom of the jungle" is not libertarianism, not even close.

Find any known libertarian or objectivist and listen on Youtube, you'll find that 99% of the ideas are really just liberalism, classical liberalism.

Do you consider Ron Paul a libertarian?

Tea Party Crowd Cheers Letting Uninsured Die - YouTube

Do you think it’s OK to have taxes pay for a formal system for protection of orphans?

 

[Trypt]

There is a phrase in the bible that I think covers my objections . BY their fruits , you will know them. I look at what the words of the libertarians are, and then I look how they act to others. There is a discrepancy.

You must know a lot of libertarians, lol. Agreed, I judge the same way, which is why I look at antifa and BLM as domestic terrorist organizations, by the words of their leadership and actions of their followers. That being said, comparing libertarians and liberals lately has become as easy as comparing black and white, the former believe in charity and leaving people be, the latter in entitlements, beating down all dissent and silencing all opposition. They may not be liberals in any sense that you or I agree on, but they call themselves that, or are allied with liberalism/leftism/progressives, and the way they behave when not getting their way is monstrous.

Show me a rich libertarian and I'll show you a guy minding his own business and helping only when he's wanted. Show me a rich liberal and I'll shows you a narcissist trying to rule the world, all the while hoarding wealth. Too many examples to list, but every single rich lefty American has some kind of global scheme going where social, or even geo, engineering is the goal, with other peoples money, incredibly self important.

 

[Trypt]

[/url]

Do you think it’s OK to have taxes pay for a formal system for protection of orphans?

No. Although I could get behind a local tax initiative, like in a city, or county.

Simply, gov't messes everything up and makes things worse for those it's trying to help, much worse. Any social program that is gov't run ends up a trap for those very people, and it always gets bigger and bigger.

If the community wants to help the orphans, they can do it voluntarily.

Libertarians believe in voluntarism, and we're peaceful about it, even the tea party chanters. But somehow you see them as evil, yet rioting and killing people in the name of some social program or other like antifa/BLM is good because it feels good. Ridiculous.

In your world view, it seems, saying you don't want to be forced to pay for someones insurance but trying to help otherwise is evil, but rioting and killing in order to force others to pay for insurance is good.

 

[ataraxia]

No. Although I could get behind a local tax initiative, like in a city, or county.

Either everything should be left to individual initiative and charity, and government always messes things up, or it doesn’t. Bringing in the issue of the particular size of the government jurisdiction seems to be confusing this question with an entirely different and unrelated subject.

Simply, gov't messes everything up and makes things worse for those it's trying to help, much worse. Any social program that is gov't run ends up a trap for those very people, and it always gets bigger and bigger.

As an example, before the ACA, 45,000 Americans a year were dying from easily treatable medical conditions because of lack of access to healthcare. Before Medicare, The elderly poor were either not getting any healthcare, or losing their entire life savings from unforeseen catastrophic medical illness in their retirement years. Somehow, voluntary charity was not doing the job. The vast majority of people would disagree that Medicare, despite not being perfect, has been a trap or that has not worked well. Even the most libertarian seniors on the program would agree, and would object to anything threatening to take it away from them. “ Stop socialized medicine and keep your government hands off my Medicare!“, right?

Here is one of the latest examples of how such a system was found to be necessary, and the success is created once it was implemented. With its new system of universal healthcare, Thailand not only dramatically improved its public health by almost every parameter, but, as an unexpected side effect, dramatically improved its economic growth as well.

What Thailand can teach the world about universal healthcare | Health revolution | The Guardian

If the community wants to help the orphans, they can do it voluntarily.

Back when there were no formal systems In place for them, most of them ended up on the street, exploited, and a big problem. Somehow, charity was never enough then. I’m not sure why you would think it would be any different now.

In your world view, it seems, saying you don't want to be forced to pay for someones insurance but trying to help otherwise is evil, but rioting and killing in order to force others to pay for insurance is good.

Charity is great. But it has never been enough. To say otherwise is to be ignorant of history. No, not everyone is a considerate gentleman when left free and alone to act as he wants. No, charity has never been enough. All developed nations in the world today have formal systems in place as a safety net for the basic protection of the basic human rights of their citizens- food, clean water, shelter, access to healthcare, and a basic education.