But that video is crazy. His idea of dimensions is a bit odd. Apparently Earth is one dimension and space outside of Earth is another. Wtf? Also, these silly comparations of strangelets to “strange flesh” would probably boggle an experienced scientist’s mind. I’m not one, for sure, but from what I’ve read about strangelets it’s a purely physical phenomenon on the level of subatomic particles yet he somehow equates it with this Nephilim dude or would be satan if I understood correctly.

Meh, waste of time. It’s food for the utterly ignorant. Pity some religious people dwell in ignorance and even treat it as strength.

I’ll bring the following into the argument without further comment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt1Yo610lG0

No argument there. So your non-ideology motion probably comes down to emphasizing an individual staying true to self instead of conforming to others, which I like (of course, correct me if I’m wrong).

In which case I think groups are just fine so long as they don’t cause you to be less of who you are just to conform.

> I’ll bite. A little.

I think I get the logic, but disagree with it. I’ll post some reasons…

> Consider a mentally ill person who keeps cutting themselves. Is it OK to take the knife away from them?

It may sound strange, but the experience of cutting himself might to him represent greater emotional reward than not doing so in which case he might actually consider your intrustion a “harm”. “Harm” has different meanings to different people which is why you can’t decide instead of others when to intrude and when not to.

That said, I’m not saying I wouldn’t prevent someone from cutting himself, but I would know full well that my force is force and that by initiating him I owe him a retribution should he seek it. I think I was explaining this point elsewhere where we discussed something similar. A voluntaryist sees initiation of force as an act that incures a liability even when its done with the best of intentions. It depends on the other person whether he will seek reparations for your force or not.

So..

Point 1: Responsibility for force used with good intentions is equal to force used with ill intentions (intent to harm).

> Consider a child that wants to play outside instead of studying. Should its parents be allowed to force it?

No. Induce with reward yes, but force (punishment) no. The reasoning from above also applies, albeit the need of it in this case seems less necessary. What if a child’s brain is developing more through play?

Point 2: Incentive is always better than force.

> Consider an adult. Do we ever grow so knowledgeable and wise that in all ways our lives affect others, and theirs affect ours, we know better what is good for us than anyone else does?

A belief into non-initiation of force does not equal the belief in that an individual always knows what’s best for him as it does not equal isolation, but peace. So if you want to force something on someone thinking it’s for his own good, better think twice about the question: Wouldn’t it be better that I incentivize him to do what I want him to do instead of forcing him?

And if all else fails, either give up or give in to that sad act of force, but please keep in mind you’re responsible for it and should be liable for reparations.

Point 3: Non-violence doesn’t require non-communication. We affect each other, and should affect each other, but never to the point of invading, without liability, each other’s liberty to be who we want to be at any point in time.

So the non-initiation of force principle still stands. I think it’s actually so fundamental to optimal social relations that it can’t be broken without serious consequences in its causality (action-reaction) chain.

> And finally, it is human nature to think “someone else” will solve a problem.

That’s actually an excellent point against government. It reinforces the mentality of “just following rules” instead of “taking initiative”.

Again, don’t use force - incentivize! Free market is VERY good at that. Even a non-free one we have has managed to finally bring about the green industry boom nowadays. I’m telling ya, that should’ve happened looong ago. I wonder why it didn’t… (hint: over-regulation, “natural” monopolies etc.).

> It’s shortsighted to dismiss religion as stupid superstition.

I agree, though a certain part of it really does seem to be that. I mean, take christianity for instance. The part about personal experiences people have with it I can understand, but I think they’ve misappropriating the cause of these experiences as proof of what are essentially superstitions.

I can understand that too though, I just wouldn’t deny those to be superstitions.

> And I agree, the world would be much better if everyone granted everyone else the freedom to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t harm others.

I’m glad to hear that. On face value that’s a voluntaryist statement, but I’m not sure since you seem to see harm a little differently than me. If things you can do without harming others include acts of force that prevents someone from “harming” himself (from your perspective on what harm to him is) then that’s the part I disagree with. Otherwise we’re on the same page.

Cheers

> … some strange logic …

I’ll bite. A little.

Not using force (which IMHO is not quite the same as open violence) can be very harmful.

Consider a mentally ill person who keeps cutting themselves. Is it OK to take the knife away from them?

Consider a child that wants to play outside instead of studying. Should its parents be allowed to force it?

