Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 50

Thread: The Consequences of Darwinism

  1. #1

    The Consequences of Darwinism

    Well I've had a very enlightening discussion with a group of leftists at another discussion board, which lead me to the most profound - as I consider it - revelation.

    First, a little background on myself, and then the discussion which produced this insight:

    I went through and graduated college a dedicated leftist, like many, in the late 90's, but gradually drifted to a "centrist" the more time I spent in the workforce. I do not think myself the least bit unique in that trend. I've been a dedicated Ron Paulian since about 2008. I got interested in his campaign late in the game in 2008, seeking out a different voice from the standard left/right, Dem/Rep talking point game. I did the requisite reading as a Ron Paulian - your Rothbards, your Rands, your Hayeks, etc. I read the blogs, I listened to the podcasts - your Woods', your Rockwells, etc. I came across at one point or another this succinct video from some source or another:



    I consider myself to be well- but not deeply -read. I consider the philosophy of liberty to be self-evident. I have considered it an "objective truth", but in the course of my discussion at the other board, I have conceded that the term "objective truth" is probably not the correct terminology. Individual liberty derived via "deductive reasoning" is probably more accurate, and certainly more defensible.

    In the course of the debate wherein I sought to show that individual liberty/sovereignty is an objective truth, I encountered the sentience argument - basically I held that sovereignty was a consequence of our humanity, and the leftists questioned the condition of humanity. They comfortably equated human beings with animals. Now, I'm not sure that failing against this argument does anything more than force me into a commitment to veganism - haven't thought it out fully - but their denial of human beings as a distinct creature - irrespective of a god (and full disclosure, I am a Christian believer) - struck me, to the core (I was specifically NOT arguing individual sovereignty from a supernatural perspective). I found myself lightning-struck by the consequences for human thought, civilization, etc. Socialism, collectivism, all those ideas which upend the principle of self-ownership, suddenly I found their root. I haven't fully explored the logical consequences, both for the anti-individual philosophy and for the individualist philosophy, but they're clear, in my view.

    I'm VERY interested to hear your input, RPF. As I pointed out above, I haven't explored this topic in detail,so my bewilderment may embarrass me. But I'm curious to know if it's been deeply explored (I'm sure it has).



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    To the godless, it is survival of the fittest. I too have had a similar 'oh $#@!' moment when indulging in self-discovery on principles of Liberty. Natural Law operates on the assumption that there is a God and an order to things. From an atheist POV, there can't be natural law or any order at all.... it is chaotic and Darwinian.
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope

  4. #3
    Are you stating definitively that individualism depends on the existence of God?

  5. #4
    Nice video, Although it could have been produced by the Ayn Rand Institute.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  6. #5
    Ethical statements ("one should/should not do X") are expressions of subjective preference ("I want/don't want people to do X"). They don't refer to objects in the world; they refer to subjective states of mind. For an ethical statement to be true means for the person who expresses it to really have that subjective preference, nothing more.

    If two people have different ethical principles, i.e. different subjective preferences, neither can "prove" to the other that their principles are wrong. This would be akin to trying to prove to someone that his taste in food or music is wrong. If people have different ethical principles, either can only try to persuade the other. In the same way one might try to persuade a friend that, yes, classical music is actually pretty awesome, just listen to it for a while, etc. It's a matter of shaping subjective preferences, not rationally proving anything.

    If people have the same ethical principles (IOW, the same ends), then rational argumentation becomes possible over means. If we both believe that "aggression is wrong," for instance, we can debate the which is the best social arrangement for minimizing aggression. And there is an objectively correct answer to this question.

    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    To the godless, it is survival of the fittest. I too have had a similar 'oh $#@!' moment when indulging in self-discovery on principles of Liberty. Natural Law operates on the assumption that there is a God and an order to things. From an atheist POV, there can't be natural law or any order at all.... it is chaotic and Darwinian.
    This is not true.

    An atheist can believe "aggression is wrong" as fervently as you can believe that God exists.

    Theism is not necessary for ethics.

    That's nothing against theism; I have nothing critical to say of it.

    It all depends on what you believe your God wants you do to which determines whether your religion is good or bad, from my point of view.

    If you believe that your God wants you to behave in a libertarian fashion, that works for me just as well as if you were an atheist libertarian.

    @A Son of Liberty

    So, to your question, evolution is not a threat to libertarian ethics. It may be a threat to a particular type of libertarian ethics based on religion, if that religion is undermined by evolution, but libertarian ethics need not be based on religion at all.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 10-18-2016 at 07:37 PM.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Ethical statements ("one should/should not do X") are expressions of subjective preference ("I want/don't want people to do X"). They don't refer to objects in the world; they refer to subjective states of mind. For an ethical statement to be true means for the person who expresses it to really have that subjective preference, nothing more.

