Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

MMD

[YouTube] The Myth of the Noble Savage

Recommended Posts

Goldenages    36

Interesting argument: Even if God does not exist, faith helps to stay humble and not play God. And WW I was a result of enlightenment?

Those with faith did not play God, they acted on behalf of God. War, torture, witch-hunt were actually seen as morally good, because it allegedly wiped out the evil. And, gentlemen, those maniac leaders in 1914 were all Christians, sacrificing their citizens for God and fatherland. Whoever died fighting the enemy instantly rose to heaven. Sounds familiar to happenings nowaday, does it?

Monotheistic religions have a totalitarian structure - the reason why they were invented was to gain power. It does not make any difference wether one believes in the illusion of God or in the illusion of an almighty state. The outcome is the same.

 

regards

Andi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mishi2    33
56 minutes ago, Goldenages said:

1. Interesting argument: Even if God does not exist, faith helps to stay humble and not play God. And WW I was a result of enlightenment?

2. Those with faith did not play God, they acted on behalf of God. War, torture, witch-hunt were actually seen as morally good, because it allegedly wiped out the evil. And, gentlemen, those maniac leaders in 1914 were all Christians, sacrificing their citicens for God and fatherland. Whoever died fighting the enemy instantly rose to heaven. Sounds familiar to happenings nowaday, does it?

3. Monotheistic religions have a totalitarian structure - the reason why they were invented was to gain power. It does not make any difference wether one believes in the illusion of God or in the illusion of an almighty state. The outcome is the same.

1. I think WW1 deserves another deconstruction. WW2 may have killed more, but WW1 destroyed more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ8Sj9FFmRc

2. There is a lot of truth there. WW1 was the event when monarchy lost credibility, when Christianity lost credibility, when the West lost credibility. Soooo... we tried another way, and oops, we got WW2, then Socialism, wich killed more than all other wars in history combined, and the death toll is still rising.

Are humans terrible when they are religious? Sure. Are they more terrible when they aren't? I guess we shall see very soon.

3. Well, monotheistic religions are indeed the most powerful in the world today.
The outcome however is not the same, as you have just heard being discussed for an hour. If you disagree, you could post some studies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Goldenages    36

What I heard for 1 hour was a one-sided view about Christianity and its alleged merits :)

Theodosius made Christianity a state religion at the end of the 4th century. In his speech he called everybody who rejected Christianity insane and mad, and soon thereafter the prosecution of non-christians began. Its was totalitarian right from the beginning, and it doomed Europa til enlightenment began.

Monarchy lost its credibility after the WW I desaster. Also the "winners" were bankrupt. Between wars, especially in Germany, they tried a state controlled economy, controlled by Socialist and Christian partys. The result is well known.

On 9.9.2017 at 8:38 PM, Mishi2 said:

Are humans terrible when they are religious? Sure. Are they more terrible when they aren't? I guess we shall see very soon.

We know already, if we look at China or the Sowjetunion.

 

Now just look how the professional Christians act today. The pope calls for more refugees, the Bishops over here as well, they are eager to welcome as much new citizens as possible.

 

regards

Andi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mishi2    33
3 hours ago, Goldenages said:

What I heard for 1 hour was a one-sided view about Christianity and its alleged merits :)

I thought there were good enough arguments and data to back up most of what they said, but if you disagree, I am interested in looking at your arguments.

Quote

Theodosius made Christianity a state religion at the end of the 4th century. In his speech he called everybody who rejected Christianity insane and mad, and soon thereafter the prosecution of non-christians began. Its was totalitarian right from the beginning, and it doomed Europa til enlightenment began.

You mean "persecution", I take it. (I understand you are not native in english, so I am not trying to be mean.) We can have a debate on that. I would think a ruler has every rigth to enforce any law on his land that he pleases. Whether or not the Church was also guilty, that is a discussion worth having,

Quote

We know already, if we look at China or the Sowjetunion.

I am of the thought that atheism has not been around long enough to have a good record. An ideaology takes a while to show results. Since Christianity took nearly 400 years to become mainstream, I will give atheism a fair challenge and see what happens in about 20 years, which would be about 400 years since the enlightenment. Although by somemeasure, it has already been 400 years, and it is not looking good.

Quote

Now just look how the professional Christians act today. The pope calls for more refugees, the Bishops over here as well, they are eager to welcome as much new citizens as possible.

I worked for the Jesuit over for over a year, so I think I have a better idea of what is going on in the Church.
Many don't know, but there is a subtle civil war within the Church. Even more so within the Jesuit order. And the split is along the lines of East and West. I see you live in Vienna, which overwhelmingly votes Left, along with Graz, Salzburg, and Insbruck. But if you go to the more rural areas, you are sure to find many protectionist clergy.

