Category Archives: Atheism

Social Issues on the Right—Penny Smart, Pound idiotic beyond idiotic

For years now there has been something that bothers me about the abortion argument. Yes I agree that there are far too many abortions.  I, however, tend to view it as a symptom of a larger problem caused by the entitlement culture devaluing life, its meaning, getting rid of virtue based ethics, offering incentives for short term thinking.  Abortion isn’t the problem it’s the government spending and rules that encourage it that are.  So I find the near obsession with abortion to be a distraction from the real cause.  But what’s worse is that in the desperation to win, social conservatives are giving progressives every bit of ammunition they need to further wreck society. I have noticed for the last few years a disturbing trend—and that trend is the biggest problem I have with the social conservative movement, they have given in to the leftist materialism.

Here is the problem with the modern anti-abortion movement: they hold as gospel truth the idea that life begins at conception.  They maintain this because somehow just because a sperm cell and egg cell join together then you have a full genetic code and the modern anti-abortion movement is based on this idea that if you have a full genetic code then you’re a human being.  Thus every single embryo frozen in fertility clinics is a human being—I’m sorry but this is certainly one of the dumbest, and certainly in the running for the dumbest, idea I have ever heard.  A human being is something far more than just a genetic code.   But the modern abortion movement in its desperation to oppose all abortion and prove that abortion at any time, for any reason, under any circumstance, for any purpose, in any place, by any person, in any manner, way, shape or form is evil has given into the leftist materialism.  They hold that human life is nothing but genetics.  That it is our genetics that make us special.  That the complexity of genes somehow puts us above all other forms of life.  You know that .1% that sets us off from a chimp can’t be the source of our uniqueness in the universe.  (Nor can even the 30% of our DNA we don’t share with the sea sponge).    I’m sorry this is wrong, this is as wrong as wrong can be.  What makes a human life have value has nothing, not a single thing, to do with DNA.   It has to do with having a soul; the human soul is what makes a human being have value…so unless you can PROVE that the human soul enters the embryo at conception then you have no case that human life begins at conception.  None.  Now from my New Ager perspective I can point to several concepts where the soul does not enter the body until the third trimester…but social conservatives (and I do mean the very vocal, very powerful, Santorum-esque fringe here, I think it’s too large a fringe, but it is not everyone who simply calls themselves a social conservative…I just mean the people who only vote on this issue with blinders on to all others) will not even entertain what I consider evidence so it’s really not relevant to this conversation.  You could argue that it’s still living cells but that doesn’t work because if you remove my kidney for a transplant it’s still a living clump of cells, but it does not have rights in and of itself because the soul is not directly attached to the kidney.

cute baby

This is a human being. Not because of genetics. Not because of its brain. But because of its soul.

Now why have social conservative done this?  They didn’t use to hold this line.  But I think they got tired of having to argue a spiritual point with people who aren’t very spiritual…and you can’t really prove when the soul enters the body (at least not from a traditional Judeo-Christian viewpoint)…and then there is that problem that as far as I remember the Bible only ever associates the soul with breath (as was the common metaphor in the ancient world), which kind of has that problem of suggesting the soul only enters upon birth.  Of course that would at least suggest a far more logical God than the idiot that the modern abortion movement implies—an idiot who despite infinite prescient knowledge will stick a soul into a frozen embryo that could sit there for years (think of that soul’s existence, that’s about as close to Hell as you could possibly get if God is really that dumb). I refuse to believe in an idiot God.  God does not follow arbitrary rules for the sake of following reason, because to do so would mean that God does not believe in reason.  And if that is the case, then God is not God.

But instead they chose to go with a simple scientific argument and completely ignore the soul.  You can get people in the middle with a purely scientific argument.  You can get them to more than agree to ban 2nd trimester abortions and put even more regulations on first trimester abortions if you’re just making the argument that life begins at conception because of genetics.  Yeah, they could prove that the soul is there before hand if you turned to modern science and studies on life after death and reincarnation, or just to modern psychology which shows that children learn even in the womb…but none of that evidence goes back to conception, and remember that the unwavering goal of social conservatism is that ALL abortion must be outlawed.  THERE MUST BE NO EXCEPTION, the goal is that all abortions will eventually be banned (as if you can stop black markets, but let’s ignore economics here).  And all other points of policy, philosophy and goals are secondary to abortion when it comes to social conservatives.   Since social conservatives can only win with the genetic argument that life is nothing but a full genetic code and living cells, the soul and its importance gets left behind.

And this is where it gets dangerous.  What have we seen in history?  We have seen, time and time and time again that when the soul is not valued, that when religion or spirituality does not have a place in society, that when government and society say that human life is merely a pack of genes and a group of cells then you see the value of a human being fall apart.  Why?  Because genes are chemicals. They have no intrinsic value except what you can use them for, what you can get out of them.  They become merely a means to an end, and cease being the end in itself.  You see ethics fall aside and utilitarianism prevail. You see eugenics or transhumanism say these genes aren’t any good or aren’t good enough, let’s get rid of them and replace them with something we deem better (who deems what is good is only guided by utilitary value, because if human life had intrinsic value you’d never go down this road).  You see the argument of let’s get rid of these people because they are of no value and aren’t getting rid of themselves fast enough on their own.  You see this or that group is deemed inferior because they do not serve the utilitarian needs of those in power.  Let us sterilize and put them off to the side because we can get nothing from them…you see tyranny, fascism, communism.  The argument of that life is just being living cells, an argument detached from the soul, leads to a mind-set based in materialism.  I would be foolish to claim all atheists are unethical, but history has shown that when society embraces that kind of materialism that denies the soul (1930’s Germany, Russia, China) you get that kind of mass genocide, without exception.  You could say that religious people could never lead us down the path where the soul isn’t valued, but look to every time that religion has gone insane, it is always in the name of dogma and policy on Earth that leads to religious bloodbaths—it never comes from a side that believes that the soul, by virtue of being a human soul, has value.  The places that believe people are equal throughout history (from an early version of this ideal in the Hellenistic Era, to Poland not giving into Europe’s anti-Semitism, to the spread of religious liberties seen during parts of the Enlightenment, to America stating “that all men are created equal”*), when people value human life because of the soul (whether that’s the word they use or not) you see prosperity…when they don’t you see misery.  Without exception.

you are a soul

I love the picture and the quote, because it’s true… but C.S. Lewis probably did not say this .

It is the eagerness of social conservatives to win on this one little issue of abortion that affects a miniscule amount of society that is giving this kind of materialism the long range tools of philosophy to devalue all life.  They have given progressives the inroad to destroy the true value of human life. They devalue life with their argument and they perpetuate it…sure we don’t see a lot of it now (although caring more about body counts than liberty when it comes to foreign action, when a country doesn’t go into full on demands for heads to roll when some asks “what difference does it make” to the administration aiding and abetting murder, where people care only about their right to put poison into their body more than the need to fix the system…you could say we’re already seeing the devaluation of human life, but maybe I’m reading too much into that).    And to save lives they have given their enemies the greatest tool to destroy life. And I am seriously worried that in the desperation to win the abortion argument by giving up the religious based argument and going for gross materialism social conservatives are actually sowing the seeds for a worse blood bath than the one they believe they are stopping.  And all for bans on 2nd term abortions. What a bargain!

What profit social conservatives should they gain abortion but lose liberty?

*Yes, none of these are perfect examples and you will always be able to point to people or groups or policies that contradict the value of the soul.  It’s because people and society are a mass of contradictions, but in the eras I list they were more dominated by valuing the soul than not.


Leave a comment

Filed under Atheism, Conservative, Death, Faith, Fear, God, Individualism, People Are Stupid, politics, Purpose of Life, Religion, Spirituality, Tyranny

A Tyranny by any other name would be just as terrible…Why Communism, Fascism and Socialism are really the same thing.

“You can’t call Obama a socialist!”
“You can’t call Obama a communist!”
“You can’t call Obama a fascist!”
“You don’t know what words mean!”
“Obama’s a moderate!”

I’ve heard all of these. All of these statements are incorrect. Why are they are incorrect? Because they like to play fast and loose with the meaning of words. They like to ignore that often in political philosophy there are ideal systems and there are pragmatic realities. That there are actual actions and there is PR. There is where the society is headed and where it is now. And liberals will always use the definition you’re not actually using in context.

For instance if you say that France is socialist, they’ll point out that some industries haven’t been nationalized thus it is not a socialist nation it’s a mixed economy. You’re looking at the fact that France is headed in that direction and the pragmatic reality, they’re looking at is where it is now. If you complain that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a Communist, they’ll point out that she hasn’t endorsed this or that policy from Soviet Russia. You’re looking at where they’re heading and what their ideals are, they only look at the words spoken so far and not making logical connections as to motives. You point out there is no difference between complete Socialism and complete Communism in reality; they’ll start talking about ideals and the utopia to come.

So let’s clear some things up.

There is the Communist Utopia, that place where government dissolves and everybody lives together in a global commune and sings “Kumbaya” and does their best and the shmoo run wild providing all our needs. This place never existed and never will exist on a national or international level. It can work with small groups of people who willingly join, but like pure democracy, it tends to fall apart when the group gets bigger than a couple dozen. This is what liberals claim they mean by socialism, but they forget that this pipe dream requires full and complete ideal Socialism first, even in their own arguments. They just think that the tyrannical government can somehow also be perfectly benevolent and will magically give up power when it has accomplished its goals (in a way no tyrant ever gave up power). And of course this is all silly anyway because history has shown without exception that the system ideal Communism really likes is anarchy, which only ever leads to post-apocalyptic wastelands.

Then there is practical Communism. Soviet Russia, Maoist China, North Korea, Cuba. This has near complete control over all aspects of the economy. They have numerous laws in both social and economic sectors. They are enforced with viciousness by police who basically answer to no one. The governments are controlled by a small cabal of people who have control of everything and while there may be the pretense of elections, the outcome is always the same. Slave labor and murder of citizens is how the populace is kept in its place. And all the time this is called socialism (because this is ideal socialism, although like in ideal communism, there is this foolish belief that it will be a perfect utopia where everyone is happy).

Strangely enough, this is almost identical to another form of government known commonly by a different name, but which saw itself as socialism. Specifically I’m thinking of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), of course known more commonly by the abbreviation, Nazi. But what exactly is the difference? Control of the economy? Check. Control of social order? Check. Slave labor? Check. Death camps. Check. Power of an unelected elite, no rule of law, state sponsored atheism*, no protection of natural rights.

That about sums it up.  But I'm always open to being proven wrong...How in any practical way is communism different from fascism or from what socialist say they want?

That about sums it up. But I’m always open to being proven wrong…How in any practical way is communism different from fascism or from what socialist say they want?

Check, check, check, and check. You know what the difference is between Fascism and Communism? It’s not in the type of government you have, it’s in the propaganda. Communism promises you a utopia where everyone is equal because they have done away with class, and every terrible act is justified to accomplish this greater good. Fascism is completely different in every way. Fascism promises you a utopia where everyone is equal because they have done away with everyone from a different heritage, and every terrible act is justified to accomplish this greater good.

There’s also a type of fascism that replaces race with religion, but most religions don’t work well with this because most religions argue that the human soul is divine, hence it works against fascist/communist principles that glorify only the whole and degrade the individual. In fact I can think of only one traditional religion that denies the divinity of the human soul and requires you to submit absolutely to the will of God.

Now I guess you could have something really bad which uses the racism of fascism and the class warfare of communism, and the religious overtones of Islamofascism, in one…oh wait, we do have that, it’s called North Korea. Otherwise known as the worst place on Earth.

There isn’t any practical difference between Communism in practice, Socialism in theory, and Fascism. They have the same means, the same methods, the same procedures. And they all have the same result. Suffering. Mountains and mountains of suffering. So, yes, calling someone by all three names is correct because all of them boil down to the lack of liberty in the name of the greater good.

‘But, but, but,’ I can hear the leftist whine now, ‘fascism is ultra-right not ultra-left.’ Okay, one, join the 21st century, the single axis right-left thing has been replaced by two and three axis plots of political leanings…and on those communism and fascism are pretty close to each other. The only reason some original idiot put fascism on the right was because they equated the love of country of the right wing America and Britain (which was based on the ideals of the nation) with the love of nation seen in fascism (which was based on things like race and ethnicity, you know the exact opposite of ideals). So let’s chalk up another moment in idiocy for political scientists.

‘But, but, but,’ they whiners will continue…and then they’ll bring up what we typically call socialism, the mixed-economy, and they’ll say that works. And the problem here is that the mixed-economy model covers a whole wide range of economic systems. Let’s start as the most free, the mixed-economy that leans towards capitalism (America in more recent history). Typically this tends to work and create prosperity. Then you moved to a truly mixed economy that are truly using a bit of capitalism and a bit of socialism (Israel, Poland, Mexico, France) depending on a lot of factors such as resources, culture, infrastructure, terrorism and crime issues, etc., this can work decently or not, but it tends not to create truly thriving and flourishing economies. Then you have your socialist leaning mixed economies like Greece (yeah they’re doing well) or India and China (where the media likes to focus on some people doing well, but somehow the socialism is still providing not much prosperity to the masses). But since all of these are called mixed-economies, idiots like to point to the successes of the capitalist leaning ones or the ones that benefit also from strong cultural issues, and use that as a justification for the socialist policies. However, this is silly, because when you line up countries by how economically free they are versus the prosperity there is, has always been, and will always be a strong relationship between economic liberty and prosperity. In fact there is a strong relationship to a lot of things we like (standard of living, life expectancy, low corruption) that comes with more economic freedom.

Yes maybe one country listed as a 67 by the Heritage scale of economic freedom isn’t doing as well as one rated as 57, and maybe one country did better one year even though its numbers dropped a little in that year, but as I said there are a lot of other factors that effect this or that individual nation but overall, every country does better the more economic liberty it has. So when socialists try to tell you about the joys of the mixed economy, point out that actually those benefits are what comes from capitalism not the socialist aspects of the mixed economy.

Now I could get into the fact that only capitalism within a Classically Liberal republic (or as close as we have gotten to it) has been shown to offer real protection of rights and real prosperity, but you’ve seen me do that before…or that cronyism, which is really a form of the socialist mixed economy, creates a lot of problem that capitalism gets blamed for, even though it has nothing to do with capitalism, but those are a bit off topic from my original point.

So back to my first quotes.

“You can’t call Obama a socialist!”
“You can’t call Obama a communist!”
“You can’t call Obama a fascist!”
“You don’t know what words mean!”
“Obama’s a moderate!”

Yes, I do know what those words mean. Now it would take a whole other blog to PROVE that Obama’s attacks on the free market and natural rights qualified him for those appellations, but I trust your common sense to make the prima facie case on your own, because I think it’s fair to say that every action he has taken over the last 5 years has moved us away from the benefits of capitalism and more and more toward the economic nightmares of socialism/communism/fascism. The only real question is, is it intentional or just gross idiocy?

Types of Government

*Yes, the Nazis just like every form of Communism embrace, encourages, and enforces state run atheism.


Filed under American Exceptionalism, Atheism, Capitalism, Conservative, Economics, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Tyranny

Drop the meaningless phrase “Judeo-Christian Values” and other ways for Conservatives to win

Okay so several times I have asked what the phrase “Judeo-Christian Values” means and how it is different from the values of other beliefs and religions.  I haven’t received many good answers.  Yes there are certainly differences between them in the nature of God or in the rituals and the structure of the community…but in terms of values there is little difference…everyone regards the soul as divine in some way* and proper understanding of any of these religions lends one to a virtue based ethics in line with the Classical Realism of Aristotle and Plato.  In fact, when you look at most religions there are some pretty strong parallels in all the virtues—some may be more detailed than others in some areas and less in others, but they seem to focus on the same general virtues.


Granted there is not a point for point comparison between the virtues that I am showing here, and there are shades of difference and meaning, often caused more by culture and period of time they were written in, but in terms of broad swaths, every religion believes in the same general set of virtues. Also this chart could be much more inclusive of a variety of religions and still hold true…but I think you get the point.

So the term Judeo-Christian values, which supposedly would mean the virtues and ethics this group holds to be good and right and true is just the same as the virtues of every other religion, then it’s not that meaningful a phrase.  Yes there are differences between Judeo-Christian beliefs and other religions, but none of these differences have anything to do with the political context of how the phrase “Judeo-Christian values” is used.

The phrase is meant to draw a contrast between spiritual/religious values and those of the secular, progressive, fascist, fanatical sections of society that actually don’t share either a belief in virtue based ethics or have some very radically different values.

So why is this an important point to bring up?

Well because it makes a pretty clear distinction between those who follow Judeo-Christianity and everyone else.  Including people of lots of different faiths who were not intended to be alienated.  Is this relevant?

Well first off I think it’s a fair statement that the term Judeo-Christian values is primarily used by conservatives.  Second I would assume we want to win.  We lost the last election by 3.9% points.  A 3% shift of the vote would have given Romney the popular and Electoral College vote and about 6 Senate seats (i.e., complete Republican control).  So it then becomes a question, is there 3% of the electorate who is religious and spiritual, not already voting Republican, that is not in the Judeo-Christian bracket?

Let’s look at the polls.

Trends in Religion PewPew does a major poll every year looking at the trends in religion in America.  It’s a sample of 17,000 people so it’s fairly accurate as polls go.

So of the “other” religion we have 6% of the nation and of the “nothing in particular” group we have 13.9% of the population.  Together they make 19.9% of the population.  Common sense alone says that if you have 20% of the country, two-thirds of whom are voting against your party, then maybe if you stopped alienating them with an us vs. them term (or at least picked a new term) you could pick up a few…maybe?

So let’s look at the 19.9% a little more closely.  Okay so we can discount about 1% of the “other” group as they are the “religion of peace” and their fairly fascist beliefs are moderately antithetical to conservative principles and the values/ethics being promoted.  So we’re down to 18.9% up for grabs.

Now the let’s look at how the remaining 5% of the “Other” and the 13.9% of “nothing in particular.”  Now a flaw of this report is that they lump the ““nothing in particular” in with Atheists and Agnostics under the heading of Unaffiliated (but for Trend in Religion by party Pewthe purpose of this let’s just assume the numbers are about the same throughout all the unaffiliated, it doesn’t make a terribly large difference anyway).  From the data we can see that only about 57% of the Other group and 69% of the unaffiliated are voting for Democrats (trust me the math works).  So give or take (you know there are some independents we’re not taking into account) that’s about 12%.  12% that probably share the values of the Christian voters who lean toward voting Republican, but for some reason aren’t voting Republican.  Do you think that term “Judeo-Christianity” might have something, even a small part, to do with it?

Isn’t this just a call for political correctness?  No.  The idiocy of political correctness is saying you have to watch everything you say because it might hurt someone’s feelings.   And it is for all levels of life, from the public and political to the personal.  I am not saying you have to adjust your personal language or beliefs.  This is merely a political reality.  We as conservatives have certain values and policies we know will work and better the lives of everyone.  Politics is as much about emotion and perception as it is about facts and plans, probably more so. Political Correctness has nothing to do with practical ends, which is why it has to be enforced by the left so viciously else reason would drive most people to that end anyway; what I am talking about is something very different than being PC, I’m talking about selling an idea with very real consequences.  A term like “Judeo-Christian values” is loaded from the get go, it creates an us vs. them mentality, at a time when we need more of the people in the “them” category to vote for us.  If we switched to using the term “spiritual value” or “God centered” more often, it would mean the exact same thing in terms of everything relevant to politics and ethics, and it wouldn’t emotionally alienate those we are trying to win over.  You can still use “Judeo-Christian” if you really feel strongly about it, but do it knowing you’re hurting the chance to actually see your goals accomplished.

Is this stupid?  Yeah.  It’s silly and ridiculous to think we should have to be this nitpicky about our language and terms to win people to our side.  But, the last time I checked we already had reason, logic, facts, truth, plans, and vision on our side.  Didn’t notice that doing us any good.  Oh, wait this is politics. Stupid thing like word choice do matter.  Is it stupid?  Yeah, but it’s something you have to do.

New Age beliefsBut should we end our discussion of this group of “nothing in particular” with just this term?  Well that might work towards making in-roads with maybe 1% of those 12%, in-roads that would allow the rest of our arguments to make a difference, and that 1% we get to follow reason would be a third of the way we need to go, but it’s still not enough.

Let’s take a look at some of the actual beliefs of this group.  Namely that 25% of them believe in reincarnation (If you assume that all the atheists and agnostics do not believe in reincarnation then it’s actually about 35% of the “nothing in particular” group…or about 4% of the general public.)  Further while there is nothing in this year’s report, previous year’s reports showed that a belief in reincarnation was more popular with women, minorities, the young, Democrats, liberals, moderates, independents, and Christians who attend church less often (i.e., the people we need to win over).

So it is safe to assume that most of those in that 4% are not voting Republican.

But they should.

A belief in reincarnation by its very nature lends to long term thinking—the policies I put in place today won’t just affect my children and grandchildren, they’ll affect me over and over and over again.  Thus anyone who believes in reincarnation has to believe in plans that aren’t as concerned with momentary problems, but with building long term systems that self-perpetuate and offer prosperity to the most people for the longest time with most chance of growth…that would be the capitalism and republicanism officered by real conservative belief.  This is an argument I’ve made before, extensively in Republicans & Reincarnation, and one that we should all make to anyone who holds this article of faith in reincarnation.  If you actually approach them on their own terms, and showed that the logical consequence of their beliefs is conservatism, we could get another 1% of that group…which means of the 49% left we only have to convince another 1% and given the abysmal failure of a second Obama term, that should be easy.

You don’t have to agree with people on faith. But you’re not going to convince them on politics if your stance is mine is the only religion worth following by using terms like “Judeo-Christian value.”  Say “spiritual values” instead, it means the same thing, it still separates you from the secular liberal base you are trying to show a contrast with, and it may pick up a few votes. And if you’re arguing with someone who doesn’t agree with your religion or your politics, you’ll never convince them to give up a faith because of reason, it just doesn’t work (even if you do show contradictions and put them on the path to agreeing with you spiritually, it will initially only dig in their heels more on every other topic against you)…but if you approach them on their terms spiritually and show them how their beliefs do dictate a conservative point of view, then you at least get something.

*The only two exceptions to this are followers of the religion of peace (Sufis excluded) and atheists.


Filed under A Course in Miracles, Aristotle, Atheism, Bhagavad Gita, Capitalism, Conservative, Economics, Education, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Free Will, God, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, New Age, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Religion, Spirituality, virtue

Philosophy Basics for Atheists (i.e. morons)

So I just read this truly stupid comment on tumblr in reference to my blog that historically any country that legally enforces atheism is far more violent and genocidal than nations that enforce other religions.*

“OK, atheism is not a religion and it’s certainly not a moral code. Atheism is just the non-belief in a god. That’s all it is. Now stop throwing straw men about and use that brain of yours you so proudly claim to have in your blog description.”**

This is a statement typical of the absolute idiocy of atheism. At least Christian nutjobs will admit that it’s faith and not reason that is behind their stupid ideas…but Atheists have not only the idiocy to mistake their faith for reason, but also the arrogance to then believe what they mistake for reason makes them better than anyone else.

So just to be clear I see two explicit lies here and on implicit lie.

  1. Atheism is not a religion: Lie.
  2. That the faith based metaphysical beliefs of not believing in a God have no effect on a moral code: Lie.
  3. Thus atheism does not come with a moral code: Lie.

So let’s go over these.

First, I’ve dealt with this dozens of times, but let’s go over it again: to not believe in God is an act of faith.

You have no proof that God doesn’t exist. Further it is logically impossible, let me repeat LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, to prove a negative.  Thus to believe in something that cannot be proven in any way, shape, or form, is an act of faith.  It is believing in something you can’t know, and can’t prove, ever.  That’s faith.  That’s about as close to the definition of faith and religion as you can get.

And if you have a belief system based on an article of faith, that’s a religious belief.  It may not be an organized belief, it may be the very antithesis of the colloquial meaning of spiritual, but it is a religion.  Webster’s defines religion as: “7. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith” and any atheist who wants to argue with me on that is insane, your belief in no God supplies the “cause, principle, or system of beliefs” the fact that you have no proof provides the “faith” and the fact that you’re arguing about it provides the “ardor.”  And it comes with its own sets of dogmatic beliefs.  There is the big bang, there is evolution. The fact that those theories still have some big holes in them, does not matter…nothing must deviate from the dogma.  Anyone who points out that the jump from random chemical to self replicating cells is a statistical impossibility and requires more than just the theory of evolution to make sense must be shouted down and burned at the stake.