    If two people have different ethical principles, i.e. different subjective preferences, neither can "prove" to the other that their principles are wrong. This would be akin to trying to prove to someone that his taste in food or music is wrong. If people have different ethical principles, either can only try to persuade the other. In the same way one might try to persuade a friend that, yes, classical music is actually pretty awesome, just listen to it for a while, etc. It's a matter of shaping subjective preferences, not rationally proving anything.

    If people have the same ethical principles (IOW, the same ends), then rational argumentation becomes possible over means. If we both believe that "aggression is wrong," for instance, we can debate the which is the best social arrangement for minimizing aggression. And there is an objectively correct answer to this question.



    This is not true.

    An atheist can believe "aggression is wrong" as fervently as you can believe that God exists.

    Theism is not necessary for ethics.

    That's nothing against theism; I have nothing critical to say of it.

    It all depends on what you believe your God wants you do to which determines whether your religion is good or bad, from my point of view.

    If you believe that your God wants you to behave in a libertarian fashion, that works for me just as well as if you were an atheist libertarian.

    @A Son of Liberty

    So, to your question, evolution is not a threat to libertarian ethics. It may be a threat to a particular type of libertarian ethics based on religion, if that religion is undermined by evolution, but libertarian ethics need not be based on religion at all.
    Absolutely incorrect.
    “I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”

    ― Henry David Thoreau

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    Are you stating definitively that individualism depends on the existence of God?
    I certainly hope he isn't considering individualism cannot depend on something that 1. Cannot be proven to exist 2. Is irrational to believe does exist
    I am the spoon.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    Absolutely incorrect.
    Care to elaborate?



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    A Most Awesome video.
    Created by the folks at Jonathan Gullible: http://www.jonathangullible.com/philosophy-of-liberty
    with support of International Society for Liberty: https://liberty-intl.org/

    Last edited by AZJoe; 10-19-2016 at 09:28 AM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
    "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.

  12. #10
    ASOL, are you familiar with Hoppe's argumentation theory?

    It goes like this, in short form:

    I claim self-ownership as a human being.
    In order to refute this, you need to assert that you are able to argue.
    In the act of arguing, you are claiming self-ownership, because without self-ownership you would not be able to make a counter assertion.
    Therefore, self-ownership exists.

    I just ran into it recently. I looked at a couple refutations of it before starting to type, and they all seem like weaksauce.

    It handles the question of superiority to animals without resorting to theology, as animals are incapable of arguing and therefore incapable of asserting self-ownership.


    By the way I applaud you for even engaging leftists. I suppose if you were hardcore in the past then you might know some worth talking to, if for no other reason than to test your own position, but gee whiz, man, all the leftists I know have a giant sack full of non sequiturs and red herrings and that's literally all I can get out of them.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  13. #11
    Bingo! You're the man, FA! Will report back.

  14. #12
    Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics is an is-ought fallacy (as invariably are all attempts to "prove" ethics).

    It's based on the concept of performative contradiction.

    A performative contradiction is a statement which must be false in virtue of being stated: e.g. "I am dead" or "I am not speaking."

    Hoppe claims that "I do not own my body" is a performative contradiction, because it's impossible to make that statement w/out using one's body.

    The problem is that use is not the same thing as ownership.

    "I am not using my body" is a performative contradiction, since it's impossible to make that statement without using one's vocal cords, mouth, etc.

    "I do not own my body" is not.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics is an is-ought fallacy (as invariably are all attempts to "prove" ethics).

    It's based on the concept of performative contradiction.

    A performative contradiction is a statement which must be false in virtue of being stated: e.g. "I am dead" or "I am not speaking."

    Hoppe claims that "I do not own my body" is a performative contradiction, because it's impossible to make that statement w/out using one's body.

    The problem is that use is not the same thing as ownership.

    "I am not using my body" is a performative contradiction, since it's impossible to make that statement without using one's vocal cords, mouth, etc.

    "I do not own my body" is not.
    Have you ever tried speaking with a body you don't own? FYI, fallacy=/=false. I can find fallacies in every -ism and view expressed on RPFs-doesn't mean they're wrong per se.

