0 votes

A Libertarian Case for Anti-Theism

This is my first post, well technically second, and thought id jump right in with something thats sure to bring out some good discussion (atleast i hope so)and is something ive been thinking about for some time now

Alot of conservatives and libertarians tend to be religious while secularists and the non-religious tend to be liberal. I'm one of those that are what id call a libertarian atheist.

I think a case can be made, a good one at that, that if you are a libertarian, logically, you should also be an anti-theist.

A quick overview of some definitions as to avoid confusion:

an atheist is someone who finds that no evidence has been brought forth, or argument made that leads him to believe in a deity, such a person could wish that it was true but just cannot bring himself to believe

an anti-theist (term borrowed from christopher hitchens) is a person who is either glad that such a being does not exist, or if they happen to be a believer, wishes it werent the case

i believe libertarianism logically goes hand in hand with the latter, and heres why:

the highest aim of a libertarian is (or atleast should be) to expand liberty, we believe in liberty and we defend it

to me the idea of a deity (in particular the deity of the big 3 monotheisms) is absolutely anti-liberty, the claim is that this being created you and owns you, has a particular plan for you and for humanity in general that you have been thrown into, in which you have no say, this being is unelected and can never be overthrown or voted out, and (probably the most totalitarian idea of all) can convict you of thought crime

however you look at it, to me this seems like an authoritarian system

as a libertarian i find the idea highly disturbing and anti-liberty, so logically if you are a libertarian whos highest aim is to promote liberty you should also be an anti-theist

what say you? general discussion or discussion of particulars are welcome and would be highly enjoyed, after all religion and politics are two of the most controversial subjects, which in my opinion probably makes them two of the most important




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Yes, it's just so much fun, isn't it?

I think you really should push the envelope, and become "anti-self" too.
I mean after all, this idea of ruling yourself is just so "authoritarian". It must be bad.
I cannot find any logical reason to rule myself.
All it does is get in the way of my not being ruled.

And after all, if we really want to be libertarian, there can be no forms of restraint, not even by ourselves.
But that's a little tough to sell.
So then the "post-grad coffee klatsch" comes in and decides their arbitrary rules and stuff like the "non-aggression principle" and all kinds of high and mighty sounding "principles" that are supposed to supplant the previous "what is" with their new version of what "should be, according to them", because they are so "intellectual and visionary", you see. We should listen to "their rules", but not the rules of somebody previous.
When of course, being "ruled" by any "rules" is clearly anathema to the libertarian position of "not being ruled".
Yeah, I get it.

I don't know

eger.... you keep beating the argument to death. you have totally proven your case that god doesn't exist. you have overstated it, as well as having shown that christianity is evil. if people don't get it by now, they are just not reading what you wrote, or they are in denial or have an agenda to protect the status quo or make others think that god exists so they feel better or something...

Hardly

You are too easily impressed.

But I will say that I find what he writes to be highly entertaining.

I would love to sit down over coffee and discuss this

I won't attempt to offer any proof but rather just an observation...

My son was born because of his mother and I, I am responsible for him and no, he cannot do whatever he likes and expect my blessings. He does have a say but cannot expect to overthrow me or vote his mother out. If he chooses to live a life in defiance of what we know to be just, right, and ethical then he may very well find himself without the support (although never without the love) of his parents.

Now I grant you, blind devotion to me may be a terrifying thought if I were some abusive and hateful man. I assure you I am not a ogre and that I want the best for him, and his children, etc... He may think I am a boring idiot, but I do know things about the world and what paths are more likely to result in his prospering and which paths are likely to lead to hardships.... Ultimately, he is free to choose his own path.

I cannot make him try harder in school, not do drugs, be abusive to others or convince him that the hot girl with the fast car should perhaps be avoided while the pleasant and studious girl in the library may just be a great friend and,... well who knows? He is his own man and is free to do as he pleases... His mother and I love him very much and are free to love him unconditionally while not supporting whatever harmful path he may have chosen.

To paraphrase Dr Paul, A government cannot dictate what you should do in this country. Cannot order you to eat this and obtain from that... but if we get lung cancer because we ignored sound judgement (I.E. "I wouldn't do that if I were you...") you can't expect the Libertarian to be forced to pay for your treatment.

