Live Chat with moronic globalist and history revisionist Richard Dawkins

[mystic]

I've been meaning to write a post like this for a long time. There was someone that was interviewed on Alex Jones' show a week or so ago that gave us this new "insider information" where every time he spoke, he prefixed all of his "info" with, "I am so grateful by the power of god that I can give you this information today" and several other similar comments. I cringed, but let it go.

Now, I just watched "Fall of America", and most of the DVD set is great. There is one speaker on here though that I simply cannot agree with, and his name is Joseph Farah. I can't sit idly by any more. I have to say something.

Joseph comments that people no longer know the difference between right and wrong - the moral from the immoral - and he would be right. When people see all levels of government become as corrupt as they are and think it's okay, we have a serious philosophical problem in our country. I can and do agree with Joseph Farah on this point.

However, Joseph Farah makes several errors in his statements and I want to bring them to light.

For example, Joseph makes the claim that we need to get our morals from "god". Even further, he clarifies that it must be the 'judeo-christian god', and that we should be a nation unified under these principles (exceeding those in the constitution).

There are many problems with such a statement. For one, if you take him at his word - literally - he wants a nation that does not allow for dissenting views. Freedom of religion... and separation of church and state... are very AMERICAN values. In order to be a free country, you have to tolerate pluralistic views, even if you don't agree with them. It is a cost of freedom. You cannot have freedom to make money, keep your property and your earnings... but not have freedom to choose your own god or philosophy. Frankly, what he says is dangerous.

Without getting into the discussion of, "Does god exist?" (we'll get into this in a moment) - I also want to point out that you can define right and wrong without the existence of god. To put it simply: He is wrong.

Ayn Rand, for example, went into great length and with remarkably clarity as to how you can logically define what is good from evil, and consequently, what is moral from what isn't. It's really quite simple. To summarize: Life is the ultimate value for a living orgasm... and that which furthers life is good, and that which destroys, threatens, negates, etc. life is evil. It's remarkably simply, and it's also remarkably true.

She goes on to demonstrates what natural rights you have, and builds an entire political foundation on such rights. She concludes that free market capitalism is the only moral form government that is moral, because all others would trample on individual rights, and threaten, destroy, negate, etc. life.

Clearly Mr. Farah hasn't read any of her work. This is obvious. There are not very many people who loved freedom and believed in individual rights more than Ayn Rand in our entire nation's history that I can think of.

One of the things that make Ayn Rand's work so great is that while our founding fathers understood freedom and rights of the individual deeply, Ayn Rand was the first person to prove why they were right. She doesn't assume that free market capitalism is the best government, and then sets out to prove it. She doesn't assume that freedom and individual rights are moral, and then sets out to prove it. No... she starts from the most basic of axioms and builds an entire philosophy from the ground up. As she does this, she discovers - in the same way scientists discovered the elements on a periodic table - that free market capitalism and liberty are good, and that collectivism and slavery were evil.

She showed the world that you can logically derive what is moral from what is immoral without god at all. The whole notion of god doesn't enter her equation, because all of her work is based on facts and reality.

Unfortunately for Joseph Farah, he assumes that god exists, and then assumes that what god allegedly says is "good", and then builds his case from there. This is all wrong.

On the last disk - the survival guide - Joseph Farah actually says we need to actively pray for a miracle. I just shut the dvd off. That statement was totally absurd. Effects happen as a result of nature, or by the causes of man. If something changes - like the bums in Washington actually get kicked out - it's because someone did something about it. They aren't just going to walk up and leave because we prayed for it to happen.

In George Washington's case... he was too annoying and cost the British too much money and resources to make it worth their while to stay. His militia won because they simply endured longer than the British did. 'god' had nothing to do with it.

It is a sad - and dangerous - state of affairs where we desire our nation to be ruled by logic, reason and liberty... but abandon those values and adopt faith whenever it's convenient to use god to make our points and explain our justifications.  It's really disturbing, frankly.

Faith is the direct opposite of logic. Faith in something that does not exist is destructive to the human mind, and is on par with being in denial about what is actually happening to our country. It is also on par with believing in the propaganda and lies spewed by the mainstream media and our government. Believing in lies and untruths and non-facts does not help our survival and further life - but rather, it seeks to destroy our life. By definition, it is evil.

There is not even a single shred of evidence to suggest that god exists, let alone that such a being actually wrote the stuff in the bible and that he said those things. In fact, logically, there are so many ways to disprove the notion of god (infinite regressions, violation of the primal axioms of existence, etc.) that I am surprised that people haven't thrown the idea of god out by now. There is not even a single shred of evidence to suggest that the existence of god is "a probability" or even "a possibility". There just isn't any evidence at all. Heck, there wasn't even a reason to create a definition for it in the first place, as the entire notion of god is an anti-concept.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that we can't have our cake and eat it too. You can't have a truly free world ruled by sanity and logic, and on the other hand, say that god is required to bring this about, or that this new nation we plan on building for ourselves is to be directed by god's morals. The whole notion of this is totally absurd.

Joseph Farah claims that secularism is a big part of our problems today, and he's totally wrong on that point. If anything, secularism is part of the solution. Just imagine all the wars we can avoid if we don't have to do them because of "god's will!" Just imagine all the voters who won't blindly vote for Republicans because of these phony pro-life/pro-choice debates. Just imagine actually having electable politicians that don't have to lie about their faith to even have a shot at being elected, regardless of how good their policies will be. And imagine a nation that is so free, that we have all the room in the world to think and live as we choose and are not forced to live by the morals of 'being' that some people don't even believe exists.

