You are, of course, entitled to your idealized opinions. I prefer, generally, to analyze things from more of a pragmatic angle, using an evidentiary foundation, whenever possible. This is not to say that all my opinions are middle-of-the-road & mundane, uninspired or non-aspirational; only that my conclusions typically have enough of a factual basis to make the case that they are not implausible or impractical. I am, of course, alluding to your assertion, "No man has a right to choose another man's leader, if they choose any at all." There are more impracticalities in this statement, frankly, than I care to enumerate. Briefly, I'll start with the fact that human beings are a communal creature. The case cannot even be made that this is something we evolved into, due to exigent conditions (e.g., as a new Ice Age) that no longer need apply. Our forerunners were communal, as were the ancestors from whom they evolved, on the Primate taxonomical tree, such as our nearest living relatives, the Chimpanzee and Bonobo. To just disregard this evolutionary past, not to mention the entire recorded history of mankind (as well as all we know about pre-recorded times), can leave no doubt that your ideas about leaderless societies-- the description, itself, is an oxymoron-- come from nowhere other than your imagination. Hence, your statement about the, "right," of humans, to have no leader chosen for themselves (if you don't object to my rephrasing, with the same meaning as your quote), again, can be nothing other than a fabrication of your own mind's beliefs, devoid of substantiating examples. No law, except by unanimous consent-- Here-here! It'll NEVER happen. And thank heaven, because it would be an unthinkable schitshow, if it ever did. If we look even at all the other animals on the planet, there are exceedingly few, if any, examples of actual societies, without leaders. Granted, in some of them, whichever member happens to be out front-- as a bison, running from a pack of wolves, or a gnu, from wild dogs-- may become the de facto leader, but it is interesting, in these cases, that if the herd actually cooperated, by forming an outward-facing circle, and not breaking ranks, to flee, the wolves and dogs would never win. But those relatively dim-witted prey animals do not have enough of a leadership structure, to get all individuals to follow a coordinated plan. The dog & wolf predators, on the other hand, do; and they both have defined leaders, in their packs. My point, if it is not clear enough, is that there are obvious advantages to any group having a set of leaders making certain decisions, for the group, as opposed to everyone being an independent operator. What you suggest, would tremendously stifle mankind's phenomenal rise; our strength is in working together, which is infinitely more effective when there is defined, accepted leadership. That, in fact, is a flaw in your thesis: though we all may complain about our leadership, few actually would prefer anarchy, with no government whatsoever. By deciding to live within a democratic republic, we are consenting to its system, which includes the giving of certain powers to make decisions, affecting us all, to the winners of our elections. If we don't like that arrangement, we can always go to one of the places where humanity's, "natural order"-- according to your signature-- still holds sway, one of the lands of anarchy-- except that there never has been a country created on that basis, because humans have understood from before the time of fire, that if they did not unite in defense, other humans would pillage them, and worse. And any who chose to have a group-defense that was not coordinated by a LEADER, were removed from the gene-pool, by natural selection. (As an aside, one of the significant impediments in the Confederacy's ability to better sustain a defense, was a lack of respect for the chain of command, and personal squabbles between commanders.) It is kind of funny, actually, that you call yourself an anarcho-capitalist (quote, above), since Capitalism could not function, without something to enforce certain codes of conduct. In a Republic, we call that thing, law. In your righteous, anarchic system, I guess that would be whoever had the most wealth to hire goons? Sounds like a real improvement. Or are we to believe that, in contrast to human behavior from time immemorial, up to the school playgrounds of today, people would not group together for strength, for protection, and form gangs? This is what you are suggesting, an entire country operating by local prison-rules, or according to gang-war "politics," or, for the lucky ones, under the auspices of what would formerly have been called an, "organized-crime," syndicate. Tell me why this scenario would not be likely to occur, in your system, with no leaders, therefore no one to make laws, or to administer any police force, to aid in compliance with those laws; in other words, in your paradise of volunteer police (militias), mob justice, & mob rule? I work at a business, let's say as the #2 guy in our security force (which every company, of course, would need, to prevent both theft & vandalism, as