Freedomain Radio

haha yeah, me too!

Make it so #1

lowkey:

I believe this has more to do with the evil nature of free will than with the actual question of whether a deity or dieties exists.

I don't have it in me to roll up my sleeves and deal with this. What I will say is that statements like these make me very uneasy and make it difficult for me to even attempt to be curious about why you believe this. I also have a hard time taking anything else you say seriously if this is one of your fundamental axioms.

lowkey:

To me, faith isn't a tool to judge others, because we can never really know who they are or what their journey has been.

If it can't be communicated, then why are you/we even talking about it? (perhaps that was what's with the "sooooo about Philly" lol)

aljmiller87:

lowkey:

I believe this has more to do with the evil nature of free will than with the actual question of whether a deity or dieties exists.

 

I don't have it in me to roll up my sleeves and deal with this. What I will say is that statements like these make me very uneasy and make it difficult for me to even attempt to be curious about why you believe this. I also have a hard time taking anything else you say seriously if this is one of your fundamental axioms.

This quote was in context of the bible and evil things said within it (such as killing of atheists, gays and disobedient children). 

For the purposes of illustration, lets assume two things:  1) God exists and 2) he somehow communicated an initial idea for the bible.

Now we also know that man has free will and can go against God's will.   So I believe that if there was an original part of the bible that was divine, it has since been corrupted by men adding parts to it not for religious reasons but for power & control.  I believe the sections on killing gays, atheists and disobedient children come from that desire for control because all three groups have a potential to disrupt the status quo and deprive the church of power.  Now given a few thousand years of many many small changes there may be fragments of the original message left but they are surrounded by all the things that have been added. 

Now if we take the opposite side, and assume God doesn't exist and the bible is purely man made then why was it made?  It was made to control the people and to consolidate power in the hands of a few.

So regardless of whether God exists or not, the current bible is much more about consolidating power in the hands of the church than it is about any pure religious message. 

To make a long explanation short, I see the same evil human nature that corrupts every single state also at work in religion. 

Of course this may make more sense if you've done any reading on the Vatican and how they accumulated power over the centuries and how they've used it.

aljmiller87:

 

lowkey:

To me, faith isn't a tool to judge others, because we can never really know who they are or what their journey has been.

If it can't be communicated, then why are you/we even talking about it? (perhaps that was what's with the "sooooo about Philly" lol)

I only discussed my faith when I was questioned directly about it.  I was simply responding honestly.

lowkey:

I believe this has more to do with the evil nature of free will than with the actual question of whether a deity or dieties exists.

In essence, free will has a nature, and that nature is evil. There is no room for context. Either the nature of free will is good (possibly because it is the best at self-correcting irrationality for our species) or it is bad (possibly because people do bad things so choice must be removed...except for the person who chooses it's best to take away other's free will). Frankly I can't see how stating "the nature of free will is evil" as anything other than a logical contradiction. Either way, context has nothing to do with the nature of free will.

lowkey:

aljmiller87:

 

lowkey:

To me, faith isn't a tool to judge others, because we can never really know who they are or what their journey has been.

If it can't be communicated, then why are you/we even talking about it? (perhaps that was what's with the "sooooo about Philly" lol)

I only discussed my faith when I was questioned directly about it.  I was simply responding honestly.

 I can't assume that god exists because i don't know what a "god" is, just as i cant assume a square circle exists because I don't know what a square circle is either. I don't know what simultaneously expanding and contracting gas is either. i don't know what any of these things are because their "definitions" fail both logical consistency and emprical evidence. If you claim it's an endeavor in faith, well than you can't talk to anyone about it since you did not disagree that faith cannot be communicated.

I only mean to be fair, but the most honest answer is to say i believe in it, but i have no logic, reasoning, or evidence for believing AND i cant communicate it to you. Thus, like an honest nihilist, an honest thiest should never even speak the word "god" in reference to reality or truth because it can't be defined or communicated to another human being. That being said, unless you can define and verify a "god" or why the nature of free will is evil, I withdraw.