If you don't believe anything I said, at least give Ayn Rand a try, approach her work with an active mind and I'm sure she will convince you - not with feelings or faith - but with the only valid form of cognition available to us - REASON.

Thanks for listening.

[citizenx]

For me, personally, it's very simple:

Do not treat others as means to an end, but rather than as ends-in-themselves.

The Kantian thing.

The elite hate it, on the "left" and on the "right". Our would-be Machiavellian masters of all stripes hate it. Therefore, I love it.  I have made it the cornerstone of my ethics, my morality.

Don't know that much about Ayn Rand.  Don't think I need to.

You are right, though, that you don't need revealed morality from God to have morality.

If we treat other people as end-in-themselves we will never take away from them their rights as human beings to determine the course of their own life and  we will never hinder them from doing so.  No, ethics do not require a God, though they may indeed stand as evidence of a divinty which, in the words of the bard, "shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will."

Anyway, welcome to the forum.

Fundies arriving to try to drown you/burn you at the stake in 1,2,3...

Keep up the good fight.

CX



P.S. One of my best buds in the Army had "Mystic" in the place of his religion on his dog-tags.

Mine said simply, "No Religious Preference"

[mystic]

Hehe, the fundamentalists can definitely come at me. Logic and Reason are at my side. Let them come

If you are into philosophy, reading Ayn Rand's work will be very rewarding. Her fiction books are incredible. Atlus Shrugged in particular practically predicts what has happened in the last 10 years and what is happening now, but she goes very deep into the philosophical reasons on how this happened. It's a very good book. All of her fiction and non-fiction books are great.

Ayn Rand makes fantastic arguments for why it is not in your rational self-interest to violate the rights of others. To my knowledge, she's the only one to do this. Her philosophy is greatly compatible with the US constitution. In fact, the United States was the closest thing in history to resemble what Ayn Rand would consider a moral society, although it was never perfect and always had some elements of a mixed economy.

Still, she saw what was happening to the country, and spoke out against it. She's not clairvoyant, but her logic is spot on. She took the little kernels of bad ideas/philosophies that were affecting the country in the mid-1900's and used logic to show where they would lead us. She was right. Her work is more relevant now than it was when she wrote it, because now people can see it and believe it.

I am surprised Alex Jones does not reference her more. I hardly hear him talk about her, although her ideas and the core tenants of libertarianism are largely attributed to her.

I am not a fan of Kant though. He said too many things that I know are not true and put me off.


PS: The name is a total joke as it's precisely the thing I am fighting against

[Red7Paladin]

Show me a world without Christianity, and I'll show you a world that never dreamed of freedom from tyranny.

[Red7Paladin]

And btw, evil is not rational or logical.  Only perfect goodness is truly logical.  Since no one is perfect, and most people fall far short of the standard for righteousness presented in the Bible (for example), expecting the majority to behave in a consistently rational manner is a total fantasy.

[citizenx]

Weishaupt and his brethren hated Kant and Kantianism for exactly the reasons I've outlined.

That's enough "reason" for me.

BTW, it's a good Scottish name and it doesn't mean "Can't".

Possibly the most "able" philosopher to ever live.

But, anyway, as you see:  we are not all fundies around here.  AJ is a "Christian" and that's all right by me, too. So long as people are fighting for freedom, I'm on the same side.

[Djævlen]

great post mystic. I couldn't agree more......Ayn Rand has been a big influence on my personal philosophy on life, freedom, reality and such.

[mystic]

Show me a world without Christianity, and I'll show you a world that never dreamed of freedom from tyranny.

This statement doesn't mean anything. Frankly, we already know that a world with Christianity is a world with tyranny. George Bush often used his religion to rally the people to his false cause. They just blindly followed him.

Napoleon knew god didn't exist, but he used it anyway because the people liked it, and thought it was a way to get the people behind him.

Hitler was actually a Christian. Not only is this stated in Mein Kampf, there are tons of other facts available that prove this (his relationship with the pope, his dealings with the church, religious laws, etc.), especially surrounding the holocaust. It is a common fallacy that people believe Hilter was an atheist.

But none of this matters. Using logic, you can discover freedom without even knowing about Christianity or god at all. And even without Christianity, there were dictators and tyrannies that resulted anyway. If someone wants to become a dictator, they will find a way. Christianity, like many other religions, was just used to push it forward. So you're statement, respectfully, is wrong.

And of course, living in tyranny, like the founding fathers did, motivated them to think about these things philosophically too. Just as people are doing now and have done in the past. I only hope that today, we realize that our morals and rights do not come from god, but that they are natural to our species' survival. This is paramount to species' survival and prosperity.

[Jackson Holly]

The centuries-old NWO push for full-spectrum dominance requires

a godless, mechanistic universe and a morally rudderless mankind.

[Geolibertarian]

The centuries-old NWO push for full-spectrum dominance requires

a godless, mechanistic universe and a morally rudderless mankind.

The problem is that organized religion has been so co-opted (some would say "engineered") by the NWO, that to resort to that as an alternative to atheism and moral relativism is almost invariably to play right into the hands of the very same ruling elite who exert so much control over "secular" society.

Hence my advocacy of the Universal Ethic.

