[CNN] "I don't know, so I'm an atheist libertarian." - Penn Jillette

[Sentient Void]

Nuggets in bold...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/16/jillette.atheist.libertarian/


I try to claim that I was friends with the genius Richard Feynman. He came to our show a few times and was very complimentary, and I had dinner with him a couple times, and we chatted on the phone several times. I'd call him to get quick tutoring on physics so I could pretend to read his books.

No matter how much I want to brag, it's overstating it to call him a friend. I would never have called him to help me move a couch. I did, however, call him once to ask how we could score some liquid nitrogen for a Letterman spot we wanted to do. He was the only physicist I knew at the time. He explained patiently that he didn't know. He was a theoretical physicist and I needed a hands-on guy, but he'd try to find one for me.

About a half-hour later a physics teacher from a community college in Brooklyn called me and said, "I don't know what kind of practical joke this is, but a Nobel Prize-winning scientist just called me here at the community college, gave me this number, and told me to call Penn of Penn & Teller to help with a Letterman appearance."
I guess that's close to a friend.

My friend Richard Feynman said, "I don't know." I heard him say it several times. He said it just like Harold, the mentally handicapped dishwasher I worked with when I was a young man making minimum wage at Famous Bill's Restaurant in Greenfield, Massachusetts.

"I don't know" is not an apology. There's no shame. It's a simple statement of fact. When Richard Feynman didn't know, he often worked harder than anyone else to find out, but while he didn't know, he said, "I don't know."

I don't believe the majority always knows what's best for everyone. I like to think I fit in somewhere between my friends Harold and Richard. I don't know. I try to remember to say "I don't know" just the way they both did, as a simple statement of fact. It doesn't always work, but I try.

Last week I was interviewed for Piers Morgan's show (which used to be Larry King's show). Piers beat me up a bit for being an atheist (that's his job) and then beat me up a bit for being a libertarian (also his job). He did this by asking me impossible questions, questions that none of us, Harold, Richard, me, (or Piers), could ever answer.

He started with "How did you get here?" and I started talking about my road to showbiz and atheism and he interrupted and said he meant how the universe was created. I said, "I don't know."

He said, "God," an answer that meant Piers didn't know either, but he had a word for it that was supposed to make me feel left out of his enlightened club.

Then he asked me what we could do to help poor people. I said I donated money, food, medical care, and services and he said, "No," he meant, what could society do to solve the problem of poor people. Again, I was stumped.

He said the government had to do it, which I interpreted as another way of saying he didn't know, but he thought that made me look mean ... even though I do care and do try to help.

What makes me libertarian is what makes me an atheist -- I don't know. If I don't know, I don't believe. I don't know exactly how we got here, and I don't think anyone else does, either. We have some of the pieces of the puzzle and we'll get more, but I'm not going to use faith to fill in the gaps. I'm not going to believe things that TV hosts state without proof. I'll wait for real evidence and then I'll believe.

And I don't think anyone really knows how to help everyone. I don't even know what's best for me. Take my uncertainty about what's best for me and multiply that by every combination of the over 300 million people in the United States and I have no idea what the government should do.

President Obama sure looks and acts way smarter than me, but no one is 2 to the 300 millionth power times smarter than me. No one is even 2 to the 300 millionth times smarter than a squirrel. I sure don't know what to do about an AA+ rating and if we should live beyond our means and about compromise and sacrifice. I have no idea. I'm scared to death of being in debt. I was a street juggler and carny trash -- I couldn't get my debt limit raised, I couldn't even get a debt limit -- my only choice was to live within my means. That's all I understand from my experience, and that's not much.

It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we're compassionate we'll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

People try to argue that government isn't really force. You believe that? Try not paying your taxes. (This is only a thought experiment -- suggesting on CNN.com that someone not pay his or her taxes is probably a federal offense, and I'm a nut, but I'm not crazy.). When they come to get you for not paying your taxes, try not going to court. Guns will be drawn. Government is force -- literally, not figuratively.

I don't believe the majority always knows what's best for everyone. The fact that the majority thinks they have a way to get something good does not give them the right to use force on the minority that don't want to pay for it. If you have to use a gun, I don't believe you really know jack. Democracy without respect for individual rights sucks. It's just ganging up against the weird kid, and I'm always the weird kid.
How did we get here and how do we save everyone? I don't know, but I'm doing the best I can. Sorry Piers, that's all I got.

[dejavu22]

Of anyone who gets any attention politically i think i am most closely aligned to Penn.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Smart feller, this Penn guy

[torchbearer]

penn should join revo pac

[AGRP]

I've noticed that every time someone mentions something about not paying taxes that they always advise people to pay them. Its as if theres a speech police threatening to kill people such as Penn if they don't advise people to pay ("This is only a thought experiment.") Think about it: Has anyone gave a compelling argument such as Penn on TV or a major radio program and said "OK everyone, lets be free! Don't pay your taxes. There's more of us than them!"

