/liberty/ - Liberty

>>92214

I generally like that one, but listing Machiavelli as a refutation strikes me as absurd. Instructing others in the use of power isn't an argument against anything except Qietism.

Power is exercised in a private context as much as in a public one.

Actually, Ancap doctrine could be regarded as attempting to eliminate obstacles to the expression or accumulation of privately held power, couldn't it?

>>92214

Yes, and I find it very good. One of the best ones around.

>>92215

>I generally like that one, but listing Machiavelli as a refutation strikes me as absurd

I think it's because a lot of edgy realpolitik types look at Machiavelli as an instruction manual rather than a descriptive overview. But you are correct, many of the points made in The Prince–that maintaining power is dependent on how content the people are, for instance–aren't out of place with libertarian ideas on the state and how it operates.

>>92224

the only good ones are huemer and nozick

>>92224

>lolbert reading list

>posts traditionalists and paleocons

I am pretty sure the list says "right-wing libertarian", not "lolbert". So of course it will include paleocons and traditionalists, and a bunch of other ideologies. What exactly is wrong with that?

>including peter schiff

>literal >buy gold goyim shill

>redditus maximus

How is buying gold "redditus maximus"?

>agorism

>literally anti-capitalist

Have you actually read SEKIII? I am aware many agorists these days are mutualists, but he himself was pretty close to Rothbard in everything but his methods. If he did bash big corporations, then not any worse than Rothbard himself has done (Rothbard even talked about a "Rockefeller World Empire" later on).

>hayek

>minarchist

>not ordoliberal statist

Should I have included a column for every little ideology under the tree? Besides, Hayek is not included because he's a minarchist, but because he's important for minarchism. Same goes for John Locke and Thomas Paine. They weren't exactly great libertarians and they definitely weren't right-wing, but they are historically important for minarchism.

>ron paul

>demented tea party retard

Nigga, Ron Paul is the real deal. Don't talk shit about him just because his movement was, at times, cringey as hell. The Revolution is a genuinely good book, it probably won't be anyones most important book he has ever read but it's nevertheless good. If you think I included too much Ron Paul, well, fair point, I suppose. I made the original list years ago and I did not want to change too much, just so you know where I am coming from.

>harry brown

>i cant even… you must be underage

Also not a bad book. Definitely not a book that will change the world, but I wanted to include some babby-tier works because, face it, some people need them. Not everyone can jump right into Hoppes discussion of how the action-axiom and argumentation ethics relate to each other.

>de Tocqueville

>lolbert

>nooope

Half that list aren't "lolberts", but they're still important for right-wing libertarians. Thomas Aquinas wasn't a libertarian, Augustine wasn't a libertarian, Rummel, Tertullian, Belloc, MacInytre, Adam Smith, none of them were (or are) libertarian. Assembling a reading list is not about listing "your guys", it's about helping people find the books they need to figure out what your position is about. MacIntyre, for example, was included because he talks wonderfully about how moral discourse became deranged after the Reformation. The rest of the time, he is complete shit, but that's why I included so many counterweights to his position.

>black book of gommulism

>muh 999 gorillion

Literally not an argument, my man.

>thomas sowell

>upvoted

Never read him, but I was told he's good.

>>92225

Kek, I threw Nozick out because his book is trash. Huemer, though, is legitimately good.

>>92275

>They're 13-15, and aren't autists, so I can't give them anything too heavy like Rothbard or Hoppe.

I'm not that autistic, and I first read Rothbard at 16. Teenagers may be hormonal little shits, but don't assume they're complete retards if guided the right way. That being said, if you're looking for lighter stuff, I'd look at the "Novice" tier of this guide >>92214 : Anatomy of the State, What Has Government Done to Our Money? and Economics in One Lesson in particular I can personally vouch for as being extremely readable.

>It would be nice if there were a whole section for literally kindergarten-tier stuff, so that even the dumbest leftist would understand it.

"The Tuttle Twins" series, published by the Mises Institute, is almost exactly this. I'd also recommend Dr. Seuss's "Thidwick the Big-Hearted Moose," and Schiff's "How an Economy Grows and Why it Doesn't".

>>92279

What is with this fucking site and losing my flags.

>>92279

To add to this, How an Economy Works and Why it Doesn't and End the Fed are both easy reads, particularly the former since it's in comic form anyway.

>believing in God

>>92259

>attempting to justify State anything

I don't think you did a good job, it's just a whole lot of books put together.

Where to start? What to read?

Flowcharts like >>92214 are much more helpful

as someone who just recently began learning economics I can recommend the following route:

1. Basic Economics by Sowell for introduction (and really, starting with economists that lived 100 years ago isn't recommended)

2. Economics in One Lesson by Hazlitt for a quick recap

3. Methodology of the Austrian School Economists by Lawrence White, a 27 page summary of the history and development Austrian school

4. Principles of Economics by Menger, it's actually really simple and I think mandatory because according to book #3 the entire of the Austrian school is based on his thought

5. Investigations into the Method of the Social Sciences by Menger because it equips the reader with tools to understand economics

It's a pretty effective order of learning.

>>92316

A very good guide, but what place does Christian theology have in that list?

>>92322

Right-libertarianism (better known as just "libertarianism") is beginning to accept its implicit connection to traditionalism and "socially conservative" policies, no? Christianity is for better or worse a big part of Western traditionalism, and was a driving force shaping Western intellectuals throughout the centuries, including the precursors to libertarianism. And seeing as the aut-right is beginning to coalesce around paganism in its edge-spiraling, we may as well become a little more friendly to Christfags.

>>92331

>any other potentially cancerous authoritarians

Where is this Christfag=authoritarian coming from? Is anyone that supports any kind of organized hierarchy now an authoritarian?

>>92332

>Where is this Christfag=authoritarian coming from?

From your whole shitty ideology, as well as the whole history of your actions, statements and goals.

>Is anyone that supports any kind of organized hierarchy now an authoritarian?

Hierarchy is nothing but an instrument of organizing individuals so if you support it in itself you are authoritarian faggot. Nothing else can be said except that you should go back to /christian/ and probably /pol/ because you deserve nothing more than drowning in pile of mud like one of those shithole places.

>>92328

>A very bad idea. If anything, christfags are little more than old fashioned liberals and so are often even more toxic and cancerous.

Some of the most ardent and least authoritarian conservatives are, or were, Catholics or Orthodox. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, de Tocqueville and Lord Acton were all Catholic. Edward Feser and Thomas Marshall, two other authors included in that list, are both Catholic, conservative and fiscally liberal to libertarian.

Really, you should read a book from Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn if you think Catholics are "old fashioned liberals". If anything, Catholicism has been one of the more genuinely liberal forces in Europe. Not only do Catholic countries have a better track record protecting liberties than their protestant (or secular!) counterparts, they also have the best track record of political resistance. It's no coincidence that Spain of all countries resisted a communist takeover, or that the strongest opposition to the French Revolution came from the rural Catholic Vendée region.

>Just because their ideology is in decline does not mean it deserves any support or isn't dangerous and prone to authoritarianism.

Well, see above. The more martial and oppressive leaders in post-Reformation Europe - King Frederick II, King Gustav Adolphus, Oliver Cromwell - were protestants. Most religious oppression in the American colonies came from protestants, whereas the Catholics and Quakers, even when they were in charge, hardly oppressed anyone. The more protestant US had more tension with its Indians than Catholic Canada had with its own. Prohibition and Victorian ideals of sexuality were pushed by evangelicals, not Catholics. In fact, Italians and Spaniards, who both resisted the Reformation, are precisely not known for hating fun, yet they are also not known for being degenerates.

Secular regimes, of course, outshine both protestants and Catholics. Secularism is all around us nowadays, and are we more free than our grandparents? Hardly. The people who push the hardest for moral legislation these days are not the Catholics or the protestants, but areligious sentimentalists. Taxation is increased by Fabians, Neomarxists and other left-"liberals", not by Christians. The most terrifying regimes we had, in Russia, China, or Cambodia, were secular, even antireligious. And even they are nothing compared to the Delgados or Skinners scienticist utopias in which free will is abolished.

>Doesn't anyone remember that church has most of actual pedos?

Well, first of all, the big problem in the Church is pederasty, not pedophilia. Second, the rate of sexual abuse in the Church, to my knowledge, is hardly worse than that in regular schools. Here's two articles that deal with that, among other things:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/mar/11/catholic-abuse-priests

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-media-ignored-sex-abuse-in-school/

People love the stereotype of the hypocritical, lustful priest because it just packs more punch than the lustful school teacher. When a teacher sleeps with a boy, the first instinct of most liberals is to ask whether the boy had fun, or whether the teacher was hot. When a priest sleeps with a young male, no one pats him on the back for making the Church more "inclusive", and no one even acknowledges that the young male was not a child.

>>92331

>I don't think we should welcome them anymore than any other potentially cancerous authoritarians - they can follow, they can organize their stuff, they can do their shit but they've got little to do with the actual topic of libertarianism and so if they want to participate we should treat them like we treat fags or niggers - as long as they do not act like one, we're cool.

