Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

AgoristTeen1994 · (This post was last modified: 03-05-2012 06:22 PM by AgoristTeen1994.)

Hey everyone I'll just post the link to the thread on the FSW forum, but the (current) bottom post by AgoristTeen1994 is as you can guess, me. Would anyone be interested in helping with either of those ideas?

http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fsw...ic=12462.0

Post Scriptum: I do NOT want to start a discussion on religion here at least outside of PM's since it could very well devolve into people simply flinging ad hominems at each other like a chimpanzee flings sh** which I do NOT want.

boyntonstu · (This post was last modified: 03-05-2012 07:58 AM by boyntonstu.)

(03-05-2012 07:35 AM)AgoristTeen1994 Wrote: Hey everyone I'll just post the link to the thread on the FSW forum, but the (current) bottom post by AgoristTeen1994 is as you can guess, me. Would anyone be interested in helping with either of those ideas?

http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fsw...#msg110749

Post Scriptum: I do NOT want to start a discussion on religion here at least outside of PM's since it could very well devolve into people simply flinging ad hominems at each other like a chimpanzee flings sh** which I do NOT want.

When we discuss the State we are discussing the State religion.

Do you believe in the State?

If not, why not?

What is the factual difference between having faith in the State and having Faith in God?

stU

AgoristTeen1994 · 03-05-2012, 08:19 AM

(03-05-2012 07:58 AM)boyntonstu Wrote:
(03-05-2012 07:35 AM)AgoristTeen1994 Wrote: Hey everyone I'll just post the link to the thread on the FSW forum, but the (current) bottom post by AgoristTeen1994 is as you can guess, me. Would anyone be interested in helping with either of those ideas?

http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fsw...#msg110749

Post Scriptum: I do NOT want to start a discussion on religion here at least outside of PM's since it could very well devolve into people simply flinging ad hominems at each other like a chimpanzee flings sh** which I do NOT want.

When we discuss the State we are discussing the State religion.

Do you believe in the State?

If not, why not?

What is the factual difference between having faith in the State and having Faith in God?

stU

NonEntity · 03-05-2012, 08:53 AM

(03-05-2012 08:19 AM)AgoristTeen1994 Wrote:
(03-05-2012 07:58 AM)boyntonstu Wrote:
(03-05-2012 07:35 AM)AgoristTeen1994 Wrote: Hey everyone I'll just post the link to the thread on the FSW forum, but the (current) bottom post by AgoristTeen1994 is as you can guess, me. Would anyone be interested in helping with either of those ideas?

http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fsw...#msg110749

Post Scriptum: I do NOT want to start a discussion on religion here at least outside of PM's since it could very well devolve into people simply flinging ad hominems at each other like a chimpanzee flings sh** which I do NOT want.

When we discuss the State we are discussing the State religion. <--- comes from WIKI

Do you believe in the State? <--- comes from WIKI

If not, why not? <--- comes from WIKI

What is the factual difference between having faith in the State and having Faith in God? <--- comes from WIKI

stU <--- comes from WIKI

eye2i2hear · (This post was last modified: 03-05-2012 09:36 AM by eye2i2hear.)

(03-05-2012 07:58 AM)boyntonstu Wrote:
(03-05-2012 07:35 AM)AgoristTeen1994 Wrote: I do NOT want to start a discussion on religion here ...

When we discuss the State we are discussing the State religion.
Do you believe in the State?
If not, why not?
What is the factual difference between having faith in the State and having Faith in God?

AgT, you might not have gotten around to the particular threads where the matter of defining the term religion pointed out in stU's post is addressed. So let me suggest that you read some of those posts, and meanwhile:

Regarding the word religion, I'm appealing to the same course many around these parts are after with the word anarchy.

With the word anarchy, there's the popular, contemporary defining (chaos, mayhem, robbin' lootin' & killin' etc) and the historical record of defining (several variations). There's also consideration for the etymology of the word --what it likely originally meant, but more crucially, what it's root parts, broken down are, and meant.