[kahless]

I've noticed that every time someone mentions something about not paying taxes that they always advise people to pay them.

Its as if theres a speech police threatening to kill people such as Penn if they don't advise people to pay.

For one they are protecting themselves since they do not want to be liable in civil court by the person whose life is turned upside down and prosecuted for the advice not to pay their taxes. If you are having a conversation with someone isn't that really the best advice to avoid the government completely destroying that persons life.



Think about it: Has anyone gave a compelling argument such as Penn on TV or a major radio program and said "OK everyone, lets be free! Don't pay your taxes. There's more of us than them!"

I replied before you added that. That is a scary proposition for a TV host whom may fear the same end result with no one following along. It would have to be someone that can bring thousands to rallies, has at least partial support from the media and willing to risk his career and fortune.

[torchbearer]

I've noticed that every time someone mentions something about not paying taxes that they always advise people to pay them. Its as if theres a speech police threatening to kill people such as Penn if they don't advise people to pay ("This is only a thought experiment.") Think about it: Has anyone gave a compelling argument such as Penn on TV or a major radio program and said "OK everyone, lets be free! Don't pay your taxes. There's more of us than them!"

see Irwin Schiff.

[amy31416]

Really good article.

Is Bullshit still on the air? Loved that show.

[Sam I am]

Of anyone who gets any attention politically i think i am most closely aligned to Penn.

I'm not making a comment directed at you personally, but more about the forum as a whole.

From watching Penn's stuff, I'd somehow doubt he'd like all the cop hating and 911 truthing that goes on in this forum.

I think that the celebrity who would fit in most in this forum would be Jessie Ventura

[amy31416]

I'm not making a comment directed at you personally, but more about the forum as a whole.

From watching Penn's stuff, I'd somehow doubt he'd like all the cop hating and 911 truthing that goes on in this forum.

I think that the celebrity who would fit in most in this forum would be Jessie Ventura

Appeal to "authority." Try arguing your case without making major and obvious debate errors.

[ClayTrainor]

Really good article.

Is Bullshit still on the air? Loved that show.

I think season 8 was their last season.

[Sentient Void]

Appeal to "authority." Try arguing your case without making major and obvious debate errors.

Not to mention that I'd say nowhere near the majority on this forum are 911 truthers.

Cop haters? Meh. Agents to 'protect and serve' *the State*, mostly. This has been established by Supreme Courts, BTW.

But I digress.

[madfoot]

"I don't believe the majority always knows what's best for everyone. I like to think I fit in somewhere between my friends Harold and Richard. I don't know. I try to remember to say "I don't know" just the way they both did, as a simple statement of fact. It doesn't always work, but I try."

I like that.

[heavenlyboy34]

Gotta love Penn. And Teller, too. :cool:

[heavenlyboy34]

Not to mention that I'd say nowhere near the majority on this forum are 911 truthers.

Cop haters? Meh. Agents to 'protect and serve' *the State*, mostly. This has been established by Supreme Courts, BTW.

But I digress.
qft. The cops have no legal obligation to help anyone, ever. (I forget the SCOTUS case about this, but it has made it that far)

[Sam I am]

Appeal to "authority." Try arguing your case without making major and obvious debate errors.

Should I try to debate by implying that others are making debate errors too?

[ghengis86]

see Irwin Schiff.

This. Until there's more of us that would resort to violence than them, pay your taxes. How many IRS agents are there again? Add to that the local, state, federal and other secret police forces and that's a pretty big number with the executive, legislature, courts and the majority of sheeple's support.

Not saying it's impossible, but that day is a long way off.

[amy31416]

Should I try to debate by implying that others are making debate errors too?

If they do, of course. Why would you ask me such a silly question? And I wasn't "implying" that you made a debate error, I flat-out stated it.

[Sam I am]

If they do, of course. Why would you ask me such a silly question? And I wasn't "implying" that you made a debate error, I flat-out stated it.

Well I'd try to declare that you made some unnamed debate error, but you really haven't actually made debate.

[amy31416]

Well I'd try to declare that you made some unnamed debate error, but you really haven't actually made debate.

I wouldn't bother debating with you.

[Johncjackson]

I'm not making a comment directed at you personally, but more about the forum as a whole.

From watching Penn's stuff, I'd somehow doubt he'd like all the cop hating and 911 truthing that goes on in this forum.

I think that the celebrity who would fit in most in this forum would be Jessie Ventura

Penn has spoken out against bad police, which is all anyone in this forum does. I think his dad may have even been a police officer. I read something like that before in his criticism of police. I don't know think he's a Truther. Neither am I, but I really hate the police culture and think it's a very important issue. I don't know why you lumped people who support things like the Bill of Rights and don't think a police officer's job is to create crime and harm and kill with impunity with 9/11 Truthers.