well as assault or attack by any of our competitors). I decide that it's time for a promotion, so on my way home one night, I murder my boss. In the next couple of days, when he doesn't show up for work, it is eventually discovered that he's been murdered (or just that he's vanished, if I hide/bury the body) and so I get a promotion. End of story (until I feel due to be promoted to a higher position). Or, in your fantasy non-kingdom, does everyone just fully respect everyone else's, "rights?" The irony of that question, of course, being that, in an anarchical system, "rights," don't exist: might makes right. We, in fact, can get a glimpse of anarcho-capitalism through places in modern times like parts of Columbia, Bolivia, and Mexico-- not to mention Afganistan, Somalia, et al-- where government has essentially ceded control of parts of their nations to CAPITALIST Criminal Networks. Whether they're trafficking drugs, conducting piracy off their coasts, or-- even in the exceptional case of Taliban-controlled territory-- doing whatever other lawless activities are used to fund their mission (though I would suspect, here also, it having to do with drugs, specifically the opium trade, along with some kidnapping, for ransome, on the side). Returning to your signature, your conception that people would not exploit each other-- worse than we already do-- in a land without laws, is laughably unrealistic. But I'll let your quote speak for itself: "It is the natural order of human life: Voluntary, consensual relationships among humans without the greatest problem in all of history- the hallucination, the dystopian ideal that some humans should have the right to violently control their fellow man." An Honest and Accurate libertarian Discussion Thread If I go to your thread, will I see any defense of the idea that voluntary, consensual relationships, were ever the, "natural order...among humans?" Apparently you missed class the day they were talking about the rape of the Sabine women. Hell, I'm sure there are more than a few male-female relationships, in some parts of the present world, for which consensual, would not be the best description. And, everywhere, including here, there are certainly interactions between men & women that are not all consensual. But if it were not illegal to abduct a woman & hold her captive, I have a strong hunch there would be a bit more of that going on. In closing, while I am directly responding to your post, none of this really has much to do with this thread, I don't think. So I'll stop here.
Wow thats brilliant! Start them out with the knowledge that you cant trust any organization! Sounds pretty close to the reality of the world we have to live in to me!
I agree that it is a logical fallacy to try to prove a negative. Only positives can be proven. I agree that a supernatural god does not exist. If he did, that would open the door to many supernatural realms and gods all stacked on top of each other. Regards DL
No. It is counterintuitive of you to think that Gnostic Christians held a supernatural belief in Yahweh, while we/are sitting and badmouthing him. It is foolish to think we would be calling out a god we believed in and calling him satanic. You might remember that we were the intelligentsia of the religious. I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental efforts that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths. https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2 Further. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it." Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths. "Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning." Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship. Regards DL
Yes, inquisitions and jihads and a policy of homophobia and misogyny and adoring a genocidal god has sure been helpful min our last 5,000 years of religious wars. You like St. Hitler's religion. Why? Regards DL
I haven't yet checked out your links, but I wanted to point out two, nevertheless, obvious fallacies of your argument. First, you have ignored the main point of my argument by speaking about the belief of Gnostics nearly two millennia ago, as, "we." It is IMPOSSIBLE for you, or anyone, to be sure of how those Gnostics interpreted, in their own minds, the symbolism in their texts. There is NO unbroken tradition of Gnosticism, going back to its ancient heyday. The practice of current-day Gnostics is an attempted recreation but, to believe it could faithfully reproduce the perspective of that long-vanished group, which was never well-understood by anyone outside the faith, even back then (and anyone coming along well over a thousand years later, qualifies as, "outside the faith") is a totally unrealistic jump which would bode very poorly for the truth of your apparent contention, that modern Gnostics have a sober sense of reality. I will, therefore, take it that when you refer to Gnostics, you specifically mean the present-day interpretation, and so, as I had stated in my reply, that would negate my pointing out that Gnostics, historically, did believe in the supernatural. Your second, rapid-fire, fallacy, is that, because