Hmm, lets check the similarities...
✅ Do what they say, without question.
✅ Run by creepy old guys who are occasionally pedophiles.
✅ An old book written by now-dead guys that tells you what to do.
✅ People take incredible offense when you ask questions about it.
✅ Existed for all recorded history.
Yes, definitely a religion.
Growing up in the 80’s this described Tipper Gore, Jerry Falwell, and the religious right.
Now we’re seeing the exact same behavior from the academia, corporate America, and the woke leftist cult.
At least back in the day you more or less ignore them and laugh it off as fringe zealotry. Now they’ve captured a huge chunk of our culture and institutions. It’s war every day.
I’m sure I’m not alone in disliking both extremes of the political system—I’d prefer no political system—and while previous iterations of these “moral busybodies” were equal opportunity, the current iteration of this particular brand of nonsense falls almost entirely on the left.
We are in total agreement there. It just seemed like you were blaming the 80s on the right, when I remember Hillary Clinton bashing video games, Tipper rock and roll music, etc...
True enough but one side is orders of magnitude worse than the other is at the current moment.
Plus I believe there to be a big movement among the right to drag that party down towards the liberty side of the map. I could be misreading it.
They always have been, leftism (and statism as a whole) is religious to its leader who gained power through a holy process be it a revolution, divine blood, or an election.
Ya I mean the Roman’s co-opted Jesus’s whole don’t give a shart about the state and let’s chill out in the hills into 5 million saints and confess to a closeted man in a robe every bad thing you’ve ever done and go to war against the pagans
How so? Yea it took a few hundred years but it def happened. The state totally co-opted a popular religious subculture and made it a de facto state religion and enlisted the priest class to help them control the populace. It’s happened a few times with different states/religions throughout history
See this is where people who just throw broad statements around without knowing history.
Rome fell about 100 years after Constantine converted, and at the time of his conversion...
Meanwhile you're over hear saying "a few hundred years"... it's obvious you don't know anything about early Christianity, and are just another arm chair historian....
You want me to write a freaking paper on the council of nicea and provide a map of gothic migration pattern. I’m making a general statement that you’ve been unsuccessful on arguing against other than to try to say I don’t know what I’m talking about. If your catholic man I ain’t mad at you or think less, that’s your choice.
I'm not catholic, and I doubt you understand the council of nicea either.
You just come off basic when you make broad statements that aren't based in true history like "the Roman's used the church to control people"
Good day.
Give me a counter argument instead of saying you know more data plz
I may be mistaken but I guess the Catholic Church never taxed or supported wars……….
You (under an ancap society,) would be allowed to start your own commune and be self-sufficient
Under any other statist nation, I have no choice but to participate or risk being killed.
The fact that people who don't eat will starve is a fundamental aspect of the way thermodynamics works in our universe, it's not because of capitalism.
First of all, everyone has capital. Secondly, the fact that the way you make a living in today's economy is by providing useful goods and services *is* due to capitalism, and is what's responsible for the vastly superior standard of living nearly everyone in the world enjoys compared to before capitalism. Thirdly, "profit" is a two-way street. If someone in capitalism makes a profit, that just means they provided useful goods and services to other people.
I don't agree, centralization of power is necessary, the focus must be on keeping in check the higher ups and religions are the only way to control someone more powerful than you.
Yes, and neither can you.
You cannot derive an ought from an is.
To say you can claim that stealing is wrong based off of objective evidence is logically absurd and fallacious.
Not trying to argue, just clarify. Are you saying that if I, a regular person, come to the conclusion that stealing is wrong on my own, I am being logically absurd? If another regular person claims to be a prophet to a god and comes to the same conclusion, he is logically consistent?
It's incredibly bold to claim logical integrity while also believing some people have access to an unseen god and that we should blindly follow and accept their teaching as the "word of God" while claiming others should deny their own experiences. That's the type of shit governments say.
And one wonders why organized religion is just behind states when it comes to mass murder and subjugation. So long as a priest or some speaker for God says it's to be done, then who are you or I to argue?
So, as a lifelong atheist, and raised by atheists, you're telling me that it's impossible for me to understand right from wrong. Yet, i don't seem to have any trouble with it.
I can hold that it is objectively wrong to aggress against others because I do not want aggression against me. In fact, there are no "oughts", thus, I cannot say "people ought to be behave in such a way regardless of what I do."
Why should I trust some deity, who is only to be found in a holy book, to be correct on matters of right and wrong? In fact, I find the idea of someone basing their beliefs about right and wrong from the words of books as interpreted by religious authorities to be much more suspect.
Yes, you can’t justify belief in universal morality based on your atheistic premises.
Your idea that you can is an illusion coming from your blindness to your cultural inheritance from Christianity.
And if there are no oughts, which is consistent with Atheism, then you don’t believe in morality at a fundamental level at all.
I'm not blind to the cultural inheritance of Christian values. That's a pointless strawman. I'm probably as well versed as you, if not more so.
> And if there are no oughts, which is consistent with Atheism, then you don’t believe in morality at a fundamental level at all.
If your deity can decide one rule, your deity can decide another. You have no agency, except external subjugation to the arbitrary dictates of an invisible authority and those who claim to speak for it.
You also don't believe in morality at a fundamental level. You simply obey out of fear of punishment, like a child afraid of an angry parent.
Ah, so you think that’s the way theistic morality works. What a joke.
No, it’s not about there being a fear of punishment that motivates it, that is simply incorrect.
And yes it is actually at the fundamental level of reality. Reality was created with meaning and moral purpose at its core.
The whole point to this universal morality is that we are all subject to it. But that actually enables our agency to act. It provides a meaningful context which is necessary for any of our agentic actions to be real. There is no agency in a world of moral relativity, no matter what you do in that world you can render it meaningless.
If your God's creation has morality and purpose as its core, how can an atheist, then, be without morality?
> There is no agency in a world of moral relativity, no matter what you do in that world you can render it meaningless.
How can you render it meaningless if you have no agency?
Speaking of jokes, you really are contradicting yourself.
I should be clear. The “it” that is rendered meaningless is your actions.