[DamianTV]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4

[brushfire]

Penn is fantastic - I share all most all his beliefs, but one significant one. He's still respectful about disagreement... I also find him very entertaining - good stuff.

[Sam I am]

Penn has spoken out against bad police, which is all anyone in this forum does. I think his dad may have even been a police officer. I read something like that before in his criticism of police. I don't know think he's a Truther. Neither am I, but I really hate the police culture and think it's a very important issue. I don't know why you lumped people who support things like the Bill of Rights and don't think a police officer's job is to create crime and harm and kill with impunity with 9/11 Truthers.


Have you not seen the people on this forum declare that all police are scum or something of that nature? People speculating that 'oh normally the police would have done worse'?

The 911 truthing on this forum isn't so common, but from what I've seen, It's quite uniform. I've seen people saying that 911 was an inside job (and other similar conspiracy claims) on this forum, and all I see in response is people agreeing with them. I even have a negative reputation tick for merely saying "because the federal government actually isn't a conspiracy that's solely out to get you. " in response to the "why didn't they plant WMDs in Iraq" thread

[TheDrakeMan]

Penn isn't a truther. One of the episodes of Bullshit tackled numerous truther myths. And yes, Penn has criticized the cops before, specially last year when Free Staters came to my State while open carrying guns. He would actually like us discussing these things on this forum, since he believes property owners (like Admin of this forum) should respect freedom of speech (and yes, he does believe in property rights too) and is a fan of the marketplace of ideas. Have you not heard his podcast? He believes things like religion & politics shouldn't be sensitive issues and should be discussed openly as much as possible, since they are important subjects.

[Sentient Void]

Penn Jillette is a fellow self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalist.

[Peace&Freedom]

Have you not seen the people on this forum declare that all police are scum or something of that nature? People speculating that 'oh normally the police would have done worse'?

The 911 truthing on this forum isn't so common, but from what I've seen, It's quite uniform. I've seen people saying that 911 was an inside job (and other similar conspiracy claims) on this forum, and all I see in response is people agreeing with them. I even have a negative reputation tick for merely saying "because the federal government actually isn't a conspiracy that's solely out to get you. " in response to the "why didn't they plant WMDs in Iraq" thread

There have been excesses on both sides. Over-generalizing about cops is regrettable, but 5,000 police brutality you tube videos later, you can't blame some people from being passionate about their outrage. From this truthers' perspective, the vast majority of the negativity has come from many thin-skinned, vocal non-truthers over the years here, who attack, demean and report posts about false flag operations like 9-11.

The reason you don't find it "so common" here is the barest mention of the issue is enough to get threads deleted or whisked to a non-indexed ghetto section of the forum. That created a chilling effect that reduced first class discussion of the matter, since the context has often been such utter disrespect coming from some non-truthers towards their fellow Paul supporters. Perhaps if they were as aggressive in attacking the government's "conspiracy theories," more toleration might abound.

[madfoot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4

"Fuck you Frank!"

[dejavu22]

I'm not making a comment directed at you personally, but more about the forum as a whole.

From watching Penn's stuff, I'd somehow doubt he'd like all the cop hating and 911 truthing that goes on in this forum.

I think that the celebrity who would fit in most in this forum would be Jessie Ventura

I made no statement about the forum i made a statement about myself. Honestly i cringe a lot of times when i see some of the stuff people post but at the same time most of it i take the time to read it and form my own opinion about it without kneejerkingly writing it off. Do i hate cops no but i think that people should be encouraged to film all encounters with peace officers. Am i a truther... nope but i do think that having an open and independent investigation would be a great thing.

Asking questions is a good thing but admitting that you don't know is the best answer in most situations. Those that try to convince others they can fix all the problems are the most likely to screw everything up.

In fact the one assumption i will make is that a good portion of the forum is not atheist as many form their libertarian views out of unalienable rights from their creator.

[Sam I am]

Penn isn't a truther. One of the episodes of Bullshit tackled numerous truther myths. And yes, Penn has criticized the cops before, specially last year when Free Staters came to my State while open carrying guns. He would actually like us discussing these things on this forum, since he believes property owners (like Admin of this forum) should respect freedom of speech (and yes, he does believe in property rights too) and is a fan of the marketplace of ideas. Have you not heard his podcast? He believes things like religion & politics shouldn't be sensitive issues and should be discussed openly as much as possible, since they are important subjects.

Yes I watch his podcasts. Do you?

What I'm getting at is that this forum goes beyond cop criticism, and toward all out cop hate. Don't tell me that all you see is "criticism of bad cops" and as shown in http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?309330-Cop-shot-dead-after-threatening-man-s-dogs-with-stun-gun
many people on this forum find it justifiable to murder a cop over pointing a stun gun at a dog he felt threatened by.

there was a certain Teaser Rate fellow, who was apparently getting a fair amount of chastising for saying a thing that I've heard Penn himself say many times before about the value of human life over an animal's.

