“Wouldn’t a better equivalence to draw be with the unfalsifiability of religion?”
Irrelevant.

Prove it.
Oh… wait.
You can’t.
What a bad argument.

That’s the trouble with trying to prove things — you can provide evidence that supports your conclusion, but you can never prove it absolutely aside from, of course, the cognito. Everything else could be an illusion.

But of course, that’s not the way we deal with things in the real world. We accept that there are some things that exist, even though we can’t prove their existence absolutely, and we try and make statements about them. So how can we try to make sure those statements are true? We can try to provide examples that support our ideas, and we look for counter examples that might disprove, might falsify, our ideas. I can think of examples where the use of force has caused the removal of democracy, and I’m sure you can too. I can’t think of any counter-examples, but it sounds like you can. So wouldn’t the fastest way to resolve this be for you to provide them?

You seem to think that being unable to prove something and still considering it true makes it equivalent to religion. Wouldn’t a better equivalence to draw be with the unfalsifiability of religion?
And with that, we’re almost back on topic. Let’s not break the thread again, because that makes baby Jesus in heaven cry. See? That’s what I mean. Unfalsifiable.

If you insist that your argument is good without proving it, that means you have unprovable faith in a concept — in this case, judging democracy. That rationality has the same merit as the faith in a religion.

So, either you evade proving your statement about democracy or you prove it.

You quote me as asking:

“How did I do that?”

There are five words in that sentence, just five words. They’re not complicated. They’re not difficult to understand. A child of six could understand them. In fact, you even rephrase the question just to be absolutely sure that you’ve understood what it is that I’m asking. You say:

“How did you demonstrate that people have blind faith in democracy as if it were a religion or a supernatural savior?”

But you know, we don’t even need anything beyond those first two words in the original question, and the question as you’ve phrased it. We just need “How did”, and it’s that second word that’s important here.

Did.

As in “how did I do that?”
As is “I did that yesterday.”
As in “I did that at some point in the past.”

Because that’s the thing, Charlie. As you were so kind and gracious to translate “axiomatically” for me, today it’s going to be your lesson. Never let it be said that I don’t return a favour.

“Did” refers to something that has already happened. It refers to an event in the past. It refers to something already done.

Let’s take an example:

“How did I do that?”

Now, what I’m asking here is (and really, don’t be afraid to go back to the start of this comment if you’re finding this a little too hard going. If you find that there’s something you don’t understand, and you need to read it through once, twice, or several thousand times, mouthing the words as you go, don’t worry. It’s really nothing to be ashamed of.) what did I do at some point in the past prior to this question being raised to lead you to believe that I have demonstrated that people have blind faith in democracy as if it were a religion or a supernatural savior?

And you reply with a quote written by me AFTER I posed that question.

You reply with an answer which is demonstrably, objectively false.

You reply to a question which is the only one out of several you choose to answer, which you say is the only important one, which a child of six could understand and you still manage to get it wrong. That’s what you just did. You really did.

Matthew: certainly. But let’s clarify something, so that you and I aren’t wasting our time. What would you accept as “proof” that a particular account in the Bible was a myth?

Suppose a particular Bible narrative pre-existed in one or several other cultures, predating the Bible account? Or suppose one story in the Bible contradicted another? Or suppose a Biblical narrative turned out to be definitively, physically impossible? What exactly do you require as “proof”?

———–

C,
You said: “I’m not sure if I see the internal logic here.”
No surprise there! You are frustratingly misrepresenting my writing. You re-interpreted my writing by putting words in my mouth. I will reply to one thing in your long string because it is the only one that is important.

“Golly. How did I do that?”
How did you demonstrate that people have blind faith in democracy as if it were a religion or a supernatural savior? Here: you said “that the only way to remove democracy would be through violent agression, and that defending against that violent agression would represent self defence.”
Note the following things: you are assuming that your statement is accurate, significant and to the credit of democracy. I believe it is none of those.

You are blind to the fact that democracy is inherently violent aggression itself. Regardless, your statement is unfounded. You believe it without proof. I challenge you to prove it.

You will fail that challenge which then proves my point: you hold democracy as a sacred cow.

Challenging you to prove your statement is sooooooooo easy to make because I can prove you are wrong but I am not going to do so. It is enough for me to put the burden of proof on YOU to prove your statement. This will demonstrate that you have blind faith in democracy. That is my point.
My point is not to prove that democracy is bad but rather to demonstrate that you blindly accept it as sacred.

Your failure to prove your assertion does more. It demonstrates that your reflex is to create a boogeyman — a non-existent threat — in response to somebody who questions the holiness of your faith. That reflex further reinforces democracy as your religion.

You see, I have blind faith too — in a lot of things, in fact. I am comfortable with that and I have no problem admitting it.
I have blind faith in my religion. I also have a lot of blind faith in science too. I have blind faith in my chiropractor. I take a lot of things for granted. Here is the rub: everybody takes a lot of knowledge for granted or without proof. There is no sane way to live in this world otherwise.

This brings everything full circle to Shane’s statement in the Opening Post: “there is no such thing as a faith-neutral political position. We are all informed by our beliefs,” which is absolutely correct because nobody in this world can operate sanely if they must depend exclusively on proven knowledge or absolute reason.

A person’s motives are either based upon the acceptance of an apriori axiom or they are purely selfish or both. In the purely selfish case, the person has made themselves to be a god — again, something else that Shane astutely pointed out in his Opening Post.

——-

Dalton,
I did not share my personal opinion on the definition of religion. Look it up for yourself. Maybe you could start here: Religion on Wikipoedia.
There is something new called the internet that exists today. It helps intellectually lazy people do research because it offers lightening-fast search functions at your fingertips. I suggest that you check it out one of these days. If you can not be bothered to look up the meaning of “religion” on the internet, stop wasting my time.

Sometimes I wonder.

I understand that they are using the word metaphorically, Shane.

“You are further proving my point that people have blind faith in democracy as if it were a religion or a supernatural savior.”

Golly. How did I do that?

“This is a severely mistaken assumption: Any other alternative would have to be brought about by violent agression, and therefore imposing your ideas on others is justified.”

“Regardless…”

Wait. Aren’t you going to tell me how I’m mistaken?

“…judging the morality of an action is independent of the perceived alternatives.”

Should someone avoid doing something bad if the percieved alternative is that something worse happens?

“Can you understand that “democracy” is not a person? It is how we label collective activity instead of identifying individual activity.”

No. Playing hockey is not democracy. It is collective activity.

“Can you understand that only individual people can act morally? Ascribing morality to a collectivization of people is nonsense akin to a belief in the super-natural.”

Wouldn’t that mean that if I want to avoid the problems of morality, all i need do is bring a friend?

“I did not say that democracy is bad.”

Can we stick with what each other did say? I’ve a feeling things might get long-winded otherwise.

“[I do believe it is “bad” but that is beside the point.] ”

Why mention it then?

“Rather, I said democracy represents an imposition upon other people. I suggested that self-defense is a good reason to impose your way.”

Yes you did.

“Refer again to Dalton who just thinks of his own benefit.”

What?
I’m really not sure what Dalton’s opinions have to do with this.

“You took the self-defense and extravagantly extrapolated it.”

We’re talking about abstract concepts. Of course I’m going to extrapolate.

“You assume that democracy represents self-defense in some way.”

I’m suggesting that the only way to remove democracy would be through violent agression, and that defending against that violent agression would represent self defence.

But still, I’m not sure I’ve covered all your comment. Let’s go back and take a look at what you say, and see it from your point of view:

“I did not say that democracy is bad. [I do believe it is “bad” but that is beside the point.]”

Ok, so you think (1) democracy is bad.

“Can you understand that “democracy” is not a person? It is how we label collective activity instead of identifying individual activity.”

And you think (2) Democracy is a collective activity.

“Ascribing morality to a collectivization of people is nonsense akin to a belief in the super-natural. ”

And that (3) collective acts should not be ascribed morality.

Ergo, your train of though runs:

(1) democracy is bad.
(2) Democracy is a collective activity.
(3) Collective acts should not be ascribed morality.

I’m not sure if I see the internal logic here.

However, you seem to be using “religion” as a descriptor for pretty much anything that anyone believes. While that broad definition limits the term’s usefulness, it makes your intent clear.

So - what word do YOU use to describe what most English speakers mean when they use the term “religion”?

Good to know it was a simple misunderstanding.

Anyway, you can stop now. You’re using the words “religion” and “sacred” for rhetorical effect, not in their actual sense. No problem - that’s what I thought you were doing. Just wanted to confirm it.

I don’t.

Yeah, riiiiight.
Blindly accepting “the intrusion of state power into my life” is holding something sacred.

I don’t.

There, that’s settled.

This is a severely mistaken assumption:

Any other alternative would have to be brought about by violent agression, and therefore imposing your ideas on others is justified.

Regardless, judging the morality of an action is independent of the perceived alternatives.

Can you understand that “democracy” is not a person? It is how we label collective activity instead of identifying individual activity.

Can you understand that only individual people can act morally? Ascribing morality to a collectivization of people is nonsense akin to a belief in the super-natural.

I did not say that democracy is bad. [I do believe it is “bad” but that is beside the point.] Rather, I said democracy represents an imposition upon other people. I suggested that self-defense is a good reason to impose your way. Refer again to Dalton who just thinks of his own benefit.

You took the self-defense and extravagantly extrapolated it. You assume that democracy represents self-defense in some way.

Wouldn’t this leave us in a position of stalemate where either a new system or democracy would both have to impose ideas upon others and come about through violent agression?

No — not if you accept the responsibility of defending your own property yourself.
Democracy and other forms of statism are attractive because they facilitate avoiding personal responsibility.

Thanks, Charles. My point was neither to defend nor recommend democracy, but to seek clarification of your statement that democracy is a “religion”. You haven’t.

Matthew, what I said was: “Our holy books incorporate law, myth, history, custom, culture, and tradition.”

Are you asking for specific examples of myths (i.e., a traditional story associated with a specific culture) which were incorporated into the Bible? (I’m happy to provide them, being a huge fan of world mythology - just want to be sure that’s what you’re asking for.)

You said:

Democracy is bad because it imposes ideas onto other people.
Imposing your ideas on others is bad unless you’re faced by violent agression.

BUT, I said:

Any other alternative would have to be brought about by violent agression, and therefore imposing your ideas on others is justified.

So you said:

Democracy is imposed through violent agression anyway, so it’s bad.

Now I’m not entirely convinced that democracy is imposed through violent agression, but let’s assume for the time being that it is. Wouldn’t this leave us in a position of stalemate where either a new system or democracy would both have to impose ideas upon others and come about through violent agression?

I had confused your post with Matthew’s. I first read your post earlier today and felt compelled to comment after reading Anthony’s Randisms this evening,losing track of which post on religion it was under.

My apologies.

Scoot, Scott. If you don’t even have the cognitive functions to grasp the post as stating the exact opposite of your understanding, you should just let the adults talk and go play with your tinker toys.

Scott,
You are free to interpret my writing any way you want or to the best of your ability — whichever comes first. I would never deny you the right to amuse yourself in either manner.

Seriously, this place has the best damn unintended irony available anywhere.

I don’t even have The Onion bookmarked anymore.

Democracy is much much more than that. It is an imposition upon other people. Unless you are acting in direct self-defense from violent aggression, you better have a damn good reason to justify imposing your way or beliefs on somebody else.

I have not heard any justification for modern democracy which is any different from a belief in the supernatural or just simply a foolish irrational belief.

To take Charles’ example, for instance - I accept the intrusion of state power into my life in exchange for the benefits I accrue through participation as a citizen in that state. Charles seems to be suggesting that this is a “religious” belief. I’m not sure how.

You may be using a definition of the word “religion” that I’m unfamiliar with. To me it implies a system of beliefs and values informed by a supernatural power. Wnat’s your definition?

“I guess I had better be careful not to confuse internal consistency with objective truth. The former is evidence but not proof for the latter. Logically, there are maybe many religions with internal consistency–including Christianity–but Christianity is either true to the exclusion of all other religions, or it is false. The character of God and the claims of Jesus Christ allow no other alternatives.”

So the filioque clause — true or false? Please give your reasoning, and show how it has always been internally consistent within Christianity.

there is no such thing as a faith-neutral political position. We are all informed by our beliefs,

This is universally true for all people no matter what their faith (or lack thereof) happens to be.

Democracy is a religion.
In fact, anybody who endorses government authority of any kind has made statism part of their own personal religion.

———

If you pay attention to Richard Dawkins and his flock beyond their science, you will find a culture of people who worship the state like it was some divine entity.

However, I don’t think I was arguing for the “equality” of religions. I personally find Christianity, for instance, to be a much grander intellectual, philosophical and aesthetic achievement than, let’s say, the rather more limited cosmology of the Dogons.

On the other hand, I don’t share Anne Coulter’s view that Jews are just larval Christians who got stuck.