    Fallacy Fallacy

    Taxonomy: Logical Fallacy > Formal Fallacy > Bad Reasons Fallacy > Fallacy Fallacy
    Alias:

    • Argumentum ad Logicam
    • Fallacist's Fallacy

    Form:

    Argument A for the conclusion C is fallacious.
    Therefore, C is false.
    Exposition:

    Like anything else, the concept of logical fallacy can be misunderstood and misused, and can even become a source of fallacious reasoning. To say that an argument is fallacious is, among other things, to claim that there is not a sufficiently strong logical connection between the premisses and the conclusion. This says nothing about the truth or falsity of the conclusion, so it is unwarranted to conclude that it's false simply because some argument for it is fallacious.
    It's easy to come up with fallacious arguments for a proposition, whether true or false. What can be hard is to find a cogent argument for it, even when it's true. For example, it's now believed by mathematicians that the proposition known as "Fermat's last theorem" is true, yet it took over three centuries for anyone to prove it. In the meantime, many invalid arguments were presented for it.
    Exposure:

    • Strictly speaking, the Fallacy Fallacy is committed only when a conclusion is rejected as false because an argument for it is fallacious, that is, commits a logical fallacy. Since a logical fallacy is a mistake in reasoning that is common enough to be named, not just any bad argument will do. If an argument for a conclusion does not commit a fallacy, but is invalid or uncogent for some other reason, then rejecting the conclusion as false commits the more general Bad Reasons Fallacy, rather than the Fallacy Fallacy.
    • It is reasonable to, at least provisionally, reject an improbable proposition for which no adequate evidence has been presented. So, if you can show that all of the common arguments for a certain proposition are fallacious, and the burden of proof is on the proposition's proponents, then you do not commit this fallacy by rejecting that proposition. Rather, the fallacy is committed when you jump to the conclusion that just because one argument for it is fallacious, no cogent argument for it can exist.

    http://fallacyfiles.org/fallfall.html
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    I consider myself to be well- but not deeply -read. I consider the philosophy of liberty to be self-evident. I have considered it an "objective truth", but in the course of my discussion at the other board, I have conceded that the term "objective truth" is probably not the correct terminology. Individual liberty derived via "deductive reasoning" is probably more accurate, and certainly more defensible.
    I prefer objective truth. Your concession was, IMO, premature and in error. Objective truth can be established, given a standard. Once you have the standard, you have your lefties by the balls.

    Begin with the Cardinal Postulate: all men are equally endowed with life. Do they accept this or deny it? It is, you see, a trap you lay for them. If they accept it, you have them. If they deny it, you have them. Allow me to elaborate in reverse order.

    If they deny, the direct and unavoidable implication is that at least one man, somewhere, is "more" endowed with life than are the rest. This leads us down a literally infinite pathway of similar questions. I doubt you will have to go there because for a lefty to deny the equal endowment of each man with life would offend their ill-bred notions of "equality". That is a good thing. But if perchance you encounter someone who denies, you then go full-Socratic on them. Begin along the lines of "I see, so if we are not equally endowed with life, who is more so and by what virtue?" They can only answer in two general ways. Either they realize AND admit their error on the spot due to the transparently ridiculous nature of the implication, or the respond with some arbitrary nonsense that provides you with abundant fodder for asking similar questions of the implications of said answer. The problem for the denier is that no matter how they respond with explanations, their answers are PERFORCE arbitrary. Therefore, you keep attacking that aspect by asking "who says?" and "by what standard/virtue is it so?" And once again their responses will by their nature be similarly arbitrary. In theory, you could keep asking the same questions with each iteration of responses and the only choice your opponent will have is to either admit error, come up with yet another bull$#@! answer, or close their eyes, stick out their tongues, call you "poopy face", and run away. To deny the equal endowment of life to all men is absurd on its face, so much so that it is by these generally simple means that one brings the fool to the slaughter.

    If they accept the equal endowment postulate, then you have them by the short and curlies and should be able to thoroughly destroy them in but a few simple and intuitively obvious steps. The Cardinal Postulate leads to the first consequence: if all men are equally endowed with life, then all men hold equal claims thereto. This is axiomatic, for it makes no sense to say that you and I are equally endowed with life, and yet that my claims are superior to yours. How can I claim life more than you if our endowments are equal?

    Furthermore, it should be noted that our claims to life are those to our own lives. There is nothing extant to suggest that one man may, under "normal" circumstances lay claim to the life of another. Here we see the rise of the notion of a negative right. Also, the only way one man could establish a valid claim upon the life of another would be to demonstrate a fundamental and irreducibly non-arbitrary basis for it. I am confident that this basis does not exist. Regardless, until such a basis is demonstrated, no man may lay claim to the life of another, all else equal. Just for completeness' sake, an example of where a man may lay such a claim would be in defense of one's life against destruction or other harm. I attack you with a knife in a dark alley and you respond by drawing a pistol and shooting me in the head. You have, in a somewhat tortured sense, laid claim to my life. This notion is readily defeated in argumentation, such destruction working in your favor because it ruins the assertion that one man may claim the life of another as his own. So the sense of claim is a bit different here, but let us not go too far down that rabbit hole.