I've seen Penn call republicans the party of fear, and democrats the party of hate. The thing he was criticizing democrats about was their belief that the republicans in government strive to do evil, which is an attitude that's rampant in this forum toward government officials in general.

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes I watch his podcasts. Do you?

What I'm getting at is that this forum goes beyond cop criticism, and toward all out cop hate. Don't tell me that all you see is "criticism of bad cops" and as shown in http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?309330-Cop-shot-dead-after-threatening-man-s-dogs-with-stun-gun
many people on this forum find it justifiable to murder a cop over pointing a stun gun at a dog he felt threatened by.

there was a certain Teaser Rate fellow, who was apparently getting a fair amount of chastising for saying a thing that I've heard Penn himself say many times before about the value of human life over an animal's.

I've seen Penn call republicans the party of fear, and democrats the party of hate. The thing he was criticizing democrats about was their belief that the republicans in government strive to do evil, which is an attitude that's rampant in this forum toward government officials in general.
That is justifiable-just as it would justifiable if any idiot other than a cop did the same thing. Most people take threats to their family members (including pets) very seriously. It is in fact lawful to use force (lethal if necessary) to prevent a cop from taking unlawful action involving martial force. Putting on a cop costume does not make a person exempt from common decency.

As far as "attitude toward government", I get a totally different vibe from the majority of the forum, which disappoints me. If more people would distrust the government, we wouldn't be in so much trouble.

[ChickenHawk]

Penn repeatedly says he doesn't know the answer to many "unanswerable" questions but he apparently knows there is no god. I don't know how he knows that but I suspect if he were honest he would have to admit that he doesn't. "Libertarian agnostic" might be a more honest description of himself.

[Vessol]

Penn repeatedly says he doesn't know the answer to many "unanswerable" questions but he apparently knows there is no god. I don't know how he knows that but I suspect if he were honest he would have to admit that he doesn't. "Libertarian agnostic" might be a more honest description of himself.

Many complex social problems cannot be solved by one person or group, that's why we need a free market.

As for the belief in a deity, I don't like getting in these conversations on this forum, but I know that their is no deities. I used to be an agnostic until I realized how illogical and inconsistent the idea of "Well, you can't prove or disprove it" sounds when compared to any other logical argument. There is no logical argument for the existence of any deity, nor any empirical evidence of any such supernatural beliefs.

[madfoot]

Penn repeatedly says he doesn't know the answer to many "unanswerable" questions but he apparently knows there is no god. I don't know how he knows that but I suspect if he were honest he would have to admit that he doesn't. "Libertarian agnostic" might be a more honest description of himself.

Atheism isn't a declaration of fact, just a lack of belief. He's an atheist because he believes the default position is not to believe in a creator until proven otherwise.

He's an agnostic atheist.

[Knightskye]

I'm not making a comment directed at you personally, but more about the forum as a whole.

From watching Penn's stuff, I'd somehow doubt he'd like all the cop hating and 911 truthing that goes on in this forum.

I think that the celebrity who would fit in most in this forum would be Jessie Ventura

There's no need to make blanket, collective accusations. If you're targeting a specific person, you can send him or her a PM.

[TexanRudeBoy]

From the comments:
"Are we who prosper to ignore those among us who suffer or just say too bad? No, we form governments to provide for the well being of all citizens."

People just don't get it... I wonder how much of his time/money he gives to help people in need.

"Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness."

[Napoleon's Shadow]

If Penn "doesn't know" then wouldn't he then be an agnostic not an athiest?

[DamianTV]

If the man says he is an Atheist then he is an Athiest. Why do someone elses beliefs always have to live up to someone elses standards when it comes to religion?

[fisharmor]

Yes I watch his podcasts. Do you?

What I'm getting at is that this forum goes beyond cop criticism, and toward all out cop hate. Don't tell me that all you see is "criticism of bad cops" and as shown in http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?309330-Cop-shot-dead-after-threatening-man-s-dogs-with-stun-gun
many people on this forum find it justifiable to murder a cop over pointing a stun gun at a dog he felt threatened by.

there was a certain Teaser Rate fellow, who was apparently getting a fair amount of chastising for saying a thing that I've heard Penn himself say many times before about the value of human life over an animal's.

This isn't how this works.
If you're losing the argument in one thread, you don't get to come to another thread and mischaracterize everyone's statements all over again in a new one in the hopes that you'll do better with the same, sad, old argument.
You need to raise the bar beyond your Pavlovian response toward men in uniform if you want to get anywhere in your argument. And you need to do it in the relevant thread.

[hazek]

Thanks for posting the text of the article. I really hate to give a 'click' to a bad article but I clicked on this one even though I read it here first.

[WilliamC]

Many complex social problems cannot be solved by one person or group, that's why we need a free market.

