What if some day or night a demon were to steal into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: “This life as you now live it and have lived it you will have to live once again and innumerable times again; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unspeakably small or great in your life must return to you, all in the same succession and sequence—even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned over again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!” Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: “You are a god, and never have I heard anything more divine.” If this thought gained power over you, as you are it would transform and possibly crush you; the question in each and every thing, “Do you want this again and innumerable times again?” would lie on your actions as the heaviest weight! Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to long for nothing more fervently than for this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?
“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!”
~ Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Q.XVIII (1782)
From one of the very best political/Christian Libertarian/ historical pages on Facebook ‘The Founders,Religion and Government’ Here:
Sir Bob Jones needs to take a good long hard look at himself, and admit that when he scoffs at Christianity, that he (and all Sowers of Atheism) work not as they claim for the betterment of society, but for the destruction of Freedom and morality… Read about that Here:
Fanatical Antichrist Ayn Rand. Megalomaniac.
This quote from Jefferson also exposes the gross delusions of Ayn Rand and her fantical worshippers… their capacity to ignore Reality…
“America was created by men who broke with all political traditions and who originated a system unprecedented in history, relying on nothing but the “unaided” power of their own intellect.” | Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
^^^That is Patently false. Ayn Rand attempts to rob American Libertarianism of it’s Christian foundations, and enthrone Godless ‘Reason’.
She too is a wolf in sheep’s clothing… claiming to be a champion of liberty and rights, while attacking the very foundations of those Ideals.
In his candid biography ‘My life with Ayn Rand’, Her greatest disciple Nathaniel Branden (whom she dubbed ‘John Galt’) admitted she became completely divorced from reality. She was Tyrannical… demanding absolute submission to her dictates.
No room for freedom of thought.
You had the right to follow your own conscience…as long as it was 100% in alignment with their great leaders teachings.
And this is still be the defining trait of Objectivists today.
They have conformed themselves into little imitations… little graven images of their Atheist Deity.
Nathaniel Branden would eventually be caste out and demonized because he wanted to end his sexual/ adulterous relationship with Rand.
Incapible of tollerating such an honest evaluation of their Goddess. The most Rabid Rand worshippers have judged the Brandens as being Diablocal, and say that Ayn Rand was not an all-powerful Cult Leader, but a ‘pure of heart’ victem of the Brandens Cunning…
Intolerant Objectivism is busy strangulating Liberatrain movements around the globe…
Read about the Failure of Objectivist Libertarianism Here:
Read how classical Libertarianism used to care… Here:
The plain and obvious meaning of the words Freedom and Liberty, in common speech, is The power, opportunity, or advantage, that any one has, to do as he pleases. Or in other words, his being free from hindrance or impediment in the way of doing, or conducting in any respect, as he wills. — And the contrary to Liberty, whatever name we call that by, is a person’s being hindered or unable to conduct as he will, or being necessitated to do otherwise.
If this which I have mentioned be the meaning of the word Liberty, in the ordinary use of language; as I trust that none that has ever learned to talk, and is unprejudiced, will deny; then it will follow, that in propriety of speech, neither Liberty, nor its contrary, can properly be ascribed to any being or thing, but that which has such a faculty, power or property, as is called will. For that which is possessed of no will, cannot have any power or opportunity of doing according to its will, nor be necessitated to act contrary to its will, nor be restrained from acting agreeably to it. And therefore to talk of Liberty, or the contrary, as belonging to the very Will itself, is not to speak good sense; if we judge of sense, and nonsense, by the original and proper signification of words.— For the Will itself is not an Agent that has a will: the power of choosing, itself, has not a power of choosing. That which has the power of volition is the man, or the soul, and not the power of volition itself. And he that has the Liberty of doing according to his will, is the Agent who is possessed of the Will; and not the Will which he is possessed of. We say with propriety, that a bird let loose has power and liberty to fly; but not that the bird’s power of flying has a power and Liberty of flying. To be free is the property of an Agent, who is possessed of powers and faculties, as much as to be cunning, valiant, bountiful, or zealous. But these qualities are the properties of persons; and not the properties of properties.