    Another example lies in the notion of a contract. You hire me to mop your floors five days per week, 8 hours per day, for $1 per hour. So long as the contract holds, you do in fact hold a certain claim upon my life such that I must submit to that lien insofar as I expect to be paid for the time in question at the agreed rate.

    Now that you have demolished the idea that one man may hold an uninvited claim upon the life of another, you have positioned your opponent into a corner such that any further attempts at defending the contrary position become embarrassingly obvious in their invalidity.

    So now you have two powerful foundational precepts: that we each hold equal claims to life and that our inherent claims extend no further than our own lives. A corollary to this states that if one man cannot validly make uninvited claims upon the lives of others, it follows perforce that he holds no authority over those others. After all, any and all impositions by one man upon another boils down in its essence to a claim against some portion of the other's life. If no such inherent claim can be demonstrated to exist, it follows that any claim that can be demonstrated to exist must of necessity be the product of contract, which of course is the result of a voluntary exchange.

    From all this arises the notion of self-ownership. You own yourself and unless you agree, nobody else owns any part of you. That is, there is no inherent ownership by one man of another.

    In the course of the debate wherein I sought to show that individual liberty/sovereignty is an objective truth, I encountered the sentience argument - basically I held that sovereignty was a consequence of our humanity, and the leftists questioned the condition of humanity.
    What do you mean? Do you mean to say that they questioned our humanity as fact? If so, they are imbeciles for the humanity of a human being is tautological in the same way the fishness of a fish is.

    You have to always bear in mind that you are likely dealing with nitwits whose grasp of reason is slim to none on their best days. In fact such people remind me of these brilliant chaps:




    They comfortably equated human beings with animals.
    In what way(s)? In some ways, I might have to agree. In others, I would not.

    ...their denial of human beings as a distinct creature - irrespective of a god... - struck me, to the core.
    I am afraid I do not understand. Why did it do so?

    I found myself lightning-struck by the consequences for human thought, civilization, etc. Socialism, collectivism, all those ideas which upend the principle of self-ownership, suddenly I found their root. I haven't fully explored the logical consequences, both for the anti-individual philosophy and for the individualist philosophy, but they're clear, in my view.
    Here you have managed to lose me completely.

    I'm VERY interested to hear your input, RPF. As I pointed out above, I haven't explored this topic in detail,so my bewilderment may embarrass me. But I'm curious to know if it's been deeply explored (I'm sure it has).
    No need for embarrassment. It seems you may have had a deer-in-the-headlights moment - caught off guard. That's OK so long as the result is not fatal. This is one of the ways in which we learn. One of the more powerful ones, I would wager.

    Come to a better understanding of a man's fundamental position in the scheme of his fellows and you should be able to go back and give the lefties something about which to think by demolishing their positions with quiet, respectful, friendly, yet undeniable authority.

    Have fun.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by jllundqu View Post
    To the godless, it is survival of the fittest.
    In point of actual fact, I must agree.

    Natural Law operates on the assumption that there is a God and an order to things.
    I suppose this predicates on the precise definition of "natural law". Precise jargon aside, I might differ on this point. For me, natural law derives from the fundamental nature of the relationships between men. The bits about "God" may or may not be factual, but I can state without equivocation that they are not necessary. IMO, this is one of God's great gifts to us: leaving a trail of breadcrumbs that leads us to objective truth. It is a beautiful thing and for me serves as definitive proof of God's humility and kind regard.

    From an atheist POV, there can't be natural law or any order at all.... it is chaotic and Darwinian.
    I do not think this is true. That there ISN'T, it does not follow that there CANNOT. But again, much may hinge on the precise definition of "natural law".
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by John F Kennedy III View Post
    I certainly hope he isn't considering individualism cannot depend on something that 1. Cannot be proven to exist 2. Is irrational to believe does exist
    Here you are mistaken on both counts, for in '1' existence predicates upon definition. I KNOW "God" exists because YOU exist, as do pieces of paper, sex, Toyotas, anvils, cotton balls, quasars, tits, and everything else in the observable universe. Now, if one defines "God" as a constipated and cantankerous old bastard who sits on a throne in the sky just waiting for a reason to strike one down with a lightning bolt, we might agree. Words matter and definitions are endlessly important, as is the process of establishing clear bases for communications... something most people fail to do on an almost universal basis.

    Speaking to '2', pretty much the same argument applies. The closer one's definition of "God" maps to the reality, the more rational becomes the belief.

    ETA: I would also remind you that negative propositions can be impossible to prove. They are, in fact, impossible absent the demonstration of a mutually exclusionary object, whereby the proven example definitively attests to the absence of the other.