With anarchy, the first "an" is of course a convention. It's the equivalent of saying "against" or "no-"; it's a negation indicator. [a similar convention is with the word "atheist"; the 'a' is used preceding a consonant, 'an', when preceding a vowel]
Next of course comes "arch". Examples still demonstrating it's etymology are "archway" and "hierarchy" (and MickeyD's "Golden Arches" and The St. Louis Arch monument). What does archway convey?
In ancient Greece the word archon is said to have been used for rulers or chiefs. Combining archway and archon it seems easy enough to see, over rulers, and rulers over, no? [hint: see Democracy/We The People In Congress Assembled --over'arching?]
Thus anarchy most reasonably and logically means "no rulers over". There's simply zero in the fashioning to support chaos/mayhem/etc.

It is similarly the case with the word religion. [I have a post on the forum already exploring the etymology vs popular choice if interested]

I argue against using religion only for God/theist/theology simply because it grants (as often the intention) legitimacy to what is otherwise an obvious opinion, with no factual basis. Also, several key no State visionaries (e.g. Marc Stevens, Larken Rose, Stefban Molyneux) are on "the record" as seeing, and expounding upon how and why, Statism as a religion.

Thus, it's oxymoronic at best, disingenuous potentially, and confusing at worst, on a "No State" ("astatist") forum to ask or say one can't or shouldn't discuss religion (chimpanzee fling inevitability/presumption on a site professing voluntary association, aside; see also "divisive/take over" allegation/mongering?).

My conclusion as to why it matters, is pretty simple:

The State is simply a concept presented by other men, for which others choose to take by faith what is presented, and believe in it to the extent that they are willing to live and give their lives for the belief. [to what extent is of course, a matter of opinion and/or faith as well]

And --factually-- Theism/Godism/Faithism are precisely the same in origin and effect (but with even worse coded & tiered hearsay evidence as a basis).

The optimal word for both, etymologically and factually speaking, in spite of current popularity, is religion: "to bind fast", via notion of "place an obligation on,"

I also offer for your consideration, that historically and reasonably, asking if there is any greater Authority than The God Stamp to be left to be put into the hands of every Tom, Dick and Harry, Mo, Larry and Curly, Peter, Paul and Pope, George the III, George the W, and Obama the One? To give ALL a "God Said/Told Me!" Stamp?!? When factually, that grant is but a notion (not to mention, mere hearsay)??

Main point here being: if you wish to use the word religion here on the forum, you'll need to include the qualifier i.e. Statist or Theist/Godist. Just as it's necessary with the likes of anarchy and atheist.

Cool

--asuperstitionists2i

NonEntity · 03-05-2012, 09:59 AM

(03-05-2012 09:30 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote: I also offer for your consideration, that historically and reasonably, asking if there is any greater Authority than The God Stamp to be left to be put into the hands of every Tom, Dick and Harry, Mo, Larry and Curly, Peter, Paul and Pope, George the III, George the W, and Obama the One? To give ALL a "God Said/Told Me!" Stamp?!? When factually, that grant is but a notion (not to mention, mere hearsay)??

--asuperstitionists2i

BEAGLE!!!

("in" joke Tounge

)

But aside from that... DUDE! Great post!

- NonE
in

AgoristTeen1994 · (This post was last modified: 03-05-2012 10:13 AM by AgoristTeen1994.)

Hm. That's odd...what I had tried to say in the second post after the quote didn't show up...oh well.

eye2ihear I will admit you DO have a point. Statism can be considered a religion....I suppose I should have specified that I didn't want debate over whether Christians like myself can truly be considered anarchists, among other things involving Christianity as it relates to Anarchism as well as "insults" toward my faith....

