Corporation Socialism

[Immanuel Can]

… the religious are fundamentally untrustworthy.

Not as a rule, they aren’t.

Don't worry...anybody who groups every diverse group of people except their own, and calls them "the religious" doesn't even know the first thing he's talking about.

Wave your hand at Mike, and walk on by. He's just being bigotted.

[BigMike]

… the religious are fundamentally untrustworthy.

Not as a rule, they aren’t.

Yes, they are

[Immanuel Can]

… the religious are fundamentally untrustworthy.

Not as a rule, they aren’t.

Yes, they are

There you go...hate the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Muslims, the Zoroastrians, the Sufis, the Catholics, the Mennonites, the Hassidim, the Deists, the Amish...all evil, all untrustworthy, no matter how different their beliefs and practices may be. But secularists...like Fauci, or Marx, or Goebbels, or Mao, or Smollett, or Harris...trust them all, because they're trustworthy...

Is that your point, Mikey?

[BigMike]

Not as a rule, they aren’t.

Yes, they are

There you go...hate the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Muslims, the Zoroastrians, the Sufis, the Catholics, the Mennonites, the Hassidim, the Deists, the Amish...all evil, all untrustworthy, no matter how different their beliefs and practices may be. But secularists...like Fauci, or Marx, or Goebbels, or Mao, or Smollett, or Harris...trust them all, because they're trustworthy...

Is that your point, Mikey?

Immanuel, your response is exactly what I expected: a superficial and knee-jerk reaction, full of sweeping generalizations, strawmen, and attempts to deflect rather than engage with the argument I’m actually making. Let’s clear this up.

First, I didn’t say all religious people are evil or untrustworthy. My claim is that, as a rule, religious belief tends to erode trustworthiness because it is rooted in systems that allow for the acceptance of falsehoods as foundational truths. This is the principle of ex falso quodlibet—from a falsehood, anything follows. If someone builds their worldview on unverifiable or contradictory premises (e.g., divine commands, miracles, metaphysical claims unsupported by evidence), their reasoning is compromised from the outset. And that, Immanuel, makes their moral and intellectual consistency suspect.

Second, you dodge the core of my argument by lumping every religious person into a giant category as though the diversity of belief systems somehow negates the critique. It doesn’t. Whether it’s Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, or any other faith, the shared feature is adherence to dogmas that require suspension of critical inquiry. This isn’t about hating individuals; it’s about recognizing the inherent unreliability of belief systems built on faith rather than evidence.

Third, your deflection to secular figures like Marx or Mao is a textbook false equivalence. Secular ideologies aren’t immune to critique, and I’ve never claimed otherwise. But the key difference is this: secular systems are not predicated on faith in the supernatural. When they fail, it’s not because of a foundational commitment to unverifiable dogmas but often because of bad applications of political, economic, or social theory—flaws that can (and should) be interrogated through evidence and reason.

Finally, let’s talk about belief. Many religious people don’t even truly believe what they claim. Their adherence often stems from respect for tradition, fear of alienation, or anxiety about the unknown. They perform belief rather than critically examining it. How many religious people have you met who sincerely, unwaveringly live as though their God were omniscient and omnipresent? Most don’t—they hedge, rationalize, or compartmentalize their faith to fit the realities of modern life. That dissonance only deepens the trust issue.

So, Immanuel, if you’re going to protest, try addressing the substance of my critique rather than indulging in predictable and shallow retorts. This isn’t about hating religious people; it’s about identifying the dangers of uncritical belief and the lack of intellectual integrity that often accompanies it. If you have a counterargument that goes deeper than “but what about secular bad guys?” I’m all ears.

[FlashDangerpants]

sweeping generalizations

Your lack of self-awareness is quite astounding.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, they are

There you go...hate the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Muslims, the Zoroastrians, the Sufis, the Catholics, the Mennonites, the Hassidim, the Deists, the Amish...all evil, all untrustworthy, no matter how different their beliefs and practices may be. But secularists...like Fauci, or Marx, or Goebbels, or Mao, or Smollett, or Harris...trust them all, because they're trustworthy...

Is that your point, Mikey?

...a superficial and knee-jerk reaction, full of sweeping generalizations, strawmen, and attempts to deflect

A perfect description of your bigotted catch-all claim about "religious" folks. Well said.

[BigMike]

sweeping generalizations

Your lack of self-awareness is quite astounding.

FlashDangerpants, let’s not confuse things here. My so-called “sweeping generalizations” are backed by arguments grounded in reason and logic. They’re not off-the-cuff, knee-jerk reactions meant to deflect or dismiss criticism, which is precisely what I’ve been getting in return—stupid comments from both Immanuel and now yourself.

When I say that religious people are fundamentally untrustworthy as a rule, it’s not a baseless assertion. It’s tied to specific principles like ex falso quodlibet and an understanding of how uncritical acceptance of dogma undermines intellectual integrity. I’ve laid out why adherence to unverifiable claims fosters inconsistency and why many believers don’t even sincerely follow the doctrines they claim to uphold. That’s an argument, not a sweeping generalization.

Compare that to what I’ve been met with: Immanuel throwing out strawmen about hating all religious people and equating secularism with figures like Mao or Goebbels, as if that’s relevant. And now you, accusing me of lacking self-awareness without addressing the substance of what I’ve said. It’s lazy and, frankly, beneath the level of discussion I’m aiming for.

So, if you or Immanuel have a meaningful critique—something that engages with the logic of my position—feel free to bring it forward. Otherwise, these shallow retorts are just noise, and I have no interest in playing that game.

[Immanuel Can]

So, if you or Immanuel have a meaningful critique—something that engages with the logic of my position—feel free to bring it forward.

Oh, how we wish you would employ some logic.

Alas, we could not find any. Just a bigotted claim about "all religious people."

[FlashDangerpants]

sweeping generalizations

Your lack of self-awareness is quite astounding.

When I say that religious people are fundamentally untrustworthy as a rule

There is no talking your way out of that, you make it worse. Learning basic humility is what you need to do, it is an emergency for you.

[Immanuel Can]

I’ve laid out why adherence to unverifiable claims fosters inconsistency...

But the unverifiability of Determinism fails to concern you? You just love it as a dogma: and you're worried about "religious" people?

Maybe take a look in the mirror, before you start your next pogrom. You might find yourself at the top of the agenda.

[promethean75]

"But the unverifiability of Determinism fails to concern you?"

It must not concern you much either because in countless ways every day you live as if determinism and causality do exist. You don't drive to the coast when the forecast says a hurricane is coming because you believe in the predictive power of meteorology and trust that certain conditions can cause a hurricane to form. You don't drive past the gas station on empty because you believe gasoline causes the car to move, but you can't prove it. In so many ways, causation is infered by us everywhere everyday, and yet nowhere is it proven.

Thoughts?
Views?

[Immanuel Can]

"But the unverifiability of Determinism fails to concern you?"

It must not concern you much either because in countless ways every day you live as if determinism and causality do exist. You don't drive to the coast when the forecast says a hurricane is coming because you believe in the predictive power of meteorology and trust that certain conditions can cause a hurricane to form. You don't drive past the gas station on empty because you believe gasoline causes the car to move, but you can't prove it. In so many ways, causation is infered by us everywhere everyday, and yet nowhere is it proven.

Thoughts?
Views?

The existence of natural laws or regularities isn't an argument for Determinism at all. It's just an argument for regularities and laws. The important question is whether or not volition is a separate category of causal explanation, or just the same category as natural phenomena like weather and combustion rates. So nothing at all about the rightness of one view or the other is advanced by pointing to the existence of these phenomena. They're natural phenomena, governed by physical causality. The question remains, though: is there another kind of causality, one that involved the decisions of conscious agents. I say there is, and Mike, illogically, claims there is not, even while he relies on his own powers of volition, and hope to sway the volition of others by way of his volitional arguments.

So Mike is the one who is claiming that things that cannot be conclusively demonstrated are "religious," or "irratonal" and "inconsistent." Meanwhile, he believes in an unverifiable and unfalsifiable theory called "Determinism." So how does he manage that?

[BigMike]

I’ve laid out why adherence to unverifiable claims fosters inconsistency...

But the unverifiability of Determinism fails to concern you? You just love it as a dogma: and you're worried about "religious" people?

Maybe take a look in the mirror, before you start your next pogrom. You might find yourself at the top of the agenda.

Immanuel Can, your comment reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of both determinism and the scientific principle of falsifiability. Determinism is not an "unverifiable dogma"; it is grounded in the foundational conservation laws of physics—laws that are falsifiable and have been tested rigorously for centuries. Do you deny the conservation of energy or the reality of cause and effect? Because these principles underlie determinism.

Your flippant dismissal betrays ignorance of how science works. Falsifiability, not verifiability, is precisely why determinism holds water—it predicts consistent, observable outcomes based on physical interactions. Meanwhile, your argument relies on rhetoric and ad hominem attacks, not evidence or logical reasoning. Before throwing around accusations of dogma, maybe brush up on the basic physics that keep the universe—and your ability to type nonsense on a keyboard—functioning.

Pogroms? Really? Resorting to such inflammatory hyperbole only underscores your lack of serious engagement with the topic. Try addressing the actual arguments next time instead of throwing childish jabs. You might find yourself learning something.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can, your comment reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of both determinism and the scientific principle of falsifiability.

Yeah, you seem to think I "misunderstand" thing, just because I know they're different from what you think they are. So one of us is wrong, but it isn't me.

Determinism is not an "unverifiable dogma"; it is grounded in the foundational conservation laws of physics

Show exactly how a law of physics proves Determinism. This should be good.

...science...

Oh, every fool pulls this one out: "science is on my side." No, no it's not. You don't get a win just by saying "science."

Let's see what you've really got. Do the syllogism for us: how does physics prove Determinism?

[BigMike]

Immanuel Can, your comment reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of both determinism and the scientific principle of falsifiability.

Yeah, you seem to think I "misunderstand" thing, just because I know they're different from what you think they are. So one of us is wrong, but it isn't me.

Determinism is not an "unverifiable dogma"; it is grounded in the foundational conservation laws of physics

Show exactly how a law of physics proves Determinism. This should be good.

...science...

Oh, every fool pulls this one out: "science is on my side." No, no it's not. You don't get a win just by saying "science."

Let's see what you've really got. Do the syllogism for us: how does physics prove Determinism?

Immanuel Can, your response is a mix of deflection and bravado, but it lacks substance. Let’s clarify:

The conservation laws of physics, such as the conservation of energy and momentum, demonstrate that every interaction in the universe is governed by cause and effect. This is the backbone of determinism. Energy doesn’t appear from nowhere; it transfers, transforms, and follows precise, predictable rules. If every physical process is dictated by these laws, there’s no room for events to "just happen" independent of prior causes—hence, determinism.

You challenge me to "do the syllogism." Here it is, in its most basic form:

1. All events in the universe are governed by physical laws (demonstrated through conservation laws and empirical observation).
2. These laws are deterministic—they describe how physical states evolve based on prior conditions.
3. Therefore, all events are causally determined.

Your dismissal of science as "every fool’s card" suggests a refusal to engage with evidence rather than a critique of its relevance. Physics doesn’t “prove” determinism in the sense you might demand, but it provides the framework through which determinism becomes an inescapable conclusion. The burden now falls on you: if you reject this, show precisely where the conservation laws fail to apply or where causality breaks down.

Until then, your skepticism is empty bluster.