    Were "God" real and simply hiding any direct evidence of his existence, he would nonetheless be factually real despite one's inability to prove it, thereby leading him to the erroneous conclusion that God does not exist.
    Last edited by osan; 10-20-2016 at 01:23 AM.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Here you are mistaken on both counts, for in '1' existence predicates upon definition. I KNOW "God" exists because YOU exist, as do pieces of paper, sex, Toyotas, anvils, cotton balls, quasars, tits, and everything else in the observable universe. Now, if one defines "God" as a constipated and cantankerous old bastard who sits on a throne in the sky just waiting for a reason to strike one down with a lightning bolt, we might agree. Words matter and definitions are endlessly important, as is the process of establishing clear bases for communications... something most people fail to do on an almost universal basis.

    Speaking to '2', pretty much the same argument applies. The closer one's definition of "God" maps to the reality, the more rational becomes the belief.

    ETA: I would also remind you that negative propositions can be impossible to prove. They are, in fact, impossible absent the demonstration of a mutually exclusionary object, whereby the proven example definitively attests to the absence of the other.

    Were "God" real and simply hiding any direct evidence of his existence, he would nonetheless be factually real despite one's inability to prove it, thereby leading him to the erroneous conclusion that God does not exist.
    Ok. Can you prove this god exists? If not, how is it rational to say you know he exists? Also I assumed we were talking about the Christian god. If not, which god is it we are talking about? So far your post hasn't listed any evidence a god exists. It's like saying you know rocks exist because potatoes exist, it doesn't mean anything.
    I am the spoon.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    ASOL, are you familiar with Hoppe's argumentation theory?

    It goes like this, in short form:

    I claim self-ownership as a human being.
    In order to refute this, you need to assert that you are able to argue.
    In the act of arguing, you are claiming self-ownership, because without self-ownership you would not be able to make a counter assertion.
    Therefore, self-ownership exists.

    I just ran into it recently. I looked at a couple refutations of it before starting to type, and they all seem like weaksauce.

    It handles the question of superiority to animals without resorting to theology, as animals are incapable of arguing and therefore incapable of asserting self-ownership.


    By the way I applaud you for even engaging leftists. I suppose if you were hardcore in the past then you might know some worth talking to, if for no other reason than to test your own position, but gee whiz, man, all the leftists I know have a giant sack full of non sequiturs and red herrings and that's literally all I can get out of them.
    Yeah my last convo with leftists ended in them accusing me of misogyny and trying guilt by association tactics.
    I am the spoon.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Have you ever tried speaking with a body you don't own? FYI, fallacy=/=false. I can find fallacies in every -ism and view expressed on RPFs-doesn't mean they're wrong per se.

    Fallacy Fallacy

    Taxonomy: Logical Fallacy > Formal Fallacy > Bad Reasons Fallacy > Fallacy Fallacy
    Alias:

    • Argumentum ad Logicam
    • Fallacist's Fallacy

    Form:

    Argument A for the conclusion C is fallacious.
    Therefore, C is false.
    Exposition:

    Like anything else, the concept of logical fallacy can be misunderstood and misused, and can even become a source of fallacious reasoning. To say that an argument is fallacious is, among other things, to claim that there is not a sufficiently strong logical connection between the premisses and the conclusion. This says nothing about the truth or falsity of the conclusion, so it is unwarranted to conclude that it's false simply because some argument for it is fallacious.
    It's easy to come up with fallacious arguments for a proposition, whether true or false. What can be hard is to find a cogent argument for it, even when it's true. For example, it's now believed by mathematicians that the proposition known as "Fermat's last theorem" is true, yet it took over three centuries for anyone to prove it. In the meantime, many invalid arguments were presented for it.
    Exposure:

    • Strictly speaking, the Fallacy Fallacy is committed only when a conclusion is rejected as false because an argument for it is fallacious, that is, commits a logical fallacy. Since a logical fallacy is a mistake in reasoning that is common enough to be named, not just any bad argument will do. If an argument for a conclusion does not commit a fallacy, but is invalid or uncogent for some other reason, then rejecting the conclusion as false commits the more general Bad Reasons Fallacy, rather than the Fallacy Fallacy.
    • It is reasonable to, at least provisionally, reject an improbable proposition for which no adequate evidence has been presented. So, if you can show that all of the common arguments for a certain proposition are fallacious, and the burden of proof is on the proposition's proponents, then you do not commit this fallacy by rejecting that proposition. Rather, the fallacy is committed when you jump to the conclusion that just because one argument for it is fallacious, no cogent argument for it can exist.

    http://fallacyfiles.org/fallfall.html
    What is the fallacy called when you try to prove god exists by saying other things exist?
    I am the spoon.

  23. #20
    When a person destroys life or steals property to supposedly promote life, they are obsessed with dying, not living.
    Fear is their controller, and false pride their reward.

