Some Libertarians are Real Dicks

RonPaulSucksOn a recent episode of Geeks Without God, they had a friend on named Mark Lazarchic who self-identifies as an agnostic because he hates atheists.  Why?  What’s his biggest reason for hating atheists?  Because when he stopped being religious, people that he thought  cared about him stopped talking to him and apparently, atheists pointed out reality. Therefore, atheists are bad.

What the fuck?

He says that he doesn’t think religion is bad?  Look at the fucking Religious Horror Show.  All religion is bad because all religion gets in the way of people accepting the actual, demonstrable reality that surrounds them. Any belief system which stops you from dealing with the real world is, by definition, harmful.  How do people not see that?

Oh wait, some people aren’t interested in the truth, they want everyone to feel good and that seems quite evident about this Mark guy.  He has the same problem that so many liberals do, they’re all about emotions and not very interested in reality.  He doesn’t want to tell his family that he’s an atheist because they might feel bad.  He doesn’t want to debate theists  because they might be unhappy.  He’d rather just live in his own little world where he can pretend that the people around him aren’t delusional because he just wants everyone to be contented.

Sure, and maybe the abolitionists should have just kept their mouths shut because they feared that the slave owners might have gotten depressed.

Of course, the guy is a Libertarian so it’s not surprising why his views are so skewed.  Well, as he says, he’s a bad Libertarian, he’s really a liberal in disguise… more of a Liberaltarian.  He’s okay with religion because people consent to it but he hates government because people don’t consent?  Of course they do!  They agree to live in the country and they vote for their representatives!  Oh wait, he doesn’t want to move!  He doesn’t want to actually find a country which he likes, apparently he looked and couldn’t find anywhere else that’s any better so he thinks he can sit here and ignore the culture, society and government we have because it makes him sad?

What a fucking idiot!

Now I don’t know, maybe he is a great guy, other than his really bizarre beliefs on politics and religion, but he’s a great illustration of why I detest these kinds of irrational, illogical morons.  They don’t care about reality, they don’t care about the facts, they just want to twist things into a comfortable little bubble where they can live, content with their own delusions.  That does not help the world.  As I’ve said before, one of the most important steps in the maturation process is coming to grips with the actual world around you.  It’s dealing with reality on reality’s terms.  It’s deciding that your own happiness isn’t the goal of existence, you have to find a way to be happy, regardless of what’s going on around you and if you can’t, you have to get off your ass and try to do something about it.  This guy, and I’m sorry if I’m being really hard on him, but he is everything wrong in the world.  Someone with strong, irrational views and at the same time, someone who is afraid to do anything about it.  As someone over on the GWG site said, this guy is a complete chickenshit.

I agree and that’s nothing to be proud of.

44 thoughts on “Some Libertarians are Real Dicks”

  1. Mark didn't say he denied his atheism because people had shut him out. He said he didn't say he was an atheist because he thinks we are arrogant and they have all the answers. We all thought that he was being tremendously unfair to the atheists we knew.

    In any case, thanks for listening!

    1. Now granted, I haven't gone back to listen to the show again, but I did write the article, in part, while I was listening to it and it seems to me that one of his biggest beefs was that he lost some "friends", who were not actually friends, because he stopped believing in the same imaginary friend that they did. That was in the show, wasn't it?

      1. Mark didn’t say that. He said the only people he talks to about atheism are other atheists/agnostics. I think one of us pointed out that if you lose a friend or family member because you tell them you are an atheist, they weren’t much of a friend to begin with.

        1. Which is exactly the point I've made in the past. People who only care about the image that they have in their heads about what they think you're like aren't people who really accept you for who you are in reality. Mark is certainly not the only one I've run into who is angry or upset that the people they thought were their friends turned out to be shallow relationships based on nothing but imagination. It's certainly a shock to find out that's the case but once people find that their friends really never cared about them at all, they tend to be more careful picking friends in the future and deeper and more meaningful relationships result. I suppose in that, such experiences can be a good thing.

  2. You certainly put me in my place.

    This argument will certainly sway my belief that atheists are smug and believe they have the correct answer and that everyone else is an idiot.

    Oh, and your mom is fat.

    1. It's not about putting you in your place, it's about pointing out the absurdity of your position. You're welcome to think that your beliefs are not absurd, that's entirely up to you. That's where this thing called "personal opinion" comes in. You put yourself out there on the Internet, you presented your position and that leaves you open to a response. Both my wife and I spent the entire show yelling at the stream about how ridiculous what you were saying was. The comments directed at you on that episode were very similar. That's what this response was based on. Perhaps, based on what people have said, you might want to rethink your position. Oh, and my dad could beat up your dad. Well, he could if he wasn't dead. Thanks for commenting.

