Debate:Statism is a religion, second helpings

This is a Debate page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil! This debate was created by signed users.

moved from Talk:Statism

The belief that there is an invisible higher power called "the state", that is to say that the the imaginary abstraction the "corporate person" is a "real" "entity" rather than something which exists in the mind is a supernatural belief. The belief in this "entity" as "real" is the basis for the statist religion. Of course any statists could disprove this by simply showing a photo of the "corporate person" of "the state" but for some reason they can never produce this evidence, yet they maintain it is somehow "real"(though they have never seen it). Their faith based abstraction is "real" to them (although they will often contradict themselves and admit it is only an abstraction while still professing it is "real"). When you question a statist on the evidence used to support the conclusion, they flip out kind of like scientologists when questioned on xenu. They swear up and down it's not a religion then they turn around and pray to a flag. LogicMaster777 (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Fuzzy Cat Potato: What is the part that is "Wrong"? You don't talk to the "states" through a flag idol, or the part about not having evidence to prove the "corporate person"? Do you have such evidence?LogicMaster777 (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

We've done this. This is your personal delusion. The page does not need to report it. King Skeleton (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

That's your assertion. Still waiting on your evidence.LogicMaster777 (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Statists love to censor evidence-based fact-based falsifiable critical examinations of their belief systems (when their faith based belief systems are lacking in evidence). Their go-to tactic when challenged for evidence (on this site). I have uploaded evidence to support my hypothesis(despite statist censorship attacks trying to stop the evidence from being shown), why can't statists? Oh, yeah, because all they have is medieval religious theories and scriptures. LogicMaster777 (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Your evidence is that some government officials wear robes and that symbolism is often used? That's embarrassingly little 'evidence' if you ask me. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't need evidence to refute you attacking a position no human being has ever held. You can't just make up a position, declare it is your opponent's, declare you have demolished it and then ignore any attempts they make to define their actual position. Well, you clearly can, but it gets you where you are now, where everyone has accepted you're an idiot with the interest in measured debate of a televangelist and the brains of a toilet seat. King Skeleton (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Except I have presented court citations which refute your xenu-style denialism gaslighting where the wizards DO take the position that there is an invisible "sovereign" "higher power" called "the state". LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No, you have not. What happens in your delusional world is not repeated outside it. King Skeleton (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

K anyone can read it in my article to see through your bullshit.LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This site has a heavy statist religious bias and agenda. The article "statism" presents a typical statist intellectually fraudulent straw-man version of what Libertarians/anarchists mean by using the term. If a libertarian calls you a "statist" he means something more like what I present as the meaning of statism rather than the statist fraud version presented on the article page which tries to perpetrate the fraud that statist is merely a "snarl term" to imply that which the libertarian or anarchist doesn't personally "like". Statists love to frame the discussion to hand-wave off anarchists criticisms of their faith-based beliefs which they cannot logically defend. "Oh statism just means whatever you don't like, it's meaningless". What a bunch of bullshit.LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Even anarchists don't start out by arguing the state never existed in the first place because if it didn't there'd be no need to be an anarchist. King Skeleton (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually yes they do. The corporate person of the state is not the same as the government. I'm talking about the invisible higher power statists pray to when they talk to the flag. The leviathan. You can pretend like the Leviathan isn't part of the government belief system like scientologists can deny xenu, that's fine, but it's right there in black and white in the statists' scriptures. LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not. Demonstrating the physical existence of the "legal person" would disprove it conceptually since it is a tool which allows the court system to easily deal with the government. If you think it's supposed to be an actual person, how come the courts have never tried to give the legal person of the state a custodial sentence? Could it be you just have no idea what you're talking about? King Skeleton (talk) 09:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Of all the religious lawyers and judges throughout history, how many have ever sentenced a religious deity to jail for that matter?LogicMaster777 (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Formal logic

I want you to write your argument like this:

P1: I am a banana.

P2: Bananas are delicious.

C1: I am delicious.

That way, we can see what premises you must accept to arrive at C#: Statism is a religion. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

His argument is, as far as I can tell:

1. P1: Religions feature symbols and rituals and religious officials often wear robes.
2. P2: Governments use symbols and rituals and some government officials sometimes wear robes.
3. C1: Governments are religions! *gasp*

141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

P1 Statism describes a system of belief

P2 Statism is based on belief in imaginary entities as "real" or supernatural entities. This is evidenced by statists talking to flags. Speaking to Hobbe's "leviathan", the corporate person of the state. The type of entity which is on the cover of his book depicted as an anthropomorphic "person". The types of "entities" which appear as both as plaintiff the legal person or corporate person of "Arizona" and "Defendant" the corporate person of "United States" in the courtroom drama I cite in my article.

P3: Statism is based on imaginary "forces" as real, or supernatural forces: "Force of law" "jurisdiction" " "authority" "sovereignty".

P4: Statism is based on dogmatic adherence to sacred scriptures like the constitution or statutory code which are believed in as "law" (scripture) based on faith rather than evidence.

P5: Religion is a belief system based on dogma or scripture which includes faith based belief in supernatural entities or forces.

C: Statism is a religion.LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

P1 is false in the sense you are using "belief" (it is correctly "belief" as in "opinion," not as in "article of faith") and therefore is effectively the same as your conclusion, P2 is false (the entities are not supernatural or imaginary, this is circular reasoning since this is your conclusion), P3 is false since jurisdiction can be demonstrated (I see you haven't attempted the punching a police officer experiment, why could that be?), P4 is false (government documents are not held to be divine, hence the ability to amend them), P5 is true but the conclusion requires at least one other to be true or it is an irrelevant tautology. As you have been told. I'm starting to think other sites ban you because after about fifteen posts they can predict the rest of your posts to infinity just by varying the order. King Skeleton (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

From Supernatural:

"Supernatural is an adjective which can refer to events, entities, or explanations, or to powers claimed to be possessed by certain :individuals. What all these have in common is that is that they they do not conform to a naturalistic worldview."LogicMaster777 (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to FuzzyCatPotato we can now easily see at least one of the blatantly wrong premises LM uses, namely his P3 in which he claims that ""Force of law" "jurisdiction" " "authority" "sovereignty"" are "supernatural forces". That anyone would claim that sovereignty, jurisdiction, or authority are supernatural in and of themselves is so mind-bogglingly stupid that it almost defies belief - until you've actually engaged with LM, of course.

Also, I think that the BoN version above basically covers the least blatantly stupid and fallacious part of LM's argument quite well and far more succinctly.

PS. I indulged my inner teacher/Rain Man and corrected anthromorphic anthropomorphic in LM's post. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Whichever spelling you prefer, they're both "correct". Okay, so you dispute that "Force of law" "jurisdiction" " "authority" and "sovereignty" are supernatural? Do you then admit that you actually believe in them as "real"?LogicMaster777 (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It's like he's trying to build a house of cards starting with the pair at the top, really. King Skeleton (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it's time your arguments broke up

You've actually attempted to provide three proofs. Let me break them up:

Proof 1: (from P1, P4, and C1)

P1: Statism is a belief.

