Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
General Discussion / Re: Ruminations on the Sound of One Whip Cracking
« Last post by NOLA Goat on April 17, 2014, 04:11:56 pm »
Okay.  I was addressing the line I cited or, if you prefer, this...

> Whatever the impetus, the State seems to have been wherever there has been man.

I must admit I have over generalized.  It is certainly true that there have been groups here an there, large and small that have avoided the pitfall of the State.  Some American Indian tribes, Irish Celts, certain tribes in Southeast Asia are among those groups.  About the only Stateless people now are those of SE Asia.  What sets those societies apart?  How were they able to resist the lure of the State as long as they did?

I guess my real point is that if we want to see the end of the State we need to understand it's beginning, the seed and the roots.  I am tempted to go into a long gardening/agriculture analogy but I will spare the dear members of the forum.
22
One thing I've noticed in all the nooz coverage... while the news and the politicians have no problem throwing around the word "militia" and using it as a negative term, no one has yet tried to use the word "terrorism."

Personally, I don't want to hang out with militias.

But if you start calling people who are defending something "terrorists," and using it as an excuse to attack them, I'm going to be instantly on their side.


And... there it is.

http://www.infowars.com/harry-reid-calls-cliven-bundy-supporters-domestic-terrorists/

Fuck you, Harry Reid.  In the ass with broken glass, buddy.
23
General Discussion / Re: Ruminations on the Sound of One Whip Cracking
« Last post by Bill on April 17, 2014, 10:50:52 am »
I rarely get into these outside lurking b/c I have no skin in the game.

I am applying Occam's Razor here: your acknowledgement of free will and your assignment of first cause dictate almost all that follows without exception (epistemologically per PF:)). The variant on those two answers may not resonate with the billions of different sentient believers in humanity but it seems to be most of the adherents.

Per other sentiments here, if your belief does not interfere with my volition as a free moral agent, I am good to go.

I am a deist and a member of the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent but see no advantage in my life to theism or atheism, enough to contend with in this mortal coil esp with my recent brush with passage to Elysium.
24
General Discussion / Re: Ruminations on the Sound of One Whip Cracking
« Last post by pelletfarmer on April 17, 2014, 10:04:59 am »
> The case, simply said is this: what is the best explanation of the world as we find it?

Simple...an explanation that involves an understanding of magnitudes (and other stuff) that we simply don't have now.


> I keep seeing self-referential morality given as evidence.  That is simply not objective.

Evidence for what?  The point is rather that morality is self-referential.  And we do have enough understanding of the relevant context, to know that this is true.


> open examination of the data has lead many people to recognize that the best explanation for the world as we find it is that it was created by an incredibly powerful, intelligent, non-physical (immaterial), good (moral), atemporal being (an entity existing outside of space/time as space/time did not exist prior to the Big Bang


Well, that's my point.  It may involve "open examination of the data," and it may be the case that this examination "led" those people to their conclusions, but ultimately it's a leap of faith.  That's alright, and I still don't understand the apparent pressure to deny this.

I find this plea particularly odd in view of the fact that we know virtually nothing about the "Big Bang" in the first place, all the shrieking of "experts" notwithstanding.


> And it ALWAYS turns out badly, doesn't it?  WHY?  That is what I am seek to examine.

As you might guess, I'd say it's because of the contradiction between self-referential morality being self-evident, and the counterfactual supposition that maybe it's not.  Reality itself admits of no contradiction, not ever.
25
General Discussion / Re: Ruminations on the Sound of One Whip Cracking
« Last post by pelletfarmer on April 17, 2014, 09:48:26 am »
> "therefore, we can absolutely legislate."

Speaking historically and broadly, I'd say there's a case that this foregone conclusion was the impetus for whole thing in the first place.  I used to think it was more an attempt at cosmology, or even individual morality...but my experience is telling me that maybe that's wrong.
26
General Discussion / Re: Ruminations on the Sound of One Whip Cracking
« Last post by pelletfarmer on April 17, 2014, 09:44:03 am »
> This is faith built on experience, observation, at least unconscious calculation of the risks involved.

Right.  I trust it's obvious that I'm using "faith" to mean something quite different epistemically...specifically, not that.

