In a footnote to his paperGod and Objectivism: A Critique of Objectivist Philosophy of Religion published in JARS, Stephen Parrish says
I find it difficult to ascertain exactly what Objectivists believe about the mind and the body. They reject substance dualism, yet also reject any sort of reductionism. It seems to me that their view of the mind-body relation is a sort of nonreductive physicalism. In this view, what really exists is matter—specifically, the brain, and the mind supervenes on, or is realized by the brain. This means that the mind does not exist apart from the brain, but cannot be reduced to it, by which it is meant that it cannot be totally explained in terms of the physical makeup of the brain. Writes William Thomas (n.d.a) on the mind-body relation:
What we call the mind is the set of capacities to be aware, to perceive the world, to think about it, to feel, to value, to make choices. How do these capacities arise? In many respects, the answer to that question must come from science, not philosophy. But everything we know indicates that they are the product of biological evolution and that they depend on our physical sense organs and brain, as well as on the many other support structures that the body provides.
Even the above, is not all that clear and could be interpreted in terms of either property dualism or nonreductive physicalism. I think that the latter fits in better with the overall picture of reality that Objectivists espouse. Actually, the mind-body problem is another area in which Objectivists need to work. …
Get to work, Objectivists!
Tell me, do you accept or reject substrate independence? Substrate independence is the claim that
conscious minds could in principle be implemented not only on carbon-based biological neurons (such as those inside your head) but also on some other computational substrate such as silicon-based processors.
In other words
what allows you to have conscious experiences is not the fact that your brain is made of squishy, biological matter but rather that it implements a certain computational architecture.
In my post on Monday last week I featured Mark Hubbard’s letter to the editor of The Press re Ken Orr of Right to Life re voluntary euthanasia. This was Ken Orr’s reply.
In reply to Mark Hubbard, we don’t own our lives – they are a gift from God. We are the custodians of that gift. The foundation stone of a civilised society is the social contract that we have that requires us to respect and protect the lives of every member of the community from conception to natural death. Our laws should uphold that social contract. The taking of a life is a grave injustice. There is no human right recognised by any United Nations Convention that would permit doctors to kill their patients or assist their suicide. Parliament would be in dereliction of its duty to society by violating this social contract and legislating to allow for euthanasia. Advocates of euthanasia are asking the rest of society to accept the collective guilt for taking of life. Euthanasia would result, as in Holland, in many others being deprived of their lives without their consent.
Let’s take a closer look.
we don’t own our lives – they are a gift from God. We are the custodians of that gift.
I already fielded this one. Your custodianship of your life means that voluntary euthanasia is acceptable under some circumstances, viz., those circumstances under which it is desirable.
You don’t own your life. God does. Your life is God’s property and He’s entrusted it to you. You are His servant. … God gave me – not you, not anyone else, and most certainly not the state – custodianship of my life. So it is up to me what I do with it.
And here’s what Ken Orr has to say on his website.
Euthanasia is allowing doctors to kill their patients or to assist in their suicide. This is not a religious issue, as some might suggest
So why mention that our lives are a gift from God in the first place?
The foundation stone of a civilised society is the social contract that we have that requires us to respect and protect the lives of every member of the community from conception to natural death. Our laws should uphold that social contract.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that the foundation stone of a civilised society is the social contract, and assume that this social contract is worth more than the paper it isn’t written on. What’s in the contract? Not a requirement to respect and protect the lives of every member of the community, but a requirement to respect and protect the right to life of every member of the community. There’s a world of difference between a right to a thing, and the thing itself.
Advocates of euthanasia are asking the rest of society to accept the collective guilt for taking of life.
I can’t see how Orr came to this conclusion. Collective guilt? What about individual freedom and personal responsibility?!
On his Right To Life website Ken Orr quotes from a press release on euthanasia from the Inter Church Bioethics Council.
Ethically, there is a significant difference between actively/assisting in killing another person and withdrawing (or with-holding) treatment so that the person dies as a result of their illness.
In both situations the intent of the action is critical. In forms of euthanasia, the intent is to relieve suffering by killing. By contrast, when treatment is futile and is stopped or withheld, palliative care given by skilled professionals who address the pain and suffering caused by terminal illness, provides the best means to respond compassionately to terminal illness and suffering. The intention here is to address the many needs of the suffering person and their family, and to enable a dignified pain-free death. Another ethical consideration is that health care professionals are trained and trusted to promote health and well being and provide appropriate treatment for the living and dying. They are trusted not to cause death.
