One of the difficulties in discussing the topic of God is that different theists define God in different ways. Pantheists may define God as "the entire universe" while Deists may define God as an entity who created the universe but afterword left it alone. Different monotheistic traditions may variously define God as loving, or strict or even "jealous". I am ignostic (not the same as agnostic) in the sense that I believe before any rational discussion of the existence of “God” can begin, we need to define terms. By God, do you mean “the entire universe”? It would be foolish of me to deny the existence of the entire universe. Do you mean a Flying Spaghetti Monster? Do you mean the deity described in the Torah as “I am that I am”? What characteristics do you ascribe to God? Before I begin this debate I want terms defined.
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
Maxliberty: Having thoroughly trounced the agorists and their failed strategy and having demonstrated the inconsistency and arbitrary nature of the pro-abortion crowd, it is now time for the atheists to receive their much deserved knock on the head.
Having thoroughly trounced the agorists and their failed strategy and having demonstrated the inconsistency and arbitrary nature of the pro-abortion crowd, it is now time for the atheists to receive their much deserved knock on the head.
What pro-abortion crowd? There is no such thing as pro-abortion. There is pro-choice but that's hardly pro-abortion.
The problem with putting restrictions on abortion, as we have seen, women will get abortions one way or another. This may include oral solutions or make shift surgery. The number of recorded deaths as a result of makeshift abortions is proportionally small, but how many people have to die before it is wrong. This is simply unacceptable.
I am not pro-abortion, as in if I'm in a situation where there is an unborn child involved, I would do everything possible to make sure the child is born. But I am also pro-choice, as in if someone wants an abortion I'm not going to ask questions, it's their choice. I'm not going to push my moral or ethical beliefs on others. That’s rather the point.
If someone who’s “pro-life” wants to do something, adopt a child. Do something to support their position or STFU. Seriously. If they are unwilling to do so, their opinion on what others to do is worthless. But I would respect someone who has moral convictions who actually will follow through. If the lifers present adoption as a viable alternative to abortion, they’d be doing their community a great service.
Nothing wrong with it, it's just my personal favorite position. And it's not discussed as often as it should be IMO.
Mlee: Nothing wrong with it, it's just my personal favorite position. And it's not discussed as often as it should be IMO.
Indeed; I was just prepared for another "you mean agnostic, lol?".
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
As the last two pages show, Max is now officially a troll.
/thread
J.R.R. Tolkien: Troll sat alone on his seat of stone, And munched and mumbled a bare old bone; For many a year he had gnawed it near, For meat was hard to come by. Done by! Gum by! In a cave in the hills he dwelt alone, And meat was hard to come by. Up came Tom with his big boots on. Said he to Troll: "Pray, what is yon? For it looks like the shin o' my nuncle Tim, As should be a-lyin' in graveyard. Caveyard! Paveyard! This many a year has Tim been gone, And I thought he were lyin' in graveyard." "My lad," said Troll, "this bone I stole. But what be bones that lie in a hole? Thy nuncle was dead as a lump o' lead, Afore I found his shinbone. Tinbone! Thinbone! He can spare a share for a poor old troll, For he don't need his shinbone." Said Tom: "I don't see why the likes o' thee Without axin' leave should go makin' free With the shank or the shin o' my father's kin; So hand the old bone over! Rover! Trover! Though dead he be, it belongs to he; So hand the old bone over!" "For a couple o' pins," says Troll, and grins, "I'll eat thee too, and gnaw thy shins. A bit o' fresh meat will go down sweet! I'll try my teeth on thee now.* Hee now! See now! I'm tired o' gnawing old bones and skins; I've a mind to dine on thee now." *[as read by Tolkien on the tape:] Thee'll be a nice change from thine nuncle. Sunkle! Drunkle! I'm tired of gnawing old bones and skins; Thee'll be a nice change from thine nuncle." But just as he thought his dinner was caught, He found his hands had hold of naught. Before he could mind, Tom slipped behind And gave him the boot to larn him. Warn him! Darn him! A bump o' the boot on the seat, Tom thought, Would be the way to larn him. But harder than stone is the flesh and bone Of a troll that sits in the hills alone. As well set your boot to the mountain's root, For the seat of a troll don't feel it. Peel it! Heal it! Old Troll laughed, when he heard Tom groan, And he knew his toes could feel it. Tom's leg is game, since home he came, And his bootless foot is lasting lame; But Troll don't care, and he's still there With the bone he boned from it's owner. Doner! Boner! Troll's old seat is still the same, And the bone he boned from it's owner!