As for the belief in a deity, I don't like getting in these conversations on this forum, but I know that their is no deities. I used to be an agnostic until I realized how illogical and inconsistent the idea of "Well, you can't prove or disprove it" sounds when compared to any other logical argument. There is no logical argument for the existence of any deity, nor any empirical evidence of any such supernatural beliefs.

Pretty much exactly how I feel but there is that incomplete knowledge thing that keeps me from going all out 100% atheist.

I mean I 'know' that my ability to reason, think, and comprehend is not perfect and that I will always have incomplete knowledge and an incomplete understanding of the Universe, that's self-evident.

So it is not quite right for me to state that I 'know' I am right and no creator exists, better to say that I 'know' it for myself but I must admit I don't have all the answers so there is a possibility I'm wrong.

So I'm still stuck at the agnostic/atheist border myself, even though internally there is nothing in me that believes.

[mczerone]

This. Until there's more of us that would resort to violence than them, pay your taxes. How many IRS agents are there again? Add to that the local, state, federal and other secret police forces and that's a pretty big number with the executive, legislature, courts and the majority of sheeple's support.

Not saying it's impossible, but that day is a long way off.

Resort to violence? I'd prefer to at least state it as "a necessary proportion of people that can adequately resist the state's threat of violence."

This may only be ten or twenty thousand people, organized en masse, that can't all be prosecuted for tax-evasion because the IRS administrative courts aren't capable of it. Repeat for a few years, and then grow. Eventually the entire idea of paying your taxes would be ludicrous.

Would the fed govt lash out as it withered? Most likely. But resistance, peaceful unless in defense of commensurate harm, could be as simple as marching on the capitol (state or federal) and demanding that they arrest you or drop the tax charges. Again en masse, but unrelated to those willing to be "violent", this would force the govt's hand into dropping much of its tyranny.

[DamianTV]

I think when people want to try to change labels that other people apply to themselves, like agnostic or athiest, they are trying to validate their own beliefs, which really has absolutely nothing to do with the other guys opinion of what is or isnt out there.

For me, I am sold on Atheism because of the Behavior of Religous Extremists.

(not everyone that is religious is extreme)

[libertyjam]

This isn't how this works.
If you're losing the argument in one thread, you don't get to come to another thread and mischaracterize everyone's statements all over again in a new one in the hopes that you'll do better with the same, sad, old argument.
You need to raise the bar beyond your Pavlovian response toward men in uniform if you want to get anywhere in your argument. And you need to do it in the relevant thread.

Just by remembering TR posts, the entirety of his posts is to post the exact opposite of any Liberty position or prevailing consensus. Most of his statements were simply absurd, he is either a troll, or a very good satirist, I cannot decide which.

[Fredom101]

Really good read. Thanks for posting!

[ClayTrainor]

Pretty much exactly how I feel but there is that incomplete knowledge thing that keeps me from going all out 100% atheist.

I mean I 'know' that my ability to reason, think, and comprehend is not perfect and that I will always have incomplete knowledge and an incomplete understanding of the Universe, that's self-evident.

So it is not quite right for me to state that I 'know' I am right and no creator exists, better to say that I 'know' it for myself but I must admit I don't have all the answers so there is a possibility I'm wrong.

So I'm still stuck at the agnostic/atheist border myself, even though internally there is nothing in me that believes.

I don't think Atheism and Agnosticism are mutually exclusive terms/positions. Atheism/Theism is with regards to belief (or lack thereof) and Agnosticism/Gnosticism is with regards to knowledge (or lack thereof).

[libertyjam]

I don't think Atheism and Agnosticism are mutually exclusive terms/positions. Atheism/Theism is with regards to belief (or lack thereof) and Agnosticism/Gnosticism is with regards to knowledge (or lack thereof).

Can you be an atheist-gnostic? Or a theist-agnostic?

[mczerone]

I don't think Atheism and Agnosticism are mutually exclusive terms/positions. Atheism/Theism is with regards to belief (or lack thereof) and Agnosticism/Gnosticism is with regards to knowledge (or lack thereof).

How can you separate "knowledge" from "faith"? Don't you have to have "faith" in your senses and reason to "know" anything? But isn't the act of having faith in any proposition admitting that you do not or cannot know the correct answer?

So true atheists have "faith" that there are no gods, and true religious people have "faith" that there is at least one. Agnostics are people without faith in either end of the spectrum.

Gnostic theists are those who personally have faith that they understand their deity; who have studied and meditated on what their "faith" requires of them. The "knowing" part of gnosticism isn't "knowledge of the fact of the existence of a deity", it's the personal knowledge of what that deity (in which you have faith) requires from you.

Therefore gnostic atheism isn't "knowing there are no gods", but instead the position of having faith that there are no gods, and studying and meditating on what that requires of you personally. Both types of gnosticism would require great study of philosophy and natural sciences, to truly understand the apparatus of the world and how we interact with it. Both require understanding the other, as well as themselves.

