I will not comply…. I will Stand. Gaven Seim

darthhhh

Free Thought project Article >>>> Over 1,000 Just Gathered for the Largest Felony Civil Disobedience Rally in US History

Read more…

Epitaph. The Death of America and Western Democracy. Ron Paul’s Farewell Speech.

Riders on the Storm! Homeland Security already confiscating guns .

The Coming American Civil War.

The Warsaw ghetto uprising. 1943. The Right to armed resistance against tyrannical Government

Posted in Death of America, Democracy, Guns, Heroism, Slavery, Totalitarianism, Tyranny | Leave a comment

Climate change is natural.

earth

Natural or man made? Plant photosynthesis is natural as we know. Humans, livestock and wild animals produce CO2. This is also natural. CO2 is natural, right? Let’s look at birds in nature building nests, this is natural right?? We call houses man-made entities, yet we don’t call nests bird made. We just regard birds making nests as a natural process. Supposedly what humans produce is not natural, but everything produced from non human life forms, is natural, right? Fossil fuels, they are natural, right? Carbon is natural, right? Climate change is natural right, right?

 

How fossil fuels are greening the planet

 

Posted in Climate Change | Leave a comment

Slow down

Suppose I’m driving down the road.

It’s a built-up area and the road signage clearly indicates that the designated speed limit is 50 km/h.

New_Zealand_RG-1_(50_kmh).svg

I’m late, I’m in a hurry, I’m supposed to be somewhere. Nonetheless, I try to keep to the speed limit. Glancing down at my speedometer, I see that the reading is steady on 50 km/h.

speedometer-showing-50

I maintain my current speed. Well and good.

Then, looking up, I see I’m approaching one of those radar speed signs that displays the speed of the immediately oncoming vehicle, mine. It reads 80 km/h and flashes me to SLOW DOWN.

radar_speed_sign

How fast am I really going?

Should I slow down? Or should I keep calm and carry on?

Posted in Black Sabbath, Cars, Epistemology, Jesus FTW!, Meta-ethics, Rationality, Riddles | Leave a comment

Cognitive Dawkinance

richard-dawkins-starting-mellow

After doing some calculations, I’ve discovered that Richard Dawkins thinks there is a 14% chance that fairies exist.

In conclusion I have two words: Full Retard!

Watch this

Posted in Atheism | 1 Comment

The Philosopher

Do you feel what I feel, see what I see, hear what I hear?
There is a line you must draw between your dream world and reality
Do you live my life or share the breath I breathe?

Lies feed your judgement of others
Behold how the blind lead each other
The philosopher – you know so much about nothing at all

Ideas that fall under shadows of theories that stand tall
Thoughts that grow narrow upon being verbally released

Your mind is not your own, what sounds more mentally stimulating is how you make your choice
So you preach about how I’m supposed to be
Yet you don’t know your own sexuality

Lies feed your judgement of others
Behold how the blind lead each other
The philosopher – you know so much about nothing at all

RIP Chuck Schuldiner.

Posted in Death, Philosophy | Leave a comment

Should Christians kill all the homosexuals?

I chose the title of this post carefully in order to comply with Betteridge’s law of headlines.

Should Christians kill all the homosexuals? (Let’s be clear. The answer is NO.)

Not even Pastor Logan Robertson thinks that Christians should kill all the homosexuals. He thinks that’s a job for the government.

I believe every single one of them should be put to death. Obviously Christians shouldn’t be doing it. I’m not going to do it. It’s the government’s job to be doing it.

Which is worse? Pastor Logan Robertson’s appalling homophobia or his abject statism? (Let’s be absolutely clear. It’s NOT the government’s job to kill homosexuals. It’s no one’s job. No one should kill anyone. Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.)

Presumably Robertson is somewhat cynical about the government’s ability to do whatever it is they’re supposed to do, and that’s why he says he’ll pray that Marjoram tops himself, rather than patiently wait for the state to embark on genocide.

pastor-email

I’m downgrading my assessment of Pastor Logan Robertson from stooge to sitting duck.