  3. Comment rules

    1- Civil discourse is expected. You can attack ideas, you cannot directly attack other posters.
    2- I will not censor comments based on the ideas within the comments. Feel free to speak your mind, so long as you do it politely and intelligently.
    3- Profanity is permitted so long as it is not directed toward anyone else. That’s not to say you have an unlimited license to cuss like a sailor just because you feel like it, but I will not censor a comment strictly because it contains some four-letter invective.

    You seem to be in violation of your first three rules.

  4. Cephus, you are kind n of a dick. You say that reality is what we can demonstrate scientifically and that anyone who believes in something that cannot be demonstrated is an idiot. I did state that right, yes? What about spiritual experiences? I have experienced them, even ghosts. I cannot pull out an O-scope and quantify that they "exist" with proofs, but I did experience them. Science and hard facts are great for most of life, sure, but there are things that science cannot explain yet, or maybe never. It is arrogant to tell someone that they are stupid or wrong because you cannot prove it.

    " why I detest these kinds of irrational, illogical morons." What is your scientific proof backing this statement? Have you examined his entire life and quantified it? No? So you are making an assumption based on limited facts and jumping to a conclusion. Sounds like religion to me, dickhead.

    1. Not necessarily an idiot, but certainly irrational. If you are showed where your beliefs are faulty and you continue to hold them for emotional reasons, then yes, I suppose "idiot" is an appropriate term. And there are no spiritual experiences, at least none that can be demonstrated. People see things or experience things and then they make an illogical leap to an explanation that they favor emotionally without ever being able to show that the leap was warranted. You say you've seen ghosts. How do you know? How can you be sure that what you saw was actually a ghost? How do you test it? Or do you just blindly believe because it's the explanation you happen to like best?

      Whereas you are right, there are some things that science cannot explain at the moment, that doesn't mean that those things are best explained by whatever label you've arbitrarily assigned to them. If you were honest with yourself, you'd understand that if you cannot rationally identify an actual cause, supported by objective evidence and intellectual reason, then the only answer you can really give is "I don't know" and wait until there is evidence to support one explanation over another.

      It's sad that so many people don't understand rational thought.

      1. You are assuming that I have not been honest with myself, in fact, you state that everyone is being dishonest with themselves and that is a HUGE problem. I was not raised to believe in the Jude-Christian mythos. I was raised agnostic by my mom since she believed that everyone needs to find their own path when they are ready. I was taught by my grandfathers that the earth and living things were to be respected and that if you wanted to find out what being human is all about, to spend time being in nature, being a part of it.

        I am not some weak minded zombie that presses the "I believe" button just because someone told me to. My belief structure has been developed over 46 years of searching and observing. I have read The Bible, the Qur'an, the I'Ching, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and even Dianetics. I have always been fascinated by religion and people who can just believe in crap. I think Christians are lucky in many ways because their lives seem simpler.

        That was not my path.

        When I said I experienced a ghost, I did not say "see". I was thrown as the spirit passed through me. I has a witness to the event.. It was indescribable, but undeniably an intelligence and a former "person". I say it was a ghost because that area is renowned for paranormal activity. Look it up, Fort Pickens, Florida. You might also note that apparently the scientific community believes in ghosts because the Air Force did extensive studies on the area and were unable to denounce it as a fraud. Their official response was "inconclusive".

        If you think that people believe that there is a magical man in the clouds, then you are very ill-informed and your research (the key to science) is pathetic and needs to be rushed up on. It's like prayer. Someone prays for a specific change, ie to be off the streets, in a house, married with a kid on the way in a year, and then, one year later they are in a tub, in their house, with their pregnant wife in the next room…that is just coincidence? A year ago, that person had nothing and no-one.

        1. Only you can tell if you're being honest with yourself, I have no window into your head so I can only tell you what I see from the outside. If I'm wrong, by all means correct me and show me that I'm wrong. The reality is that if you were raised in most of the western world, you were raised in the Judeo-Christian mythos, it's pretty hard to avoid it. The same would be true if you were raised in many parts of the Middle East with regard to Islam. It's part of the culture, it's not really possible to avoid, even if you weren't directly raised to believe it. Cultural Christianity is a thing. People can't help but be touched by the clammy hands of religion, whether they want to be or not.