[Jackson Holly]

The centuries-old NWO push for full-spectrum dominance requires

a godless, mechanistic universe and a morally rudderless mankind.

The problem is that organized religion has been so co-opted (some would say "engineered") by the NWO, that to resort to that as an alternative to atheism and moral relativism is almost invariably to play right into the hands of the very same ruling elite who exert so much control over "secular" society.

Hence my advocacy of the Universal Ethic.

Yes, infiltration of the 'church' is a part of the plan. Controlling 'both sides' as always. In my opinion, and I can see that this is what the OP is saying, BIG RELIGION is part of the problem ... co-opted as you say. It is hard to find fault with the moral teachings and ethical stance of Jesus (and other 'prophets' as well), but even lifelong members of 'the church' are often closet atheists with no real sense of morality ... they are so brainwashed by the education/media system, and walk in lock-step with every life-denying concept rolled-out by the NWO.

[agentbluescreen]

Show me a world without Christianity, and I'll show you a world that never dreamed of freedom from tyranny.

G-d, whom are They, Our True Parentage, the antecedent marriage, are one lovingly creative and attractively constructive All-Itself, but repulsive racist eugenic religious-socialist mafia cults are totally different corporate beasts.

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -- that takes religion. "  

Steven Weinberg  (1933 - ) US Physicist

To get a bad person to behave well all it usually takes is the offer of a few drinks.

[mystic]

The centuries-old NWO push for full-spectrum dominance requires

a godless, mechanistic universe and a morally rudderless mankind.

I am definitely not advocating a morally bankrupt society. Actually, morals are extremely important. As I've said, you can be godless, and at the same time, be deeply spiritual in purpose and sense of life and as well as be moral. You do not need god to have morals, or to know what is moral from what isn't.

In fact, the whole notion that a god can decree what is moral is silly, because it changes based on arbitrary whim. If god one day decides that sacrificing our kids is moral and is required, we do it? Then one day, he says we shall not kill... so we don't sacrifice our children any more?

We should stone homosexuals, but not treat others as like to be treated?

The whole thing is so arbitrary and nonsensical. I fear a government being based on such a book. You can pull out a line or a passage from the bible to justify anything and everything you want to do as a government entity.

The problem is that organized religion has been so co-opted (some would say "engineered") by the NWO, that to resort to that as an alternative to atheism and moral relativism is almost invariably to play right into the hands of the very same ruling elite who exert so much control over "secular" society.

You are making a false assumption here. You are assuming that a society that does not follow the morals of a god is moral relativism. Ayn Rand's moral system is very objective and works for all human life. I encourage you to read up on it. She got it right.

Yes, infiltration of the 'church' is a part of the plan. Controlling 'both sides' as always. In my opinion, and I can see that this is what the OP is saying, BIG RELIGION is part of the problem ... co-opted as you say. It is hard to find fault with the moral teachings and ethical stance of Jesus (and other 'prophets' as well), but even lifelong members of 'the church' are often closet atheists with no real sense of morality ... they are so brainwashed by the education/media system, and walk in lock-step with every life-denying concept rolled-out by the NWO.

Exactly. There is no reason for anyone to care what an individual or a group of individuals do with their time, just as long as it does not violate the rights of other individuals. If they want to go pray to a invisible entity that they believe exists? Have at it. Why would I care for?

A truly free society lets everything do what they want. The society becomes less free when you invent this thing called "taxes", and then slip in pork to build churches or fund christian anti-abortion campaigns, etc. This is what pisses me off... just as much as paying $2,300+ a year to support a fraudulent war, or any other such thing. It's all the same. It's all a gross violation of property rights.

[Jackson Holly]

Mystic ... is genetically modifying animals moral?

Is creating new 'test tube species' moral?

Is modifying the human DNA coding to create a
'superman' moral?

[mystic]

Mystic ... is genetically modifying animals moral?

Is creating new 'test tube species' moral?

Is modifying the human DNA coding to create a
'superman' moral?

I don't think doing anything to animals is immoral. Frankly, if you bought the animal, you do whatever you want with it - it yours. The moment you start giving animals rights, the moment human rights get violated. What is more important - the wild animal kingdom or us? I choose us. It's that simple.

I think the whole thing is silly that we force dogs and cats to be pets, or we kill cows and pigs for food... but suddenly everyone goes all up in arms over hitting it or having sex with one. It's really very silly. Either you own the animal or you don't... and if you own it, frankly, you can do whatever you want with it. Eat it for food, keep it as a pet, whatever. It's clear and simple.

If you want to ostracize someone for having sex with their goat - you also have the freedom to do that. No law should be passed to ostracize or punish this person, but privately, if you or a group of individuals want to do that - then do it. This is exactly the same argument that Rand Paul said about the civil rights act. He thought it was immoral that businesses couldn't discriminate against black people, and to live in a truly free society, you should be able to. This is no different. Just as long as the ostracization doesn't violate their rights.

As humans, we discriminant all the time. When we marry someone, we are basically discriminating against everyone else. When we buy buy Starbucks, we are discriminating against Tim Hortons. When we attend a Christian Church, we are discriminating against the church of satan (or whatever).

As for modifying human DNA, I can't say I really thought much about it. My first thoughts are, if people consent to it and understand all the implications in undergoing the procedure, then fine. Of course, if I researched and learned more about it, I could very well come to a different conclusion. Of course, if such science is undertaken by the government and is forced on the public, then I absolutely do not support it.

