It's funny how pweople alwasy use the "human nature" argument to imply that human nature is only capable of ill, ignoring the fact that most people make altruistic acts every day! (outside the economy)
Also even assuming human nature is bad, the burden of proof is on them to show that the state can fix it. If you have a monopoly of power won't the people in the government with their bad human natures just abuse it?
I did think that it was really ironic to hear chadd talk about how it was fine to ridicule creationists since their arguments are unintelligible, but not statists.
I just cracked open a bottle of Yingling and started on some anarchist mp3s. I've died and gone to... my computer. lol Thanks for all the links. One of the reasons why you are one of my favorite anarchist YouTubers.
By "creationism" do you mean "non-evolutionary creationism"?
If that is the case, it is because it flies in the face of all available data. I see the state as an unjustifiable superstition, based upon cultural indoctrination. History and our experience shows what governments do - and the common fears of "anarchy" are ridiculous in this light.
There are some not-so-common issues that, well, simply haven't had their day in court yet. I await the chance to run the trial.
There is no difference in the two for me. I do not care about all of the specifics. Creationism to me is that we did not come from nothing, which also brings common sense into play. All theories of how the earth and universe came into being fail without the belief in an unknown being which was always in existence. You cannot get something from nothing.
I'm gonna send you a link to something I did a few months ago, the person I directed it at did not take offense, so i figure I actually did.. well, what I haven't been doing the past few days here. ;)
I'm pretty confident that no evolutionary scientist will argue that we came from nothing. Also, creationism is pretty much "God brought us into being from nothing" anyway, isn't it?
"everything coming from nothing" is a cosmological question, not an evolutionary one (as far as I can tell, smith is not mixing the two up, as many "creationists" do.
Of course, the "cosmological argument" states that "god always was"
Based on what we can observe and calculate, one might infer that *something* preceded the most distant point we can presently consider (the Plank Epoch, 0 to 10^-43 s). Positing a "being" is not a leap justified by what is known, short of invoking personal incredulity. Assigning attributes to this ad hoc "being" generally doesn't help, either.
The attributes is based upon whatever you choose to believe. If you believe a rock has always been, and was the beginning then more power to you. I don't really care one way or the other personally. If something that has always been is not a "being", then it is nothing more than an object, then therefore has not always been, as the object did not create itself from nothing.
I'm not sure what your last statement meant or why it's relevant.
As soon as someone appeals to a murky term such as human nature, you know they have run out of ground to stand on in terms of their position. EVERYTHING that people do is within human nature making the term useless.
Wow...
zykkfyw 2 years ago
It's funny how pweople alwasy use the "human nature" argument to imply that human nature is only capable of ill, ignoring the fact that most people make altruistic acts every day! (outside the economy)
Also even assuming human nature is bad, the burden of proof is on them to show that the state can fix it. If you have a monopoly of power won't the people in the government with their bad human natures just abuse it?
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
I did think that it was really ironic to hear chadd talk about how it was fine to ridicule creationists since their arguments are unintelligible, but not statists.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Fuck yes!
Anarkee mp3s.
Time to kill the anarchy newfag within!
Morrakiu 2 years ago
I just cracked open a bottle of Yingling and started on some anarchist mp3s. I've died and gone to... my computer. lol Thanks for all the links. One of the reasons why you are one of my favorite anarchist YouTubers.
woodsofodin 2 years ago
Have ever listened to the spoken word of Jello Biafra?
b3rtne 2 years ago
Yes. Why do you ask?
Did I unconscoiusly bite one of his lines? Or am I doing his awesome sneer? I do use some aspects of his tone of voice at times
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
Yeah, your ranting kind of reminds me of him. And thats a good thing.
b3rtne 2 years ago
dead kennedys= my fav band
fps0chris 2 years ago
You have good taste. Objectively. :)
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
DK are pretty great.
b3rtne 2 years ago
FAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAP!
UcanbeGOD 2 years ago
Category: Comedy
True!
WW3hasalreadybegun 2 years ago
Well, it of course actually belonged on HIS video...
*shrug*
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
What is it that most anarchists (mostly also atheists lol) feel the need to demonize and make fun of creationism?
smttysmth02gt 2 years ago
because it's ridiculous and gives people an excuse to build organised religions, which are a form of tyranny.
TheWiretap 2 years ago
By "creationism" do you mean "non-evolutionary creationism"?
If that is the case, it is because it flies in the face of all available data. I see the state as an unjustifiable superstition, based upon cultural indoctrination. History and our experience shows what governments do - and the common fears of "anarchy" are ridiculous in this light.
There are some not-so-common issues that, well, simply haven't had their day in court yet. I await the chance to run the trial.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
There is no difference in the two for me. I do not care about all of the specifics. Creationism to me is that we did not come from nothing, which also brings common sense into play. All theories of how the earth and universe came into being fail without the belief in an unknown being which was always in existence. You cannot get something from nothing.
smttysmth02gt 2 years ago
Oh, than I'm a creationist.
I'm gonna send you a link to something I did a few months ago, the person I directed it at did not take offense, so i figure I actually did.. well, what I haven't been doing the past few days here. ;)
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
Excellent. I'm on IM.
smttysmth02gt 2 years ago
I'm pretty confident that no evolutionary scientist will argue that we came from nothing. Also, creationism is pretty much "God brought us into being from nothing" anyway, isn't it?
SeruQuik 2 years ago
No. Not IMO anyway.
smttysmth02gt 2 years ago
"everything coming from nothing" is a cosmological question, not an evolutionary one (as far as I can tell, smith is not mixing the two up, as many "creationists" do.
Of course, the "cosmological argument" states that "god always was"
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
"fail without the belief in an unknown being"
Based on what we can observe and calculate, one might infer that *something* preceded the most distant point we can presently consider (the Plank Epoch, 0 to 10^-43 s). Positing a "being" is not a leap justified by what is known, short of invoking personal incredulity. Assigning attributes to this ad hoc "being" generally doesn't help, either.
"You cannot get something from nothing."
Consciousness requires an object.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
The attributes is based upon whatever you choose to believe. If you believe a rock has always been, and was the beginning then more power to you. I don't really care one way or the other personally. If something that has always been is not a "being", then it is nothing more than an object, then therefore has not always been, as the object did not create itself from nothing.
I'm not sure what your last statement meant or why it's relevant.
smttysmth02gt 2 years ago
Eugine's last statement goes to the issues of dualism, materialism, and the question of gods as relates to some arguments put forward from them.
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
As soon as someone appeals to a murky term such as human nature, you know they have run out of ground to stand on in terms of their position. EVERYTHING that people do is within human nature making the term useless.
ModelAnarchist 2 years ago