The Deity (keep it generic) I follow does not have thought crimes and loves me unconditionally. However, that doesn't mean that if I run contradictory to His plans and wishes for my life that I can expect His blessings. However, if I make a hash of my life, I can in a moment; turn back to Him and all is well... If that sounds odd, I assure you that I enjoy a wonderful relationship with my daughter (who is now old enough to understand my rules and why I tried to guide her the way I did). It wasn't out of a desire to control, but to nurture and guide in the way that is truly best for her and now my grandkids. This was not always so and she has told me many times; "I wish I would have listened to you."

To me the Libertarian mind set lends itself very well to the Christian world view. You are free to live how you see fit, but you cannot ignore the fact that you did NOT give birth to yourself... there are relationships set for you and consequences (both good and bad) for whatever you do in this world... Living your life in a way contrary to good, sound, reasonable, ethical standards have consequences... no matter who your parents are or whether you think they have a clue or not.

Just my two cents.

Have a wonderful and prosperous New Year!

....where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is LIBERTY. 2 Corinthians 3:17(b)

***wants are unlimited, means are scarce...***

Sons of Darkness Sons of Light

This is a three part video series by Neithercorp that I hope some will watch and benefit from ...no matter what your religious or non religious beliefs~ 10 min each part!

Here is the description:
A discussion of collectivism, and the political and intellectual ideologies which underpin it. Also introduces basic concepts of archetypal psychology. Outlines the debate between collectivism and individualism. --- Using original animations and frequent cultural references, the piece is intended to be entertaining and engaging for any audience, despite its somewhat difficult subject matter. --- Featuring Alex Jones, Steven Pinker (MIT), Peter Joseph (creator of the "Zeitgeist" films), G. Edward Griffin, and Joseph Campbell (mythologist).

Part I
http://www.youtube.com/neithercorp#p/a/E294AB6D737D7CAE/0/tT...

Part II
http://www.youtube.com/neithercorp#p/a/E294AB6D737D7CAE/1/HJ...

Part III
http://www.youtube.com/neithercorp#p/a/E294AB6D737D7CAE/2/sv...

~Peace

"I think we are living in a world of lies: lies that don't even know they are lies, because they are the children and grandchildren of lies." ~ Chris Floyd

Egervari, first, there is no

Egervari, first, there is no Christian mantra that says we must love everybody. Show me in the Word where it says that. You've read the Bible 2 times? Why?

Second, you demand proof of God's existence. You demand proof of a being who necessarily transcends all time and space. If God's existence could be proven, men would be forced to believe in him. God DOES NOT coerce, just as Love cannot be coerced.

Finally, you are so certain of your atheism: Prove to me using your facts and logic that God DOES NOT exist.

The burden of proof lies with

The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. You PROVE it. If I tell you I can bend a spoon with my mind you would want me to prove it. Would I be able to then say, you prove that I can't and if you can't prove that I can't then it must be true that I can?

Exactly

For the people that have no understanding of basic logic, I gave a thorough explanation below that I hope primes them in proper use of logic. If what I wrote doesn't help them, then I don't think they want to be helped.

Mark 12:31

Well, since you asked....

Just after the verse Mark 12:30 which states; And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment.

Mark 12:31 states; And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.

I guess you could now try to say that not everyone is your neighbor, but on this little speck of dust in the universe, everyone is our neighbor.

I hate to argue religion, but when someone doesn't even know what they are proclaiming, just bothers me. It could be argued and probably forever will be, that religion (of all shapes and sizes) has done more harm/good (pick your side) than all other things under the sun.

I find myself siding with the "harm" side.

How can something transcend

How can something transcend time and space? This god exists outside of our universe? Is there an alternate universe?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1boMRKWDj1I

Are you really saying

that any creator is limited in the same way his/her creation is? A painter is not limited to the canvas in 2D, the sculptor is not stuck in stone/clay/etc and the author is not limited to the world he/she creates in the book.

This certainly doesn't prove God exsists, but I think it is a reasonable explaination of how a Creator is not limited to what the creation is limited to.

....where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is LIBERTY. 2 Corinthians 3:17(b)

***wants are unlimited, means are scarce...***

Your arguments about the

Your arguments about the canvas and such don't really prove the point. Examples in reality do not even begin to apply to a claim of something that applies outside of reality.

Here is the validation that debunks your points, and the original author's points.

The axiom "existence exists" is *the most basic axiom* in all of philosophy. Nothing comes before this, and it is easily validated. I will spare the details, but you can google it.

