Statism = a religion?

[eye2i2hear]

Wes Bertrand mentioned in this past weeks NSP broadcast, the meaning of the word 'religion'. In considering it I did some quick web re-searching:

The Online Etymology Dictionary Wrote:Religion: c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300.
...
Modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power" is from 1530s. Religious is first recorded early 13c. Transferred sense of "scrupulous, exact" is recorded from 1590s.

--source link

Wes mentioned the "to bind fast" meaning.

I wanted to offer that in consideration of the fact that what is known ("revealed") of God(s) is always based upon individual humans -typically labeled prophets, instead of divines/gods* (that such claims make them, as all that's provable factually/actually)- this meaning is the only reasonable one. The other is but circular aka faith-based reasoning. My very limited understanding of the times of Rome as an Empire and ancient Greece were ones during which it was commonly recognized that special individuals were indeed the gods. Knowledge based upon factual, thus verifiable evidence, provides that this is the only logical premise. *[think "divining rods"; they are afterall -factually- talking to/hearing their "self"?! Evidence offered in support: the plethora of incompatible religions, much less denominations.]

This touches a bit on an Ocam's Razor question I've often pondered: Who stands to gain from God having to hide/be hidden from all* humans:
a.) the special God
-or-
b.) the special men making the claim said God has to hide? *[by "all" I mean not universally but relatively, because of course per the rare claims They're not hiding from all since there are the Chosen few --who hear/heard for the rest of our's sake, thank you Lord/Jezeus/Allah/Yah/etc; the amazing aspect of Christinsanity/JewDayism is this God is said to be a Father. A father who acted as this one is said to do would be ruled unfit in a heartbeat. Not to get into seeing as how someonething that doesn't exist is by default "hidden" to all... but the delusional.]

The central point being, that indeed, etymologically and logically, belief in The State is religious. Statism is a religion. And it is faith-based. Because just as with any "G"od, all that can be known about such comes from special, chosen people saying so --and placing one's faith in such as being "so". And that all being purely conceptual, aka a state of mind, requires faith in the Father/s founding.
"respect for what is sacred"? What is more sacred* than patriotism, as that by which and for which one lives and gives their life? What convey sacred any plainer than "citizenship" distinguished from "illegal alien"? *[sacred meaning "set apart; set higher"; per TOED: "bind, restrict, enclose, protect,...confirm, ratify, ordain"]
"belief in a divine power"? What can be, or has been historically, proven as 'divine' apart from special individual's claims/writings? Is the faith of others placed in their "G"od(s) --or factually, in these special's claims? And what claim has more power than The State, as being special/chosen people?
"particular system of faith" and "place an obligation on"? What more is Nationality?
"go through again, read again"? What requires this more than with Legislation, Judicial Review/Jurisprudence, and The Constitution?!? [ok, "more than" may be pushing it compared to Bibles/Scriptures --the other central illusion; but see "America was founded upon Christian=EAnglo principles" arguments etc]

Significant as a side-bar is that in earlier EAnglish Nationalism, the lowly before the divine (aka "Supreme") Courts addressed those seated archy/above as Lords, and prayed to them (ala heir-archy, heir fruher?). For us U.S. bound EAnglos (los angels*) the Enlightenment has at least given us temporary reprieve via the religious dogma of separation of church and state --oxymoronic impossibility that such is, factually. *[the EAngloish word "angel" is a transliteration of the Greek "angelos" and Latin "angelus", which translated simply is said to mean "messenger/ambassador"; thus technically (and scripturally/biblically), those claiming to have the primary EAnglos' God's word(s) are the "angels"]

ReligioNation
Perhaps it's time to relegate and rebind --religare/religio-- this EAnglish word religion? Put it back upon the factual foundation logically, inherently required. The only one. In both (all) cases.
(much like many have equally been seeking to with the word anarchy!)

*edited to new forum software format 02-2012

[Marc Stevens]

I feel like splitting hairs today also.