Agitpropist:

Do not fret my brothers, for shit makes an ideal fertilizer from which the fruits of anarchism may bloom!

Yepper.  I'm a current Ron Paul fan and complete anarcho-capitalist that *thinks there is no role in human affairs for government as it is defined today (or in any other definition) which is a monopolistic institution that controls a particular segment of a market(s) through the initiation of violence.  Essentially there is no role for government period as I see it but if you would like to elect a home ownsers association to vote on which private protection firm to hire every 12 months.... well fine.

So I'm not threatened by Paul as I hear the words he says and I think they are waking people up to the anti-state sentiments that many of us espouse.  Paul's words and writings are truly anti-state after one separates the min-archist mindset and yes I also think that any constitutional democratic form of government will always lead to Leviathan...  He is another pathway toward enlightenment that will hopefully cause people to shed the bullshit lies they have been inculcated with from corp media, the pulpit, government and government run skuuulz.

As for conservatives and their cousins the socialists they are both statists.  I try to have sympathy for them.  They are stuck in various sociopathic thought constructs and can not see or have not been exposed to an alternative.  We have to win their hearts and minds and keep repeating the logical inconsistencies that they live under until they get it.

Also keep in mind that the middle class in most Western countries is very confused right now as all of the bullshit that they have been told regarding playing within the system are coming apart before their eyse as their (in Amerika) 401Ks, IRAs, property values are smashed and looted by the plutocracy within the collapse of the bubble economy.  They are mad and afraid and so will probably cling to the dieing embers of what they have been taught to believe as a last safety net.

So hopefully Stef can set some minds on fire in Philly!

Cory

aljmiller87:

lowkey:

I believe this has more to do with the evil nature of free will than with the actual question of whether a deity or dieties exists.

 

In essence, free will has a nature, and that nature is evil. There is no room for context. Either the nature of free will is good (possibly because it is the best at self-correcting irrationality for our species) or it is bad (possibly because people do bad things so choice must be removed...except for the person who chooses it's best to take away other's free will). Frankly I can't see how stating "the nature of free will is evil" as anything other than a logical contradiction. Either way, context has nothing to do with the nature of free will.

 

OK there is something broken here because you already asked me about this statement and I clarified what I meant.   Using the word "nature" may have been a mistake in the original statement but I did not use it in my clarification.   Please refer to that.

aljmiller87:

lowkey:

aljmiller87:

lowkey:

To me, faith isn't a tool to judge others, because we can never really know who they are or what their journey has been.

If it can't be communicated, then why are you/we even talking about it? (perhaps that was what's with the "sooooo about Philly" lol)

I only discussed my faith when I was questioned directly about it.  I was simply responding honestly.

 I can't assume that god exists because i don't know what a "god" is, just as i cant assume a square circle exists because I don't know what a square circle is either. I don't know what simultaneously expanding and contracting gas is either. i don't know what any of these things are because their "definitions" fail both logical consistency and emprical evidence. If you claim it's an endeavor in faith, well than you can't talk to anyone about it since you did not disagree that faith cannot be communicated.

I never said whether or not I believe faith can be communicated.  I only gave an explanation for why I discussed my faith here.

Although to be honest, I am probably not a good person to talk about faith to others since I am still in the process of discovering my own and there are many unanswered questions.

aljmiller87:

I only mean to be fair, but the most honest answer is to say i believe in it, but i have no logic, reasoning, or evidence for believing AND i cant communicate it to you. Thus, like an honest nihilist, an honest thiest should never even speak the word "god" in reference to reality or truth because it can't be defined or communicated to another human being. That being said, unless you can define and verify a "god" or why the nature of free will is evil, I withdraw.