There are two things contrary to what is called Liberty in common speech. One is constraint; otherwise called force, compulsion, and coaction; which is a person’s being necessitated to do a thing contrary to his will. The other is restraint; which is, his being hindered, and not having power to do according to his will. But that which has no will, cannot be the subject of these things.— I need say the less on this bead, Mr. Locke having set the same thing forth, with so great clearness, in his Essay on the Human Understanding.
But one thing more I would observe concerning what is vulgarly called Liberty; namely, that power and opportunity for one to do and conduct as he will, or according to his choice, is all that is meant by it; without taking into the meaning of the word, any thing of the cause of that choice; or at all considering how the person came to have such a volition; whether it was caused by some external motive, or internal habitual bias; whether it was determined by some internal antecedent volition, or whether it happened without a cause; whether it was necessarily connected with something foregoing, or not connected. Let the person come by his choice any how, yet, if he is able, and there is nothing in the way to hinder his pursuing and executing his will, the man is perfectly free, according to, the primary and common notion of freedom.
Are you up for A Careful And Strict Inquiry Into The Modern Prevailing Notions Of That FREEDOM OF WILL Which Is Supposed To Be Essential To Moral Agency, Virtue And Vice, Reward And Punishment, Praise And Blame? Then feel free to come join us at the next meeting of the New Inklings. (Tuesday 30 April, 5:00 pm, Trax Bar and Cafe, Platform 1, Wellington Railway Station.)
Here are a couple of Randroid memes seen recently on Facebook. (Here and here.)
Can you spot the obvious absurdity of these statements? Well, as one Facebook commenter explains
Quoting Ayn Rand is pretty absurd for starters, but “reality” and the consequences of ignoring reality are all part of the same set (reality) so it is making a distinction that doesn’t exist… so it really is saying nothing…
In other words, the consequences (of avoiding reality) are themselves part of reality. Therefore, Ayn Rand is saying that you can avoid reality and that you cannot avoid reality. She has arrived at a contradiction!
Ayn Rand’s work is littered with contradictions. They blend in with their context, so that her followers find them hard to spot. Which is why I bother to point them out. It’s a labour of love.
Ayn Rand was not much of a philosopher, but there’s no denying she had a wicked turn of phrase. This one’s my all-time favourite Rand sound-bite.
To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking. To maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.
Rand has arrived at a contradiction. But we all make errors in our thinking from time to time. So how do I back my claim that Objectivism causes brain damage? Well, to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind … i.e., brain damage. And that’s what Objectivists do. They maintain Rand’s contradiction! You see, Rand never said
You can ignore reality, but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
And she never said
You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.
[Man] is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss [that] he refuses to see.
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
“Alas, Sovereign Lord,” I said, “I do not know how to speak; I am too young.”
But the Lord said to me, “Do not say, ‘I am too young.’ You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you,” declares the Lord.
Then the Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “I have put my words in your mouth. See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant.” (NIV)
My metaphysical model is monism, which means that I believe that there is one reality, and that everything in it is subject to a single set of physical laws (the Standard Model of Physics — until something better comes along). Now, most monists do not believe in miracles. Why? Because the term “miracle” typically denotes something which is supernatural — i.e., something which defies the laws of physics; something which requires that we appeal to metaphysical dualism: the idea that there are two planes of existence; a physical one, and a separate one, a spiritual one, which can override the physical.
The majority of people who believe in the existence of a Deity (or deities) accept some dualistic metaphysical model. I believe in God, and I accept a monistic model. I also believe in miracles. Is this a contradiction? No; but I’ve had to manipulate the concept of “miracle” somewhat.
It has been said: “That which seems miraculous is actually merely the unexplained.”
I consider that statement to be accurate.
I add one twist:
That which is, admittedly, physically explicable, yet is clearly not coincidental must be considered to be miraculous.
The Ten Plagues of Egypt can be explained as a severe natural disaster. Does that mean that it is coincidence that it happened to occur just as the time was right for the Israelis to leave?
The parting of the Red Sea in the book of Exodus has been explained as being the result of comet activity. Does this mean that it is coincidental that it occurred just as it began to look like the children of Israel had their backs against the wall?
When the Israelis arrived at the Promised Land, on two separate occasions, the walls of a city they were attacking spontaneously crumbled at a strategically advantageous moment. This could have easily been the result of seismic activity. Coincidence?
I think not.
What I think is that this entire universe is a magnificent machine, which operates in a flawless, albeit brutal and bittersweet manner.
God does have love for mankind. That’s not to say that He’s very nice. He’s not.
God’s miracles are physical events that He has set into motion long beforehand.
In that sense, inasmuch as God is sovereign, every waking moment that you experience is a clear and present miracle.
Do not squander the beautiful and terrifying miracle that is your life.
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? (NIV)
In comments on Tim’s post, Terry (who is both an Evolutionist and an Objectivist) says
a camera is NOT an eye (nor is an audio recorder an ear, etc). A camera is a piece of equipment used to record images, whereas an eye is an organ of sight. The former mimics the functions of the latter, but apart from that they are worlds apart.
simply because human technology [has] been built so as to mimic certain biological functions does not justify grounds for claiming that the reverse applies and that biology can therefore ‘possibly’ mimic human inventions via the process of evolution. … Evolution is not a creative process – it is an entirely responsive process, which means that new functionality only develops and is maintained in response to the need to survive.
Terry has just committed Objectivism’s “stolen concept” fallacy and violated a fundamental tenet of Evolutionism! Doubleplusungood!
According to Evolutionism, there are no biological functions. The eye, for example, is an organ of sight, but the eye has no purpose. Its function is not to see. It has no function.
According to Evolutionism, there are no biological malfunctions, either. A blind eye, by definition, is not an organ of sight. A blind eye has not malfunctioned, because there is nothing it is supposed to do. An eye has no purpose to be fit for.
If it’s the case that the eye was designed for a purpose, as Creationists claim, then we can say that the function of the eye is to see, and that there is something wrong with an eye that does not see. It ain’t doing what it’s supposed to do, and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. But Evolutionism is quite explicit that no biological organ is designed for any purpose. As Dawkins says
Biology is the study of complicated things which give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose
and, as Terry himself puts it, “Evolution is not a creative process – it is an entirely responsive process.”
Evolution according to Evolutionists is a blind, stochastic process. Any appearance of design, purpose or function is just an appearance. The reason that we have eyes that see is simply because having eyes that see helped our ancestors to survive. But eyes do not, in virtue of their evolutionary history, ever acquire a purpose or a proper function.
All talk of biological functions is pre-Darwinian. Consistent Evolutionists should not talk of biological functions. If they do, they must explain that their use of the word ‘function’ is just shorthand for facts about an organism’s evolutionary history. If they don’t, they are guilty of Ayn Rand’s stolen concept fallacy.
The “stolen concept” fallacy, first identified by Ayn Rand, is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends.
The concepts of ‘function’ and ‘purpose’ logically depend on the concept of a Creator. They are pre-Darwinian. Evolutionists have no right to use them.
“…Extrasensory perception (ESP) involves reception of information not gained through the recognized physical senses but sensed with the mind…”
From Wikipedia here:
I was inspired to write it in response to an atheist friend of mine whom suggested in the comments/ discussion following after the above Blogpost on Russell’s teapot that because A Flew expressed belief in ESP that this was a clear indication he was of dull intellect.
Now I don’t believe Humans have ‘ESP’, yet I don’t discount the possibility that there may be modes… ‘some completely natural’… of sensing things which in the current state of scientific knowledge we are currently completely oblivious to. Others could be ‘spiritual’ powers…like free will.
Of course it is exactly statements like that which cause ‘rationalists’ like my friend to pour scorn against anyone whom suggests things like ESP, or any ‘spiritual powers’ at all may be possible.
Let me place a caveat on my position as enumerated above.
I don’t believe humanity has or ever will develop a ‘Naturalistic’ ESP… why? * because I don’t believe in Evolution!*
To my way of thinking it is the Atheist Evolutionist whom ought not to doubt the possibility of Humans having/ or developing a naturalistic form of ESP as by my reckoning their wild theory seems to give room for every fantastic myth conceivable!
To appreciate this it is only necessary to apprehend just how fantastic are the claims of evolutionists Re the Evolution of Man from a single celled organism.
Let me explain.
Ever seen an X men movie?
All those Fantastic characters… mutants whom are Super-human and have ‘special powers’… but not spiritual powers… they are all advanced Bio tek.
That is what evolution is all about!
Lets talk ‘Naturalistic ESP’.
Now Evolutionists believe that a protozoa type organism slowly developed into the human animal with the five senses, taste, sound, touch, sight, smell… all via the inexorable march of Evolutionary process/progress.
On that basis I cannot see how my friend can insist that an atheist whom claimed decades ago to believe in ESP is some how being ridiculously inconsistent with Naturalistic theory *unless my friend assumes Evolution’ has already exhausted all the possibilities.* …yet it is easy to cast doubt upon this.
I believe I can expose his own inconsistency and in the process expose just how silly belief in evolution really is.
Consider these things…
An ear is a microphone.
An eye is a Camera lens.
A nose and mouth are chemical detectors
An hand is a load scale, temperature probe, and compression tester.
Animals have various other senses too eg lateral lines and sonar/radar etc,
My Atheist friend claims unguided ‘Evolution’ designed and built all these Bio tek instruments.
I ask why then he would doubt that evolution has not/ could not also build a biological ‘wireless cell phone/ ‘walky talky’ like device/system’ directly into our Brains so that we could mentally communicate at a vast distance…without speech?… ie a form of ‘Natural’ ESP?
We do today know that such communication is possible via external devices… a reality which not too many generations ago would have been considered ridiculously impossible!
Obviously a race of X human beings with a Bio wireless telecomunication system would have a superior survival advantage over ordinary human beings.
We must ask why ‘Evolution’ which is… Or so we are told… obsessed with ‘Survival’ has not bothered to supply us which such kit?
All evolution has to do is install such a devise inside our bodies and hey presto we have ESP!… not that difficult to grasp… if as you claim Evolution is capable of ‘upgrading a lifeform from a Germ into a human being!
The crux of my arguement is that if you balk at the idea of Evolution creating ‘Bio-cell phones’ then you must also question the rationale that evolution could create sight, sound, taste, etc… for the very same reason.
Ie because these are incredibly sophisticated ‘gadgets’ too!
Thus the evolutionist position really is that Si-fi movies like X Men are believable!
I ask what freakish creatures… via Evolution…are we destined to become?
An atheist whom balks at the Idea of ESP exposes the simplistic level on which they function. ie They redily will tell you it is rational to believe that evolution is capable of installing Cameras… but irrational to suggest it might install cellphones!
Spot the contradiction!???
Does my friend believe Mankind has reached the Zenith of evolution?
Now for some Funny Evolutionary Theory… Our X-Men Post-Religious future! 😀
Obviously I am not suggesting this video is anything other than a ridiculous fraud… what I’m highlighting *is the Atheist evolutionary myth* upon which it is based… is precisely what Atheist believe.
Its funny because Evolutionists actually *Believe this sort of stuff*… yet mock Theists faith in God!
Think about this…. They believe we came from Non-Theistic sub-creatures… evolved into what we are now, whom have been described as ‘The Worshiping Animals’… which they theorise as though being delusional Fables… non-the-less this trait must have had ‘survival advantages’… yet still they insist that Atheism is an ‘Enlightenment’…a progressive step away from ‘Primitive superstition’… so that ‘in the future’ Humanity will abandon ‘all religious superstition’… and be in atheist thinking ‘Fully rational’… fully knowing… without faith… etc etc… so by their reasoning Atheism both Precedes and Follows Theistic faith… all by the blind forces of Nature!
Talk about a Dung pile of Materialist Fables and superstitions!
It is the theistic position which makes the X men movie an absurdity.
Theism says *Evolution is a Joke!*, and that the blind forces of Nature cannot create life… cannot design new Gadgets/ senses/ biological capacities, etc, and thus the only way a human being could have any form of Naturalistic ESP is if our Creator designed and installed such Gadgetry into our bodies via writing it directly into our DNA… just as he has done with our Eyes, Ears, Etc…all of which are irrefutible testaments to the existance of God!
“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:’
St Paul. Romans 1:20
Tim Wikiriwhi
King James Bible believer.
Libertarian. Dispensationalist.
“Theistic Faith is Optimistic and springs from a Possiblity Thinker, whereas Atheistic doubt is Pessimistic and springs from an Impossiblity thinker”. Robert Schuller Senior.