[Jackson Holly]

I don't think doing anything to animals is immoral. Frankly, if you bought the animal, you do whatever you want with it - it yours. The moment you start giving animals rights, the moment human rights get violated. What is more important - the wild animal kingdom or us? I choose us. It's that simple.

I think the whole thing is silly that we force dogs and cats to be pets, or we kill cows and pigs for food... but suddenly everyone goes all up in arms over hitting it or having sex with one. It's really very silly. Either you own the animal or you don't... and if you own it, frankly, you can do whatever you want with it. Eat it for food, keep it as a pet, whatever. It's clear and simple.

As for modifying human DNA, I can't say I really thought much about it. My first thoughts are, if people consent to it and understand all the implications in undergoing the procedure, then fine. Of course, if I researched and learned more about it, I could very well come to a different conclusion. Of course, if such science is undertaken by the government and is forced on the public, then I absolutely do not support it.

Yikes ...

I don't know where to start to reply to this. I was hoping
you were a rational being and I hoped moral, despite a lack of
religious knowledge ... but I see that you are not.

So ... having sex with your pets is moral?

Playing God with genetics/eugenics is moral?

[mystic]

Yikes ...

I don't know where to start to reply to this. I was hoping
you were a rational being and I hoped moral, despite a lack of
religious knowledge ... but I see that you are not.

So ... having sex with your pets is moral?

Playing God with genetics/eugenics is moral?

It's a property rights issue. How is your animals any different? Please explain to me why it's immoral logically. Don't say, "well, it's disgusting" as I've heard that all before. Reason is the only valid form of cognition, so please use rational argument to support your positions. Let the debate begin.

I never said you ought to or that you should have sex with your pets. All I said is that it is not immoral, and it that there should not be a law preventing anyone from doing this. Again, you switched the argument, and please don't do that. It's intellectual dishonest and deceptive to those with an untrained mind.

The whole notion of "playing god" pre-supposed that god exists. In order to "play god", you must first prove that god exists. This entity that is referred to as god does not exist, so it's impossible for anyone to 'play' like this entity.

When I think of genetics, how is this any different to modern medicine, surgery, taking coffee in the morning, etc.? It's not much different. You own your body, and you can do anything you want with it, or consent for someone else to do something you want with it.

As for eugenics, you are putting words in my mouth that I did not speak. Eugenics often refers to government doing these things to human beings, which I do not support. Any forced genetic manipulation is immoral.

And frankly, any genetic manipulation to be known to negate, suppress, destroy life is also immoral. It's about context. You cannot drop context.

If you were to experiment with genetics and discover ways to prevent/cure horrible diseases, conditions and illnesses... would you not do it if it furthered life? I would. This is totally moral.

You see, it's all about context. You cannot context drop.

Frankly, I think Christians don't want a free society. A free society scares the living crap out of them. What they want is a Christian nation, which is not a free nation. You can't have freedom in piece-meal doses... that's what we have now, but less of it. If you want real freedom, you have to accept and have tolerance for the way everyone chooses to live their own life. This is real freedom.

[decemberfellow]

I will take my freedom WITH GOD, and pray that you may keep yours (freedom) as well. Love what Jesus said  Love one another.

[mystic]

I will take my freedom WITH GOD, and pray that you may keep yours (freedom) as well. Love what Jesus said  Love one another.

I am not apposed at all for you, as an individual to have this belief. Not all at. By all means, have at it.

Just as long as I, as an individual, can live my life totally differently and that the nation is not forcing me to live by your statement above.

For example, I do not love everybody. I find it impossible to love hitler, bush, obama, the central banks, the rich families, and everyone else trying to destroy/steal my property and weaken my own chances for survival and to be left alone.

In fact, there are very few people I love. In order to love someone, they have to embody the values that you also value. This just isn't true with most people. Most people are sheep, who are parasites on the rest of society, and who see no problem with demanding their wars, their churches, their welfare checks, their mortgage payments, etc. at the cost of my earnings. I cannot love these people.

I refuse to live for the sake of others, and I will ask nobody to live for the sake of me. But these people want others to live for their own sake. They are parasites, and they are part of the reason our situation is so grim.

The meaning of hard work and intelligence and creating your own wealth is almost entirely lost on this nation. These are my values, yet I don't see them reflected in 98 or 99% of the people. Therefore, not only do I not love them, I feel contempt towards them.

But that's just my view. And as long as the government doesn't force me to reason otherwise, everything is fine.

[Jackson Holly]

jackson:

So ... having sex with your pets is moral?

mystic:

I never said you ought to or that you should have sex with your pets. All I said is that it is not immoral ...

You are so brainwashed by the godless, mechanistic philosophies,
and so corrupted by Darwin's ghost that, as I say, I don't know
where to start! So, let's stick with this for a moment ...

Mystic says: Bestiality is moral.

[mystic]

jackson:
mystic:
You are so brainwashed by the godless, mechanistic philosophies,
and so corrupted by Darwin's ghost that, as I say, I don't know
where to start! So, let's stick with this for a moment ...

Mystic says: Bestiality is moral.

I didn't say that. In fact, in my last post, I already said that I didn't say that. But of course, if you want to reduce the argument to a few word soundbites, then no such rational debate can happen.

The thing is, you haven't given any rational arguments. None. Where are they? If you are truly right, then where is your logic to prove your case? If your case is so strong, why can you not simply defend it? By not defending it... are you saying that you cannot defend it? If the points are so obvious, can you not simply state what these obvious points are?