Not sure how to break it to you, but antitheist libertarianism is as good as dead. The avowed atheists in the libertarian movement defected to the left long ago. You can either join them, and spend all day arguing whether affirmative action is just a rectification of past property violations, or you can stay with the libertarian right, where most high profile thinkers are sympathetic to Christianity or avowed Christians. Both Orthobro and I are Christians, and we had a bigger influence on this board than almost anyone else (besides the BO, and Confederabro). I even managed our long forgotten tea party with /fit/. So no, you cannot bully us out of acting like Christians on this board, we'll continue doing so and you should make your peace with that.

>>92337

>Nothing else can be said except that you should go back to /christian/ and probably /pol/ because you deserve nothing more than drowning in pile of mud like one of those shithole places.

And here we go again with the peaceful atheists. In all the discussions I had with you guys, it was you who started acting like complete shitbags, while the other side was calmly talking to you. Even in my atheist days, I do not remember being told that I would go to hell, or that I should be stoned to death, but now I get to hear that from atheists.

Let me repeat what I said above: You have no leverage, so you should make your peace with the Christians on this board, most of whom have probably been libertarians for longer than you are. I suggest you calm down, read some Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Edward Feser, or Thomas Marshall, and if you then still think that the Church is literally Stalin, then I do not know what to tell you and I will be very disappointed in myself.

>>92339

>least authoritarian conservatives are

From the creators of non-violent communists. Go preach this bullshit to your beloved conservacucks, faggot.

>two other authors included in that list

Because it's you who made the list, faggot.

>conservative and fiscally liberal to libertaria

This shit again. Fuck you and your false distinction political compass.

>should read a book

>>>/leftypol/

>Catholicism has been one of the more genuinely liberal forces in Europe

Yeah, if welfare is counted as liberal.

>have the best track record of political resistance

They also have the best track record if including themselves into political and governmental policies and forces. It explains why they were so eager to defend those systems.

>whereas the Catholics and Quakers, even when they were in charge, hardly oppressed anyone

<Prohibition and Victorian ideals of sexuality were pushed by evangelicals, not Catholics

<NOT REAL CHRISTIANITY!!!!111!1

>The people who push the hardest for moral legislation these days are not the Catholics or the protestants, but areligious sentimentalists

Fags stay fags even if the place where they are made is changed. Now the place is called college.

>The most terrifying regimes we had, in Russia, China, or Cambodia, were secular, even antireligious

As well as most science, art, philosophy, culture, trades and skills were and are more efficient at what they do then some spiritual bullshit.

>And even they are nothing compared to the Delgados or Skinners scienticist utopias in which free will is abolished.

>Implying christcucks would not do the same if they could comprehend anything relatively similar.

>Well, first of all, the big problem in the Church is pederasty, not pedophilia.

One does not exclude another.

>Second, the rate of sexual abuse in the Church, to my knowledge, is hardly worse than that in regular schools.

Yeah, surely in public schools there can be seen more acts of abuse then in secluded and sheltered christian nests, as well as christian children have a lot less incentive to tell anyone about it.

>it just packs more punch than the lustful school teache

I've heard of a female teacher being convicted for sex with a 17 year old student. have you heard of a priest being jailed for fucking boys?

>>92340

>but antitheist libertarianism is as good as dead

Then it's better to stay dead. For actual libertarianism faith does not matter but organized religious institutes are cancer, no matter how you look at it. Also projecting.

>You can either join them or you can stay with the libertarian right

Oh, good old Us vs Them mentality. Choke on a pile of shit, christcuck.

>most high profile thinkers are sympathetic to Christianity or avowed Christians

Keep appealing to authority, it'll surely work. You know all those "high profile thinkers" that you point to are only there because you put them in the first place, cunt?

>libertarian right

There's no "libertarian right", there's only libertarian and authoritarian. You are not libertarian and will never be. Deal with it.

>Both Orthobro and I are Christians

And likely the only ones.

>we had a bigger influence on this board than almost anyone else

Keep dreaming. It's not like you can say anything but bullshit.

>you cannot bully us out of acting like Christians on this board, we'll continue doing so and you should make your peace with that.

Nobody cares. You'll always be authoritarian faggot and will always be pointed out at that so the only thing i'll have to deal with is that you keep trying to build an echo chamber here by ignoring any argument directed at you.

>And here we go again with the peaceful atheists.

Cry some more, bitch.

>while the other side was calmly talking to you

Calmly spewing bullshit, you wanted to say. Go tell /marx/ about your achievements, they'll appreciate them.

>>92340

>You have no leverage, so you should make your peace with the Christians on this board

I'll call you every time you try to shill your gay shit into libertarianism or ancap theory. Aside from that, if you're going to discuss your faith issues i don't mind like i didn't mind it before, aside from correcting some guy on topic of russian orthodox church. I'll still try to keep discussion of libertarianism, its arguments and theory away from christianity and resolve to viewing them from a negative position towards things.

>>92341

>this bullshit

>faggot

>faggot

>This shit again. Fuck you

>Fags stay fags

>christcucks

>Choke on a pile of shit, christcuck.

>cunt

>authoritarian faggot

>Cry some more, bitch.

>your gay shit

>>92347

>noargument.jpg

>>92341

<least authoritarian conservatives are

>From the creators of non-violent communists.

Sorry my man, but this is incoherent.

>Because it's you who made the list, faggot.

Yes. I am aware of that. So?

>should read a book

>/leftypol/

You know, the reason why we call /leftypol/ out for "read a book" is because they substitute that for actual arguments. But I did give you arguments. I did not tell you to take my arguments from Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, I gave you my arguments and then gave you some literature tips in case you want to make your own mind up.

>Yeah, if welfare is counted as liberal.

You act as if the welfare state had unanimous support among Christians, or that it was supported only by Christians, neither of which is the case. I don't see what else I could say, as your argument is almost devoid of any substance.

<have the best track record of political resistance

>They also have the best track record if including themselves into political and governmental policies and forces. It explains why they were so eager to defend those systems.

Nice, you ignored my argument.

>NOT REAL CHRISTIANITY!!!!111!1

Another example of you parroting the lines of libertarians who knew their shit. This is why you need to read the Bible, it talks about the difference between the spirit and the letter of the law. You're repeating the letter of the argument but you haven't grasped its spirit.

The reason why we mock the "not-real-socialism"-argument is for two reasons: One, in hindsight, no system is ever socialist, no matter how much the socialists defended it at the time (the most recent example being Venezuela). Two, and more importantly, they can never point to legitimate, relevant differences between "real" and "false" socialism, not even the difference that one of them would work. They say the USSR was fake socialism because the workers weren't in charge of the economy, but they cannot say what a worker managed economy would actually look like. They say that Venezuela was not socialist because it still had some markets left, but they cannot describe how "real" socialism, without markets, would function. I, however, could tell you why evangelicalism, quakerism and anabaptism are not "real" Christianity. I don't think I even have to use the Bible, the fact that these movements split away from the Church and discarded most of its doctrine, when the Church was integral to the Christian identity for well over a thousand years, is sufficient.

>As well as most science, art, philosophy, culture, trades and skills were and are more efficient at what they do then some spiritual bullshit.

And this, my friend, is where you couldn't be more wrong.

>science

Both the laws of heritability and the big bang were discovered by the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the scientific method is implicitly based on scholastic ideas. Without believing in an objective reality governed by coherent laws, you would not search for these laws. And yes, that is what the scientific method is about. It is not about throwing a rock a hundred times from a cliff to see the "probability" of its falling down, it is about seeing if there is a force of attraction between bodies by isolating so many variables that only this hypothetical force could conceivably have an effect. If no effect follows, gravity does not exist. If there is an effect, gravity does exist. Replicability is not about establishing scientific laws at all, contrary to popular perception.

That's the concise version. If you want to know more, read "Five Proofs for the Existence of God" :^)

As for the thousands of scientists that the Church brutally executed, name one that isn't Galileo (Galileo wasn't even executed, he was put under house arrest for shoehorning heresy into his scientific tracts). Hepatia of Alexandria, maybe? She became the victim of a political intrigue, that is well established by now. Shall we include the Breat Library of Alexandria among its victims? That is even more of a mess, the library was "destroyed" half a dozen times throughout history and there is not even evidence that a) Christians set fire to the library, and b) that the library which was set in fire was the Alexandria Library.

We have more oppression of scientists nowadays, I would say. Look at the utter state of climatological and racial research. If you're a dissenter in one of these fields, your career is fucked.

>>92341

>art

Vid related.

>philosophy

It is thanks to Christian philosophers that we still have a knowledge of Aristotle, Plato or Plotinus. Besides, western philosophy reached its pinnacle with the Scholastics. You are clearly ignorant.

>culture

Vid related here, too. That is culture.

>trades and skills

Not even sure what that is supposed to mean. The trades were less developed back when Europe was Christian? Well, maybe, but back then, we were missing a few hundred years of capital development, compared to what we have now. Skills were less developed? How do you even measure that?

>Implying christcucks would not do the same if they could comprehend anything relatively similar.