But here let me pull another objection to my statement that atheism is a religion from the internet:

“Atheism isn’t a religion, and there are no atheists that I’ve ever heard of that have claimed themselves to be a “religion” of anything.  You’ve heard the arguments about atheism not being a religion before no doubt; you’ve just chosen to ignore them.”

Oh, so because atheists themselves don’t claim they’re a religion then they’re not.  You know, I’ve never heard any Nazis claim that they’re the personification of evil, and I’ve even heard arguments from Nazis that they’re right and good and true…I guess they must not be evil because they said so.  After all they said so.  Just because you argue you’re not something doesn’t make it true. O.J. tried to argue that he’s not a killer…reality said something different.  It doesn’t matter if you don’t think you’re a religion, you have a belief based on an article of faith that is utterly impossible to prove.  It only adds to the fact that this person is an idiot, that he thinks that dismissing the pointless claims that atheism isn’t a religion is stupid, yet the fact that there is evidence that God exists (not entirely conclusive evidence I’ll grant you, but evidence) and he just chooses to ignore that isn’t a problem for this moron at all.

“But you don’t have any proof that God does exist either” the standard line goes.   You’re right, except for the logical impossibility of an infinite regression series in causality***, the fact the big bang statistically should have produced as much matter and anti-mater making a psychical universe all but impossible, the fact that random chemicals can’t just turn into self replicating cells, the fact that evolved chimps can’t just magically become sentient, the fact that near death experiences show that memories are formed when there is no electrical charge in the brain, and a thousand other pieces of evidence that suggest that there is a soul and a God…yes, I have no evidence. And while each piece of evidence I could bring up could be explained away on its own, the totality of it suggests quite strongly that there is a God.

“But you don’t have iron clad arguments” the argument goes.  True, but I’m not claiming that I’m not relying on faith to fill in the places reason can’t provide an answer, you are.

atheists are idiots

When you lose the reason for causality the whole story just sounds stupid.

But then the idiot Atheists like to bring up the truly idiotic thought experiment called “Russell’s Teapot.”  It’s a silly thought experiment that says there might be a teapot orbiting the sun, but since no one has provided any proof then we must assume that it doesn’t exist until someone provides proof.  And thus the burden of proof is on people who believe in God to prove that he exists.  (This again ignores all the evidence that does exist, it’s very convenient that Atheist always equate lack of absolute proof with lack of any proof).  First of all whether there is or isn’t a teapot has no effect on my life which is one of the reason why it is totally incomparable to God.  There might be a massive asteroid hurtling toward earth that could destroy the whole place, since this will have an effect on our lives, we have telescopes looking for it even though it may not exist.  Just because you come up with a charming example that uses a teapot doesn’t just mean you get to decide who has the burden of proof.  If you want to be purely based in reason you take no stance and be an agnostic.  If you want to believe there is no God and hold that as a belief, then you have no burden of proof other than your own feelings. But if you want me to believe you don’t say that you don’t have to prove your beliefs—if you’re going to publically make a statement of fact (that there is no God) you better back it up.  You cannot say reason is on your side but someone has to prove you wrong and you don’t have to prove your case.

And finally Atheists I now see are trying something really stupid.  Now they’re calling themselves agnostic atheists.  In this bizarre argument, there are agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists, agnostic theists, and gnostic theists. The gnostics in both groups (in a bizarre perversion of the English meaning of the word Gnostic) believe deeply, whereas the agnostics aren’t sure and try to portray themselves as being purely reasonable. This of course is preposterous as every idiot I have heard describe themselves “agnostic atheist” (and thus should not feel the need to argue about a belief they do not hold strongly) will attack you like a rabid Doberman if you even so much as question the logical basis of atheism.  It’s like socialists describing themselves as “progressives” or “moderate” or “centrists” or anything else, doesn’t change the fact that you’re batshit crazy. Think of this being a gnostic theist would mean you believe you can prove God doesn’t exist (logically impossible) or a being an agnostic theist would mean you believe in something you believe you can’t know, even through faith (which would be just dumb).  So I doubt you’ll find anyone dumb enough to be in those two categories. So really you have atheists and theists…and you have people who don’t have a real opinion agnostics, which this stupid 4 part chart doesn’t account for. You may try to make yourself sound more logical, but you’re an atheist, end of story.

Further this distinction ignores that it doesn’t matter how strongly you believe in your atheism, it matters which side you picked.

And this brings up to the second lie, the implicit one, that being an atheist doesn’t affect the rest of your philosophical beliefs. Actually it does.  Choices have consequences.  Philosophy is not a buffet where you can pick and chose beliefs as the writer of lies above would have you believe.

So first some quick background (this will be a refresher course if you already read Republicans and Reincarnation).


There are four**** main branches of philosophy: Metaphysic, epistemology, ethics and politics.

Metaphysics: the philosophy about the nature of the universe, what is true, what exists, teleology, and of course religion.

Epistemology: the philosophy of how we know or if we can know.  It’s a really annoying field of lots of hair splitting and hypotheticals.  But this deals with the acceptability of reason and faith in finding truth.

Ethics: How individuals should act and what is the purpose of their actions.

Politics: The ethics of groups and how the individual relates to the group and vice versa.

The lie above would have you believe that these four branches are separated.  That my beliefs about God (i.e. metaphysics) has nothing to do with my beliefs about epistemology, ethics, or politics.

Wrong. Oh so wrong.

Metaphysics affects your beliefs about epistemology. If there is not God there is not Truth beyond the laws of nature, there is no ethical Truth, there is not political Truth, no moral Truth…no truth at all outside of the laws of physics…and even then epistemologically you’re on shaky ground finding a philosophical basis for getting past skepticism because without God all that brain of yours is a sack of meat and electrical signals, there is no philosophical ground to trust it actually knows what it’s doing.

And your Metaphysical and Epistemological beliefs directly create your ethics.  What is true and what you can know is what creates value and what has value is what we direct our life toward.  The values of life if there is a soul and God are radically different from the values without them.

And obviously this change in ethics forms the basis for radically divergent forms of government.

And this then all comes to the third lie, that Atheism is not a moral code.

Atheism holds there is no God. Thus there is no soul.  Thus there cannot be free will.  You cannot rationally hold that there is free will if there is no soul, because free will to be free must be free of the laws of physics.  Choice doesn’t exist, if all your actions are determined only by chemical reactions in your brain. If there is no soul then your brain is simply a collection of chemicals running certain chemical reactions based on stimuli from the outside environment.  Without a soul your brain is nothing but an extremely complex computer running a program.   It may break, it may not work properly, but there is not choice in the matter, there are only reactions determined by the laws of physics.

And if there is no soul and there is no free will the question of value becomes extremely difficult.  Why are you a collection of chemical reactions more valuable than a tree, or a rock, or chemical reaction in a high school chemistry lab?  All are just collections of chemicals operating without choice by the mindless sequence of physical reactions of the their base elements.  Now, atheist Ayn Rand tried make the argument that since we are self-aware and beings of reason we are ends in ourselves…but even her argument depends on free will and an intrinsic value of the human life (both dependent on the soul) and if she ever applied her logic that contradistinctions cannot exist to her own beliefs she would have seen this.

Without the soul and free will human life cannot have value in and of itself.  And any atheist who would like to claim that human life has value in and of itself, I would like to know how you can possibly claim one set of chemical reactions can have more value than another.  And to believe that life has no value is a moral code with very definite moral implications. Ah, but maybe it’s because we’re really complex systems of chemical reactions (why complexity should be valued more than simplicity is a moral judgment without philosophical basis in a Godless universe…also the universe prefers the simplicity of complete chaos and entropy…complexity can only occur in order and lack of chaos, very against the nature of the universe)…but let’s say for the moment it’s because of complexity.  That immediately requires you admit that something more complex would be of more value of human life…let’s call this more complex thing, oh I don’t know, the Herrenvolk…do I even have to explain where that moral code leads?

Not to say all atheists are immoral or act as if human life has no value, most act as if human life has value…but that’s kind of odd for people who rail about how their reason is superior to everyone else’s but somehow are acting on a belief they have no reasonable or logical cause to believe in.  I guess they take that human life has value as an act of faith.

You can’t logically say we should all treat each other with respect and dignity if you no metaphysical reason why humans are so special.

And politically this gets really screwed up, because if there is no intrinsic value to human life, then there are no natural rights, then at best the most you can come up with is a utilitarian system that aims for whatever goal or end you decide (because without the value of the soul, the individual ceases to be the ultimate value and thus value can be whatever you want it to be).  And under utilitarianism anything is permissible (as history has shown time and time again), any atrocity is acceptable so long as it accomplishes whatever your final goal and final solution is.

Now Atheists will like to tell you that this is wrong.  That they do believe in the value of the individual, but they can’t exactly give you a philosophical reason for it.  That they don’t believe in the evils of Unitarianism in practice (Nazism, socialism, communism) but oddly enough all of these governments in history have done everything they can to outlaw, to abolish and to prevent any religion other than atheism.  Why?  Because religion gives value to the individual, and thus rights and reason and free will and value and a soul. Something other than the State to believe in and follow.

To say that atheism does not come with a moral code is to say that ideas do not have consequences.  It is to say that they believe in reason but refuse to follow ideas to their logical conclusions.  You cannot have it both ways. Either you embrace reason and thus metaphysical points affects ethics and morality, or you don’t believe in reason.

And history has shown that the logical conclusion of atheism on any grand scale is never something we would call ethical.

Yes there are some truly psychotic and idiotic beliefs and morals in various religions, but the flaws in certain religions does not negate the massive flaws at the very heart of atheism:  Calling it faith, believes that choices do not have consequences, and believes that a belief that destroys the value of human life is not someone’s perverted moral code.

But please tell me where my logic is wrong…other than just whining that “Atheism isn’t a religion, atheism isn’t a religion.”

*Just in case some idiot doesn’t bother to read the article and want to make an argument without doing even the slightest bit of research, like, I don’t, clicking on the link, I do point out that enforcing any belief leads to bloodshed and that secular pluralistic governments are best…but as few atheists actually want a pluralistic society as shown by their vicious push to have everything but their beliefs banned by law, it’s not really a valid point.

**Before you ask I’m not linking to the fucking idiot who said this, they don’t deserve a higher hit count.

***The argument by cause is actually a very strong argument, as it logically requires something infinite, outside of time and space, with volition, and intelligence.  It is logically impossible for there not to be something like this, and as Aquinas would say, this we call God.  The problem with the argument by cause is it doesn’t tell you much about God, and that is why it is a weak argument–the other arguments are required to tell you anything about God.

****Five really, but aesthetics has little to do with this discussion.


Filed under Atheism, Civil Liberties, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Free Will, God, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, People Are Stupid, philosophy, Purpose of Life, Religion, Spirituality, Tyranny, virtue

I hate Obama Conspiracy Theories

Maybe it’s a reaction against my teen years where I was utterly infatuated with the X-files and all ideas that surrounded it, or maybe it’s because those plot lines made more sense than some of the crap I’m hearing now, but I find Obama conspiracy theories pointless and stupid.

Let’s run through some of them…

“Some men aren’t looking for anything logical, like money. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”…and some men are just blithering idiots…Obama is in this latter category.

He was born in Kenya…he could have been born on Mars; it is still not a worse point than the fact that this man has not done a single thing to help improve the economy.  Yes economies go up and down on their own and Congresses and Presidents don’t have absolute control over them, but that doesn’t change the fact that there are certain things that could have been done to reduce the severity of this recession, Obama did none of them.  And even if he wasn’t eligible to run for the presidency, this absolute failure of leadership is a far greater damning point than a mere technicality.

That Barrack Obama Sr. isn’t really is his father…he could be the son of Hitler and it would still not negate the fact that every action by this president has hurt the economy.  Every thing he has done with the economy has been to hurt it in the short run and hurt it in the long run.  Now he could have done even worse things, but I don’t think he is doing it because he wants to ruin the economy, he and his people are just that dumb.  And

If only Obama wanted to earn a million dollars.

incompetence of that level should never have been let in the White House, let alone re-elected, to hell with who is parents are.

That he’s really a Muslim…he could be a Satanist, it doesn’t change the fact that in reality the only thing he really does believe in is himself.  The man has an ego that makes Caligula, Napoleon and Mao put together look humble.  He puts portraits of himself all over the White House, he puts himself in every president’s biography, he acts like he is unbeatable and he never deigns to actually talk to people in Congress.  He has written 2 biographies and he is not yet 60 or accomplished anything of value.  I don’t care what religion he professes, the only god he believes in is himself.  And while I don’t trust people with low self-esteem, megalomaniacal narcissists are even more worrisome and definitely should not be allowed into positions of power.

Every person in this picture is an idiot. Only one of them isn’t bright enough to actually leave a mark on history for good or ill. Guess which one.

That and Rev. Jeremiah Wright planned a massive socialist take over…or maybe it was a take over by blacks…or maybe by zombies for all I care…or whoever was in his past that you want to critique…none of that compares to the insanity of his current associations.  A corrupt hack as Attorney General, a jackbooted fascist as Homeland Security Secretary, an incompetent twit in HHS, a tax evading moron in Treasury, and two of the worst Supreme Court Justices ever…need I go on?  This man has an inability to surround himself with qualified people.  No president has ever possessed the experience and intelligence to know everything about every part of the government, but some presidents do possess the ability to find qualified people who, in turn, have the qualifications to run their section of the government.  Obama has failed on every point (I mean the most qualified person he has is Hillary, how sad is that?)…and this is far more important than which church he went to for years.

As dumb as he is, and as much as I loathe him, I still don’t think he rises to this level of evil.

That Obama is seeking to make the US subservient to the UN  and is going to sign treaties that will eliminate the Constitution…uh-huh…the UN and what army?  I think Obama’s idiocy on foreign policy, his stupidity in declaring the war on terror over, his supporting every Islamic government he can (not because he’s a Muslim, but because he’s an idiot who wants to not appear as being anti-Muslim…please tell me how that’s working in America’s favor), his destroying the military readiness are all more important than whoever make believe conspiracies you can think of.

That he’s really the Manchurian Candidate, planted by George Soros years ago…ummm….if he was going to make a play for absolute control, wouldn’t he have done so by now?  I mean by the time the opposition has a leader to rally around any fascist type takeover becomes near impossible.  This is kind of why most dictators quickly kill all their opposition…right now the right could unite around Romney, Ryan, Christie or a few others.  If there was a plan to take over it’s the worst plan of all time…and more importantly I think Obama’s actual disregard and ignorance of the Constitution, as shown by his fiat rule by executive order, and his gross misunderstanding of state’s rights and limited government, are far more dangerous than any supposed communist plan.

That Obama has a gay lover…oh, like I care…there have been what four maybe five presidents in the last hundred  who haven’t had a mistress or two, and it has no bearing on whether they were a good president or not.  I’d worry more about his failure to uphold his Oath of Office more than whether or not he’s upholding his wedding vows.

He’s not bright enough to plot Armageddon.

That’s he planning a takeover of the government, ruin the economy, declare permanent marshal law, suspend elections, disband Congress, a coup d’état, yaddah yaddah yaddah…this one has to be my favorite.  So I am supposed to believe that a man of unspeakable arrogance and astounding stupidity is simultaneously a villainous mastermind of such caliber that he makes Lex Luthor and Ernst Stavro Blofeld look like amateurs, that he has planned a coup and kept all the major details secret within a government so bloated and useless it can’t keep any of its departments in line.  Yeah, no contradiction there.  Or that a military that is not doing much to hide it’s abject dislike for Obama is going to sit by and let him take over…and that there is a gun for almost every man, woman and child in this country which pretty much prevents government takeover.  You know, I’ll worry more about his absolute inability to balance a budget or even recognize that the growing debt is a problem.  Obama is not a villainous mastermind bent on world conquest, he’s a buffoon well in over his head and wouldn’t know where to begin if he wanted to take over (as evidenced by his laughable campaign).

The fact of this matter is that this man’s character, intelligence and actions as president are all you need to convict him of being unfit to serve one term, let alone two.

So why is a certain part of the right so obsessed with Obama conspiracy theories and scandals when we could crucify this jackass a dozen times over on real issues.  Well I think the answer is Palin Derangement Syndrome.  Palin Derangement Syndrome?  The habit of the media to obsess about Palin to the point where they will make crap up about her when just ignoring her would be better? Yes that.  PDS is caused in fact by two things. The first one is that Palin supporters are following a dimwitted unprincipled narcissist who is good at creating a cult of personality among morons who don’t care for facts but love meaningless platitudes from a cult leader.  The second is that Obama supporters are following a dimwitted unprincipled narcissist who is good at creating a cult of personality among morons who don’t care for facts but love meaningless platitudes from a cult leader.  Both sides aren’t quite competent enough to trade in facts (for instance, liberals could have ripped Palin apart with conservatives for her saying in the VP debate that the solution to education problems was to throw more money at it, but as facts elude them they’d rather trade in questionable personal attacks)…the same applies to those who trade in conspiracy theories against Obama, they’re not the brightest bulbs in the box.  Both parties have them.  (Although you’ll notice that while they were strong enough to catapult Obama over the more qualified Clinton, they were not powerful enough to elevate their beloved Santorum.)  If you put Obama and Palin in a room and they didn’t have their cults of personality backing them, the appropriate soundtrack to this moment would be “Dueling Banjoes”…but since they do have their respective cults mindlessly following them “O Fortuna” might be a more appropriate set piece.

So they attack our Cult leader with obsessive drivel, and our idiots attack their Cult leader with obsessive drivel.

Meanwhile if we don’t want to look like a bunch of buffoons, want to win the independents, and really want Obama out of office.  Let’s be honest here, Obama has only ever won two elections.  A Senate race against Alan Keyes and a Presidential race against John McCain.  Quite frankly you could have run sock puppets against Keyes and McCain and they would have won.  We’ve got a great candidate this time, let’s not ruin it by sounding like a bunch of dimwitted Democrats more concerned with rumor and conspiracies than with reality and facts.

Focus on the issues.  Focus on the failures of the last 4 years.  Focus on Romney’s superb record of intelligence and leadership.

Focus on those three things and we win.  Focus on birth certificates and ancient friendships and outdated statements and we lose.  I’d like to win this time as we can’t afford another 4 years of this dimwitted jackass.


Filed under Anti-Semitism, Atheism, Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Death, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Fear, Foreign Policy, Gay Rights, God, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Illegal Immigration, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, Obama Ceasar, People Are Stupid, politics, Rick Santorum, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions, War on Terrorism

Atheists try and portray themselves as the religion of peace…when they are anything but

So I saw this mind-numbingly stupid statement on Facebook today.

“Militant Muslims blow up car bombs and commit acts of terrorism. Militant Christians blow up abortion clinics and gun down abortion doctors. Militant atheists might just hurt your feelings.”

Now as I’ve said before, atheists are idiots, because they are also a religion–they have a belief system based on an unprovable tenet of faith.  The difference being is every other religion knows it is using faith, whereas atheists mistake faith for reason and get hysterical when someone points this out to them.  Why was Socrates smarter than the rest of the Athens, because while he didn’t know more than they did, he knew he didn’t know.

There are a few ways to deal with this.  Let’s run through most of them.

Militant atheists who killed lots of people.  Tim McVeigh of Oklahoma city bombing fame who said “science was his religion” and indentified himself as an agnostic , Jared Lee Loughner the Arizona shooter didn’t believe in God, and Anders Behring Breivik that crazy guy in Norway last year (whose manifesto included “I’ve always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment” and called himself a “Christian-atheist.”  I seem to remember these non-religious schmucks killing some people.  Hell when you consider percentage wise the number of Christian in the world (about 35% of the world) versus the number of these “Christian militants” (maybe 1 or 2 every couple of years) compared to the total number of Atheists in the world (about 10% of the world) versus a relatively comparable number of atheistic psychos (maybe 1 or 2 every couple of years), on a per capita basis atheists seem to be a far more dangerous group of people.  But even that would be unfair because in both cases that is taking a few psychos and trying to blame whichever group name you want to apply to them.  Let me be clear, there is not a group, organization, religion, profession, ethnicity, or whatever designation you want to pick that doesn’t have a few crazies…because these groups consists of human beings and the human nature and statistics means that every so often you get a lunatic in the mix.

No, a more fair comparison would be to look at what happens when a religion gets in complete power and enforces their beliefs as law.  Now, without question a secular government which does not give preference to one religion over another is always preferable…but secularism is not enforced atheism.  A secular government does not forbid the display of religion or the acknowledgement of widely held religious beliefs; it merely does not impede others from practicing their own religion.  Banning all examples of religion in government would be an atheistic state religion, just as banning all other religions to the support of only one would be a religious government.

Now you’d have to be an idiot to apply all wars where one side (or both) sides were religious, because no matter how religious the propaganda the wars were really fought over other purposes (nearly all wars in the medieval and early modern era were fought not over God but over land and power, the war in the Balkans is more about ethnicity and nationalism than religious differences).  Now there are a few cases in the East of religious intolerance, but for argument’s sake let’s say 500,000 have been killed in the name of religion in the East.  Now religious wars that we should include are the Thirty Years War, the French Wars of Religion, the 2nd Sudanese Civil War, the Crusades, and the Lebanese Civil war (the last three being wars of Christianity vs. Islam) because these wars were fought almost solely to extend one religion and destroy another (I realize even that statement has flaws, but I’m giving the benefit of the doubt to those who want to say religion is evil…trust me you’ll love that I’m inflating numbers).  The high end estimate for these 20.75 million (plus our half million from before which gives us 21.25 million so far).    The Inquisition killed maybe 500,000 (a high end estimate), total 21.75 million.  The religious persecution in England during the Tudor and Stuart monarchies killed maybe a hundred thousand (a very high end estimate).  Let’s multiply that by 10 for the whole of Europe for an even million in deaths from religious persecution in Christian Europe, total 22.75. Now inevitably someone is going to want me to put in the conquest of the Americas (even though A. Greed and gold were more the motivating factor, B. Someone would have eventually crossed the sea even if there wasn’t religion and with it the diseases that did most of the killing would have happened anyway) but let’s put that in there.  Now Schweikart and Allen’s A Patriot’s History of the United States lists the number likely being around 800,000…but let’s give the benefit of the doubt to those who hate religion and give them 5 Million.  So our total for religion stands at 27.75 million.  Let’s add another 10 million for the European slave trade (again another high end estimate).  So our total stands at 37.75 million.  And let’s add another 10 million for all the death at the hands of priest ripping out hearts in the Americas and other religious motivated murders in the New World.  47.75 million. These are pretty much the deaths caused by religion in the last 2,000 years.   You know what, let’s double that number just to be on the safe side.  Let’s say 95.5 Million people have been killed by the repression of religion in the world (I’m also going to ignore other forms of torture, persecution and denial of rights as I think they are probably all in proportion to death tolls).

(I’m going to leave out Islam from this calculation because unlike just about every other religion on Earth, Islam denies the divinity or divine quality of the human soul, for instance you won’t find any statement that man was created in God’s image in the Koran or Haddith, and in this way it makes it philosophically more in line with atheism)…(If you think this is unfair, just look at the pro-atheist quote that started this rant; even they differentiate.)

Now let’s look at the nine nations that have actually implemented atheism in

  1. The French Revolution under the Reign of Terror
  2. Soviet Russia
  3. Communist China
  4. N. Korea
  5. Khmer Rogue Cambodia
  6. Mexico in the 1920’s
  7. Cuba
  8. Various other communist states in the 20th Century.
  9. Nazi Germany (right now some atheist are screaming that it’s wrong to claim Nazi Germany was atheist…shut up and sit down, I will prove this point)

As far as I can find (and this is the result of a month’s worth of research…they were all on the Wikipedia page, but I couldn’t find any others) these are the only countries to ever institute state enforced atheism.  Now anyone with even a modicum of knowledge knows that this death toll is easily going to top my previous one.  But let’s go over it anyway.

  1. The French Revolution with its Reign of Terror and “Cult of Reason.”  Catholicism and other versions of Christianity were outlawed.  Churches burned, relics desecrated, clergy persecuted and of course the guillotine.  Low end estimates for these 2 years of madness are around 15,000 dead.
  2. In Mexico’s 1917 Constitution nationalized all church property and outlawed all religious orders.  This resulted in a small civil war known as the Cristero War (1926-1929) between atheist President Calle’s forces and the pro-Catholic Cristeros.  Low end estimates put the death toll at 5,000
  3. Soviet Russia, Communist China and all other incarnations of communism

If the mere 20,000 deaths I racked up from 5 years of combined terror, let’s take at the death toll of government that brought us gulag, killing fields, the resurgence of crucifixion (yes, the Chinese crucified Tibetan monks and dissidents).  Forced labor, controlled famines, repression…the death toll is, according the obscenely well researched book The Black Book of Communism: Crime, Terror, and Repression edited by Stepane Courtois puts the number of all Communist/Marxist (where religion is always persecuted and outlawed) at 94 million dead. Now you could say it’s unfair that I just use the number the book lists and not say some Marxist tripe historian who probably put the number under 10 million…well I deal in reality and the fact that some historians have called the 94 Million estimate “too conservative,” I think I’m safe with sticking with that number.  But please go on, tell me that Communists have not killed millions.

    4. And of course Nazism.

Now the immediate cry/propaganda is that Nazism was Christian in nature and not atheistic.  And of course we call any nation that goes as far as outlawing miracles very Christian.

So let’s turn to some real sources…I’m going to quote large passages here instead of just sending you to the book because I don’t want to have to deal with the BS that is going to come from atheists farcical denial that their religion was behind a movement that is synonymous with evil.

From The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William S. Shirer, from the section “The Persecution of Christian Churches” (And right before the section “The Nazification of Culture”), page 240,

“What the Hitler government envisioned for Germany was clearly set out in a thirty point program for the ‘National Reich Church’ […] A few of its thirty articles convey the essentials:

“1. The National Reich Church of Germany categorically claims the exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within the borders of the Reich: it declares these to be the national churches of the German Reich.

“5. The National Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably….the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.

“7. The National Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains, or priests, but National Reich orators are to speak in them.

“13. The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany

“14. The National Church declares that to it, and therefore to the German nation, it has been decided that the Fuehrer’s Mein Kampf is the greatest of all documents. It….not only contains the greatest but it embodies the purest and truest ethics for the present and future life of our nation.

“18. The National Church will clear away from its altars all crucifixes, Bibles, and pictures of saints.

“19. On the altars there must be nothing but Mein Kampf (to the German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book) and to the left of the altar a sword.

“30. On the day of its foundation, the Christian Cross must be removed from all churches, cathedrals, and chapels…and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika.” [Emphasis added]

You know, just because you have the trapping of religious organization, when you deny God and all his works and put in the raving of a single psychopath, I’d call that atheism.

Maybe it’s just that one book.
Let’s switch to The Third Reich: A New History by Michael Burleigh, page 196:

“Nazism represented a sustained assault on fundamental Christian values, regardless of any tactical obeisance to the purchase it had on most Germans. […] The mission here and now, for utopian ends on earth, became a substitute for the futility of earthly existence and the majesty of God.” [The whole passage is quoted here.]

If you read the whole passage it will say that they didn’t want the name atheism applied to their beliefs either…but when you replace God and Heaven with the state and the race, you may not want to call it atheism, but it is atheism.

But, please, perhaps you can find for me a historian who says that Nazi’s weren’t at war with Christianity.  Yes early on they allied themselves with Christianity, and even spouted some of the rhetoric of it, but taking a look at the whole of Nazi history shows that their goal was to destroy ALL religion and replace God with the party and the race.  I suggest you look right next to the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or roughly in that area to find bullshit that says that they weren’t atheists.

It if walks like an atheist, talks like an atheist, acts like an atheist; it sure as hell ain’t a duck.  Germany paid lip service to religion as it slowly replaced every single aspect of religion with the atheistic state.  Communism at first claimed to welcome all religions in the early days and officially banned discrimination based on religion…the difference being that Nazism didn’t last 2 decades, Communism is still going in some parts of the world.  Had Nazism lived longer they would have embraced a full atheistic state.  And to claim anything else is at best naïve and at worst hideously disingenuous.

So now that we’ve cleared up the atheistic nature of Nazi Germany…I believe the number is 6 million (not counting all the deaths caused by their war to try and spread their evil over the globe).  Which I believe brings our total to 100,020,000.  All in little over 200 years.

So let’s see here 2,000 years an absurdly liberal estimate puts the death caused by religion at 95.5 Million meanwhile in a tenth of that time atheistic governments, by a very conservative estimate, have killed over 100 Million.  I’d hate to see the world after 2,000 years of atheism, the population of mankind would be around zero.

Now, my favorite objection is that these aren’t real atheists because atheists are people who follow reason (a claim I’ve never seen in practice, but let’s go with their objection), and these governments were very unreasonable.  Okay, let’s go with that objection and not count any of those deaths that the religion of atheism brought us, but then you have to play fair and admit that all of these supposedly religious governments are equally falling short of their religion’s call for compassion.  If you give the benefit of the doubt to one side you have to give it to the other…or will atheists fess up and admit not only to their atrocious reasoning skills (after all the preponderance of the evidence is on the side that there is a God ) but also their deep-seated hypocrisy.  I doubt they will.  And you wonder why I find them a bitter and violent bunch.  Religion shouldn’t take all of the blame for the death toll above, and atheism isn’t the sole cause of the death I attributed to them.  And it is wildly poor logic to attribute the acts of one lunatic who claims to be part of a group when they are acting against what most of the members of that group believe (when polls show that a majority of a group is fine with suicide bombing…that’s a different story, and you might want to look at what that belief system is preaching).

In the end there is a simple fact, as bad as religious government can be, and as much as we should always strive for pluralistic and secular government, religious government could go years, even decades without harming those who practiced other religions.  For atheistic governments, it would be hard to find a day where an atrocity was not committed.  Now the vast majority of atheists are not butchers as the vast majority of the religious aren’t, so again please explain to me how atheists feel they have such a right to their sense of superiority.  Perhaps it’s their recorded efficiency.


Filed under Anti-Semitism, Atheism, Death, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Fear, God, Government is corrupt, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, People Are Stupid, politics, Religion, Spirituality, Tyranny

How to get your ass FRAGGED in one easy step…


How to get fraged in one easy step

Remember a week ago when I pointed out that atheists were effectively a religion because their beliefs were based entirely on an article of faith (Unless, in defiance of the very laws of logic they have proven that God doesn’t exist…I’m waiting for that argument).  And then I pointed out that this religion is far more vicious than most in that it not only demands that it be free to practice its religion but that no one has the right to practice any other religion…which ranks them up there with the Puritans and Islam in terms of religious intolerance.  But as you’ll recall I also mentioned that there was an ass in the military who was demanding an atheist chaplain.  I said that as that’s his religion, and he is putting his life on the line he had every right to demand whatever spiritual service he wanted (even if it was one that was meant only to insult everyone else’s beliefs).  Well, as it turns out, I may have to change my opinion on this guy…

Why? you ask.  Because not only does this ass want an atheist chaplain, which may be his right under the First Amendment (the first amendment does guarantee your right to be a complete asshole, I only suggest you not exercise it to that extent), he wants to stop other soldiers from praying.  This (please insert the expletive of your choice) actually believes that because he doesn’t believe in God, in defiance  of a huge pile of circumstantial evidence and reason, gives him the right to forbid other soldiers from praying to God before putting their lives in jeopardy.  This man, Jason Torpy, whose face will soon likely and justifiably be next to the definition of the military term FUBAR , believes he has the right to tell other people how to live their lives because of his beliefs.  He complains that he was excluded and it was wrong for the men to take time out of a military mission to engage in prayer.  To think that you’d pray before going into combat.  How terrible!  When someone ends up fraging this excuse for an officer, I’m not going to shed a single tear…I’m not saying that his men should debase themselves by stooping to such a level (which is still a few levels above Torpy), it’s just likely that it’s going to happen to someone who cares so little for his men (and I would suspect that this level of disdain for him men probably extends to all of his command decisions).

Do I hate this guy because of his beliefs about God?  No, I hate him because while he leads an organization laughably called “Military Atheists and FreeThinkers” which supports all free thought that marches in perfect goose step with their rigid beliefs and decries anything that is not pure atheistic belief, (yeah real free thinkers there)– he’s a hypocrite that will not defend anyone else’s free thoughts; I hate him because he is a terrible commander and he will get his men killed if he is allowed to stay in the field.  Someone who doesn’t realize the psychological benefit to prayer before a situation where you could die and pettily states “It was a critical time that could have better spent focused on other areas”  has no business being given command over soldiers. Yeah because the psychological well-being of your men has nothing to do with the good of a mission.  I can only image how good awfully horrible an officer this man is given that he has no understanding of how to keep morale up and how to deal with him men.

Again I would like to warn this idiot that the men under his command are probably familiar with the term frag, and I would like to remind this Captain’s superiors that Private is probably a much more fitting rank for someone who has so little respect for the beliefs and rights of the men under his command.  Perhaps he should enlist in the Chinese army, they’d let him shoot religious people there.

Also, as is all too typical of atheists he keeps saying that this was a Christian prayer and an expression of Christian beliefs.  You know there are lots of religions, and I would bet almost all of them are represented in the armed services, and probably almost all of them find comfort in praying to God before a stressful situation.  But this shows that atheists are not only full of bigotry and viciousness in trying to force their religious beliefs on others, but it shows the typical ignorance of atheists.  Every atheist I have ever met only knows how to tear down Christians and nothing else because they’re not so much atheists as they are Anti-Christians (which really suggests that this is some Freudian problems with their growing up if nothing else).

An officer who disrespects the beliefs of the men under him so blatantly does not deserve to be an officer, and a soldier who is so viciously opposed to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution does not deserve the honor of the uniform or the company of the people who do fight for our right to believe or not to believe.  And a man so petty should be decried by atheists as being their version of the Westboro Baptists.  If he doesn’t get fragged, which I would consider a miracle, he deserves to be dishonorably discharged.

1 Comment

Filed under Atheism, Constitution, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, First Amendment, God, People Are Stupid, politics, Prayer, War on Terrorism

Why Atheists really annoy me…a Conservative New Ager’s opinion

So through various personal encounters and stories in the news (here here and here just as a for instance, sadly it’s only the tip of the iceberg) in the last week or so I’ve been meaning to write another blog on my rather deep seated dislike of militant atheists. What do I mean by militant atheists, I mean those people who want all the crosses at memorials taken down, all the nativity scenes taken away, freak-out about the words “In God We Trust” as the national motto?  The people who feel that the mere existence of other religions is somehow a threat to their life, the ones who have the same attitude as wacky Christians who think gays marrying somehow affects their lives. Who need to insult every expression of faith at the drop of a hat with the zealousness of a member of the Westboro Baptist church talking about gays.

This behavior by atheists all strikes me as beyond petty.  I’m a New Ager, a pagan, and I don’t find signs of other people’s religions offensive (unless it’s a religion that is dedicated to tyranny, suffering, and the denial of reason).  I don’t believe in the absolute truth of the 10 Commandments (that idols thing is silly in some ways and the parents thing ignores that there are some people who don’t deserve to be parents)…but I’m not offended by their display.  I don’t demand that images of pentangles be placed everywhere so that I feel included.  So the fact that this attitude is what defines militant atheists is utterly perplexing and annoying to me.

First I think we need to establish a simple fact that is often overlooked.  Atheism is a religion.    A religion is a belief system based on an article of faithThe idea that there is no God is an article faith—it can’t be proven, and to base your beliefs off of that idea that can’t be proven makes the entire philosophy of atheism a religion.  If you’re going to go with pure reason then you have to go with agnosticism—but since being an agnostic in practice prevents you from having any practical beliefs in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics or politics, it’s a useless system. You have to make a leap of faith one way or the other.  And it is bad philosophy and rank arrogance to say that in my leap of faith that there isn’t a God is better than your leap of faith that there is a God (especially since there is evidence that suggests there is a God and really atheists only have the weak argument of the Problem of evil .)  And one really just has to look at the rabid proselytizing that atheists do and then compare that with the equally insane passion of some evangelicals to see that it’s not reason driving these people, it’s faith (and an irrational one at that).
It is a religion.  In fact I recommend you not refer to it as atheism anymore, always refer to it as the “religion of atheism” and when the whiny atheists start saying that they’re not a religion ask them for their impossible to refute argument that there is no God.  And if they fall for that trap they’re not only a whiner, they’re an idiot.

And it’s a vicious religion when you look at the way it is being dealt with in courts.  It’s a religion that says we don’t like any other religions and demands that all evidence of those religions be removed.  They demand that crosses placed in honor of fallen soldiers and police be removed.  They demand that references to the majority belief in God (you know the belief that actually has some evidence behind it) be removed because it offends us.  And if you’re a very special sort of asshole, militant atheists might even demand that the military stop offering chaplain services to the people who want religious counsel while putting their lives on the line so that you have the freedom to believe that there isn’t a God (despite the absolute lack of any evidence to justify that conclusion).

As it is a religion removing things because it insults atheists is actually favoring one religion over another in clear violation of the establishment clause.   Slippery slope arguments are flawed by their very nature of being extreme and taking things to the worst case scenario but we use them because every so often the slippery slope does yield a Soviet Russia, a Nazi Germany, San Francisco.  So if you begin to enforce the religion of atheism as the law of the land, what happens when atheism literally becomes the law, when all expressions of religion are outlawed? Well, off the top of my head I can think of only five countries that have outlawed every religion except atheism—those five would be France under the Terror, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.  Beside legally enforced atheism, what do those five have in common?  Blood and genocide.  I know of no atheistic nation in the history of the world that wasn’t genocidal.  It’s as if when you deny the divinity of human life, human life becomes cheap and expendable.  But this is an extreme argument.  After all, other nations have legally enforced one religion to the exclusion of all others.  However this is revealing point.  Governments that enforce one religion pretty much fall into two camps, Christian and Muslim (the East has had smatterings of enforced religion but these are policies that tended to be on paper more than in practice, and in the West this kind of single religion is not the entire norm).  Now Muslim countries (which interestingly enough also deny the divinity of the human soul) are also shit holes, although even these countries don’t usually meet that mechanical killing people by the millions in a systematic way that atheist nations seem to have refined to an art.  Christian nations that have outlawed all of the opposing religions historically do not have the kind of atrocity in such a sweeping nature.  Yes the Spanish in history are unjustifiable villains, but the English, the Italians, Germans, and French during the same period of time were able to still be relatively humane and still create advancements for civilization.  Can you show me an atheist nation in history that did not commit genocide or that advanced civilization in any, way shape or form?

Now most atheists will say it’s entirely unfair to use the slippery slope argument and compare them to Nazis.  But keep in mind that these are the same people who go to court and demand that every cross and nativity scene be taken down…why?  Because of their slippery slope argument that it could lead to a theocracy.  So much like their leap of faith being so much better than everyone else’s leap of faith, their slippery slope arguments are so much more valid than everyone else’s slippery slope arguments.   Illogical stances like that can only be held by people who fervently believe in their religion to exclusion of all others, so don’t tell me that atheism isn’t a religion.

By now any reasonable person is realizing that most atheist arguments that displays or this or that emblem endorsing religion are kind of stupid, as removing them at the behest of another religion is simply endorsing that religion (in this case the stupid one that doesn’t even have anecdotal evidence to back it up). These court rulings always endorse one religion over another.  There is no way to avoid that because siding with the atheists is siding with a religion.

So let me suggest some compromises.

First the question needs to be does the display hurt anyone?  For 99% of these cases that’s a no.  And I mean really hurt.  Not your stupid feelings were hurt.  If you’re upset that there are signs and displays out there of ideas you don’t agree with, this is so incredibly not the country for you.  We have freedom of expression around here and what comes with that is the freedom to be absolutely offended by what others say or do…but not the freedom to stop them from saying what they believe.

Second, on the issue of public money.  Has the money already been spent?  If not, then no, of course you don’t want to erect new religious symbols, but if the damage is already done then be a grown up and get over it.  Especially for symbols that have been up for years.  Atheists, you too can be big boys and girls and not take every single word against you with all the maturity of a bratty 2 year old (I’ve yet to see it in practice, but I’m willing to be astounded by seeing it for the first time).  If a community votes to take down a time honored symbol, fine, but the courts have no right to tell people to take down symbols of their faith that have been there for years.

As for memorials like crosses put out for fallen police officers or soldiers.  It’s more of a question of what did the people we wish to honor believe.  If they were Christians a cross is the appropriate way to honor them, and if you’re offended by someone putting up a memorial to honor a person who gave their life to protect yours…you’re an asshole.  You have a first amendment right to be one, but I have a First Amendment right to call you (in fact I have an ethical duty to point it out).  If members of other religions have problems with that symbol, and someone from their religion is among the ranks of those being honored, then just put up a symbol of that faith as well…taking it down is just insulting to everyone as it has the mentality of “If I can’t have my symbol all by itself, then no one can have a symbol” (which only benefits the religion of atheism).

Everyone should have the right to express their religion.

Some of this came out of my post of on the worship site for Pagans at the Air Force Academy.   I don’t begrudge them their meeting place, as members of the armed services they are more than entitled to worship, and I have no problem that it’s on our dime as it’s being beyond a heartless creature to say that those who risk their lives for us shouldn’t have the right to worship as they choose.  I was complaining how a $5,000 project cost $80,000.  And I was complaining that Pagans who are always trying to gain some good PR weren’t too bright to let themselves be attached to this boondoggle of government waste.  But they’re entitled to the worship as they see fit.

Which also bring up the atheist who wants a chaplain  in the military.  Is he entitled to one and should we provide one?  Yes, that way we’re treating all religions fairly.  Is this guy a complete ass who is just trying to mock other religions? Yes he is and then some…but he’s putting his life on the line for us so I say we give this complete asshole what he wants.

All religions need to be treated equally and this BS about secularism and removing religious display isn’t doing that.  It’s favoring one religion over another.  The fact that it’s a religion that has even less proof behind it than most and the fact that is in the running for most vicious religion in history should also give one pause.


Filed under Atheism, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Faith, Fear, God, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, New Age, philosophy, politics, Prayer, Religion, Spirituality

Some misconceptions about the New Age

So the last couple of weeks I’ve fielded some questions about the New Age that seem to suggest people don’t really understand what New Age belief is (half the reason I wrote “Republicans and Reincarnation” was hopefully to dispel many of these misconceptions) but these few have come up in past weeks so I thought I would deal with them. Now some of these statements actually came from intelligent people, with working brains, these didn’t come from just my trolls, so I thought that another round of what New Agers believe couldn’t hurt. (After all nothing probably helped Christianity more than when they dispelled the claim made by the Ancient Pagans that they were cannibalistic…it’s their own fault really, drinking blood, eating flesh, when you use terms like that don’t be shocked when people don’t understand the metaphoric language).

So the first one that I’m going to deal with is the claim that New Agers don’t believe in God.

Now there are a lot of variations in New Age belief, and I certainly can’t speak for every single person who identifies themselves as a New Ager, but I think it’s a safe to say that we believe in God.

Every meditation, every book, every writer I know of that is associated with the New Age makes heavy reference to God.  And while there is no single book that encapsulates all the idea of the New Age, I would say a healthy majority will turn to A Course in Miracles which begins with the welcoming line “Herein lies the peace of God.”

Now how does this differ from most beliefs of God? Well we don’t believe you have your God and we have our God. For us there’s just God. Whatever name you call, you’re referring to God. Or in the words of author Marion Zimmber Bradley, “…All gods are One, and there is no religion higher than the Truth…” We believe in God we just don’t put the same masks that other religions put on him. And I realize that that last statement comes off a just more than a little pretentious, it’s not meant to. New Agers, at least rational ones, would probably admit that they put their own masks on God. We would just say that we are not trying to project our own flaws onto him as much as other religions might. No jealous or wrathful God here. Nor the many human issues of the Hindu gods. Certainly none of the flaws of Zeus. Definitely not a God that calls for genocide. For New Agers God is more along the lines of Aristotle’s definitions of the gods “reason contemplating reason” but more along the lines of “love contemplating and giving love” as we tend to find the two concepts go hand in hand. But I’m sure we’re missing something too…but at least New Agers are willing to admit we might not have as great an idea as to what we’re trying to comprehend using a limited human brain and even more limited human language.

But let me be very clear here, New Agers do believe in God.

You might also want to look at these previous posts:

In Defense of the Possibility of God


Another Attempt to Describe New Age Belief

The Cult of Cthulhu or my problems with most religions

The Problem of Evil



Next up…the claim that New Agers believe in many gods…

(And feel free to email me or comment about anything else about the New Age you want elaborated)


Filed under A Course in Miracles, Aristotle, Atheism, Books, Books for New Agers, Faith, Free Will, God, New Age, Religion, Spirituality

Idiots, Ethics and God

So, against my better judgment I have been engaging in a comment war with a real moron on a friend’s blog. A moron and a troll. What really pisses me off about this useless f!@# is that he is the kind of prick who likes to use big words, Latin phrases where the English would actually be more appropriate, and quote obscure philosophers to make himself sound really smart when he clearly knows nothing. You know, the kind of ass who likes to ask questions of subjectivity and postmodern philosophy that makes even intellectual people in college want to just punch repeatedly because he clearly isn’t mentally qualified to engage in the actual conversation at hand but wants to sound like he knows more than you. I know I shouldn’t have argued with him, there is nothing to be gained from arguing with idiots, because you can’t even humiliate them because sarcasm and insults are beyond their feeble little minds, ( I know this because irony, wit, and blatant petty mocking actually went right over his head…it was sad actually, made me feel like I was making fun of a retarded kid) but I had a couple of glasses of wine in me and my intellect was not at its peak (still well above the moron’s, but not at its peak).

But what really pisses me off is this idiot keeps referencing ideas and philosophers of deontological and utilitarian ethics as sources and people to challenge. And this really pisses me off.

But let me go back a step because I realize most people aren’t familiar with these philosophies (although they are far too often in practice). I myself do not read much from these philosophers because the I am familiar enough with their bullshit beliefs to not only know that they don’t meet even a prima facie case, but that when you get into the depths of these philosophies there is nothing of value to them. But let me give you the short and simple summaries of why both belief systems are beyond stupid.

Utilitarian philosophy might actually be familiar to most educated people. It’s the idea that the ends justify the means. It states that so long as you usually come out with a good end (usually for the most amount of people) then whatever you have to do to get there is justified. It’s stupid for both theoretical and pragmatic reasons. It’s stupid for theoretical reasons because it views people as merely tools to an end. Need economic growth then using people as a cheaply paid slave class is justified because it leads to growth (as China will more than testify to). Need a better class of people in your country, just kill all the inferior people (yeah, we know how well that one goes). Any and every major evil of the 20th century is justified by this belief. Because anything can be justified if you say that you’re doing it for the public, for the people, for the state, for the race. Ironically since any justification based on utilitarian principles has never resulted in anything but genocide, economic disaster, tyranny and suffering, utilitarian ethics would demand that utilitarian beliefs never be used. You cannot have any ethical beliefs without believing the basic inherent value of human life and the human soul, and that immediately throws out the basic premise of utilitarian beliefs that helping the many justifies hurting the few. If classical liberalism is correct, and human beings inherently have value by virtue of being human, then nothing can be justified by the principles of utilitarianism which demands that humans have no value in and of themselves, only in the respect that more is better than few. But that hasn’t it stopped this abhorrent belief system from being used time and time and time again.

There is probably only one evil worse than utilitarianism…and that’s the philosophy of deontological ethics. If utilitarian’s believe that the ends justify the means, then the deontological school believes the equally, if not more, evil idea that the means justify the ends.

Deontological beliefs were never really championed seriously until the advent of Immanuel Kant (please read “the most obscenely immoral person in the history of human civilization–If he had been given the power to do so he would have made Hitler, Genghis, Mao, Attila, Stalin, and Pol Pot put together look like choir boys.”). I do not believe in the Devil or the existence of absolute evil…but the existence of Kant makes me constantly question that belief. If there were ever books that deserved to be burned, they would have the name Immanuel Kant on them (not that I advocate book burning, but Kant comes damn close). As you can guess, I hate Kant…and the fucking excuses for human beings who follow him. Why do I hate him so much, well first because his entire philosophy is based on the idea that the purpose of human life is not to be happy but rather to fulfill our duty. I’ll come back to this in a minute, but for now just accept the fact that it allows a justification for causing human misery. Second because his rule, while a favorite of academics and the root for all post-modernist’s bullshit, is not only immoral but blatantly illogical and preposterous…but since he put it in such impossible to understand terms idiots who like to think themselves smart glorified it because the rule of a moron is
“if I can’t understand it, it must be smart.” Here is Kant’s entire basis for ethics and the grounding for all of his philosophy that followed:

“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.”—Immanuel Kant, The Groundings for the Metaphysics of Morals

In human terms that means do something only if you want everyone to do that thing at every opportunity. Don’t lie unless you want every person to tell a lie at every single time they speak and/or write. The classic example for this is you’re living in 1930’s Germany, an S.S. officer comes knocking and asks if you have Jews hidden in your basement, which you do. Do you lie? According to Kant you are an evil human being if you lie. You must tell the S.S. officer that you are hiding Jews and condemn them and yourself to death. According to Kant that is the only way to be an ethical human being. (One wonders how this sick little excuse for a human ever survived to be able to write such filth…oh wait he wrote in Prussia, a country not historically known for its morals.) For me, there is only one ethical way to not lie to the S.S. officer, and that is to get him to come inside the house long enough to shove a knife into the base of his neck. Again Kant would say that killing a Nazi is morally wrong. Human beings on the other hand view the cold blooded murder of any Nazi not so much as wrong, but more under the category of “DUH.” But ignoring the obvious Evil (yes the capital E is intentional) of this so-called ethical idea, is how it’s actually quite useless. What if, when the S.S. officer is standing there, I don’t ask “Should I lie?” but instead ask “Should I support tyranny?” “Should I betray the innocent?” “Should I follow the law?” “Should I follow an unjust law?” It’s useless as a rule (and further utterly pointless as the basis of a philosophy) if it yields different answers depending on how I formulate the question. If something is a rule it should tell me what to do in a given circumstance, the categorical imperative can’t do that because most actions involve multiple levels of action (lying, helping tyranny, following the law, and protecting the innocent). Still, given the fact that those who would believe in the categorical imperative can’t even see this obvious problem I can’t expect them to formulate the right question. But the worst is, like utilitarianism, it denies the value of human life. This is only concerned with the actions, not with how those actions affect something of value. Every person can be sacrificed if the categorical imperative says that to do otherwise would be wrong. There is no question of justice, of value, or right…only of duty to a poorly formulated idea from an immoral autistic soulless Prussian.

You see the problem is that most of ethical philosophy was settled back around 400 B.C.E. in Athens. Plato and Aristotle pretty much came up with the core basis for all ethics back then and realized quite correctly that happiness was the end and goal of human existence. Christ added a little humanity to the cold rationalism, and Aquinas made sure those two branches worked together. Yes there were still a lot of political and economic philosophical questions to be answered, but for the most part ethics was a complete philosophy with only the minutia to be debated and obvious errors to be corrected–for instance if Aristotle had just applied his own logic to his culture’s racism and misogynism he would have seen them to be wrong, but it’s unfair to blame a man who was centuries ahead of everyone else in a myriad of ways for not being ahead of his time in every way. After all what beliefs do you hold now that 2,000 years from now you’ll be laughed at for believing? (Hint if you believe in Kant, you should be laughed at right now). However, rather than take this rather well versed theories you had what the Renaissance laughably referred to as philosophy (starting with Descartes) had the idea that instead of refining the existing philosophy they should completely ignore all the previous learning and start from scratch. Now this can be helpful strategy to test existing beliefs and come at something from a new angle, but only when you compare what you come up with against the old ideas and see which one is more convincing (which modern philosophy has never done, because if it had it would have abandoned so much of the tripe that has been stated in the last five hundred years). And rather than building on ideas based on reason and truth modern philosophy first centered around the false dichotomy of empiricism vs. rationalism, then went to the insanity of Kant, and to call anything after that philosophy is an insult to the word. Useless academics spent the last five hundred years more worried about saying something new than saying something true. Part of this is because nothing in modern philosophy (with the exception of Locke, but he more or less drew the idea from Aquinas) has given any credence to the value and worth of the human soul.

And this is probably why even deists and believers who doubted the divinity of Christ (i.e. Jefferson, Adam, and Franklin) who did not subscribe to any particular denomination of belief, along with the rest of the Founding Fathers, believed that America (or any nation) could not survive unless it has some kind of spiritual belief. (“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”—John Adams). Without a belief in God and the soul, there is no value to humanity and thus nothing to stop institutionalized misery and evil. Atheists will try to say that statement is wrong (but I dare you to find any kind of atheistic regime in the whole of history that has not quickly degenerated into madness and destruction. Religious civilizations are 50/50 for being evil. Atheists have a 100% evil track record. Hmm tough call.)

I bring this last point up only as a tangential explanation of both utilitarianism and deontology are grievously wrong. However because I dismiss these so-called philosophers because they’re based on such a preposterous idea, one certainly would assume I’m some kind of philistine as if I don’t understand the genius of these philosophies. I reject them because I do understand their idiocy and evil.

And why else are they completely wrong (and arguably rather interchangeable since they’re both 100% wrong) is because they only focus on half the picture. One looks at means the other ends. Both are an incomplete picture. One must look at both to act ethically and rationally. Some means are wrong, like lying. But lying to save an innocent isn’t wrong. Murder is wrong, but it’s the height of ethics to murder a tyrant—its fact, it’s actually a moral imperative if you don’t have the ability to imprison them. (As I know that I occasionally have readers in Iran get to this blog…take a hint.) On the flip side sacrificing the rights of the innocent is never justified no matter how good the end you intend. However it would be foolish to say that those rights can never be violated, as sometimes the alternative is far worse even for the innocent (which is why the necessary evil of limited government is ethical. Very limited). Now this can only be achieved in Classically Liberal Democratic Republics that rely almost exclusively on capitalism (liberals out there capitalism requires laws and government, it’s not anarchy, but it doesn’t require a lot either).
Now, as it is pointed out in my favorite book, Republicans and Reincarnation, the best you’re going to get in the highly dependent on circumstances and surrounds for a calculus of ethics is the following five questions:

1. Is the action leading to a positive, neutral, or negative end?
2. Is the action unethical or ethical?
3. Is the benefit this action provides removing a material or spiritual obstacle, or both?
4. Is this a long-term benefit or short-term benefit?
5. Is the action benefiting a large number of people or a small number?

(Notice that this is the other reason you have to believe in the soul to be ethical, because if there is a soul then there is a difference between what is good in the material sense and what is good in the spiritual sense. To not make this distinction will always lead to unethical and unproductive behavior.) And the basic way to interpret the these five questions is (again from the book, there was a 3 page justification for these conclusions, but I fear I’m boring you already as this is a blog not a book):

No negative ends, even if it means unethical means. (Such as war to end tyranny)
No negative spiritual ends, even if it means negative material ends. (Quitting your job rather than violating your principles)
Unethical means only to prevent a negative end.
Long-term goals over short term. (The needs of the minority must never be sacrificed for the wants of the majority.)
The needs of the minority must never be sacrificed for the wants of the majority.

You’ll notice how both the foolish ideals of utilitarianism and deontology violate almost every one of those points, which is why they are wrong, which is why they must be opposed, which is why I dismiss the fools who originally formulated them and why I have no respect for the idiots who continue to follow them.

There, now I have something in writing that I can send to people every time they make such ridiculous arguments. If you also run into such an idiot send them this way. They probably won’t learn, but you can now mock them for their further lack of understanding.

Leave a comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Aristotle, Atheism, Books, Books for Conservatives, Capitalism, China, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Constitution, Death, Economics, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Happiness, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, People Are Stupid, philosophy, Problems with the GOP, Tyranny

A week on the blogosphere did nothing for my opinion of humanity

As one of the key purposes of this blog is to drum up publicity for my book Republicans and Reincarnation (you should buy it) I do have a vested interest in keeping the hit count for this blog at a high number and not be satisfied until I’m reaching Drudge Report level numbers (I can dream can’t I).

To do this, especially since the move to WordPress has strangely put me a little further down on any Google search, I have taken the advice of friends and other websites and started to comment on other blogs. This has usually not been my thing since while I would love to engage in discussions with anyone at a rational level on my blogs, I find that this is not the way of the blogosphere. For instance the other day I ran across a blog defending China’s occupation of Tibet (because we should always defend the genocidal annexation of peaceful nations by butchers apparently). One of the main arguments the person made was that now in 2011 the economics, technology and infrastructure of Tibet is much better than it was under the Dalai Lama. I put a comment up that this was a false assessment as every nation, even in the third world, is in a better place in 2011 than it was in 1950, and to assume that Tibet would have remained closed, given the desire of the 14th Dalai Lama to learn about the West, was foolish—that if China had not invaded Tibet would likely be in a better position. The twit who made the original position responded that this was only “speculation” on my part. Yeah, it’s speculation, but one based on facts, trends, and precedent. You can’t argue that a place is better because of X without even considering what it would be like if X had not happened. To argue that a logical conclusion based on history and other examples is worthless just because it didn’t happen, is the most weak minded and pathetic form of argument I can think of…just the kind you would expect from someone who supports the butchers from Beijing. So I realized quickly that I would just get infuriated communicating with this nitwit and as I was not in the proximity to slap him there was no point in making a rebuttal. This has been similar to many of my other comments. I try to make a reasoned rebuttal, I get knee jerk reactions. (My favorite being, I’m an American, what would I know…I wonder if they would have made the same statement if it was one of the American’s who was also a darling of the left.) And since I find posting, “I agree with you completely” also silly, there are few blogs I comment on where I agree with people.

I found fewer and fewer places to comment as my search for interesting blogs continued.

So I turned my direction to religion blogs, hell at least I didn’t really expect people to be reasonable. But expecting people to be irrational is not the same thing as finding out that people are freaking psychos. Atheists are still some of the most biter people I can find. My favorite for the suggestion that atheism can be correlated with being a sociopath was a blog about a guy who offered a homeless man $20 to take the words “God Bless” off the sign he was using to beg for money with. That’s right, this guy wanted to take away what is probably the only stable element in this person’s life for $20—and they say conservatives are heartless sons of bitches. Not to mention my other favorite part that almost all atheists seem to be arguing against Christianity as if the Christian Bible is the only argument in favor of God.

Oh, and Anti-Semitism appears to be quite alive and well. I used to think that that almost everyone underestimated how prevalent Ant-Semitism in this country and the world, how it was one of the greatest threats facing the growth of society, and how the world needed to grow, look around, and rip this evil weed out once and for all. After this week I think I may have been underestimating how bad a problem this actually was. No, seriously, I’m half a step away from saying screw the first amendment, Anti-Semitism needs to be made a death penalty offense. I’m not going to because I understand where that slippery slope leads, but, dear God, do these twisted little excuses for human being know how to have lots and lots of blogs. The first few I saw I thought from the titles were going to be well crafted pieces of satire making fun of the idiot by using their own words against them, after all no one could seriously believe this shit…it’s a sad moment where I find my cynical outlook on humanity may be optimistic.

But my personal favorite has to be what I’ve learned about New Agers like myself. Apparently, according to many of the blogs I’ve read, I am part of a grand conspiracy that is headed by no less than Satan himself, to destroy Christianity and make sure all souls are dammed in hell. I am worshiping demons who pose as angels (because, I don’t know, all calls and prayers I make to God are being intercepted before they get to the desired recipient). Obviously I’m going to hell. Interestingly enough, I and my pagan compatriots are in league with Glenn Beck of all people. And that I must regularly attend meetings where babies are slaughtered and massive orgies occur.

Which brings up the question: Why am I never invited to the meetings? I don’t get invited to the Black Sabbath where the damnation of all souls is planned. I don’t get invited to the Republican meetings where the enslavement of the poor is discussed. I don’t get invited to the meetings where Whitey plans to keep all minorities down. And I don’t get invited to the meetings where men plot to keep women bare foot and pregnant. I don’t get invited to the meetings. I don’t get the handbook everyone else seems to have. I don’t even know the secret handshake.

There is no real argument to this particular blog. I just needed to vent. I knew that the web is fully of crazy people, but knowing it and seeing it are two different things. As all my previous blog reading has always been through aggregate sites (Drudge, Breitbart, RealClearPolitics, etc.) I got the truly crazy weeded out. Yes there would be people I would disagree with, but even the really bad ones had a thread of logic (or in Paul Krugman’s case it was just good comic relief). So it was just a little disgusting to see how pathetic crazy people can be and I just needed to vent because there is no way to deal with these people. You can’t fix crazy and I don’t think I could even enjoy taunting these idiots.


1 Comment

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Atheism, Dalai Lama, First Amendment, Paul Krugman is an idiot, People Are Stupid

What exactly are Judeo-Christian Values?

Here’s a question that always bugs me: the phrase “Judeo-Christian values”. Used a lot by the right, but there is a healthy amount of it on the left as well. In fact both sides use the phrase too much. Too too much. I have grown to hate the phrase because I actually know Christianity. I have read three translations of the Bible cover to cover (and some of the New Testament in the original Greek), I have read the Gnostic texts and the Gospels that didn’t make it; I have read the Council decisions of the ancient and medieval world. I have read Augustine, Aquinas, Maimonides, Kierkegaard, C.S. Lewis and a handful of other Christian philosophers. And I can tell you just about any and every value (no matter how contradictory) can be justified at some point in time as a Judeo-Christian value. The phrase Judeo-Christian value is so vague and so nebulous as to mean NOTHING.  But clearly everybody means something when they say it…Hell even atheists like to use the phrase when attacking people.

So I would like to know what are the Judeo-Christian values you all refer to?

I can articulate my spiritual beliefs and how they lead to political ends…can someone please help me figure out what the other side is valuing…

New Age Conservative Values

  • Uniqueness of humanity and the spark of the divine which leads to reason
  • Free will to use that reason is what makes us divine and leads to Liberty
  • Reincarnation and Karma leads to Long Term Thinking
  • Value of Life over the Quantity leads to policy that encourages virtue and opportunity not results.
  • That Enlightenment is the goal of multiple lives which means that happiness is the goal of an individual life.


Filed under Atheism, Conservative, Faith, New Age

In Defense of the Possibility of God

I recently got into an argument with an atheist (it’s not that hard to do, they are not reasonable, are arrogant and think they are reasonable, it’s the perfect recipe for argumentative idiots). The short version of their argument was that I could not prove that God existed, thus such a belief was based on faith, ergo false. There are several problems with this, which my interlocutor did not wish to acknowledge. 1.) That his belief that there is no God wasn’t based on faith, after all he couldn’t prove God didn’t exist, 2.) That faith is not a perfectly logical basis for belief where reason does not offer an answer and 3.) That a lack of definitive proof doesn’t mean that I have no proof for my position. I’ve dealt with the arrogance of atheist faith already. That faith is a legitimate basis for belief where reason offers no answers is obvious as from a just a prima facie case (especially where you need an answer to proceed), but I would like to deal with that third point. Yes I do not a have a perfect argument for existence of God that proves the existence of such an entity that is self-evident once you read it…but I do have evidence that the preponderance of which greatly suggests the existences of something greater than this bag of flesh and bone, and this we call God. And it is this evidence which strongly suggests that something is there is what justifies my faith that fills in the blanks that the evidence cannot.

I’ll begin with the famous argument. The argument by cause. Best recounted in St. Thomas Aquinas’ Five Fold Proof of God (you should read it) it goes something like this: Everything is caused by something else. Where did the egg come from? A chicken laid it. As anyone who knows this problem you quickly reach the problem of an infinite series of chickens and eggs going back for an infinite amount of time or you have to have a first cause. A first cause is something that simply is, always has been, and needs no cause in or of itself. It’s an either or. You either have an infinite series of causes going back for all time (which seems to violate everything we know about physics) or you have a First Cause that exists out of time and out of the physical world. I mean most scientists will go back to the Big Bang as the first cause…but what caused the Big Bang? Same problem comes up when you use all those wonderful multidimensional, quantum mechanic, holographic universe explanations…what started that? Whatever started it we call God.

However while the argument by cause gives a logical reason to believe in some kind of creator, it doesn’t tell us anything about said creator. It could be Cthulhu for all we know.

Further there is a second form of the argument by cause called the argument by design. This argument has been overused by a lot of morons who can’t accept that the modern theory of evolution does explain just about every form of life on Earth all the way from the first cell to highly evolved primates. It explains all the myriad of variations and cool adaptations. Even the weird ones! (Okay the platypus does show God has a sense of humor, but evolution can explain how something like that could be created by natural means). However, evolutionary theory does have two really big problems. The first is that jump from random chemicals to self replicating cell. That’s an infinitely large jump there…and if you go watch Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled it’s endlessly entertaining watching atheists try and explain how only science is needed to make this infinite leap. The other problem that evolution can’t seem to describe is that jump from very bright primate to self-aware homo-sapiens that can think in abstract terms. It’s again another infinite jump science can only explain by saying our self-awareness isn’t all that special (i.e. deny self-evident truths, more on this later). These two massive jumps seem to indicate the presence of something intelligent at the very least had a hand in the first cell and then said “Let there be evolution” and then lent another hand for that spectacular jump between primate and human.

There is also a certain problem of physics. I have been told by friends who are physics majors that the Big Bang does present a bit of a problem for physicists. The problem is that if there had been one-one-billionth of a percent more antimatter created in the bang than there was that the explosion would have driven everything so far apart that nothing would have ever formed together into galaxies, stars, planets, and us and if there had been one-one-billionth of a percent less antimatter created then there would not have been enough energy to drive the universe apart and the whole thing would have collapsed in on itself. I am not a mathematician or physicists so I can’t say with absolute certainty that this is true, but if it is, boy did we hit the interstellar lottery. (Three times, creation of the universe, random chemicals form a functioning cell, jump to self-awareness). Or perhaps there was some intelligent force nudging us in the right direction at the right times. (Oh, if you get in to theoretical physics there is also this problem that time, which relativity teaches us is as fluid as any other dimension, only seems to move forward when there is no particular reason it should…now why would that be?)

So I can suggest existence and intelligence, but is this all I’ve got? Nope.

I have this fascinating thing called near-death experience. I’ve blogged on this before, but here’s a quick recap: Near-death experiences are a fascinating bit of proof. People who have near-death experiences come back with information, about the real world, that occurred at a distance they could know if they were alive (knowing things that occurred miles away) sometimes with knowledge they couldn’t have information to (the blind can come back reporting they’ve seen things, things that can be accurately described and verified) all while they’re brain dead and there are no electrical signals going through any part of their nervous system. Neat trick…or it could be that the soul exists and continues after death. And if there is a soul not bound by death, it certainly suggests something even greater than just the physical universe…like, I don’t know, God.

Then you add in research into reincarnation and past life memory that can’t just be easily dismissed. You add in all those wacky aspects of quantum mechanics which suggest that thought affects reality, which in turn logically suggest thought, like the soul is not bounded by the physical universe. And that research shows prayer does actually have an effect on recovery from disease and surgery. All of this seems to suggest some higher purpose in the whole existence thing doesn’t it?

Put together, I’ll admit that it’s not incontrovertible…but honestly it does seem to suggest that it is likely that something along the lines of God exists. Certainly the evidence seems to lead more to there being something than there being nothing. Certainly it doesn’t indicate which religion’s conception (if any of them) is correct…but atheism seems to be lacking on counter evidence.

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.”


Filed under Atheism, Faith, God, New Age

Why Atheists are pretty much the dumbest people I know…

Now most people who know me know that I have seldom a nice thing to say about liberals in general (in particular people are people and need to be taken on their own merits and actions irrespective of their beliefs). But it may shock some people who know me when I say there is no possible way that liberalism is the dumbest belief out there. That distinction belongs to Atheism, which is without question the single dumbest and most irrational belief in existence.

Now let me state that I’m not attacking the belief that there is no god. That I would describe as atheism (lower case “A”), I have little problem with that (beyond the fact that I think that they’re wrong) but they are entitled to their faith, as I am entitled to mine, and as anyone is entitled to theirs. By Atheism I mean the people who not only hold their belief but feel the need to proselytize and express that their belief is the only rational belief in existence, that all other beliefs are only a sham based on “faith” and not “reason” and that reason somehow dictates that they are right and all others are wrong. By Atheism I mean those people who look down on you when you say you believe in God as if their belief that God does not exist makes them superior. With atheists, you can actually have human dealings with them because they are willing to simply say you’re entitled to your beliefs and I’m entitled to mine; with Atheists, you have to deal with zealotry and arrogance the world seldom sees. And let me explain why they’re morons.

For the purpose of this argument I will concede that there is no logical way to prove the existence of God (I don’t actually believe this, as I find there is nothing logically wrong with St. Thomas Aquinas’s Five-Fold Proof of God, but for the sake of this argument, I’ll temporally concede). But guess what? There is no way you can logically disprove the existence of God. So you can’t prove it, and you can’t disprove it. It’s a blank spot where reason cannot fully illuminate. Thus to fill in this blank spot with the existence of God is called faith; and rightfully so. Faith is a belief for which there is no rationally provable basis. Now faith has often been misapplied and used on areas where reason could easily give us answers, and because faith has been used in places where reason should rule, some of the worst atrocities in history have occurred.

Because of all these atrocities committed in the name of faith, Atheists attack faith because reason is always superior, and faith can lead to evil and belief in God is only an act of faith…hence God and faith must be attacked. Anyone see the logical error here? (Besides the zealotry.) It is logically false to believe that because reason cannot prove the existence of God, then logically, God must not exist. To not believe in God is as much an act of faith as to believe in God. Unless you can prove something is true or false to believe such is an act of faith. Now Atheists will try to attack that statement and say that the burden of proof is always, logically, on the person to prove that something exists, and until then it is assumed to not exist. And they are correct when we are talking about the confines of scientific knowledge and rational discussion. But the reality of the situation, whether God exists or not, has nothing to do with the laws of how a rational argument is formed. Think about it this way, electrons existed for long before anyone even suggested their existence, let alone tried to prove it. Whether you can logically prove something is the case or not has nothing in the world to do with what is or is not. Some things are just true whether you believe them or not, (and I’m sure there are some things out there which are false, but which can at present with our limited knowledge be proven). Argument and reason usually lead to the truth, but they do not dictate metaphysical truth (to do so would be to put the effect, i.e. reason, before the cause, i.e. metaphysical truth). And especially the imperfect knowledge and the imperfect reasoning of humans do not dictate the truth.

So as much as they would like to claim that they are being “reasonable,” Atheists are acting off of faith. Atheists would then claim that it’s not faith because they have their understanding of science to explain everything, and thus we don’t need God to explain anything. This too is logically false because I have yet to hear a scientific fact about what caused the Big Bang (but the Atheists believe that science will one day discover it, and somehow belief here is not an act of faith as it would be in any other context).

One could claim that in reality the only rational people are agnostics since they do not take a leap of faith one way or the other. But actually they’re just gutless wonders who are quite irrational themselves. Reason dictates that ethics are based on metaphysical assumptions (hopefully metaphysical truths), you can’t have a system of ethics without a belief in the underlying metaphysics in the universe (and no matter what Atheists and agnostics say, whether you believe in God or not does radically affect the system of ethics you come up with) thus it is illogical to not take the leap of faith, because to not take a leap of faith one way or another is either to not act ever and at all because you have no standards of ethics or to hypocritically adopt a system of ethics for which you have no rational reason to believe in…other than maybe tradition (but even giving credence relies on a few metaphysical assumptions).

But the worst part is that Atheists have the arrogance to mistake faith for reason, and this is possibly the least logical thing one can do. To follow that up with the zealotry that your religion (and make no mistake as it is based off a tenet of faith, Atheism is a religion) must be held above all others is the very evil and intolerance that they claim they are fighting against—in fact it’s worse as most who believe in God will admit it is because of faith, a basic belief Atheists are too stupid to understand. And it is this little Jihad that Atheists like to carry out in trying to ban religion from all aspects of life, that makes them so damn stupid.

One last thing…Now some might claim that Atheists aren’t on a Holy War against religion, which is preposterous to anyone who watches the news and see lawsuits against Nativity scenes and expression like “Under God.” Or how about this one, the founding fathers weren’t religious men but were in fact Deists (Which in a roundabout way suggest that the Founding Fathers didn’t want religion in the government and thus use that as a proof to get rid of religion in a government whose motto is “In God We Trust”). This has been argued endlessly in other places so I’m just going to go to source material and let you decide. I quote from Benjamin Franklin at the Constitutional Convention as recorded in Madison’s notes on the convention: “In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest..” To read that, you’d have to be beyond an idiot or simply don’t know what Deist means, to say Ben Franklin was a Deist, especially since that last sentence blatantly contradicts every tenet of Deism. Yet it’s in textbook and history lectures and has become “common knowledge” that Ben was a leading Deist of the time. So who is spreading this blatant lie…I don’t think it’s the religious people in the country, and the ambivalent couldn’t care enough to lie…so that leaves who in to run a zealous campaign straight out of an Orwell book?


Filed under Atheism, Faith, God, liberal arrogance, New Age