    Eternal truth to a meat bag with an expiration date, is a mind job, as it should be -if you're paying attention.
    Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe. Proverbs 29:25
    "I think the propaganda machine is the biggest problem that we face today in trying to get the truth out to people."
    Ron Paul

    Please watch, subscribe, like, & share, Ron Paul Liberty Report
    BITCHUTE IS A LIBERTY MINDED ALTERNATIVE TO GOOGLE SUBSIDIARY YOUTUBE

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by John F Kennedy III View Post
    Ok. Can you prove this god exists?
    By my definition of "God", his existence is self evident.

    QED.

    If not, how is it rational to say you know he exists?
    In such a case, it might not be rational. But that is not the case for me. What is "God" for me, may be something else to you and others.

    As you might now see, words are generally very tricky affairs. Language is all at once divine and devilish. Its power is enormous. Our power to precisely control it, mostly very limited, largely due to our bad habits and the general circumstance of linguistic degradation through those habits. But that can be changed at any time, given the will.

    As my aunt Marie says with such deep truth: your thoughts form your reality. To that I add: your words form your thoughts.

    Think of what that means awhile. It is this truth that leads me to the conclusion that language is the single most important skill one ever learns in life, bar none. Love, belief in "God", and all else take a distant back-seat to language in terms of pure import, for without language virtually none of those other things would exist for us. Words build the thoughts which build the reality we take mainly for granted.

    Want proof of "God"? LANGUAGE. I doubt that it could have arisen of its own accord, for it is far and away too complex. Grammar universally speaks to the relationships of labels. These labels are affixed to real objects in the world that, were it not for our linguistic proclivity, would have no labels otherwise. Without language, the only knowledge humans would have would be reflexive in nature, arising from our hard-wired nerve structure, which is the basis of our perceptual capacities. We would know pain, yet would have no name for it. We would know hunger, lust, fear, joy, yet our knowledge of these would have a decidedly different character in the absence of the words we use to describe and think about them. It is unclear, in fact whether we would even think without words. Once again, we come to definitions, in this case what it means to "think".

    Everything we do, from sleeping to screwing to fighting for our lives and designing buildings and the next generation of computer architecture is wholly, utterly, and irrevocably tied to language.

    If we assume that we were once naught but brooding, grunting brachiators, what spark then lead the first man to associate a verbally-issued noise from his own throat with something "out there" in the world? I do not call it mere happenstance, but "God". There is purpose in the universe and we see it all around us. INTENTION is evidence of God and it is everywhere, from the boy chasing the girl for a little reproductive fun, to the pouring of a concrete foundation for a house. The Christians say that "God" is everywhere, and they are precisely correct. Were you and I to meet in the flesh, it is God upon whom my eyes would come to rest, just as it it when I look in the mirror, all joking around about my great humility aside for the moment.

    Paper is evidence of God, as is water, for each is a manifestation of the mystery of existence. God exists, and therefore the universe does, for they are one and the same. There is literally no place where God is not. The only error Christians and other similar believers make, IMO, lies in the details of their conceptions of "God". Is God really a man with dangly bit 'tween his legs? Is the creator of the quasars really so limited a creature as conceived by the 3 "great" western religious traditions? Could be, but I profoundly doubt it. The strength of my definition is that not only is God self-evident, "he" remains defined only in the broadest and most vague ways. After all, if we as individuals are not capable of completely knowing every aspect of every "item" in this universe, then we are incapable of pinning "God" down to a clear and universally demonstrable definition. So-called "science", when done correctly, expands and improves our definition of "God", and yet it remains incomplete and grossly wanting. To presume to know the will of God as a gestalt, for example, is the very apex of personal hubris - in my opinion. But this is now going too far down the rabbit hole and it is not my intention to hijack this thread, pardon me please.

    Also I assumed we were talking about the Christian god.
    The precise meaning of your statement being the "Christian conception of God", which is to say the definition. Note how even the most complex and subtly profound discussions and notions always boil down to the basic linguistic elements.

    If one is going to not believe in "God", it is my advice that they at least recognize the central importance of their personal definition of the term. I do not believe God is a cranky, sadistic old pig so utterly angry that he has set up this system of evil between men for his own amusement. I admit I could be wrong on that point and that he is precisely that. But until so proven, I will choose another path.

    Life is mostly all about choices.

    If not, which god is it we are talking about? So far your post hasn't listed any evidence a god exists. It's like saying you know rocks exist because potatoes exist, it doesn't mean anything.
    You have mistaken what I have written in the previous post. Hopefully this one has made sufficient clarification of my meanings.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by bunklocoempire View Post
    When a person destroys life or steals property to supposedly promote life, they are obsessed with dying, not living.
    They are obsessed with POWER. They are obsessed with the power of making the world, such as it may be in their locale, in their image of propriety, if not perfection. The abortion clinic bomber who kills twenty people for the sakes of the fetuses they carry in their wombs would be just one example.