One difference is that statism is easily proven, with empirical facts, to be false in only a few minutes. I can prove, with verifiable facts, Jan Brewer is not the "Governor of the State of Arizona". I can also teach others to do the same.

Marc

[eye2i2hear]

marc Wrote:I feel like splitting hairs today also.

Not to be confused with splitting hares, no?! :biggrinblue: [Alice's aside]

Quote:One difference is that statism is easily proven, with empirical facts, to be false in only a few minutes. I can prove, with verifiable facts, Jan Brewer is not the "Governor of the State of Arizona". I can also teach others to do the same.

"easily proven"?!? :o To whom?!? Isn't the number of Astatists (arguably) about the same percentage of the population as Atheists/Agnostics?
(We don't need no stinkin' facts... sadly, for either; where one can consider the verifiable facts behind the phenomena of children of atheists are typically atheists, children of Islamics are "love it or leave it" Islamic, children of Christians are Christian, children of Statists are Statists, children of Americans are love-it-or-leave-it-"Americans" --that, what is taught/"raise up a child in the way he should go and he will not depart from it", aka indoctrination principle, etc?)

But admittedly, I don't know that I follow what the splitting hairs or the one difference were referenced to; sew could you stitch that together for me?

[NonEntity]

I agree with Eye2i2hare.

It's as easy to prove to a statist that the the state doesn't exist as it is to a Godist that gods don't exist.

In fact, there is a wonderful debate/discussion on tonight's FreeTalkLive show which does exactly that. It's a debate where Stefan Molyneux argues for the atheist side while Johnson argues for agnosticism. While there are many reasons for me to detest Stefan, in this show he is excellent. He is honest and consistent (things which he often is not) and logical. Johnson, on the other hand, when ever Stefan presents a clear perspective, simply changes definitions and so is capable of saying anything is possible, except, of course, he refutes this when Stef suggests that he applies the same rules to the rest of reality and not just religion.

You can only have an honest discussion with honest people. Sadly that seems to exclude almost all of humanity.

- NonE

[NonEntity]

And to further inquire into the nature of statism as religion and the co-mingling of the concepts, this article by Chris Floyd is well worth reading.

On a strictly stylistic note, this sentence is simply a work of art:

Quote:And of course, there has never been and can never be any kind of clear dividing line between all of these swirling currents, the multifaceted dimensions of modernity and tradition; like a jar of colored sands, they mix and meld in innumerable, unstable combinations as they are sifted and shaken through the course of time.

-- NonE

[Marc Stevens]

NonEntity Wrote:I agree with Eye2i2hare.

It's as easy to prove to a statist that the the state doesn't exist as it is to a Godist that gods don't exist.

In fact, there is a wonderful debate/discussion on tonight's FreeTalkLive show which does exactly that. It's a debate where Stefan Molyneux argues for the atheist side while Johnson argues for agnosticism. While there are many reasons for me to detest Stefan, in this show he is excellent. He is honest and consistent (things which he often is not) and logical. Johnson, on the other hand, when ever Stefan presents a clear perspective, simply changes definitions and so is capable of saying anything is possible, except, of course, he refutes this when Stef suggests that he applies the same rules to the rest of reality and not just religion.

You can only have an honest discussion with honest people. Sadly that seems to exclude almost all of humanity.

- NonE

I was there for that and I really don't like those "debates" because both sides come to the table with no respect for the other side. Typically, both sides think the other is crazy, so nothing gets accomplished. What does the atheist hope to accomplish when he firmly believes the other guy is delusional and not capable of critical, rational thought? I get so tired of the "Christians are not capable of critical thoughts" BS and the theist BS that atheism is a religion. Both sides present their own delusions.

If someone can't come to the table with even a little bit of respect and drop the delusion your "opponent" is incapable of critical thought, then they should stay away because your motive is suspect.

You mention honest discussion and I agree. Is it honest though to "debate" someone you think is crazy and not capable of rational thought? What is the purpose of debating them? You certainly don't need to convince the atheist and the theist is not capable us understanding your rational points anyway. What's the point?

