• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What Proves Your Religion, Or Lack of It?

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You want to impose your morality on the State.
Don't we all?
It's why we vote on legislation & leaders.
But your choice of the word "impose" is awkward, given that my
agenda is more liberty for all. This usually isn't called an imposition.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
Don't we all?
It's why we vote on legislation & leaders.
But your choice of the word "impose" is awkward, given that my
agenda is more liberty for all. This usually isn't called an imposition.
Liberty for all is neither the practical reality in terms of the desires of the population, it is unrealistic as a personal goal because we are constrained by our genetics.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Liberty for all is neither the practical reality in terms of the desires of the population, it is unrealistic as a personal goal because we are constrained by our genetics.
I've run across a common misunderstanding between libertarians & others.
When we (libertarians) talk of liberty, others will sometimes read this as
something extreme....total unfettered ability to do whatever one wants.
Well, of course that's not realistic. I don't propose that.

Instead, think having more freedom & civil rights than we do, but still
balancing competing individual rights to maximize liberty.
Some examples.....
- Government shouldn't have the ability to deny the accused a jury trial
(Petty Offense Doctrine).
- Government shouldn't be able to take real property from one party in
order to give it to another (Kelo v New London).
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
I've run across a common misunderstanding between libertarians & others.
When we (libertarians) talk of liberty, others will sometimes read this as
something extreme....total unfettered ability to do whatever one wants.
Well, of course that's not realistic. I don't propose that.

Instead, think having more freedom & civil rights than we do, but still
balancing competing individual rights to maximize liberty.
Some examples.....
- Government shouldn't have the ability to deny the accused a jury trial
(Petty Offense Doctrine).
- Government shouldn't be able to take real property from one party in
order to give it to another (Kelo v New London).
To me liberty means freedom to think freely and chart one's own destiny within the limitations of family and society. Acting totally freely is a pipe dream as one intrudes upon Nature with one's actions so that Nature has the option or need to fight back individual freedom. We are all inter-related. It brings one to the concept of dharma (duties and righteous actions) if one wishes to survive. Surviving outside of prisons and other forms of incarcerations like state-imposed mental restrictions or family restrictions is the only material freedom that one can hope to achieve. I guess libertarians would scoff at the idea of dharma but it is necessary for this form of survival. To survive one must have true knowledge, so Hindus focus on truth at all costs as the only spritual goal that generates liberty of the body as well as the mind.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I guess libertarians would scoff at the idea of dharma but it is necessary for this form of survival. To survive one must have true knowledge, so Hindus focus on truth at all costs as the only spritual goal that generates liberty of the body as well as the mind.
Libertarians are a diverse bunch.
So I'm sure that there are some who would agree with you.
But we wouldn't impose such religious views upon others
because that would be anti-liberty.

Btw, I'm surviving quite well without having any truth.
Reality is a complex & slippery thing, full of illusions.
It would be far above my pay grade to say anything
about it with absolute certainty, ie, call it "truth".
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
Libertarians are a diverse bunch.
So I'm sure that there are some who would agree with you.
But we wouldn't impose such religious views upon others
because that would be anti-liberty.

Btw, I'm surviving quite well without having any truth.
Reality is a complex & slippery thing, full of illusions.
It would be far above my pay grade to say anything
about it with absolute certainty, ie, call it "truth".
To be attached to anything including libertarianism sows the seeds of self destruction.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
To be attached to anything including libertarianism sows the seeds of self destruction.
Says one who is attached to his own philosophy, eh.
I disagree.
I like having government enhance liberty & prosperity.
(You aren't arguing for the opposite, are you?)
So if those are the "seeds of self destruction" then I'm planting them.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
Says one who is attached to his own philosophy, eh.
I disagree.
I like having government enhance liberty & prosperity.
(You aren't arguing for the opposite, are you?)
So if those are the "seeds of self destruction" then I'm planting them.
I am arguing for truth and truth accommodation: so that is arguing for something quite different. It is logical.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The process is logical not the outcome.
To apply logic in searching for truth, I'd need premises which are true.
That means they'd be objectively verifiable as not possibly false.
I don't have any such truths.
Whaddaya got?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
A lack of religion is "proven" by the lack of reliable evidence for any religion. Clearly that does not prove atheism in a formal sense, but it does tell you why many of us do not believe.
Since "atheism" is just not believing in any gods, I "prove my atheism" be recognizing that I don't believe in any gods.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
To apply logic in searching for truth, I'd need premises which are true.
That means they'd be objectively verifiable as not possibly false.
I don't have any such truths.
Whaddaya got?
If one constantly seeks truth and accommodates oneself within the new truths discovered so as to make only these the basis of all one's future actions moment by moment (erasing the previously held beliefs), this will continue to generate the truth within oneself to attain the goal of becoming infallible in ones thoughts and actions so that these are then beyond human or God-criticism. One therefore survives in the highest level of dignity possible for any human to attain.

Do you accept the logic of this truth-proposition?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
If one constantly seeks truth and accommodates oneself within the new truths discovered so as to make only these the basis of all one's future actions moment by moment (erasing the previously held beliefs), this will continue to generate the truth within oneself to attain the goal of becoming infallible in ones thoughts and actions so that these are then beyond human or God-criticism. One therefore survives in the highest level of dignity possible for any human to attain.

Do you accept the logic of this truth-proposition?
This all sounds like religious beliefs based upon feelings.
It's not true...it's not even untrue.
(My apologies to W Pauli for butchering the quote.)

I don't have truth.
I observe reality, & I have my own moral preferences.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Since "atheism" is just not believing in any gods, I "prove my atheism" be recognizing that I don't believe in any gods.
Since "atheism" is just not believing in any gods, I "prove my atheism" be recognizing that I don't believe in any gods
Could a theist say a similar thing?
Since "..theism" is just to do believe in any god, I "prove my theism" by recognizing that I do just believe in any god
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
This all sounds like religious beliefs based upon feelings.
It's not true...it's not even untrue.
(My apologies to W Pauli for butchering the quote.)

I don't have truth.
I observe reality, & I have my own moral preferences.
Thank you for sharing.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Since "atheism" is just not believing in any gods, I "prove my atheism" be recognizing that I don't believe in any gods
Could a theist say a similar thing?
Since "..theism" is just to do believe in any god, I "prove my theism" by recognizing that I do just believe in any god
Yes, they could: you can tell that you really are a theist by recognizing that you believe in one or more gods.

If we dig down a level or two, that's where the real meat is. Take me as an atheist:

- I don't believe in any gods because I haven't been convinced of any gods.
- Should I have been convinced of any gods? No: nothing I've seen personally has ever suggested a god to me and every argument for gods that I've ever read has had at least critical holes even if it wasn't based on demonstrably false premises or irrational arguments.

Now take the theist:

- They believe in a god or gods because they've been convinced of those gods existing.
- Should they have been convinced? I don't know - that's to be determined. Every time I've heard a theist explain why they believe, they've relied on either bad logic or premises that I consider dubious, so my money sure isn't on "yes."
 
Top