I would dare say, you strongly believe that bestiality is immoral irrationality, as if it's in your gut or instinct that it's wrong. Why not look at it logically?

Even Ron Paul made similar comments about drugs, religion, etc. that were EXACTLY the same position. I can find video clips that prove this, because it's true. You might not want to have sex with a goat, in the same way you might not want to do drugs, or have orgies, or drink alcohol, etc. But the thing is, you cannot make it illegal for the whole nation to do these things IF you want a free society.

The fact is, you don't have reason on your side... so you reduce yourself to this. Okay then, whatever.

[Jackson Holly]

jackson:
Quote

So ... having sex with your pets is moral?

mystic:
Quote

I never said you ought to or that you should have sex with your pets. All I said is that it is not immoral ...

I didn't say that. In fact, in my last post, I already said that I didn't say that. But of course, if you want to reduce the argument to a few word soundbites, then no such rational debate can happen.

The thing is, you haven't given any rational arguments. None. Where are they? If you are truly right, then where is your logic to prove your case? The fact is, you don't have reason on your site... so you reduce yourself this. Okay then, whatever.

The quotes are in this public thread for all to see.

[URpwneddude]

mystic wrote:

Ayn Rand, for example, went into great length and with remarkably clarity as to how you can logically define what is good from evil, and consequently, what is moral from what isn't. It's really quite simple. To summarize: Life is the ultimate value for a living orgasm... and that which furthers life is good, and that which destroys, threatens, negates, etc. life is evil. It's remarkably simply, and it's also remarkably true.

Mystic, according to your acceptance of Ayn Rand's summary you would accept that any effort to extend life beyond "normal" years is good.

Would accept an implant in your body that would make your body live forever?

[mystic]

The quotes are in this public thread for all to see.

There is a difference between saying it is NOT immoral from saying it IS moral. Big difference.

Having sex with a goat does not destroy, negate or suppress your life in any way. It's no different than having sex with a sex toy, on your mattress, or with another human being. None of these things are immoral. What human is the victim here? Nobody. Therefore no law should be passed to make them illegal.

You personally - for religious reasons or for any personal reasons - may not want to have sex with a goat. Fine. But IF YOU DESIRE A FREE SOCIETY, then you should allow others the freedom to do it, no matter how much you disagree with it.

This is the point. This is so abundantly clear, I'm shocked you don't understand it.

[mystic]

mystic wrote:
Mystic, according to your acceptance of Ayn Rand's summary you would accept that any effort to extend life beyond "normal" years is good.

Would accept an implant in your body that would make your body live forever?

I don't think such a device exists... but if it was one's desire to live forever, then fine. I don't think it's possible. There's no evidence to even suggest that it would be, so the question is kind of pointless. But I don't see what the problem with it is.

[URpwneddude]

The question is not pointless.  The question logically follows your acceptance of the above definition of good.  If extension of life is good, the pursuit of the extension of life is good.

Hypothetically, let assume a device exists to extend life, say 100 years more, would it be good to accept an implant that can guarantee to do that?  Conversely, would it be evil to decline to accept that implant?

[lamourlady]

Exactly. There is no reason for anyone to care what an individual or a group of individuals do with their time, just as long as it does not violate the rights of other individuals. If they want to go pray to a invisible entity that they believe exists? Have at it. Why would I care for?

A truly free society lets everything do what they want. The society becomes less free when you invent this thing called "taxes", and then slip in pork to build churches or fund christian anti-abortion campaigns, etc. This is what pisses me off... just as much as paying $2,300+ a year to support a fraudulent war, or any other such thing. It's all the same. It's all a gross violation of property rights.

This would not work either.  If everyone can believe as they will, without prejudice or care, then what is to stop someone who believes in an invisible entity from becoming a leader who will then 'taint' laws with their beliefs?  Vote them out?  Fine, what is to stop them from coming at all?  Well, then prejudice will eventually come into play and those who don't believe will then corrupt the outcome to their beliefs.  In the end there will always be two sides of any one coin and man has proven, with or without a god or moral system in place, that they will eventually corrupt any system in place.

There will always be that 'one' person who believes their will is the correct one and will try to dominate; we see it throughout history, within the animal kingdom and any where else you'd like to look.  And if it were so easy, why hasn't Ayn's perfect society come about?  For the very reasons she gives:  too many people have the freedoms to believe what they will, diversity.  And why have gods been the central key to every race since the beginning of time without the indoctrination of the Bible or the Christian God?  Because Ayn is just one person with one view, nothing more.  Who is she to decide what is right for all of mankind in respect to that of believing in a creator who is believed to do the same?  Why should we believe her?  Why her over Hitler, or the Egyptians?  There were many people who agreed with them and if they wrote up a post here stating we should 'give them a read', why should we?  It's just another form of trying to convert to one person's belief system, no different from Christianity.  Even her system would be corrupted piece by piece to conform to the that of others, it would never stand in place as a whole except by a small handful who would stay true to them.  It is the same with any belief system; a word twisted here or there, defining as one pleases to fit their bubble of comfort.

In the end it isn't God who corrupts the moral fabric of mankind, it is mankind, himself who does.  Someone once said, even if there weren't a God, they would invent one themselves, which could be anything from a tree, to a bird, to a human being...it is the nature of the human species, if not, then we would be like the animals...who could care less.