OH also I want to say that regardless of whether or not ANY ruler or gov't claims to have the approval of the Lord......that doesn't mean they do. I have come to the conclusion that God doesn't approve of ANY gov't as the governments would be usurping what he sees as rightfully his which you may or may not agree with...assuming of course you believe he exists. Tounge

....or to put it another way, when there is a conflict between what the Bible says such as "Thou shalt not murder" or "Thou shalt not steal" and the gov't through it's actions such as war and taxation...that most Christians go with following the gov't over following God....well.... I'm pretty sure that doesn't make for a God that is happy with most Christians.

NonEntity · (This post was last modified: 03-05-2012 12:26 PM by NonEntity.)

Aggie,

First, please note that I am not attempting to challenge your beliefs or disparage them. I respect your desire not to "go there."

That being said, I simply want to point to something you said which applies to ALL thinking, about ALL subjects, and which is HUGELY important in my opinion.

You said:

(03-05-2012 10:07 AM)AgoristTeen1994 Wrote: I have come to the conclusion that God doesn't...

Please take note of the "I have come to the conclusion" part of that. The point is that ALL understanding is ultimately decided upon by the mind of the individual. So ultimately it is YOU who is determining "the will of God," or "the rights of individuals," or anything else. When someone says, "God said..." or "God shows us..." or "Our Founding Fathers wanted to..." or "The intent of the writers of the Constitution..." or ANYTHING... well, it's always AS INTERPRETED by HIS (or her) brain.

Which is what leads me to my ONE RULE of life: Is it Voluntary? As long as all interactions between people are freely chosen by all parties, then we have civilization. When one "side" imposes it's will upon another side, or person, or group... then we have tyranny.

And the key issue in understanding this crucial idea is to remain aware of the meaning behind, or the implications inherent in, your statement above, "I have come to the conclusion..."

I hope that I've phrased this in a manner that you have not found offensive, as I do not mean it to be offensive.

- NonE

P.S. I think maybe Eye2 and I are saying the same thing from different points on the intellectual compass.

P.P.S. Regarding my issues with the idea of "faith" as a thinking modality, I think that perhaps the acceptance of an idea "on faith" allows one to also feel that this idea is applicable to all, that it is universal. Whereas when one remains cognizant that one's thinking is the current conclusions of one's own mind, and that mind alone, then one may tend to remain more humble, and more willing to grant that the thoughts of others may also have some level of validity.

eye2i2hear · (This post was last modified: 03-05-2012 02:17 PM by eye2i2hear.)

(03-05-2012 10:07 AM)AgoristTeen1994 Wrote: eye2ihear I will admit you DO have a point. Statism can be considered a religion....

Thanks for sharing that.
(though I'd be most tempted to ask what factual evidence do you have for not considering it a religion? and rather, just say it is one? haha, but that just gets us back to definitions...) Wink

Quote:OH also I want to say that regardless of whether or not ANY ruler or gov't claims to have the approval of the Lord......that doesn't mean they do.

Which honestly, from my perspective, is the crux of the matter: who has the Authority to say such (one way or the other)?? [hint: the heart of the problem is that EVERY and ANYbody has The Authority --because it's all opinion --factually] I present for your consideration, that it's the opening of Pandora's Box; it's leaving the proverbial barn door open; it's the lid off of those cans of worms; it's letting the cats out of the bag.

Presenting that "God said" (thus says) is reality, is arguably the unassailable ultimate Authority --for anything goes. Granted it's nice that post Crusades and Witch Hunt eras that the vast majority of Xtianity has shifted back to emphasizing "peace" (tho for some, it's a bit Orwellian via God Bless America, bombs away and guns blazing). But what God means? Well, just who's to Say?

[jic: the temptation, or inclination, to point to a certain (chosen) "book" (or "books") is not to appeal to fact; but rather to hearsay, no? He said he said He Said; but more accurately, is to point to the only god in the matter: the one choosing said book(s)... to start with, no?]