          That said, with regard to ghost claims, and this can apply to any supernatural claim, we have to understand that when we assert cause and effect, we need to be able to demonstrate that the cause we assert actually caused the effect. If you think that a ghost caused something in your life, you need to show that your asserted cause is actually real. Otherwise, you're engaging in the logical fallacy called the "argument from ignorance", where you are asserting a cause because you cannot think of a better one, or because you have an emotional attachment to your claimed cause. It happens in religion all the time. Something weird happens that the individual cannot immediately identify and they say "God did it!" Well, no, they cannot show that God actually exists, or that God had anything demonstrable to do with the event, it just makes them feel good to think that way, therefore they do. For any of these events for which no actual, existent cause can be presented, the only rational position one can take is "I don't know" and continue to look for something real and objectively presentable. That may or may not ever be found. You may never know the actual cause of your experience. It is irrational, however, to simply arbitrarily assign a cause that you cannot prove to an experience that you cannot explain.

          The same is true of prayer. It's called confirmation bias. They pray about a thing and if that thing happens, they assume the prayer did it. If they pray about a thing and that thing never happens, they make up some excuse why the prayer didn't work. People tend to remember the hits and forget the misses. Again, with prayer, you have people praying to things that they can't actually demonstrate exist, yet when their prayer comes "true", they assign their favored entity the credit for it coming true, even though there's no evidence that it was involved. Perhaps in your above example, the person praying had the effect of them working harder, which provided all of the effects, but not the cause of the prayer. It all comes down to what one can prove, not what one can assert.

        2. Since when is the United States Air Force a scientific institution or even some appendage of the scientific community? And inconclusive means simply inconclusive; not we could determine for certain therefore ghosts exist. As Cephus pointed out in one of his replies, sometimes the appropriate response is "I don't know."

  5. Also you call me a chicken shit. (among other clever insults) well here I am. As anyone that knows me will attest I do not back down from a fight or from what I believe. THAT is a chicken shit
    Let me address a couple of your "logical facts".

    A- You seem oblivious to the fact that you are exactly what I hate about atheists. You are positive you are correct and everyone else is wrong. Not only wrong but complete idiots. Tell me, how is that not exactly what I said I hate? Complete and total smugness that you have all the correct answers and everyone else is an idiot. Your belief there is the same reason I hate large government. When you start governing morality you are saying you are right and I am wrong.

    B- I do not want to tell my family because there is zero upside. You see a logical person would weigh the benefits and detriment to such a conversation. What is the upside? There is none. People I care about are hurt and then want to ask why. It is a pointless conversation that will do nothing but hurt people I care about and love. You may enjoy hurting people for the sake of being "right" but I do not. I am not going to sway their beliefs, nor am I going to convince them I am right. It is a pointless conversation that will end in nothing but pain. Your logic here seems flawed unless your "point" is to cause pain. I understand that point but I prefer it in a bedroom.
    Unless you are willing to tell your wife that she is not the best lover you have ever had or that she is gaining weight and looks fat when she is you are being a hypocrite.

    C- Did you really just give me a "love it or leave it" argument for my country? Tell me you are not waving a rebel flag in the back of a pickup while doing so. Wanting your government to not govern based on morale issues is EXACTLY yours, and many others, beef with christian based laws. As a libertarian I do not assume I know what is best for everyone. That is the point.

    D- I do not engage people in religious debates because they are pointless. People believe what they believe and why should I jump up and down telling them they are wrong? They are free to believe what they want.

    E- I am a great guy. You will notice my name is attached to that podcast and I am not hiding.

    F- Most of the comments were posted by a guy named Bob who I know very well. Bob knew I would read them and was jabbing at me. Bob is poor at insulting but still an ok guy.

    G- You obviously hate religion. Not only do you hate it but your hate is to the point of blind rage. That is fine. There is plenty to hate about it. I guess I am just not that rage filled about religion. It just isn't my trigger.

    H- I could go on but back to my previous point why bother. Peoples opinions rarely change with debate on the internet.