Because ebul Christians do not know science? If you think B.F. Skinner was a proper scientist, then wew, lad. Just wew. He traumatized a little kid as part of an experiment, then developed fantasies of grandeur. Delgado strapped electrodes into the brains of bulls, monkeys and other humans, then developed his own visions of grandeur. Do you really think the world would've been worse off if some Grand Inquisitor had slapped them across the hallway once? I don't.

>One does not exclude another.

<Pedophilia (alternatively spelled paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children

<Pederasty or paederasty is a (usually erotic) homosexual relationship between an adult male and a pubescent or adolescent male.

Actually, my man, they do.

>Yeah, surely in public schools there can be seen more acts of abuse then in secluded and sheltered christian nests, as well as christian children have a lot less incentive to tell anyone about it.

Before you compare dark fields, you should first compare what crime is visible. Let me help you out:

https://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625

<Yet experts say there's simply no data to support the claim at all. No formal comparative study has ever broken down child sexual abuse by denomination, and only the Catholic Church has released detailed data about its own. But based on the surveys and studies conducted by different denominations over the past 30 years, experts who study child abuse say they see little reason to conclude that sexual abuse is mostly a Catholic issue. "We don't see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "I can tell you without hesitation that we have seen cases in many religious settings, from traveling evangelists to mainstream ministers to rabbis and others."

<Limiting their study to plausible accusations made between 1950 and 1992, John Jay researchers reported that about 4 percent of the 110,000 priests active during those years had been accused of sexual misconduct involving children.

<Experts disagree on the rate of sexual abuse among the general American male population, but Allen says a conservative estimate is one in 10. Margaret Leland Smith, a researcher at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says her review of the numbers indicates it's closer to one in 5. But in either case, the rate of abuse by Catholic priests is not higher than these national estimates.

If we assume (for no reason at all) that Catholic priests are better rapists than school teachers and football coaches and get away ten times more often (somehow), then yes, we can conclude that 20 or 30 percent of all Catholic priests are child molesters. We can also conclude that every priest is a child molester if we assume that they all molest children, though! So why not go all the way, if we already start making up our premises as we go along?

>>92341

>I've heard of a female teacher being convicted for sex with a 17 year old student. have you heard of a priest being jailed for fucking boys?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Catholic_priests_convicted_of_child_sexual_abuse

>>92343

>Then it's better to stay dead.

k

>Keep appealing to authority, it'll surely work. You know all those "high profile thinkers" that you point to are only there because you put them in the first place, cunt?

I wish I had made Rothbard, Hoppe, Tom Woods and Ron Paul famous, but I am afraid I didn't have much influence at the time.

>There's no "libertarian right", there's only libertarian and authoritarian. You are not libertarian and will never be. Deal with it.

Nigga, I once called our intelligence service just to call them faggots, and I lectured my local party offices on natural law. You sound like someone who discovered Hoppe six months ago. Git gud.

>>92346

Feel free to. But for the love of God (or Voltaire, in your case, I suppose), get some damn manners, kid.

>>92350

>art

Fiction, artistry, composing, trades and skills all became what they are today because they went away from their spiritual past into pragmatic and disciplined massive of knowledge. My argument was that efficiency and scale is improved by going secular, even if the past was not.

>That is culture.

A petty fragment of the dying past. Culture is far more than that, my boy-loving friend.

>It is thanks to Christian philosophers that we still have a knowledge of Aristotle, Plato or Plotinus.

Just because they didn't destroy it all does not mean we should be thankful for their shit, especially the one during dark ages, especially since their shit still carries on through modern politics and is directly responsible for the current state of things with governments.

>Besides, western philosophy reached its pinnacle with the Scholastics.

maybe philosophy turned the wrong way when it's pinnacle was reached on the practice of defending dogmas.

>If you think B.F. Skinner was a proper scientist

I don't really care about him, i was just pointing out that if christians were more consistent with their beliefs and had better imagination they'd accept totalitarian measuers just as well or stopped being christians.

>Do you really think the world would've been worse off if some Grand Inquisitor had slapped them across the hallway once?

I think that choosing between a crazy sadist knowledgeable in chemistry and physics and a crazy sadist devoted to worshiping a piece of fiction is akin to choosing between communist and natsoc totalitarian regime. At least one of them was capable of actually doing something productive, even if he chose not to.

>Actually, my man, they do.

Ok, but they still abuse their position.

>Before you compare dark fields, you should first compare what crime is visible

<only the Catholic Church has released detailed data about its own

<had been accused

>Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children

Christian?

>If we assume (for no reason at all) that Catholic priests are better rapists than school teachers and football coaches

Public schools are a terrible institution so if they're equal in that it's still saying something about this private and secluded activity.

>get away ten times more often (somehow), then yes, we can conclude that 20 or 30 percent of all Catholic priests are child molesters

Public schools are a lot easier to track just due to diversity of people contained in them. Numbers don't have to be that big, they are still saying things.

>We can also conclude that every priest is a child molester

Strawman. Though a similar conclusion can be made if an assumption that many of them hide or defend such priests or do not directly oppose such action then such an accusation could be made, even though not a very accurate one.

>>92351

>Wikipedia

27 articles. I'm sure teachers are still convicted more often than priests due to reasons above, be it plain numbers or their ration to overall amount.

>I once called our intelligence service just to call them faggots, and I lectured my local party offices on natural law

Mkay, and how does this show that you're not authoritarian? You know, opposition to a current regime is a trait of almost any radical political ideology you can find. Also git v& m8.

>>92349

>this is incoherent

Explaining: conservatives can be as authoritarian as progressives. Any claims on their innocence are as valid as claims about voluntarism of ancoms, even though conservatism is a mess of a term.

>So?

It boils down to "because i say so" if you're using your own statements as a reference.

>I did give you arguments

You do now, then you used them as an example . It's not enough because my claim is not "all x are x" but "embracing x will lead to x who are x".

>the welfare state had unanimous support among Christians

How many christians wouldn't support welfare state if it chose to give gibs to those they sympathize and not some guy a politician chose? You know, commies do not support any welfare state either.

>Nice, you ignored my argument.

Ok, i'll say it straight - it was not 'resistance" but attempts to secure their positions and preserve their cultural influence. Just because their position was prevalent before so they only pulled things backwards doesn't mean they protected something better.

>it talks about the difference between the spirit and the letter of the law

I'd agree if one would not turn into another if left unanswered.

>no system is ever socialist

I disagree. To me "socialsim" is a term describing a system with powerful centralized government, while the flavor can vary. That way, you've got socdems, natsocs, communist socs, islamist socialists and even christian socialsts, all grouped by the means they use to try to achieve their goals.

>I, however, could tell you why evangelicalism, quakerism and anabaptism are not "real" Christianity

Then tell me, i'm actually interested how would you prove the reality of your chosen system, irreality of others, why yours wouldn't change into one of them or one that never was before or, if you rely on the bible, why does it serve as ultimate measure of those things. That's pretty interesting, even with the little bits of my attention towards unfalsifiable things, it's more of philosophical and dialectic interest.

>oth the laws of heritability and the big bang were discovered by the Catholic Church.

You know, shapeless metaphors do not count as "discovery", right?

>Furthermore, the scientific method is implicitly based on scholastic ideas

Just like scholastic ideas are a continuation of greek studies in philosophy. I'd say it went back to observation from dogmatism, even if it got some of the newer methods.

Cont.

>that is what the scientific method is about

It's more about observation and cultivating a negative position by removing factors that distort the vision, i.e. "faith".

>Replicability is not about establishing scientific laws at all, contrary to popular perception.

Never said it was. Provability on the other hand, is, as well as falsifiability.

>that the Church brutally executed

Strawman. It's not that some people suffered but indoctrination, dogmaticism and fanaticism, all of which are cultural problems that prevailed during that time. Also, burning people alive is not a small thing, even if these people are not famous, even if the wars of the time are just as bad, you know.

>As for the thousands of scientists that the Church brutally executed, name one that isn't Galileo

Giordano Bruno

>We have more oppression of scientists nowadays

The oppression of scientific thought on the other hand is a lot less intense. I agree that this is a problem, though.

>>92356

>I don't really care about him, i was just pointing out that if christians were more consistent with their beliefs and had better imagination they'd accept totalitarian measuers just as well or stopped being christians.

Not really, as we're kind of big proponents of free will, and kinda believe that you need free will to be virtuous, and all that. We also don't think it is our job to eradicate all sin, or create Heaven on earth. It was heretics who pushed this idea for the first time, the same heretics for whom you are now crying because the big evil Church "oppressed" them, but it only reached its zenith under scienticists and atheists like Skinner, Delgado, or the Positivists. It was precisely because they denied that man had a divine spark, and because they had no hope of divine salvation, that their fever dreams about a perfect, fictional world started.

>I think that choosing between a crazy sadist knowledgeable in chemistry and physics and a crazy sadist devoted to worshiping a piece of fiction is akin to choosing between communist and natsoc totalitarian regime. At least one of them was capable of actually doing something productive, even if he chose not to.