P2: A religion is a belief.

C1: Statism is a religion.

Proof 2: (from P2, P4, and C1)

P1: Statism is a belief in the existence of nonphysical entities.

P2: A religion is a belief in the existence of nonhysical entities.

C1: Statism is a religion.

Proof 3: (from P3, P4, and C1)

P1: Statism is obedience to a dogma.

P2: A religion is obedience to a dogma.

C1: Statism is a religion.

I think this helps clear up your ideas. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 10:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

K. Thanks. Going to do some research on formal logic and then get back to this later (not ignoring).LogicMaster777 (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Now, to test each proof, I think we should try substituting a proposition for a known true statement.

Proof 1:

P1: The belief that the sky is blue is a belief.

P2: A religion is a belief.

C1: The belief that the sky is blue is a religion.

Do you accept this? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 10:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit: At first glance, I took this as a form of affirming the consequent. On second examination, I don't think it is. I think this argument you make is actually logically valid.If we accept that any belief is a religion, then it follows logically that this belief in a blue sky is a religion. However, I Do take issue with the premise that every belief is automatically a religion. If we do accept that premise however, then the conclusion seems valid.LogicMaster777 (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. Look at Wombat's Proof 2. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

At this point it's useful to remind ourselves that our arguer thinks government is a religion, because judges wear robes like in Harry Potter. Archive and ignore would seem the best bet. Sophie^Wilder 11:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.--Inquisitor (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

While I basically agree with Sophie's sentiment about the usefulness of pursing LM's nonsense further, I do think that Proof 2 could gainfully be reformulated to avoid the problematic term "belief" which can mean quite different things depending on context (e.g. "I believe in God", "I believe you", "I believe the sky is blue"). A more clear version would be:

Proof 2

P1: Statism rests on an acceptance of the existence of non-physical entities.

P2: A religion rests on an acceptance of the existence of non-physical entities.

C1: Statism is a religion.

Or, alternatively:

P1: Statism requires the existence of non-physical entities.

P2: A religion requires the existence of non-physical entities.

C1: Statism is a religion.

Both of these examples more clearly shows LM's constant conflation of non-physicalism and supernaturalism, because we can easily plug in example á la KingSkeleton's one using math to demonstrate the fallacious reasoning:

Proof 2

P1: Mathematics rests on an acceptance of/requires the existence of non-physical entities.

P2: A religion rests on an acceptance of/requires the existence of non-physical entities.

C1: Mathematics is a religion.

All of this essentially just comes down to the BoN example above, which encompasses LM's general conflation between symbolism/non-physicalism and religion/supernaturalism. LM's core claim is that if something superficially "looks like" a religion (by using symbols, creeds, vestments, rituals etc.), then it really is a religion.

Similarly, LM thinks that if the U.S. state/government is depicted in anthropomorphic form (such as Uncle Sam) this is evidence of people actually believing that the U.S. state/government is some sort of supernatural being. Ironically, as I've mentioned before, this, along with LM's examples of legal personhood, is actually an example of LM succumbing to reification (by thinking that others take such metaphors literally), not of people in general conflating an anthropomorphic Uncle Sam or a legal person with an actual being. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

There's actually yet another "proof" involved in LM's arguments:

Proof 4

P1: The word X is applied to entities are actual human persons

P2: The word X is applied to states

C1: States are actual human persons (or at least regarded as such)

From C1, LM then goes on to

Proof 5

P1: States are not human persons

P2: States are, nevertheless, regarded as human persons (from Proof 4's C1)

P3: Deities are (also) not human persons,

P4: Deities are (also), nevertheless, regarded as human persons

C1: States are deities

Proof 6

P1: Deities are fictional and supernatural entities whose existence rests on religious belief

P2: States are deities (from Proof 5's C1)

C1: States are fictional and supernatural entities whose existence rests on religious belief

However Proof 4 is, as is apparently obvious to all but LM, as erroneous as something on the order of:

P1: All humans have heads

P2: All chickens have heads

C1: Chickens are humans

As this fundamental proof on which Proof 5 and 6 relies fails, so do these subsequent proofs. This is, in the form of formal logic, simply another example of LM's inability to understand that just because states and religions may share certain characteristics (just as both humans and chickens have heads/eyes/legs/feet/brains etc.) is not sufficient grounds for claiming they're equivalent terms. While I would agree that religion and states both belong to the category of what we may term "human social constructions", this does no more mean that states are religions than the fact that both human and chickens belonging to the category of "biological life" means that humans are chickens (or vice versa). ScepticWombat (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope, we've already gone over your ideas in paragraph form. We're doing formal logic now.

From our previous conversation, I think you have a grasp of the concept of the "legal person" (or what I call the "corporate person" or what Hobbes called the "Leviathan") and that it is an abstract idea (rather than an actual human). But then how do you reconcile that with notion that this abstract imaginary "person", according to the theories of Hobbes which the supreme legal wizards basically echo in their scriptural dissertations in "Arizona v United States", is purported to be a "sovereign"?

Gooling "sovereign, one gets this definition:

sov·er·eign

ˈsäv(ə)rən/Submit

noun

1. a supreme ruler, especially a monarch.

adjective

1. possessing supreme or ultimate power.

How does one go from "The legal person of the state is an abstraction with no corporeal reality" to "The legal person of the state is the supreme ruler." How is this any different from making up an imaginary guy called Zeus and then declaring he is a supreme being and that we all have to follow "his" commands since he is sovereign?01:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

From http://web.grinnell.edu/courses/Cls/s05/CLS242-01/vernant.html :

"3. In particular, Zeus seems to be the power/principle of SOVEREIGNTY in every conceivable sphere"

"Zeus is the sovereign who keeps all the other powers in harmonious tension by distributing their timai (privileges, rights)"LogicMaster777 (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

How is Scalia declaring the abstract "person" of "Arizona" to be "sovereign" different from the high priest of zeus declaring Zeus to be the supreme power? Why is this guy: more "real" than this guy: ?

How do you reconcile that this "person" is an abstraction, yet according to the supreme wizards of the government, it is also the supreme ruler, yet the imaginary higher power isn't believed in as literally real and it's not a religious deity? I get that YOU seem to get that the "corporate person" or "legal person" is an abstraction, but no I really do not believe all statists are able to make that distinction. When a man in a black priest-style robe declares from his pulpit that there is an abstract or unseen "person" that is the "supreme power" we are talking about a religion. And when a magic man of "States"(Federal MAGI-strate) is confronted on the evidence upon which the religious claims of statism are based, he says "it's not a question of evidence". It doesn't matter if these legal(religious) theories of statism actually have any evidence! It's not a matter of evidence! It's simply a matter of "Because I (authority/priest/magic man) said so. Dogma, unsupported by reasoned evidence. When you factor in the imaginary higher power professed to by these robed priests of statism, yes it is very much a religion in the most literal sense.LogicMaster777 (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJVE5dDFfEgLogicMaster777 (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The state is not the supreme ruler, it's ruled by the government. And that's really all it is, the amalgam of entities that are ruled by the government. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a photo of one of these "entities", to prove they exist beyond the imagination, or some sort of tangible proof they aren't just a figment of the imagination? What naturalistic principle of science led you to conclude they are "real"? Have you seen such an "entity"? I would be very interested to see if you have any such evidence.LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Take a picture of yourself and look at it, or just look in a mirror. You are one such entity that is part of the state, as you are acknowledged as a citizen, be it through jus soli, jus sanguinis or naturalization, by a government which acts as the ruling authority over its citizens and the territory it lays claim to, which includes you. You don't think you are imaginary or supernatural, do you? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I think of my physical existence as "real". You say I am a "citizen" and then the argument to support that is "you are acknowledged as a citizen...""...by a government". What is "a government"? I recognize the government as a group of men and women. Would you agree with such assessment? So in essence your argument is that I'm a citizen because "some guy(s)/gal(s) said so". Then it lays claim to citizens and territory. Okay. It lays claim. Another way to say the men and women of government "say so".

I know that's the theory. And I already know the some guys said so part. I'm looking for actual facts that support the conclusion those "some guys" said. I accept the premise I exist but how do you prove that I am "state"? You must have something beyond some guys say so, right? "Some guy with authority said so" is a known fallacy of reasoning when used as logical proof. I know there is this whole system of belief and I am pretty well acquainted with the dogma. Have you read the legal opinions from the supremes in Arizona v United States? It went to the "supreme court" about 2 or 3 years ago. I just cite it because it is relatively contemporary example of statist scripture being it is rather recent. So it shows people still actually believe in this statism stuff. In the opinion the "supremes" opine that "Arizona" is a "sovereign state and that the United States is a "national Sovereign". I think by sovereign they mean a supreme power or authority. Are you in agreement that this reflects the statist belief system accurately? And these "sovereigns" Arizona and "United States" are the same as the plaintiff and defendant, right? Okay. Show me the plaintiff. Show me the defendant. Show me the sovereign. I am going to create a special section below where I challenge any and all statists to provide any evidence that these "supreme powers" are real. If you have a picture of the "supreme power" of Arizona or "United States" please post it. Being that they are super-famous and statists KNOW they are "real"; surely, you must have some evidence-unless you believe in them purely on faith.LogicMaster777 (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

From a relevant RW article: "Belief is an equivocal term referring to (usually willing) acceptance of an idea." There's your problem right there, boss, or at least a significant part of it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

So are you saying that you don't think statists actually Believe in the sacredness or truth of the Constitution, an abstract non-corporeal "sovereign" "being" called "the state" or in "powers" or "forces" such as "Sovereignty", "Authority", "Force of law", or "jurisdiction"? If that is the case, Then why do they say they believe in this stuff?LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Moved from Formal Logic section (because it's not formal logic, duh):

The statists have taken two conflicting logical paths in attempting to deconstruct my argument. On the one hand we have the claim that I am equivocating. That I am using "belief" "wrong". The argument as I understand it is that I am referring to a mere opinion but trying to imply that this "opinion" is an article of faith. Well, a belief can be based on reasoned evidence or it can be based on faith. Either way. But to then turn around and say that ""Force of law" "jurisdiction" " "authority" and "sovereignty" are NOT supernatural implies that you really DO believe in these "forces" as "real". So which is it, do you guys actually "Believe" in that stuff or not?LogicMaster777 (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

OF COURSE WE BELIEVE THAT THE ""Force of law" "jurisdiction" " "authority" and "sovereignty"" ARE REAL - IT'S YOU, LM, WHO CLAIMS THEY'RE FICTIONAL AND/OR SUPERNATURAL! (sorry for this textual shouting to everyone else, but LM really is as dense as a black hole). What the hell is supernatural about ""Force of law" "jurisdiction" " "authority" and "sovereignty"" anyway? Which natural laws do they break? For crying out loud, LM, it's so bloody obvious that one easily understood difference between states and Zeus (your own example) is that everyone realise and agree that states are human creations (whether they're "statists" or not), while Zeus' existence is supposed to be independent of human activity.

The problem with your argument, LM, is that you basically make this erroneous conflation: "real" = natural = physicalism. Thus, you run into the problem that everything you can't "weigh" become supernatural by your (erroneous) definition. When the rest of us have pointed this out (by highlighting the absurdity when your definitions are applied elsewhere), you just reiterate your claims and insist that not agreeing with you must be one of the "statist" sheeple. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

What is it that makes any belief a supernatural belief? For instance, what makes magic spells supernatural? What makes "the secret" supernatural? Do magic spells exist independent of human activity? Why is a presumption of existence beyond human activity requisite for a belief to qualify as supernatural? Does the magic of the "dream catcher" work independent of human activity? How about telepathy? Do believers necessarily presume it exists beyond human activity as a requisite of believing it is "real"?LogicMaster777 (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there any dispute that Dream catchers or lucky charms are human creations? What about "the secret"? Human creation, right? What defines supernatural as supernatural?LogicMaster777 (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You really don't know how a discussion work do you, LM? You see when you claim that "X is supernatural", and I ask "what makes X supernatural?" the proper response is not for you to ask "what is supernatural?", but to actually to provide an explanation or argument as to why "X is supernatural". I'll ask again: Which natural laws do states states break? Hell, I could even ask the same question of your latest post: Which natural laws do beliefs violate? (Clue: belief itself isn't supernatural, but deities tend to not conform to natural laws) ScepticWombat (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You said I was conflating. Maybe you are right. I am trying to frame my argument in such a way that it is falsifiable and open to being disproven rather than from an emotional "need to be right". I don't necessarily believe a supernatural belief has to break laws to be supernatural or to exist beyond humans. Black holes exist beyond human activities. Our knowledge of black holes is abstract. No one has ever seen one directly. Why is this NOT a supernatural belief while the belief that there is a bearded guy on Mt Olympus who rules the gods is supernatural? There is a principal of reasoning we can use to tell one as scientific: We have reasoned evidence of black holes. Extrapolations based on empiric observations made using high power telescopes tells us light bends around them telling us there is an enormous gravitational anomaly in space. They are not really proven to exist. It's just a logically consistent theory to explain empirical observations. Zeus is based on arbitrary dogma taught by the priests of Ancient Greece conjured up through magical thinking. That is the principle of reason by which we can distinguish it as a supernatural belief. By the reasoning used to reach the conclusion. Did we arrive at the conclusion through empiric observation, logical reasoning and the scientific method or did we just make something up with magical thinking or believe in it on faith? LogicMaster777 (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

" I don't necessarily believe a supernatural belief has to break laws to be supernatural or to exist beyond humans. Black holes exist beyond human activities. Our knowledge of black holes is abstract. No one has ever seen one directly. Why is this NOT a supernatural belief while the belief that there is a bearded guy on Mt Olympus who rules the gods is supernatural?" Wow, channelling Ken Ham are we? What you're essentially saying is that if you can't "see" something, it's abstract and thus supernatural - which is tantamount to the Ham's favourite question: "How do you know? Were you there?". Also, we can actually measure the effects of black holes (gravity!), so nice shooting yourself in the foot LM. You still seem loath to provide a clear definition of what makes states supernatural, i.e. if you agree that other non-physical concepts, such as, oh I don't know, logic aren't supernatural, then being an abstract concept isn't enough to make states supernatural. So, again: Which quality is it that makes states supernatural? As I've already pointed out in the formal logic section, pointing to some qualities that states and religions have in common, ergo they are the same, is as wrong as listing similarities of humans and chickens and use this to claim that humans and chickens are the same.

To use a variant of an old chestnut:

P1: All men are mortal

P2: All chickens are mortal

C1: Therefore all chickens are men

I hope you see the wee flaw here. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Another strawman. Your favorite technique it would seem. I never said black holes are supernatural. I am specifically distinguishing that they are NOT supernatural while Zeus is. You ask: Which quality is it that makes states supernatural?

The same principles of reason as distinguish Zeus as supernatural while black holes are supernatural: No evidence to prove the "supreme power" or "sovereign state" is real but a belief based on magical thinking and faith.LogicMaster777 (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Our concept of black holes DOES have evidence (observances of light bending implies gravitational anomalies consistent with the theory), thus not supernatural (although our working concept of them is abstract, unproven, and possibly wrong).LogicMaster777 (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Moving on

So, you don't accept Proof 1 anymore.

Do you still accept Proof 2 and 3 as valid logical proofs of your ideas? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 07:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I may not have made the syntax clear enough earlier. Maybe there is a better way to articulate what I'm trying to say here. I think you are taking each premise as a simple modus ponens in relation to the conclusion, when the syntax is a little more involved. Let me clarify the logical syntax. If any math or logic wizzes want to school me here please go for it.

I'm going to sybolize the premises with

S = Statism is a system of belief

E = Part of the belief is supernatural entities

F = Part of the belief is supernatural forces

D = The belief is based on faith in dogma/scripture

R = A religion is a system of belief based on dogma/scripture including supernatural entities or forces

C = The conclusion: statism is a religion

I think the syntax would be: IF S AND (E AND/OR F) AND D AND R THEN CLogicMaster777 (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Would you accept this as logically valid, notwithstanding the factual validity(whether or not you accept the premises)? If we presume the premises are valid, then do those premises logically prove the conclusion?LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

So, in proof 1

If I understand your argument the syntax is "If S,then C" which isn't really the one I'm trying to make. Or the way it is written is more like If [belief] then C or If B then C, something like that as I interpret it. If this is the argument then okay it looks valid if we are using such a wide definition of religion that math or chess are religions then okay it seems valid. Maybe we could use "religion" in such a broad sense that any belief based on faith is a religion. But I mean it pretty much how I define it: A faith based dogmatic and/or scriptural belief system with supernatural elements. That's basically my understanding of what religion is in the plain sense of the word. Basically it has some sort of deity or magical force usually. That's more the definition of religion, the more traditional sense of the word. I am arguing that the US Government for example is a religious institution in the same sense that the vatican is. If you want to argue if Confucianism is a religion due to it not having supernatural elements then that comes down to how you define religion. I mean basically a belief system with an invisible abstract "higher power" where the higher power is "believed" in as real. When Scalia and the "supremes" say that The "United States" and "Arizona" are "sovereigns" do you actually BELIEVE that or not? Do you actually believe there is a "supreme power" of "Arizona", that it is "real"?LogicMaster777 (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The only thing premises S, E, F, D, and R show is that "statism" and "religion" share a few characteristics. Cats and mice both have fur, whiskers, and tails, but a cat is not a mouse. Furthermore, premises E and F are silly. Premises S and D resemble "secular humanism is a religion," which is also silly SmartFeller (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Again your analysis seems based on reading the argument as D therefore C. D in itself doesn't prove statism as a formal religion. What "characteristics" defines religion as religion, if not a system of belief with faith-based dogma/scripture and supernatural beliefs? What else does a religion need to make it religion? You say it has a "few"characteristics. Lol, it has EVERY defining characteristic. If not then tell me what defines catholicism as religion or any other religion for that matter? What makes a religion a religion?LogicMaster777 (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not 3 separate proofs it's one proof with 5 premises. Either P2 or P3 or both must be true to qualify as a formal supernatural religion in the literal sense. All the others (P1,P4,P5) must also be true for the conclusion to be true.LogicMaster777 (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The fairly obvious problem to the rest of us (and which we've been trying to get you to understand) is that your only argument inserted into the various ""if"-spaces" is essentially "because I define it to be", which is simply an assertion. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Not just because I say so. I am interested to know also what you think a religion is and why it's different. I am trying to frame the argument so I can be proven wrong. I don't have to be right. If you say there is some other principle of reason we can use to know what is or is not religion then I would like to know your reasoning. LogicMaster777 (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, you realize you can analyze the logical structure of the argument apart from the factual validity of the premises right?

If one were to accept the premises as written, then the conclusion would logically follow, right? The argument can still be logically valid even if the premises are factually invalid. I am trying to ascertain whether you only have an issue with the factual validity of the premises or if it is the structure of the argument, logically? If the premises were true, the conclusion would also be correct?LogicMaster777 (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Premise R is intended as definitional statement and is the only statement in the argument intended as such.LogicMaster777 (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

"I am interested to know also what you think a religion is and why it's different." Okay, cool. Since I and the rest who've responded to you have already done this I think we can wrap it up. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to know what anarchists actually think of statism instead of the strawman version the statist censorship brigade wants to portray, that it's a "meaningless" term that just means whatever an anarchist or libertarian is opposed to or doesn't like

Here's what anarchists really think about statism, for those who are interested in a rational and intellectually honest discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=statism+is+a+religion LogicMaster777 (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

That this site has such biased slanted and intellectually dishonest content on the read page shows the religious bias prevalent on S̶t̶a̶t̶i̶s̶m̶w̶i̶k̶i̶ "rational"wiki. LogicMaster777 (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

A mathematician picks up a piece of chalk. Upon the blackboard he writes: "2+2=4".

Suddenly, the door bursts open and Logicmaster charges in. "LIES!" he shouts. "You write about twos and fours, but you don't have two of anything! You don't have two of anything! You don't have four of anything! You do not magically conjure matter merely by writing letters on a page! They are nothing more than symbols! You have two of nothing, you have four of nothing, you have nothing! No matter how many symbols you invent, in the end you will have nothing! If writing a number on the board could physically summon it, you would be making something from nothing! You'd violate Conservation of Energy!" King Skeleton (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've said this before: I am not claiming that all abstract thought is reification. Here is an example of reifying the number 4:[link: [1]]LogicMaster777 (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, notice how in the video, the letter R is heavily anthromorphized and reified. This is what I'm talking about by reification, and anthromorphozing: the treatment given to the letter R, that is treating it as a "real" entity with its own personhood.LogicMaster777 (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

A section for photos of the sovereign and tales of sovereign-sightings OR ANY NATURALISTIC SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that proves the "sovereign state"

Statists, here is a special section for you to post photos of the "supreme power" or "sovereign"s who appear as plaintiff and defendant in Arizona v United States. If you don't have photos of a sovereign then please post any first hand accounts of sovereign sightings. I believe if any statists could show me the sovereign of "Arizona" or the "United States" and a naturalistic principle by which it is known to be "sovereign" they could falsify my theory with such evidence. If you have any actual evidence beside some guy said so or naked assertions or similar fallacies of assertion like appeal to authority to prove the sovereigns of "Arizona" or any other "sovereign state" or the "national sovereign" of the "United States" are "real" please post here. It doesn't have to be photos or witness statements. Any scientific proof of the "realness" of the "entity" called "Arizona" or any other "sovereign state" please post or link to here.LogicMaster777 (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a conceptual tool, like logic. Pls provide a pic of logic. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 08:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

"Tree of Life

From Thelemapedia

Categories: Qabalah | Tree of Life

The Tree of Life is a tool used to categorize and organize various mystical concepts, and is central to the teachings of Aleister Crowley and the Qabalah."

Yes, it's an abstract conceptual tool (like the kabbalistic "conceptual tool" mentioned above )that is used to conceptualize supernatural mystical "powers" like "sovereignty" or "jurisdiction".LogicMaster777 (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

We usually don't describe logic as having its own "person" that kills people, locks them in jail, sues other abstractions or real people. When I declared myself the supreme master of Logic and proclaimed my authority through the power of "Logic" I was satirizing this very argument. It's the reifying and anthromorphizing this abstraction of the "sovereign state" as an imaginary "person" a la Santa Clause or the tooth fairy with magical thinking and blind faith that distinguishes it as a supernatural belief, that and the belief that this imaginary "person" (the sovereign state or corporate person of the state or as Hobbes called it "leviathan"), this magical imaginary deity is "real" and it is the supreme power or supreme being. It is beyond mere logical abstraction and into the realm of elves and fairies.LogicMaster777 (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thought experiment: What if I were a lawyer and I served you a lawsuit I had filed with "Logic" named as the plaintiff and I had no tangible evidence to show that there was any such person but I had intellectual patents also filed in "his" name and I was prepared to prove you had used logic on the internet and thus owed Logic BIG TIME. You have 28 days to serve me with a defense. Where do you start? Where do you call bullshit on my "case" and why? Or we can settle up front and avoid litigation. You can just cut a check for all your money and we call it even.LogicMaster777 (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Trying to red herring our way out again, are we LM? We're back to your claim that if you can't take a picture of/weigh it, it must be supernatural. FuzzyCatPotato called you out on the stupidity of this definition of supernatural, and you essentially said "Well, states can do bad things" - it's called a non sequitur. Try to stay on track, will ya': Can you provide a photo of logic? If not, is logic supernatural? If logic can't be photographed yet is not supernatural, why does lack of "photographability" make states supernatural? ScepticWombat (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Trying to strawman again? I never said if I can't weigh it or take a picture it is supernatural. But it is a clue that we are talking about an abstraction rather than a tangible corporeal object. I agree your definition you made up and attributed to me which I never myself used is pretty bad. The point isn't that those things the state is PURPORTED to do is "bad" but that they would require an abstract made up "person" to act on the physical universe like a "real person". Kind of like using the abstract "person" of Santa to explain how those presents got in your socks. To a five year old who literally believes in Santa as "real" he actually IS a supernatural belief. To an adult watching it on TV it is an abstract fantasy but probably not a literal belief. You admit you believe in the invisible supreme being of "the state" so I think the belief aspect is kind of established as: yes you guys really believe in this stuff.LogicMaster777 (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Non sequitur, again: The question is not whether states and logic and deities are all abstract and unmeasurable (by your standards of measurement of course - it's not like the rest of us haven't provided plenty of evidence), it's whether this is what makes them supernatural. Since your core claim is that states are, at heart, supernatural entities, and that you base this on the inability to take a photo of the state, it's hardly out of bounds to point out that we have plenty of other concepts that can't be photographed and then ask if they're also supernatural, based on your definitions. As I've pointed out elsewhere, it's your reluctance to provide any such definitions and delineations, but instead just respond with questions, that is so frustrating - not to mention indicative of you not actually debating/discussing, but merely asserting. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

More strawmanning. I never said a lack of being able to take a picture PROVES it is supernatural in itself. Notice in the above evidential challenge I specifically say the EVIDENCE doesn't have to be pictures. The EVIDENCE which proves that YOUR belief is supernatural, and not conforming to naturalistic principles of science: 1. You insist your abstract invisible "entity" you admit you BELIEVE in is real and it is a supreme power or supreme being 2. You have zero evidence. 3. You insist this is infallibly true despite no evidence to prove it. We are just supposed to accept "other ways of knowing" that don't rely on evidence. A magic man in a black robe said so. The sacred scripture said so. This is what demonstrates your belief to be a faith-based supernatural belief rather than a reasoned evidence-based logical conclusion consistent with naturalistic principles of science. LogicMaster777 (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, but we already provided you with evidence, which you then proceeded to "define away", and now you asked for a photo as if the inability to photograph something somehow made it supernatural. Once again: You need to define what it is that makes states abstract AND supernatural, since that's at the heart of your proposition. Asking for evidence that the state is not supernatural, doesn't help you there. That you just keep asserting your core claim is not an argument for anything. Btw, I've never claimed those things you poiint out in 1.-3. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Strawman misrepresentations of my arguments and ad hominems are not "evidence". Till some appears in the box above, I presume you have none. I'm not going to go sorting through your ad hominems and strawman misrepresentations for the nugget of what you think is the smoking gun evidence, when you could simply type it in above. You typed in the evidence for black holes(gravitational effects), seriously you could provide actual evidence for your invisible higher power of "State" if you had any. And contrary to your strawman version of my evidentiary challenge, I am not ONLY looking for photos. Any evidence you have please put it above. LogicMaster777 (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

What makes YOUR belief supernatural: No evidence but you insist it's "real". Same as any supernatural belief. That's what makes it supernatural. You believe in an invisible higher power with no naturalistic scientific evidence it is real. Supernatural deity. You admit you believe it, you have no evidence. It's that simple really. I asked what principle YOU use to distinguish "supernatural." That's what I go off. Maybe you define it differently.LogicMaster777 (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, LM, but the only one who's strawmanning here is you. Your points 1.-3. are all what you claim that is my (and all those whom you call "statists", i.e. everyone who disagrees with you) position. I'm not claiming that the state is "a supreme power", let alone a "supreme being" - that's how you define and frame it. I and others have provided you with "evidence" which you simply dismissed by constructing very particular limitations on what you would accept as evidence, incl. dismissing enforcement as evidence of existence. Neither I nor anyone else have invoked "infallibility", in fact I pointed out in one of my first responses to your original debate that your claim that this was a common denominator between constitutions and religious scripture was among your glaring false analogies. The same goes for your reiteration of what essentially can be formulated as:

P1: Judges wear robes

P2: Priests wear robes

C1: Judges are priests

You see that's where I think formal logic is useful: It cut through your ad nauseam word salad and present your case succinctly. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The argument above is not my argument. It goes beyond the robes. The robes are one fact you are cherry picking, ignoring: The ceremonial magic with the "anointing" where the magic man makes a sacred religious vow to support the scripture of "state". Until this ceremony is complete his imaginary supernatural "powers" aren't really recognized as "official". The preaching of an invisible higher power which they claim to personally represent(they claim to have a unique personal relationship with their higher power). Their status as having a recognized status as having a monopolistic on the "correct" interpretation of the statist scriptures and as being uniquely qualified to interpret the scriptures due to this relationship. Their use of ritual magic. Their unique presumed "authority" to set "legal precedent" (at least among appellate courts) which becomes scriptural "law" unto itself (called "case law"). Yeah, it goes well beyond the priestly wizardly costumes.LogicMaster777 (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

So then, what is your interpretation of the Supremes' assertions that "Arizona" is a "sovereign state"? Do you actually believe there is a litigant in this controversy called "Arizona", and that it is a "sovereign"? When I google "sovereign" I get the definitions along the lines of "Supreme ruler" or "supreme power" or "supreme political power". Do you believe there is a real entity called "Arizona" that is a sovereign? If so, what does sovereign mean to you? You said you believed in "sovereignty" and "the state" so I presumed you meant something along the lines of what the Supreme wizards gave as their opinion, that there is a "supreme power" or "sovereign state" called "Arizona" and that this entity is the defendant. You said that "sovereignty" and "jurisdiction" are "real" or that you believe they are "real". Don't mean to strawman your position; maybe I assume too much? Do you actually believe the entity the supremes talk about, the "supreme ruler" or "sovereign" which appears as the defendant is a "real" entity?LogicMaster777 (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Statists: If you have no such evidence to meet the evidential challenge above please explain why I should presume your "sovereign" or "supreme power" of "state" is "real" here

If you have never seen the "sovereign state" either in a photo or in person and you have no other evidence to prove your invisible "supreme power" is "real", why should I presume your faith-based "entity" is "real" without you having any evidence?LogicMaster777 (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell what is funnier, this or the libertarian that tried to convince my friend that blacks were better off under slavery. Bro, you're arguing a point against an opponent that doesn't exist. Sovereign state is a nonphysical concept, does not mean it does not exist. That is really bad logic.BlackProg (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't prove non-existence of state but if you believe in it as "real" despite not having evidence to cite that IS evidence that you believe in it based on faith, rather than evidence right? I mean I presume you are arguing in good faith and would present evidence if you had it, right?LogicMaster777 (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Lack of evidence of Zeus would not disprove Zeus but it would be evidence of the belief to be faith-based or magical and thus supernatural rather than naturalistic and evidence-based.LogicMaster777 (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The state is not real? Wow.--Coffee (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, is it? The truth or falsehood of a claim is not what distinguishes it as supernatural. The idea that the earth is the center of the galaxy and the sun revolves around it is dogma-based and magical thinking or faith based supernatural belief if believed in. Yet the fundamental premise that there is an earth and sun that exist as celestial bodies is basically "true". If we discovered something about the galactic forces giving rise to theories of black holes that falsified the hypothesis of black holes and proved the hypothesis to be "wrong", belief in black holes up till that point won't be retroactively become supernatural even though proven false(although to continue to believe in them after proven false would be supernatural). If aliens were actually out there and "real" it still would be a supernatural belief for us to simply believe aliens are real without actual naturalistic evidence(although the speculation of their POSSIBLE or even likely existence might not be a supernatural belief per se). "Supernatural" does not mean "not real". It means believing but not based on any evidence basically. That you just arrived at the conclusion through the power of imagination rather than logic/evidence. Faith or "the secret" rather than science. You can actually use magical thinking and still be "right" or use science and be "wrong". Finding water with dousing is still using supernatural reasoning even if you do hit the target and your imaginary "well" really is out there. Whether it is or is not supernatural comes down to 1. Do you believe it is real(regardless of whether or not it really is)2. Is the belief based on logic and reasoned evidence or imagination and/or faith?LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

So - you seriously don't know if the state exists?--Coffee (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Show me some evidence that "Arizona v United States" has either a plaintiff OR a defendant. Show me proof that one of these litigants exist. No I don't presume to know as a matter of faith whether the "state" exists without evidence. Show me a litigant. I have seen the judges, I could probably find pictures of all the lawyers involved. The litigants are proclaimed to be supreme rulers. If you believe this then show me your supreme ruler. He must be pretty famous since he is the supreme power of this realm supposedly according to the wizard priests. Why have you no photos of an actual plaintiff or defendant (despite their fame)? Why should we presume this supreme ruler called "Arizona" is "real" if there's no evidence?LogicMaster777 (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Now I'm really confused by your position. Do you think the state doesn't exist or do you not know if the state exists? You seem to be claiming both things but it's hard to get anything like a clear answer from you. Why?--Coffee (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

My position is that the belief in state is based on imagination and blind faith rather than scientific evidence. Like Bigfoot or Elves and fairies, I don't claim to be able to presume to disprove the imaginary person called "Arizona". But if you claim "Arizona", the sovereign supreme power who shows up as a plaintiff in Arizona v United States is a "real" entity, yet have no specific facts or evidence to prove it, then that confirms my theory. You have a belief in an invisible higher power with no facts or evidence to prove it, thus it is a supernatural belief. Supernatural doesn't mean false. Unicorns very well COULD be real; maybe there is a giant who lives on o cloud named Arizona who throws thunderbolts- I don't claim to have evidence to disprove it. Whether or not the "sovereign" higher power of "Arizona" is a supernatural belief comes down to how did we reach the conclusion? Did we arrive at the conclusion by reasoned evidence, or by imagination, scripture and faith? My personal opinion is that it is not a "real" entity, since we can trace the idea back to Hobbes who seems to arrive at his conclusion through the use of "The secret" or imagining his "higher power", the Leviathan, what we now call "the state", into existence. But perhaps you have seen this entity? Have you actually seen it? If it is real, how do you know? Scripture?LogicMaster777 (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Formal Logic section 2.0

LogicMaster has presented a logical proof of his belief that statism is a religion. (I broke it up before because I thought you were going another route. Apologies) It is as follows:

A1: Statism is a system of belief.

A2: Statism involves belief in the existence of supernatural entities or forces.

A3: Statism involves belief in the truth of dogmas or scriptures.

A4: If something (a) is a belief system and (b) involves belief in the existence of supernatural entities or forces and (c) involves belief in the truth of dogmas or scriptures, then it is a religion.

C1: From A1-4: Statism is a religion.

If we accept Assumptions 1-4, then we must accept Conclusion 1 that statism is a religion. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

So, are the assumptions valid?

Assumption 1 seems true. Statism is a belief system.

Assumption 2 does not seem true. In all of our discussions, none of the "statists" stated that they believe that the Leviathan of the state exists as an anthropomorphic entity. Instead, all statists have said that the concept of the anthropomorphic entity of the state is useful, as is accepted basically as a way of shorthandedly refering to the actions of a group of real people.

Assumption 3 does not seem true. For example, (most) Americans do not believe that the Constitution is literally true, but rather have their own ideas about how government should run that happen to line up with the Constitution, and so accept the Constitution as a useful guiding document.

Assumption 4 seems true.

Since this proof requires all 4 assumptions to be true, and this is not so, we can regard it as not true. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your intellectual honesty here.LogicMaster777 (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Good. Do you disagree with my analysis of your Assumptions 2 and 3? How so? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Sort of. I know most statists don't conceptualize the "person" of the state as a literal man most of the time or if they do it is usually in the sense of personation. Like when a judge sends someone to jail and one might say "the state sentenced him to jail". We have an anthromorphic man "personating" the "state" like when Chris Helmsworth "personates" Thor. We conceptualize him as this person to watch the movie but we still know he is acting. Not really strictly germane to whether it is a supernatural belief. On my user page I have a section where I try to make it clearer what I mean when I say anthromorphized. But basically I use anthromorphized to describe treating an abstraction or inanimate object like a "person". Like talking to a car or saying our lawnmower has a mind of its own. When I am talking about full anthromorphization to such an extent that we imagine an abstraction as a real "human" I try to use the qualifier "anthomorphic."

When statists talk to a flag it is anthromorphizing the flag but we know it's still an inanimate object. But as soon as we start doing this, we are moving outside the realm of science and empiricism and into the realm of imagining or fantasy. To use fantasy and imagination or faith not based on evidence to FORM CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE AND OUR ORDER OF EXISTENCE is where we move into the realm of supernatural and religion.LogicMaster777 (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, the constitution is not the totality of the statist scripture. This page is talking about "statism" which in my opinion is a broad term encompassing ALL government religion. Like "Christianity" encompasses lots of denominations. So canadian government religion and USA government religion are two different denominations really. But, okay my knowledge is most specific on the USA religion, but even in this context, the constitution is basically the bible for American statism. But this religion includes LOTS of scripture. Maybe more than any other. The scriptures come in basically three main varietites: Constitutional law, Statutory law or "Legislative law", and "Case Law" or "precedent". There are also other scripture-based laws like executive orders, or exceptions to these categories, but probably 99% of the legal scriptures will be in one of these 3 categories in the USA religion.LogicMaster777 (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

"Case law", the scriptures written by the wizard priests of the "appellate" courts is based on a dogmatic system of rules including a doctrine called "stare decisis" which is a legal doctrine based on a fallacious appeal to tradition or appeal to authority where lawyers will quote a previous "binding decision" made by a wizard or group of wizards as "proof"(by means of appeal to tradition or appeal to authority) that their arbitrary "argument"(faith based assertion) is "right". LogicMaster777 (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

From http://paganwiccan.about.com/od/glossary/g/Binding.htm

Definition:

In the course of your magical studies, you may at some point hear someone use the word "binding" in reference to a spell or working. :Typically, a magical binding is simply a spell or working that restrains someone metaphysically, preventing them from doing something. It :is often used to keep the individual from causing harm to themselves or to others.LogicMaster777 (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Mein gott, how does your family(by which I mean the religion of family, because obvious there is no such object, all there is is a pile of cells structured in an antrhopomorphic shapes that happen to share 0-50% of DNA with one another with an genetically supported assumed mutual assistance arrangement) put up with you for the holidays(I mean the religion of the holidays, obviously a large plurality of people do not labor during that time and frequently use that mutually available time to congregate with those known to them. Obviously you can't touch New Years). Do they put on some music(the religion of music, because obviously we're discussing the reification of tuned noises placed in sequence, and since you only listen to those as particular sounds, and the cohesive whole is not meaningfully distinct) and hope you don't notice that they used the word "cast" to describe their fishing expedition lest you accuse them of believing in magic. Ikanreed (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The mere existence of music or DNA is not necessarily a supernatural belief since we still arrive at our conclusions though empirical observances and reasoned conclusions. LogicMaster777 (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No, idiot, you stupid, dense as fuck moron, dummy stupid dimwit, look. I'm applying your gratuitous use of "reification" to the idea of family. DNA is real, but family is clearly a social construct that vaguely relates to DNA. How can you misread that so densely? Do you never apply your ideas you think are universal truths outside of the narrow confines of governance theory? Ikanreed (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The arguments for the existence of the Leviathan or Corporate "person" of the state(the sovereign of the Legal Wizards) as a real entity in symbolic logic or formal logic (Logic 3.0)

I have put my logical proof into the form of formal logic. I think it is appropriate to challenge the statists to do the same. Is there a formal logical proof by which we can argue for the existence of either a plaintiff or defendant in Arizona v United States which exists as a "real" entity?LogicMaster777 (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

LM, when I say "the textile factory made this cloth", I mean "the people working for the factory made this cloth". Similarly, "the state arrested this man" means "the people working for the state arrested this man". It's shorthand, not religion. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I want to call a rational taboo on this word "state" because either you are talking in circles or equivocating. The state is people who work for the state, which is people who work for the state. You are including your conclusion as a premise, which is circular reasoning or begging the question. It's like saying the proof of Allah is the people who work for Allah. You have to presume Allah(the conclusion) as part of your premise(people work for Allah). Can you express the same idea without using the word "state"? Can this argument be put into symbolic logic or formal logic?

P1: People work for the state (which can only be true if we presume the conclusion)

C: The state existsLogicMaster777 (talk) 08:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Logic Section 3.1

Would this be a valid argument for the existence of "Santa" as a "real" entity?

P1: The anthropomorphic entity of the Santa is useful, as is accepted basically as a way of shorthandedly refering to the actions of a group of real people.

C: Therefore, the abstract person, Santa is "real"LogicMaster777 (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Could we prove Allah like this:

P1: The laws of "Allah" are enforced

C: Therefore, Allah is proven to be realLogicMaster777 (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Some Muslim/Islamist-leaning ideas

From the Koran:

"Knowest thou not that unto Allah belongeth the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth? He punisheth whom He will, and forgiveth whom He will: Allah is Able to do all things."

––5: AL–Ma’idah: 40LogicMaster777 (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

From: http://www.muslimtents.com/shaufi/b20/b20_4.htm

"1 – Sovereign - Lord

According to the Qur’an, God is the Sovereign Lord of the Universe and Absolute Ruler of the cosmos. He is the Creator of everything. He is the Sustainer, the Cherisher, and the Nourisher. He is the Regulator and the Perfector. He is the Supreme Law-Giver and the Supreme-Judge. He is the Supreme Lord and the Most Powerful."LogicMaster777 (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Is sovereignty a supernatural force/supernatural belief? Why or why not?

From http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Sovereignty/sov_01.htm

"THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD

Chapter 1

GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY DEFINED

"Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the :earth is Thine; Thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and Thou art exalted as Head above all"

1 Chronicles 29:11

The Sovereignty of God is an expression that once was generally understood. It was a phrase commonly used in religious literature. It was a :theme frequently expounded in the pulpit. It was a truth which brought comfort to many hearts, and gave virility and stability to Christian :character."LogicMaster777 (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

From http://www.radiomissions.org/sermons/sovereigntyofgod.shtml

"The Sovereignty of God

L. R. Shelton, Sr.

When we speak of the Sovereignty of God, we mean God exercising His supremacy. We mean that God is elevated infinitely above the highest :creature, and that He is the Most High, Lord of Heaven and Earth."LogicMaster777 (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

""When we speak of the Sovereignty of God, we mean, according to Psa. 22:28, that God is "the governor among the nations," and that God sets up kingdoms, overthrows kingdoms, and determines the course of every nation. According to I Tim. 6:15, He is "the only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords." LogicMaster777 (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

From http://www.thetroth.org/Lore/Odin%20Tyr%20and%20the%20Function%20of%20Sovreignty.pdf

A careful examination of two gods, Odin and Tyr, the myths featuring

them, and what records we have of their cults reveals the function of sovereignty from the

Germanic world view.

At first glance, these gods seem very different. “Odin is highest and most ancient

of the Aesir,” Snorri Sturluson claims. “He rules all things, and mighty though the other

gods are, yet they submit to him like children to their father” (21). Odin seeks wisdom,

stirs strife, and openly acts as High Magician and shaman to his people. Tyr appears as a

god of law and war, although we know less about him from the literary sources. ”

(Sturluson 24).LogicMaster777 (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Archiving Time?

I wonder if it isn't time that this talkpage was archived. There's little point in having it balloon even further with LogicMaster's by now well-known opinions. And LogicMaster, could you please confine your musings to your own user and talk pages? Or perhaps return to the debate pages. We all know your talking points by heart at this point and they're really at best of tangential relevance to this talkpage. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

pls Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

So then do you concede you have no evidence for "State", then? I think it is fair to give you a chance to provide evidence for your invisible higher power you claim is real. If you are going to wrap it up then I take it you have presented all your evidence(that is to say, none)? You make a claim, that statism is not a religion, then when presented a challenge on a logical argument to prove it or evidence, your response is to delete the page. So then, I think you are conceding my 2 main premises in proving the supernatural basis for your beliefs:

1. There is no formal logical argument as such to support it. You were given a chance to provide it. If you were arguing in good faith then you would have one if you had such an argument. State

2. There is no evidence. If you had pictures, witness reports or empirical observations proving "state" you had the chance to provide them, since you didn't but want to archive to deflect from lack of evidence we should presume there is no such evidential basis for your claims.

3. Therefore it is a faith based rather than a reasoned evidence based belief system and your invisible higher power of state is a faith-based supernatural, rather than evidence-based belief.LogicMaster777 (talk) 08:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I love how whether there is any evidence to support the central belief in the invisible higher power "state" of statism is only tangentially relevant to a discussion on the topic of statism on a "Rationalist" website. The contradiction response. Then you want to run away from the evidential challenge by deleting the page. The denialist/run away response. Everything I have posted on this page is directly relevant to the belief system of statism, and the alleged existence of "state". I can understand the reaction. It must be tough to have the powerful faith-based emotional "need to be right" and try to defend an illogical position on a "rationalist" website using logic (when you have no logical argument or evidence). I predicted this very response in my article. Now that you have been outed as having no evidence or rational argument, there is one more tool left which is verbal aggression.LogicMaster777 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I also love how I am the only one on this page who has actually presented a logical argument but my assertions are just "opinions", implying that the faith-based assertions of the statist quo are somehow some kind of "higher truth" which we are supposed to accept by Other ways of knowing regardless of whether there is any evidence. I have lots of evidence I was going to present to support my assertions, that there is a historic tradition of the priest/shaman/wizard/judge going back almost a thousand years in the English legal system and that you can trace it back to the proto-Germanic traditions and the biblical Sanhedrin and further proving the supernatural basis for the belief system through more evidence but if the page is going to be censored or vandalized then I won't bother(and statists can then "win" through denialism and censorship since they couldn't make their case through logic or evidence). Remember, this page is about the topic of statism (which statists tend to think of as an "ideology" which I say is another religion unto itself in the most literal sense), a much broader subject than The Government Religion of "America". LogicMaster777 (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you have undoubted won the "argumentum ad nauseam". Well done. And the number of people you have convinced of your "truths".... Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I presented a formal logical proof. I'm not relying on repeating myself to prove my argument. If I repeat myself it is to clarify strawman or misconstrued or unclear points, what I'm saying - not to "prove" my points by repetition.LogicMaster777 (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

My goal isn't to win or to change your religious beliefs, my goal is to arrive at a logically consistent conclusion supported by data. If statists have a formal logical proof supported by reasoned evidence, then I want them to share the evidence and logic - not to run away from the challenge and delete the page(in effect admitting there is no evidence). I provided the logical proof, I was going to provide the evidence to support the premises which have been disputed (although as yet not refuted by evidence).LogicMaster777 (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)