    1. Actually, I didn't call you chickenshit, the guys at Geeks Without God did. Check their site.

      A: However, it really doesn't matter what your experiences are, those are only a justification for you, they are not a logical justification to hate all atheists (or dislike them, I don't know if you go so far as to hate them all). Taking what some atheists supposedly did to you is no reason to dislike all atheists. I don't claim to have all the right answers, I'm entirely happy to debate any topic logically and rationally in order to see who can support their answers more properly and with the best evidence. I've been doing that for more than 30 years now and not once has any theist, ever, had anything to show for their beliefs. Not once. All of their claims fall apart under even the most cursory skeptical evaluation. Correct ideas and incorrect ideas, unlike right and wrong, are not subjective. We have means, as rational human beings, to determine which set of statements is most likely correct and which is most likely incorrect. That's just reality.

      B: I don't care what you tell them to be honest, I have no dog in that fight. However, I consider intellectual integrity and honesty to be more important than emotional comfort. You have to consider that every second that you don't tell them, you are committing a lie of omission. You may be doing this for the most pure of intentions, but you're not doing them any favors. I never lied to my family and now, all of them are atheists because all of them realized that they had no good reason to hold the beliefs that they held. They're all a lot happier now too. I'm not saying that you ought to go and tell them or not, just that your reasons seem rather selfish, you don't want to risk finding out that your family, like your friends, really doesn't care for you for who you are, but for the imaginary image of you that they have in their heads. That's a scary prospect to be sure, but you're really doing it for yourself.

      C: No, I said take it or leave it. Things are the way they are. You have to make a decision if you're going to play by the rules of the game or pick up your ball and go home. We have this thing called a Constitution which forbids the government to mix politics and religion and to support any religion, or even religion in and of itself, above any other form of religion or no religion at all. There ought to be, according to the founding fathers, who were mostly non-Christian to begin with, no link between religion and the government of the United States of America. Now you certainly have every right, if you wish, not to like the way things are done around here and if you decide that you do not, you can go looking for another government in some other country that you agree with more and if they'll have you, by all means, move to that country. I have not criticized you for that in any way, shape or form. However, so long as you remain here, you are obligated to live under the laws of this nation or accept the consequences of violating them. You cannot simply decide you don't like them and therefore, you have the right to ignore them. That is not an option.

      D: I agree they are pointless. They shouldn't be, the Bible commands that all Christians be able to present an accounting for their faith (1 Peter 3:15), yet none ever can. I've yet to run into a Christian (or any other religion for that point) that can give good reason for what they believe, all they can do is say that it makes them feel good and therefore, they want to believe it. Of course *ALL* theists say the same thing regardless of their religion. A Christian who argues that way is no better than a Muslim, who is no better than a Hindu, who is no better than a Wiccan, etc. These are not an accounting for a valid faith, they are an excuse given because they have no good reason to believe what they believe. They may be free to believe what they want, that doesn't mean that what they believe is rational.

      E: I never said you weren't, I said that I found many of your ideas to be absurd.

      F: Well say hello to Bob for me, I guess.

      G: I hate irrationality, which the religious are quite guilty of. There's no blind rage, religion has clearly been bad for the planet, it has resulted in an endless number of deaths, it has been responsible for a huge number of social ills, both in the past and today. Anyone whose eyes were open would see that.

      H: You're welcome to go on all you like, but only so far as you do it rationally. Present your ideas intellectually, with evidence and reason, and there can be intellectual discourse. Otherwise, what's the point?

      1. "
        A: However, it really doesn't matter what your experiences are, those are only a justification for you, they are not a logical justification to hate all atheists (or dislike them, I don't know if you go so far as to hate them all). Taking what some atheists supposedly did to you is no reason to dislike all atheists."

        But isn't that what you did for the Religious Horror Show, take selections from a radical few to cast judgement on the whole of Religion?

        1. They are but examples of the horrors that religion can do in the world. I've never said that all religious people are evil, horrible individuals out to stab innocents in the back, but I have pointed out on many occasions that religion, by it's very nature, does provide cover for the crazies and it does encourage irrational, magical thinking and this in turn does provide an environment in which these horrors can and do occur. We also know, via many studies, that religious adherents are much more likely to buy into other forms of woo. Ghosts, alien abductions, Bigfoot, all of these are much more common beliefs among the religious. Religion, by it's very nature, does depress the critical thinking skills and skeptical evaluation of claims. Once you buy into one form of woo, you're more likely to buy into another. If the goal is to make skepticism and rationality universal, then any religion, even the most liberal, stands in the way of that goal.