Troll sat alone on his seat of stone, And munched and mumbled a bare old bone; For many a year he had gnawed it near, For meat was hard to come by. Done by! Gum by! In a cave in the hills he dwelt alone, And meat was hard to come by. Up came Tom with his big boots on. Said he to Troll: "Pray, what is yon? For it looks like the shin o' my nuncle Tim, As should be a-lyin' in graveyard. Caveyard! Paveyard! This many a year has Tim been gone, And I thought he were lyin' in graveyard." "My lad," said Troll, "this bone I stole. But what be bones that lie in a hole? Thy nuncle was dead as a lump o' lead, Afore I found his shinbone. Tinbone! Thinbone! He can spare a share for a poor old troll, For he don't need his shinbone." Said Tom: "I don't see why the likes o' thee Without axin' leave should go makin' free With the shank or the shin o' my father's kin; So hand the old bone over! Rover! Trover! Though dead he be, it belongs to he; So hand the old bone over!" "For a couple o' pins," says Troll, and grins, "I'll eat thee too, and gnaw thy shins. A bit o' fresh meat will go down sweet! I'll try my teeth on thee now.* Hee now! See now! I'm tired o' gnawing old bones and skins; I've a mind to dine on thee now." *[as read by Tolkien on the tape:] Thee'll be a nice change from thine nuncle. Sunkle! Drunkle! I'm tired of gnawing old bones and skins; Thee'll be a nice change from thine nuncle." But just as he thought his dinner was caught, He found his hands had hold of naught. Before he could mind, Tom slipped behind And gave him the boot to larn him. Warn him! Darn him! A bump o' the boot on the seat, Tom thought, Would be the way to larn him. But harder than stone is the flesh and bone Of a troll that sits in the hills alone. As well set your boot to the mountain's root, For the seat of a troll don't feel it. Peel it! Heal it! Old Troll laughed, when he heard Tom groan, And he knew his toes could feel it. Tom's leg is game, since home he came, And his bootless foot is lasting lame; But Troll don't care, and he's still there With the bone he boned from it's owner. Doner! Boner! Troll's old seat is still the same, And the bone he boned from it's owner!
Not entirely relevant, but too tempting to resist
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Why does this even matter?
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
Nitroadict: Indeed; I was just prepared for another "you mean agnostic, lol?".
Into how many pieces can you split that hair?
Paul: Nitroadict: Indeed; I was just prepared for another "you mean agnostic, lol?". Into how many pieces can you split that hair?
kingmonkey: Why does this even matter?
OP craved attention, methinks?
No, you were utterly defeated.
The existence of anything or the belief that something occurred is based on evidence. There is considerable evidence that there is a God. So based on this evidence it is reasonable that people would believe there is a God.
The only evidence that can be shown points to a design, and intelligent "ancestry" to nature, not a god.
It is also possible to say that a person does not believe the current evidence is sufficient in their mind to substantiate the existence of God. This is a reasonable position, wrong but reasonable.
You cant just assume it to be wrong. You need to prove it, which is entirely the point a skeptic would make.
What makes the atheists irrational is that they say that there can be no evidence possible that would prove the existence of God since God can not possibly exist. The most one can say is that the current evidence is insufficient to say for sure. Like many things that are beyond our current knowledge base or indepth experience it is not really possible to rule out certain theories.
And what you say athiests dont say, most do. Have you listened or discussed things with many atheists?