NonEntity · 03-05-2012, 12:38 PM

(03-05-2012 12:21 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote: Presenting that "God said" (thus says) is in reality is arguably the unassailable ultimate Authority --for anything goes.

There it is. The authorization for anything... ANYTHING!

Mr. Bumper Sticker Wrote:
God said it.
I believe it.
That settles it.

Or...

Mr. Bumper Sticker Wrote:
The LAW states this.
I believe it.
That settles it.

But from the 60s... (modified by NonAuthoritarian)

Mr. Bumper Sticker Wrote:
~~Question~~ Reject Authority

- NonE

AgoristTeen1994 · 03-05-2012, 02:42 PM

(03-05-2012 10:41 AM)NonEntity Wrote: Aggie,

First, please note that I am not attempting to challenge your beliefs or disparage them. I respect your desire not to "go there."

That being said, I simply want to point to something you said which applies to ALL thinking, about ALL subjects, and which is HUGELY important in my opinion.

You said:

(03-05-2012 10:07 AM)AgoristTeen1994 Wrote: I have come to the conclusion that God doesn't...

Please take note of the "I have come to the conclusion" part of that. The point is that ALL understanding is ultimately decided upon by the mind of the individual. So ultimately it is YOU who is determining "the will of God," or "the rights of individuals," or anything else. When someone says, "God said..." or "God shows us..." or "Our Founding Fathers wanted to..." or "The intent of the writers of the Constitution..." or ANYTHING... well, it's always AS INTERPRETED by HIS (or her) brain. I do agree with you on the point that alll understanding is ultimately decided upon by the mind of the individual...while I do believe that there are objective truths that can be determined...it is up to the individual to understand them and to put as little subjectivity as possible into their understanding of that objective truth. As for it ultimately being me determining the will of God to take one example you gave, that is based on the Bible, but also admittedly my interpretation of that.

Which is what leads me to my ONE RULE of life: Is it Voluntary? As long as all interactions between people are freely chosen by all parties, then we have civilization. When one "side" imposes it's will upon another side, or person, or group... then we have tyranny.

And the key issue in understanding this crucial idea is to remain aware of the meaning behind, or the implications inherent in, your statement above, "I have come to the conclusion..."

I hope that I've phrased this in a manner that you have not found offensive, as I do not mean it to be offensive.

- NonE

P.S. I think maybe Eye2 and I are saying the same thing from different points on the intellectual compass.

P.P.S. Regarding my issues with the idea of "faith" as a thinking modality, I think that perhaps the acceptance of an idea "on faith" allows one to also feel that this idea is applicable to all, that it is universal. Whereas when one remains cognizant that one's thinking is the current conclusions of one's own mind, and that mind alone, then one may tend to remain more humble, and more willing to grant that the thoughts of others may also have some level of validity.

Thank you for being respectful of my faith...I DO appreciate it as well as your effort to not offend me... I've always followed my interpretation of the Jefferson quote "Question with boldness, even the existence of God for if there be a God he must more approve the homage of reason, than of blind-folded fear" I do try to question EVERYTHING or at least, as much as possible.

And don't worry with very few exceptions I would never try and coerce someone into following the tenets of my beliefs. of course there are certain exceptions some I are exceptions that I would always follow...other's i struggle with. One example of something I struggle with is abortions, at least late-term abortions. For example there was a girl that from Sept. 2010 up until about last October...I was madly in love with...she was born prematurely....and apparently her mother had a lot of complications with her birth....if her mother had been able to abort her...would she have done so....and if she had I would have never met that girl, I never would have fallen in love with her, and while yes I never would have gotten my heart ripped to shreds....I never would have been able to grow and mature as a person in the ways that can only come from an experience like that. So where would I be now? And that's just one example, what about all of the millions of fetues/unborn children that have been aborted that could have grown up and been the next Gandhi, the next Eistein, the next Stephen Hawking, or heaven forbid, the next NonE? While in the vast majority of cases, I would not coerce a woman into not having an abortion I simply would not 1. pay for it. 2. Help her in anyway to have the abortion 3. Date a woman who would have an abortion if she became pregnant with my child and 4 I would not have sex with a woman who would have an abortion if she became pregnant with my kid....but what about late term abortions? I define late-term as abortions during the last two months or so of her pregnancy...or to be more specific...from the 7 months along point up until birth. That is something I truly struggle with.