As for evidence, I conceded at 11:55 on July 1 that:

lowkey:

And while there is no reliable scientific evidence of God, there is a lot of testimonial evidence (for example the miracle of the sun in Fatima).

As for defining what God is, I said at 12:37 on July 1:

lowkey:

GrungeGuy:

 I'm not sure that I understand. Can you define for me what god is?

I don't have that answer yet.  As I said, I'm just starting my journey.  

 

And at 1:41 on July 1, I conceded that I did not use pure logic & reasoning to reach my faith:

lowkey:

As for God I believe that he exists but this isn't a decision that I came to through a purely rational scientific process.  It's been more a process of spiritual growth and so it can get hard to describe.  Plus I generally pretty private about my faith so I've seldom had to make a case for it in words.

So by your own standard I have been honest.  Can we at least agree on that?

 Since I'm already exposed as a theist does anyone else have any questions?

lowkey:

One of the first events was witnessing someone suddenly die at fairly close proximity. I'd been a hunter before so I'd seen animals die but there is something different when it's a person. There's a spark that's there when you're alive and then it's gone.

Another time was while passing through the edge of a typhoon off Hong Kong on the USS San Bernadino, I remember feeling afraid and yet an amazing sense of wonder & awe at the majesty of the ocean & it's power. While I was afraid at one level, at another I felt very calm & secure as waves were coming right over the bow of the ship and we were pitched around.

I'm confused about how you derived "our universe has a creator" from "I felt awe" or "I felt emotional when a person died".

I've meditated for awhile (among other things) and experienced the "nirvana" phenomenon. It's just simply an emotional hallucination created by the brain, not evidence that we have a creator. In other words there are 4 possibilities:

1. Yes creator + Yes brain special effects
2. No creator + Yes brain special effects
3. Yes creator + No brain special effects
4. No creator + No brain special effects

Our brains obviously have access to emotional special effects so we can eliminate options #3 and #4. I don't understand how went about eliminating option #2 though.

lowkey:

Another time was the first time I held my baby niece. For a split second it felt like every answer was revealed to me and then it was gone.

Did you know that there is a certain brain disorder that makes people feel deja vu's 24/7? So they walk around constantly feeling like they've experienced the current present moment before. The problem is that it's only a *feeling* (i.e. an emotional hallucination). They have absolutely no predictive ability about the current present moment distinguishable from anybody else without that feeling.

So in that "nirvana" experience, you feel like "I have the answers to everything, I know my place in the universe, blah blah blah". Except it's only a feeling, you don't actually have any answers. It's just a powerful emotional hallucination and it's important not to come to any erroneous conclusions beyond that. The only way you would be justified in saying that it's more than just a hallucination is if you could bring back actual evidence like the complete list of the laws of physics or a technical description about how consciousness is implemented. And I mean real in depth technical answers not crap stock answers like "everything is love", "everything is all connected", or "we're all one".

The problem with religious people is that they mistake this experience for something greater than an emotional hallucination without providing the required evidence. You also have made this same mistake.

I'm going to ask y'all to take this to another thread please, since it's a wee bit off topic for the title.

Thanks!

They'll probably call the authorities saying that a foreigner has entered the country to take some American libertarian debater's job.

I don't know if the Ron Paul campaign helped or hurt the freedom movement, but I do know one thing. The campaign left behind a large network of people interested in freedom. These people have generally been extremely receptive of Stefan's works and the topic of anarchy. This weekend proved it.

A dozen or so Campaign for Liberty volunteers passed out 2,000 flyers advertising Stef's appearance on Saturday. After the Sunday debate, there were so many questions, so many light bulbs turned on. The cogs are turning. Even die-hards were intrigued and will continue to process the concepts presented.

I knew Stef would help this crowd ask the right questions, and the results were well beyond my expectations. I can't wait to see what happens when the video gets out.

BTW, I enjoyed meeting many FDR fans this weekend. Let's organize more educational events in Philly. The iron is hot.

Jim