Agnostic atheism and agnostic theism exist only to the extent that people are living unexamined lives, and have mindlessly adopted a faith. Otherwise there is a central region that presupposes no faith or knowledge - and that is what the general populous refers to as "agnosticism", which, when used without hyphens, is mutually exclusive of atheism and theism.

[erowe1]

It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

A person who says words like these has no business claiming, "I don't know. So I'm a libertarian."

His libertarianism is based on a his positive knowledge about what is right and what is wrong.

His atheism is as well, albeit a wrong claim in that case.

[Romulus]

I just want to say "Fuck you, Frank"

thats all.

[SimpleName]

Penn is pretty much in line with my philosophy both politically and personally. Very very close. He is a little too accepting of opposing ideologies, but not a big issue. Love the guy.

[Ricky201]

I love Penn as well. I also agree with him on personal and political beliefs. I'm glad discovery channel picked him and Teller up for another show.

[ClayTrainor]

Can you be an atheist-gnostic? Or a theist-agnostic?

I think so...

A Gnostic Atheist, lacks belief in a God, and also claims knowledge that there is objectively no God.

An Agnostic Atheist lacks belief in a God, but doesn't claim to know objectively that one doesn't exist.

An Agnostic Theist is someone who believes there is a God, but doesn't claim to know it as an objective truth.

A Gnostic Theist is someone who believes there is a God, and claims to know it as an objective truth.

[Sam I am]

There's no need to make blanket, collective accusations. If you're targeting a specific person, you can send him or her a PM.

I was not targeting a specific person, Which i would have hoped I made clear when i said


I'm not making a comment directed at you personally, but more about the forum as a whole.

I've been wanting to say something about how Penn doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who would be totally comfortable here, and the post i quoted was the easiest thing to anchor that to

[ClayTrainor]

How can you separate "knowledge" from "faith"? Don't you have to have "faith" in your senses and reason to "know" anything? But isn't the act of having faith in any proposition admitting that you do not or cannot know the correct answer?

Confidence in the evidence of your senses, and the consistent behavior of matter and energy, is not faith as I understand it. I am using the word faith to imply a belief which is held in the absence of evidence, or a belief that is held regardless of evidence to the contrary.


So true atheists have "faith" that there are no gods, and true religious people have "faith" that there is at least one. Agnostics are people without faith in either end of the spectrum.

Do you make a distinction between reasonable certainty and faith?

[erowe1]

Confidence in the evidence of your senses, and the consistent behavior of matter and energy, is not faith as I understand it. I am using the word faith to imply a belief which is held in the absence of evidence, or a belief that is held regardless of evidence to the contrary.

But by your own definition of faith, a belief held in the absence of evidence, it must be the case that confidence in the evidence of your senses and the consistent behavior of matter and energy is faith. You can't use empirical evidence to support the belief that you can rely on your senses. That would be question begging. You have to give yourself over to that confidence in the absence of evidence.

[jmdrake]

Not to mention that I'd say nowhere near the majority on this forum are 911 truthers.

Every time there's been a poll on 9/11 a solid majority of people on this forum have picked 9/11 either being done by elements within the government or at the very least purposefully allowed. But so what? Gillette Penn doesn't seem to be such a douche that he couldn't hang around people who disagreed with him on some issue. If he was then why hasn't he left the U.S. yet where 75% of the people are Christians?

[jmdrake]

Penn isn't a truther. One of the episodes of Bullshit tackled numerous truther myths.

That episode of "Bullshit" was itself "bullshit". Penn didn't tackle any "myths". He got a firefighter who was at the scene of 9/11 to "prove" the government didn't know about 9/11. Really? How is a firefighter supposed to know what's going on in Washington? Penn's diatribe was just one stupid ad hominem placed on top of another. He didn't even address this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N87tA5t0maE

Or this:

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-05/porter-goss-morning-911

Or this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHIj9wzbYGQ

Or this:


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481

[dejavu22]

A person who says words like these has no business claiming, "I don't know. So I'm a libertarian."

His libertarianism is based on a his positive knowledge about what is right and what is wrong.

His atheism is as well, albeit a wrong claim in that case.

Actually i am going to disagree with you that his libertarianism is necessarily based on positive knowledge of what is right and wrong by explaining to you how i came to my libertarian beliefs. The only thing i positively know is that I do not know everything, I can also say with a certain degree of certainty that no one knows everything. With this in mind I would rather be responsible for making my own decisions based upon incomplete information than to be stuck with a choice that someone else made with incomplete information. The reason i believe in libertarianism is that a decision based upon a specific situation rather than one based upon general demographics is more likely to be correct and if it is wrong I have no one to blame but myself.

Sorry if that was rambly but that is how my mind works on the subject.

Also i have a severe lack of faith in general. For this reason since i don't think it cannot be proven even though i feel i have no reason to believe in god i have no real desire to waste my time to prove it either way. I plan on "I don't know" being the answer i die saying on the subject.

[DamianTV]

Why are Religious Labels so important to you people?

