[Lemmy]

sandorski sandorski:

Let's drag this back on topic. Can one Prove God does not exist?

At what statistical confidence level?

[sandorski]

Lemmy Lemmy:

sandorski sandorski:

Let's drag this back on topic. Can one Prove God does not exist?

At what statistical confidence level?

>0

[Thanos]

Lemmy Lemmy:

You've made 'liberatarian' a dirty word in your own head. You can't seem to distinguish between the vast MAJORITY of libertarians who are of the Bill Maher ilk, not the Rand Paul camp. Most of us are small government, small L liberals who believe our freedoms need equal protection from corporations as from governments. We believe in law enforcement, consumer protection and regulated markets. We support public education, public healthcare, same-sex marriages, etc, etc. You've somehow taken the Right-wing, nutbar Republican Teabaggers and wrongly labelled that lot as libertarians. They're not. Liberatarianism is nothing like what you perceive it to be. You need to find something else to call these idiots. They offend me (and most liberatrians) just as much as they offend you.

Everything you listed suggests that you're far more of a social and economic moderate than a libertarian. I'm very careful to differentiate between social liberals/moderates (Bill Maher/yourself apparently) and libertarians like the Pauls/TeaBirchers. I've watched the past three years of libertarian political activity in the US very closely. I see nothing that the 'new' TeaBircher movement is pushing that it too different from what the organized libertarians have been saying for decades. All it is can be boiled down to an irrational hatred of government (especially when Democrats are in charge), an elevation of the private sector to near-Godlike levels of (alleged) infallibility, and a continuing right-wing contempt for non-social conservatism.

I doubt that any of your beliefs would be too welcome today among those who are calling themselves libertarians. It's probable that the use of the word 'libertarian' no longer means what it used to, as the goalposts have been moved around so much recently that the original labels and definitions no longer apply. I find this trun with myself because I'd sure never call myself a liberal but I can't reconcile myself anymore to what so-called conservatives have been doing with themselves and embracing lately.

[Thanos]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Speaking of being an ignorant dick...

The very thin live and let live veneer quickly disappears beneath yet another fanatic out to have society conform to the narrow arcs of fire of his own morality.

Obviously you're taking this thread very personally for whatever reasons of your own. I'll apologize for whatever it was I did that made you angry and politely withdraw from all of this right now. Peace out bro!

[Lemmy]

Thanos Thanos:

Everything you listed suggests that you're far more of a social and economic moderate than a libertarian. I'm very careful to differentiate between social liberals/moderates (Bill Maher/yourself apparently) and libertarians like the Pauls/TeaBirchers. I've watched the past three years of libertarian political activity in the US very closely. I see nothing that the 'new' TeaBircher movement is pushing that it too different from what the organized libertarians have been saying for decades. All it is can be boiled down to an irrational hatred of government (especially when Democrats are in charge), an elevation of the private sector to near-Godlike levels of (alleged) infallibility, and a continuing right-wing contempt for non-social conservatism.

I doubt that any of your beliefs would be too welcome today among those who are calling themselves libertarians. It's probable that the use of the word 'libertarian' no longer means what it used to, as the goalposts have been moved around so much recently that the original labels and definitions no longer apply. I find this trun with myself because I'd sure never call myself a liberal but I can't reconcile myself anymore to what so-called conservatives have been doing with themselves and embracing lately.

I can live with that. But libertarians, as I define them, are overwhelmingly supporters of the Democratic Party in the USA, not the Republicans. I only reluctantly accept the label of libertarian, because, as you say, the goal-posts have moved. But I'd like to take it back, like "porch monkey". Maybe the philosophy you've been searching for IS this thing Bill Maher calls libertarianism. Maybe the label you dread is the label you've been searching for.

[Gunnair]

sandorski sandorski:

Gunnair Gunnair:

sandorski sandorski:

Why do Religions need Buildings costing, in many cases, $Millions? Seems like a much larger waste of $ than an Ad campaign.

Holy fuck... really?

Why do we need football stadiums costing Millions?

Basically, we don't, but that's besides the point.

Not really. It's very much the point.

[Thanos]

Lemmy Lemmy:

I can live with that. But libertarians, as I define them, are overwhelmingly supporters of the Democratic Party in the USA, not the Republicans. I only reluctantly accept the label of libertarian, because, as you say, the goal-posts have moved. But I'd like to take it back, like "porch monkey". Maybe the philosophy you've been searching for IS this thing Bill Maher calls libertarianism. Maybe the label you dread is the label you've been searching for.

