Daily Anarchist Forum
October 27, 2021, 10:49:59 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 14
  Print  
Author Topic: Converting an anarcho-communist  (Read 70753 times)
AgoristTeen1994
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 590


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: June 07, 2012, 12:40:58 PM »

I did that and used religious charities as an example, including one that my church helps out with. He then used that as an opportunity to attack religion and me. For example he said "You believe in Miracles, and thus you're against the scientific process, and thus progress" 1. I did not say I believe in miracles though I can understand how he came to that conclusion. and 2. I simply asked why does believing in miracles mean I"m against the scientific process and thus progress?
Logged

JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: June 07, 2012, 03:04:11 PM »

I did that and used religious charities as an example, including one that my church helps out with. He then used that as an opportunity to attack religion and me. For example he said "You believe in Miracles, and thus you're against the scientific process, and thus progress" 1. I did not say I believe in miracles though I can understand how he came to that conclusion. and 2. I simply asked why does believing in miracles mean I"m against the scientific process and thus progress?
Yeah. That's your weakness. You want to use reason and evidence to convert him to free markets, but you cling to superstition, mysticism, and faith in other intellectual spheres. That's inconsistent, and an example of "do as I say (think logically about my arguments), but not as I do (just believe and have faith)."

It's correct for him to call you out on it. As much as I have enjoyed helping you out in this debate, we've reached a point where you should look within yourself.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
AgoristTeen1994
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 590


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: June 07, 2012, 03:41:51 PM »

@JSNTS:

YOU see it as a weakness. I disagree because (among other reasons) I do not fear death BECAUSE of my religion... YOU see it as superstition, mysticism and faith. I disagree. Do you really understand how truly complex life and the universe is? HOW could that have happened through random chance? The odds of that happening through pure chance seem astronomical to me. No I do not take the creationist story in the Bible of "God said Let there be light, and there was light, and yada yada yada" as what actually happened, but more of a metaphor for how He created the universe and life. I was taught that much of the Bible, esp. the Old Testament as metaphorical. I was taught as a Catholic child that Evolution IS a real thing, and that it is how God caused things to arrive where they're at now in terms of Biology on this planet we call home.

You seem to believe that I hold to my religion unquestioningly simply because that was how I was raised...do you honestly believe I never questioned my religion? For 3 years I WAS not just an atheist, but an ANTI-theist, to word it as my anarcho-communist acquaintance call himself. Do you want to know what led me back to religion? My grandma, the woman who raised me since my dad's death, who when my deadbeat drug addict and whore of a mother couldn't be bothered to raise me, my grandma was more than she was. She was diagnosed with lung cancer, from years of smoking. It got to the point where the doctors gave her 6 months to live AT MOST and where they stopped treatment at HER request. I didn't want to give up on her and out of pure desperation I prayed. And do you want to know what happened? She lived. she is STILL alive today. after a month of me praying night and day, she started to get better, when it had been 8 months since the doctors had given her 6 months to live they checked, and couldn't find any trace of cancer in her body. I was honestly baffled since while I had prayed out of desperation deep, deep, deep down, I was sure I was going to lose her. I looked for every explanation I could find.....other than God. I talked to the various doctors she had gone too since then and not a single one could give me an explanation that wasn't based on what you call "superstition, mysticism, and faith"

You see I HAVE questioned my beliefs. I always do and always will. I don't just mindlessly take what the Bible and the pastors at the church I go to say, I honestly think about it and question it! Yet I always arrive at the same answer I have for the past 5 years since my grandma was miraculously healed.
Logged

AgoristTeen1994
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 590


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: June 07, 2012, 03:42:45 PM »

OBTW I"m sure you're going to call B.S. on what I said and that's fine with me. But it DID happen.
Logged

JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: June 07, 2012, 04:34:56 PM »

@JSNTS:

YOU see it as a weakness.
So does your ancom buddy, which is why I brought it up.

Quote
I disagree because (among other reasons) I do not fear death BECAUSE of my religion...
So in other words, without religion you would fear death. An outside observer would have to think that your conclusions were shaped partly (if not largely) by this fear. It's hiding from your mortality. It's deciding something (death) isn't real because it's uncomfortable to think about. That's not how you find truth.

Quote
YOU see it as superstition, mysticism and faith. I disagree. Do you really understand how truly complex life and the universe is? HOW could that have happened through random chance? The odds of that happening through pure chance seem astronomical to me.
I understand a lot. So much that I know I know nothing.

I've also gone through the "couldn't be chance" thing before. Thinking of the existence of the world in a probabilistic way doesn't have any meaning. There are no "odds." What if the universe just is? That's about all we can claim with anything resembling validity in these matters.

Quote
No I do not take the creationist story in the Bible of "God said Let there be light, and there was light, and yada yada yada" as what actually happened, but more of a metaphor for how He created the universe and life. I was taught that much of the Bible, esp. the Old Testament as metaphorical. I was taught as a Catholic child that Evolution IS a real thing, and that it is how God caused things to arrive where they're at now in terms of Biology on this planet we call home.
We had the same religious upbringings.

Quote
You seem to believe that I hold to my religion unquestioningly simply because that was how I was raised...do you honestly believe I never questioned my religion? For 3 years I WAS not just an atheist, but an ANTI-theist, to word it as my anarcho-communist acquaintance call himself. Do you want to know what led me back to religion? My grandma, the woman who raised me since my dad's death, who when my deadbeat drug addict and whore of a mother couldn't be bothered to raise me, my grandma was more than she was. She was diagnosed with lung cancer, from years of smoking. It got to the point where the doctors gave her 6 months to live AT MOST and where they stopped treatment at HER request. I didn't want to give up on her and out of pure desperation I prayed. And do you want to know what happened? She lived. she is STILL alive today. after a month of me praying night and day, she started to get better, when it had been 8 months since the doctors had given her 6 months to live they checked, and couldn't find any trace of cancer in her body. I was honestly baffled since while I had prayed out of desperation deep, deep, deep down, I was sure I was going to lose her. I looked for every explanation I could find.....other than God. I talked to the various doctors she had gone too since then and not a single one could give me an explanation that wasn't based on what you call "superstition, mysticism, and faith"
I'm sorry to hear about the loss of your father. It sounds like you had (or are having) a rough childhood. I'm glad to hear that your grandmother recovered.

Do you understand why using this as evidence is "against the scientific process" as the ancom acquaintance said? You claim and believe there to be a cause and effect relationship with nothing to back it up. Do you know how low the atheist rate is in America? It's very low. Almost everyone prays for their family members when they are dying, and feels the exact same pain that you did. The depth of their prayers is the same as yours. But the rates for survival, and the surprise recoveries can't be shown to have anything to do with prayers. Praying is really thinking. Do you get why claiming that your thoughts can affect other matter outside your body is unscientific?

Quote
You see I HAVE questioned my beliefs. I always do and always will. I don't just mindlessly take what the Bible and the pastors at the church I go to say, I honestly think about it and question it! Yet I always arrive at the same answer I have for the past 5 years since my grandma was miraculously healed.
Interesting. Certainly your upbringing still plays a role (I mean, you went back to the same religion, right?), but I see now that there is more. Have you ever heard of the book "Fooled by Randomness"? I'll copy and paste something from wikipedia:
Quote
Taleb sets forth the idea that modern humans are often unaware of the existence of randomness. They tend to explain random outcomes as non-random.

Human beings:

    overestimate causality, e.g., they see elephants in the clouds instead of understanding that they are in fact randomly shaped clouds that appear to our eyes as elephants (or something else);
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
Will
Full Member
***
Posts: 121


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: June 07, 2012, 06:41:42 PM »

Quote
It's correct for him to call you out on it. As much as I have enjoyed helping you out in this debate, we've reached a point where you should look within yourself.

Was it though? It sounds like he was just dodging the argument (that charities help fill a void), by attacking the examples religious grounding instead of addressing the actual issue: can charities offer enough support for *insert at-risk group here*.
Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: June 07, 2012, 06:56:49 PM »

Quote
It's correct for him to call you out on it. As much as I have enjoyed helping you out in this debate, we've reached a point where you should look within yourself.

Was it though? It sounds like he was just dodging the argument (that charities help fill a void), by attacking the examples religious grounding instead of addressing the actual issue: can charities offer enough support for *insert at-risk group here*.
I wasn't there, but it sounds like the conversation went in a direction where his religious beliefs were revealed. After that, people might not take you seriously. If in the middle of the conversation I told you I was a scientologist, and that yesterday I met with my alien gods, you might not take anything else I said seriously. I call it, gut-level-back-up-induction. It's the type of inductive reasoning where you think, "whoah, he believes that? That's bat shit crazy! At a gut level, I suspect insanity, *slowly backs away*."

If I was discussing anarchism vs statism with you, and I was for statism, and I said that Obama's rule was divinely inspired, it would be entirely appropriate for you to call bullshit, and then walk out on me. Reasoning is pointless in magic land.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
Will
Full Member
***
Posts: 121


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: June 08, 2012, 08:49:40 AM »

Quote
I wasn't there, but it sounds like the conversation went in a direction where his religious beliefs were revealed. After that, people might not take you seriously. If in the middle of the conversation I told you I was a scientologist, and that yesterday I met with my alien gods, you might not take anything else I said seriously. I call it, gut-level-back-up-induction. It's the type of inductive reasoning where you think, "whoah, he believes that? That's bat shit crazy! At a gut level, I suspect insanity, *slowly backs away*."

If I was discussing anarchism vs statism with you, and I was for statism, and I said that Obama's rule was divinely inspired, it would be entirely appropriate for you to call bullshit, and then walk out on me. Reasoning is pointless in magic land.

I still say that would be dodging the point, even if it is the most rational thing to do given the odds. I mean just because Sir Isaac Newton spent a great deal of his time trying to calculate when the world would end and how to turn random metals into gold that doesn't mean that classical mechanics are now invalid. Irrational beliefs and good arguments can co-exist, and the former is not a valid reason to reject the latter.

However, I understand that continuing to debate someone who drop some apparent irrationality on you may not seem to be worth your time. That's why it's important to know who you're debating if you really want to convince him. We often talk about what arguments to use against liberals/minarchists/communists/etc. but it is just as important to know which topics/arguments to avoid that would otherwise derail the conversation. Don't bring up religious things with an atheist, don't talk about your pro-pot position with a conservative, and if this weekend in /r/AnCap was any example don't bring up spanking with an AnCap. Wink The more you know about your opponent the better.
Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: June 08, 2012, 12:50:42 PM »

Quote
I wasn't there, but it sounds like the conversation went in a direction where his religious beliefs were revealed. After that, people might not take you seriously. If in the middle of the conversation I told you I was a scientologist, and that yesterday I met with my alien gods, you might not take anything else I said seriously. I call it, gut-level-back-up-induction. It's the type of inductive reasoning where you think, "whoah, he believes that? That's bat shit crazy! At a gut level, I suspect insanity, *slowly backs away*."

If I was discussing anarchism vs statism with you, and I was for statism, and I said that Obama's rule was divinely inspired, it would be entirely appropriate for you to call bullshit, and then walk out on me. Reasoning is pointless in magic land.

I still say that would be dodging the point, even if it is the most rational thing to do given the odds. I mean just because Sir Isaac Newton spent a great deal of his time trying to calculate when the world would end and how to turn random metals into gold that doesn't mean that classical mechanics are now invalid. Irrational beliefs and good arguments can co-exist, and the former is not a valid reason to reject the latter.

However, I understand that continuing to debate someone who drop some apparent irrationality on you may not seem to be worth your time. That's why it's important to know who you're debating if you really want to convince him. We often talk about what arguments to use against liberals/minarchists/communists/etc. but it is just as important to know which topics/arguments to avoid that would otherwise derail the conversation. Don't bring up religious things with an atheist, don't talk about your pro-pot position with a conservative, and if this weekend in /r/AnCap was any example don't bring up spanking with an AnCap. Wink The more you know about your opponent the better.
Agreed. On everything. Especially on the lessons learned. Don't open yourself up on multiple fronts if you're trying to convert someone to anarchism. The phalanx shatters!
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
AgoristTeen1994
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 590


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: June 08, 2012, 07:34:12 PM »

@JSNTS 1. Will does bring up some good points

2. Sorry I took so long to reply but my computer was screwing up and I had to figure out what the problem was and fix it. I'll definitely read your reply, consider it and offer a reply. That might take a while while I mull over what you said.
Logged

JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: June 08, 2012, 08:15:39 PM »

@JSNTS 1. Will does bring up some good points
I agree completely.

Quote
2. Sorry I took so long to reply but my computer was screwing up and I had to figure out what the problem was and fix it. I'll definitely read your reply, consider it and offer a reply. That might take a while while I mull over what you said.
Take your time. If more people were like you and spent their time mulling before typing, we'd all be better off *glares at Centinel*...although I too occasionally fail to adhere to this principle as I should.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
SinCityVoluntaryist
Left Rothbardian against the corporate state; Ron Paulian against the empire
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1238



View Profile
« Reply #26 on: June 12, 2012, 06:38:42 PM »

 AgoristTeen1994, I think this may help you:
http://lewrockwell.com/wenzel/wenzel184.html

 It's basically a diet for the mind. Grin
« Last Edit: October 26, 2012, 02:57:41 PM by JustSayNoToStatism » Logged

<iframe src="http://c4ss.org/c4ssnews/js1.0/c4ssnewsobject.html?ctc=eef467&clc=f4f367" id="c4niframe" width="160" height="360" style="margin: 0px;" scrolling="no" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Support the Molinari Institute:
http://praxeology.net/molinari.htm
MAM
Guest
« Reply #27 on: June 13, 2012, 08:23:22 PM »

I would point out that in a voluntary trade both people want what the other has and therefor both people win when the trade is concluded.
Logged
Josh D
Full Member
***
Posts: 153



View Profile WWW
« Reply #28 on: June 13, 2012, 08:39:27 PM »

I would point out that in a voluntary trade both people want what the other has and therefor both people win when the trade is concluded.

I had a statist try and argue that poor people can never make voluntary trades, because they don't have equal bargaining power with corporations.  This guy also said that advertising is a form of coercion, because it makes you do things that  you wouldn't otherwise do, and often in a way you aren't even conscious of.

Weird.

Logged
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: June 13, 2012, 09:02:18 PM »

Poor people can never make voluntary trades, because they don't have equal bargaining power with corporations. 

True
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 14
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!