  6. i read an article in passing recently, it was titled "some libertarians are real dicks". it was an amusing bit of rant, specifically because i'm familiar with the subject of this article. even more amusing than the rant itself, was the ability of the author to get absolutely every point and assumption about the subject wrong, while being a "real dick" in the process. stunning achievement.

    the most amazing thing about the internet, is that anyone with a keyboard can say whatever they want. the sad thing is that when these unfortunate words are read, some people actually believe them, even passing them along, adding volumes to the know-nothing culture. stars cannot be made from dog turds, no matter how hot they burn.

    i have, and will choose to exercise, the freedom to ignore this particular stream of hateful and bitter commentary. with luck, others will also see this as harmful and unproductive. if the author cares enough to do justice to this gift we all have of free speech, perhaps he'll listen more, speak less, and try to engage with the subjects of his rants before making a complete ass of himself in the glorious name of sensationalism. more likely, this will be viewed as an attack, dismissed or flamed, and the know-nothing culture will happily stuff it's gob with more train-wreck idiocy… because it's fun.

    of course, this is not about putting the author in his place, it's about pointing out the absurdity of his position. he's welcome to think that his beliefs are not absurd, that's entirely up to him. That's where this thing called "personal opinion" comes in. he put himself out there on the Internet, he presented his position and that leaves him open to a response.

  7. At this point lets just go after B and G.

    B- I have heard the intellectual honesty argument before. It is spouted by those who think they are being honest and all others are liars and bullshitters that are not in agreement.
    Again I state should i tell my wife she is getting fat if she is? That is honest.
    Should I tell my son he will not grow up to be an astronaut because he just is not smart enough?
    Should I tell the fat guy in the seat next to me on an airplane that he should lose some weight because he is ooozing into my seat?
    Should I tell my wife that some chick I met in 1997 is WAY better at her in bed?
    Honesty when asked is being honest. Just putting my OPINION out there knowing it will hurt people I love and care about is being a dick and being selfish.
    I have ZERO fear of what people think of me. Seriously you should research someone before you say that. I however do not believe in causing pain just so I feel honest. That is selfish. That is doing something just for me.
    You sacrifice humanity for "honesty" when it comes to religion. That is easy.
    Also if you listened to the podcast you would have heard me state several times that I am not sure who is right. I do not know who is right. That said I am not going to start telling others they are wrong.

    G- You say religion has been clearly bad for the planet and has resulted in endless human lives. Also responsible for a number of social ills. Then you state that anyone with their eyes open would see that.
    YET, you attack my dislike of big controlling government. Anyone with their eyes open would clearly see that in recent history government kills far more. The university of Hawaii states 262,000,000 in the 20th century alone as a direct result of government.
    Now an argument could be made for some of these governments doing it in the name of religion, but the largest ones certainly did not. Stalin did not attend church often and Hitler was not exactly a catholic (he killed them). Goodwin engaged.
    Government is not a bad thing but it needs to be small and controlled by its people.

    Also say hi to Bob yourself.

    1. Okay, I'm game.

      B: I never said that you're purposely lying. I have no way of knowing that and you don't really come off as an Internet troll, so I haven't assumed it. That doesn't mean that your position is well-reasoned or logical. Should you tell your wife that she's fat? Do you think she's fat? Did she ask you if she's fat? Do you think that her weight is unhealthy? Do you engage in activities that encourage her weight condition? There's a lot that goes into it before there can be an easy answer. As for your son, well… sure. Maybe not in those words but people need to have realistic expectations out of life. A kid with bad vision will never be an Air Force pilot because that job requires particular physical characteristics. Is it better to let your son have an unrealistic expectation for years, only to find out that he can't be an astronaut or an Air Force pilot or whatever? Or is it better to break it to him early on so that he can focus on something else?

      G: The problem with the Libertarian view on government is that it seems to think that government is an alien entity that has been imposed society against their will. The fact, though, is that the people of the society, at least in an American-style society, they've voted for their representatives, they've put these people in power that they want to speak for them. They do this constantly. There are local, state and federal elections virtually every year, often several times per year and people go out and fill out ballots, expressing what they want. Clearly, we have the government that the majority of Americans want us to have. The problem here, especially with Libertarians, is that we don't have the government *THEY* want, but instead of acknowledging the clear reality, that Libertarians represent a minuscule percentage of American voters, they try to cast the government as a foreign infection. Let me know when Libertarian Presidential candidates can get that mythical 5% of the vote. Libertarianism loses because the majority of Americans don't like the Libertarian platform and do not support the Libertarian candidates. Don't make excuses, just acknowledge that Libertarianism is not going to be a national political force, any more than the various and sundry Communist parties will. They simply do not resonate with the American people and are highly unlikely to ever do so. Libertarians have had more than 40 years and are still no more successful today, especially in national offices, than they were in the 1970s. Government is controlled by the people, that's why we have elections. You just don't like what the people want.