Consider an adult. Do we ever grow so knowledgeable and wise that in all ways our lives affect others, and theirs affect ours, we know better what is good for us than anyone else does?

And finally, it is human nature to think “someone else” will solve a problem. If nothing, well, forces us to be that “someone else” ourselves a fair part of the time, we do end up in a fine pile of ****. It’s bad enough we have that on the international scale with global warming and floating garbage islands and whatnot, I’d rather not try out what would happen on the national scale.

To people who use “religion” as a way to explain things they don’t understand, I have one thing to say: don’t do that. But that’s something who has taken real effort in understanding their religion and then not lost that religion knows not to do. If they’re not extremists anyway.
In my opinion “religion as explanation of weird things” is mostly a straw man used by atheist fundamentalists nowadays. It’s shortsighted to dismiss religion as stupid superstition.

And I agree, the world would be much better if everyone granted everyone else the freedom to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t harm others.

Duh. That’s basically just a rephrasal of the same fundamental valuation, not an entirely new one.

> As long as I keep insisting initiation of force is not necessarily wrong, I don’t think we’re doing the same thing .

I meant the same thing in that you’re trying to make your own ideology of some sort to be a non-ideology. Of course the conclusion is either that every ideology can from a perspective of a given person be a non-ideology if it represents his “central core value”. Like.. why does doing no harm matter to you (although by some strange logic you regardless apparently support violence in some cases)? Isn’t that basically an ideology? That’s what I mean.

Same for me, non-coercion is my core value so if I were to reject all flags and “ideologies” what I’d be left with is non-coercion, but non-coercion is an ideology.

> I disagree. Yes, religion is force-fed to many, but that’s something else than an automatism. And living “right” is not easy at all in most religions.

Hmm, well ok, but it seems to me like we humans too easily fall for shortcuts towards explaining things we don’t understand, which is what religion often represents. That priests, monks and other religious leaders turn the basic desire to believe into a whole series of daunting chores is another thing. Bloat.. shall we say?

> Because it is well known how violent Buddhists can be .

Hmm, point taken.. But look at what their religion is all about.. it’s very individual centered and in a nutshell all about personal growth. I think the idea of individual liberty largely agrees with their views. That’s the kind of religion that I have most respect for - keep it for yourself, and I’ll keep mine for myself.

> Should we give up on the word “religion”? I’m still refusing to do the exact same thing with the word “hacker”.

Hmm.. that reminds me of the word “anarchy”, another one with corrupted meaning in the mainstream culture… (it means no archons or no government, but people use it as a synonym for chaos and violence).

> There is a word for “personal spiritual development using an existing method and some kind of connection to a community doing the same”, and that word is “religion”.

Ok, but my main concern is that many people don’t appear to see it as *personal*. Many religious people see their religion as ultimate and something everyone must believe in. I have no problem whatsoever with *personal*, but that’s not how a lot of them act about it.

And based on that, there are some others, such as “government depends on initiation of force, therefore government is wrong”.

> If you think I’m just insisting to make my own ideology the non-ideology you seek, you’re kinda right. I think you might be doing the same thing. Although you don’t apply a name to it like I do.

As long as I keep insisting initiation of force is not necessarily wrong, I don’t think we’re doing the same thing .

> Religion seems to come automatically while science requires effort.

I disagree. Yes, religion is force-fed to many, but that’s something else than an automatism. And living “right” is not easy at all in most religions.

> So if I had to choose between the two I’d always choose science.

It’s not a choice between two options, though, as I keep pointing out. You can have both (or neither, but I don’t recommend it).

> So I don’t really welcome efforts to promote religion because what it always comes down to is promoting one’s religion as superior to another’s, and ultimately justifications of violence.

Because it is well known how violent Buddhists can be .

> Science, like freedom, requires vigilance. Religion does not.

Where are you pulling that from? I must say the white rabbit isn’t very white. Try not to do anything prohibited by any serious religion for a while, and then tell me again it does not require vigilance.

Should we give up on the word “religion”? I’m still refusing to do the exact same thing with the word “hacker”.
There is a word for “personal spiritual development using an existing method and some kind of connection to a community doing the same”, and that word is “religion”. It’s a better because it’s shorter, and tax exempt in some places .

Another advantage to keeping the word religion is that we can call certain “personal development companies” what they are: dangerous cults. But that’s an entirely different subject matter.

