Information icon.svg Nominations and Campaigning for the 2022 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now closed.

The election booth is now open!

Essay talk:A Breakdown of Contemporary Government Religion

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Case law as canonical scriptures[edit]

Fucking hell, you can't even get your similes right. If the government were a religion, case law would be like Bible interpretation. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg Now I'm not tense anymore, I'm just miserable. Hooray! 02:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

How is it different exactly?LogicMaster777 (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Case law is sort of similar to the "Nicene Creed". The Creed is not part of the "bible" as such, but it is still regarded as sacred authoritative writing by the Catholic Church, and thus it forms a scriptural cannon in its own right. Similarly, Case law is regarded as a traditional "authoritative" cannon of scripture, even if it's not given the "biblical" weight of "Constitutional Law".LogicMaster777 (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

LM's Response to Criticism and Counter- criticism[edit]

If you are claiming there actually is some evidence presented in that debate that proves the existence of an "entity" such as a "sovereign state", then feel free to cross post or reiterate the "evidence". This is kind of why I protested the use of fallacies so much, the statists will clutter up the page with irrelevancies such as personal attacks and strawmen then claim that somewhere in there is some actual evidence proving the existence of their "higher power" of "sovereign state". Then when you simply ask what the evidence is, they won't tell you, they refer to this alleged phantom evidence to "prove" their position, but will never refer to the actual evidence specifically. What exactly do you consider the smoking gun which proves there is a "higher power" of "sovereign state"? Just say what it is. DNA? Mitochlorians? Photos? Fingerprints? LogicMaster777 (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for centralizing your ideas.[edit]

Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 02:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The Counter - evidence[edit]

Here is my rationalist challenge to statists to present some actual evidence from a rationalist point of view which disproves any of the premises of the essay. Personal attacks and vandalism are not "evidence". Prove that the "Sovereign State" is more than an article of faith.LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

For anyone actually interested in an answer, see the responses in: Debate:Is the government a religion? ScepticWombat (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

My socratic inquiry to statheists and statists[edit]

Please, responsive answers to the questions only in this section. Part of participating in a socratic challenge in good faith is to answer the questions responsively and directly. I am open to participating in similar logical challenges.
Have you ever seen the sovereign "state" or know anyone who has? What does it look like? Can you upload a picture of the sovereign state?
If you have never seen it, is that because it is invisible?
Do you believe in it?
How do you know it is real?
Do you have any evidence?
Why do you believe in it?LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Please, responsive answers to the questions only in this section. Part of participating in a socratic challenge in good faith is to answer the questions responsively and directly. I am open to participating in similar logical challenges.

Have you ever seen "friendship" or know anyone who has? What does it look like? Can you upload a picture of "friendship"?
If you have never seen it, is that because it is invisible?
Do you believe in it?
How do you know it is real?
Do you have any evidence?
Why do you believe in it? (InsertOpinion) (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh my God, InsertOpinion, you're right! There's no such thing as friendship! I've been deluded all my life, thanks for showing me the light. (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Finally your brainwashed "Friendist" mind is opening!!!! (InsertOpinion) (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
And don't forget the magic jewellery (well adornments at least)Wikipedia used to signal the magical friendship of the friendship religion! Or how magical writingWikipedia sustains this religion, let alone the magical ritualsWikipedia people have engaged in when joining the friendship religion! ScepticWombat (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
And don't forget their devious cartoonsWikipedia and sitcom showsWikipedia controlling the minds of our young!!!!! (InsertOpinion) (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Some criticism of LM's debating tactics and inquiry[edit]

Just as the renewed demand for "counter-evidence", LM's questions have already been dealt with in Debate:Is the government a religion?. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
A counter-query, as a litmus test for intellectual honesty: has this question been asked before? Ikanreed (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it has been met with logical fallacies, personal attacks and censorship attacks to deflect from lack of evidence.LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Here's a personal attack for you: you're a liar because that's straightforwardly untrue. Ikanreed (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Lol. Plan on going through and debunking the fallacies one by one to not only rebut but refute this. No evidence of such an "entity" as "sovereign state" was ever presented. "Sovereign State" is a mental projection by Statist magical thinking. It's not real. Oh, but that's right, you already presented the "evidence", you just don't want to say what it is exactly. Ya, ok phantom evidence. I have proof but I'm not saying what it is. Lol.LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Apparently LM still doesn't know what a "state" even is. No surprise there. (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
What is it exactly?LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and LM forgets that the Socratic inquiry is a dialogue, not just asking questions. Also, the Socratic dialogues end with Socrates' interlocutor having to agree with him due to Socrates' incisive questions (that's kind of the point), while LM has already all but admitted that he has never managed to convince anyone and glories in a barely concealed Galileo gambit by exclaiming that "truth is not a popularity contest". If you want context, see the bit below as rescued from the trash can of User talk:AgingHippie#Saint Washington:
Not the first statist censorship attack this site has seen regarding this subject. Statists will go to any length to silence critical thought regarding their faith-based magical belief system. It's one of the symptoms of their zealotry and denialism. It is really a quite insane religion. Yes this censorship attack violates the rules of the site, but the "rules" aren't really the true point of authoritarian belief systems. The true point of authoritarian ideology is the blind faith and worship of authority. The rules will be bent or broken as needed to preserve the faith in the "authority", and I have committed the ultimate act of heresy as far as hardcore statist/statheist/state-theists are concerned - called into question the faith-based precepts of their violent and insane religion. I predicted this reaction before it ever happened in fact on my user page. This kind of aggressive behavior in the form of anti-social censorship attacks (It can take other forms as well) is symptomatic of statist/authoritarian religious zealotry. (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
No Jaqing off. Asking for evidence is not "making wild accusations". What "wild accusations" specifically do you think I have phrased as a question? Just because my line of questions exposes the contradiction in your thinking and you therefore do not like it does not make my inquiry into an "accusation". Ironically you say I am using the Galileo gambit. I do not use the galileo gambit to support any of my premises. It is completely irrelevant whether I have convinced you or other believers of the faith. It neither supports nor detracts from the argument in any logical sense. It is therefore irrelevant. That was the point I was making. One does not explicitly call something an "irrelevancy" to imply that it supports their argument. For it to be a gallileo gambit I would have to be trying to use this as an argument to further my position. Since I call it "irrelevant" explicitly means I am clearly not using it in such a manner. It neither supports your position nor does it support mine that you or other faithful believers are not converted anarchists. Your belief or faith in itself is not evidence of anything in itself. I mean you haven't convinced me to convert to the governmental religion either. Does that prove something? Not in itself no. It does not prove you are "wrong" nor does it prove you are "right".LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
:Yes LM, you're clearly being censored by being allowed to post mile-long rants about your pet idea(s)... Sorry, but not agreeing with your ahem, "ideas" and not allowing your eh, "alternative" labels to be the official file names on images uploaded to RW is not censorship - it's called factually reporting reality, unlike your Fair and Balanced version (nice Godwin's Law, btw)...
I'm a bit curious, though, whether you've ever managed to convince anyone either on RW or elsewhere that your "ideas" (about states being religions etc.) are correct? Note that it has to be someone who didn't already agree with your views, otherwise it would just be preaching to the choir. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Truth is not a popularity contest. Just wondering when you guys are actually going to present some evidence. Why do Statheists have to promote their agenda through denialism/evidence tampering? Is that how rationalists arrive at conclusions? Do they derive a faith based conclusion from emotion and then try to erase evidence which might undermine it? Instead of presenting actual evidence to support your positions, the statheist crusaders must further their agenda through denialism by trying to erase evidence with vandalism. Name calling and Erasing/tampering with evidence does not do much to establish your position as rationalist. I would challenge you to actually show me some evidence. I will create a special section on the talk page of the essay for statists and statheists to present counter-evidence and prove that the "sovereign state" is more than an article of faith. I do not expect you to meet this challenge since your faith-based positions have no rationalist evidence to support them. The file name was called "Apotheosis of Washington lg copy". That is the "official" name of the painting, it's not just some name I made up for it and even if it were that does not excuse this vandalism. I'm not trying to convert statheists or break them of their cult conditioning - I'm here exposing just how irrational their beliefs and behavior are. These censorship attacks designed to hide evidence and further your denialist agenda speak just as loud and clear to the irrationality of the statheist position as your personal attacks designed to deflect from your lack of evidence. But prove me wrong, present some counter-evidence (you won't) establishing your position as the "rational" one. So far you are doing exactly as my theories predicted. LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
(At the very end, LM inserts a YT link for some reason)
So, I guess your long-winded answer to "whether you've ever managed to convince anyone either on RW or elsewhere that your "ideas" (about states being religions etc.) are correct" amounts to "No"... Well thanks for that. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
But again, anyone interested in seeing how these issues have already been turned over for LM can check the debate on whether governments are religions (Spoiler: Unless you're LM, the answer is again "No"...). ScepticWombat (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Because you said so. There is no evidence. It just comes down to how you define "government" and how you define religion. To a hardcore statist part of the definition of government is that it is not a religion. My definition of religion is an organized belief system based on faith or magical thinking, dogma/faith, with a belief in a supernatural element like an unprovable "higher power" or other unproven "entities". In this sense I have proven the government is in fact a religious institution and the concordant fiath-based belief system is in fact a religion. I have backed up my controversial assertions with evidence, which statists have repeatedly tried to tamper with through censorship attacks and vandalism. While they have produced zero evidence of their imaginary "entities" other than to assert that statists punish others who defy them or their scriptural edicts. The same "proof" violent religious extremists have always used. The argumentum ad baculum fallacy. The other "evidence" they present is name calling and repeadly asserting I haven't "convinced" "anyone". Or they will use fallacious appeals to tradition like "it's a precedent" as "evidence". Or the appeal to authority/quoting scripture as "authoritative proof". Or fallacious appeals to consequence. That is the evidence, in a nutshell.LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Is disagreement censorship/vandalism/persicution? Please make your answer as concise as possible. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Concise answer: No. Long winded explanation I am referring to specific instances of deleting photos and hiding evidential inquiries. For instance on the "corporate personhood" talk page I posted an inquiry into whether there was actually any evidence that the "corporate persons" have any sort of corporeal existence, and the response was to hide the inquiry and launch personal attacks rather than address whether there was any such evidence of this claim that the article makes (Theclaimed "existence" of "corporate persons"). This site purports to have a "rationalist point of view" but if one merely questions whether the dogma and holy cows of statism have any evidential basis, you get the Tommy Davis reaction. Like if you show evidence of Leviathan worship in the main cathedral of the religion of statism, the evidence will be suppressed in a denialist fit similar to how Tommy Davis reacts to being confronted on the Xenu "esoteric scripture". — Unsigned, by: LogicMaster777 / talk / contribs
I and others have explained his misconceptions to LM already and I'm not going to waste any more time pointing out LM's erroneous definitions and rhetorical shell games of the "I can fuck around with language, so I win"-variety. Anyone actually caring for answers can easily reread the (far too many) responses LM has already received on various debate and talk pages. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Holy Christ, no one in their right mind thinks corporations are persons (which includes the people on this wiki, if that wasn't obvious). It's just a legal abstraction. How stupid can you be to even suggest something like that? (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I know they are only legal abstractions. They are faith-based abstractions, articles of faith. There is no evidence they have any corporeal existence. Yet part of the irrational behavior and thinking of statism and corpratism is to reify them as literally "real" "entities". If you ask a statist, they will actually sometimes insist these faith-based abstractions are literally "real" "entities". They even speak of them as having their own wants and desires and personalities.LogicMaster777 (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, dude. By publically-accepted definition, a government is the system by which a state or community is governed. By publically-accepted definition, a religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. That's what I go by.
I don't go by personal made-up definitions, like what you've offered. I also believe that force is a perfectly valid methodology.
Also, by your definition, Confucianism would not be a religion, even though it qualifies under publically-accepted definitions of religion and has been considered such for millennia. For a newer religion, the Ethical Culture Movement would not be considered a religion for your purposes. --Castaigne (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Castaigne's definition of Religion:"an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence". Maybe that is taken from another source? For now I treat it as your definition.16:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes that is fine. I'm not telling you how to define your words or what to believe. I'm putting the evidence out there to make my case and for you to draw your own conclusions. I take this sort of definition into account as well. The government has its own codified "collection of beliefs" as you say or its own "belief system" as I call it. It relates to an order of existence. Those people over there are "Canadians". Over there are "Mexicans". Over here are "Americans". Some of those among us have a magical divine right to rule over others because the higher power of "state" ordained them as such. These beliefs relate humanity to a codified abstract "order of existence".LogicMaster777 (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
"By publically-accepted definition, a government is the system by which a state or community is governed" Okay, but without telling me what governed means this is circular. It's like saying refrigeration is a system by which food gets refrigerated.LogicMaster777 (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Why I posted this material on RationalWiki[edit]

Well, with all of these perceived injustices...why not make your own website instead of being here? You can dictate how discussions go and upload what you like. There are tons of free resources out there to learn how and hosting is cheap. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not here to convince you, I'm here to expose statism for what it is using rationalism and a rational point of view. I want my ideas to be challenged by really smart people using a rationalist point of view. Also to challenge me on the facts themselves as well so I know I have them right. I'm trying to make my case from a rationalist point of view and rely on speculation as little as possible and evidence-based research as much as possible. I want the evidence to be as non-controversial as possible although my interpretation of the evidence may be controversial. I am especially staying off conspiracy theories, the purported religious "visions" of Washington, controversial facts, historical revisionism and questionable "legends". Trying to use neutral-ish sources mostly and stay off "Satanic panic" anti-mason related material or Anti-NWO conspiracy orientated material as "proof" as well as questionable or highly agenda-driven sources in general.LogicMaster777 (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

A socratic inquiry on the subject socratic inquiry in the form of a socratic debate on the subject of socratic debate[edit]

Moving this because it goes on an off topic tangent
Sorry, I should have made the point clearer: It is irrelevant whether I've convinced you or anyone else. That has no bearing on the evidence to support either position. It's an irrelevancy and a red herring. The short answer is I don't know and it doesn't matter.LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Eh, since you claim to be engaged in a "Socratic inquiry"Wikipedia it actually does matter whether you're able to convince your interlocutors - unless you have no idea about what a Socratic dialogueWikipedia actually is and what its purpose is. It's right there at the start of my response, but I'll reiterate just in case you missed it: "Socratic dialogues end with Socrates' interlocutor having to agree with him due to Socrates' incisive questions (that's kind of the point)". In other words, you're no Socrates, nor is your approach very Socratic. Hell, you've not even reached the level of sophistry (the sophists were at least bent on and able to convince people with their bullshit). ScepticWombat (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I would challenge you to support your assertion that the purpose of a socratic dialogue is to "convince" the other "side" with anything beside your assertion itself. How do you know this is the purpose of Socratic inquiry? Is this just an opinion you hold? If so, why?LogicMaster777 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, you could always start by defining what you think a "Socratic inquiry" is about and how it's (supposed to be) conducted. And then you might swing by Wikipedia, since I've already linked to the descriptions of the Socratic method/dialogue there (I know WP is not the final arbiter but it's a useful place to start) and see how your notions match up with those. If you've actually checked a couple of Socrates' exploits you'll see that a common theme is that the interlocutor has to agree with Socrates, either in the sense that Socrates was right about something, or that the interlocutor who had earlier bombastically proclaimed himself an expert on this or that has to agree with Socrates that he doesn't really understand it. Socrates did not rely on redefining words to suit his philosophical inquiries, but instead pointed out unspoken assumptions, inconsistencies and so on in the answers he received. If anyone has done so it has been your interlocutors vis-a-vis your (re)definitions. You, on the other hand, have simply rejected answers that everyone else have regarded as perfectly valid and repeated the same questions based on your own homespun (and as we have pointed out oodles of times deeply flawed) definitions. That's not Socratic, that's just silly. ScepticWombat (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"Socratic method (also known as method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate), named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates, is a form of inquiry and discussion between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas. It is a dialectical method, often involving a discussion in which the defense of one point of view is questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict themself in some way, thus strengthening the inquirer's own point."
Basically just what it says, to stimulate critical thinking.LogicMaster777 (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
We actually have found alot of agreement and common ground more than not. Also, my position has changed somewhat, partly due to challenges it got when I first presented the basic idea in the debate. I realized my original proposition "I think the government is a religion" was too simplistic and needed to be refined. The religion is the system of belief. The government has its own traditional system of beliefs and dogma, such as the Constitution, statutes, etc, I'm sure you know I'm not just making this stuff up. Whether you want to call this a religion or not, it is what they teach in public school, an organized system relating to an order of existence of the "nation" and its relation to other "nations" and "peoples". The government belief system does not seem to offer to explain the origin of the universe. So if that's part of your definition of religion then no it's not exactly a religion in that sense. It comes down to how you think of religion, what it means. I think most would agree it refers to a system of belief. I think it also tends to imply an abstract, unoroven or unprovable "higher power" and a system of moral or ethical imperatives or "rights" and "wrongs" and a strong element of faith in dogma or scripture and typically involves lots of magical type thinking.LogicMaster777 (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Some insight on The Socratic Approach[edit]

"Thus, an application of careful techniques of reasoning results in genuine (if negative) progress in the resolution of a philosophical issue. Socrates's method of insistent questioning at least helps us to eliminate one bad answer to a serious question. At most, it points us toward a significant degree of intellectual independence. The character of Euthyphro, however, seems unaffected by the entire process, leaving the scene at the end of the dialogue no less self-confident than he had been at its outset. The use of Socratic methods, even when they clearly result in a rational victory, may not produce genuine conviction in those to whom they are applied.

Apology: The Examined Life

Because of his political associations with an earlier regime, the Athenian democracy put Socrates on trial, charging him with undermining state religion and corrupting young people. The speech he offered in his own defense, as reported in Plato's Απολογημα (Apology), provides us with many reminders of the central features of Socrates's approach to philosophy and its relation to practical life.

Ironic Modesty:

Explaining his mission as a philosopher, Socrates reports an oracular message telling him that "No one is wiser than you." (Apology 21a) He then proceeds through a series of ironic descriptions of his efforts to disprove the oracle by conversing with notable Athenians who must surely be wiser. In each case, however, Socrates concludes that he has a kind of wisdom that each of them lacks: namely, an open awareness of his own ignorance.

Questioning Habit:

The goal of Socratic interrogation, then, is to help individuals to achieve genuine self-knowledge, even if it often turns out to be negative in character. As his cross-examination of Meletus shows, Socrates means to turn the methods of the Sophists inside-out, using logical nit-picking to expose (rather than to create) illusions about reality. If the method rarely succeeds with interlocutors, it can nevertheless be effectively internalized as a dialectical mode of reasoning in an effort to understand everything.

Devotion to Truth:

Even after he has been convicted by the jury, Socrates declines to abandon his pursuit of the truth in all matters. Refusing to accept exile from Athens or a commitment to silence as his penalty, he maintains that public discussion of the great issues of life and virtue is a necessary part of any valuable human life."LogicMaster777 (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

A particularly glaring inaccuracy[edit]

I believe, even under what can be loosely called your logic, that your assertion that the flag is the most popular object of "worship" (by your stretched definition of the word) is very incorrect. If anything it would be the dollar, as a supporting structure and representation of the goals of most, as well as what people refer to in asserting their beliefs. Trick (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

But his precious Ayn Rand (literally) worshiped that one. She even had that idol specifically at her funeral. Ikanreed (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Good point. I guess money and wealth is kind of worshiped in a sense. Fiat currency can be thought of as a "metaphor" for value since it has no intrinsic value and thus is kind of an "idol" representation of the "stuff" it can in theory buy and this "buying power" is ostensibly based on the Full faith and Credit of the USA Leviathan's living Avatars in government. So the dollar is an article of faith of the government religion. LogicMaster777 (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
That's a very long winded way of saying the same thing. Are you aware humans have basic logical assumptions that don't require a restating of the actual details of things on a consistent basis? Trick (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure; what are those assumptions specifically?LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Taken from chicken coop 3/15/15[edit]

What exactly are you talking about unwillingness to debate you? I have presented evidence which proves my theory. I have repeatedly challenged statists to produce ANY EVIDENCE which they have consistently failed to do. Meanwhile, they have vandalized and censored my fact-based and evidence-based theory which has been repeatedly censored for denialist purposes(as well as vandalizing simple challenges to prove their faith based assertions with any real evidence). I have presented a formal logical proof, as well as evidence to back my premises. Unwillingness to debate you? You still haven't even formulated a formal logical argument or any evidence - what is there for me to debate other than to debunk your ample logical fallacies (which I plan to do very soon here). Since statists have zero actual evidence, and have presented no formal logical proof of their faith-based position, they have become very uncomfortable. The cognitive dissonance is obviously hard to deal with - they can't actually present any evidence to prove their faith-based beliefs but they have this driving emotional need to do something, anything to "win". Since they are unable to do so with logic or evidence, they must try to censor out the uncomfortable information, facts and evidence which makes them so uncomfortable with denialist censorship. This cognitive dissonance, I imagine, must be quite uncomfortable for statists. They are insisting their faith-based belief system is the "rational" position on a "rationalist pov" website while they have no actual evidence to cite. Yet the evidence supports my theory, not the statist faith. That is why they are so desperate to censor out the information they find so scary.LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing new in counterarguments or criticism not getting through to you LM, and the point about you not debating is just another one on a, by now, rather long list. What Miekal is referring to is your tiresome ad nauseam assertions and redefinitions of terms to suit your conclusions. I know you've been presented with these issues numerous times, because I have been among those who pointed them out. That you go with blanket denial and claims about censorship and logical fallacies (pot, meet kettle) is also snooze-inducingly familiar to all of us who've spent time trying to get through to you. It is because you seem stuck in a rut and just keep on repeating the same talking points over and over that your posts cannot be said to be part of a debate, but simply constitute an apparently endless textual monologue. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
My article doesn't re-define any words. You understand that many words have MULTIPLE meanings. Re-defining words is saying this word means this, not that. The word "State" and the word "Religion" have MULTIPLE meanings. I use the words in the common meaning of the terms. When I say religion, I mean in the same sense the "Religion" article on here does. When I say State I mean in the same sense Scalia does. The "entity" of "Sovereign State(the Leviathan)", the higher power of government religion is right there in black and white in the statist scriptures - to pretend otherwise is Xenu-style denialism (when confronted on xenu doctrine, scientologists often basically freak out). You have presented zero evidence that this entity has any corporeal existence (I say it is all in your imagination). It is an article of faith derived from sacred scriptural dogma.LogicMaster777 (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
You still don't get it. Nobody believes the state is a corporeal entity. Everybody sane believes that the state is a collective noun referring to the people that exercise governmental control. This is the same as a board of trustees. The board is not a corporeal entity, but refers to the people that exercise the control of the board. Everyone here accepts your view that believing that the state is some giant dude is a religion, and everyone here doesn't believe that. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 19:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
You might not PERSONALLY believe in some of the supernatural aspects of the government belief system, but they are still there in the sacred writings. I'm sure there are catholic priests who probably don't personally believe all of the supernatural teachings of catholicism. I get that there are other meanings of the term "the state" than how I use it - a euphemism for the government itself or the PROTOCOL of government. This is what I'm talking about with the denialism. Statists literally pray to the "entity" called "The United States of America" in the form of a flag idol. They literally speak of this "entity" as its own person: "The United States is mad at Russia", etc. Hobbes literally calls the "entity" a god.

Sovereign state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In international law, a sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area."

So here we have it - non physical entities being preached as a sacred dogma by men and women in black priest robes(judges)- what's your definition of organized religion?LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Equivocation is a pretty simple fallacy to detect and dissect. Or is it Batesian mimicry? I always have a hard time telling those two apart. Alec Sanderson (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
(ec)Sorry for wading into this doo-doo, but the argument seems to be that, just as god & religion is a fiction, the notion of the state and corporations is likewise a world of make-believe. Is that it? <wipes the doo-doo from shoes> nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 20:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
All human perception is a mix of facts and make believe. The government religion has elements of truth to it just like most religions are largely based at least in part in fact.

@Alec: I find that in terms of "The State" statists are often oblivious to their own equivocation. For example: "State" can mean:

1. A place/geophysical location

2. A euphemism for government itself

3. The protocols of government

4. A community/nation

5. The people who live in that community/nation

6. The leviathan - the "sovereign state" as a "person". The legal person or corporate person of the state. In ancient times this was often an anthropomorphic god like Athena. In today's society, this "entity" is just called "the state" or something like "California" - so it is easy to equivocate this entity with, for example the government or the geophysical location since their names are often identical.

Statists do frequently engage in equivocation and fallacies of composition and division in conflating these.LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Ad Hominem[edit]

A section devoted to Ad Hominems, personal attacks, or trolling directed at the author, hopefully we can keep it to one section so it doesn't clutter up the rationalist sectionLogicMaster777 (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, I don't think he even believes this stuff. People who have a truth that changes the world didm't spend less than an hour a week posting flyers in an alley behind a library hoping to change minds before the internet. They dedicated their lives to changing the marchers against segrigation (some even gave their lives), Einstien, or Clair Patterson (got lead out of fuel).
This is more like tinkering in the garage, or doing odd home improvements, or building a minecraft Westeros. It's a way to keep busy without much effort, or cost, or friends, or risk that can be done in the comfort of ones home. Pretty much the story of Ignatius in A Confederacy of Dunces. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, we're all not doing a tabletop style role play here? Whoops. Oh well. Trick (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
That would be fun at least. I don't see the point, or the fun, of coming back here over and over for his ideas to be called stupid. He does get attention and maybe that's all he wants. Negative attention is better than being ignored I guess. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The images are too damn big[edit]

...which is to say REALLY damn big. PacWalker 03:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)