If you are looking for a sound voice within the church, I recommend reading Henri Boulad, an Egyptian priest, who is a staunch critic of the Pope as well. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Boulad

Alles Gutes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Goldenages    36

Well, as said, arguments are one sided. Of course one can claim that believing in something greater than yourself leads to humbleness. But also the state is greater than yourself, so believing in the state should lead to humbleness, right? And if not, why not?  Why not mention the crimes of monotheism, especially while the crimes of the state are correctly shown?

 

Non- christians were first bullied and then slaughtered. An no, no ruler has the right to do that.

 

Atheism simply is not believing in Gods, thats all. There are no more instructions derivable from that.  So you do not need to give atheism a chance, as less as you do not need to give any non-dog holders or non-car holders a chance.

 

Yes, situation in the rural areas is better than in cities. But this was also the case in the Sowjetunion and was certainly not a merit of communism, as less as some more intelligent reverends in the countryside are not a merit of Christianity.

 

regards

Andu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mishi2    33
1 hour ago, Goldenages said:

Well, as said, arguments are one sided. Of course one can claim that believing in something greater than yourself leads to humbleness. But also the state is greater than yourself, so believing in the state should lead to humbleness, right? And if not, why not?  Why not mention the crimes of monotheism, especially while the crimes of the state are correctly shown?

Because that was not what the episode was about. The episode was specifically about the human condition without christianity. There are plenty of other episodes listing the faults of christianity.

Quote

Non- christians were first bullied and then slaughtered. An no, no ruler has the right to do that.

If you had leased a room to 10 people under the conditions that they must bow when they enter their room, and one of them does not do so, do you have the right to treat that person as someone who broke a contract?

Quote

Atheism simply is not believing in Gods, thats all. There are no more instructions derivable from that.  So you do not need to give atheism a chance, as less as you do not need to give any non-dog holders or non-car holders a chance.

If suddenly all dogs were forbidden to be owned in a society, then it is a worthy endavour to measure whether or not the dog-owning society was better than the non-dog-owning society, don't you think?

Quote

Yes, situation in the rural areas is better than in cities. But this was also the case in the Sowjetunion and was certainly not a merit of communism, as less as some more intelligent reverends in the countryside are not a merit of Christianity.

I don't know what you reaplied to, as I said nothing of the sort, but ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
neeeel    158
18 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

If you had leased a room to 10 people under the conditions that they must bow when they enter their room, and one of them does not do so, do you have the right to treat that person as someone who broke a contract?

This seems like a pretty bad analogy about what a ruler does and how he keeps/wields his power, but even if it was accurate, does "breaking a contract" then give you the right to aggress against, bully, or torture the person who broke the contract?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shirgall    1222
2 hours ago, neeeel said:

This seems like a pretty bad analogy about what a ruler does and how he keeps/wields his power, but even if it was accurate, does "breaking a contract" then give you the right to aggress against, bully, or torture the person who broke the contract?

Breaking a contract removes the mutual obligations agree to, in this case the easement allowing use of private property by the individual who did meet their obligations.

Rulers do not control private property or grant easements nor do they have specific performance contracts with their subjects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Goldenages    36
23 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

If suddenly all dogs were forbidden to be owned in a society, then it is a worthy endavour to measure whether or not the dog-owning society was better than the non-dog-owning society, don't you think?

I do not think so, because it refers to the statement that stopping the believe in Gods is the start of believe in the state. While this statement is correct it is not an argument against atheism, because it misses the most important point: The believe  in  anything is the problem.  To change the believe from Christianity to Islam is a minor change (just look at all those professional Christians who embrace the religion of peace), as is the believe from Christianity to a good and wise state.

The point is to stop believe and use reason to find convictions.

 

23 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

If you had leased a room to 10 people under the conditions that they must bow when they enter their room, and one of them does not do so, do you have the right to treat that person as someone who broke a contract?

 

Emperor Theodosius rose through violence, as it was common those days, and ruled with violence.  There was no contract.

regards

Andi

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mishi2    33
8 hours ago, neeeel said:

This seems like a pretty bad analogy about what a ruler does and how he keeps/wields his power, but even if it was accurate, does "breaking a contract" then give you the right to aggress against, bully, or torture the person who broke the contract?

Hi, neeeel !

I don't know how it works where you live, but there are places where you are pretty much allowed to hit a tenant if they don't abide by the contract. My family had bad tenants in a bunch of countries, and we had to use physical force to remove them.
The situation with a monarch and his serfs is exactly the same. If they don't like your rules, they should get off the land, but if they stay, they will be torured. Common sense I would think.

 

4 hours ago, Goldenages said:

I do not think so, because it refers to the statement that stopping the believe in Gods is the start of believe in the state. While this statement is correct it is not an argument against atheism, because it misses the most important point: The believe  in  anything is the problem.  To change the believe from Christianity to Islam is a minor change (just look at all those professional Christians who embrace the religion of peace), as is the believe from Christianity to a good and wise state.