And I think my comment comes down to this: replace “religion” with “personal development”. That way you remove the threatening part from the connotations and make it clear that it is a personal thing. It doesn’t mean “no-community” of course, as you can join with others who have discovered in themselves some commonalities in terms of what causes them to have spiritual experiences, what kinds of rituals they value etc.

Personal development (spiritual, social or ideological) is also very much in line with what we both seem to agree is “religion”. Unfortunately, we’re probably a small minority of people who would define it as such. So still calling it religion is probably counter productive.

Cheers

True. There is only one basic value judgment in voluntaryism: initiation of aggression is wrong.

Of course, in reality (described by science) there is no such thing as right or wrong, merely actions and reactions (consequences). When consequence an individual faces is bad (s)he is likely to interpret an action which is its cause as “wrong”.

So voluntaryism essentially postulates that every time an action involves initiation of force its subject will feel the consequence as a bad one. So, extrapolated to a macro level initiation of force causes a society whose members will like the least.

But perhaps most of all voluntaryist “dogma” is just a personal vow: “I will not initiate force on others nor support others in their initiation of force.”

> I say, whatever decision one is faced with, it is much better to think “how do I avoid harm to others and myself, and improve life for myself and others” than “hmmm, what does my ideology say about this?”.

You can define what harm is for yourself. However, you can only guess what harm could be for others and try not to do that. Same goes with “improvement”.

So for myself it’s the same thing rephrazed to: “how do I avoid coercing others while improving myself (to better my life and help better those of others)”.

If you think I’m just insisting to make my own ideology the non-ideology you seek, you’re kinda right.

I think you might be doing the same thing.

Although you don’t apply a name to it like I do.

> That does make it strange you would say “science is the only religion you need”, because trying to use the one in place of the other is just asking for trouble.

Right. Though I think replacing religion with science might be less harmful than replacing science with religion. We can hardly hope to entirely rid ourselves of the capability to do value judgments anyway so no matter how much we tried we probably wont lose that bit of ourselves.

It seems much harder for people to go from religion to science than from science to religion. Religion seems to come automatically while science requires effort. Even one who totally rejects all religion is still not void of desires and afinities and therefore of the ability to find purpose.

So if I had to choose between the two I’d always choose science. Religion doesn’t need to be asked for. It comes by itself. So I don’t really welcome efforts to promote religion because what it always comes down to is promoting one’s religion as superior to another’s, and ultimately justifications of violence.

Science, like freedom, requires vigilance. Religion does not.

So if you want to promote the idea of religion as “finding yourself and your purpose” then I’d suggest not using the term “religion” anymore, but rather something like “personal development”, be it spiritual, social or ideological (or non-ideological ).

About a true christian, there’s indeed quite a bit of contradiction in bible so you’re right it’s hard to claim one or the other way as the one christian way. I don’t really care though, and this only repels me from christianity even more.

I’ll watch that speech though (and post if I have comments), thanks.

I saw that coming. Voluntaryism does contain “[some line of reasoning] therefore X is wrong (or right)” type things, which does make it an ideology. Unfortunately the use of standardized reasoning can lead one away from compassion and self preservation. In misapplied voluntaryism I see victim-blaming (lead away from compassion) and allowing oneself to be ran over by market forces (lead away from self preservation). Because (and this of course excludes you) I often see voluntaryist (or anarcho-capitalist) arguments being applied to support evil of both types, I have grown allergic of them.

I say, whatever decision one is faced with, it is much better to think “how do I avoid harm to others and myself, and improve life for myself and others” than “hmmm, what does my ideology say about this?”.

I think we agree that religion and science do not overlap. That does make it strange you would say “science is the only religion you need”, because trying to use the one in place of the other is just asking for trouble.
Religion is not a science. Science is not a religion.

Now, does anyone need religion? I think most religions consist of three parts: spirituality, community and ideology.

Spirituality - one does need this, deciding on a purpose for ones life is a spiritual act (it’s fine to be rational about that, spirituality doesn’t imply a need of going all New Agey). It doesn’t necessarily have to come from a religion.

Community - we are social creatures, but we don’t necessarily need a _religious_ community.

Ideology (other word: dogma) - see above.

So, two parts of religion are necessities, but we don’t necessarily have to buy them in that package. Me, I’m a UU, a religion that happens to lack dogma and that compensates with strong community (and for many, including me, spirituality as well).