[mystic]

The question is not pointless.  The question logically follows your acceptance of the above definition of good.  If extension of life is good, the pursuit of the extension of life is good.

Hypothetically, let assume a device exists to extend life, say 100 years more, would it be good to accept an implant that can guarantee to do that?  Conversely, would it be evil to decline to accept that implant?

It depends on who is issuing the device, and what else the device does. If it's a device available on the free-market, and it's effects are well-understood and documented, then sure. I don't see this as any different than humans finding ways to further our life-span by increasing our standard of living, through medicine, or by other means.

If government issues such a device, especially using force, then the entire situation changes. Context is very important.

[Jackson Holly]

mystic:

Having sex with a goat does not destroy, negate or suppress your life in any way. It's no different than having sex with a sex toy, on your mattress, or with another human being. None of these things are immoral.

You are digging yourself into a big hole here ... are you sure you are on the right forum?

[WarChest]

This thread is full of self-aggrandizement and makes no sense to me.

It really all stems from who or what you think created you and a willingness to give into that accountability.

If you think that you evolved from a slug, well then, where did human beings suddenly acquire things like self-sacrifice and love of our fellow man?

Human beings are inherently evil and are prone to the negative aspects of humanity like greed, want and selfishness. Only a divine creator separate from our world could create the spark of righteous morality that is passed from father to son.

It was not something that was bred or suddenly become self aware in us. It is something that was taught.

God created us in his image. He created us above the angels and gave us a choice. If eternity means nothing to you, then enjoy the blink of an eye that you will enjoy here on this earth.

I love you brothers and now is not the time for division of free thinking patriots. 

My version of Christianity teaches me not to condemn or pass judgment but to work hard every day to be the example of light to the darkness that has its grip on this world.  I am not worthy and fall short many times but I try.

I hope to see you on the other side.   

[Scootle]

This statement doesn't mean anything. Frankly, we already know that a world with Christianity is a world with tyranny. George Bush often used his religion to rally the people to his false cause. They just blindly followed him.

Napoleon knew god didn't exist, but he used it anyway because the people liked it, and thought it was a way to get the people behind him.

Hitler was actually a Christian. Not only is this stated in Mein Kampf, there are tons of other facts available that prove this (his relationship with the pope, his dealings with the church, religious laws, etc.), especially surrounding the holocaust. It is a common fallacy that people believe Hilter was an atheist.

But none of this matters. Using logic, you can discover freedom without even knowing about Christianity or god at all. And even without Christianity, there were dictators and tyrannies that resulted anyway. If someone wants to become a dictator, they will find a way. Christianity, like many other religions, was just used to push it forward. So you're statement, respectfully, is wrong.

And of course, living in tyranny, like the founding fathers did, motivated them to think about these things philosophically too. Just as people are doing now and have done in the past. I only hope that today, we realize that our morals and rights do not come from god, but that they are natural to our species' survival. This is paramount to species' survival and prosperity.

So I take it you're an atheist? I'm not religious, in fact I used to be an atheist, but now I find most atheists to be highly hypocritical...

See this video I made to get an idea why...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pEM3g1Cmyo

First of all, if you believe George Bush is religious, there's a forty foot stone owl in Monte Rio I'd like to sell you lol

Second, the problem with so many of these things is we're having the wrong debate. David Icke on AJs show not that long ago made an interesting point. When we ask these questions like "Should guns exist in society?", we are asking the wrong questions. The debate about the morality of an armed society is the debate they want us to be having. The question we should be asking is "Why do the elite want to take guns out of society?". I don't own a gun, I don't want to own one and I never want to fire one. But I don't support gun control coz gun control is the first step towards tyranny. It's the same thing with god. Yes you can debate whether or not god should exist in society, but that's the debate they want you to have. The real question we should be asking is "Why do the elite want to take god out of society?".

Please watch the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and AJs interview with Hilmer Von Campe for the answer to that question.

[mystic]

This would not work either.  If everyone can believe as they will, without prejudice or care, then what is to stop someone who believes in an invisible entity from becoming a leader who will then 'taint' laws with their beliefs?

This is a totally different issue, and I'm guessing that you bring up this point because context was assumed. Let me be clear. People can believe as they will, as long as it does not violate the rights of others. Once such a person changes the laws that do in fact violate the rights (or violate the powers given to them via a constitution of some sort), then it is no longer valid.

So I totally agree with you. Like the original government was setup, you need a constitution, a bill of rights, and checks and balances to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

Vote them out?  Fine, what is to stop them from coming at all?  Well, then prejudice will eventually come into play and those who don't believe will then corrupt the outcome to their beliefs.

This is the danger of democracy, and why democracy is a very bad form of government. This is also the danger of pushing power upwards. Power needs to be as local as possible and higher forms of government need to be ultra small and have very few responsibilities as possible.

Luckily, America was a Republic. It's only been recently where we let the mob rule. It is not okay for 51% of the people to get the government to pass a law to violate the rights of the other 49%. This is awful, yet it happens with alarming frequency these days

We need a stable government where this just can't happen - period. The constitution needs to be enforced, and when it's not enforced by the government, the states or people have to do something about it. Unfortunately they were trained over long periods of time that they couldn't do something about it, which is the problem we have today. We operate much more like a democracy than the Republic we are supposed to be.

In the end there will always be two sides of any one coin and man has proven, with or without a god or moral system in place, that they will eventually corrupt any system in place.