[erowe1]

Actually i am going to disagree with you that his libertarianism is necessarily based on positive knowledge of what is right and wrong by explaining to you how i came to my libertarian beliefs. The only thing i positively know is that I do not know everything, I can also say with a certain degree of certainty that no one knows everything. With this in mind I would rather be responsible for making my own decisions based upon incomplete information than to be stuck with a choice that someone else made with incomplete information. The reason i believe in libertarianism is that a decision based upon a specific situation rather than one based upon general demographics is more likely to be correct and if it is wrong I have no one to blame but myself.

Sorry if that was rambly but that is how my mind works on the subject.

Also i have a severe lack of faith in general. For this reason since i don't think it cannot be proven even though i feel i have no reason to believe in god i have no real desire to waste my time to prove it either way. I plan on "I don't know" being the answer i die saying on the subject.

Three observations:
1) You still base this on the positive knowledge that you don't know everything.
2) Let's be honest, that is not the only thing you positively know.
3) You carefully worded your post so as to avoid sounding overconfident about other things you think or prefer. But if you had been a bit less guarded, I bet you would have said more than just that you would rather be responsible for making your own decisions, but that controlling other people is positively wrong. At any rate, whether that's true of you or not, it's still true of Gillette, according to his own words.

Finally, I disagree with the claim that you have a lack of faith in general. You are brimming with faith in all kinds of unproven things. You may not want to be. But you are.

[erowe1]

Why are Religious Labels so important to you people?

Who do you mean by "you people"?

[ExPatPaki]

Who do you mean by "you people"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAlVKgl_zCQ

[idirtify]

But by your own definition of faith, a belief held in the absence of evidence, it must be the case that confidence in the evidence of your senses and the consistent behavior of matter and energy is faith. You can't use empirical evidence to support the belief that you can rely on your senses. That would be question begging. You have to give yourself over to that confidence in the absence of evidence.

By YOUR definitions, every assertion and disagreement and argument YOU make is based on FAITH. So why should I place any more faith in yours than mine? According to the real content of your claims, I shouldn’t. For example, your claim that my senses are fallible is actually only your FAITH; which makes for a very unconvincing argument.

Apparently you think you are making arguments against other’s claims (calling them all “faith-based”), but in actuality you are discrediting every single one of your own arguments. IOW, if what you say is true, it is also true for you. Wake up and realize that your brand of “faith-logic”, that you often aim at others, actually only shoots itself in the foot. If you disagree, let’s see you try to claim that my senses are more fallible than yours – without resorting to pure faith.

So, if you don’t mind, I’d rather depend on my senses and my knowledge than your “faith-logic”.

[erowe1]

By YOUR definitions, every assertion and disagreement and argument YOU make is based on FAITH. So why should I place any more faith in yours than mine? According to the real content of your claims, I shouldn’t. For example, your claim that my senses are fallible is actually only your FAITH; which makes for a very unconvincing argument.

Apparently you think you are making arguments against other’s claims (calling them all “faith-based”), but in actuality you are discrediting every single one of your own arguments. IOW, if what you say is true, it is also true for you. Wake up and realize that your brand of “faith-logic”, that you often aim at others, actually only shoots itself in the foot. If you disagree, let’s see you try to claim that my senses are more fallible than yours – without resorting to pure faith.

So, if you don’t mind, I’d rather depend on my senses and my knowledge than your “faith-logic”.

I'm afraid you completely misunderstand me again. When did I say anything about my assertions being more trustworthy than anyone else's?

When did I claim that your senses are fallible?

I fully admit that I trust in reason and my senses, and that I have no basis for that trust other than a leap of faith. But then, I'm not the one who pretends not to have any faith. It's only those who do pretend that who get caught up in contradictions.

[idirtify]

I'm afraid you completely misunderstand me again. When did I say anything about my assertions being more trustworthy than anyone else's?

You worded no relative judgments, nor did I claim you did. BUT…since you brought it up, let’s go with it (there are so many ways to refute your “faith-logic”, it’s mind boggling). Actually your whole post says that your assertions are more credible/accurate/“trustworthy”. That’s because it’s a disagreement, and every disagreement inherently implies that it’s more accurate than the claim it disagrees with. But if you are saying, with your question, that you do not think your claims are necessarily more accurate, that is highly unusual given the amount of direct disagreements you make. I mean if you really don’t think your disagreements are any better than what you disagree with, then why persist? If fact, why post ANY disagreement?


When did I claim that your senses are fallible?

Your whole post consists of relegating your opponent’s perception (“senses”) to the realm of faith. Although you didn’t use the word “fallible”, that’s your message. Now you might be able to “confidently” make such a fallibility claim about your own perception, but you have no real basis (other than your “faith”) for making it about anyone else’s. You wanna make it about mine? Let’s see you try. (Remember, yours is all a baseless leap of faith).