      Actually, Hitler was a devout Catholic and the Catholic Church, under Pope Pius XII supported the Nazis. Following the end of WWII, the Catholic Church helped smuggle Nazi war criminals out of Germany under Catholic Red Cross visas. And it's not Goodwin, it's Godwin, but I'll figure that was a typo. I'm only interested in the facts and, unfortunately, you don't seem to have many of them. It's a learning opportunity.

      1. "Don't make excuses, just acknowledge that Libertarianism is not going to be a national political force, any more than the various and sundry Communist parties will. They simply do not resonate with the American people and are highly unlikely to ever do so."

        Like Atheism, huh?

        1. Atheism has nothing to do with politics, it is not a belief, it is not a religion, it is not an argument, it is a response to religious claims about the existence of gods, nothing more. The fact remains that atheism is the fastest growing position on the existence of gods worldwide. Studies have shown conclusively that as atheism has become more socially acceptable, it has become more socially widespread.

          That's not something that can be said for Libertarianism, sorry.

  8. B- In telling your son he can not be something you are assuming you know better than him what he can and cannot do. I would never tell my son anything like that.

    G- Oh boy this is where it gets good. Using your examples you state that the people voted for and got what they want and yet congress has an 8% approval rating. How is that what you want? Obviously we do not have the government anybody wants. The reason is that when government grows large it does not have to bend to the will of the people anymore.
    Please go back to my original point on the government killing more than religion.
    Also…wow. Nazi Germany closed all catholic churches in 1939 and shut down all catholic publications in 1941. They then spent the next few years arresting catholics for immorality. I think the Vatican may have been swayed by being surrounded by Italy and German troops. Maybe….just a guess.
    There were sympathizers but the church was not sanctioning this.
    If you think Hitler was a devout catholic then we have some serious logic and history issues to cover.
    Here is a bit of his love for them. I personally like the section about a special barracks at Dachau just for the clergy.

    1. B: There are some jobs that simply do not take people lacking in certain things. While I have no idea if things have changed in the era of Lasik, but there was a point where the Air Force wouldn't accept people with less than perfect vision. If you wore glasses, you could not be a pilot. If that was the case and your son really, really, really wanted to be an Air Force pilot and fly for the Blue Angels and he wore glasses, is it a good idea to encourage him to follow a dream he could not pursue or is it best to tell him the truth and point him in a different direction? There are things that some people simply cannot do. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge that doesn't change the reality.

      G: Sure, but when the next election comes by, they put those same people back in office, don't they? Incumbents are re-elected at a rate of 90%, clearly the people aren't that upset, they keep returning the same people they complained about to the same office. Clearly, Americans are in charge of their government, you just don't like the choices they make.

      “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so” – [Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]

      “I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.” – [Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]

      “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
      summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord
      at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with
      deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have
      the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty
      to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning
      and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two
      thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed.” – [Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich on April 12, 1922, countering a political opponent, Count Lerchenfeld, who opposed antisemitism on his personal Christian feelings.]

      “I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.” – [Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 46]

      “And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God.” – [Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.174]

      We could go on for hours, I'm presenting what Hitler actually said about his beliefs, you're presenting your interpretation. I'd say Hitler knows more than you do. The reality is that German anti-Semitism goes back, historically, to Martin Luther, who taught that the Jews should be thrown into the streets and have their property stripped from them and if they don't like it, they could whine to their God.

        1. That's a common claim but there is no evidence to back it up, at least not that I've seen. By all means, feel free to present actual text or speech, produced directly by Hitler, that your assertion is so. There is a difference between presenting an argument and actually supporting that argument.

  9. G- Your conclusion is illogical. You say they get the people they want and yet they do not approve of the people they elect. Then they continue to elect them. That sounds like something I have heard before.
    "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
    Albert Einstein

    They vote the way they do because they lack choice. They vote the way they do because they do not want the other person to win. They vote that way because they are sheep.
    The appeal to authority is charming though.

    Uh no. You are posting quotes. I am posting actual actions.
    It's the ole Actions speak louder than words.
    I could also post quotes that contradict all of those but I believe a persons actions are a larger indicator than what they say.
    Why would a man trying to win the hearts of a nation appeal to religion? Oh right….
    But I digress as you still are not going back to the original point I made there. Being a logic man you should understand that a Strawman attack is illogical.
    So the point still stands. You say religion has caused so much pain and suffering and I say in the past century government has done far more of exactly that.