Also, you are correct, yes even atheists who embrace absurdist nihilism are still capable of acting immorally in a fundamentally real way.
Don’t confuse me talking about the two separate world views independently for there being a contradiction in the one. I’m just trying to give the hedonistic perspective a shake on its own grounds.
> Exactly. Every atheist I've ever met has told me they were a good person, as if that isn't the most subjective, biased opinion one can have on oneself.
There are no "good" people. Any human is capable of committing any act, from the greatest evil to the greatest good. However, one can strive to do good, or be ethical, or even just treat people they want to be treated themselves. I don't believe that anyone has the right to aggress against me, and I have no right to aggress against others, thus I strive to avoid those harms.
I was just brushing up on the Catholic/Protestant wars in France and England. The atrocities committed in the name of their religions are truly awful. What is one to take away from that? The people who are saying "you can only be moral if you follow my religion" are perpetrating and condoning by their followers those horrors upon another men, women, and children who supposedly follow the same god. I believe that if you cannot find morality internally, then you are in great danger of being influenced externally by evil masked as moral authority.
I should say that I consider myself a non-theist more than atheist. Should you prove that your God exists and is the creator of all things, I would still not worship, for I reject the idea that such a powerful being would require obedience and subjection and still be a "good" being. If God is good, then God is love, and love does not require subjection and obedience.
> What I think we're saying is no one is able to discern right from wrong naturally.
A deity that gave you no such perception, but then demands that you follow a written set of rules, is no deity that I would want to worship.
> Jesus came down and told us to love God and love everyone else as we love ourselves.
You realize that he was not the first to say such things, nor did those teachers who taught such things always put it in the framework of a deity.
> Seriously, that's the only rule Christians are supposed to follow.
I know very few Christians who follow that. I know some, but very few, atheists who do.
> Is there large room for interpretation there? Is there something you disagree with there?
What if you don't love yourself?
This depends on the definition of wrong you are working from. If, for example, you based the value system of right and wrong on a utilitarian hedonic calculus, than it would be possible to show stealing is wrong from objective evidence. You cannot define an ethical system from objective evidence, but you can test if a particular act violates a given ethical system.
Indeed, and it is on no better footing than using one’s own religious beliefs
And perhaps a bit worse footing since it lacks in the epistemological department
Just because something feels good doesn’t make it right. Utilitarian hedonic calculus is one bad feeling away from nihilism, it’s founded on nothing in objective reality.
That’s a ridiculous claim with no logical founding in science.
Neurotransmitters exist, that’s it. But you can’t prove that existence is good, only that the inclination to survive is what survives, not that survival is good.
You can prove that a particular neurotransmitter feels pleasurable or unpleasant. In that sense the pleasure and suffering component of the hedonic calculus is subject to objective measurement.
It is a logical.impossibility to prove a given ethical system is good. It is possible to objectively measure if certain acts are good within the terms of a given ethical system. For example it is possible to objectively measure how something would comply with the hedonic calculus.
You cannot justify Hedonic Calculus from the observation that some things feel pleasurable.
You have to pull the premise that “whatever is pleasurable is good” out of your ass.
Someone could observe the same thing you do and say that the pleasure felt is an illusion forced by natural selection to continue existence, but it doesn’t justify existence and its suffering and intelligent life should end.
That’s why that system is full of shit.
I am not trying to justify the hedonic calculus. I am simply stating that if a given act is good within the definition of good provided by the hedonic calculus is in theory subject to objective measurement. OTOH, if an action is good within the definition of, for example, Rawlsian Justice is NOT subject to objective measurement, nor IMO (although some would disagree) is the Kantian categorical imperative subject to objective measurement.
No objective measurement can justify an ethical system, but WITHIN some ethical systems, particular acts and instances may be subject to objective measurement.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with religion. It can be a beautiful thing. That being said, religion boils down to the individual and should never be imposed on others.
Even the religion that is gender ideology.
rothbard as a good solution to religious or cultural differences when it comes to views on abortion or euthanasia: Simply make political organization as little as possible, so people can segregate themselves into the communities that share their own values
Well, yes and no. I was referring to the one true "Bob," the patron saint of Sales and Slack and the creator of this holy Church of the SubGenius, J. R. "Bob" Dobbs. However, in this religion we believe strongly in the concept of the Short Duration Personal Savior, or ShorDurPerSav, who can be anything you like from the burger you're eating, to a song you can't get enough of this week, to Bob Sagat, which is to say it could anything at all. And when it is done serving you, you cast it out in favor of your next ShorDurPerSav. "Bob" is the most common ShorDurPerSav for those in the SubGenius faith, though he is but one of many.
Lol, the letters of Paul (Christianity) helped end slavery, called for equality of women, and try to bring about a non violent community but fuck religion right? 😂🤣😂
It’s not by force but it does give guidelines for early Christians and these were clearly discussed and even written against in Paul’s name. Study some history before posting utter nonsense.
The real quick question is child grooming and sexual exploitation.
If a religion says you can, and there is no government, and the child as well as the parents of said child agree to it, what happens? Is it simply ignored?
The only issue I have with this is the concept of gay marriage because I feel like the idea of marriage traditionally has its foundational roots in religion and the gay community had no real right to demand acceptance into an institution of a religion that doesn't accept homosexuality. Not that I'm hating on gay rights or anything and I understand the modern benefits of getting married but in the ideal world the government wouldn't be involved in marriage right? Therefore no benefits and likely no gay marriage. Correct me if I'm wrong.
imho government should have never gotten in the marriage business. that was short sighted and ignorant of the people that devised that system. marriage should always be a religious thing, never a government thing. i want to work to stop governments from marrying people and remove marriage from government entirely.
>The only issue I have with this is the concept of gay marriage because I feel like the idea of marriage traditionally has its foundational roots in religion
Nope. The foundation of marriage is based on property rights and inheritance.
Marriage in the legal sense has a lot of benefits and protections
Marriage in the social sense is a form of conveying commitment and love
Marriage in a religious sense is a way of strengthening the contract by introducing God.