Now, an existence must already exist in order for a god to create existence. This simply cannot happen - it is circular.

What happens with this line of thinking is that you get an infinite regression of creators, which is proven false because infinity does not exist.

Infinity is a term that can only be used conceptually. Infinity is not an actuality. There is nothing that exists in reality that is infinite. For example, you can divide a line an infinite number of times, but at any point, you still have a line of finite length.

If an entity has an infinite quantity, then it has an unknown quantity, and therefore cannot exist. Why? Because it violates the axiom "existence exists" and the "law of identity", which is a corollary of this axiom.

Thus, to make a long-story short, this whole non-sense that god created existence does not make any sense at all.

The real truth is that existence exists. It just is. It is eternal (Which is not the same as infinite.. there is only 1 existence).

We have known existence to exist the moment we came into existence, and will continue to exist the day we die. This is the reality that was given to us... I am shocked and amazed that people "forget" this fact and abandon it so easily for some fairy tale. You'd think you'd trust your own senses and build up knowledge yourself, eh?

Nonetheless, to claim that there is a super-existence, or parallel existences that we cannot perceive with our senses or apply reason/logic to is to make a false claim. You have to prove that such a super-existence even exists before you can claim that a god existed in this super-existence to create the existence that is our reality.

Our own consciousness, use of reason, and use of logic when perceiving our existence can only lead us to claims that are still within our own existence. It is impossible to know anything outside of our own existence, or even if there are other existences that exist apart from this existence. So no such proof can ever be made. In order to even bring up the concept of a super-existence, you must take it on faith, because reason and logic will never get you there.

I can go on and on... but Ayn Rand and other philosophers have shown this to be true and it is well-understood ground for many decades.

Simply though, if a person wants to claim that god exists, they must prove it. If they want to claim that a super-existence that lives outside existence exists, they must prove that too. Until then, it would be best to keep it out of our nation's governing documents, governmental policy, and our moral system for the nation.

Hi, egervari!!

http://www.rzim.org/resources/listen/letmypeoplethink.aspx?a...

Found a discussion dealing with much that we have talked about on the site I mentioned to you. It is in 2 parts dealing with some statements made by Steven Hawking called: "God or Science: Stephen Hawking's False Choice"

Enjoy... had to listen several times to get the whole of what they were saying.

Take Care!

....where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is LIBERTY. 2 Corinthians 3:17(b)

***wants are unlimited, means are scarce...***

egarvari will probably not

egarvari will probably not find much to admire in the linked too discussion. He has repeatedly mentioned free will as a given.. in fact, he has repeatedly mentioned a great many things as givens, while his atheistic worldview can not account for them. He assumes too much... free will, for example. He can not prove free will. But he does believe in it. Imagine that!

Furthermore, the concept of free will is completely antithetical to a reductionist view of material reality. Yet there egarvari goes, blind faith and all.

That made me smile

because had similar thoughts thru the discussion he and I had.

I find Dr Zacharias has a wonderful mind and I really enjoy how he puts my mind thru a solid workout. He puts forth very difficult challenges to the way one thinks.

I find that if someone is reluctant to examine intellectual challenges to their faith (or anti-faith, if you will) then there may be some underlying realization that the world view in question may be unable to stand up to the scrutiny.

I continue to challenge what it is I believe and test to see if it holds up to the "theory" that I have posited. I welcome those challenges from anyone who is willing to join in my examination and search for the truth rather than blatantly attacking my views.

Egarvari was a bit more antagonistic that I would prefer; one may even say he holds to his Anti-theism with a religious fervor. ;-) But I think at the core, he has a willingness to nibble at the edges of what it was I was saying and consider it. The facts are that we were at an impasse and I am not clever enough to show him where I believe his errors are without him double talking his way out of the point... he is rather pliable in his reasoning as far as I am concerned. That is where RZIM came in to play. I decided to see if Egarvari would be willing to listen to Ravi, he can say it much better than me.

....where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is LIBERTY. 2 Corinthians 3:17(b)

***wants are unlimited, means are scarce...***

Ravi Zacharias is very good

Ravi Zacharias is very good at what he does. If you find him helpful, you may want to checkout one of his foremost teachers. I call him "his teacher" not because Zacharias ever sat under his direct tutelage (he died many years before Zacharias was born), but because Zacharias mentions and quotes the man extensively, and admirers his wit and wisdom. In fact, C. S. Lewis called him, "the most sensible man who ever lived". Perhaps you've already read some of his works, such as Orthodox, or what is perhaps his greatest book, The Everlasting Man. The genius I am referring to G. K. Chesterton.

