State Worship Is Religion«Takeaways
• The reason Statism doesn't fit into the definitions of race, ethnicity, or culture cleanly is because it's a lie. Statism is just a religion trying to make itself out of more than it is, just like other religions do.
• I am NOT suggesting to leave your country. But recognize that you are not Americans, you are atheist, descendants of nationalists from a specific area, who share a culture from that area, which includes public/concerted schooling and other indoctrinations.
• I AM stating that it is wrong to call yourself American. This is just Statism taking credit for things it doesn't deserve, and using guilt to perpetuate the myth.
• America is not "our country" - that's just marketing. There is no need to support it blindly, just because their state religion is American patriotism.
• You are not hurting your family, disgracing your heritage, or helping the Nazis by telling the truth. You are NOT enabling another Holocaust. These are lies meant to manipulate you into lying.
• Honesty, to oneself and others, is a mitzvah.»
— Adapted from a Dave Silverman's speech.https://youtu.be/4NQOnjswuFI?t=5785
(102 min)Excerpt from YouTube comment thread:Soundcomplex
Shared publicly - Jun 30, 2016
Atheism doesn't mean to be left. But you may have noticed that you can't Reach a high conservative Position without being a believer.
You might want to have a chat with David Silverman on the topic.
You might want to rethink your Position.______Zephyr López Cervilla
Jul 2, 2016 1:28 PM [UTC]
David Silverman is still an American nationalist.______Soundcomplex
Jul 2, 2016 1:43 PM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla Exactly. He is not a leftist at all.
And he is an outspoken atheist.
So the premise that atheist=leftist is simply untrue.
If the political right in the Us would not tie themselves so much to christianity, far more atheist would be conservative.
But as it is now, the us would rather vote a muslim to be their president, than an outspoken atheist.
Thats exactly what the founding fathers wanted to prevent.
Conservative does not mean christian, and leftist does not mean atheist.
Its a false premise.______Zephyr López Cervilla
Jul 2, 2016 3:33 PM [UTC]
+Soundcomplex, I didn't claim that David Silverman was a leftist. I said that Siverman is a nationalist, and therefore, a statist. Apparently, Molyneux's criticism against "atheists" seems to be at least partially aimed at them being pro-government rather than leftists. Someone could be leftist and still against government (e.g., left anarchists). On the other hand, you can be conservative and at the same time statist (e.g., Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle, Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, Ronald Reagan).
+Soundcomplex: "Thats exactly what the founding fathers wanted to prevent."
— The so called "Founding Fathers" didn't found any state, the US budded from the British Empire. The so called "American Revolution" was actually a war of secession. A smaller piece of state became independent (sort of) from a bigger state.
+Soundcomplex: "Conservative does not mean christian, and leftist does not mean atheist."
— Conservative does not mean anti-state. It's worth to remember than all known states in history have been created and expanded by religious people, and that from the beginning governments have always sought legitimacy in religion (e.g., in Ancient Egypt).
I recommend you to have a loo to the following book to see the link between the State and religion:
• James C Scott. The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. Yale Agrarian Studies; Yale University Press (2009)
Today, the priests of Ancient Egypt has been just replaced by the caste of scientists, a new sort of infallible and incontestable authority:plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/5guXUiXUVSX
Jul 2, 2016 6:58 PM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla Today, the priests of Ancient Egypt has been just replaced by the caste of scientists, a new sort of infallible and incontestable authority:"
Are you really serious?
Science is a process, and a method. It changes following the evidence. Its the opposite of a religious dogma.
And where do you think that atheism comes into play?
On one side you claim that atheists are "pro state", on the other hand you claim that "It's worth to remember than all known states in history have been created and expanded by religious people, and that from the beginning governments have always sought legitimacy in religion (e.g., in Ancient Egypt)."
Which would mean that the opposition would be that Atheists are "anti-state" which is of course equally ridiculous.
So i wonder where you are going with this.
I appreciate your correction concerning the founding fathers though, although i think that everybody understood what i meant with that sentence. And i do not even start with some of them being atheists, which would be a counter argument to the claim that all states were founded on religion.
Moste european states are not, and in fact, most states (not all) which were founded on religion, were very oppressive against minorities, or other religious groups.
ie. the slaughtering of Hindus by the millions in the time of the islamic expansion (mogul era).
But thats the kind of discussion i would love to hear between Stefan and David Silverman.______Zephyr López Cervilla
Jul 2, 2016 10:23 PM [UTC]
+Soundcomplex: "Are you really serious?Science is a process, and a method."
1- Straw man argument. I clearly said "scientists", not "[s]cience".
2. Science is neither a process nor a method. Science means knowledge, and that's what it is. I'm aware that certain people want to restrict the term to a particular kind of knowledge, but I find utterly unnecessary.
+Soundcomplex: "Its the opposite of a religious dogma."
— Except for scientific dogma, right? For instance, that the laws of nature are constant over time.
+Soundcomplex: "On one side you claim that atheists are "pro state", on the other hand you claim that . . . Which would mean that the opposition would be that Atheists are "anti-state" which is of course equally ridiculous."
— You may have noticed that I wrote "atheists" between quotation marks. That is because I was specifically referring to the so called "atheists" that Molyneux is talking about. In my view, those self-proclaimed "atheists" who dogmatically defend the State are not truly atheists since for them Statism is a religion and the State their god, as Thomas Hobbes would refer to it: "a mortal god".
On the other hand, there's nothing "ridiculous" nor contradictory about those "atheists" being pro-State and the State having been created by religious people. Many of those "atheists" also probably take a day off on Christmas Day, a celebration of religious creation (be it Christian or pagan festivity).
+Soundcomplex: "Science is a process, and a method. It changes following the evidence."
— I bet that the ancient Egyptian priests also had very persuasive arguments (for the people of their time) to support that their knowledge was intrinsically superior to everybody else's knowledge, because… shit. Three thousand years from now, what you call "Science" will be essentially perceived as sheer priestcraft.______Zephyr López Cervilla
Jul 2, 2016 10:38 PM [UTC]
More about scientific dogmatism:
• Susan Haack. Peer review and publication: lessons for lawyers. Stetson L. Rev. (2006) vol. 36 pp. 789http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1089072http://www.stetson.edu/law/lawreview/media/peer-review-and-publication-lessons-for-lawyers.pdf
• Susan Haack. Trial and error: The Supreme Court's philosophy of science. American Journal of Public Health, Forthcoming (2003)http://126.96.36.199/evidence/content/haack.pdf
• Susan Haack. Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism. Skeptical Enquirer vol. 21.6 (Nov/Dec 1997)http://www.csicop.org/si/show/science_scientism_and_anti-science_in_the_age_of_preposterism
• Susan Haack. Six Signs of Scientism.
• Susan Haack. Defending Science Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism. Amherst, NY: Prometheus. A critical assessment by a logician and philosopher of science (2003)
• Susan Haack. Six Signs of Scientism. Rotman Institute of Philosophy at the University of Western Ontario. January 7, 2011.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0QmS783Kmw
• Susan Haack. The Integrity of Science: What It Means, Why It Matters. Institute for the Study of Western Civilization and Department of Philosophy at Texas Tech University. April 30, 2013.https://www.youtube.com/watch?vCQ1N_NKqFjU
Jul 3, 2016 7:46 AM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla "— Except for scientific dogma, right? For instance, that the laws of nature are constant over time."
When any counter evidence arises, the scientific community will follow the evidence.
Until now, they are constant.
I am sorry, thats the only point i found thats worth responding too.
Your source for scientific dogmatism all come from a single person, your idea that "self proclaimed atheists" are no real atheists, is just.... well crap. Its like saying that muslims are no real muslims if they are not peaceful, or that self proclaimed homosexuals are no real gays.
Who else decides if I am an atheist if not myself?
And Stefan is dead wrong in this video, thats what my comment was all about, thats why its ridiculous to cite HIM as an authority if the comment thread is full with people claiming him to be dead wrong, dont you think?______Zephyr López Cervilla
Jul 3, 2016 4:08 PM [UTC]
+Soundcomplex: "the scientific community will follow the evidence.Until now, they are constant."
— That's what any rational person would call a dogma. There's absolute no evidence that the laws of nature remain constant over a long period off time. Cosmologists would rather believe in the existence of something they've coined "dark energy" than consider that the laws of nature may change over time. The "scientific community" isn't following any evidence on that matter.