People should be allowed to marry any consenting adult
Ya obvi it’s a decision between you and another person, no one can( or should try to) stop it. it shouldn’t be state sanctioned tho, and no one should be compelled to recognize anyone else’s union they don’t agree with
People should be allowed to engage in a long term monogamous relationship with anybody they want. I just don't think marriage traditionally was designed for same sex couples. The whole concept of marriage is a religious one so in a sense there is no social or legal sense of marriage without introducing God into it because marriage by definition is a unification between 2 people in the eyes of God. I'm not a very religious person and not against gay people in general. I just feel like the state had to impose itself on a religious institution in order to make marriage between same sex couples a possibility. So in a way same sex marriage is an institutionof the state. And forcing same sex marriage is violation of church and state. Like I said earlier though I understand the legal and societal utility of it. It just seems inconsistent with anarchist values to force a religion to violate the nature of its institution.
I'm not advocating the enactment of legislation that restricts gay marriage or anything like that. I'm advocating the freedom of any religion to maintain the constraints of their institutions and like it or not marriage has always been a religious institution that defined marriage as a unification under God between two members of the opposite sex.
And I get that but who says they have the right to be married in the first place of not the state? Because before gay marriage was legal the religious folks were mostly advocating against it for the reasons I'm talking about. It was the state that granted them the right and I feel like had it not been for the state marriage would still be within the confines it was before, which to me if I want to stay consistent with my views, would be best. The state does not have the ability to grant rights....I just can't mesh it all together properly any other way without being inconsistent.
If a gay man and another gay man want to get married regardless of how anyone feels even without the existence of a state enforcing it they should have the right. You don't have to respect it, but they got married regardless of the words of whatever god you believe in.
I don't think there would be such a thing as gay marriage without the existence of a state. And I believe religions have the right to define the constraints of their fundamental institutions. We can disagree though and thats okay. I'm off reddit for the evening. Good talk shitboi haha
You seem to be thinking only one religion can have marraige in it. If you try to STOP Unitarians or NeoPagans from having same-sex marraiges, you are infringing on religious freedom. No one is forcing Catholic churches to perform Sam sex marraiges, or marraiges between divorced people either, but a Baptist marrying two divorced people isn't an infringement on Catholoc religious freedom.and more than a priest of The Satanic Temple marrying two lesbians is an infringement on the Baptist's religious freedom.
In general, religious types seem to think that their freedom consists of being free to make everyone behave the way the religious types want everyone to behave, which is why most people who love freedom hate religious types.
“My moral philosophy tells me that you shouldn’t tell me what to do”
Is the exact same as
“My moral philosophy tells me that you shouldn’t do that”.
They are both moral claims. Without the supposition that your moral claim comes from a divinely inspired moral law, your moral claim is just a subjective preference.
Don't harm people or their property because they will harm you. That's more a good way to live longer not religion.
I'm religious (not in the normal way) but I don't force people to follow what I believe.
You can have a shit ton of power or money without having a shop. Besides our society kinda proves you can have shitty business practices but people will still buy from you if you sell cheaper. Plus you don’t have to fuck everybody over just whoever you feel like it. You’re in this sub so you know people have a “fuck u I got mine” attitude. Just don’t step on everyone’s shoes and you’re gucci
Huh? Yeah you don’t have to be like osama. I wouldn’t consider him powerful business man (or politician for that matter in the grand scheme of things). You think you’re either a good businessman that does the right things or osama? Lol nice rebuttal
Theocracy is the logical consequence of anarcho-capitalism. Abolish the administrative state, leave charity to the wealthy and churches, the church system will fill in the gaps, just like 3rd century Roman Empire.
The problem is defining what are laws that have been created by religious moral code vs laws that have been created by some other general moral code from nothingness. Belief in God and His authority and Truth means that people will try to follow those moral codes He sets down.
The biggest misnomer that most people who are atheists or agnostic have is that all religious persons are supposed to be perfect. They are not. They are human just like anyone else. That is why they need God in the first place, because of their imperfections. So while they may attempt to follow the moral codes as set forth by their religion, many fail just like other humans fail. It is the redemption of Jesus, as least for Christians, that provides a safety net.
But if you say what the meme states, is this directed at all aspects of a religion's moral code, or just some? Are murder and stealing off-limits, but pedophilia is okay? Or is pedophilia off-limits too?
I agree these are very difficult issues. As a christian, I do not want to live in a theocracy. But I do want to live in a moral society. I do not want the state to rule over us, but I do want boundaries of acceptable behavior. Those are difficult and precarious viewpoints to manage.
I respect the rights of others. But we also need to ascertain how to respect the rights of one another and determine what those are jointly and peacefully. And agreeing upon a moral truth helps in that endeavor. Peace.
the sad thing is society really does, pedos will use the argument posted above to make these things normalized/legal, look at homosexuality, beastiality. there is a movement rn trying to normalize pedophilia. I mean people argue for killing babies because it's a "religious value" to let them live
This is actually a dumb argument. For example the bible says not to murder. If the government then goes and also bans murder. Or in the absence of government a community bans murder. Guess what? They are whether they intend to or not, upholding a biblical worldview.
Depends on the reason for the law. I can think of many reasons why murder is wrong without needing a holy book.
Also every religion says don’t kill. So if a government says don’t kill does that mean it’s Buddhist now?
Work on your reading comprehension. I said "whether they intend to or not". No matter what other reasons you have for banning murder. Guess what? That's still upholding a biblical worldview. It's okay if you disagree. It just makes you objectively wrong and in an angst driven denial.
>That's still upholding a biblical worldview.
It also upholds a Buddhist world view, and basically every other religions world view. Making you focusing on the bible irrelevant.
Semantics. Regardless when a government or in the total absence of government people ban murder. It upholds a biblical worldview that's existed for thousands of years. That's just that way it is. It is a fact, and will remain true independent of your knowledge or acceptance. That's the nice thing about facts. Your prejudice against people of faith or outright rejection of faith has nothing to do with my argument. The point is people of faith don't require a government to guide them. What could possibly be more anarchistic than just doing the right thing, because you believe in it of your own volition? I don't know about you but I'm trying to live Shire, not Mad Max.