Finally, the atheist doctrine also is the least libertarian since by it's nature it seeks conflict with the beliefs of others. Not to say that under the name of religion there hasn't been plenty of conflict but in my experience the atheists are the least willing in the freedom movement to tolerate religious beliefs in others.
While there are a few who would like to purge religious beliefs from the freedom movement (which is completely contradictory to their stance), you're encompassing a broad philosophy comprised of individual ideas into a general term representing a general philosophy observed by an arbitrary population of people. It's a straw man.
Please try harder at not being an imbicile.
I know that many of you having your pet failed theories dismantled with logic and reason is frustrating. I won't rehash the arguements in the abortion and agorists threads here.
Several of you have asked for evidence of God's existence. So first we should clarify what constitutes evidence. Generally, there is witness evidence and physical evidence. Witness evidence is human observations and experiences. Physical evidence would include all what most people would consider evidence related to scientific avtivity or investigation. There is lots of witness evidence to God and to God's activities. There is very little if any physical evidence that is scientifically verifiable that would conclusively prove the existence of God solely on a scientific basis.
Some of you will now think, aha, since there is no scientific evidence then you can't prove God exists. Nonsense, we use witness evidence all the time to prove the existence of or to explain events. Sometimes we believe the witnesses and sometimes we don't. A good example is the sinking of the Titantic. There is no scientific evidence that shows the Titantic struck an iceberg. There is a lot of witness evidence that the Titiantic struck an iceberg. I sincerely doubt most of you think the Titantic being struck by an iceberg is a myth because it is based on eyewitness testimony.
It is reasonable to say you don't find the witnesses to God's activities credible. It is not reasonable to say that something of which you confess have no knowledge is impossible to exist. That is why the atheist ideology is not logical. It is not surprising that many of the atheists also support the inconsistent abortion arguement and on this forum the illogical agorist strategy.
I await the hysterical repsonses. Let's try just this once for those of you (pro-abortion/pro-agorist crowd) who oppose my arguements to actually present some of your own, or at least articulate what exactly you think is incorrect with the arguement I am presenting.
Maxliberty:I know that many of you having your pet failed theories dismantled with logic and reason is frustrating.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Maxliberty:Several of you have asked for evidence of God's existence.
And several of us have asked you to first define what god is.
Maxliberty:So first we should clarify what constitutes evidence. Generally, there is witness evidence and physical evidence. Witness evidence is human observations and experiences. Physical evidence would include all what most people would consider evidence related to scientific avtivity or investigation. There is lots of witness evidence to God and to God's activities.
No there isn't; there are only stories. Look: I can say that I witness the little green elf on my shoulder making it rain, and the rain is evidence for the elf. But you wouldn't buy that. So why should I buy your "witness" evidence, especially when there are so many conflicting witnesses and different gods that they believe in? Surely you're not going to special plead....oh wait. You are, aren't you?
How about this: how about you actually define god and show that it exists. If you can't, then I suggest shutting the heck up.
What I asked for, before I debate this, is a definition of God. What is God? What properties does God have? Without a definition of God no rational debate can even begin.
Edit: Knight_of_BAAWA got here first :)
It is reasonable to say you don't find the witnesses to God's activities credible.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Maxliberty:There is lots of witness evidence to God and to God's activities.
Argumentum ad populum
Maxliberty:A good example is the sinking of the Titantic. There is no scientific evidence that shows the Titantic struck an iceberg. There is a lot of witness evidence that the Titiantic struck an iceberg. I sincerely doubt most of you think the Titantic being struck by an iceberg is a myth because it is based on eyewitness testimony.
Fallacy of composition and proof by example
Maxliberty:It is reasonable to say you don't find the witnesses to God's activities credible. It is not reasonable to say that something of which you confess have no knowledge is impossible to exist. That is why the atheist ideology is not logical.
False attribution and fallacy of the undistributed middle
Maxliberty:It is not surprising that many of the atheists also support the inconsistent abortion arguement and on this forum the illogical agorist strategy.
Hasty generalization and a red herring
Maxliberty:I await the hysterical repsonses.