    1. They certainly do approve of the people they elect, otherwise they wouldn't be electing them, would they? Unfortunately, most people have a very short memory and an even shorter attention span, they may hate what their elected officials have done, but when they come up for election again, they vote for them anyhow. I will agree that there are massive problems with our political system, that it is an inherently corrupting system that virtually no elected official survives unscathed and we absolutely ought to change it, but I don't think it's because they lack choice, but because they lack will. Under our current system, even a libertarian candidate would become corrupted because they cannot get anything done without a consensus of their peers and they cannot get that consensus unless they are willing to play the political game and become corrupted. Yes, the American voters are, by and large, sheep. The Libertarian Party will never succeed so long as that is true, so long as their platform does not appeal to the majority of American voters.

      And yes, I am using quotes, it's the only way to demonstrate what was going on inside his head. You can take actions and interpret them any way you want, that says nothing about what he actually believed and thought of himself. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy, where you simply reject people from their beliefs because they do something you disagree with, is a fallacy for a reason. He appealed to religion in private, he appealed to religion before he was trying to win the hearts of Germans, in fact, Germany had been a largely anti-Semetic country for centuries before Hitler came along and that came largely from religious tradition. If anything, Hitler was just playing along with his religious beliefs, doing the same thing that millions of Germans had done before him.

      We come right back to your thinking that government is some alien entity and it's simply not. Government hasn't caused harm, society has. Society is what allows government to exist. Government is just the legislative body of society. If people dislike what their government is doing, they have the power to change it at the ballot box, or if it gets too bad, by force. The fact that neither of these things have happened demonstrates that, by and large, society is happy with their government, regardless of what approval polls show. They could change it, they just don't.

      But what you don't seem to understand is that society operates via majority. The majority of people, at least the majority of voters, want what is going on right now to continue. Your party does not represent the majority of voters, in fact, it represents a minuscule minority, therefore what you personally want isn't going to resonate with the majority. Sure, that doesn't mean you can't still want it, but you have to be realistic and understand that what you want and what's going to actually happen are two different things. I want the world to be rational. I know that's unlikely at this point in time.

  10. "He has the same problem that so many liberals do, they’re all about emotions and not very interested in reality."

    Plenty of conservatives who fit this description. You should take a look in the mirror. I've read more than one post on this blog that was rife with emotionalism and out of touch with reality.

    1. Then please point them out specifically, especially those which deal with politics and/or religion. There's a difference between being rational and being anti-emotion. Emotion has it's uses but doesn't belong in every argument and certainly not where it contradicts with reality and reason. Besides, I can't speak for anyone but myself, it doesn't matter what other "conservatives" (and I doubt you understand the meaning of that word) have to say. I speak only for myself.

  11. "…according to the founding fathers, who were mostly non-Christian to begin with,…"

    Source for this claim please. I don't think you have your historical facts correct here. If by the founding fathers, you mean the individuals who debated, wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence and/or the Constitution, then I think you need to do some further research. According to historian Frank Lambert, author of The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America, 49 of the 55 members of the 1787 Constitutional Convention were Protestants. Now if you are limiting the title Founding Father to just the more well-known prominent ones (Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin) you might have a point. But it would be rather arbitrary, and factually incorrect, to hold that only these individuals were founding fathers.

    1. The most vocal founding fathers were, most certainly, quite critical of Christianity and of religion in general. Many of the rest, we simply do not have much direct information on, they are listed on church registries or have identified themselves as Christians, but we have no real writings from their hand about what they actually believed. I don't think most Americans today are actually Christians, I think the majority simply identify that way because they think it's what society expects of them, religion is more of a social club than a religious belief. The people who made the most difference, among those you pulled from Wikipedia, certainly had no love for traditional Christianity at all and, at least in the case of Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Washington, etc. were quite critical across the board about all traditional religions.

      1. Some of the founding fathers were, as you point out, critical of Christianity. But this is not an argument that establishes your claim that most of the founding fathers were non-Christians. There were 55 who attended the Constitutional Convention and 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence. Discounting the overlap (there were 7 who signed both documents), that totals 104 founding fathers. Throw in Thomas Paine, George Clinton, and Patrick Henry and we have at least 107 individuals who qualify as founding fathers. (Actually the list is even longer than this, but these will do for our purposes.) The overwhelming majority these individuals were Christians. They were by their own words Christians, though some of them certainly were not Christians who held what were orthodox views for their time.

        You don't think most American's today are Christians? On what basis do you hold this belief? What evidence do you use to support this belief? What you think isn't the issue here. What matters is what the evidence shows. If you look at the various polls and survey, I think you'll find that most Americans who claim to be Christians are in fact Christians. The primary tenet that one must accept to be a Christian is that Jesus was the Son of God and that he died for our sins and was resurrected. A Rasmussen poll conducted in 2012 found that 78% of Americans believe that Jesus was the son of God and 77% believe that he rose from the dead. ( I can't imagine how you can maintain your claim in the face of these survey results.

        1. Most of the founding fathers, we have no evidence of their beliefs at all, other that it's claimed that they belonged to some church or another. We have virtually no direct writings of what these people believed and why. Further, the most important founding fathers, the ones who actually made it all happen as opposed to those who just signed a document, are rather overwhelmingly anti-religious in their writings.

          Further, your poll only reports what people claim, not what they actually believe. Many people report things because they think that's what's expected of them, not because they actually, demonstrably, take those beliefs seriously. I'd like to see how many of those people who claim to believe those things also can prove that they attend church every single week, tithe 10% of their income and read the Bible. Not many, I'm sure.

  12. What an incredibly ignorant, self righteous prick. And no, I don't mean Mr. Lazarchic.

    I see part of your problem here. You apparently believe your political leaders and social betters. This must be why you believe the incredibly self serving propaganda statements of Adolf Hitler, while ignoring those that were published outside the Main-Stream German Media. I am guessing you also believe,"If you like your insurance policy, you can keep it." "I tried it, but I did not inhale" and "I did not have sexual relations with that woman…"
    Wouldn't you say those recent American Presidents know more than you do?

    So obviously the elected officials are doing what the people want, and that is why they are being reelected. The purchasing power of their corporate masters wouldn't have anything to do with that.

    Also, Astronauts used to be selected from test pilots who were selected entirely from Navy Pilots, not Air Force.
    Funny though, Blue Angels pilots are also all Navy Aviators. But despite finally admitting your ignorance in the age of Lasik, you would still belittle the dreams of Mark's son based on your own ignorance and preconceptions. It must be nice for you that only what you chose to acknowledge affects the reality.

    That argument is somewhat a microcosm of your entire thought process. (At least as revealed in this post – I am certain there is no need to read any others.

    If I violated your personal rule by pointing out that you are a prick, feel free to edit out that part. If this site doesn't allow that option, feel free to disbelieve it and I am sure it will go away.

    1. The problem is, you can't actually provide any evidence that any of the things that I said are actually wrong, you simply disagree with them and therefore, you react with emotion, not reason. I don't care if you like what I say, I care if you can demonstrate it's wrong with evidence and reason. It betrays an irrational mindset which, frankly, I'm not surprised by. If you don't like what I say, by all means, don't come here. However, I expect people to be able to be rational and intelligent and that's not what comes from your comment. You can't show I'm wrong so you just throw a bunch of crap at the screen and hope that something will stick. It won't.

      Regardless of your dig about Mark's son, what I said about military pilots stands, barring any change in policy due to laser eye surgery. The fact remains that a child who wears glasses, assuming for the sake of argument that the military, Navy or Air Force, does not permit people with less than perfect vision to fly their planes, simply cannot do it. There are nothing wrong with having dreams, but dreams need to be realistic. That was the whole point of what I said, yet you people are reacting emotionally instead of rationally. Reality doesn't make you happy so you whine about reality, you don't alter your positions to comply with the real world.

      1. "I don't care if you like what I say, I care if you can demonstrate it's wrong with evidence and reason."

        WOW, have you got this thing all wrong. Burden of proof for a claim is upon the person who makes the claim, not the one challenging it. This is argumentation and logic 101. You must have skipped that lesson.

  13. You raise an important issue about libertarianism here Cephus. It is the ideal kind of environment, unfortunately just like communism it rejects the human factor which makes it impossible in reality.

    I actually have not heard this episode of Geeks without God I may have to give it a listen as I do enjoy the show the hosts are highly entertaining.
    My recent post The Islam Comic Book and cognitive dissonance

    1. It's an hour long episode, although you can probably make it through in about 45 minutes if you skip their 5 questions at the end. It's definitely a worthwhile show, most of their shows are, even though I agree with pretty much none of their political views, I still tune in every single week.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)