Gnostics (we'll assume) were part of the religious intelligentsia-- to lay claim to all of that title, shows the partisanship of your viewpoint-- that they must have been, "too smart," to believe in anything supernatural. Since men the likes of Sir Isaac Newton, and Leonardo Da Vinci (both regarded as among the greatest geniuses the world has ever known) were dedicated Christians, that shows your argument to not be a cogent one. (BTW, here's a recent post of mine, which covers one of Leonardo's flawed, religious concepts). http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/ufo-or.588119/page-7#post-1072665794 Lastly, I'll point out that you did not even address my other main point, that what you regard as esoteric (as, perhaps some inner essence-- you did not share your basic beliefs), if it cannot be measured by current scientific instruments, can be judged to be a supernatural construct; put another way, the Divine essence, in which the religious believe, could just as well qualify as something esoteric. To both get other, interested readers, up to speed, as well as to offer you evidence that your spin on Gnosticism cannot be reasonably maintained to be the one way which that path was ever-interpreted, by its adherents, here is a wikipedia quotation, for Gnosticism. <SNIP> ...collection of religious ideas and systems which originated in the late 1st century CE among Jewish and early Christian sects.[1] These various groups emphasised personal spiritual knowledge (gnosis) over the orthodox teachings, traditions, and authority of the church. Viewing material existence as flawed or evil, Gnostic cosmogony generally presents a distinction between a supreme, hidden God and a malevolent lesser divinity (sometimes associated with the Yahweh of the Old Testament)[2] who is responsible for creating the material universe.[3] Gnostics considered the principal element of salvation to be direct knowledge of the supreme divinity in the form of mystical or esoteric insight. Many Gnostic texts deal not in concepts of sin and repentance, but with illusion and enlightenment.[3] Pages from the Gospel of Thomas, discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945. Gnostic writings flourished among certain Christian groups in the Mediterranean world until about the second century, when the Fathers of the early Church denounced them as heresy.[4] Efforts to destroy these texts proved largely successful, resulting in the survival of very little writing by Gnostic theologians.[3] Nonetheless, early Gnostic teachers such as Valentinus saw their beliefs as aligned with Christianity. In the Gnostic Christian tradition, Christ is seen as a divine being which has taken human form in order to lead humanity back to the Light.[5] However, Gnosticism is not a single standardized system, and the emphasis on direct experience allows for a wide variety of teachings, including distinct currents such as Valentianism and Sethianism. In the Persian Empire, Gnostic ideas spread as far as China via the related movement Manichaeism, while Mandaeism is still alive in Iraq. For centuries, most scholarly knowledge of Gnosticism was limited to the anti-heretical writings of orthodox Christian figures such as Irenaeus of Lyons and Hippolytus of Rome. There was a renewed interest in Gnosticism after the 1945 discovery of Egypt's Nag Hammadi library, a collection of rare early Christian and Gnostic texts, including the Gospel of Thomas and the Apocryphon of John. A major question in scholarly research is the qualification of Gnosticism as either an interreligious phenomenon or as an independent religion. Scholars have acknowledged the influence of sources such as Hellenistic Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and Platonism, and some have noted possible links to Buddhism and Hinduism, though the evidence of direct influence from the latter sources is inconclusive.[3]
So this was a waste of breath- you are making the assumption that I deny that man is a communal creature. I am not. What I am asserting is that such communal associations must be voluntary and of free will, without coercion or threat of violence. Animals do not reason. That is your flaw here. Implied consent is a myth, and was the invention of men attempting to justify moving the justification of rulership from "the divine right of kings" to some other, more statist assertion. Long ago leaders began to discover that it is much easier to rule when the enslaved are in guilded cages that in iron shackles. They invented democracy and republic, and baked bread and provided circuses. Funny you should say that because you live under a violent, oppressive organized crime syndicate. Your snarkiness aside (which is a an indication that you do not desire a true, intellectual conversation) I would suggestion that you read a few works by David Friedman (Milton's son). Try going to the thread an find out for yourself, continue the discussion there (less the snarkiness) and I will in time respond in time (as will others). But yes, those questions are answered throughout the thread, as well as others you probably haven't thought of (like the free rider problem).