+Soundcomplex: "I am sorry, thats the only point i found thats worth responding too."
— The expected emotional reaction of a dogmatist.
+Soundcomplex: "Your source for scientific dogmatism all come from a single person,"
— Even assuming that the above statement were accurate, you'd be committing a basic logical fallacy. The correctness of an statement isn't a matter of popularity or consensus.
+Soundcomplex: «your idea that "self proclaimed atheists" are no real atheists, is just.... well crap.»
— Not an argument.
+Soundcomplex: "Its like saying that muslims are no real muslims if they are not peaceful, or that self proclaimed homosexuals are no real gays."
— And that's a false/weak/bad analogy:«Description: When an analogy is used to prove or disprove an argument, but the analogy is too dissimilar to be effective, that is, it is unlike the argument more than it is like the argument.»https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/181/Weak-Analogy
More about the manipulative use of analogies:
• Scott Adams. The Belgium Analogy. Scott Adams' Blog (Dilbert.com). March 22, 2016.blog.dilbert.com/post/141490448161/the-belgium-analogy
• Scott Adams. Bumper Sticker Thinking. Scott Adams' Blog (Dilbert.com). March 19, 2016.blog.dilbert.com/post/141310196656/bumper-sticker-thinking
• Scott Adams. Let’s Talk About Hitler. Scott Adams' Blog (Dilbert.com). March 10, 2016.blog.dilbert.com/post/140800778006/lets-talk-about-hitler
• Scott Adams. A Voter’s Guide to Thinking. Scott Adams' Blog (Dilbert.com). December 14, 2015.blog.dilbert.com/post/135197159371/a-voters-guide-to-thinking
+Soundcomplex: "Who else decides if I am an atheist if not myself?"
— How about learning first what atheism is from a reputed source such as Encyclopaedia Britannica? In the following article you'll find a full transcript of the Britannica article on atheism:
• On the Definition of the Words Atheism and Atheist. EvilBible.com.evilbible.com/definition-of-atheismexminister.org/Nielsens-definition-atheism.htmlamericanatheism.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/541
• Kai E Nielsen. Atheism. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.global.britannica.com/topic/atheism
About the author:
• Kai Nielsen (philosopher). Wikipedia.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kai_Nielsen_(philosopher)
+Soundcomplex: "Stefan is dead wrong in this video, thats what my comment was all about, thats why its ridiculous to cite HIM as an authority"
— A further fallacy, a straw-man argument. I never cited him as an authority. I simply refer to him to specify the kind of "atheists" Molyneux was referring in his video. Namely, those who believe in the existence of the state and/or dogmatically defend it:
+Zephyr López Cervilla: «You may have noticed that I wrote "atheists" between quotation marks. That is because I was specifically referring to the so called "atheists" that Molyneux is talking about. In my view, those self-proclaimed "atheists" who dogmatically defend the State are not truly atheists»
On the other hand, even if Molyneux is "dead wrong" on some issues it doesn't necessarily mean that he must be wrong in everything else. Either way, I never cited "HIM" as an authority to support any of the conclusions of my arguments.______Soundcomplex
Jul 3, 2016 4:38 PM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla What the heck is your point?______Zephyr López Cervilla
7:55 PM [UTC]
+Soundcomplex, dude, I told you already in my first comment: David Silverman wouldn't be a good replica to counter Molyneux because Silverman is a nationalist who believes that he must defend the state he calls "America". In the following speech you can hear David Silverman when suggesting such thing (from 38:40 to 39:30):
• Dave Silverman. "I'm an Atheist (And So Are You); Why I've Changed My Mind on Jewish Atheism". FreeThought Arizona. Tucson, October 2013.https://youtu.be/4NQOnjswuFI?t=2320
To counter Molyneux's arguments, you would need an atheist anarchist or some atheist who doesn't believe in the State but is willing to perpetuate the myth of the State for self interest. Someone like a civil servant or a politician who rationally thinks that he or she is better off with a widely held belief in the State even though he or she is a non-believer in the State.______
URL source YouTube comment thread:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqQdc0mX1_c&google_comment_id=z12avrmqmqqienjhw04cd5zhsmf5udpo43g______________
Larken Rose explains more articulately this same argument in the following video:
• Larken Rose, Harvey Lester (video editor). Statism: The Most Dangerous Religion. Liberty or Death Media. September 25, 2014.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uVV2Dcqt0
As for the State being a god for those who defend it, this idea isn't actually particularly new. It was already formulated by Thomas Hobbes in the 17th century:«But today, I want to talk about sovereignty. There are two great concepts that come out of Hobbes that you have to remember. One is the state of nature and the other is sovereignty. I spoke a bit about the first one yesterday or Monday rather. Today, I want to talk about Hobbes's theory of the sovereign state, the creation of the sovereign. Hobbes refers to the sovereign as a mortal god, as his answer to the problems of the state of nature, the state, the condition of life being solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. And it is only the creation of the sovereign for Hobbes, endowed or possessed with absolute power, that is sufficient to put an end to the condition of perpetual uncertainty, anxiety and unrest that is the case of the natural condition.»
— Steven Smith. The Sovereign State: Hobbes, Leviathan.
[October 25, 2006] Chapter 1. Introduction: Hobbes's Theory of Sovereignty. PLSC-114: Introduction to Political Philosophy. Open Yale Courses.oyc.yale.edu/transcript/789/plsc-114«In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.»
— Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan.
(p. 7) «At a time when the state seems pervasive and inescapable, it is easy to forget that for much of history, living within or outside the state—or in an intermediate zone—was a choice, one that might be revised as the circumstances warranted. A wealthy and peaceful state center might attract a growing population that found its advantages rewarding. This, of course, fits the standard civilizational narrative of rude barbarians mesmerized by the prosperity made possible by the king’s peace and justice—a narrative shared by most of the world’s salvational religions, not to mention Thomas Hobbes.This narrative ignores two capital facts. First, as we have noted, it appears that much, if not most, of the population of the early states was unfree; they were subjects under duress. The second fact, most inconvenient for the standard narrative of civilization, is that it was very common for state subjects to run away. Living within the state meant, virtually by definition, taxes, conscription, corvée labor, and, for most, a condition of servitude; these conditions were at the core of the state’s strategic and military advantages.»
— James C Scott. The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. Yale Agrarian Studies; Yale University Press (2009)
I noticed an equivocation with the meaning of "government", a term that is used with different meanings in different cultures and languages. What many Americans call "government" quite often corresponds to what other people call the "state". For instance, the title of the work by Frédéric Bastiat "L'état" ("The State") quite often is translated as "Government". E.g.,«"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."»http://bastiat.org/en/government.html
Original in French:«L’État, c’est la grande fiction à travers laquelle tout le monde s’efforce de vivre aux dépens de tout le monde.»http://bastiat.org/fr/l_etat.html
Translation into Spanish:«El Estado es la gran ficción a través de la cual todo el mundo se esfuerza en vivir a expensas de todo el mundo.»http://bastiat.org/es/El_Estado.html
But not always:«The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.»http://econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss5.html«The Stateis the great fictionthrough which everybodyendeavors to live at the expense of everyone else.»http://panarchy.org/bastiat/state.1848.html
— Frédéric Bastiat. The State
[L'État]. Journal des Débats (1848) vol. 4 (September 25, 1848) p. 332http://econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss5.htmlhttp://panarchy.org/bastiat/state.1848.html
Clearly what is tangible is not the State, but rather the people who represent it and work for it, what in French and Spanish would be called the government of the administration of the state. That's the equivalent to the Church or its clergy, whereas the intangible State would be the worshiped god (as Thomas Hobbes rightfully referred to it in Leviathan, see above), and Statism (the belief and worship in the State) the religion.______
URL source comments G+ posts:plus.google.com/109211348423783563895/posts/AQ7BA4Wi8o3plus.google.com/109211348423783563895/posts/5X3CA89Mmxk______________
URL related G+ posts:plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/XzKeko4tb3pplus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/Xk3Q6kCTC6rplus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/etRpPcFbH3splus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/fkwuszusZ9bplus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/CcV6rqc2mbrplus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/Ywg1DhGHGyz______________