That is the third most cucked thing I have read this entire year.

>Ok, but they still abuse their position.

I literally heard three sermons on that within the last two months. You don't have to tell that to anyone. The scandal is getting so big precisely because Church officials started chiming in.

>Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children

>Christian?

I don't know. Could be. I don't see how that is relevant.

>Public schools are a terrible institution so if they're equal in that it's still saying something about this private and secluded activity.

Well, kudos for at least acknowledging the evidence. I mean that.

>27 articles. I'm sure teachers are still convicted more often than priests due to reasons above, be it plain numbers or their ration to overall amount.

You are sure of that but you have provided no statistics to that effect, and it was you who brought that up in the first place. Not every convicted priest will get a wikipedia article.

>Mkay, and how does this show that you're not authoritarian?

Why does it have to show that? My point is, you are in no position to judge how much of a libertarian I am.

>>92357

>It boils down to "because i say so" if you're using your own statements as a reference.

I still don't understand what you mean. I gave you the names of some Catholic liberals, you don't think they're significant because they are also included on the reading list that I assembled?

>How many christians wouldn't support welfare state if it chose to give gibs to those they sympathize and not some guy a politician chose?

Almost everyone these days will support a welfare state. Being against any and all welfare is a radical opinion, if you want to demonize everyone who supports it, then good luck.

>You know, commies do not support any welfare state either.

That is simply not true. They sometimes say that they're against the welfare state, but I have never, in my entire life, heard a Marxist say that we should abolish welfare to start a global revolution. If I were to suggest that to a Marxist, he'd call me a monster. And it is only Marxists who - in theory - oppose welfare. All other socialists are openly in favor of it, Marxists are too schizophrenic to be for or against it.

>Ok, i'll say it straight - it was not 'resistance" but attempts to secure their positions and preserve their cultural influence. Just because their position was prevalent before so they only pulled things backwards doesn't mean they protected something better.

But they did. The resistance against the French and Spanish Revolutions were genuine resistance movements against (would-be) totalitarian regimes. If it wasn't for Franco, Spain would have become fully communist. And if the resistance in the Vendée had succeeded, perhaps the Napoleonic Wars would never have happened.

>I disagree. To me "socialsim" is a term describing a system with powerful centralized government, while the flavor can vary. That way, you've got socdems, natsocs, communist socs, islamist socialists and even christian socialsts, all grouped by the means they use to try to achieve their goals.

Yes, I agree with that, my point was that socialists do not acknowledge any system as socialist (or at least not after it has outlived its propagandistic usefulness).

>>92357

>Then tell me, i'm actually interested how would you prove the reality of your chosen system, irreality of others, why yours wouldn't change into one of them or one that never was before or, if you rely on the bible, why does it serve as ultimate measure of those things. That's pretty interesting, even with the little bits of my attention towards unfalsifiable things, it's more of philosophical and dialectic interest.

The Church, we believe, was established by Christ Himself, and His apostles would then lead it on earth:

>Ephesians 2:20-22: Built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

>Matthew 16:18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The entire book of Acts talks about the early Church at length, too. A lot of it is dispersed throughout the New Testament.

If Christ Himself founded the Church, then obviously, if you believe in Christ, and believe that He was the Son of God, then you also have to believe that this Church was legitimate. What about the coming generations, though? This is where the concept of Apostolic Succession enters: The Bishops (including the Pope) can trace their office back to the original apostles. They were appointed by Bishops who were appointed by other Bishops etc., who were appointed by the apostles that Christ himself appointed. Therefore, the Church of today is legitimate.

This is true of the Catholic and the Orthodox Church. Both are legitimate Churches, even if they're divided. On the other hand, the protestant denominations have nothing to do with Apostolic Succession. Their priests cannot trace their line of succession back to the original Church. Because of that, protestantism is infested by heresies over heresies, some of which are hard to detect (a layperson will not necessarily know what is wrong with High Church Anglicans), others of which stand in direct contradiction with the Bible and the tradition of the Church. The communism of the Anabaptists, for example, is such a heresy, as you simply cannot read it into the Bible without distorting and cherrypicking like a maniac.

>You know, shapeless metaphors do not count as "discovery", right?

I know, but I was not talking about "shapeless metaphors". Copernicus was patronized by the Church. Gregor Mendel, an Augistinian monk, discovered the laws of heritability through painstaking observation of flowers. Georges Lemaître did not empirically observe the big bang, but he did come up with the theory behind it, and was applauded both by the Church and by the scientific establishment for the time. Before this theory, the common opinion among atheists was that the universe had no beginning, because then, it did not have to be created (according to them).

>>92361

>That new buildings are not built in the romantic or baroque style, that is a good thing?

That IS a good thing from economic perspective, just like it is a good thing to not tile your bath with gold. Do you think resourcefullness is a good thing? If you don't you are still free to use your own money to create such art, especially since now it's easier to do with it being properly defined, organized and having people who study and perfect the feel of a style you pursue.

>I don't even want to bash all modern art

It's shitty one that gains more attention. Artists still learn and draw things not worse than they did before, composers create music that will be remebered long after them, even if not it's called 'game music" or something and not "orchestral" or "classical" music. And so on with other art.

>art was invented

I think art was natural to people from the very moment of their being, primitive as it was. it evolved into what we have today throughout the ages.

>muh science

Literally turn back from dogmatic sophistry to analysis and observation. I already said this above in the post after the one you reply.

>So secularism, not capital accumulation, increases wealth?

No, capital accumulation is positively influenced by secularism, just like any other decision making act is.

>You are on the exact same level

Go stick your non-argument up you ass, leftist faggot. Stupid to call people leftists when you are a collectivist cunt inserting your faggy cult into anything you can reach.

>o, do you actually have an example of the Christians destroying some enlightened philosopher?

Are you retarded? If there was info on such a guy he wouldn't be a forgotten one. Plenty of data about known ones is still lost, though.

>I would be surprised if you could name a single big atrocity from the "dark ages"

Being essentially an indoctrination tool in support of the rulers is quite enough. Aforementioned spanish inquisition, for example, wouldn't be possible the way it was without it.

>bluntly defending dogmas

No, not bluntly by any means. Sophists of the older times would have been downed by how far their art has gone, though regular dialectics developed as well, even though it still revolved around dogmas and unbacked acceptance of absolute authorities.

>>92362

>you need free will to be virtuous

Yet you defend people who are virtuous and not people who use their free will in a different manner.

>It was heretics

And how would you deal with them if your whole movement has proven to offer a constant supply of them while offering so little gain?

>fever dreams about a perfect, fictional world

Sounds like heaven to me. They just don't believe in some sky daddy that will lead them in such a place but you've got the same goal.

>That is the third most cucked thing I have read this entire year.

You wouldn't say that if i said something like "yet one of them was honorable enough to fight before his death" or "was honest enough to accept his crimes". Maybe you're projecting, christcuck?

>I literally heard three sermons on that within the last two months

Ok, though what punishment will they be faced if it's proven true? Extortion? Jail? Lifelong retirement paid by church?

>Not every convicted priest will get a wikipedia article.

Even less so a teacher.

>you are in no position to judge how much of a libertarian I am.

But i am. You provided examples of your actions and i commented that these do not really serve as proof of your beliefs, even if you do not have to prove anything.

>you don't think they're significant because they are also included on the reading list that I assembled

I don't think they are significant for the reason i've never heard of them and they're catholic, including them on the list wouldn't change that.

>f you want to demonize everyone who supports it

I will demonize everyone who supports it directly proportionally to the amount of welfare and state intervention then try to implement.

>That is simply not true.

I meant that their lack of support for a current welfare policy does not mean their opposition to welfare in general, which is the thing that matters.

>were genuine resistance movements against (would-be) totalitarian regimes

Inquisition and ideological government-backed institutions do sound like totalitarianism to me, even if the times look too different to recognize it as such at first.

>>92365

>was established by Christ Himself

How is such high trust justified when translations, archaeology and history of such old times can be easily falsified, especially since even minor alteration can have huge effects on the ideology?

>They were appointed by Bishops who were appointed by other Bishops etc.

Good, but what if one of the bishops in the chain has mistaken or was corrupt? It can turn the whole other chain on a completely different path.

>Copernicus was patronized by the Church

The church was the center of literacy at the time, i agree. There were no alternatives to it, partially because of its actions though. If i wanted to sound edgy i'd say something like "true mind cannot be hindered by even strongest dogmas and finds a way towards the truth despite all the obstacles created".

>the common opinion among atheists was that the universe had no beginning

Tbqh, today's opinion is somewhat similar - big band might have been a previous universe that first compressed and not just the appearance of it out of nowhere.

>it did not have to be created

More like "it would extend to the thing that caused its creation as it cannot appear from absolute nothingness", i suppose.

>>92368

>so this hierarchical chain must terminate at some point of pure actuality - the causa sui, God, which can only exist - or else, nothing could exist.