The constitution and bill of rights were good starts. Ayn Rand's work, as well as many comments by people like Ron Paul fill in the errors and problems. It would be possible to make these documents even better once that banking bums are thrown out. Hopefully we will be in a position to do that one day.

There will always be that 'one' person who believes their will is the correct one and will try to dominate; we see it throughout history, within the animal kingdom and any where else you'd like to look.

This is why we need logic and reason to define what is right - not an individual and most certainly not a religion.

And if it were so easy, why hasn't Ayn's perfect society come about?  For the very reasons she gives:  too many people have the freedoms to believe what they will, diversity.

To be fair, we haven't tried it. The found fathers got it the closest, but we've never had a true free market capitalistic society. Ultimately, we do need morals - i.e. a constitution and other laws of the land - to unify the country. I am not arguing this at all. But I think you can have tremendous freedom and diversity while also being unified by common understanding about the nature of humanity and how we were meant to live as a free people.

Also, no society is ever perfect. If we lived in free market capitalism, we'd have unemployment still, we'd have homeless, and all sorts of other problems. Ayn Rand never said there wouldn't be problems.

The truth is though, it would be FAR better than the problems we have now, and people would have the freedom to improve their situation and move upwards. It would all be based on merit.

For those that would be unfortunate, charities and other organizations would be far more plentiful than they are now, and you wouldn't need them funded or controlled by the government at all. How do we know this? Look at history.

And why have gods been the central key to every race since the beginning of time without the indoctrination of the Bible or the Christian God?  Because Ayn is just one person with one view, nothing more.  Who is she to decide what is right for all of mankind in respect to that of believing in a creator who is believed to do the same?

She didn't decide it though. She discovered it. Go through her work and you'll see that it's not arbitrary whim. All of her work is grounded in logic and clear thought. Not all of it is correct mind you - her views on copyright and sex are views that I don't fully agree with - but the fundamentals of her philosophy are extremely sound.

Why should we believe her? Why her over Hitler, or the Egyptians?

You shouldn't take her word for it. You should do the philosophical work and agree/disagree with her yourself. I think you'll find that as you learn more about logic and reason, and more about philosophy, her reasons actually make sense. They are not some arbitrary decree. They are not based on her "feelings" of right and wrong. It's objective.

And ultimately, this is why human beings ought to listen to her. But don't take my word for it, and don't even take her word for it. Do the work yourself.

There were many people who agreed with them and if they wrote up a post here stating we should 'give them a read', why should we?  It's just another form of trying to convert to one person's belief system, no different from Christianity.

I am not violating anyone's rights by suggesting they should learn more. If they don't want to read it, then don't.

Even her system would be corrupted piece by piece to conform to the that of others, it would never stand in place as a whole except by a small handful who would stay true to them.

True, but her views are no so "out there". The founding fathers and people of that time shared much of her views. People lost their way over the many decades, and now this way of thinking has become totally foreign. But the truth is... it wasn't always this way.

Of course some people will try and become the best human being they can be - a randian style hero if you will - and will profit under the system greatly.. while the parasites, and the lazy, and others will not. But this is true justice. I'd encourage to read more about this.

It is the same with any belief system; a word twisted here or there, defining as one pleases to fit their bubble of comfort.

I disagree.

In the end it isn't God who corrupts the moral fabric of mankind, it is mankind, himself who does.  Someone once said, even if there weren't a God, they would invent one themselves, which could be anything from a tree, to a bird, to a human being...it is the nature of the human species, if not, then we would be like the animals...who could care less.

I do agree that it's man who corrupts, but that is all more the reason why we shouldn't have the state run by a judeo-christian god as Mr. Farah would like.

[Freeski]

bump - good thread.

[egypt]

1.  I don't know what inherently knowing what is good & bad has to do with whether there is a God, or not.

2. Having sex with a goat is not a private thing if that person goes on to have sex with a woman.  Was not syphilis started from such activity with sheep?

3.  I wonder if one would be open and not secret about having sex with that goat.  Know why?  If I knew that a man had sex with animals, I would not have sex with him -- for many reasons.  Would this lead to the breeding out of society, that type of behavior?

[donnay]

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage" (Galatians 5:1).

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17).

Organized religions are tools for the NWO--I agree!

[egypt]

I too, believe that organized religion is the co-opting of religious gathering by NWO!

I also see that there is a semantic problem in discussions about good & bad & God.  Moral or having values?  Which is the proper terminology & what is are the differences?

Love, e

[mystic]

This thread is full of self-aggrandizement and makes no sense to me.

Well, let me help you make some sense of it.

It really all stems from who or what you think created you and a willingness to give into that accountability.

Yes and no. I think our rights are natural because it makes sense, and it's provable. A person who thinks are rights come from green creatures on Venus doesn't really have a case to make in the realm of reality.

If you think that you evolved from a slug, well then, where did human beings suddenly acquire things like self-sacrifice and love of our fellow man?

This is a loaded statement. Self-sacrifice comes from collectivist philosophies. For example, it's common in socialism or facism to do what is not best for yourself, but what is best for the state. Collectivism is diametrically opposed to egoism and individual rights.

We, as humans, only "acquired" these ideas because we've been brainwashed. The truth is, an individual should only live for the things they value - their life first and foremost, and then things they value - their house, their business, their spouse, their children, and so on.

It is not a sacrifice to spend $20,000 on an operation to save your spouse, because your spouse is a value to you... but it would be a sacrifice if the state forced you to pay $20,000 to save the life of someone whom you didn't even know or care about.