Another exception I do NOT struggle with is if say there was a guy who because of HIS religious beliefs, believed women had no rights and that if he wanted to rape a woman, that was alright...I would have no problem whatsoever beating the holy sh** out of him and potentially killing him if he actually tried to rape a woman.

But for the most part, aside from those two exceptions I gave I wouldn't force the tenets of my religion on anyone...

Anyway I do agree that religion is an entirely subjective matter...since while my personal experiences have led me to believe that the Judeo-Christian God is real and to accept the teachings of the Bible regarding Jesus...that's only because of how I look at them. If you, NonE had had those exact same experiences...they could cause you to believe something entirely different. However while I believe I'm right...that doesn't mean I think everyone should agree with me. Now ideas I've come to objectively using logic, science, and reason, which is most of the ideas I hold, like say anarchism/agorism....then yeah I tend to think people who disagree are idiots. But on the few things I accept "on faith" it doesn't bother me if someone disagrees.

NonEntity · 03-05-2012, 02:52 PM

(03-05-2012 02:42 PM)AgoristTeen1994 Wrote: Another exception I do NOT struggle with is if say there was a guy who because of HIS religious beliefs, believed women had no rights and that if he wanted to rape a woman, that was alright...I would have no problem whatsoever beating the holy sh** out of him and potentially killing him if he actually tried to rape a woman.

How do you see this as an "exception?" Defending an innocent person who is being violently attacked by another? I don't see this as an exception. Just sayin'. ;-)

As to the abortion thing, yeah, that's a hard one. I've looked at it from every which way I can think of and I don't believe I can point to ONE specific "correct" way to view it.

So... We cool, bro!

- NonE

eye2i2hear · 03-05-2012, 03:20 PM

(03-05-2012 12:38 PM)NonEntity Wrote:
(03-05-2012 12:21 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote: Presenting that "God said" (thus says) is in reality is arguably the unassailable ultimate Authority --for anything goes.

There it is. The authorization for anything... ANYTHING!

And just to clarify on the "it isn't anything personal" factor --noting how NonE's oft expresses it: I don't care what you believe as long as you don't try to force it on me --for most of us (U.S.Euro.) now, what most believe about such really is pretty benign, at least in the most direct sense.

But that is not really the problem.
The Problem is the door that's opened... to and for any and every body else. The door to The Ultimate Authority-claimed room. Granting legitimacy to ANY thing goes.

Any one 'round lately all ~~huffed up~~ serious about what Santa said (or didn't really mean)? Or whether Santa is for or against The State/Government? Or debating about whether, say, the sun or the moon exists?

Just the facts, 'mam.

NonEntity · 03-05-2012, 03:59 PM

(03-05-2012 03:20 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote: Or whether Santa is for or against The State/Government? Or debating about whether, say, the sun or the moon exists?

Just the facts, 'mam.

Oh give me an F'ing break, Eye2! It's OBVIOUS that without the moon Santa would never be able to find all of those chimbleys. It's not like he's got G.P.S. or nuthin'. You are SO dense at times.

- NonE Cool

AgoristTeen1994 · 03-05-2012, 06:10 PM

:rolleyes: at NonE's last post regarding Santa and the Moon. Now religious/Christianity discussion aside what does everyone think about the idea of a podcast? I've already started getting people to help out...I have three so far from the Daily Anarchist forum...and I'm hoping to find a couple from the FSW forum who are "Christian Anarchists" to help out with that area of discussion. But what do you all think?