Well, the chain just might never end - we'll discover new "atoms" every time, going deeper and deeper, probably finding entire universes in there. Or, it could end up being the universe code or something and we'll gain ability to change not only its states but whole universal rules instead. Or we can just never discover anything beyond a point - it's all possible and i don't see why a god that created stuff is more possible then some other unfalsifiable theory, like the one where one can become universe hacker/wizard and people would have to compete in writing code on the language of the universe to compete.

>God, which can only exist - or else, nothing could exist

Tbh, if only god can create stuff then what thing created god? Why is only god capable of creating stuff and has always existed or appeared out of nowhere but the universe itself cannot be this way?

>His miracles

It's a shame we cannot cast fireballs or even have telekinesis, not joking.

>The Gospels themselves provide evidence for Christ

Their description of them might still be untrue, even if a similar person existed. Think of today's normalfag perception of Tesla - he did live, he did invent stuff but beyond that things get magical.

>That they were written by reliable witnesses follows from the fact that they decided to die for their beliefs

Or it could have been a person that wrote about people dying for their beliefs about a person who died to save humanity. Or it could have been some organization that tried to gain influence by using some famous madman. We'll never know as evidence can only be lost now and this was the one that made it til here.

>both archeological records and other witnesses and historians back up the Bible

it doesn't have to contradict them, it still can talk about things that cannot be checked and will not serve as scientific proof because of its truthful statements.

>o this solar eclipse was very likely not just made up to lend credibility to the Scripture.

Or there happened a solar eclipse during these years and the author added it to his story, especially since keeping track of time was not easy back in the day.

>>92369

Ok, good luck.

>>92364

Priesthood is a job, most churchgoers care about the the safety of their community, and many churchgoers know each other their entire lives and treat them like extended family. Just admit you're a fedoratipper and stop trying to weave your non-ideology into greater libertarian philosophy.

>>92370

>Yet you defend people who are virtuous and not people who use their free will in a different manner.

This is where scholasticism has an interesting doctrine, one that has actually played into why Catholics are more likely to resist or assassinate their political leaders. The scholastics teach that you must always act according to your conscience (conscience not meaning a gut feeling, but your moral sense after you have exercised your intellect to figure out what is right and wrong). So if your conscience tells you to kill your leader, you must do so, and you incur no sin for doing so. The sin, if anything, lies in your error of judgement, not in acting upon that judgement.

The story of Martin Luther, as he appeared before the Pope, expresses that idea: "I stand here, I cannot do otherwise." In other words, he was bound by his conscience. Whether that story is true or not, it reflects the scholastic spirit.

>And how would you deal with them if your whole movement has proven to offer a constant supply of them while offering so little gain?

Two thousand years, and we only had one Reformation, which the Church itself has survived unscathed. That's not a bad track record at all, especially considering how widely spread the Church was, and that it's harder to maintain doctrinal purity when that becomes the case. All in all, the Reformation does not prove that the Church is inherently unstable. It would be different if it had brought the Church down, and we were rebuilding it.

>Sounds like heaven to me. They just don't believe in some sky daddy that will lead them in such a place but you've got the same goal.

We will not lack free will in Heaven, however. Nor will we lose our humanity by being close to God.

>Inquisition and ideological government-backed institutions do sound like totalitarianism to me, even if the times look too different to recognize it as such at first.

The Inquisitions, especially the Spanish Inquisition, had very little influence, however. They weren't even trying to be totalitarian, in fact. The Spanish Inquisition was constantly called to judge crimes but bluntly told the authorities that those were outside its jurisdiction, so no can do. And had it wanted to be totalitarian, it would've lacked the manpower. It was underfunded and understaffed, books on its index were imported and read all the time, and on the rare occasion it did hand out a death sentence, those were usually "burnings in effigy", meaning that a puppet was burned as a proxy.

>>92371

>How is such high trust justified when translations, archaeology and history of such old times can be easily falsified, especially since even minor alteration can have huge effects on the ideology?

The fact that we have so many documents and archeological sites, that they were discovered throughout history, and that they aren't all clustered in one spot, helps. We have several orders of magnitude more manuscripts of the Bible, for example, than of just about any other work, including those of Aristotle. To this day, we don't know in which order the ''Metaphysics' were written, and if they're even from Aristotle, if they're lectures, and so on, but we know almost for a certainty what content the Bible has. Some falsification happened, sure, but we can discover that. The fact that no reputable historian denies that Jesus lived at all, even though that would be the mother of all findings in all numbers of ways, is significant.

>Good, but what if one of the bishops in the chain has mistaken or was corrupt? It can turn the whole other chain on a completely different path.

Yes, but we do believe - based on what Christ said - that He is the head of the Church. So even if the Papacy was outright sold, we can know that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). The new Pope might be of bad character, but he still is the Pope. In fact, we had terrible Popes throughout history, yet never - not once - did one declare a heresy to be an infallible doctrine, so I would say history is on our side on this.

>Tbqh, today's opinion is somewhat similar - big band might have been a previous universe that first compressed and not just the appearance of it out of nowhere.

Yeah, we got a lot of conceptions about this, but I am not at all sure there is much to them. From what I know, we simply cannot know what happened before the Big Bang, or even if there could be a "before". But I am no astrophysicist and would not vouch for that.

>>92372

>Well, the chain just might never end - we'll discover new "atoms" every time, going deeper and deeper, probably finding entire universes in there.

But then we run into the problem that we have an endless number of potentialities, but still nothing to actualize even one of them. Think about this: If you line up an endless number of christmas lights, will even a single one light up if there is no source of electricity at all?

>Or, it could end up being the universe code or something and we'll gain ability to change not only its states but whole universal rules instead.

In that case, you would have discovered the pure act that actualizes everything else. In other words, you'd have discovered God, except by your idea, He is no person, just some mindless code. There are other proofs for why the Causa Sui must have the attributes of God, but I don't want to dwell on that for now.

What I want to touch on, however, is this:

> and we'll gain ability to change not only its states but whole universal rules instead

Then the code, on the other hand, would have contingent, and not necessary, existence, in other words: It would have potential and not actual being. And then we would not have found God, but we'd still require a prime mover.

>Tbh, if only god can create stuff then what thing created god? Why is only god capable of creating stuff and has always existed or appeared out of nowhere

Because only God is pure act. Therefore, He didn't have to be actualized. Only things that have the possibility of not existing need a reason for their existence (as opposed to their non-existence).

>but the universe itself cannot be this way?

Because the universe, by definition, is just the entirety of everything, and we clearly see that parts of it are not pure act, but rather have potential.

>It's a shame we cannot cast fireballs or even have telekinesis, not joking.

Not joking, that would be fun.

>Their description of them might still be untrue, even if a similar person existed. Think of today's normalfag perception of Tesla - he did live, he did invent stuff but beyond that things get magical.

Yes, but those aren't primary witnesses of him. While I do not doubt that there were crazy theories floating around about him while he lived, and maybe even some from people who witnessed his antics and inventions first hand, not a single one of them - let alone several - have shown that they were absolutely convinced of the story, to the point where they would rather die than recant their testimony.

>Or it could have been a person that wrote about people dying for their beliefs about a person who died to save humanity. Or it could have been some organization that tried to gain influence by using some famous madman. We'll never know as evidence can only be lost now and this was the one that made it til here.

A lot of heretical documents, or those hostile to the Christian fatih, survived, yet apparently, it was never handed down that one of the Apostles recanted his faith. Even Josephus, for example, affirms the martyrdom of James, as do gnostic sources, apparently. The sources that do describe the martyrdoms, moreover, are all consistent with each other. It is very unlikely for several liars to all tell the same story, as even the truth often gets distorted after decades, moreso a lie that you just agreed to spread some years back.

Speaking of which, the Gospels are all in agreement, but they don't always recount events from the same perspective. That is also a point in favor of their veracity. You probably know these tricks like letting a liar retell his story from a different perspective, or chronologically backward, to make them stumble. Now, imagine two people telling you the same story, from different perspectives, but each emphasizing slightly different details. That's what you have with teh Bible.

>Or there happened a solar eclipse during these years and the author added it to his story, especially since keeping track of time was not easy back in the day.

Of course, one specific piece of evidence can always be forged, but with historical reconstruction, you have to look at it all as a whole. All of these coincidences, deliberate lies and conspiracies may be plausible in isolation, but not when they all come together and form a coherent whole.

ancap lit is the worst

>>92379

>your moral sense after you have exercised your intellect to figure out what is right and wrong

Sounds like "it's free will only if you act the way we like you to" tbh. How do you distinguish what is an act of free will and what is "acting under evil influence" or why is one's acting "an error of judgement" while other one's is not, even if they both think and act.

>he was bound by his conscience

Is inability to recognize opportunities a virtue?

>It would be different if it had brought the Church down, and we were rebuilding it.

Tbh, church is slowly losing its positions today and has reforms to accommodate public opinion on themes like niggers, gays and other liberal stuff, yet it's unlikely that this will do more than slow it's demise at the cost of it's own ideas.

>We will not lack free will in Heaven, however. Nor will we lose our humanity by being close to God.

How can this be heaven then, if people were still capable of acting evil? It's either perfect world with perfect people or it's imperfect and will fall to people acting upon their free will.

>The Inquisitions, especially the Spanish Inquisition, had very little influence, however.

Totalitarianism doesn't have to be as effective as one of the industrial or post-industrial age to be counted as such.

>Some falsification happened, sure, but we can discover that

But we cannot, for the most part, even if there are things that are possibly provable.

>The fact that no reputable historian denies that Jesus lived at all

There's quite a bit of bias in this historic field. It's really hard to prove whether the man existed, even if he did, that his name was jesus, if it was, then whether he had similar personality to description, if he had, that there was only one jesus, etc.

>never - not once - did one declare a heresy to be an infallible doctrine

Does any christian think so? What prevents me, say, declare some policy i don't like a heresy, especially on a point that has little data and very moot or even contradicting info on it? What makes a "heresy" anything more than a sign of disagreement?

>we simply cannot know what happened before the Big Bang, or even if there could be a "before"

Yes, for now. Just like we cannot know what's beyond X light years because no waves or signals can go that far so we've only got a visible sphere around us. Same with particles and stuff, we've got theories about higgs bozon and other, smaller stuff which molecules are made of but we've really got andronic collider as the first thing that got us here, afaik.

>>92379 (cont)

>nothing to actualize even one of them

Well, if that's the case there's nothing to actualize the god itself. If god is eternal i don't see why a mass of energy and matter flowing from one state to another for eternity is less believable, now that we concluded that ever existing objects can exist.

>If you line up an endless number of christmas lights, will even a single one light up if there is no source of electricity at all?

You can have electromagnetic interference that powers them all up at the same time even without a set power source that exists into every point where the lights do, for example. or the laws can be completely different and lights can stay lit due to their construction and laws like "material of lights glows by itself in the universe".

>you would have discovered the pure act

I'd view that not as an "act" but more like ultimate "state" that's not different from today's matter, it just offers more opportunities of world interaction, that same ever-existing world that it was, it's just not limited to fixed laws of physics in the end.

>He is no person, just some mindless code

But code does not have to "start" things, it can just define the shape of things with no info on starting them. Try seeing the "code" in the way you view the text of the html page you use to browse this site - you view and interact with it via browser, you can create another one or you can even modify its contents - for everyone if you have access to the servers or for yourself with user scripts or a different browser.

>attributes of God

Like what? Ever existence? Why cannot world itself have such attributes, at which point it's more about semantics whether to call it "god" or something.

>He didn't have to be actualized

But why he doesn't, while other things do?

>Because the universe, by definition, is just the entirety of everything, and we clearly see that parts of it are not pure act, but rather have potential.

That's some serious hand waving. Things need to have a start, be actuated first to exist by some kind of act, yet god is the same thing but ignores all the rules altogether.

>not a single one of them - let alone several - have shown that they were absolutely convinced of the story, to the point where they would rather die than recant their testimony

Times have changed, people have changed, things have changed. Newspapers appeared. Subject of news about Tesla was quite a bit different one. It was quite recent as well, yet still so much shit's come around for such a short time.

>one of the Apostles recanted his faith

Why would there, if one of the theories i stated was true? If it's about conspiracy they have little reason to - it'd risk their lives and reputation, make them or their mates lose influence, attract unwanted 3rd parties or backfire any other way. If they decided to do that the idea of going snitching is also unlikely, because then they wouldn't start it.

>It is very unlikely for several liars to all tell the same story

Only if the liars act independently or not base their lies on the same events. It can also be that only a liar started it and it got spread by honest guys.

>ow, imagine two people telling you the same story, from different perspectives, but each emphasizing slightly different details

They could observe same events and still add something on their own, especially if they were both being influenced similarly. Stuff could also be altered afterwards to remove inconsistencies, contradictions and add something new while leaving general storyline intact.

>one specific piece of evidence can always be forged, but with historical reconstruction, you have to look at it all as a whole

There's a strong incentive to falsify things when all your ideology about complete knowledge about life, people and their actions as a whole is reliant only on history as material proof of it.

>>92392

>Sounds like "it's free will only if you act the way we like you to" tbh. How do you distinguish what is an act of free will and what is "acting under evil influence" or why is one's acting "an error of judgement" while other one's is not, even if they both think and act.

I think you misunderstand something. If you act against your conscience, then of course, that is also an expression of your free will. Of course, though, that is not respected. My point is not that every action that you undertake from your own free will is sanctified, that would be a pretty crazy doctrine (one that no libertarian would subscribe to, either). It's that Catholicism does not prescribe any schematic outward behavior, as it acknowledges the importance of freedom of will. Without free will, you can neither sin, nor fulfill your calling, a calling which is very individual. There are many paths that lead to God. Sure there are some prohibitions, but those exist in every religion or ideology. Christianity, Catholicism and Orthodoxy in particular, give a lot of leeway even with them, at least in principle. You can get away with an act that would otherwise be murder, as I described, but even if no earthly lawyer would find a ground for your exculpation, then we hold that maybe God will, all-knowing and just as He is. Hence, there is no canon of people that are definitely in hell, only private opinion on these matters.

>You can have electromagnetic interference that powers them all up at the same time even without a set power source that exists into every point where the lights do, for example.

It does not matter whether the source of the light in the bulbs actually lies outside them, and gets into no direct, tangible contact with them. My point is, you cannot substitute an endless chain for having something actualizing your potential. Your example here demonstrates this, in fact. You need something actual (the electromagnetic field) to actualize the potential of the lightbulbs to glow.

>or the laws can be completely different and lights can stay lit due to their construction and laws like "material of lights glows by itself in the universe".

The laws of the universe are not externally prescribed, however, that is just an allegory to statutory laws. They are imminent to their objects. The reason that plutonium is radioactive is not because there is some stone pillar on which it is written "plutonium is radioactive", but because it is by nature unstable and thus particles break off from it.

Now, if the christmas lights actually do glow on their own, then that only obscures the problem. We could now question why these lights exist in the first place, and the answer cannot be another infinite regress, for the same reason why we cannot explain why the lightbulbs glow if there is also a possibility for them not to glow with an infinite regress.

>I'd view that not as an "act" but more like ultimate "state" that's not different from today's matter, it just offers more opportunities of world interaction, that same ever-existing world that it was, it's just not limited to fixed laws of physics in the end.

>But code does not have to "start" things, it can just define the shape of things with no info on starting them. Try seeing the "code" in the way you view the text of the html page you use to browse this site - you view and interact with it via browser, you can create another one or you can even modify its contents - for everyone if you have access to the servers or for yourself with user scripts or a different browser.

This, I think, also shrouds the problem, but does not resolve it. What you have in mind, if I understood you correctly, is that we could stumble upon a layer of existence that is deeper than ours, which we could not understand adequately from our own layer. So our relation to this layer would be similar to the relation between a website and its html code, and between the html code and the physical processes underlying it. You can, in principle, understand the upper layer from the deeper layer, but not necessarily vice versa. However, it is not fully unintelligible to us. The deeper layer is the cause for the upper layer, and it cannot be otherwise. Even here, an infinite regress is not possible. That there is a deeper layer to our existence does not change the law of causation, as this deeper layer is in turn only understandable as the cause of the layer we perceive.

In fact, such layers of reality do exist, as we have the realm of corporeal objects, and the molecules and atoms underlying them, and then the particles below them. If we had complete control on the atomar level, we could "hack" the corporeal stage, which is what nanotechnology is about. If we could control processes on the subatomar level, we could, in turn, "hack" the other layers above. But what we can never do is get rid of causality completely. We cannot even conceive of doing so.

>>92392

>Is inability to recognize opportunities a virtue?

What do you mean? To answer bluntly, no.

>Tbh, church is slowly losing its positions today and has reforms to accommodate public opinion on themes like niggers, gays and other liberal stuff, yet it's unlikely that this will do more than slow it's demise at the cost of it's own ideas.

Meh. Don't overrate this development. Some people in the Church are for migration, others against it. There is no doctrine concerning it, though, and it is safe to say that Pope Francis is just sharing his own opinions when he calls for us to respect immigrants. We had worse Popes, seriously. We had boy Popes, one who exhumed and descrated the corpse of his predecessor, and one who was stabbed to death by the guy he cuckolded. They abused their power, but they could not hurt the Church itself. It is the same with Francis, except that his shortcomings are tame in comparison (the Popes I mentioned, mind you, were exceptionally bad, we seldom end up with criminals like that).

As for gays, the position of the Church towards them has not at all changed, and Francis' comments on them are hardly that interesting. The worst ones all come from unsanctioned interviews that were written down from memory, by laypeople. The one time he told a gay man that "God made you that way" was such an interview. In fact, it wasn't even an interview, but a private conversation, and the gay dude (a victim of sexual abuse in Church) then said that Francis told him this. We have no idea what Francis really said; it could've been something like "God made you who you are", unrelated to his homosexuality.

What we do know for a certainty is that Francis has told homosexuals to remain celibate. Instead of "I'm cool with you IF YOU'RE CELIBATE", he said "I'M COOL WITH YOU if you're celibate", which you can agree or disagree with, but it offers flimsy grounds for calling the end of the world.

The modern press is doing us a huge disservice. It used to be the case that statements of the Pope came in the form of encyclicals and other official documents, but now, private statements are issued forth by the press as "stuff the Pope said". We didn't have this problem in the past.

>How can this be heaven then, if people were still capable of acting evil? It's either perfect world with perfect people or it's imperfect and will fall to people acting upon their free will.

My personal belief is that in Heaven, your will is aligned to God. Keep in mind that I am a determinist of sorts (compatibilitist really). Someone who is a hero is one precisely because he always exercises his free will in a specific way, but that does not make his will any less free. In fact, if he were to spontaneously deviate from his heroic course, then we would question that he is a hero. So in Heaven, we are aligned to God, but not because we are enslaved, but because every sufficiently virtuous person (and only those enter Heaven) will act in a good way in the presence of God, inspired by His love, mercy and justice.

>Totalitarianism doesn't have to be as effective as one of the industrial or post-industrial age to be counted as such.

But the Inquisition did not try to be totalitarian, either. It was originally called in to combat cryptojudaism, and then the Reformation. It always had specific targets and did not care about the state of society at large. It was McCarthyism, but not the Cheka.

>>92392

>But we cannot, for the most part, even if there are things that are possibly provable.

With enough sources, we can. And we have a lot of those, Church documents, heathen ones, heretical ones. We even find new evidence nowadays, when falsification is far less plausible. See here, for example:

https://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/pontius-pilate-faq.htm

For years, we had no official record to prove that Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea (which begs the question, why not forge that?). We did have the word of Tacitus - a heathen philosopher - and the word of Origen - whose works were actually suppressed by the Church - that such records do exist. Neither sounds like useful propaganda to me. Now that we discovered this stone fragment, we can know for sure that Origen and Tacitus did not make things up, and that their testimonies were fabricated or lies was unlikely to begin with.

>There's quite a bit of bias in this historic field. It's really hard to prove whether the man existed, even if he did, that his name was jesus, if it was, then whether he had similar personality to description, if he had, that there was only one jesus, etc.

That is true, but also not insurmountable. There weren't that many people called "Jesus" at this time, after all, and it is unlikely even two would pass for "sorcerers". Here is an article talking about the sources we have:

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/

It is also significant that all kinds of slander about Christ are passed down, up to the name of the soldier His mother, Mary, allegedly slept with. Yet we don't have a single antique source, to my knowledge, denying that Christ lived at all, and surprisingly many even concede His miracles, even if they call them by other names.

>Does any christian think so? What prevents me, say, declare some policy i don't like a heresy, especially on a point that has little data and very moot or even contradicting info on it? What makes a "heresy" anything more than a sign of disagreement?

The question is not so much what makes a heresy, but what makes an infallible statement. And the definition of that is quite narrow: It must either be issued by an Ecumenical Council, or by the Pope, "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church." There are quite few such statements, and none of them are in denial of a core doctrine of the Church. Such core doctrines are those which follow directly from the Scripture, or have been taught by the Church for most of its existence, like the communion of saints, or the punishment of the wicked. There is no simple test for determining what passes for a heresy, but that does not mean the concept is empty. We do not call it such in libertarianism, but we also have our "heresies", points where disagreement is unacceptable, as opposed to such points where we can agree to disagree. We may disagree, for example, on whether it is permissible to bribe state officials, while disagreement on whether we need a federal bank is grounds for taking the Ancap® License from someone.

>>92392

>Yes, for now. Just like we cannot know what's beyond X light years because no waves or signals can go that far so we've only got a visible sphere around us. Same with particles and stuff, we've got theories about higgs bozon and other, smaller stuff which molecules are made of but we've really got andronic collider as the first thing that got us here, afaik.

The Big Bang is really not a main battlefield for religion, though. It was nice to have it proven for the Catholic Church, as it seems to illustrate the cosmological argument. But even if the universe did exist forever, we would not be in huge trouble. That would be an "aesthetic" issue more than anything.

>>92393

>Well, if that's the case there's nothing to actualize the god itself. If god is eternal i don't see why a mass of energy and matter flowing from one state to another for eternity is less believable, now that we concluded that ever existing objects can exist.

The problem lies in the distinction between contingent and necessary existence. God exists necessarily, hence He was not in need of a cause for His existence (besides Himself, if you want to look at it that way). If God did exist contingently, then He would be in need of a cause, but then He would also not be God. The mass of energy and matter that you describe is problematic precisely because it exists only contingently.

>Like what? Ever existence? Why cannot world itself have such attributes, at which point it's more about semantics whether to call it "god" or something.

If it does have the attributes of being all-loving, just, perfect, timeless and so on, then yes, it is God, but that is more of a point of semantics. In that case, it is only proper to worship it. It cannot be the case, however, that the "whole world" is God, because we already know that parts of the world exist only contingently, so how can the world "as a whole" exist necessarily? If anything, then a part of the world would exist necessarily, but then we'd be back to having our first cause.

>But why he doesn't, while other things do?

Because we perceive them to be contingent. If we did not perceive that at all, then it would never occur to us that they might not exist by necessity. Because they exist contingently, we need something - God - that existed necessarily, to confer existence to them.

>That's some serious hand waving. Things need to have a start, be actuated first to exist by some kind of act, yet god is the same thing but ignores all the rules altogether.

But God is precisely not the same thing. If we think Him away, everything drops out of existence. He is unactualized actuality - pure act - by definition, and He exists because without Him, nothing could exist.

>>92393

>Times have changed, people have changed, things have changed. Newspapers appeared. Subject of news about Tesla was quite a bit different one. It was quite recent as well, yet still so much shit's come around for such a short time.

Sure, but the truth is not distorted. It can be easily discovered by doing the right research. Even if we had no primary knowledge of Tesla, the fact that the only source for the claims about him was "Oatmeal" would make them highly suspicious.

>Why would there, if one of the theories i stated was true? If it's about conspiracy they have little reason to - it'd risk their lives and reputation, make them or their mates lose influence, attract unwanted 3rd parties or backfire any other way. If they decided to do that the idea of going snitching is also unlikely, because then they wouldn't start it.

When you are just about to be burned to death, then you don't risk certain death for the sake of maintaining your influence. If they had so much loyalty to each other that they'd keep the facade up even to the death, then we must ask what made them so loyal, if not the utter conviction in their professed cause.

>Only if the liars act independently or not base their lies on the same events.

Liars don't generally act that way. The Bible already does take flak because of its supposed inconsistencies, like that Judas was simultaneously hanged and fell from a cliff (for which there is the simple explanation that he hanged himself, his body became bloated, then he fell down and burst open). If you tell a lie, you want to make sure it's widely believed, so you address the gullible people, not the small percentage of intellectuals and scholars who can harmonize accounts that conflict on a first glance. You just recount the same story, with the same key details, and not the same story from multiple angles.

>It can also be that only a liar started it and it got spread by honest guys.

Then they would all try to tell the exact same story, not "mostly" the same story. I think there is also proof that the apostles themselves wrote some of the Gospels, like that in Matthew, speech is recounted word for word more often than in the others, and that he, of all the apostles, would be skilled in stenography.

>They could observe same events and still add something on their own, especially if they were both being influenced similarly.

In principle, that is true, but even the supernatural elements in the Gospel are (unintentionally) consistent, like the number of angels near Christs grave. Especially with those, we'd expect a lot of inconsistency, if they were completely made up or just hallucinated. We definitely would not expect vivid descriptions from multiple angles which are all consistent with each other. On the contrary, we would expect the normal events to be reliable, but the supernatural elements, later tacked on, to be wildly inconsistent.

>Stuff could also be altered afterwards to remove inconsistencies, contradictions and add something new while leaving general storyline intact.

We have no manuscripts that show such inconsistencies, however, and as widely spread as the Bible was, we'd expect those. We are talking of hundreds of manuscripts spread from Syria to west-north Africa, and as they do have some inconsistencies, we know that they weren't perfect copies of one mastercopy. Forgeries and fabrications did happen, but apparently not to even out contradictions.

>There's a strong incentive to falsify things when all your ideology about complete knowledge about life, people and their actions as a whole is reliant only on history as material proof of it.

I cannot say more about this than I did above, I am afraid. At least not for now. But I hope I could answer some of your objections.

>>92397

>not that every action that you undertake from your own free will is sanctified

>it acknowledges the importance of freedom of will

It really is contradictory though, you either support independence or some specified behavior so you've got to balance between them. Kind of like some centrists do say something like "we think freedom is important but we also should support the needy through taxation". Do not take as offense, it's inconsistency of the ideology.

>Sure there are some prohibitions, but those exist in every religion or ideology

Libertarianism does not specify some required special behavior - it just states what is already true - that you can defend yourself and takes it further as a way of organization. Not every system needs morals to function, not one that relies on them can withstand time.

>You need something actual (the electromagnetic field) to actualize the potential of the lightbulbs to glow.

Well, you still need to actualize the em waves and they can be considered ever-existing in the example, just like the bulbs themselves could. We only cannot have perpetual motion machines or >100% efficiency irl but we still can imagine those things possible.

>it is by nature unstable and thus particles break off from it.

It may be defined in some "code of the universe", though, so that all that happens is merely an image created by the thing.(not in "appeared" sense but in "exists as a continuation of the thing" sense)

>We could now question why these lights exist in the first place

"they just are" is a pretty reasonable explanation. The existence of anything does not necessary dictate that thins "anything" had to appear out of somewhere or be somehow created, if only for the reason that we'll have to question the next thing the same way, ending either with perpetual chain of "creators" or with the conclusion of the possibility of that thing being everlasting, be it universal mass, energy, laws or just code.

>we could stumble upon a layer of existence that is deeper than ours

A higher level of matrix, maybe.

>That there is a deeper layer to our existence does not change the law of causation

Well, if we discover such admin layer of our reality but absolutely nothing that shows us that we can go deeper and further then it makes sense to assume that we reached the zero level, became gods, technological peak or the edge of reality, whatever it's called but we stop and have nowhere else to go and can only operate within, unable to imagine things we've never seen a minor detail of, even if they are there somewhere.

>layers of reality do exist

Well, it's a bit different thing but yeah, we can describe expansion of our knowledge of reality in both micro and macro direction. The thing i was talking about was on a whole new level, though, offering us anything we are able to comprehend, limited only by our own imagination. It's still build out fragments of images, memories of our senses and so if there's something that does not interfere with anything that we could observe in any way it'd be still unreachable for us, despite being literally all-powerful.

>What do you mean?

He says 'i cannot do that" when he clearly can, even if he does not do at the moment. It's either dishonesty or willful ignorance of his own capabilities.

>We had worse Pope

Now's the informational age, though, so one's actions can cause a lot greater impact. Long ago, a complete prohibition of something could not go beyond some circle of influence of the enactor, you had to rely on helpers, the communication was lacking and you had a lot less control over your subjects so the prohibition that would not be profitable(in any way, including emotional) would turn down, be slow and ineffective.

>they could not hurt the Church itself

Well, you described their personal actions. What would happen if they declared some kind of heresy as the main rule or choose some heretic as the next pope? Does seem like a serious vulnerability to me, even without philosophical and historical issues.

>>92397

>The worst ones all come from unsanctioned interviews that were written down from memory, by laypeople

Is youtube down or something? I'm sure if there's something like that it's there.

>it offers flimsy grounds for calling the end of the world

My point as well, he does not state some solid positions as often as they'd push people away but even this calm and quiet time still adds to church losing its former influence, if only for the reason that man is free by nature of being a single man and not some cell of an organism, even if he has mechanisms that make him subvert himself to different authorities.

>We didn't have this problem in the past.

Informational age, in its best and worst.

>that does not make his will any less free

if one can only act a certain way he's not really free. If the hero is a hero because he act the way and not that he acts the way because he's a hero and so can change his behavior then he's free but then he can always stop being a hero.

>It always had specific targets and did not care about the state of society at large

yes, the church did

>not the Cheka

Cheka was targeting some specific target though, it was the government and the party that cared about society at large.

>With enough sources, we can.

maybe, though i do have issues with the falsifiability of history in general. Still, these data is not numerous and heretics can still push for similar things, just like every religion has at least one common enemy - unbelievers, as well as the current world having things like scientific creationism which do make me trust the data even less, with the contradictions with known laws of reality being the close second.

>There weren't that many people called "Jesus" at this time

There could have been multiple people doing things though, and it's just that these acts were remembered and associated with one person.

>surprisingly many even concede His miracles, even if they call them by other names

We've got plenty of charlatans relying on hypnosis, indoctrination, ignorance or other human weaknesses to create something they cannot understand, i don't why an inventor of one of the few at the tome users of such advanced techniques couldn't be successful.

>There are quite few such statements, and none of them are in denial of a core doctrine of the Church

They are contradictory though, so you've got to choose how important they are to each other at the very least.

>We may disagree, for example, on whether it is permissible to bribe state officials

I don't really see that as a matter of libertarianism, rather it's a personal opinion. What is a matter of libertarianism is that state officials can be bribed and federal bank is an authoritarian institution. You seem to assign too many things to libertarianism. I could let it flow if you conflated morals with some libertarian movement but the libertarian theory is and always be immoral, as it needs to observe things and describe opportunities and conditions and not change them.

>if the universe did exist forever

Big band doesn't disprove that, though.

>That would be an "aesthetic" issue more than anything

>>92408

Fuck, it cut the reply

>>92409

Damn you, jesus, for fucking my shit up!

>>92402

Ok, i'll try to recreate the shit .in a more packed shape.

>That would be an "aesthetic" issue more than anything.

Church does deal with unfalsifiable substances at its core. unluckily for it, science does reduce the space for them and limiting some people in their unprovable speculations.

>If it does have the attributes of being all-loving, just, perfect, timeless and so on

Doesn't convey through his actions though.

>it is only proper to worship it

Moral relativity, ethical nihilism and personal independence beg to differ.

> we already know that parts of the world exist only contingently

But they are just fragments of the whole thing that changes its visible shape throughout the time while the whole amount of mass and energy - the potential remains the same. Air was once water that evaporated only to fall in rain and flow back into the ocean - all without leaving the planet. Sure, we've got heat rays but "in perfect vacuum" momentum of the bodies does not change, for example so the efficiency of their movement is 100%. yeah, relativity and stuff is there but you get my point.

>If we think Him away, everything drops out of existence

>He exists because without Him, nothing could exist.

But why is god different, other than just saying that he can have things while other things cannot? If something has to start the chain of things and actions then this something does need the starter as well, if the starter can appear out of nowhere then other things like the universe can just as well, if the starter existed forever then universe could as well and so on. It fits our imagination and is not something hard to comprehend.

>>92403

>It can be easily discovered by doing the right research

Now remove 99% of all knowledge about him to the present day while retaining proportions of ideas and premises and try the same thing.

>When you are just about to be burned to death

He could just have faced something a lot worse if you snitched, if you need a believable theory.

>Liars don't generally act that way.

It's a bad liar that acts like a liar. A perfect liar is undetectable by anything other then the fact that his statement is a lie and he still can disguise his motives as ignorance or something.

>Then they would all try to tell the exact same story, not "mostly" the same story.

If it was exactly the same it would be just one book by all of them. if you change perspective, wording, implications etc you get something different.

>even the supernatural elements

I've got better things to do that go searching but i'll go with doubt and add things about common myths, legends and culture, point to ability to simulate supernatural by hypnosis and psychology(such as used even today, fate telling, contactless fighting, pyrokinesis, etc, i don't see why someone who discovered something so advanced would be unsuccessful) as well as the fact that they had a common teacher that could have some tricks.

>We have no manuscripts that show such inconsistencies

If i'd do any alterations i'd sure as hell not tell anyone about that.

>we know that they weren't perfect copies of one mastercopy

Were there any centralized structures that had any connection to the spreading of the manuscripts in a significant way?

>>92213

bump

>~50 replies of autism

Care to give me a TL;DR of your conversation with the fedora-tipper, ancap-flag anon?

I need a book that explains SocDem doctrine and it's concepts such as "nudging" without praising/propagandizing it.

>>93363

bump

>>93363

Does SocDem even have a definitive doctrine? It's just the "use gibs and empty promises to buy votes" flavour du jour; it congregates around UBI and free healthcare not because of any ideological underpinnings, but because that's what leftist voters are talking about these days.

>>94214

>Does SocDem even have a definitive doctrine?

Yeah, sure.

>but because that's what leftist voters are talking about these days.

Scratch this. SocDem isn't quite left.

>it congregates around UBI and free healthcare not because of any ideological underpinnings

That is its ideological underpinning.

The other two tenets are capitalism and class strength in class collaboration.

>>94217

>That is its ideological underpinning.

>a political goal is an ideological underpinning

U wot.

Does anyone have some good books on Popper's philosophy?

>>94333

His own?

>>94334

I was hoping for something abridged so I can get my feet wet.

>Harry Browne

>It's NOT "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World"

Why? Does the Browneout libertarian movement not exist? Is personal stoicism and improving yourself suddenly not a viable option anymore?

>>94333

"The Open Society and Its Enemies" is a good start for Karl Popper's brand of liberalism, and "The Poverty of Historicism" is the definitive takedown of the marxist and fascist theories of historical determinism.

>>101112

Was not Soros a student of Popper and implementor of his open society idea?

>>92213

Read this short (15 pages) text:

https://ia801408.us.archive.org/27/items/ThePoliticallyIncorrectCaseForLegalizationOfAllDrugs/The%20Politically%20Incorrect%20Case%20for%20Legalization%20of.pdf

>>101242

meh

im already in favour of legalisation of all drugs

>>101242

This is the most retarded, edgy and try-hard thing I've ever read in my entire life. The cringe. Holy fuck, the cringe.

>>102356

How cringe is it? What are examples of some cringy material?