    Fear is their controller, and false pride their reward.
    Likely the case.

    Eternal truth to a meat bag with an expiration date, is a mind job, as it should be -if you're paying attention.
    If I am understanding you correctly here, that is a rep-worthily crafty piece of insight. Gonna have to owe you on this one as I must spread some, blah blah... you know the drill
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    Well I've had a very enlightening discussion with a group of leftists at another discussion board, which lead me to the most profound - as I consider it - revelation.

    ...

    In the course of the debate wherein I sought to show that individual liberty/sovereignty is an objective truth, I encountered the sentience argument - basically I held that sovereignty was a consequence of our humanity, and the leftists questioned the condition of humanity. They comfortably equated human beings with animals. Now, I'm not sure that failing against this argument does anything more than force me into a commitment to veganism - haven't thought it out fully - but their denial of human beings as a distinct creature - irrespective of a god (and full disclosure, I am a Christian believer) - struck me, to the core (I was specifically NOT arguing individual sovereignty from a supernatural perspective). I found myself lightning-struck by the consequences for human thought, civilization, etc. Socialism, collectivism, all those ideas which upend the principle of self-ownership, suddenly I found their root. I haven't fully explored the logical consequences, both for the anti-individual philosophy and for the individualist philosophy, but they're clear, in my view.

    I'm VERY interested to hear your input, RPF. As I pointed out above, I haven't explored this topic in detail,so my bewilderment may embarrass me. But I'm curious to know if it's been deeply explored (I'm sure it has).
    If these folks you are debating with cannot even concede the difference between humans and other animals with regard to our universal sense of right and wrong, personal responsibility/ownership, etc., I'd say they're just being willfully ignorant and end it there.

    BTW - I'm not fond of the title "The Consequences of Darwinism". Darwinism and humanity's self-realization are not mutually exclusive.
    Last edited by georgiaboy; 10-20-2016 at 08:57 AM.
    The bigger government gets, the smaller I wish it was.
    My new motto: More Love, Less Laws

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by georgiaboy View Post
    Darwinism and humanity's self-realization are not mutually exclusive.
    What do you mean by this?

    Darwinism and a rejection of the divine are inseparable. Not because I wish it, but because Darwinists do.

    Darwinism and a devotion to humanity's collective self-realization are inseparable. The suppression of the individual specifically got kicked into turbo mode coincident with the widespread adoption of Darwinism.

    One cannot espouse, for instance, Eugenics, without suppressing or ignoring individual rights.

    Politics, art, architecture, music, writing, cinema, pedagogy, soft sciences, all for over a century now have all shouted the gospel of modern man's collective conquest over everything. People outside this forum take it for granted that with the right collective effort anything can be done.

    So I would say that, as stated unqualified, Darwinism and humanity's self-realization are linked concepts.

    Individuals do not self-realize. We take it as axiomatic that we are selves and own ourselves. The only reason we would ever need to self-realize is in response to sophist bull$#@!.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    What do you mean by this?

    Darwinism and a rejection of the divine are inseparable. Not because I wish it, but because Darwinists do.

    Darwinism and a devotion to humanity's collective self-realization are inseparable. The suppression of the individual specifically got kicked into turbo mode coincident with the widespread adoption of Darwinism.

    One cannot espouse, for instance, Eugenics, without suppressing or ignoring individual rights.

    Politics, art, architecture, music, writing, cinema, pedagogy, soft sciences, all for over a century now have all shouted the gospel of modern man's collective conquest over everything. People outside this forum take it for granted that with the right collective effort anything can be done.

    So I would say that, as stated unqualified, Darwinism and humanity's self-realization are linked concepts.

    Individuals do not self-realize. We take it as axiomatic that we are selves and own ourselves. The only reason we would ever need to self-realize is in response to sophist bull$#@!.
    Sorry to confuse. The term "self-realization" as I used it intended to encompass that which separates humans from other animals, including acknowledgement of the sanctity of the individual, recognition of the natural/moral law, etc. You seem to be using it to describe elevation of human progress as a collective above the rights of the individual, something which I didn't mean to convey.

    My only point - it is a minor one - is that not all Darwinists are collectivists, nor are all Darwinists rejecters of the Divine. Also, collective thinking and equating humans to animals did not start with Darwin. So for the OP to title the discussion about rejecting the unique place of the individual "the consequences of Darwinism" is too far of a leap. I'm particularly sensitive to it because I am a Christian who can make room for Darwinism while still believing in a creator God.
    Last edited by georgiaboy; 10-20-2016 at 10:24 AM.
    The bigger government gets, the smaller I wish it was.
    My new motto: More Love, Less Laws

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Have you ever tried speaking with a body you don't own?
    It's impossible to speak without using your body.