I was by no means the only one to suspect that Marjoram and Robertson were colluding and that it was all a set-up to gain publicity for and sell Marjoram’s book. Or, worse, that it was a cunning plan by new atheists to discredit Christianity. Investigative journalist Ian Wishart says

Maybe it’s the investigative journalist in me, and the sceptic in someone else who shall remain nameless, but something seems fishy about this story of the pastor abusing the gay author.

Logan Robertson does not seem to have much of a digital footprint pre-dating this. In fact, his “church” is so obscure it runs from a house and its website was only established a matter of weeks ago. Frankly, I’m surprised Jim Marjoram was able to find so obscure a church to send an email to…because I couldn’t find it in the usual church email directories he would ordinarily have used..

Maybe I missed something…

What Wishart missed, and what I missed, is that Robertson has a history of serious mental illness.

hes_mentally_ill

Here ends the short sad sorry saga of Pastor Logan Robertson and his Westcity Bible Baptist Church with its congregation of three.

Or does it?

What about the elephant in the room?

Let’s grab it by the tail and look the facts in the face. The Bible quite clearly tells us, as Pastor Logan Robertson reminds us in his email, to kill all the homosexuals.

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (KJV)

So shouldn’t Bible-believing Christians be coming out and putting homosexuals up against the wall?

There’s a standard form of reply to this last question, which has to do with covenants and/or dispensations. A typical reply goes something like this.

The prohibition on homosexuality in Leviticus is part of what Bible scholars often call the ‘Holiness Code’. Its purpose was to maintain the distinctiveness of the Israelites from the Canaanites.

levitical_leviticus

So we’re no longer required to kill homosexuals? Well, that’s nice and all, but I just don’t swallow the dispensationalist defence. Do I worship a God who, at one time, commanded the Israelites to stone their gay brethren to buggery? Or not? That’s the question I ask myself and my answer is NO.

I suggest that the repository of bigotry and bans that is the Book of Leviticus isn’t God’s word and doesn’t belong in the Bible. It’s canon fodder, i.e., expendable. (I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. Let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book.)

Posted in Bigotry and Hate, Dispensationalism, GDK!, Jesus FTW!, King James Bible, Leviticus, Luke, Martin Luther, Nazi Thugs, Quandaries, Theism, Things Jesus Never Said | 16 Comments

Pastor Logan Robertson is a stooge

Just saying.

Posted in Hell | Leave a comment

Santa, is he real?

santa_bear

What’s wrong with teaching kids about Santa? The message of love, kindness and giving at Christmas time, is Christianity for young kids. So what has Santa got to do with the Christian message? Remember Santa is for kids. When we educate five year old kids for the future, we don’t give them university medicine text books, instead we give them cute little picture books to learn to read.

Who is Santa?

How real is Santa?

Let’s face it. In schools we teach kids that climate change is real. We also teach them the theory of evolution, and not to mention Marxism. Now who do we trust? Karl Marx’s ideals about ending poverty with collective ownership of property, or Father Christmas’s attitude of self producing, and willfully giving?

ps Don’t ever let anyone tell you belief in Santa is anti christian, or false religion.

Posted in Christmas, Climate Change, Global Warming, Polar Bears | 2 Comments

What have I been using for brains? (Friday ramble)

2014-12-03-ScreenShot20141203at3.15.57PM

Nathaniel Branden, best known for his adulterous liaison with Ayn Rand, has died at the age of 84. And Jim Peron, best known in New Zealand for his forthright views on pedophilia, has written an approbatory encomium for the Huffington Post.

Regarded by my co-blogger Tim as “probably the best Objectivist of them all,” Branden is better known as the author of the self-help book The Psychology of Self-Esteem. Branden’s work is well regarded, and not just by Objectivists. Really, I suppose, it’s a book I should read. (And I am without excuse. I confirm that I own a copy. I just exhumed it from the stacks!)

Let’s hear it from the man himself on the topic of self-esteem and libertarianism. The talk below is insightful and thought-provoking and has an important message for libertarian activists.