And of course there's nothing wrong with it; it's just another choice.  One thing I find interesting is how so many (strictly) faith-based Believers, particularly those who fully accept the Revelation of the Word, go so far out of their way to (try to) demonstrate why it's really reason-based.  I never understood the need for that.  Well okay, I do understand that need a bit, since it goes to our nature.

Still, were I a Believer in Revelation, I wouldn't spend a moment acknowledging that maybe it's the wrong way to go and is actually supported with evidence.  I'd say I have Faith in it, and that's that.  Obviously by choosing it, I'd be saying that I believe it's the right way to go, so why bring in the implicit contradiction?
27
General Discussion / Re: Ruminations on the Sound of One Whip Cracking
« Last post by MamaLiberty on April 17, 2014, 06:35:34 am »
it still comes down to one thing; faith. I'm totally cool with that. The problem arises when those beliefs are forced onto others, by any means.

Exactly... :)

But I think "faith" is not totally a bad thing. Some might call it something else, but when I get in my car and drive to town, I have "faith" that most of the people in other cars are not going to deliberately run into me, that nobody will shoot at me from ambush, that I will find other people who want to trade peacefully, and so on... This is faith built on experience, observation, at least unconscious calculation of the risks involved. It is far from perfect, and it is easy to make mistakes, but life with others would be nearly impossible without it. And that's just as true in any place. One would simply have different expectations, experience and calculations in other situations.

So, I have no argument with whatever faith someone else lives with or wishes to propose. I simply reserve to myself the authority to decide these things in my own life. And I will resist imposed "faith" as vigorously as any other imposition.
28
General Discussion / Re: Ruminations on the Sound of One Whip Cracking
« Last post by Chris on April 17, 2014, 06:22:44 am »
Seems to me that all this is raw speculation... both "sides."  The truth is that human beings know damned little about anything, and especially about anything outside their five senses (including the machines and so forth invented to enhance those senses). The scientific process is the best method we have for learning more, but even that is so often burdened by assumptions and irrational prejudices - not to mention political agendas.

Seems to me it is arrogant and fruitless to formulate conclusions about vast unknowns.  Theories, of course... discussion of possibilities, naturally going to happen, but I turn a deaf ear when the assumptions and conclusions come along.

We might learn an awful lot more by keeping an open mind and not assuming we know anything, let alone everything about it.

What this comes down to is....God did it.

One can offer all of the philosophical arguments they want for the existence of God, but it still comes down to one thing; faith. I'm totally cool with that. The problem arises when those beliefs are forced onto others, by any means. I'm reminded by of a former forum member who was so convinced by the logic of his arguments that he came to this conclusion, "therefore, we can absolutely legislate." I'll never forget that.

29
General Discussion / Re: Ruminations on the Sound of One Whip Cracking
« Last post by MamaLiberty on April 17, 2014, 06:14:42 am »
Seems to me that all this is raw speculation... both "sides."  The truth is that human beings know damned little about anything, and especially about anything outside their five senses (including the machines and so forth invented to enhance those senses). The scientific process is the best method we have for learning more, but even that is so often burdened by assumptions and irrational prejudices - not to mention political agendas.

Seems to me it is arrogant and fruitless to formulate conclusions about vast unknowns.  Theories, of course... discussion of possibilities, naturally going to happen, but I turn a deaf ear when the assumptions and conclusions come along.

We might learn an awful lot more by keeping an open mind and not assuming we know anything, let alone everything about it.
30
General Discussion / Re: Ruminations on the Sound of One Whip Cracking
« Last post by Chris on April 17, 2014, 06:08:29 am »
Quote
I have realized that I have caused MASSIVE DRIFT and that there is a sub-forum where this would be much more appropriate.  I have dug through some of the material over there as well.  There are many points posted in response to me that I simply do not have time (nor space!) to address, but perhaps one quick point that jumped out at me:

Hey man, we're a bunch of anarchists around here, so a thread hijack is no problem at all. AZR knows that. But, one rule we do follow is no ad hominem attacks. That's just bad form. If you'd like we can open up another thread about the Existence of God; I'm game.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10