Today, we asked to sacrifice 50% or more of our earnings for the state's interests as well as the interests of our "fellow man", and it's totally wrong and immoral.

Of course, if you want to give to charity freely and with 100% consent, then by all means, do so.

Human beings are inherently evil and are prone to the negative aspects of humanity like greed, want and selfishness.

Totally wrong. I don't know how you came to believe this, but it's wrong. Human beings have volition - free will - and you can choose whether to do good or evil. If you think evil is automatic, then you've been totally misinformed. You have a choice.

Second, what is greed? This is such a horribly loaded word. Seeking profit for your productiveness is a moral thing to do. If you provide a lot of value by producing things people want, especially if it's things in high demand and things not everyone can make because you are very good at what you do... then making a lot of profit is totally moral.

Of course, if you try to make profit at the expense of others - either by scamming them, looting from them, blackmailing them, etc... then of course it is immoral. But the seeking of profit and money is totally legit and moral.

Also, selfishness is also totally moral. Why should you not act in your self interest for? Why should do things that are contrary to your own survival, property and well-being? To go against your own self-interest worsens your ability to survive and prosper, and is quite irrational.

I think the reasons this post don't make any sense to you is that your fundamental philosophy has been warped into a collectivist one, and trust me, collectivism is evil. I encourage you google "collectivism" and what Ayn Rand had to say about it.

Only a divine creator separate from our world could create the spark of righteous morality that is passed from father to son.

Nope. If you read my other posts, you'll see that this "god" created morals that are completely arbitrary and based on whim. In fact, humans created them, which explains why this is the case. If you were to read the bible, you'll see that god flip-flops on all sorts of moral issues. If he were so perfect as he describes himself, why didn't he get them right the first time?

It was not something that was bred or suddenly become self aware in us. It is something that was taught.

This I do agree with, but not by the bible. Philosophy must be taught. Although you will be surprised to know that children have a much better grasp of these principles than adults do. For example, lots of kids don't like being forced to share their toys. They understand property rights better than their parents do.

God created us in his image. He created us above the angels and gave us a choice. If eternity means nothing to you, then enjoy the blink of an eye that you will enjoy here on this earth.

None of this means anything to me. Again, no evidence of god, or that he created us or anything. It's all made up.

I love you brothers and now is not the time for division of free thinking patriots.

This is dangerous. To think is to survive. As human beings, we must think in order to survive. To refuse to think is to perish most certainly. Thinking is not done automatically - it is also a choice, one which must be able to do freely.

My version of Christianity teaches me not to condemn or pass judgment but to work hard every day to be the example of light to the darkness that has its grip on this world.  I am not worthy and fall short many times but I try.

The reason why you fail is because the doctrine was designed so that nobody could live up to it. Again, collectivism is so contrary to how a human being is meant to live that it's impossible to live up to.

[shipgeek]

no evidence of god, or that he created us or anything.

True.

[Freeski]

1.  I don't know what inherently knowing what is good & bad has to do with whether there is a God, or not.

2. Having sex with a goat is not a private thing if that person goes on to have sex with a woman.  Was not syphilis started from such activity with sheep?

3.  I wonder if one would be open and not secret about having sex with that goat.  Know why?  If I knew that a man had sex with animals, I would not have sex with him -- for many reasons.  Would this lead to the breeding out of society, that type of behavior?

Anyone who chooses to have sex with goats is probably going to do so whether it's against the rules or not, so I would say that the onus is on each of us, individually, to do our own due diligence before getting involved with someone else. Same goes for almost everything we do, or purchase. That said, what's the actual value/benefit in making having sex with goats against the rules?

[mystic]

1.  I don't know what inherently knowing what is good & bad has to do with whether there is a God, or not.

It doesn't have anything to do with god, which is why I made this post. Mr. Farah seems to think it does, and I just want to point out that he is so terribly wrong.

2. Having sex with a goat is not a private thing if that person goes on to have sex with a woman.  Was not syphilis started from such activity with sheep?

You are mixing up the issues. If you contract an STI from a human being, is it not your responsibility to inform your new partner of this before you engage in sexual contact? Of course it is! Whether you got this STI from an animal or not is totally irrelevant.

If you eat a poisonous mushroom, you live with the consequences. If you do heroine 3 times a day, you live with the consequences. If you eat ice cream and potato chips your entire life, you live with the consequences. If you have sex with a goat, guess what... you live with the consequences. None of these activities should be illegal. It's your body, and you should do whatever you want with it. No government or laws should prevent you from doing any of these things.

Of course, the moment you pass on the STI to a unconsenting partner... then that DOES violate their rights. This is entirely different and I would say is immoral and should be illegal. THAT IS THE REAL ISSUE.

The goat really has nothing to do with it.

3.  I wonder if one would be open and not secret about having sex with that goat.  Know why?  If I knew that a man had sex with animals, I would not have sex with him -- for many reasons.  Would this lead to the breeding out of society, that type of behavior?

It's your choice not to sleep with him. That's totally fine. Besides, I highly doubt most people would have sex with goats LOL. I'm sure a few people would though, but who cares. It doesn't violate anyone's rights.

As for leading to the breeding out of society... not going to happen. I mean really, this won't happen. Besides, no government should have the power to enforce it even if it did.

Again, ostracizing individuals whom people disagree with is the best course of action. It's no different boycotting institutions like Walmart. Same thing.