Awesome, huh? Now, let us praise with faint damnation.

I realised just the other day that all libertarians I’ve ever known (including me) are apt to commit a nasty semantic sin. See if you can spot it in the transcript below.

I think that one of the toughest battles in conversations with people and trying to get people to understand the libertarian vision is to understand ourselves and to find a way to communicate that we take something for granted that many people do not. The libertarian mentality is a non-entitlement mentality. The libertarian mentality presuppposes a person’s willingness to accept responsibility for his or her own existence.

Did you spot it? The libertarian mentality is absolutely an entitlement mentality! Libertarians emphatically believe that they are fully entitled to the fruits of their own labours. Entitlement? Check it out in any dictionary. Or Google it. You’ll see that entitlement is “the fact of having a right to something.” Am I entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Yes I am!

But you’ll also see that a second sense of the word ‘entitlement’ now also has currency. This modern entitlement is “the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.” In other words, ‘entitlement’ has come to mean entitlement to that which one is not entitled. And that, dear readers, is the death of the word ‘entitlement’. It’s been turned into an abominable auto-antonym.
(Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.)

Now, let’s get back to the salaciousness of it all. What was Rand using for brains when she decided to cuckold poor old Frank O’Connor? Commenter Brendan Hutching has the answer to that on the Objectivist forum SOLO.

I’m plumping for the moistie. Rand would not be the first woman to be led astray by the stirring of her loins, prompted by a silly, adolescent fantasy about the redemptive power of a white knight’s mighty sword.

So, what about Branden? What was he using for brains? Was he thinking with his big head or his little head? Hutching has the answer to that, too.

Branden was an ambitious young man, keen to make his mark. An affair with a mentor is a standard behaviour for people on their way up.

Perhaps you can now see why many Rand-worshippers despise Nathaniel Branden. (They despise his ex-wife Barbara Branden, who passed away last December, even more so.) On Facebook, my co-blogger Tim notes

no one having the Balls to pay her the Tribute she was due… and I’ll eat my hat if any Kiwi objectivist writes a tribute for Nat.

So I checked out Tim’s prediction. So far, so good. The tributes to Nathaniel Branden on SOLO are from Tom Burroughes (a British Objectivist) and Kyrel Zantanovich (a U.S. Objectivist). Then I popped on over to PC’s blog, Not PC. Nothing there so far …

But I did find an interesting recent post with the title Brain science without the brain, tagged with the label Philosophy.

Daniel Wolpert thinks we don’t have a brain to “perceive the world or think” (presumably then he thought up with his own notion with his appendix, or perhaps his descending retroperitoneal colon). That, he says, “is completely wrong.”

No, “we have a brain for one reason and one reason only,” says our Mr Wolbert, “and that’s to produce adaptable and complex movements. There is no other reason to have a brain … once you don’t need to move, you don’t need the luxury of that brain.”

So while philosophers and psychologists have for centuries investigated the modes and magic of human thought, and even as we speak computer scientists are busy trying to replicate the thinking human brain in silicon, alleged neuroscientists like Mr Wolbert are instead trying to study the repository of human thought and perception without reference to either perception or thought.

Recently, I said that I’d be blogging more on philosophy and less on politics. In today’s world there’s a desperate need for more philosophy and less politics. So I’ll begin with pointing out the confusion (and implicit contradiction) in PC’s post.

I think PC is confusing what the brain is for with what the brain does. I haven’t listened to Wolpert’s TED talk (yet) so I’ll take an educated guess. I don’t think that Wolpert denies that the brain does perceive and think. What Wolpert denies is that it’s for perceiving and thinking. Wolpert, you see, is an Evolutionist and Evolutionists like to explain all human morphology and behavioural traits by reference to the selection pressures faced by our human (and not-so-human) ancestors.

Has there ever been a need to perceive and think in our postulated four billion year evolutionary history? Not directly, no, there hasn’t. There’s only ever been a need “to produce adaptable and complex movements” by some mechanism. Evolutionists ask us to believe that the miraculous human brain is what random mutation threw up to meet this need and thus was seized upon by natural selection. Now, I remain firmly agnostic about the theory of evolution, but I can’t help but smell a whiff of bullshit here.