If you haven't read Chesterton, I would suggest starting with Orthodoxy. If it is helpful, I can link to a site where this book can be downloaded in audio form for free. It is now in the public domain and well over 100 years old. Despite the age of the book, Chesterton obliterates all the common errors of current anti-theism, agnosticism and materialist hype we hear today. He certainly would have had a ton of fun with egarvari. Chesterton was well known for entering into major universities such as Oxford and debating many of the prominent skeptics of his era - men such as H. G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw. He usually came out the victor, even in the estimation of the skeptical audience. But he always left his opponent as an abiding friend. His humility and joy won them over.

I see the same mark of humility in you my friend.

God Bless..

Thanks for the advice

I have not read Chesterton but have certainly heard Ravi mention/quote him... I think he also named the family Border Collie "G.K."

Could there be a greater tribute? I think not ;-)

Thanks again.... I will add Orthodoxy to the list of books I need to read.

I heard a wonderful example of humility today and it is reportedly a true account;

It supposedly took place in the 1940s in Detroit. A group of tough guys boarded a bus and proceeded to see a man seated in the back of the bus that they decided to provoke into a fight. I assume they thought it would soon morph into an outright beating.

They proceeded to mock and goad the lone man into a fight. He did not respond so they doubled their efforts with no response. The man then slowly stood up which set the toughs back a bit as they had misjudged how big the man really was. The large man reached into a pocket and pulled out a business card, handed it to one of them and without a word, walked past them and off the bus.

The men gathered around and starred at the card that simply stated; "JOE LEWIS; HEAVY WEIGHT CHAMPION OF THE WORLD"

That is humility. Knowing what he could have done and deciding NOT to show them physically, but rather simply introducing himself and quietly leaving. that is also mercy.

If I am humble, it is because of a different reason; I am demonstrably wrong with amazing and alarming regularity that I frequently have to rely on others and their ideas. I gladly listen to all sorts of idea (like egarvari) and plagiarize what makes sense and question the rest.

Take care.

....where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is LIBERTY. 2 Corinthians 3:17(b)

***wants are unlimited, means are scarce...***

Well Put...

And I know what you mean. I must confess that I know a good argument when I steal one.

A genuinely original thinker is a genuinely rare thing. I find myself in your same situation. In fact, even in this thread, I did not come with a single original argument. I simply tailored borrowed arguments to fit the situation. That doesn't make them invalid... it just makes me something less than I'd like to be.

Well, I am not sure you are being fair

with yourself.

We are dealing with ultimate Truth and we are on the backside of over 6,000 years of recorded human history. The subject matter never changes as He is the same, yesterday, today and forever. Because it never changes and our minds and languages are finite, it shouldn't be surprised that truly original lines of thought are increasingly rare.

That being said, I do get a charge when I can tailor a borrowed idea and have it come to life in my situation.

Thanks for the interaction. Keep in touch.

....where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is LIBERTY. 2 Corinthians 3:17(b)

***wants are unlimited, means are scarce...***

It is a Christian mantra in

It is a Christian mantra in the sense that many Christians believe this, many pastors preach it and lots of Christians will say this in their posts or in their signatures. It's incredibly common belief among Christians.

In order for you to claim that something exists - such as the existence of god - you have to show evidence that it does in fact exist.

The converse is not true. You can't say to me, "Prove to me that god doesn't exist", because nobody can do that. It is impossible to show that something doesn't exist, whether it's god or any other entity. Why is god any different for?

This is a common irrational missile that Christians fire off in debates to try and trip people up - but it IT IS NOT VALID LOGICALLY. This is important!

For example, let's say an individual murdered somebody and is now in trial. There is a video that shows the defendant committing the murder. The defense says, "Your honor, it could be a look-a-like that killed the victim. You can't possibly send my client to prison if you're not 100% sure he committed the murder."

You know what the judge has to say? "What evidence do you have to support that the person in this video was a look-a-like?"

The defense says, "Well, none your honor. But the prosecution can't prove that it wasn't a look-a-like!"

Then the judge proceeds to throw the entire claim out. Why? Because they don't have to prove such a claim. It is up to the defense to prove that something exists - in this case, a look-a-like. If there is not even a shred of evidence to even make this "a possibility", there is no way the judge can consider it... and consequently, the defense is laughed at.