At the outset, we should define what is euthanasia. Euthanasia is allowing doctors to kill their patients or to assist in their suicide. … Euthanasia is not the withholding or withdrawing of treatment from a patient who is in a terminal condition when that treatment would be futile or burdensome. It is also not euthanasia for a doctor to administer medication for the purpose of pain relief to a patient when it may also have the effect of shortening the patient’s life; this constitutes good palliative care. The objective is to relieve pain and suffering, not shorten the life of the patient.
Dying and in pain and wishing you were gone? Ask your doctor “to enable a dignified pain-free death.” Insist on “good palliative care”!
Barely a week goes by that I don’t encounter some absolute drivel that exposes the absolutely un-scientific/Superstitious nature of the theory of Evolution.
Such is the scale of the delusion that I have decided to make an ongoing series of Blog posts dedicated to expose one by one the endless claims made by Evolutionists… in their vain attempts to explain the mechanisms by which they believe this ‘Blind Watchmaker’ operates.
By doing so I hope to propagate Faith in the literal Genesis record…esp its Principle of genetics… ‘Kind after its Kind’ as being 100% Scientifically reliable.
The Bible is not anti-reason, or Anti-science, but Anti-Folly and St Paul warns Christians to beware “Science falsely so called”. Why? Because Science poses itself to be an abiter of truth, and a means whereby we are supposed to be able to test the claims of various beliefs… and so via poor reasoning and a zeal to discredit the scriptures Pseudo-science has from the very beginning made claims that the Bible is at variance with scientific reality.
Thus it is essential that the Christian is not deceived by Bogus/ falce science into thinking the scriptures are unreliable, and full of Human invented myth… but are indeed trustworthy… Divine Truth.
Tonight I want to mention a typical example of the sort of tripe that gets swallowed by the average atheist in regards to their Blind Superstitious belief that evolution is true… I was listening to the Radio at work and a DJ was telling a story about how some Vegetarians had lobbied against a Meat eaters ad because they said it was demeaning to vegetarians. With the intension of slagging these Vegos the DJ proceeded to say that “Scientists” say that it was when ‘Apes’ moved away from their pure diet of vegitation towards *eating meat*, that this is what transformed them from Tree Dwelling simpletons into Human super beings that dominated the whole planet!
Now I used to be an evolutionist myself and once upon a time I would have had no problem accepting that claim as being valid. I would not have questioned it at any point… it would have appeared quite believable to me… esp because it eminated from Men in white Overcoats with heaps of University degrees!
To me that was the sane thing to believe… because a Scientist made the claim. It was the most Modern concept, and that to reject it in favour of archaic religion was the Hallmark of a Ludite.
What is miraculous is that somehow God was able to break though this strong delusion I was under and show me just how empty such claims are.
Let me here and now state *There is No science* behind this claim that changing diet from strict vegetation to an omnivorous diet has the power to genetically modify apes into human beings over the process of time. That is 100% conjecture! That claim is as vacuous, and as devoid of valid science as claiming Life originated here on earth via debris or alien visitation from space!
That is how wild it is. That is how whimsical it is!
This example is a typical scenario from which the whole theory of evolution is built!
Evolution is not Valid science. There is no Law of Evolution. It is a superstition dressed up in scientific jargon designed to deceive Humanity into dis-believing the truthfulness and reliability of Bible.
Its as simple as that.
Important Note: We live in an age of Pseudo-science. It is the new religion. Everything from Food to Children are Marketed to us via claims of the most up-to date scientific endorsement. Science has proven Meat, Coffee, eggs are Bad for you. Science has proven Meat, Coffee, Eggs are good for you! BLAR BLAR BLAR! Every Tosser whom gains a research grant discovers they were right! (No matter how ridiculous) Most People cannot distinguish what is legitimate from what is shameful and erroneous conjecture! Heed St Paul and “Beware science Falsely so called!”
(1Tim6vs20) Tim Wikiriwhi
Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have departed from the faith.
One of the Biggest lies that Socialists have propagated is that that Socialism is all about fairness and equality. This would be the number 1 argument they use to fool the herds of ignorant peasant workers into supporting their cause.
They argue that Capitalism is about Fat Cats living large on the sweat and toil of the working class and that If only they (The benevolent socialists) can seize power they will end this Extortion and usher in an era of Justice and plenty.
They must mean Plenty… for themselves!
You would think that after nearly a century of Socialism of all shapes and colours and their devastatng trail of mass murders, tyranny, poverty, Bankruptcies, etc that even the most ‘intellectually challenged’ of sheeple would have figured out by now that socialism is Bogus, and that all Socialist politicians are either Brain dead Idiots themselves, or scheming forked tongued Blood sucking self aggrandising Power trippers… yet Somehow the penny never seems to drop.
What is the verdict of History regarding the promises of Socialism to remove Greed and wealth inequalities?
What in reality has been the fruit of it?
It has been said by those whom were there that the Oppression of the Autocratic Czar of Russia was far less in magnitude that that which was inflicted upon the subjects of the Communist USSR, by the Communists whom claimed their revolution was for the sake of the Working Class.
More recent examples would be King Jong ill, of North Korea and Comrade Mugabe of Zimbabwe.
Both these Socialists claim/claimed to be Champions of the Working class, yet in reality murdered them like flies, and Raped them… all the while themselves living in extreme luxury, and having fleeced their own Nations were/are reported to be among the most Mega rich people on Earth. Today Millions of North Koreans and Zimbabweans wallow in dire Poverty.
Lord Actons Dictum “Power tends to corrupt, and Absolute power corrupts absolutely” seems to apply with greater weight to Socialist dictators than any other.
Yet these Major League Arseholes are not what motivated this post.
I am more concerned with the Bullshit that is currently happening in Western Social democratic States, like ours which prove that Nanny state Socialism does not create a society of Benevolent self sacrifice and service to the public weal either, but does the very opposite… it creates an upper class of Greedy Elites whom grow Fat via feeding from the Public trough!
Reading the NZ Herald over the last few Days ought to be enough for anyone to grasp the reality that Socialism is a Big Fat Lie!
Monday March 26 a front page article appeared called:
‘Public CEOs hit Paydirt’… read on…
“Public organisations have paid about $90 million to their chief executives in a year – with some receiving rises of more than 20 per cent, and one getting a 55 per cent increase.
Public bosses received an average $340,000 each in the last financial year – up $14,000 (4.3 per cent) on the previous year. The median income in New Zealand from wages and salaries during the same period increased $1600 (4 per cent) to $41,600.
But some chief executives received rises far in excess of these percentages, according to a Herald survey of about 300 Crown entities, councils, state-owned enterprises and other organisations in the public sector.
The best-paid chief executives were from state-owned energy companies.
Mighty River Power, Solid Energy, Meridian Energy and Genesis Power all paid their CEOs more than $1 million. Big rises took their deals to more than $5.5 million combined.
Mighty River increased its chief executive’s pay by 34 per cent, or $450,000, to $1.8 million. Most of the increase resulted from the company meeting performance targets.
Read rest of article here: Public CEOs enjoy big pay hikes.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10794629
Another article appeared in the NZ herald the day before that is in the same vein:
Maori TV Chiefs on Arctic expedition.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10794830
Socialism is all about Wealth and power. Not the wellbeing of Maori, nor for Public good.
That they attempt to justify this Gluttony by sighting ‘Market rates’ is a confession that they (the socialists) expect the same self-interest gains as Capitalists… thus exposing the lie that socialist/ nationalisation of industries is about saving ‘the little people from Greed.
If anything Socialists display an even more insipid greed than that which is found in the shameless Business school elite and the Top heavy Fat Bonus system of private sector corporate executives because of the Socialists blatant lies and hypocrisy and because they employ political oppression to create and maintain themselves in a higher echelon.
Socialism is no cure for Greed, but a very malicious form of it. It does not close the Gap between rich and poor but institutionalises it!
Will you Numbskulls please do me a favour? *STOP VOTING FOR IT!*
Tim Wikiriwhi. Libertarian Christian.
Live for this, Live, Live
Live for this
Live for this, Live, Live
If you don’t live for something you’ll die for nothing
Through the best and the worst
The struggle, the sacrifice
For the true who’ve remained and the new blood
Motivation, undying allegiance
Striving through the hardship and affliction
Every drop of blood
Every bitter tear
Every bead of sweat
I live for this
Live for this, Live, Live
Live for this
Live for this, Live, Live
If you don’t live for something you’ll die for nothing
What we have are not possessions we own
It’s not weighed by greed or personal gain
This is real, a desire for freedom
A place apart from a world in abandon
Every drop of blood
Every bitter tear
Every bead of sweat
I live for this
Live for this, Live, Live
Live for this, Live, Live
Live for this, Live, Live
If you don’t live for something you’ll die for nothing
Live for this, Live, Live
Live for this
Live for this, Live, Live
‘Love your neighbour as yourself’ is a utilitarian moral principle. To love someone is to value their happiness. To love your neighbour is to value, as Bentham put it, ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number’. To love your neighbour as yourself is to heed Bentham’s dictum, ‘each to count for one, and none for more than one’.”
This gives the lie to claims that Christian morality is a species of altruism. It’s obviously not.
Now consider
Laugh at your neighbour as yourself.
and its corollary
Laugh at yourself as your neighbour.
Would Jesus approve this message? I think he would. He was not past poking fun at his own disciples on occasion. Of course, I think Jesus was more a “laugh with you” than a “laugh at you” kind of a guy. But Jesus can’t laugh with you if you don’t get the joke. So practise laughing at yourself. In the words of Dame Edna Everage
Never be afraid to laugh at yourself. After all, you could be missing out on the joke of the century.
Compare and contrast Dame Edna’s advice with the advice of another famous dame.
Humor is the denial of metaphysical importance to that which you laugh at. … If what you are laughing at is the evil in the world (provided that you take it seriously, but occasionally you permit yourself to laugh at it), that’s fine. [To] laugh at that which is good, at heroes, at values, and above all at yourself [is] monstrous . . . . The worst evil that you can do, psychologically, is to laugh at yourself. That means spitting in your own face.
No sense of humour. How about a sense of life instead?
I’m running, yet no matter how wildly my legs flail about… I cant get traction.
I just cant seem to awaken from this nightmare!
The problem is I’m not dreaming. This shit is real.
So the Jury could not find Tame Iti and Co Guilty of anything more serious than possession of illegal fire arms. Why do you think the defence fought tooth and nail for trial by jury? The reality is that after Decades of Anti-Colonial Propaganda and indoctrination, it would have been a miracle to have found a jury that has not been corrupted by the delusion that Tame Iti is a member of a race of Victims of injustice and oppression… Ya know Maori violence, Crime, unemployment, and ill health…is all the White Mother fuckers fault …according to Mana MP John Harawera,… They executed a Holocaust upon Maori and stole all their land…according to Maori Party MP Turiana Turia.
New Zealanders believe this rubbish and obviously so did some of the Micky mouse Jurors who have allowed the dangerous Racist radical Tame Iti to reamian at large when he should be in Jail… for a very long time. If he had been a White power racist with Guns…waiving a swastika instead of the Maori sovereignty flag… they would have been convicted. I don’t hold out much hope of the people of New Zealand getting justice from a retrial either… because Getting an untainted Jury will be next to impossible… so thoroughly indoctrinated are the sheeple.
True to form, without shame…. without blinking…. he now has the gaul to pretend that he is a peaceful man…yet again the innocent victim of an oppressive Pakeha Government! Well what do you expect From this professional Victim?
He is a master of the violin… and oh how the chumps all swoon.
Maori victimism is an Artform and Tame Iti is a Master Fiddler!
Tapu Misa wrote an article in the NZ Herald today painting Iti as at worst ‘ A bumbling baffoon… “A master of theatre”… playing down the seriousness of what these hate filled racists was doing by joking about his childish antics of the past such as Butt waving, and shooting the flag… She poses the Question…
” Could they have “organised” anything, much less posed a threat to New Zealand society?”
I would like to pose her another question… “Ought the police have waited until they had murdered some one before they moved in?”
It is sickening that she minimalises the grave nature of the business that Tami iti and co were about, as it matters little that they were doomed to failure… they still could have killed many people. They had the Guns to do it. They were recruiting and practicing terrorist activities… It is Disgusting that people like her refuse to see the obvious truth which is Tame Iti and his Gang Of Racist Green Radicals are very dangerous criminals whom were planning Violent ‘Direct action’.
Tapu Misa has obviously has forgotten how much damage one madman caused in Norway recently!
And I knew this type of violence was coming!
I have published articles warning that the continued propagation of racist Anti-colonial lies would lead to greater race relation problems and escalating violence.
*I warned New Zealanders about Tame Iti when he went to Fiji to support George Speight!
So don’t tell me that The Maori separatists and Radical Tree huggers are not Dangerous!
But nobody listens… What is left for me to do?
All I can do is continue to call New Zealanders…esp Maori New Zealanders to realise the Evils of Racial separatism and to stand as one… calling for an end to Waitangi Apartheid and make New Zealand a nation of racial equality before the Law.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10794585
http://www.blogger.com/profile/01304303649328535925
(An example of an anti- colonialist anticapitalist pro indigenous rights self professing revolutionary (Like tame iti) …whose favourite books include… Communiques of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation January-August 1996, Durutti in the Spanish Revolution by Abe Paz, Guerilla Warfare a method by Che Guevara
This is the ninth in a 13-part series wherein I give you Hell, a little booklet by the inimitable Dr. Jeff Obadiah Simmonds.
Having said that humans are not inherently immortal, and only possess immortality if it is bestowed upon them by God, the Bible does indicate that there will be a resurrection of the dead—not only of the righteous, but also of the unrighteous—and that there will be a final Judgement.
“Those who have done good will rise to live, but those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.” (Jn 5.29)
The book of Revelation also describes the final judgement:
The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the Second Death. If anyone’s name was not written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Rev 20.13-14)
The Second Death is best understood as extinction or annihilation. While the lake of fire itself is described as a never ending fire, there is no indication that those who are thrown into it will be eternally tormented. The exception is the devil, the beast and the false prophet who are thrown into the lake of burning sulphur and “will be tormented day and night for ever and ever” (Rev 20.10)
Prior to the resurrection of the dead and the last judgement, the dead are said to dwell in a shadowy abode called Sheol (in the Hebrew Old Testament) and Hades (in the Greek New Testament). It is said that Jesus descended into Hades after His death—that is, not into hell, but into the underworld.
The story of Lazarus and the rich man (Lk 16.19-31) refers to Hades. Lazarus is in paradise, while the rich man suffers in Hades. This story, more than any other, is used by opponents of annihilationism to indicate that the wicked suffer eternal torment. The story raises a number of questions: is the story a parable or an account of an actual event? Are we to understand it literally or metaphorically?
This story is in the context of a number of parables—the lost sheep, the pieces of silver, the prodigal son, the unjust steward and the rich man and Lazarus. Both the story about the rich man and Lazarus and the parable immediately before it, the unjust steward, begin with the same words: “There was a certain rich man…” (Lk 16.1, 19)
I am more inclined to see this as a parable, and therefore as a symbolic story rather than an account of an “historical” event in the afterlife. However, even if we were to understand it literally, we may note that Hades is the abode of the dead until the last judgement, and therefore the rich man’s condition is not (necessarily) eternal. After the resurrection of the dead, we may surmise, Lazarus will be raised to life and the rich man will be raised to condemnation, thrown into the lake of fire, and annihilated.
When we read any part of the Bible we must ask what the author’s point is. It is not legitimate to read a meaning into the story which the author did not intend. We may ask, then, if Jesus’ purpose was to describe in literal terms the condition of the afterlife, or if He was making another point. I would suggest that the intended message is twofold: firstly, that those who oppress the poor and needy now will, in the future, receive punishment, while those who are afflicted now will be comforted and receive a good reward. This is true regardless of whether we think of hell as torture or annihilation. Secondly, the point is that “if they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead” (Lk 16.31). The question has to do with what will convince the Pharisees of the truth of Jesus’ claims—miracles and even resurrections will not suffice. Probably, the purpose of the story is not to give a realistic description of the eternal destiny of the wicked.
However, it would be dangerous to build a doctrine of eternal punishment on a parable, especially when there is no indication that the rich man is being eternally punished. If anything, the parable is about the condition of the wicked prior to the final judgement.