I fully admit that I trust in reason and my senses, and that I have no basis for that trust other than a leap of faith.

Very good. You make it quite clear that every claim you have made (and will make) is nothing more than a leap of faith. Thank you for confessing. It’s good for the soul.


But then, I'm not the one who pretends not to have any faith. It's only those who do pretend that who get caught up in contradictions.

Hold on there! Admitting that all your claims are based on your leap of faith is one thing, but CONFIDENTLY making the accusation against others is quite another. And didn’t you just get done confessing that EVERYTHING you perceive and claim is a leap of faith? And didn’t your first question imply that you don’t think any of your claims are any more accurate? Wow, how quickly you forget (that nothing emanating from your keyboard is more credible than a leap of faith).

Which brings us back to your first sentence. You claim I misunderstand you. I claim I don’t. Let’s ignore for the moment all the evidence which shows I DO understand you. And we can easily ignore that, because according to your own confession you don’t think your disagreements are any more credible than mine. So why should I put more “faith” in your claim than mine? And why are you even arguing it?

[ClayTrainor]

Here's the full Piers Morgan interview, for anyone interested...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSJV8mC8GYk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpkjTn11DPM

[DamianTV]

Please ignore Idirtify, all he does is starts fights based on how he would impose his will on others. I saw a quote from him in there somewhere but am not going to bother to read it.

Oh yeah, um, so, "You People". That refers to EVERYONE. The Tropic Thunder clip is pretty funny tho.

There are a great many people out there that validate their own religous beliefs by trying to find a way to make someone else of a different religious faith or lack thereof to be a lower class of citizen than they are. It may not always go to that extent, but if I were to say that my religious preference was to worship Fried Chicken, someone else would say something that they are only saying to validate their own beliefs and not the beliefs of the other person. Believe what ever you want to believe. It is not my place to tell you what you should or shouldnt do with your life or your faith or things that dont involve me. Nor is it appropriate for me to try to apply a Label different than the one you have chosen, or your neighbor has chosen. Religious Non Intervention Policy. However, I believe that it IS my Responsibility to Defend your Right to Believe in those things, regardless if I believe or even agree with them or not.

So again, the question comes up, why is it so important that Penn Jilette wear the non self appointed label of Agnostic and not Athiest? What bearing is this really going to have on your life? Is it really that you are validating yourself and not defending his right to believe what he wants? (for those that insist he isnt what he says he is)

[idirtify]

Please ignore Idirtify, all he does is starts fights based on how he would impose his will on others.

Forget about bothering to cite where I did any such thing, how exactly COULD one “impose his will” by disagreeing? And maybe you should pay more attention to my exact disagreement with erowe, who is attempting to render ALL disagreements into leaps of faith. Of course erowe doesn’t realize it when erowe’s logic applies to erowe’s disagreements. But the point is: you best pick your disagreements wiser or you may someday find erowe magically turning YOUR claims into “leaps of faith”.

[DamianTV]

This message is hidden because idirtify is on your ignore list.

Huh? Oh, what was that? I dont even care.

[libertarian4321]

There is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" when asked how everything was created.

It's better to be honest and say "I don't know" than to make up a story to answer the unknown (which is what religions, all of them, do).

Or, at least, that's what I used to believe back when I was an "evil" atheist.

Having recently been touched by God's noodly appendage, I now have faith that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator.

[ClayTrainor]

There is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" when asked how everything was created.

It's better to be honest and say "I don't know" than to make up a story to answer the unknown (which is what religions, all of them, do).

Or, at least, that's what I used to believe back when I was an "evil" atheist.

Having recently been touched by God's noodly appendage, I now have faith that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator.

Ramen

[Sentient Void]

Here's the full Piers Morgan interview, for anyone interested...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSJV8mC8GYk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpkjTn11DPM

These are *awesome*. penn Jillette kicking ass and taking names against religion and government (are they so different?).

Thanks, broseph. +rep

[ChristianAnarchist]

These are *awesome*. penn Jillette kicking ass and taking names against religion and government (are they so different?).

Thanks, broseph. +rep

They are not different. They are exactly the same (I personally believe in Christianity but you can see why at this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?268832-Christian-Anarchy-Why-I-think-it-s-the-only-answer...). While I believe that Christianity is a "true" religion, the religion called "government" is a cult. Of course, because of my belief in liberty, I don't feel justified in using force for anything but self defense so I would never "'force" my religion on anyone and I find myself in almost complete agreement with Penn...

[Imaginos]

Penn is great.
He should join RevolutionPac and work on his audience base on behalf of Dr. Paul.
Atheist, agnostic, and theist can work together.
Freedom is popular.
Liberty can bring people together.

[idirtify]

Plus reps to the last five posters in this thread, which has gotten better with each post – and makes me think there might actually be hope.

[silentshout]

Penn is great. Piers Morgan is not. He should just interview himself, because he sure loves to hear himself speak. Man, is he annoying during this interview.