The same argument is 100% true with the existence of god. If you think god exists, then you must prove it. The burden of proof is on you, not me. If you can't produce any evidence at all - and trust me, I know you can't - then we have to throw the claim out, along with all the "documents" - i.e. the bible - and all the other non-sense such a claim is based on.

The idea of god also violates the primacy of existence, and it contains many illogical infinite regressions. There are many ways to debunk the existence of god.

The validation that god does not exist is actual very simple and easy to understand.

If you insist that it is something that cannot be proven, then you are just opening up the doors to even more irrational entities and ideas that humans must accept that can also not be proven. What next? Green furry space creatures on the other side if the galaxy? Invisible, matterless creatures running our government from being the scenes? Please...

Logic is the primal tool we have to survive as a species and as an individual. Without it, we would perish. To base our philosophical beliefs on faith is one way to destroy our minds. Sure, you can get by as a parasite, or even make some rational decisions to survive, but as long as you chain yourself to belief in things that are not true - something as big as the existence of god - it will impact your ability to survive, prosper and live your life to the fullest.

Many people simply "pray" for things to happen. This has never worked. We cannot pray for the central bankers to get the heck out of our country. Nonetheless, people like Joseph Farah and many other Christians say to do exactly that!

It's really absurd.

The sad thing is that all of this truth would shatter many Christian's deep programming and world view - that it's simply easier to deny the logical arguments that god doesn't exist. Some resort to name calling, others will try and change the debate in some way, and others will take things out of context or flip arguments to mean the opposite of what it really does mean.

I understand that as a Christian, you've probably believed in it for 15 or 20 or 30 or 50 years. It's hard to just shatter that in a day, and your instinct will be to "fight it". But don't. Be objective and *think*.

That's the real problem. Christian's and other people who believe in god will do everything to avoid *thinking* about this. It's not that they are stupid, but are just avoiding it.

Thanks for listening.

It is not logical to paint all Christians

as non-thinkers. Many of the world's foremost thinkers were Christians. Scientists, philosophers, Founding Fathers.

Seems a bit of a straw man argument.

I would be happy to defend a point or two (please limit your point or question to one at a time... otherwise these things get too hard for a non-thinker like me to follow;)

No hard feelings, just a exchange of opinions and ideas.

later

....where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is LIBERTY. 2 Corinthians 3:17(b)

***wants are unlimited, means are scarce...***

Yes and no. I did not say

Yes and no. I did not say that Christians do not *think* about other things. Of course you are alive, and as long as you are not living as a parasite, you must be using reason and logic to meet your needs of survival. So you are thinking.

But I do submit that if you believe that god exists, you are nothing about that

If you were thinking, you would come to these conclusion that goes does not exist by using reason and logic. It simply is not possible to think, apply reason and logic... and then suddenly say, "yeah, god exists!" It's just not possible.

Soooo..

You are dismissing all the Theologians and Philosophers who spend their time THINKING about God and His existence because they don't think like you?

Please just give me one of the obvious logical points (PLEASE just one) that are logically insurmountable.

Gotta run to the store.. be right back.

....where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is LIBERTY. 2 Corinthians 3:17(b)

***wants are unlimited, means are scarce...***

I am suggesting that

I am suggesting that theologians and philosophers who base their theories or proofs solely on an entity that does not exist are simply wasting their time.

In fact, many of them are trying to deceive everyone, as many of them know what they've been saying isn't true at all.

Merely spending time writing documents and issuing press releases and giving sermons does not constitute proper thinking. If they are thinking, then they are in some kind of matrix or daze, because I don't know how they keep arriving at a false conclusion for.

What do you mean about logically insurmountable? I have no idea what you are asking of me. I have already shown that god does not exist by applying the process of logic, and I have already shown that god does not exist by applying the most basic axioms of philosophy (metaphysics). What else do you really need of me? It's all there.

You have given your opinions

but have not given any point of contention or real logic on which you hang that opinion,

You dismiss theologians and philosophers because YOU say there is no God but that does not make it so. You quote Post-Modern ideals and couch your argument and define the terms.

You have claimed the high ground of logic then simply dismiss those who disagree. You bluntly state that you have prove God doesn't exists, but lets examine that claim...

You are saying: I know in ALL THAT IS... IN ALL THAT EXISTS that there is no all knowing, all powerful being that in whom we all live and breathe and have our being. But in order to make that claim LOGICALLY, you would by necessity have to know everything about the Universe. You would literally have to be ALL KNOWING in order to make an informed claim like that.

What I was meaning about logically insurmountable was something other than your opinion,,, please again, state one simple point and we can go from there.

I am a thinking man... I base my faith (in part) on written accounts of history, culture and personal experience... If I am not mistaken, most of what is discussed on this web site is based on a bunch of other folks understanding of written accounts of history, culture and personal experience.

....where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is LIBERTY. 2 Corinthians 3:17(b)

***wants are unlimited, means are scarce...***

My reply...

but have not given any point of contention or real logic on which you hang that opinion,

By simply stating that, that doesn't make what you said true. I HAVE used logic to the best of my ability and to the best of my knowledge, it is accurate, valid, well-formed and I think it even makes sense to the layman.

Honestly, If I am in error, then please point out something specific where I have made an error rather than just making a claim. I see this all too often... these over-generalizing accusations but then you guys never actually give a concrete reason. It's all too common.

You dismiss theologians and philosophers because YOU say there is no God but that does not make it so. You quote Post-Modern ideals and couch your argument and define the terms.

I dismiss them because THERE IS NO GOD. Like the people on this forum, they also have to prove god exists before they go on to prove other things. Not only is it as bad as building a set of proofs on a house of cards... it's worse! They are building a set of proofs on a foundation that doesn't even exist!

I have already shown you that god doesn't exist, but even if hadn't, it doesn't matter. They still need to prove that god exists, which they haven't. Nobody has. It is fundamentally required to prove this point before you can go on to higher level proofs! This is so fundamental to applying logic properly! There is no other way!

Are you saying that we all must "assume god exists", and then build our foundations from there? This is totally absurd. Honestly, you would not accept this in any other field, but when "god" is the subject, this "entity" suddenly gets a pass.

All of my proofs and validations assume things that are validated to be true or have been proven to be fact. Again, if I have made an error - I am human you know - then PLEASE STATE THAT ERROR.

If all you're going to do is just make an accusation that I made an error but never tell me what it is, then that doesn't automatically make your claims valid. In fact, it does nothing for your case.

You have claimed the high ground of logic then simply dismiss those who disagree. You bluntly state that you have prove God doesn't exists, but lets examine that claim...

I haven't dismissed others arbitrarily. If you noticed, I have went into detail to explain why they are wrong. Again, if they are really right, why don't they use logic also? If they cannot use logic to prove their case, then they don't have a case at all!

Logic and reason are the only valid forms for gaining knowledge and discovering truth.

Emotion, imagination, intuition, mysticism, etc. need not apply! If you are saying that I am a bad person because I dismiss people who do not even bother to use logic, then so be it. Logic is the only thing that matters.

You are saying: I know in ALL THAT IS... IN ALL THAT EXISTS that there is no all knowing, all powerful being that in whom we all live and breathe and have our being. But in order to make that claim LOGICALLY, you would by necessity have to know everything about the Universe. You would literally have to be ALL KNOWING in order to make an informed claim like that.

I never said that. You just made this up. I never once assumed that I am all knowing. You literally lying with your pants on fire. The least you could do is actually copy/paste a direct quote of mine to base your rebuttal. This is not even remotely what I said, and actually, it shows you failed to understand the arguments entirely.

My arguments only assume what exists - reality, consciousness, identity, nature, causality, the faculty of reason, the proper use of logic, etc. Not once in my writings did I assume something that doesn't exist, nor did I pretend to possess knowledge that I do not have.

Again, anyone who actually read my remarks can verify this.

What I was meaning about logically insurmountable was something other than your opinion,,, please again, state one simple point and we can go from there.

You are assuming that I can reach a different conclusion other than the one I logically reached? No, I can't. All the logic and evidence in reality has lead me to know that god does not exist. It's really that simple.

I am a thinking man... I base my faith (in part) on written accounts of history, culture and personal experience... If I am not mistaken, most of what is discussed on this web site is based on a bunch of other folks understanding of written accounts of history, culture and personal experience.

My arguments transcend history and culture - which makes them more accurate because they get to the core of the issue rather than weed through a bunch of crap - and my personal experience is complete harmony with my claim that "god does not exist". There is isn't even a .00001% doubt.

But in the end, personal experience doesn't constitute as prove unless you are doing a proof of the form of proof by contradiction.

The arguments I gave on this forum use basic philosophical axioms that even you can't deny:

  • Are you really challenging that existence doesn't exist?
  • Are you denying that we don't have consciousness, the ability to perceive that which exists?
  • Are you denying the law of identity, that A is A?
  • Are you denying that you do not have senses?
  • Are you denying that we don't have the faculty of reason?
  • Are you denying that we do not possess the ability to apply logic?

I have shown you - and everyone on this forum - several ways to invalidate or disprove that this entity known as god exists, and have done so in a generic, fully valid way. Again, if I have made an error - then actually state it rather than just accuse me of making one in the abstract but never defining it.

When one is using logic and applies their arguments to the most basic metaphysical level, you don't even have to look at history because it becomes irrelevant. If you can prove something to be true metaphysically or epistemologically, it is true for all higher levels of philosophy. I honestly don't think you understand this, but that's how it works.

As for the discussion on history... history is skewed, filled with lies and is often wrong. The people who right or invent history are flawed, or had an agenda.

Are you really claiming that the writings in the bible are a 100% valid documentation of history? This is absolute nonsense.

There is nothing in history that proves god's existence. If there is, why not enlighten everyone?

As for culture, what truths of culture are there that actually prove that god exists?

For every one alleged christian that one can say "was a nice person", we can find 5 or 10 that were evil as hell.

We have mountains of evidence that Christians do not respect individual rights, and that it's primarily a collective philosophy. This is not to say that all Christians do not respect individual rights... but there is mountains of evidence of Christians in our history and in today's society that absolutely hate egoism and individual rights... whether they want to restrict gay/lesbian rights, want to censor porn, want to tell women what to do with their bodies, or tell people not to do drugs.

Of course, that's just the tip of the iceberg. You have religious leaders who have no problems starting wars like the crusades to even George Bush saying god was on his side. And let's not forget Hitler was a Christian too. Maybe not a "real" Christian, but there is no denying he used it as part of his reign. Same with Napoleon.

Frankly, none of this matters. I haven't heard anything in your post that actually dissects what I wrote and gives a proper rebuttal to anything I've said. I did read a lot of accusations. Really, use some logic and debate what I said rationally please. Let the debate begin.

I asked for one point

and you give me that... How about we start by letting me speak for me... please leave out what you think of other people who call themselves christians. Please confine you attacks on me.

"The arguments I gave on this forum use basic philosophical axioms that even you can't deny:

Are you really challenging that existence doesn't exist?
Are you denying that we don't have consciousness, the ability to perceive that which exists?
Are you denying the law of identity, that A is A?
Are you denying that you do not have senses?
Are you denying that we don't have the faculty of reason?
Are you denying that we do not possess the ability to apply logic? "

If I read these correctly then I do indeed deny that I don't have consciousness, I do... I also have senses, and the ability to reason and I do possess the ability to apply logic. I hope you simply got your double negatives mixed up or we are really at an impasse.

....where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is LIBERTY. 2 Corinthians 3:17(b)

***wants are unlimited, means are scarce...***

If the best you can do is

If the best you can do is raise question to a typo because there is no grammar checker built into the website to catch these things, then we are at an impasse. If you knew what I meant, what difference does it make?

This is so classic of christian debaters - not talking about the original proofs from many posts ago, but picking out things that just don't matter, trying to draw attention away from what actually DOES matter.

I'm going to bed.

SORRY I was just

makeing sure we were at least on the same page to start with. If we agree on what you meant to say then that is a good place to start. I absolutely agree with what I believe you were meaning in those bullet points. I honestly was not trying to be difficult with that point.

I also have no room to talk about typos, spelling or grammer, No offense was meant.

Did you look at the response several posts below? I think it is a fair point.

....where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is LIBERTY. 2 Corinthians 3:17(b)

***wants are unlimited, means are scarce...***

I'm curious about this statement

"Logic is the primal tool we have to survive as a species and as an individual."

This "logic" you speak of, what is it? Is it material or immaterial? Are there actual things called the Laws of Logic that exist? Are they Universal and invariant? If so, prove it. Prove the existence of these universal abstract and invariant entities called Laws of Logic.

Reason itself is a matter of faith. Which makes the following line from you quite interesting...

"To base our philosophical beliefs on faith is one way to destroy our minds."