Honest would be "I believe, by my rational thought, verifiable evidence and replicated experiment results, ALL Christians are delusional and incapable of critical or rational thought." You then follow that up and don't bother "debating" people who are nuts. But any atheist, capable of critical thought, should know such a statement is pure BS. Look at Philo T. Farnsworth as an empirical example.

Regardless of the many delusions held by bureaucrats, it's silly to assume they're not capable of critical thought. I've read comments just like that above, lot's from Stef's forum. Stef was blasted by some of his listeners because he was a regular guest on my radio show. These people were convinced I am incapable of critical thought and Stef should have nothing to do with me. I'm glad Stef didn't agree with them

[NonEntity]

Marc Stevens Wrote:You mention honest discussion and I agree. Is it honest though to "debate" someone you think is crazy and not capable of rational thought? What is the purpose of debating them? You certainly don't need to convince the atheist and the theist is not capable us understanding your rational points anyway. What's the point?

Honest would be "I believe, by my rational thought, verifiable evidence and replicated experiment results, ALL Christians are delusional and incapable of critical or rational thought." You then follow that up and don't bother "debating" people who are nuts. But any atheist, capable of critical thought, should know such a statement is pure BS. Look at Philo T. Farnsworth as an empirical example.

Regardless of the many delusions held by bureaucrats, it's silly to assume they're not capable of critical thought. I've read comments just like that above, lot's from Stef's forum. Stef was blasted by some of his listeners because he was a regular guest on my radio show. These people were convinced I am incapable of critical thought and Stef should have nothing to do with me. I'm glad Stef didn't agree with them

I'm sorry, Marc, but I'm not totally following what point you're attempting to make. Perhaps you need to be more blunt? I don't know.

What I will point out is that I complained about honesty, not rationality. What disturbed me is that Johnson was not honest. I did not find this with Stef in this instance (however I have found dishonesty to be a modus operandi of his). Stef sought agreement on definitions at the beginning, agreement which he got from Johnson. Later, when inconsistencies were revealed in Johnson's position, he simply changed the definitions. This is dishonest. Whether or not he is capable of rational thought, I don't know, as he cheated each time he was put in a position of using rationality to answer the questions which Stef put to him, questions he didn't have an answer for.

One cannot prove a negative. That seems to be a law of rationality/logic or some such. As such, it is not possible to prove that a "god" (whatever that is supposed to mean) does not exist. I don't suggest that I can prove such a negative. On the other hand, I have proven that all of the arguments that have been put to me so far for the existence of such do not stand rational scrutiny. So that is my position. The idea of a god simply makes no sense to me.

I don't care what others may or may not believe as long as they treat me with respect, i.e. allow me voluntary choices in my interaction with them. It is, sadly, in the apparent nature of religious belief, be it statist or godist, that such beliefs elevate one above others and thus make it acceptable to dictate to those inferior beings. This is what I have a problem with.

I mentioned honesty. I think that one cannot be honest and treat others with contempt and initiative force. I would have to think more on this were I challenged to prove it, but that is my thought at the moment. I also think that most people choose dishonesty when presented with really hard, soul searching questions. Then, of course, there are sociopaths. That is a completely different, if related, subject.

Dishonest people are worthy of contempt, in my view. Note however that this does not apply to mistaken people or people who don't have the capacity of serious thought. Those who have the capacity and choose to evade thought are, in my mind, actively dishonest.

- NonE

P.S. Pardon my ignorance, but I have no idea who Farnsworth is, so that analogy missed its mark on me.

P.P.S. I'm also reminded of the position of Ian Freeman (of FreeTalkLive.com fame) who claims that he is no longer an atheist, rather he currently considers himself a panentheist, which he defines as the belief that everything is god and god is everything. To me, that is simply a semantic game which is rationally incoherent. Why not just say he believes in everything? I've not specifically asked him this question, so I may be mistaken in my understanding, but that's what I get from all that he's said on the subject.