Ad hominem
Maxliberty:Let's try just this once for those of you (pro-abortion/pro-agorist crowd) who oppose my arguements to actually present some of your own, or at least articulate what exactly you think is incorrect with the arguement I am presenting.
Well, as soon as you start presenting some logically valid arguments I'll get right on that...
Anonymous Coward: Maxliberty:There is lots of witness evidence to God and to God's activities. Argumentum ad populum Maxliberty:A good example is the sinking of the Titantic. There is no scientific evidence that shows the Titantic struck an iceberg. There is a lot of witness evidence that the Titiantic struck an iceberg. I sincerely doubt most of you think the Titantic being struck by an iceberg is a myth because it is based on eyewitness testimony. Fallacy of composition and proof by example Maxliberty:It is reasonable to say you don't find the witnesses to God's activities credible. It is not reasonable to say that something of which you confess have no knowledge is impossible to exist. That is why the atheist ideology is not logical. False attribution and fallacy of the undistributed middle Maxliberty:It is not surprising that many of the atheists also support the inconsistent abortion arguement and on this forum the illogical agorist strategy. Hasty generalization and a red herring Maxliberty:I await the hysterical repsonses. Ad hominem Maxliberty:Let's try just this once for those of you (pro-abortion/pro-agorist crowd) who oppose my arguements to actually present some of your own, or at least articulate what exactly you think is incorrect with the arguement I am presenting. Well, as soon as you start presenting some logically valid arguments I'll get right on that...
@ maxliberty: you fail.
JUST MAKE A FRICKIN ARGUEMENT ALREADY!!!
Maxliberty: A good example is the sinking of the Titantic. There is no scientific evidence that shows the Titantic struck an iceberg. There is a lot of witness evidence that the Titiantic struck an iceberg. I sincerely doubt most of you think the Titantic being struck by an iceberg is a myth because it is based on eyewitness testimony.
A good example is the sinking of the Titantic. There is no scientific evidence that shows the Titantic struck an iceberg. There is a lot of witness evidence that the Titiantic struck an iceberg. I sincerely doubt most of you think the Titantic being struck by an iceberg is a myth because it is based on eyewitness testimony.
How about the giant hole in the Titanic, and the general acceptance that icebergs exsist?
Also, your witnesses are contradictory. Religion is faith. That doesn't make it a bad thing, it just makes it not based on reason.
Mlee: Anonymous Coward: Maxliberty:There is lots of witness evidence to God and to God's activities. Argumentum ad populum Maxliberty:A good example is the sinking of the Titantic. There is no scientific evidence that shows the Titantic struck an iceberg. There is a lot of witness evidence that the Titiantic struck an iceberg. I sincerely doubt most of you think the Titantic being struck by an iceberg is a myth because it is based on eyewitness testimony. Fallacy of composition and proof by example Maxliberty:It is reasonable to say you don't find the witnesses to God's activities credible. It is not reasonable to say that something of which you confess have no knowledge is impossible to exist. That is why the atheist ideology is not logical. False attribution and fallacy of the undistributed middle Maxliberty:It is not surprising that many of the atheists also support the inconsistent abortion arguement and on this forum the illogical agorist strategy. Hasty generalization and a red herring Maxliberty:I await the hysterical repsonses. Ad hominem Maxliberty:Let's try just this once for those of you (pro-abortion/pro-agorist crowd) who oppose my arguements to actually present some of your own, or at least articulate what exactly you think is incorrect with the arguement I am presenting. Well, as soon as you start presenting some logically valid arguments I'll get right on that... @ maxliberty: you fail. JUST MAKE A FRICKIN ARGUEMENT ALREADY!!!
Maxliberty: It is reasonable to say you don't find the witnesses to God's activities credible.
Even if you find the so-called witnessess credible, that doesn't help your argument. There are no purported witnesses to "God", are there? There are people who claim to have witnessed various events which they (and you) interpret as acts of God; but of course there are "witnesses" to that in just about every religion, and at most one of them can be right in their interpretation!
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap