If there was ever a Libertarian religion, this is it.

[Influenza]

You strike me as a person who will miss with his first jab and then dance around the ring like he won the fight.

You generalize a lot about religion. Why can't I generalize about you? I actually like the secularism of the US society. However it is secular with a Christian majority. Mao didn't ride in and say, we will kill 100 million Buddhists, Falon Gong, etc. Stalin, Trotsky, and Lenin didn't claim they would kill 50 million Christians either. Religions tend to be less violent in secular society than Atheism, at least in the last century.

See above again.
But most people who claim to be secularists in this country these days are indeed very leftist. The definition may be in the process of changing. I will call you an Atheistic secularist if that makes you happy.

As you are setting up an idiotic strawman saying that religion has done more bad than good. There are murders in both Atheistic and religious groups. However in the last century, Atheists are the grand champions. Congrat, Influenza, I guess...

And in the last century Atheism beat out religion!

As is my fact that I stated above.

Actually you give very little facts but stick to suggesting very broad opinions. So I am taking guesses about you here.

I haven't seen that, but rather a strong dislike for any religion in general. Living in a state of hate isn't healthy, flu.
Again, Stalin didn't start with Gulags.

You really should research the Taliban, bro lol.

You strike me as the kind of guy to grossly inaccurately describe something and pretend that it was a no big deal generalization.

You are pretending that those enormous figures are the result of godless communists targeting the poor religious folks due to their beliefs. In reality, the vast majority of those deaths are the result of the failures of authoritarian central planning, causing many millions to starve to death. Hardly related to their stance on the existence of god.

I don't know how many times this needs to be said before Christians will understand, but atheism doesn't tell you anything about someone other than their lack of belief in god. They could be authoritarian, libertarian, whatever.

I don't think Stalin ever started wars in the name of atheism. Atheism is largely peripheral to the communist system. But many a caliph, pope, etc. have used religion as a rallying cry to start and continue bloody conflicts. People do this still today. Zionists think Israel is theirs cuz it says so in a book.

But yes, authoritarian Christians in the US are very similar to the Taliban, they just haven't attempted to violently take control of the country yet, but they do pretty well by nonviolent means.

When I said "we should or shouldn't do this" I am simply giving my opinion that it is immoral to indoctrinate children into religions, as being coerced into believing things blindly severely hampers their critical thinking skills later in life. No, I'm not suggesting that laws be put in place to prevent kids from being taught religion. Although I bet NCL will quote mine me until it looks like I'm saying just that.

But If you bring your kids up to unquestioningly believe some supernatural bs and arbitrary laws, and tell them they will go to hell if they don't, you are doing a disservice to your kids and are honestly a bad parent.

[Influenza]

The "we" is one of the reasons why I responded to flu as if he were a communist. I would never say he should raise his child as I (or "we") wished.

And NCliberty, I agree with what you said in the PM.

If i said harshly beating children was an effective disciplinary method, I hope you would try to convince me otherwise.

[PierzStyx]

Even if I grant this to you, we still have religion, yours included, to thank for millions of dead bodies all over the world.

Whatever you think of any religion this cannot be true. I would wager that almost any "religious conflict" you can name would have happened if the religions involved never existed. 99% of the time religion is a cloak for political and economic factors that are the true causes of conflict- people wanting to conquer those who are different because their ideas, money, power, or position offer some threat or benefit to the Empire.

[PierzStyx]

In my experience all religions are libertarian and all religions are statist. It just depend son the followers. The Persian kings had no problem saying it was Mazda who had granted them victory and authority to rule over their enemy and the right to destroy those who threatened them.

[RJB]

If i said harshly beating children was an effective disciplinary method, I hope you would try to convince me otherwise.

If you equate raising a child in a religion to beating a child, are you for state intervention with the use of a gun in both instances? If so, it looks like I read you correctly.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I don't think Stalin ever started wars in the name of atheism. Atheism is largely peripheral to the communist system.

Atheism is central to the communist ideology. USSR targeted the Orthodox Church after WW I. They closed almost every church. The jailed and shot religious leaders. Literature was censored. Khrushchev later did the same thing. It was all an effort to make people subservient to the state rather than God.

On a personal note, I used to live and work in New York City. A lot of my co-workers, fellow apartment dwellers (I lived in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn), acquaintances, etc. were Russian. My boss was Russian, I had a Russian superintendent, and I frequented a Russian produce place two blocks from my residence. I've been to Russia. My personal observation was that talking with many Russians there about religion (and their religion) left a blank look in their eyes.

[RJB]

I don't know how many times this needs to be said before Christians will understand, but atheism doesn't tell you anything about someone other than their lack of belief in god. They could be authoritarian, libertarian, whatever.
.

I can't believe that you can't see your hypocrisy. I was an atheist for thirteen years. I do not think atheists are inherently murderers, I was only pointing out that if you are keeping a running tab on the murdered, atheists have easily been responsible for the most horrific genocides in the last century. You were the one who brought up dead bodies. I just pointed out the plank in your eye. I am cool with most atheists, but extremists such as yourself are as annoying as any other extremist.

I could also take your statement and say I don't know how many times this needs to be said before Atheists will understand, but religion doesn't tell you anything about someone other than their belief in god. They could be authoritarian, libertarian, whatever. There are scoundrels in every group of people, yours and mine included. I am only judging you by your equating beating a child and using the state to intervene with raising a child in a belief and intervening. That is indeed what communism did in China, Russia, and other places.

And yes, those regimes did specifically execute religious people. I can't believe that you'd deny it.

[Influenza]

If you equate raising a child in a religion to beating a child, are you for state intervention with the use of a gun in both instances? If so, it looks like I read you correctly.

I already answered this.

[Influenza]

Whatever you think of any religion this cannot be true. I would wager that almost any "religious conflict" you can name would have happened if the religions involved never existed. 99% of the time religion is a cloak for political and economic factors that are the true causes of conflict- people wanting to conquer those who are different because their ideas, money, power, or position offer some threat or benefit to the Empire.

While I agree with you to an extent, religion is used as a rallying cry to compel more people to join a conflict that otherwise may not involve themselves.

[heavenlyboy34]

You strike me as the kind of guy to grossly inaccurately describe something and pretend that it was a no big deal generalization.

You are pretending that those enormous figures are the result of godless communists targeting the poor religious folks due to their beliefs. In reality, the vast majority of those deaths are the result of the failures of authoritarian central planning, causing many millions to starve to death. Hardly related to their stance on the existence of god.

I don't know how many times this needs to be said before Christians will understand, but atheism doesn't tell you anything about someone other than their lack of belief in god. They could be authoritarian, libertarian, whatever.

I don't think Stalin ever started wars in the name of atheism. Atheism is largely peripheral to the communist system. But many a caliph, pope, etc. have used religion as a rallying cry to start and continue bloody conflicts. People do this still today. Zionists think Israel is theirs cuz it says so in a book.

But yes, authoritarian Christians in the US are very similar to the Taliban, they just haven't attempted to violently take control of the country yet, but they do pretty well by nonviolent means.

When I said "we should or shouldn't do this" I am simply giving my opinion that it is immoral to indoctrinate children into religions, as being coerced into believing things blindly severely hampers their critical thinking skills later in life. No, I'm not suggesting that laws be put in place to prevent kids from being taught religion. Although I bet NCL will quote mine me until it looks like I'm saying just that.

But If you bring your kids up to unquestioningly believe some supernatural bs and arbitrary laws, and tell them they will go to hell if they don't, you are doing a disservice to your kids and are honestly a bad parent.

Zionists also think Israel is theirs cuz a series of UN decisions and wars and because holocaust. Google Theodore Herzel (father of modern Zionism).

[PierzStyx]

I don't think Stalin ever started wars in the name of atheism. Atheism is largely peripheral to the communist system. But many a caliph, pope, etc. have used religion as a rallying cry to start and continue bloody conflicts. People do this still today. Zionists think Israel is theirs cuz it says so in a book.

I hate to be seen agreeing with NCL over just about anything, but I do here. Atheism isn't peripheral to Communism. Atheism is a vital part of the Communist ideology. Especially the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist schools of Communism. As a result any war fought o funded as a means to expand Communism's power are necessarily wars fought to expand the power of a specific brand of atheism. And there is a reason almost every Communist nation on the planet has been an avowedly atheist one.

That said, I don't agree with this whole "_______ KILLED MOAR AND IS WORSTEST OF ALL!!11!!1!" pissing contest people get into whenever this comes up. But if you're going to argue that religion is the singular reason while ignoring all the other factors that goes into something like the Crusades then the same logic condemns atheism. But if you're going to argue that atheism isn't the main reason Communists felt it was morally justifiable to over a hundred million people or that conflicts whose purpose is to spread "Godless Communism" aren't the same as conflicts to spread atheism then the same logic would suggest that whenever Popes and Caliphs declared wars the fundamental issues were more than simply religion.

[Influenza]

I could also take your statement and say I don't know how many times this needs to be said before Atheists will understand, but religion doesn't tell you anything about someone other than their belief in god. They could be authoritarian, libertarian, whatever. There are scoundrels in every group of people, yours and mine included. I am only judging you by your equating beating a child and using the state to intervene with raising a child in a belief and intervening. That is indeed what communism did in China, Russia, and other places.

And yes, those regimes did specifically execute religious people. I can't believe that you'd deny it.

1. I didn't deny that they killed religious people. You threw out huge numbers, 50 million christians and 100 million buddhists/whatever, and pretended like those numbers were all achieved due to them being targeted for the religion. I correctly pointed out that the vast majority were not targeted for their religion, but rather political affiliation or they starved to death due to the communist system.

Your counter-statement totally fails due to one important factor: faith. Religion does tell you something about a theist: that they likely can be compelled to believe things with no evidence. Atheists don't have that problem. Religious people can be more easily manipulated by powerful religious figures to fight in wars and to hate another group of people or anything else

[Vieux Canard]

In my experience all religions are libertarian and all religions are statist. It just depend son the followers. The Persian kings had no problem saying it was Mazda who had granted them victory and authority to rule over their enemy and the right to destroy those who threatened them.

Yes of course. People can justify any action especially those that gain them power. They can say what they want, but that has nothing to do with Mazda. Mazda would agree with you.

[RJB]

I already answered this.

You said we should "convince me otherwise," in post #62. Is this convincing done with polite discourse or a government gun?

[Influenza]

You said we should "convince me otherwise," in post #62. Is this convincing done with polite discourse or a government gun?

with the words im typing on this internet forum

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Religion does tell you something about a theist: that they likely can be compelled to believe things with no evidence. Atheists don't have that problem.

No evidence? There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God.

[RJB]

Religious people can be more easily manipulated by powerful religious figures to fight in wars and to hate another group of people or anything else

Dude, you must never have read of the French Revolution or the communist revolutions of the last century, nor have you met any SJWs-- Anyone is subject to delusion. It just so happens that in the last century, the authoritarians happen to be atheistic under the delusion of communism.

[PierzStyx]

While I agree with you to an extent, religion is used as a rallying cry to compel more people to join a conflict that otherwise may not involve themselves.

Maybe, but that would suggest then that religion isn't the cause of the conflict. At best in that case religion is an extenuating circumstance for those getting involved, i.e. the Pope saying its okay removes any lasting hesitations for something I already want to do. In which case you can't say religion causes wars. Those wars would have happened anyway. And they would have been just as destructive.

Now, you might argue that religion makes wars worse. And this may or may not be true. It may be that religions actually make wars less violent or bloody as the truly religious involved are less likely to carry out acts of brutality and inhumanity. Unfortunately, I don't see enough solid evidence for either position to be generally true. Religious wars and non-religious wars are both extremely brutal and inhumane. And both types have moments of genuine humanity in them, based both on specific religious values and some not.

EDIT: And your same line of think, that religion justified the violent actors, would logically apply to atheism- i.e. that the Communists, because they did not believe in eternal moral precepts of right or wrong and no God to judge them felt justified in doing whatever it took to spread their message, including murdering anyone who political, economically, or ideologically challenged them and their beliefs for supremacy. In this scenario atheism facilitates and justifies bloodshed. In which case, if the same logic leads you to condemn religion it should lead you to condemn atheism.

As I said before, I'm not interested in trying to prove one or the other is correct here. Religion can only be discovered by revelation. I'm more interested in logical consistency. Maybe getting you to let up on religion a little.

[RJB]

with the words im typing on this internet forum

Right...

[RJB]

with the words im typing on this internet forum

Do you think it's best to stop child abuse simply with words on the internet. I ask, because you equated the two.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I hate to be seen agreeing with NCL over just about anything, but I do here.

The more you hate, the more you love!

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Doesn't a lot of conflict and war usually come back to money? Stuff. Things. Land. Maybe a broad once in awhile.

[RJB]

BTW, some of the famines used by the Soviet Union were purposely weaponized to punish groups of people, and yes some of it was simply incompetence.

[Lamp]

Do you think it's best to stop child abuse simply with words on the internet. I ask, because you equated the two.

Forgive him. He's been listening to too many rick santorum speeches.

[heavenlyboy34]

Doesn't a lot of conflict and war usually come back to money? Stuff. Things. Land. Maybe a broad once in awhile.

Yup. All wars are bankers' wars, pretty much.

[Muwahid]

It's not a strawman at all. I'm not saying that you necessarily do those things. Many millions of religious people, however, do. Over a billion people believe the Quran to be the word of god. Quran 33:64-65 very clearly says that disbelievers in Allah and Mohammad will abide in hell forever. Obviously Mr. Ibn al Qayyim al Jawziyyah didn't read the quran very closely.

If you teach that the quran is the word of god (which you definitely would), and your children read that verse, wouldn't you be indirectly threatening them with eternal hellfire if they disregard the arbitrary laws contained in the quran?

My mom works at a muslim school and some of the people teach retarded $#@! like shooting stars are thrown by god to chase away eavesdropping devils. Luckily I wasnt brainwashed that badly.

Ibn Al Qayyim al Jawziyyah is one of the most revered scholars ever to live, a little more credible than an anonymous poster on a Ron Paul forum such as yourself.

The argument isn't that they leave jahanam, it's that the punishment (3'dhaab) of jahanam isn't eternal even if the place is. These are the nuances of religion you need to be educated to understand. It's why you can't just quote a verse of the Qu'ran as you did, and think you know the entire story. That's simple sophistry.

And Islam does not suggest shooting stars are to scare devils away, the parable is that they are pelted with fire if they try to listen to the conversations of angels. We believe these devils (jinn) to be not bound by our natural law and can transcend the natural and supernatural barriers.

People may assume it's shooting stars when they look up but that's not the case.

Also something being "retarded $#@!" isn't an argument and especially isn't an objective position.

[Influenza]

Ibn Al Qayyim al Jawziyyah is one of the most revered scholars ever to live, a little more credible than an anonymous poster on a Ron Paul forum such as yourself.

The argument isn't that they leave jahanam, it's that the punishment (3'dhaab) of jahanam isn't eternal even if the place is. These are the nuances of religion you need to be educated to understand. It's why you can't just quote a verse of the Qu'ran as you did, and think you know the entire story. That's simple sophistry.

And Islam does not suggest shooting stars are to scare devils away, the parable is that they are pelted with fire if they try to listen to the conversations of angels. We believe these devils (jinn) to be not bound by our natural law and can transcend the natural and supernatural barriers.

People may assume it's shooting stars when they look up but that's not the case.

Also something being "retarded $#@!" isn't an argument and especially isn't an objective position.

The punishment of hell is most commonly described as some sort of fire, although I imagine there may be some lesser punishments for less-"bad" people. If we look at the actual text of 33:64-65, I was wrong to say they would stay in jahanam forever - it says they will abide within the punishment forever.

Indeed, Allah has cursed the disbelievers and prepared for them a Blaze.

Abiding therein forever, they will not find a protector or a helper.

Unless the arabic word used doesn't mean blaze at all and it was a mistranslation, looks like anonymous ron paul forum member actually does know more then salafi hero ibn qayyim al jawziyyah.

Sorry about calling that shooting star story retarded $#@!, I should have been more specific. It's an infantile description of natural phenomena that has no basis in reality except for in the minds of the thoroughly brainwashed.

I'll try to respond to some ofthe other comments when i get home, those appear to be a bit more difficult and I may need to reassess some of my thoughts

[Zippyjuan]

A true Libertarian doesn't care what religion you are- you should be free to practice whatever one you choose to believe in.

[r3volution 3.0]

The history of communism begins with the Mazdakites, a low-church offshoot of Zoroastrianism (comparable to the Taborites or Coercive Anabaptists who emerged out of low-church Christianity in Europe some thousand years later). IMO, the crucial thing about religion, from a practical libertarian perspective, is whether it is low- or high church, not the specific theology. As soon as a group - Christian, Muslim, Hindu, whatever - starts taking a radically anti-materialist or anti-hierarchical stance, batten down the hatches. Whereas, most higher-church religions are relatively temperate: if not libertarian, at least not genocidal or totalitarian.

[Influenza]

Do you think it's best to stop child abuse simply with words on the internet. I ask, because you equated the two.

I think it depends on the severity of the child abuse. If it's a few slaps here and there I don't think it's necessary to involve any authorities. If it starts to cause real injury then obviously something should be done. While the authorities should get involved in some instances of abuse, we should also verbally dissuade people from all types of physical abuse, both minor and major. it Should be similar with religion. If just teaching normal religious stuff that 99.9% of everyone does, then its no problem. If they start teaching something like "aggressive violence against certain groups is justified", then it should probably be stopped. Though I guess it's pretty hard to enforce, and we definitely shouldn't increase the surveillance state to do so..