About Christianity - I’m not a Christian, but… There’s a bit of a difference between the old and new testaments. “You shall not kill” sounds nice, but if you take it in the context of the rest of the old testament, it seems to mean “you shall not kill Jews(/Christians) that did not sin”. For example Leviticus 20:13: “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

“You shall not kill, however sinners and those with other religions are fair game.”

Who is a true Christian? You will enjoy this: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/a_j_jacobs_year_of_living_biblically.html

I do wonder sometimes about that. But no, I write on impulse, when I think about something and then come up with words in my head that I feel like blogging out.

> The way to determine how to interact with others is simply to create a balance between (feeling) compassion and (reasoning) self-preservation.

That makes sense, although I think the two mix a lot and can be interchangeably used to pursue each other’s goals.. You can use reason in pursuit of what you feel good about or you can use feelings to fuel the pursuit of what you rationalize as the best course of action.

> So, you won’t see me wearing any labels or flags anymore. I am not a voluntaryist, a democrat, a fascist, a socialist, an anything. I am me, and I hope I manage to be a nice guy.

Great. However, at any point in time when you ask yourself who you are and what your core values are you might find that you fit one of the definitions of a given label or a flag. That’s not to say you should then adopt that flag. As much as they may sometimes be convenient, there are some significant disadvantages. Different people sometimes have dif

ferent conceptions of what a particular term represents. So there’s value in simply describing yourself directly, instead of using a label shortcut.

My balance happens to be in line with voluntaryism, and at this point I have no problem in using that label to identify myself. But it’s just a term and my beliefs are what they are and I will describe them as such. It’s not like I’m gonna join the voluntaryist party. (that’s a contradiction ).

Also, I could argue that voluntaryism IS the non-ideology. Be and let be? Have your ideas and let others have theirs? It seems like before any other idea can breath freely, the idea of non-aggression must be adopted. Of course, some may believe otherwise, and it’s up to them to live with the consequences of such a belief or discover it by themselves.

> Is someone selling this pill improving the world, or pushing drugs - selling a super-XTC?

It would probably be both. There’s no universal answer. It depends on an individual you ask.

If the fact that it is a pill which is causing a particular state of mind (emotional and rational) actually ruins something about that experience than by that fact alone the pill is not an acceptable part of the process. And this is something that can be included in the scientific report on “attaining spiritual experiences”.

> Spirituality is advanced intentional manipulation of intention.

Could “intention” perhaps be substituted by “desire” or “mental reward”?

That’s sort of how it seems. You intend because you want. Otherwise you wouldn’t really intend. Or if they aren’t quite the same, I think desire at the very least preceeds intention..

> Extreme “science instead of religion”: “Things are always right the way they are.” or “Take a pill, it’s the easiest way to feel good.”

Actually, those examples contain bits of “religious thinking” if you will, based on how you described religion above (manipulation of intention) and thus don’t describe pure science.

Pure science sees no valuations. It doesn’t say “things are always right”. There’s no such thing as “right” to science. There’s just existence. There’s also no “easiest way to feel good”, just a whole multitude of ways as dry facts. Everything else is something we add to these facts by ourselves, the judgments of right or wrong, good or bad, easy or difficult, preffered and disdained etc.

Science is basically nothing but knowledge and the process of attaining knowledge as part of it. This is why I said science is the only religion you will ever need. In a sense it’s true if “need” here refers to knowledge.

But if “need” also refers to a need of certain ways of feeling then it’s all up to you and any individual for himself or herself. However, you NEVER exit the realm of reality, everything you do will have a consequence. Hence one religion can make people do mass murders while another can make them benevolent and generous. And the realm of reality can only be described by science.

I think what you did basically is count religion as one set of value judgments and science as another, while science has no room for value judgments whatsoever.

> Science says: big bang; gravity; evolution.
Religion says: to do [something or another, it differs per religion]

True.

Religion is you. Science is the world around you.

> Have you noticed that religions tend to contain instructions for self improvement? Whether following the instructions actually improves you can be debated, I say “only if they make you something you want to be”.

Yes I did! And it makes sense if religion is about who you are and want to be in the universe.

Interestingly, I also saw a lot of parallels between voluntaryism and bible… like.. “Love thy neighbour as you love thyself”, “Do on to others as you would have others do on to you”, “You shall not steal.”, “You shall not kill.” etc. In fact, I’m fairly convinced a christian (at least those claiming to follow bible word for word) who supports government isn’t a true christian..