I misread the thread title as "what is a good religion". Also a bit of a head scratcher for an atheist. My best answer would probably be Jainism since it's explicitly about nonviolence.
Let' test this. I say genocidal, homophobic and misogynous tendencies are evil. Christians embrace a god of genocide who hates women and gays. Who does your moral reality say is correct? You also need to remember that most of what you read, --- that is not the Gnostic holy papers, --- is brought to your reality by those whose only tool for conversion of us, seeing as they had satanic morals, was Inquisitions. Best to ask a real Gnostic Christian. You will know us by our calling out Christians as evil. Regards DL
We esoteric ecumenists and naturalists say, do not make such a silly remark. Name any miracle you think Gnostic Christians believed in. Give your source as well. You might consider that Gnostic Christians have historically posited that if there is one supernatural realm and god, then that proof of concept would mean that there are many gods above any god. They used to say reality would then be like turtles above turtles. Think of Mandenbrock Sets and Matrix thinking and thank Gnostic Christians for such deep concepts. I am working hard to be worthy. Regards DL
They have a good rep but I know little to nothing of them. As India modernizes, they are following the trend to non-belief and that is why I spend more time on harm reduction from Christianity and Islam than I do trying to grow a liberating religion like Gnostic Christianity. The secular non-believers do not need moral guidance but the god religions and their immoral sheeple do. I say that any religion that puts god above man is not worthy of us moral humans. To give up trying to find the fittest men to led us would be capitulating to insanity. Regards DL
Indeed. I would not say that most religious believe in it. They mostly use the word faith. The difference, as you know is huge and these terms are not synonymous. In Gnostic Christianity, divinity is in all of us. We also know that divine is a title that can only be given. There is no real sentient Divine. If any stood up, you me or the Pope, to claim Divine status, we would be ROFLOL at. Regards DL
There are Gnostics in all religions. Even the putrid parts of Islam. We, who put morals above all else, are the sheep dogs who have to bite our religions hocks when it is stupidly following poor morals. We are thought of more by the sheeple as a wolf in sheep's clothing. None of the religiously controlled like to move from their poor moral traits. They hate to be corrected and hate me as much as the Jews hated Jesus. That is the fate of moralists who bad mouth vile gods and governments. Key to being a Gnostic is having the mental resolve to test your own morals by questioning your god's, and going Gnostic and rogue perhaps, if you find them to be evil. In Yahweh and Jesus' case, quite easy that. Regards DL
Gnos·ti·cism noun: Gnosticism a prominent heretical movement of the 2nd-century Christian Church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit. Definitions from Oxford Languages seems like your usage is a bit twisted. .
It makes some people happier, more content. If they say it provides them comfort in tough times, I believe them. They are the experts of their own lives. Some people claim their 'education' or their 'technology' has helped them too. Despite the continued existence of people killing each other off, still greedy, selfish egotistical bastards who cannot get along I believe them too. I don't expect people to ditch religion, education or technology because other people still act like animalistic turds. This really was unpersuasive.
That is a part of our myth for sure, but we were never stupid enough to read myths literally. Christians were and are and have ended with a prick of a god. Is that what you would prefer of me? I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental efforts that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths. https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2 Further. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it." Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths. "Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning." Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship. Regards DL
So do I. So do the women and gays they oppress to maintain that happy feeling. Being a moral misfit is good for the health and happiness levels. Lets all do that **** eh? Your wife and kids will love you for it. Not. Regards DL
Knock it off Greatest. Its pathetic. 'They' don't. Plenty of people who say that they gain contentment or comfort from their faith, are neither misogynists or homophobes. Many are come from an affirming background and self identify as supporting equality based on sex, gender and orientation. I see them as experts on what they believe on both topics. I won't stereotype people of faith based solely on their denomination or religious affiliation. I wait for both theistic and atheistic bigots to say or do bigoted things, then I pounce on what they said. or did. Sorta like I just did in this post. Don't sell your negative generalizations to me.
I find what you did very dishonest. That isn't what the quote function is for.. I suggest you use your own words to make your own point. Or at least quote the entire post.
This is demonstrably false; you are relying on an expression, instead of actually thinking. Let me prove my point: Donald Trump is NOT President of the United States, any longer. Do you really think that negative statement could not be proven? Where is my, "logical fallacy," pray tell? Just pointing out-- because you said, "agree," which implies that I offered the same opinion-- that I did not. To my mind, the only factual statement one could make about that, is no one knows, for sure. I thought I went on, quite a while, explaining it, logically, & offering analogies (as your being like of those scientists, dismissing the idea that invisible viruses exist, before microscopes, powerful enough to see them, came along). This is not to say that I think people shouldn't have personal opinions on the matter; but anyone who does not understand that his opinion has been drawn from proof that is far less than adequate, & so stands a good chance of, when death comes, discovering that he'd been wrong-- to my mind-- is not an enlightened thinker. And why could not that be the case? You are stating it, as if it is too ridiculous to be true. But how, from our perspective, can any of us expect to be able to judge what would or would not be appropriate, of supernatural realms? There is no difference between what you are doing, and the believers who are sure that heaven is just so, a particular way because it is clear to them how God's mind would operate. (Don't hate me, for being right). In fact, what happened to your quotation about the impossibility of proving a negative? HERE, on the existence of God & an afterlife, is its true case in point.
Thanks for clarifying that. So you are saying that there is no actual, inner essence; no thing to figuratively be transformed into "gold," other than your own mind & character, which you regard as both being the finite product of your physical brain; no spirit or soul. I am sure that most of the original Gnostics, did not see it that way. Since they became so obscure to history, I guess you can always make the claim, but all specialists in this area disagree (but, of course, all of these religious historians & so forth, are in on the conspiracy to hide the truth, right?). I think this would be an interesting issue, for the thread because, if I had to guess, I would say that @gabmux , with his outlook being similar to yours, on what an individual's personal goals should be, vis a vis, "spiritual" growth; and, seemingly the same generally negative view of religion (at least the organized kind); nevertheless, may actually view this inner essence as something real, even perhaps with agency, as opposed to a strictly-imaginary, mental construct. What Say You, GABMUX?
There is nothing counterintuitive about Gnostics, if they believed the god of the world was an evil imposter, in saying so. (I'll also point out that things that seem counterintuitive, can & do still turn out to be true, frequently enough not to be dismissed as a possibility). The start of this interview makes it clear that it is not going to prove that Gnostics interpreted their texts specifically in the way you claim. What makes me so confident of this is that your expert is making the exact argument that I have been making: <SNIP> Question: Who or what is God? Karen Armstrong: We can't say, and that's my answer to you. We can't say what God is, and until the modern period, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theologians in the three God religions all knew that. They insisted that we have no idea what we meant when we said that God was good, or wise, or intelligent. God is not good, or wise, or intelligent anyway that we know. <END SNIP> So what is your argument, which this supposedly supports, that even though we can't say what GOD is, we can say what it is NOT? That seems counter-intuitive. Joking. It, really, is just illogical. Quoting 3 people, out of the hundreds, if not thousands, from that time period, is proof of nothing other than those particular men's views. It certainly does not show that Gnostics must have interpreted their texts-- even if they saw things figuratively instead of literally-- to mean that there was no God, whatsoever. The third person you quote, in support of your view, is actually the gospel-writer, Matthew, who clearly DID believe that Jesus was divine, sent from God. If you are now going to claim that he, and Jesus, were only speaking about the mundane world, the entire time, then I hope you will back up that incredible claim with evidence about a thousand times stronger than the scant & tenuous "proof," you've, thus far furnished for your assertion, and a TON of it! Elsewise, you will only succeed in destroying your credibility.