Stephen Nuttall Wrote:Panentheism has its linguistic roots in the Greek words pan, en and Theos, and therefore literally means All-in-God. Krause qualified his overall perspective with the assertion: “Everything is in God and God is in everything, but God is more than everything.” According to this outlook, God is an essence that contains the entire universe within itself but is not exhausted by it.

Here again, we have dishonesty in that "everything" cannot be a subset of "everything." (Although this brings to mind the idea expressed as "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.")

Oddly, much of what the sentiment in these thinkings is resonates with me. I just don't want to try and define something that I do not have words for and thereby attempt to trick myself into believing that I understand more than I do. I have no idea where all-that-is came from or is going to. Lying to myself doesn't make me wiser, it makes a fool of me.

The idea of being humble, which is often part of the concept of various religions, is a wonderful idea. But then so often we find that the practices of those proclaiming their religions to be filled with hubris instead. This is sad. And when it is used to gain power, it is criminal.

It seems to me that the definition of "religion" might as well include hubris. Whereas philosophy is more to my way of being humble before the great wealth of all that is.

I'll shut up now, I guess. :winkwink:

P.P.S. (Well, one more little tidbit to bring it back to the subject heading...) I'm reminded of the occasion where the man who was threatening me with a knife said, "You don't believe in THE LAW??? You'd better be very careful what the next words out of your mouth are!" That is a perfect example of religion, to me.

[NonEntity]

Marc Stevens Wrote:You mention honest discussion and I agree. Is it honest though to "debate" someone you think is crazy and not capable of rational thought? What is the purpose of debating them? You certainly don't need to convince the atheist and the theist is not capable us understanding your rational points anyway. What's the point?

It just struck me, Marc, that this is EXACTLY what you do with the LegalLandists! :biggrinblue:

- NonE

[WorBlux]

Marc Stevens Wrote:I feel like splitting hairs today also.

One difference is that statism is easily proven, with empirical facts, to be false in only a few minutes. I can prove, with verifiable facts, Jan Brewer is not the "Governor of the State of Arizona". I can also teach others to do the same.

Marc

There is no doubt, even by your own arguments that the state has it's own trappings of religion; rituals, cannons,sacred writ, and integration into identity. Thus the result of the difference is though it may be a religion it is certainly a false and idolatrous one.

[eye2i2hear]

Apologies up front for going long; obviously I feel it's worth it.
Critical even?

Marc Stevens Wrote:I was there for that and I really don't like those "debates" because both sides come to the table with no respect for the other side.

And you know this, factually, how? Is that a (legal) opinion or a fact? :wacky:
Sincerely, at least per the recorded segment NonE linked (Stefan & Johnson), I didn't hear any "no respect" --if that's the "debate" you're speaking of.
[significantly to me, I found it pretty well a parallel with the phone conversations you've had with Bureaucrats that you've shared with us -oi, vey! -less the backing of armed thugs of course ]

Otay, you do (thankfully) qualify it a bit with the next starting word:

Quote:Typically, both sides think the other is crazy, so nothing gets accomplished. What does the atheist hope to accomplish when he firmly believes the other guy is delusional and not capable of critical, rational thought? I get so tired of the "Christians are not capable of critical thoughts" BS and the theist BS that atheism is a religion. Both sides present their own delusions.

If someone can't come to the table with even a little bit of respect and drop the delusion your "opponent" is incapable of critical thought, then they should stay away because your motive is suspect.

You mention honest discussion and I agree. Is it honest though to "debate" someone you think is crazy and not capable of rational thought? What is the purpose of debating them? You certainly don't need to convince the atheist and the theist is not capable us understanding your rational points anyway. What's the point?

Honest would be "I believe, by my rational thought, verifiable evidence and replicated experiment results, ALL Christians are delusional and incapable of critical or rational thought." You then follow that up and don't bother "debating" people who are nuts.
...
Regardless of the many delusions held by bureaucrats, it's silly to assume they're not capable of critical thought. I've read comments just like that above, lot's from Stef's forum. Stef was blasted by some of his listeners because he was a regular guest on my radio show. These people were convinced I am incapable of critical thought and Stef should have nothing to do with me. I'm glad Stef didn't agree with them

Couple of preliminaries here: What seems vital, I fondly refer to as The Voltaire Admonition: "If you wish to communicate with me, first define your terms." It seems crucial we define the essential terms herein --if indeed, we wish to communicate (aka find mutual value). First this word "atheist". I'm generally with Sam Harris on this one; where my spin on it is we don't label those who don't believe in Santa to be "asantaists", nor those who don't believe in unicorns to be "aunicornists", nor those who don't believe in extraterrestrials to be... well, you get my drift. Secondly, as a word, atheist doesn't even work (if communication is the goal). What of "adeists"? Or in Ian's case, "apantheists"? And noting the Deist position, what's up with this wurd "theist" instead of "god"? Why not at least "agodists" instead of atheists?? Or the real blasphemy: NonGodEst.

One can be either a logical, rational, fact-seeking based individual or not -but more likely, one is tempted to grant exception to one special area; the proverbial blind spot. For my two cents worth, those who aren't get- because they require -the labels. Religionist works, etymologically, soundly as a label (under that, subheadings include Statist, Theist, Deist, ETist, etc). They are bound to their Faith-based belief. So call me an afaithist? :rolleyes2: [Voltaire haunts me, but for times's sake I won't define the term faith here]

I suppose what I'm getting at, to attempt to swing back to the parallel proposal, is that we don't call for "astatists"*. Instead, we consider the evidence and from there determine who's religious and who's not. So monsieur Voltaire, admonition noted: definition of religion: "to bind". I hear in that the classic position of both statists and godists (aka "theists"). Their "Word" (Scripture/Holy Writ/Law) ultimately binds (about "The God" and the gods). To pull in another quote-morph: all faith-based believers are atheist when it comes to any and all other gods. Theists are (f)actually atheists?!? :eekeek: But more to point, factually no "God" is provable --if it were, it'd be science and not religion, no? But the more crucial significance in that is, considering the religion of The State-ist and the religion of The God-ist, it always boils down to the requirement of special men. Enlightened and InTheLightened. Factually, ultimately, there is all the god(s) there is/are; the Authors that tie, the Author-ties that bind. *[tho perhaps akin to atheists, as a word, there's a funny parallel even here: why is it the word "state" is used instead of "archy", yet one who is an abolitionist is an "anarchist"? why isn't it at least "astatist"? -butt why ask why with such...]

How baffling that Statists can't see the mere men with The Gun in the room behind The Law Book, and Godists can't see the mere men behind The Book in the room.

How holy (set higher/above/arched) such scripting is, well, just observe the classic American Religionist with either. Not to mention the cognitive dissonance of "separation of church and state" (arguably oxymoronic/tautological, factually, as that inherently is; see "author"-i-tie/bind above).

On the query of why argue with theists... I'm surprised actually, that you lump all individuals under one label. Seems quite Statist-think to me. Otay, that's a bit strong. But I am disappointed in finding your bolded text. Granted, like the squeaking wheel, the ranting Atheists get the proverbial grease. But might one call to point asking if you (marc) want to be lumped in with all "christians"? Me personally, I've just not found it to be the case that all atheists think all christians are delusional-and-incapable of critical and rational thought; rather, like the typical Statist, they're more indoctrinated (culture, familial, or whatever), fear-induced/bound, and/or have blind spots (for whatever reason), particularly to the temptation of hearsay. The typical American has indeed heard (hearsay of) the virtue of State Archy and God Theos. :rolleyes:

Finally, I argue -which for me is not a synonym of quarrel- with such because it worked against/with me. My experience is that deep down, religious folk know they're (factually) putting their faith in other men's words; whether it be the religion of Government or Church (both aka "The Assembly"; the later translation from the Greek validating such); in Congress Assembled, in The Assembly Of God*. *[one denomination, in grasping this reality, takes that as it's official title, of course, and so I don't mean that specific delusion mistaken crowd ]
So I argue with them in hopes that something I say today might sink in for them tomorrow/eventually. Sure, there is the premise of "sowing upon rock" -aka beating your -- be that sowing logic and rationally with believers in The Rock (of Ages) or Plymouth Rock (and Roll/Census). *[I quote "sowing" from The Bible merely to accentuate the aspect that every successful con scheme works ultimately because it includes/usurps truths; not to imply granting any credibility therein contextually]

It seems that with your "the way of bureaucrats and it being silly", it is equally silly to assume "atheists" are not capable of arguing/debating religionists. I too get tired of the BS often seen with religionists.
So that makes me an "areligionist"...? Not. Just normal.

Thanks for both your reply and your time here,
--i2i

bonus query: who stands to gain the most, The God who has to hide -or- the wordsmiths that make such, along with their specialism, to be the fact? (not to mention, hiding and non-existent being factually the same per the factual evidence)

side-bar: Per the Stefban being "blasted"... fwiw, the exchanges I read on that note were more akin with taking him to task over his own words ie his hypocrisy; how "blasting" that is, is of course subjectively relative. Here's to hoping Stefban is capable of critical thinking in that specific regard and there's evidence of that here? Lastly, from my perspective, while the matter is possibly that religionists/"theists"/godists are capable of critical thinking in SOME areas, when it comes to their religion, they're typically not --well, 'cause they're binding/bound.

* edited 02-2012, mostly to reformat per the new forum software, but with some minor tweaks as well

[eye2i2hear]

too soon?

[NonEntity]

(02-17-2012 07:48 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  

too soon?

EyeTwoItOOhERE Wrote:Marc has been more clear now, "on the record" regarding the forum purpose and his distinctive wishes. It will be be my goal to be respectful of that, as my conscious allows.

Hmm. I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not!

- NonE

[Jonathanr]

Isn't it best to just call it a superstitious belief? Calling it a religion invokes connotations that aren't entirely valid.

[eye2i2hear]

[* stefban/fdr notice *]

Jonathanr Wrote:Isn't it best to just call it a superstitious belief? Calling it a religion invokes connotations that aren't entirely valid.

I'm not so sure about that --at least when we say we are seeking to center our focus on agreement as being about seeking just the facts.

And in this case, of State Revelation versus God Revelation, both also ultimately being Authority Claim*, the fact is: both are based entirely upon the words ('not-words') of other (mere) men, thus hear-say taken by faith rather than evidence (in the form of universal/common fact). No?

I've elsewhere on the forum drawn the parallel for the need to do with the word 'religion' the same as that done with the word 'anarchy' i.e. reclaim it built upon seeking fact (see OP) rather than contemporary popularity.

If theists=Godists were being sincerely and genuinely fair (in this realm), the word 'theist' and the word 'god' would be held akin to being 'agnostic' --because 'it' simply can't be known; it can't be proven (and the burden of proof is upon the prosecution of the statements aka beliefs). It can only be believed, and that by putting faith in other men's words/say so. (Absence of evidence is evidence of absence... regardless of the particular religion, Church or State).

Judy Wood expresses this:

Judy Wood Wrote:Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic.

Ditto it's 'sanctified' cousin, theosy (more politically correctly: "theology").

I find much to value in this quote excerpt, and thus wish to post it yet again:

Wendell Johnson, as quoted in Language Thought and Action Wrote:The crucial point to be considered ...is the relationship of language and reality, between words and not-words. Except as we understand this relationship, we run the grave risk of straining the delicate connection between words and facts, of permitting our words to go wild, and so of creating for ourselves fabrications of fantasy and delusion.

*[footnote: can there be any higher claim of Authority than Creator=God-speak aka "God said/Thus saith The Lord Thy God"?]