I've really only turned to this way of thinking because I find the anti-government/anti-state/economic-Darwinist ideology of the libertarians that have drifted into the conservative/GOP camp so absolutely appalling. And horribly dangerous. I'll say right now that I'm not a booster or supporter of any government that's grown so large that it interferes in practically every human activity under it's watch. But I also keep what Hobbes said in "Leviathan" first and foremost in my mind, in that an environment lacking a state to enforce proper behavior a particular brand of chaos inevitably ensues that victimizes everyone except the socipathic predators that thrive in these sorts of situation. Libertarian ideology seems uniquely unable to form a proper defensive response for it's system when that system is being attacked and exploited by the sort of psycopathic greed and self-interest that is interested far more in the short-term enrichment of the exploiter than it ever is in the long-term health of the libertarian-derived system.

Libertarianism seems identical to Communism in one aspect, and that it that it only expects good things to happen when it's theories are put into practice. When it finds that reality intrudes on it's delusions it has no response except to surge further forward with the same wrong-headed thinking regardless of the consequences that are erupting all around it. I use what happened in Alberta back in the 1990's as an example. Our utilities, which were owned and operated by the government, were deregulated and sold off. The exact opposite of what was promised resulted, in that prices to the end customer never went down but skyrocketed instead and the system became even more chaotic instead of being streamlined like they claimed they would be. It's bad enough that, here in the heart of oil & gas country, we actually end up paying more now for these utilities than any other end user further down the line ever does. Instead of anyone ever admitting that they were wrong, and returning the system to safe and stable government control, the libertarian economic boy geniuses who thought up the entire scam in the first place, said "we didn't go far enough and we need to be deregulated even further". Like seriously, WTF??? Who the hell's in charge of this fantasy anyway, Hitler in his last-days-in-the-bunker mode? This is when I became convinced that this type of libertarian thinking was actually closer, just like Communism, to a form of insanity in that the failed theory still ends up being defended to the very end, irregardless of it's obvious failure or of how much real-world damage and destruction it's caused.

I doubt I'll be ever able to trust this sort of thinking. The dreams of libertarianism are too far outside of the real world for me to ever take it seriously as an acceptable alternative or useful plan for enlightened governance.

[sandorski]

Gunnair Gunnair:

sandorski sandorski:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Holy fuck... really?

Why do we need football stadiums costing Millions?

Basically, we don't, but that's besides the point.

Not really. It's very much the point.

[jason700]

As an atheist, I feel it would be more beneficial to NOT have people like sandorski arguing on my side. Just want to reassure everyone that he does NOT represent all atheists.

[sandorski]

jason700 jason700:

As an atheist, I feel it would be more beneficial to NOT have people like sandorski arguing on my side. Just want to reassure everyone that he does NOT represent all atheists.

lol, never have claimed to represent all Atheists. In fact, that would be difficult to do.

[Gunnair]

jason700 jason700:

As an atheist, I feel it would be more beneficial to NOT have people like sandorski arguing on my side. Just want to reassure everyone that he does NOT represent all atheists.

[Gunnair]

sandorski sandorski:

jason700 jason700:

As an atheist, I feel it would be more beneficial to NOT have people like sandorski arguing on my side. Just want to reassure everyone that he does NOT represent all atheists.

lol, never have claimed to represent all Atheists. In fact, that would be difficult to do.

You could be the Athiest Pope...

All you have to do is provide arguments that tend not to answer questions, muddy morality, and lead away from the topic at hand.

Oh wait...

[Gunnair]

sandorski sandorski:

Gunnair Gunnair:

sandorski sandorski:

Basically, we don't, but that's besides the point.

Not really. It's very much the point.

[Khar]

sandorski sandorski:

Let's drag this back on topic. Can one Prove God does not exist?

It's something you can't refute and something you can't support. Quite literally, no one, not atheists, and not theists, can prove anything, or provide definitive, damning evidence either way about the existence of deities.

[Brenda]

Khar Khar:

sandorski sandorski:

Let's drag this back on topic. Can one Prove God does not exist?

It's something you can't refute and something you can't support. Quite literally, no one, not atheists, and not theists, can prove anything, or provide definitive, damning evidence either way about the existence of deities.

Which makes us all equally right. I guess we can end the discussion here