    That does not mean it's impossible to speak without owning your body.

    Use =/= Ownership

    Use is a physical act, ownership is an ethical concept.

    I can use things I don't own, or own things I don't use.

    You, like Hoppe, are conflating use and ownership, is and ought.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 10-20-2016 at 11:54 AM.

  31. #27
    What if what sets Humans apart is our awareness of Darwinism and Natural Selection through Competition? We can observe how even many animals have their own kind of hierarchy or social behavior even if it just the alpha male in a pack or the queen in a bee hive.

    We can also note that even though this has great results leading to species we see today, the process is cruel, often wasteful, and the lives animals lead in the wild is often brutal. As human beings we can appreciate this process as a part of our history, but we should choose to reject it and find a better way.

  32. #28

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    their denial of human beings as a distinct creature - irrespective of a god (and full disclosure, I am a Christian believer) - struck me, to the core
    Because they don't understand evolution. The whole point of evolution is that humans and primates are completely separate and different beings. This is another case of people not knowing crap and lecturing others endlessly on teh erroneous bull they think they know.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    They are obsessed with POWER. They are obsessed with the power of making the world, such as it may be in their locale, in their image of propriety, if not perfection. The abortion clinic bomber who kills twenty people for the sakes of the fetuses they carry in their wombs would be just one example.



    Likely the case.



    If I am understanding you correctly here, that is a rep-worthily crafty piece of insight. Gonna have to owe you on this one as I must spread some, blah blah... you know the drill
    speaking of blah, blah, blah... Addressing flesh and blood, a saved meat-bag's perspective-
    TLDR - God's clue to me- "If you aren't rebelling against your own flesh and blood, you aren't rebelling. Don't embarrass yourself, tough guy."

    POWER over what, ultimately?

    Power over "my life" direction, stuff I want to believe affects "my" flesh and blood.

    Not knowing about the specific clinic bomber you are referring to- I can only say he was probably driven by concerns for flesh and blood.

    No rep necessary, I ripped it from Jesus and the Bible. Word made flesh. Concept made flesh. Perfect Love crucified by POWER hungry, scared, proud men. Death is the price of life it seems. Jesus crucified, satisfies the market price. Jesus risen, is the hope that ties it all together. Flesh and blood says Jesus didn't pay the price because nothing is free in this world and no one gets out alive... yet here is this concept that has changed man for the better. Self sacrifice. Undeserved love. Grace. Agape, etc. The no one gets out alive part is true, and that naturally shoots any hope immediately in the foot. ...yet here is this concept that provides for an out. Something for free, and something that once truly grasped, spreads. Persecute it, and it'll spread against all earthly odds.


    muh flesh and blood deceives me!

    Knowledge of good and evil was combined(?) with an everlasting concept, an everlasting God. It blows my meat-bag mind everyday.

    The Garden of Eden and the Fall of Man.
    Man is created in God's image -eternal as I understand it- and disobeys Perfect Love. Sin (death) enters, God explains death will be crushed, and every man gets to experience the same trip. There's the concept of God helping me, should I ignore it? If I acknowledge the concept I might have to do something...

    Leave it to the "flesh" to steer the conversation to how flesh came into existence, rather than what the nature of flesh actually means as related to higher truth and all the earthly b.s. I'm the worst, because I know my knee-jerk flesh reactions the best. There was a time when I wasn't so alive, and "living" was a lot more comfortable to my flesh. lol

    Who had the balls to tell me I was "fallen"? Friends tell me bad news, and then they help me. The same God that delivers a consistent truth, and the same God that would have me believe this stuff, has left clues everywhere. How can I not reciprocate?
    It's a very easy concept to grasp, returning good for good! hehe And the flesh immediately responds with: "Hey! Ya now what's good? I'll tell ya what's good, me not being uncomfortable, and calling my own shots, screw you God!"

    Gotta Serve Somebody
    Serving this bag of meat is obviously a lost cause. lol I'll serve a higher truth that doesn't rely on my flesh.
    And that concept just happens to jive with action/reaction, market price, liberty from a "safety government" pretending to protect my flesh while enslaving it, etc., etc., etc. As mentioned, the reality of this crappy situation has strengthened my faith. Go figure.
    Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe. Proverbs 29:25
    "I think the propaganda machine is the biggest problem that we face today in trying to get the truth out to people."
    Ron Paul

    Please watch, subscribe, like, & share, Ron Paul Liberty Report
    BITCHUTE IS A LIBERTY MINDED ALTERNATIVE TO GOOGLE SUBSIDIARY YOUTUBE

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-07-2010, 11:50 PM
  2. Darwinism Refuted
    By nate895 in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 138
    Last Post: 05-20-2009, 01:27 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •