Tuesday, January 30, 2007

What's with all the religious material?

Observant Not PC readers will have already noticed a new section down there on my blogroll, which I've called The Religious Material, with links to mostly atheist websites and blogs.

Why have I bothered, and why do I bother to take the piss out of religionists at least once every week, and always on Sundays? Well, it's true that the idea of an imaginary friend who created the entire universe (yet is always around to help you out of your little jams) is just a little embarrassing in the Twenty-First Century, particularly when that idea is promulgated with all the accoutrements of modern science and technology. But it's more than just embarrassing when you realise that this fatuous nonsense is used increasingly and all too frequently to justify murder, war and worse.

And I don't care here what brand of superstitious,mystic nonsense you subscribe to, they're all equally fatuous, and just as destructive:
  • The idea that there is another realm which is more important than this one undercuts this world, and this life -- the only one we have.
  • The idea that a consciousness -- a supernatural consciousness -- is what underpins reality suggests that reality somehow needs an explanation for existing. It doesn't. Reality itself is what underpins all explanation.
  • The idea that' faith' is somehow a shortcut to knowledge is, as Ayn Rand observed, "a shortcut destroying the mind" -- it serves only to undercut the certainty derived by reason looking at this world.
  • The idea that our rules for living are "given" to us by some authority -- and given as intrinsic, arbitrarily proscribed duties or obligations -- is death to any morality that is based on reason, and derived from and designed for life on this earth.
  • The idea that martyrdom in this world brings paradise in another can only be justified by theistic nonsense, and brings with it the worldwide destruction any person awake in the last few years will already have seen.
The claims of religion and of mysticism are as destructive as the are false. Arbitrary claims, all asserted entirely in the absence of any evidence, and all as fatuous as they are destructive. As Blaise Pascal summarised, "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction."

It's not enough any more just to laugh at religionists, since in everything from opposition to voluntary euthanasia and life-saving stem-cell research to terrorism and calls for worldwide dhimmitude, the forces of theocratic unreason are on the loose, and demanding of a response.

The clamour around the undeveloped world, and even increasingly in the US, for tearing down what Thomas Jefferson called "a wall of separation" between church and state is a sign and a foretaste of the thousand years of Dark Ages that Europe experienced before that separation was effected -- a time when Attilas and their witchdoctors ruled the world, and which the Islamic World for one wishes to reinstate.

It's not enough any more just to laugh at religionists.

As Ayn Rand observed,
Philosophy is the goal toward which religion was only a helplessly blind groping. The grandeur, the reverence, the exalted purity, the austere dedication to the pursuit of truth, which are commonly associated with religion, should properly belong to the field of philosophy.
So they should. In the name of life on this earth, it's high time those ideas were taken back from both the charlatans of philosophy and and the witchdoctors of religion.

That, in essence, is the reason for the religious material here at Not PC. Thanks for asking.

RELATED: Religion, Philosophy, Objectivism, Cartoons

Labels: , ,

24 Comments:

Blogger peasant said...

Celestial Teapots, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, and Other Silly Atheist Arguments

The Abolition of Man by the Monster Next Door
Harris [another unoriginal atheist] who wishes to destroy everything ... sacred and holy. For he and Dennett and all of the other militant atheists are embarked upon a passionate mission aimed not just at the abolition of God, but the abolition of man, which would ineluctably follow from the former. Of this I am absolutely certain.

However -- and this is a big however -- Harris would no doubt be a perfectly decent fellow to have as your next door neighbor. It is not the neighborly Harris to whom my characterization applies. Rather, it specifically applies to the deicidal and therefore genocidal monster who speaks through him.

For make no mistake, we are talking here about soul murder -- not just the murder of this or that soul, but the soul of mankind, ipso facto, mankind. Nothing -- nothing -- could be less human than the monstrosity of secular humanism, for it robs man of his humanness in the name of fulfilling it. Should these intellectual quacktivists succeed in their pondsy scam, or should we fail to duck, it would be the creation of hell on earth, a truly daffy dystopia ...

1/30/2007 03:46:00 am  
Blogger Berend de Boer said...

Actually, the people who really killed by the millions where atheists: Stalin, Hitler and Mao. Reason and evolution inspired their actions. But the outcome was more horrible than this world has known before.

There are many reasonable arguments to murder millions. But that it is murder only God and our conscience tells us.

1/30/2007 07:43:00 am  
Blogger Berend de Boer said...

Btw, this doesn't mean I do not endorse a separation of church and state.

1/30/2007 07:46:00 am  
Anonymous Sean said...

Berend,

Hitler was not an atheist at all. By all accounts he was quite a devote Christian with a strong Christian up bringing.

Secondly, your selection is dishonest. You ignore religious atrocities;

Muhammad's violent spread of Islam.
The Crusades.
The Witch Hunts.
The Spanish Inquistion.
Cults--mass suicides.
The KKK.
The Middle east.

A more complete list can be found here;

http://www.holysmoke.org/haught/pent-2.html

1/30/2007 09:11:00 am  
Anonymous Kane Bunce said...

Well said, Peter. A good read. Thanks a lot.

Peasant what is your point? it appears to be anti-atheistic. on nature.

Berend, Stalin and co were exceptions not the rule. Furthermore it was not reason that guided their actions. If they had been guided by reason they would of created a laissez faire capitalism government, which neither of them did.

There are many reasonable arguments to murder millions.

No there isn't. There is only one reasonable argument for killing people: the retaliatory use of force.

But that it is murder only God and our conscience tells us.

Actually, a man of reason knows it is wrong by knowing that man has certain rights that are set by his nature and what it requires for his survival qua man (as opposed to the rubbish of God-given rights). As a man of reason and as such a proud atheist I know it is wrong to kill another human except in self-defence and came to that conclusion without God's help.

1/30/2007 11:10:00 am  
Blogger Berend de Boer said...

kane bunce: Stalin and Hitler and Mao all thought they were quite reasonable. Just getting rid of some subhumans, advancing the human race, all quite reasonable.

PC uses the same arguments to advocate murdering babies.

So what your arguments boils down to is that one persons reasonableness isn't another ones. Not exactly helpful.

sean: Hitler a devout Christian? Really??? Sean, you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.

1/30/2007 11:50:00 am  
Blogger PC said...

"Actually, the people who really killed by the millions where atheists: Stalin, Hitler and Mao."



As Voltaire suggested, those who believe absurdities tend to commit atrocities. Religionists don't have a monopoly on absurdity, or on evil, which is why I'm an equal opportunity hater: I loathe unreason, and I despise all evil.

"There are many reasonable arguments to murder millions..."

Um, I don't think they're exactly thick on the ground, Berend. Let me think ... No. Can't think of any.

"Btw, this doesn't mean I do not endorse a separation of church and state."

Well, thank goodness for that!

"PC uses the same arguments to advocate murdering babies."

What! What on earth are you talking about!? When have I ever either advocating killing babies, or that killing babies is "just getting rid of some subhumans, advancing the human race..."

You've leapt into the realm of the absurd here, I'm afraid.

1/30/2007 12:07:00 pm  
Anonymous Kane Bunce said...

Stalin and Hitler and Mao all thought they were quite reasonable.

The fact that they thought they were doesn't mean they were. The fact remains that they weren't. I could think I am an expert on hydrodynamics, but it wouldn't make me one. The fact that I am not would remain. Reasons is the faculty of logical integration of sensory data. This is not consistent with What Hitler and co done.

PC uses the same arguments to advocate murdering babies.

Would that be unborn babies? Babies which have no rights as their brains are not yet developed enough to be humans in the full sense, i.e. , mind-body. Those that breach anti-abortion not only forget the woman's rights to control what happens to her body, but they practice the mind-body dichotomy.

So what your arguments boils down to is that one persons reasonableness isn't another ones. Not exactly helpful.

No, my argument doesn't boil down to that. My argument boils down to the fact that reality, not people, set what is rational. People simply either identify reality and make rational decisions based on it or irrational decisions, i.e., faith based ones. Which is up to the individual. The choice is to think or not to think.

As Voltaire suggested, those who believe absurdities tend to commit atrocities. Religionists don't have a monopoly on absurdity, or on evil, which is why I'm an equal opportunity hater: I loathe unreason, and I despise all evil.

Well, said , Peter. I will second that. I hate atheistic destroyers as much as I hate religious destroyers. There can be no justification for destroying the good, only destroying the evil.

"There are many reasonable arguments to murder millions..."

Um, I don't think they're exactly thick on the ground, Berend. Let me think ... No. Can't think of any.


Well, said, Peter. I can't think of any either.

What! What on earth are you talking about!? When have I ever either advocating killing babies, or that killing babies is "just getting rid of some subhumans, advancing the human race..."

You've leapt into the realm of the absurd here, I'm afraid.


I think he is talking about abortion. But you are right to say you don't use the same argument.

1/30/2007 12:46:00 pm  
Anonymous Sean said...

Berend said,

"sean: Hitler a devout Christian? Really??? Sean, you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet."

No you shouldn't. But having studied German history rather thoroughly at Uni, including an entire paper on the 3rd Reich I hasten to point out that I am more qualified than than the average internet poster in this regard. What does Adolf himself say?

A good one is this from Mein Kampf:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Another popular one is this, from a speech in 1922:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."


Later on, he seems intent on replacing Christian faith with Faith in National Socialism. (So, devout really is too strong--my bad);

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....

10th October, 1941, midday

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)


"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out".

"For their interests [the Church's] cannot fail to coincide with ours [the National Socialists] alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life".


But either way you cut it, he was religious. Some times Christian, sometimes National Socialist as a Faith, but always anti-atheism.

Oh, and how easily you ignore religious atrocities, as if they aren't a concern. TSK TSK!

Sean

1/30/2007 01:40:00 pm  
Anonymous Kane Bunce said...

Later on, he seems intent on replacing Christian faith with Faith in National Socialism.

Indeed. Just as Stalin had faith in Communism. Just as the atrocities of modern China are done because of faith in Communism. Faith in political systems is no less faith than faith in religious systems and divine beings.

1/30/2007 01:52:00 pm  
Anonymous Kane Bunce said...

To avoid atrocities we must make the choice to follow reason, to chose to think.

1/30/2007 01:53:00 pm  
Blogger leelion said...

berend, is there a difference?

Killing millions for "God" is the same as killing millions for the "State" or the "Fatherland", or the "Leader" or the "Cause", or for the "King" ... whatever.

In the end its the same thing, taking action in support of a perceived "authority" be it religious, secular or both.

1/30/2007 06:20:00 pm  
Blogger Berend de Boer said...

leelion: In the end its the same thing, taking action in support of a perceived "authority" be it religious, secular or both.

I fully agree with you leelion. As anyone can call himself a rationalist, or a christian, or saying they do the work of God, my point is rather that we cannot trust man. Nor his arguments. How reasonable they may sound.

Christ says that his kingdom is not of this world. Whoever claims otherwise or tries to create one here is simply not following Him.

So anyone who uses force for such reasons is simply someone who might follow reason instead of Christ.

1/30/2007 07:44:00 pm  
Blogger Berend de Boer said...

Rationalist advocates extreme population control:

Science, people believe, will find solutions to the problems that seem to preoccupy Greenies and other doomsayers. Well, I am a scientist, and I have to say I am more than somewhat sceptical about the ability of science to rescue humanity from its own folly.

The fact is, Planet Earth cannot support the present human population. ...

A triage approach will be necessary so that scarce medical resources go to those who can contribute most to the long-term viability of the planet. Consequently, many middle-aged-to-elderly people will die uncomfortable deaths. Not every problem is solveable. ...


So we have here a rationalist wanting to kill millions. I already know what the objection will be: this is the wrong kind of rationalism, or not rational, or whatever. How do we know what is really rational or not? We might need to employ some of the commentators as oracle I suppose, so we can get the correct answer for every rational argument to kill a few millions.

1/30/2007 08:49:00 pm  
Blogger Brian S said...

my point is rather that we cannot trust man. Nor his arguments. How reasonable they may sound.

Ever flown on a plane? Driven a car at 100 kph? Worked in a high-rise office building? Eaten a packaged meal from a supermarket? Had an operation? So, really, you're a pretty trusting chap aren't you? I put it to you that your trust in these things arises because our explanations of reality are, in fact, rather good, and you know this.

Observe that your argument is the argument of a man (yourself) and by its own criteria cannot be trusted. In other words, it admits its own falsity.

How do we know what is really rational or not?

Simple: we should try to establish a critical preference for one explanation over others. It is rational to prefer ideas that solve problems and that have withstood good criticism. Observe that this idea can be applied to itself and that when we do so we don't find that it admits its own falsity.

1/31/2007 12:54:00 am  
Anonymous Robert Winefield said...

Berend wrote:

"my point is rather that we cannot trust man. Nor his arguments. How reasonable they may sound."

Ah. Man is untrustworthy, including Berend...

OK let's just apply that little nugget of wisdom.

If we can't trust men then why should we trust those who recorded the bible and the events in Jesus' life?

You tell us that you can't trust men. Then you attribute a quote to Jesus. But if we can't trust man, why should we trust you or Jesus' biographers to report the quote correctly and in context.

Then we come to Jesus himself. What evidence do you have that he was the son of god - save his own (potentially self-serving) testimony and the (potentially self-serving) testimony of men who described his divinity...

1/31/2007 05:02:00 am  
Blogger Berend de Boer said...

brian: Ever flown on a plane? Driven a car at 100 kph? Worked in a high-rise office building? Eaten a packaged meal from a supermarket? Had an operation?

Never thought about that brian. How stupid of me, cars never break down, high buildings don't collapse, packaged meals are always healthy, and operations never fail.

And to both brian and robert: it helps if make reasonable arguments that they are logical as well. Your conclusions don't follow. I didn't say reason should be distrusted or rejected. My argument was that the source of arguments that might sound eminently reasonable cannot be trusted.

To many Hitler's arguments were eminently reasonable. It was the population that brought forth many philosophers and scientists that elected Hitler.

Dr John Reid may sound very reasonable. Many will agree.

But I think we would do well to look at the source using reason and logic.

1/31/2007 09:18:00 am  
Anonymous Kane Bunce said...

How do we know what is really rational or not?

Through logical and non-contradictory integration of sensory information.

1/31/2007 09:56:00 am  
Blogger Brian S said...

Yes, Berend, planes crash, shit happens. But my question concerned trust. When you travel on a plane you implicitly or explicitly have placed your trust in our best theories of aerodynamics, not to mention structural engineering, electrical engineering, and a whole host of other disciplines. You have relied on the arguments of man.

So, evidently, there is a process by which we can distinguish good arguments from bad arguments, otherwise planes would literally never have got off the ground

And funny that one of the hallmarks of dictators like Hitler and Stalin is the extent to which they want to shut down and control this process. That is the mark of their unreason. As it is of the Islamists and sundry other religionists.

1/31/2007 10:08:00 am  
Anonymous Kane Bunce said...

Berend, Brian's and Robert's arguments are logical simplifications of what you said.

1/31/2007 10:28:00 am  
Anonymous Kane Bunce said...

Well said, Brian! I concur!

1/31/2007 10:40:00 am  
Anonymous Tim Wikiriwhi said...

P.C is down in a hole, and yet he just keeps on digging!
His claim that Moral obligations from a higher/ external source, “destroys reason” is easily proven false by the fact that reason is not destroyed by the law of gravity!
It too is an imposing external principle that we are obliged to accept!
Likewise with objective Morality, like gravity we are behoved to factor it into our comprehension of reality for the very same reason as we factor in gravity!…because it is an objective fact, and a governing principle of life for Freewill beings to make our moral choices...founded upon reality not our whim… not merely a human innovation like Randiods claimed “morality”, which is the Fake “Way of Cain.” (False religion! Acceptable to man, but not to God!)

Rand has no foundation for inalienable rights, as Her morality is non- obligatory!
P.C rejects externally imposed moral obligations himself, so by equality, he cannot expect others to feel obliged to his own pseudo ethics!
Hence P.C and Rand have absolutely nothing to insist anyone honours Individual rights, not Government…not neighbours….nothing to halt democracy!
All their Ideals and value, Rand stole from Christianity but tried to replace the foundation stone…God!…well she failed!!!
Idol making innovators like P.C self proclaiming LAWGIVERS, entitled to impose their personal/whimsical interpretation of existence.
But their claims are hollow!
By their anti God evolutionary delusions they are found to be yet another enemy of freedom and the Inalienable rights of the Individual
Contra-wise “The Christian System of Values and ethics, do not spring from our own cunning or desires.
The bible was here when I got here! I had the choice to receive it’s gospel or reject it, just you all do!…it is a freewill reasoned decision.
Rand could not substitute, Christianity with it’s full foundation and spectrum of morality by reason of our creation as freewill spirit beings, living in a moral universe governed by a righteous God!
We being morally accountable to God…not man, is the spring of Western values, Inalienable rights, etc.

Only an Ape…not a philosopher, could believe evolution, could possibly endow man with rights!
Atheist morality is a joke!…Marx Lenin, and Stalin, And Mao, And Hitler etc etc…all practiced the logic of Atheism…the masses are but useful Idiots!

God is not capricious, but has superior reason behind his morality.
It is up to us to use our reason discover the value of his precepts such as Thou shalt not Kill! Thou shalt not Steal!
In making freewill choices, we are offered alternatives of Good or Evil based upon Absolute moral law.
And experience has proven the life giving values of Judaeo-Christian values!
Rand herself escaped a land of atheist values and tyranny to a land of Theistic values and freedom!
She is a Bloody Hypocrite!

And to show how Subjective Rand and P.c are I shall tag a thread on here from a previous dicussion on this subject, with P.C and another philosopher R.G


Tim Wikiriwhi wrote:

P.C is right that "one can create a system of ethics from the idea of 'Man flourishing' that might be acceptable to some eg P.C, but never will this amount to a moral obligation on anyone but the one holding this belief!
I believe there exists an absolute morality that is binding on us all wether we believe it or not!

Richard G said...

Tim, you have hit the nail on the head. This is exactly what is wrong with objectivist ethics.

It is the very essence of morality that its obligations are binding on us all. Objectivist obligations are binding only on Objectivists. Therefore, what Objectivists call moral obligations are not the real deal. Objectivists confuse their own Rand-inspired code of personal conduct with objective morality. Their morality is "shmorality" .

Cheers,
Richard

Organon wrote:

" It is the very essence of morality that its obligations are binding on us all."

Why on earth would this be so?

What utter, unrelieved, one-hundred percent, question-begging nonsense.

PC

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---

Richard Goode wrote:


Richard Goode wrote:
Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about moral obligation. (If you don't like what it says, feel free to Edit this page.)

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Moral_obligation


The term moral obligation has a number of meanings in moral philosophy, in religion, and in layman's terms. Generally speaking, when someone says of an act that it is a "moral obligation," they refer to a belief that the act is one prescribed by their set of values.
Moral philosophers differ as to the origin of moral obligation, and whether such obligations are external to the agent (that is, are, in some sense, objective and applicable to all agents) or are internal (that is, are based on the agent's personal desires, upbringing, conscience, and so on).

So, you see, there are two kinds of moral philosopher, the externalists such as Tim and myself, who think that moral obligations are, in some sense, objective and applicable to all agents, and the internalists, who think that moral obligations are subjective, e.g., based on the agent's personal desires.

It's not nonsense to say that "it is the very essence of morality that it's obligations are binding on us all". It's just stating the externalist position. And it's not question-begging. I wasn't arguing for the externalist position, I was just stating it.

Utter, unrelieved, one-hundred percent - why settle for less?

:-)
Richard


Tim says...

Good post RG!
And P.C is here found pants down!
Of course Morality must be obligatory to claim virtue!
This is the very essence of Freewill morality!
It is ought!
Ought in totality is so much more than "a recommendation" ...so much more than whimsical thinking of "life florishing". ..It is Law!...and not a law like "car-less days", but as fundamental as the law of Gravity! inescapible!
By it INALIENABLE RIGHTS are derived.
Why does P.C call moral obligation nonsense?
Because he knows his code is not morality but A-morality….bare subjective whim!
It’s like a Larda…it looks like a Fiat, but it aint one!
However, If one knows how to poise oneself (As a champion of morals and reason!), making the right noises and gestures, and be associated with the right political party, this false morality will fool multitudes into thinking it is valid...and when P.C gets enough second hand "ayes"...he can even convince himself that He is moral via Rand's conventions.

I say P.C is moral because he believes the premises of Christianity! but will never admit this even to himself!
Howso?
I propose P.C was Moral before he was an objectivist, but hated the foundation of his own morality…Christianit y!
When he found Rand, He simply superimposed objectivist verbage upon his own ‘born into’ morality.... and No Surprise because that is exactly what Rand created Objectivism to do!
Steal morality from The Lord God Almighty!
Rand is the ultimate fake! The ultimate second hander!!!!!! !!

The good news is as long as P.C is a Libertarian, It does not matter politically, what self-delusion he suffers.
He has the right to religious liberty.
The bad news is when he dies his fake morality will desert him and he shall be naked before the great judge whom he spent a lifetime hating, and deceiving others from receiving the truth, saving themselves from this same fate via Christ!
By his own choice he shall be forever separated from the God he rejected!
Tragic…but just.
Doubly tragic when Salvation is a free gift to the humble!
Oh! How much Grace has the Lord offers P.C!

Why do I write these things? Am I an egoist who enjoys belittling the beliefs of others?
Never!!!!(almost never :D)
I love you all, a risk ridicule and prejudice for the sake of your souls!
I know the Father of Lies has you in his grasp' and that evil prospers when good men do nothing!
I am compelled by Moral obligation!
Tim

2/06/2007 11:11:00 am  
Blogger PC said...

Tim, your comment is so full of gibberish as to be unreadable, and so full of nonsense as to be almost unintelligible. This for example -- "All their Ideals and value, Rand stole from Christianity..." -- is just laughable, if not almost incoherent.

You say (or I think you say) that "objective morality" exists as "a fact of nature." Yet this is the very point that needs proof, the very point about which we are arguing, supposedly "in reason."

It can't simply be asserted, it needs to be argued, and with good reason.

Frankly, the only thing in your comment that is intelligible is what you've quoted from Richard G., and my reply to it, as follows:

-------------------------
" It is the very essence of morality that its obligations are binding on us all."

Why on earth would this be so?

What utter, unrelieved, one-hundred percent, question-begging nonsense.
---------------------

That question still stands, Wikipedia notwithstanding.

'Obligation' is not at the root of morality. As I've argued elsewhere, 'Life' is. The starting point of morality is this, which is itself an "immutable fact of nature, which is that everything that is alive must act in its self-interest or die."

In that sense, and if it even makes sense to say that there is an obligation imposed on each of us, then it is the obligation to either act in our own self-interest or die.

It is neither God nor Ayn Rand not Tim Wikiriwhi that imposes such an 'obligation': it is reality.

2/06/2007 01:38:00 pm  
Anonymous twikiriwhi said...

Well Pete,
If you dont understand My arguement re gravity, reason and moral obligation and how this refutes your claim that an externally impossed morality destroy's reason...then you are beyond hope! It is elementary!

And it is easy for me to say You are talking jiberish when you say “Reality” is the foundation of morality, when you really mean, “my take on reality”!
If we Isolate reality from any consideration of Genesis/evolution
I am afraid reality proves to be A moral…That is you may do what ever the hell you please, Anarchy!
And a large percentage of mankind live this way.
Likewise if you approach reality with the Atheist/Materialist consception, there is no way to endow any Materialist phenomena with absoulte morality, or rights.
These become an absurdity.
Objectivsts are boaderline insane trying to cliam rights for a robot. That is all you think we are…ie simply a sophisicated macine! (No soul, no moral obligations!)
You have abolished “Man” and made him into a toaster!


This is why it is not jibberish for me to say Rand stole all her good Ideas from Christianity(Idealism, The morality of human life 'as sacred' etc etc etc!), even the Idea that morality is real, and rights are inalenable! Jefferson when he wrote the American Declaration of Independence, fixed the certainty of his revolution upon God!…not ‘nature’….and said this was self evident!


I laugh at You Objectivist’s and Richard Dawkins when you attempt to make Theists like Locke into a deist and then take the Deists, and attempt to make them atheists! (To steal their Ideas)
Talk about sophistry!


Why I can talk of Christian ethics as Objective, is because they are not founded upon personal whim, and they are not open to negotiation, but stand or fall upon the truth of the bible.
When the bible is placed side by side with History, By reason, It’s precepts are found to be 100% accurate. It’s people, places, customs and events are 100% accurate. It’s Athropology, psycology etc are 100% accurate!. It is not a pretty picture but a life and death war between good and evil!
Even P.C yourself display ‘text book’ rebellion, vanity, and Anti-christ tendantcies!
Like Cain you think God ought to accept you on your terms!
You invent your own religion.
You hate God for rejecting your Idolarty, and sitting in judgment over you.
You hate your righteous brother Abel(Christianity), who does not invent his own religion, but obediently submitted to God’s terms!
You are a textbook son of fallen Adam!


Even if we say ‘life florishing’ is an important factor that we may use as a guide in choosing our personal ethics, by comparing which moral codes promote this said ideal… Choose then Between Christian America, Atheist nth Korea, Islamic Iran… which would you prefer to call home? Where is human life and liberty most honoured? I think the answer is self-evident, and the reason as objective as we can achieve!
It has to do with the American popluation is filled with Individuals whom are self-governed by believers in truthful and just inner moral obligations, and thereby able to live Self-responcibly together in relative freedom, whereas the current exponents of Islam reject individual freedom, and atheism denys morality in total.(Moral obligation)
That is you have rights under Christianity, you don’t under Islam, or Atheism.
Atheism and Democratic mandate of the Majority are one, because in atheism there is no higher morally obligating law to thwart the mob(who force your obedience!).

However the lone Christian however may stand up with the bible in his hand and with full authority, condemn the actions of the wicked… be he out numbered 5 million to one!
Moral truth is not about counting heads! Yet without absoulte objective moral obligation, atheism has no defence from mob rule!
And note the difference between being free to choose to live by the obligations of the bible,... from being under an opressive democracy or tyrant!
The Bibles morality, while obligatotry, still aligns perfectly with freewill, whereas the others are Legalistic Anti free will of the individual.
You P.C try to equate this antinomy between freewill faith, and Man's evil opressive conventions!


True Christianity, (Not catholisism, not mormonism etc) is a freewill choice! It is individualistic in every sence of the word, while recognising the objective truth that a Man has both rights and obligations, (to respect the equal rights of his neighbour) That are not dependant upon our own happiness or convenience, but Divine law!


Let me ask you P.C wether you mean ‘life florishing’ in the individual sence of ‘Man’ or in the collective sence, as the species ‘Mankind’?
Because these two positions together conflict, yet Individually neither can suffice as a foundaiton for individual rights!
It ought to be self evident that the ‘desire to flourish’ of the masses is oftern in conflict with the individual and visa versa, (which is why we Libertarianz are fighting for individual rights!)
If you say you found morality upon ‘collective florrishing’, you destroy the liberty of the Individial, and if you say the ‘Individual florrishing’, because you have no binding obligations, you leave the door open for any Amoral person like Hitler to do as he pleases! Ie you end up ether with an nilhilstic anachist or a tyrant!


Enough Time has past to vindicate God’s word the bible, and the wisdom of his foreknowledge.
God told Adam Be fruitful and multiply (Florish) Of every tree thou mayest FREELY EAT!!!! but Don’t eat of the tree in the midst of the garden! He declared as absolute truth before the fact that in the day Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge he would surely die!
Adam ought to have trusted God and his goodness, but instead doubted God’s Goodness, and beleved the lies of the anti god.
Being decieved, he broke the law of God, and became a sinner, lost comunion with god, and DIED! (Not before having Children of the same fallen nature…you and me!)
Thus the evidence for God’s truthfullness, came after his Declaration, yet it was still true even before Adam fulfilled his wayward part of the event. Reality proved to be as God said AMEN!
Likewise with the entire history of Mankind!
God has declared absolute truth throughout the ages, and mankind has bye and bye proven the validity of God’s word!
Now we live in a world separated for god and in rebellion to his morality (deriving from God’s holy nature).
The evidence for the fall of Mankind is all around us!
Pain and death and curses, are the effects of the sinful cause!
And this battle of Good and evil will play out with much evil yet to come!
Yet ultimately when God has judged the last sinner and cast him into outer darkness. Those who rejected false man made morality like Randism, and submitted themselves to the mercy and grace of God by faith in him and his goodness) these will be saved!
And what God will finnally have is a race of fianite beings who have learned to trust the Infinite wisdom and goodness of God, and by reason of this superior knowledge of good and evil, will voluntarily live out eternity in holiness, trust, and love of God!
This is the only way a true relationship between the fianite and the infinite can comune eternally in trust and love, with the correct ethics and scale of values…that is with God at the top, and Man second! God made us to reason and to be free, but have the morality and faith, not to disobey our Liberal God!
This is the great plan of God to get such intellegent freewill beings!


You P.C can have no grasp of this as you turn a blind eye to God!
Though everything I say to you is true NOW
You Like Adam will descover the truth too late!… after the fact that you are eternally sepparated from God.
Unless you acknowledge your own sin (your lies and your thefts, and your Idol worship etc) and your rebellion of God, and receive his Christ, You are not one of those souls who will have the liberty of heaven, the knowledge of good and evil, And the fellowship of God and the saints!
You will be damned! You will curse Rand! You will curse yourself!

What is truly Ironic is...God hates falce religion as much as you do! He has made multitudes of attempts to suppress wicked lies and to awaken Man to the truth…and you hate him for it!

You think you are anti falce religion! wrong! you are a Idol pedaller! God himself is the defender of truth!

now I dont expect you to get anything of what I have said because you have stopped your ears, hardened your heart, and seared your conscience.

Ultimately you make man into an Ape at best, Computa software in fact!
Whereas I seek to awaken your soul!..your true Humanity which puts you over and above the rest of animate and inanimate universe, and makes you accountable for your actions to reality!

Sorry abot my spelling..my spell check is caput.

Tim

2/08/2007 03:13:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home