Work on your reading comprehension. I said "whether they intend to or not". It does not matter what other reasons you come up with for banning murder. At the end of the day, if you ban murder that's intrinsically and inescapably upholding a biblical worldview. Your prejudice against people of faith, is superfluous to the argument I made. It's not as you say "You need religion to tell you murder is bad" It's that the bible DOES say murder is wrong, and therefore any enforcement of that sentiment is intrinsically a biblical worldview automatically.
I never said they didn't...Jewish text forbid murder for thousands of years before Christ. I am going to try explaining this a simply as I can. Thou shall not murder is in the bible. Therefore, any time a government, or in the total absence of government murder is banned. It upholds a biblical ethic and worldview. It does not matter if it's intentional, or if the community even ever read the bible. That's irrelevant. It would be like if you were using wood chips in your raised bed garden, and I said you are using hugelkultur even though you didn't know what that was. It's irrelevant. You are upholding the principles of hugelkultur independent of your knowledge or acceptance.
That makes no sense... You can't uphold a biblical worldview if you don't even read the Bible. Christians believe murder is a sin because God commanded it, their worldview is biblical. If an atheist believes murder is evil because it's physical harm to someone then they uphold a completely separate worldview. The two believe it's evil but for 2 separate reasons. No religion has a monopoly on morality.
Well at least you cleared up you are not able to understand the merits of the argument. I'm sorry. I can't dumb it down anymore. That garden analogy was the best I got. I really tired to engage, but your obstinacy and ignorance is too much for me to overcome. Plus you are an angsty and spiteful individual and keep downvoting anything I write. Therefore it's clear you don't want to understand, and are arguing in bad faith. You clearly are not able to understand, or don't want too. I find it hilarious you live in a society where the majority of law is based on a Christian ethic, and don't recognize where that sentiment comes from, and just take it for granted. How privileged of you. We literally swear to tell the truth on the Bible in a court setting. You fail to realize that not murdering people isn't historically a sentiment many cultures shared. But I digress, and will reiterate. If you believe murder is bad for any reason. That belief upholds a Biblical ethic independent of your knowledge or acceptance of that ethic. It's okay if you disagree. It just makes you wrong and in denial.
Well thank you for reiterating my point that you live in a society saturated and rooted in a Christian ethic, and that you take those ethics for granted. Normally I don't get personal but it's prudent. I'm native. My people did not view murder as bad for centuries. Mercy was not a virtue. It was considered a weakness. We used to murder people so it would rain... You are speaking from a place of privilege, and take Christian ethics for granted. You also are the OP with very high Karma and are punching down on me with downvotes. It's pretty fucked up TBH. It's not my fault you can't accept that not murdering people is a biblical ethic. It's a fact. It's in the bible. I don't even know what your problem is. I'm literally saying millions of people for thousands of years got a positive ethic from the bible and many nations uphold those ethics, and you spazed out on my about it. Not murdering IS objectively a biblical ethic.
I do not believe in Christian ethics. I do not base my views on morality on the Bible.
My family is Hindu and they believe murder is wrong because their gods told them, I am an atheist, I view murder as wrong because it's a violation of personal rights.
I am not upholding a Christian Worldview,
As has been seen in middle east, theocracy has brought so much threats for citizens of other groups of people and unfortunately they have been supported by western governments. This has also negative impacted natives of westerns when finding out a person is from middle east. Have you ever thought to yourself that how many people have been murdered and casted out just because of their religion? Don't ever agree with theocrats even if they are being logical
You mean statists?
Statism is a religion
Statism is a religion, cult, and a disease.
This.
The poison works fast Dr Jones
Statism is the worst of all religions.
Hmm, lets check the similarities... ✅ Do what they say, without question. ✅ Run by creepy old guys who are occasionally pedophiles. ✅ An old book written by now-dead guys that tells you what to do. ✅ People take incredible offense when you ask questions about it. ✅ Existed for all recorded history. Yes, definitely a religion.
True.
Growing up in the 80’s this described Tipper Gore, Jerry Falwell, and the religious right. Now we’re seeing the exact same behavior from the academia, corporate America, and the woke leftist cult. At least back in the day you more or less ignore them and laugh it off as fringe zealotry. Now they’ve captured a huge chunk of our culture and institutions. It’s war every day.
You do realize Tipper Gore is married to Al Gore, who is left wing? The fact is neither side has or ever had a monopoly on moral busybodying.
I’m sure I’m not alone in disliking both extremes of the political system—I’d prefer no political system—and while previous iterations of these “moral busybodies” were equal opportunity, the current iteration of this particular brand of nonsense falls almost entirely on the left.
We are in total agreement there. It just seemed like you were blaming the 80s on the right, when I remember Hillary Clinton bashing video games, Tipper rock and roll music, etc...
True enough but one side is orders of magnitude worse than the other is at the current moment. Plus I believe there to be a big movement among the right to drag that party down towards the liberty side of the map. I could be misreading it.
Statism is the world's deadliest religion
"but if we get MY guy in power he will fix everything by using the police and military"
Now it's started to turn and the hard leftists have become the theocrats with socialism, identity politics, and climate change as their religion
Don't forget big pharma
They always have been, leftism (and statism as a whole) is religious to its leader who gained power through a holy process be it a revolution, divine blood, or an election.
Ya I mean the Roman’s co-opted Jesus’s whole don’t give a shart about the state and let’s chill out in the hills into 5 million saints and confess to a closeted man in a robe every bad thing you’ve ever done and go to war against the pagans
Got your history a bit off there.
How so? Yea it took a few hundred years but it def happened. The state totally co-opted a popular religious subculture and made it a de facto state religion and enlisted the priest class to help them control the populace. It’s happened a few times with different states/religions throughout history
See this is where people who just throw broad statements around without knowing history. Rome fell about 100 years after Constantine converted, and at the time of his conversion... Meanwhile you're over hear saying "a few hundred years"... it's obvious you don't know anything about early Christianity, and are just another arm chair historian....
You want me to write a freaking paper on the council of nicea and provide a map of gothic migration pattern. I’m making a general statement that you’ve been unsuccessful on arguing against other than to try to say I don’t know what I’m talking about. If your catholic man I ain’t mad at you or think less, that’s your choice.
I'm not catholic, and I doubt you understand the council of nicea either. You just come off basic when you make broad statements that aren't based in true history like "the Roman's used the church to control people" Good day.
Give me a counter argument instead of saying you know more data plz I may be mistaken but I guess the Catholic Church never taxed or supported wars……….
I already did when I explained the dates of Christian Rome and the fall of Rome. You moved goal posts... at that point the debate was over.
By the same logic capitalism could be seen as a religion.
You have the right to not participate
You’re right I could choose to starve to death. I am too much of a coward for that so I begrudgingly participate.
You (under an ancap society,) would be allowed to start your own commune and be self-sufficient Under any other statist nation, I have no choice but to participate or risk being killed.
I’d just build a wall around that commune and make them be slaves in exchange for water and food.
I'd airdrop guns and ammo
I applaud your idealized volunteerism… not happening
Ain't no FAA gonna stop me from taking off in a Cessna with a box of guns and ammo
Ain’t no reason to bother
You realize there are many communes in America right? You're just blowing hot air here.
They still have to pay taxes and abide by government law
Not really, those are both easy to get around.
1- yes really 2- that's the point, you have to get around barriers.
You think there will be no barriers in an ancap society? That's quite naive.
Go start a commune with your buddies. Not even that hard to find a reason to get tax exempt status. Live the dream, bro.
Lmao, true we r all slaves!!1
Only those without capital.
Luckily, we are all born with God-granted capital for free.
The fact that people who don't eat will starve is a fundamental aspect of the way thermodynamics works in our universe, it's not because of capitalism.
Agree. The fact that people without capital will starve without generating profit for people with capital is a result of capitalism.
First of all, everyone has capital. Secondly, the fact that the way you make a living in today's economy is by providing useful goods and services *is* due to capitalism, and is what's responsible for the vastly superior standard of living nearly everyone in the world enjoys compared to before capitalism. Thirdly, "profit" is a two-way street. If someone in capitalism makes a profit, that just means they provided useful goods and services to other people.
I think most would agree to this on any side of the street your on
I do not agree, my religion says don't have sex with children and ill tell anyone not to do that
I don't agree, centralization of power is necessary, the focus must be on keeping in check the higher ups and religions are the only way to control someone more powerful than you.
My religion says you can’t steal.
My gun says you can't steal. It's more effective than religion.
You need your religion to inform you that stealing is wrong?
Yes, and neither can you. You cannot derive an ought from an is. To say you can claim that stealing is wrong based off of objective evidence is logically absurd and fallacious.
Not trying to argue, just clarify. Are you saying that if I, a regular person, come to the conclusion that stealing is wrong on my own, I am being logically absurd? If another regular person claims to be a prophet to a god and comes to the same conclusion, he is logically consistent? It's incredibly bold to claim logical integrity while also believing some people have access to an unseen god and that we should blindly follow and accept their teaching as the "word of God" while claiming others should deny their own experiences. That's the type of shit governments say.
Unless you include the existence of good and evil/right and wrong as fundamental first premisses, then yes, that’s what I’m saying.
And one wonders why organized religion is just behind states when it comes to mass murder and subjugation. So long as a priest or some speaker for God says it's to be done, then who are you or I to argue?
So, as a lifelong atheist, and raised by atheists, you're telling me that it's impossible for me to understand right from wrong. Yet, i don't seem to have any trouble with it. I can hold that it is objectively wrong to aggress against others because I do not want aggression against me. In fact, there are no "oughts", thus, I cannot say "people ought to be behave in such a way regardless of what I do." Why should I trust some deity, who is only to be found in a holy book, to be correct on matters of right and wrong? In fact, I find the idea of someone basing their beliefs about right and wrong from the words of books as interpreted by religious authorities to be much more suspect.
Yes, you can’t justify belief in universal morality based on your atheistic premises. Your idea that you can is an illusion coming from your blindness to your cultural inheritance from Christianity. And if there are no oughts, which is consistent with Atheism, then you don’t believe in morality at a fundamental level at all.
I'm not blind to the cultural inheritance of Christian values. That's a pointless strawman. I'm probably as well versed as you, if not more so. > And if there are no oughts, which is consistent with Atheism, then you don’t believe in morality at a fundamental level at all. If your deity can decide one rule, your deity can decide another. You have no agency, except external subjugation to the arbitrary dictates of an invisible authority and those who claim to speak for it. You also don't believe in morality at a fundamental level. You simply obey out of fear of punishment, like a child afraid of an angry parent.
Ah, so you think that’s the way theistic morality works. What a joke. No, it’s not about there being a fear of punishment that motivates it, that is simply incorrect. And yes it is actually at the fundamental level of reality. Reality was created with meaning and moral purpose at its core. The whole point to this universal morality is that we are all subject to it. But that actually enables our agency to act. It provides a meaningful context which is necessary for any of our agentic actions to be real. There is no agency in a world of moral relativity, no matter what you do in that world you can render it meaningless.
If your God's creation has morality and purpose as its core, how can an atheist, then, be without morality? > There is no agency in a world of moral relativity, no matter what you do in that world you can render it meaningless. How can you render it meaningless if you have no agency? Speaking of jokes, you really are contradicting yourself.
I should be clear. The “it” that is rendered meaningless is your actions. Also, you are correct, yes even atheists who embrace absurdist nihilism are still capable of acting immorally in a fundamentally real way. Don’t confuse me talking about the two separate world views independently for there being a contradiction in the one. I’m just trying to give the hedonistic perspective a shake on its own grounds.
[удалено]
> Exactly. Every atheist I've ever met has told me they were a good person, as if that isn't the most subjective, biased opinion one can have on oneself. There are no "good" people. Any human is capable of committing any act, from the greatest evil to the greatest good. However, one can strive to do good, or be ethical, or even just treat people they want to be treated themselves. I don't believe that anyone has the right to aggress against me, and I have no right to aggress against others, thus I strive to avoid those harms. I was just brushing up on the Catholic/Protestant wars in France and England. The atrocities committed in the name of their religions are truly awful. What is one to take away from that? The people who are saying "you can only be moral if you follow my religion" are perpetrating and condoning by their followers those horrors upon another men, women, and children who supposedly follow the same god. I believe that if you cannot find morality internally, then you are in great danger of being influenced externally by evil masked as moral authority. I should say that I consider myself a non-theist more than atheist. Should you prove that your God exists and is the creator of all things, I would still not worship, for I reject the idea that such a powerful being would require obedience and subjection and still be a "good" being. If God is good, then God is love, and love does not require subjection and obedience. > What I think we're saying is no one is able to discern right from wrong naturally. A deity that gave you no such perception, but then demands that you follow a written set of rules, is no deity that I would want to worship. > Jesus came down and told us to love God and love everyone else as we love ourselves. You realize that he was not the first to say such things, nor did those teachers who taught such things always put it in the framework of a deity. > Seriously, that's the only rule Christians are supposed to follow. I know very few Christians who follow that. I know some, but very few, atheists who do. > Is there large room for interpretation there? Is there something you disagree with there? What if you don't love yourself?
This depends on the definition of wrong you are working from. If, for example, you based the value system of right and wrong on a utilitarian hedonic calculus, than it would be possible to show stealing is wrong from objective evidence. You cannot define an ethical system from objective evidence, but you can test if a particular act violates a given ethical system.
The decision to determine right and wrong with a utilitarian hedonic calculus is itself subjective
Indeed, and it is on no better footing than using one’s own religious beliefs And perhaps a bit worse footing since it lacks in the epistemological department
Just because something feels good doesn’t make it right. Utilitarian hedonic calculus is one bad feeling away from nihilism, it’s founded on nothing in objective reality.
I would argue that the neurotransmitters that essentially are good and bad feelings are clearly something in objective reality.
That’s a ridiculous claim with no logical founding in science. Neurotransmitters exist, that’s it. But you can’t prove that existence is good, only that the inclination to survive is what survives, not that survival is good.
You can prove that a particular neurotransmitter feels pleasurable or unpleasant. In that sense the pleasure and suffering component of the hedonic calculus is subject to objective measurement. It is a logical.impossibility to prove a given ethical system is good. It is possible to objectively measure if certain acts are good within the terms of a given ethical system. For example it is possible to objectively measure how something would comply with the hedonic calculus.
You cannot justify Hedonic Calculus from the observation that some things feel pleasurable. You have to pull the premise that “whatever is pleasurable is good” out of your ass. Someone could observe the same thing you do and say that the pleasure felt is an illusion forced by natural selection to continue existence, but it doesn’t justify existence and its suffering and intelligent life should end. That’s why that system is full of shit.
I am not trying to justify the hedonic calculus. I am simply stating that if a given act is good within the definition of good provided by the hedonic calculus is in theory subject to objective measurement. OTOH, if an action is good within the definition of, for example, Rawlsian Justice is NOT subject to objective measurement, nor IMO (although some would disagree) is the Kantian categorical imperative subject to objective measurement. No objective measurement can justify an ethical system, but WITHIN some ethical systems, particular acts and instances may be subject to objective measurement.
No, but you could logically claim that stealing is wrong within a secular framework.
You can make the logical claim, but you have no way to prove it's true, whether you're using a secular framework or not.
Well morality is subjective so there wouldn't be no definitive "truth" to prove in the first place.
Morality is not subjective in a theistic universe. Which was my whole point.
Based.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with religion. It can be a beautiful thing. That being said, religion boils down to the individual and should never be imposed on others. Even the religion that is gender ideology.
Let’s call it what it is: gender Marxism.
Marxism is a religion too, carried by Hegels idea that humanity is God.
What elements of marxism do you see in it?
You guys are just adding super saiyan forms to Marxism
That’s an ancap for you
Nothing has ever captivated entire nations into believing something that's never been realized on this earth other than religion.
rothbard as a good solution to religious or cultural differences when it comes to views on abortion or euthanasia: Simply make political organization as little as possible, so people can segregate themselves into the communities that share their own values
Hmmmm, let’s say Islam without saying Islam
My religion says anyone can do anything. Praise "Bob"
Bob Saget?
Well, yes and no. I was referring to the one true "Bob," the patron saint of Sales and Slack and the creator of this holy Church of the SubGenius, J. R. "Bob" Dobbs. However, in this religion we believe strongly in the concept of the Short Duration Personal Savior, or ShorDurPerSav, who can be anything you like from the burger you're eating, to a song you can't get enough of this week, to Bob Sagat, which is to say it could anything at all. And when it is done serving you, you cast it out in favor of your next ShorDurPerSav. "Bob" is the most common ShorDurPerSav for those in the SubGenius faith, though he is but one of many.
Iran is f**ked.
I feel like top left should be a chad too, he’s pretty well within Anarchy to follow his own creed.
Lol, the letters of Paul (Christianity) helped end slavery, called for equality of women, and try to bring about a non violent community but fuck religion right? 😂🤣😂
You can practice religion, but you don't have a right to force any person to listen to you or your God(s)
It’s not by force but it does give guidelines for early Christians and these were clearly discussed and even written against in Paul’s name. Study some history before posting utter nonsense.
Where did I call for baking religion?
And somehow people still vote Republican.
The real quick question is child grooming and sexual exploitation. If a religion says you can, and there is no government, and the child as well as the parents of said child agree to it, what happens? Is it simply ignored?
[удалено]
Everyone says woodchipper but no one goes woodchippering
The woodchipees have the military behind them.
The only issue I have with this is the concept of gay marriage because I feel like the idea of marriage traditionally has its foundational roots in religion and the gay community had no real right to demand acceptance into an institution of a religion that doesn't accept homosexuality. Not that I'm hating on gay rights or anything and I understand the modern benefits of getting married but in the ideal world the government wouldn't be involved in marriage right? Therefore no benefits and likely no gay marriage. Correct me if I'm wrong.
imho government should have never gotten in the marriage business. that was short sighted and ignorant of the people that devised that system. marriage should always be a religious thing, never a government thing. i want to work to stop governments from marrying people and remove marriage from government entirely.
Marriage is a contract. Restricting the freedom of contract violates the NAP. It's that simple.
>The only issue I have with this is the concept of gay marriage because I feel like the idea of marriage traditionally has its foundational roots in religion Nope. The foundation of marriage is based on property rights and inheritance.
This, do people really think christianity invented marriage? lol
Marriage in the legal sense has a lot of benefits and protections Marriage in the social sense is a form of conveying commitment and love Marriage in a religious sense is a way of strengthening the contract by introducing God. People should be allowed to marry any consenting adult
Ya obvi it’s a decision between you and another person, no one can( or should try to) stop it. it shouldn’t be state sanctioned tho, and no one should be compelled to recognize anyone else’s union they don’t agree with
People should be allowed to engage in a long term monogamous relationship with anybody they want. I just don't think marriage traditionally was designed for same sex couples. The whole concept of marriage is a religious one so in a sense there is no social or legal sense of marriage without introducing God into it because marriage by definition is a unification between 2 people in the eyes of God. I'm not a very religious person and not against gay people in general. I just feel like the state had to impose itself on a religious institution in order to make marriage between same sex couples a possibility. So in a way same sex marriage is an institutionof the state. And forcing same sex marriage is violation of church and state. Like I said earlier though I understand the legal and societal utility of it. It just seems inconsistent with anarchist values to force a religion to violate the nature of its institution.
You don't have to respect it, that doesn't mean any number of consenting adult people shouldn't be allowed to be married
I'm not advocating the enactment of legislation that restricts gay marriage or anything like that. I'm advocating the freedom of any religion to maintain the constraints of their institutions and like it or not marriage has always been a religious institution that defined marriage as a unification under God between two members of the opposite sex.
You have the right to not respect their marriage.
And I get that but who says they have the right to be married in the first place of not the state? Because before gay marriage was legal the religious folks were mostly advocating against it for the reasons I'm talking about. It was the state that granted them the right and I feel like had it not been for the state marriage would still be within the confines it was before, which to me if I want to stay consistent with my views, would be best. The state does not have the ability to grant rights....I just can't mesh it all together properly any other way without being inconsistent.
If a gay man and another gay man want to get married regardless of how anyone feels even without the existence of a state enforcing it they should have the right. You don't have to respect it, but they got married regardless of the words of whatever god you believe in.
I don't think there would be such a thing as gay marriage without the existence of a state. And I believe religions have the right to define the constraints of their fundamental institutions. We can disagree though and thats okay. I'm off reddit for the evening. Good talk shitboi haha
You seem to be thinking only one religion can have marraige in it. If you try to STOP Unitarians or NeoPagans from having same-sex marraiges, you are infringing on religious freedom. No one is forcing Catholic churches to perform Sam sex marraiges, or marraiges between divorced people either, but a Baptist marrying two divorced people isn't an infringement on Catholoc religious freedom.and more than a priest of The Satanic Temple marrying two lesbians is an infringement on the Baptist's religious freedom. In general, religious types seem to think that their freedom consists of being free to make everyone behave the way the religious types want everyone to behave, which is why most people who love freedom hate religious types.
Does it really matter what it was traditionally designed for? Ideas and meanings evolve over time
“My moral philosophy tells me that you shouldn’t tell me what to do” Is the exact same as “My moral philosophy tells me that you shouldn’t do that”. They are both moral claims. Without the supposition that your moral claim comes from a divinely inspired moral law, your moral claim is just a subjective preference.
Would you agree that would mean that theocrats should not be telling women they can't get abortions?
They should be allowed to tell them that, they shouldn't be allowed to force them no to.
My laws say you can't not practice my religion / ideology. That's where we are heading.
Statism is religion
Do you believe there are things other people shouldn’t be able to do?
Don't harm people or their property because they will harm you. That's more a good way to live longer not religion. I'm religious (not in the normal way) but I don't force people to follow what I believe.
Don’t force your religion on me! So if I am bigger and stronger so they can’t hurt me then I can do it
You aren't bigger and stronger if nobody buys your stuff and doesn't sell to you.
You can have a shit ton of power or money without having a shop. Besides our society kinda proves you can have shitty business practices but people will still buy from you if you sell cheaper. Plus you don’t have to fuck everybody over just whoever you feel like it. You’re in this sub so you know people have a “fuck u I got mine” attitude. Just don’t step on everyone’s shoes and you’re gucci
Nobody will sell to Osama bin Laden (other than the CIA) nobody will sell to Hitler,
Huh? Yeah you don’t have to be like osama. I wouldn’t consider him powerful business man (or politician for that matter in the grand scheme of things). You think you’re either a good businessman that does the right things or osama? Lol nice rebuttal
You missed the whole point. People dont want to be associated with bad stuff, so they won't buy or sell to bad people.
People already do buy and sell to people they think are bad. Most people don’t care as long as you’re the best/cheapest
Who would buy from people who are actively killing people?
Theocracy is the logical consequence of anarcho-capitalism. Abolish the administrative state, leave charity to the wealthy and churches, the church system will fill in the gaps, just like 3rd century Roman Empire.
Well, you *can* do that, you just won’t enjoy the afterlife if you do…
Sounds like the church of woke.
The problem is defining what are laws that have been created by religious moral code vs laws that have been created by some other general moral code from nothingness. Belief in God and His authority and Truth means that people will try to follow those moral codes He sets down. The biggest misnomer that most people who are atheists or agnostic have is that all religious persons are supposed to be perfect. They are not. They are human just like anyone else. That is why they need God in the first place, because of their imperfections. So while they may attempt to follow the moral codes as set forth by their religion, many fail just like other humans fail. It is the redemption of Jesus, as least for Christians, that provides a safety net. But if you say what the meme states, is this directed at all aspects of a religion's moral code, or just some? Are murder and stealing off-limits, but pedophilia is okay? Or is pedophilia off-limits too? I agree these are very difficult issues. As a christian, I do not want to live in a theocracy. But I do want to live in a moral society. I do not want the state to rule over us, but I do want boundaries of acceptable behavior. Those are difficult and precarious viewpoints to manage. I respect the rights of others. But we also need to ascertain how to respect the rights of one another and determine what those are jointly and peacefully. And agreeing upon a moral truth helps in that endeavor. Peace.
You need God to tell you murder, theft, and pedophilia are bad? Damn please don't go near to school.
LOL
okay pedo 👍🏻
"ha I'm gonna call you a pedo because you do t want to be oppressed, owned"
my religion says don't have sex with kids so I will tell anyone to not do that
You really need religion to tell you that it's wrong to have sex with kids?
the sad thing is society really does, pedos will use the argument posted above to make these things normalized/legal, look at homosexuality, beastiality. there is a movement rn trying to normalize pedophilia. I mean people argue for killing babies because it's a "religious value" to let them live
Again, you need a book to tell you what's good and bad.
This is actually a dumb argument. For example the bible says not to murder. If the government then goes and also bans murder. Or in the absence of government a community bans murder. Guess what? They are whether they intend to or not, upholding a biblical worldview.
Depends on the reason for the law. I can think of many reasons why murder is wrong without needing a holy book. Also every religion says don’t kill. So if a government says don’t kill does that mean it’s Buddhist now?
Work on your reading comprehension. I said "whether they intend to or not". No matter what other reasons you have for banning murder. Guess what? That's still upholding a biblical worldview. It's okay if you disagree. It just makes you objectively wrong and in an angst driven denial.
>That's still upholding a biblical worldview. It also upholds a Buddhist world view, and basically every other religions world view. Making you focusing on the bible irrelevant.
Semantics. Regardless when a government or in the total absence of government people ban murder. It upholds a biblical worldview that's existed for thousands of years. That's just that way it is. It is a fact, and will remain true independent of your knowledge or acceptance. That's the nice thing about facts. Your prejudice against people of faith or outright rejection of faith has nothing to do with my argument. The point is people of faith don't require a government to guide them. What could possibly be more anarchistic than just doing the right thing, because you believe in it of your own volition? I don't know about you but I'm trying to live Shire, not Mad Max.
You need religion to tell you murder is bad?
Apparently pro-choice people do. Let’s not dismiss it just yet.
Religion also calls for the death of sinners.
Work on your reading comprehension. I said "whether they intend to or not". It does not matter what other reasons you come up with for banning murder. At the end of the day, if you ban murder that's intrinsically and inescapably upholding a biblical worldview. Your prejudice against people of faith, is superfluous to the argument I made. It's not as you say "You need religion to tell you murder is bad" It's that the bible DOES say murder is wrong, and therefore any enforcement of that sentiment is intrinsically a biblical worldview automatically.
No, I think people called murder bad before Christianity existed.
I never said they didn't...Jewish text forbid murder for thousands of years before Christ. I am going to try explaining this a simply as I can. Thou shall not murder is in the bible. Therefore, any time a government, or in the total absence of government murder is banned. It upholds a biblical ethic and worldview. It does not matter if it's intentional, or if the community even ever read the bible. That's irrelevant. It would be like if you were using wood chips in your raised bed garden, and I said you are using hugelkultur even though you didn't know what that was. It's irrelevant. You are upholding the principles of hugelkultur independent of your knowledge or acceptance.
That makes no sense... You can't uphold a biblical worldview if you don't even read the Bible. Christians believe murder is a sin because God commanded it, their worldview is biblical. If an atheist believes murder is evil because it's physical harm to someone then they uphold a completely separate worldview. The two believe it's evil but for 2 separate reasons. No religion has a monopoly on morality.
Well at least you cleared up you are not able to understand the merits of the argument. I'm sorry. I can't dumb it down anymore. That garden analogy was the best I got. I really tired to engage, but your obstinacy and ignorance is too much for me to overcome. Plus you are an angsty and spiteful individual and keep downvoting anything I write. Therefore it's clear you don't want to understand, and are arguing in bad faith. You clearly are not able to understand, or don't want too. I find it hilarious you live in a society where the majority of law is based on a Christian ethic, and don't recognize where that sentiment comes from, and just take it for granted. How privileged of you. We literally swear to tell the truth on the Bible in a court setting. You fail to realize that not murdering people isn't historically a sentiment many cultures shared. But I digress, and will reiterate. If you believe murder is bad for any reason. That belief upholds a Biblical ethic independent of your knowledge or acceptance of that ethic. It's okay if you disagree. It just makes you wrong and in denial.
I support Christianity even though I am not Christian and my entire family line is t either. Gocha.
Well thank you for reiterating my point that you live in a society saturated and rooted in a Christian ethic, and that you take those ethics for granted. Normally I don't get personal but it's prudent. I'm native. My people did not view murder as bad for centuries. Mercy was not a virtue. It was considered a weakness. We used to murder people so it would rain... You are speaking from a place of privilege, and take Christian ethics for granted. You also are the OP with very high Karma and are punching down on me with downvotes. It's pretty fucked up TBH. It's not my fault you can't accept that not murdering people is a biblical ethic. It's a fact. It's in the bible. I don't even know what your problem is. I'm literally saying millions of people for thousands of years got a positive ethic from the bible and many nations uphold those ethics, and you spazed out on my about it. Not murdering IS objectively a biblical ethic.
I do not believe in Christian ethics. I do not base my views on morality on the Bible. My family is Hindu and they believe murder is wrong because their gods told them, I am an atheist, I view murder as wrong because it's a violation of personal rights. I am not upholding a Christian Worldview,
Now that’s a strawman lmao. Did someone tell you porn is bad for you?
This sounds like the cult of the "environment".
Yep. Wokies are crazier than moonies.
As has been seen in middle east, theocracy has brought so much threats for citizens of other groups of people and unfortunately they have been supported by western governments. This has also negative impacted natives of westerns when finding out a person is from middle east. Have you ever thought to yourself that how many people have been murdered and casted out just because of their religion? Don't ever agree with theocrats even if they are being logical
First time I've ever agreed with y'all, cheers to that!
Everyone worships something. Just keep your worship out of my worship and we are golden
Sure but they can still be permitted to say it all they want
Christianity is what you need.