The point is to stop believe and use reason to find convictions.

You always believe in something whether you like it or not. That was the entire point of the episode. "God is dead... so we need to become gods ourselves"- Nietzsche. The second half of that instruction is obviously not happening. Which is why God must not be killed just yet. I understand you are a pilot, right? From which I conclude you have a very high IQ. It might be easy for you to live without believing in anything, but most of the world is unlike you.
I already responded to the "professional christians" thing.

Have you checked out Jordan Peterson's work? He makes excellent arguments saying what you want is infeasible. We are not creatures of reason only. If we were, we would not exist.

4 hours ago, Goldenages said:

Emperor Theodosius rose through violence, as it was common those days, and ruled with violence.  There was no contract.

"War is the continuation of dimplomacy."- Some greek dude

There definitely was implied contract. As long as you stay on someone's land, you have to follow his rules. If the land changes hands, then you must follow the new rules. If you don't like it, try to negotiate, or get off. Otherwise you will get tortured. FEUDALISM MODAFUKA!

 

6 hours ago, shirgall said:

Breaking a contract removes the mutual obligations agree to, in this case the easement allowing use of private property by the individual who did meet their obligations.

Rulers do not control private property or grant easements nor do they have specific performance contracts with their subjects.

Hi, shirgall !

Is there no implied contract there if you reside on someone's private land? In a conventional monarchy, the land belongs to the monarch. Current exmples would be the British Crown territiories, Luxembourg, Spain, Norway, Thailand, Brunei, Saudi Arabia... And counterexamples being Japan, Belgium, Andorra...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Goldenages    36

Well, I certainly do not want to become God. Because then I would have to be irrational, cruel, sacrifize my own son, drown mankind, all that stuff.   No thank you:)

regards Andi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

I don't know how it works where you live, but there are places where you are pretty much allowed to hit a tenant if they don't abide by the contract. My family had bad tenants in a bunch of countries, and we had to use physical force to remove them.

Where I live we have "Squatter's Rights"--basically a 6-month grace period, that could be extended significantly, to get out or be dragged out. A whole lot of criminal grafting is involved in squatting in some neighborhoods, in an effort to coerce landlords into paying deadbeats to leave. 

I'd argue being allowed to physically remove tenants the day after the contract allows' is far more moral and efficient than what my berg has.

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:


The situation with a monarch and his serfs is exactly the same. If they don't like your rules, they should get off the land, but if they stay, they will be torured. Common sense I would think.

Problem: Who would consent to such a contract when given a better alternative? Meaning, in time, punishments against violators would/already has soften over time as wannabe tenants most likely prefer the guy who merely throws deadbeats out than drags them into dungeons. Also chances are most aristocratic monopolies are inefficient and would therefore naturally break once exposed to local or national competition. 

I'm not saying feudalism is, at least based on what you've explained, immoral, merely less preferable to more modern forms of landlord/tenant relations and therefore bound to disappear unless the big landlord manages to establish himself as the most preferred landlord in his area. Perhaps by having cheep rents or allowing would-be tenants more autonomy than others', etc. etc.

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

There definitely was implied contract. As long as you stay on someone's land, you have to follow his rules. If the land changes hands, then you must follow the new rules. If you don't like it, try to negotiate, or get off. Otherwise you will get tortured. FEUDALISM MODAFUKA!

Lol. Moda Fuka is an interesting way of euphemising through "Asia-fying"...

I think it's safe to say Feudalism is more moral and right than early modern totalitarianism or "republicanism" as it respects the rights  of the individual far more. However it can (and historically was) also be highly protectionist and therefore a violator of the NAP. 

A feudal system without protectionism (i.e., without tenants being forced to live on their lord's land or forced to abide by their lord's contract without ability to negotiate) isn't very different from what AnCap desires: respect for private property and the NAP.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shirgall    1222
11 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Is there no implied contract there if you reside on someone's private land? In a conventional monarchy, the land belongs to the monarch. Current exmples would be the British Crown territiories, Luxembourg, Spain, Norway, Thailand, Brunei, Saudi Arabia... And counterexamples being Japan, Belgium, Andorra...

Reside or tread? Those are radically different conditions. For example, I did not choose to reside in the United States, I was born here. I did not choose to go somewhere else with more or less acknowledgement of the consent of the governed, I stayed with my culture, my language, my relatives, and my friends. I foolishly believed the lies I was told in being able to grow more free as the nation matured. Etc.

Yes, I reside n the United States and I expect it to follow its own rules (it doesn't). I'm not so foolish as to believe it is in capable of altering the bargain as a plurality of whims of the voters may sway. I'm not so foolish as to ignore what it threatens are my obligations to it, even if it claims I've earned some kind of reward from it. But, I would probably have it worse if I tried to go somewhere else, especially with a different language, culture, government, religion, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.