I find it disconcerting that Evolutionists so seldom follow through and buy into the logical implications of their own atheistic materialism. Or at least acknowledge that they are maintaining contradictions. A raft of them. Rand would spew.

I suspect that Rand was smart enough to recognise that her conception of man (which is the cornerstone of her philosophy) would prove false if the theory of evolution were shown to be true. Nathaniel Branden wrote the following in his essay The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

I remember being astonished to hear her say one day, “After all, the theory of evolution is only a hypothesis.” I asked her, “You mean you seriously doubt that more complex life forms — including humans — evolved from less complex life forms?” She shrugged and responded, “I’m really not prepared to say,” or words to that effect. I do not mean to imply that she wanted to substitute for the theory of evolution the religious belief that we are all God’s creation; but there was definitely something about the concept of evolution that made her uncomfortable.

There’s no place for love, beauty or morality in a purely material world.

I’m going to give the last word on this to my co-blogger Tim because I think he nails it. He alludes to

more than just the beauty of Woman… I am saying *Beauty* itself, and my ability to experience it is evidence of God…. beautiful beaches…. sunsets……too prove this.
Thus I am saying that my sense of beauty here is more than just a genetic/ sexual urge… Thus I find a Female butterfly to be Beautiful… and a Male Peacock… and this carries over into sound, taste, smell… etc.
Why I make this point Re : Beauty is because before I was a theist, it never occurred to me just how spectacular was this relationship between the beauty of Creation, and my ability to perceive it. after my conversion it dawned on me that all this could have existed and yet if I was ‘born a tree’ I would never have appreciated any of it! Never tasted a peach… never smelled a rose…. never herd a birds song… never appreciated the sun setting over the ocean… Ie My perception was heightened as to just how miraculously God had made me… so as to be able to apprehend his greatness as an artist… The beauty of God.
On a facebook tread discussing my assertions an Atheist tried to say my ‘feelings’ and sence of beauty were merely a product of ‘Nurture’… not nature.
I retorted… Give me a break! What I am talking about is something which is a fundamental capacity designed in human beings to the degree that it’s absence would be a mental handicap… nothing to do with cultural relativism.”

To me Naturalistic theories not only struggle to explain The happy conditions of Life on Earth, they really become absurd when you realise that the Atheist must believe that not only is every beautiful thing merely the product of a giant explosion, but that our sense of beauty itself must be explained thereby… as merely another property of matter.

There is a God!

Posted in Ayn Rand, Entombed, Evolutionism, Philosophy, There is a God! | 1 Comment

Don’t be a Blowers

eight_col_Mike_BlowersWIDE

Mike Blowers: Disgraced cop’s ‘fall from grace’

Blowers pleaded guilty in October to supplying methamphetamine, and stealing methamphetamine from a police exhibit room, between 2011 and 2012.

Blowers originally denied all charges, but changed his plea to guilty two days into a jury trial, which had been set down for two weeks.

In the High Court at Whangarei this morning, Blowers was sentenced to four years and nine months for supplying meth and two years and three months for theft of drugs, to be served concurrently.

I’ve got nothing against adults buying and supplying methamphetamine, and neither should you. Such drug deals are consenting acts between adults and no one else’s business. A country in which consenting acts between adults are potentially punishable by life imprisonment cannot plausibly lay claim to being part of civilisation, except perhaps in a very loose sense of the word.

But stealing methamphetamine? Like, twice? Mike Blowers is a thief, a liar and a humungous hypocrite who flagrantly abused his position of power as a high-ranking police officer.

The veteran officer had 20 years’ experience on the job, with particular expertise in battling the drug trade.

He was the officer in charge of the Northland Organised Crime Unit which carried out raids against drug manufacturers and suppliers.

The War on Drugs is a war on people who use drugs, not to mention it’s a powerful driver of corruption within our police state. Here’s an idea. Give P(eace) a chance!

I’ll just mention in closing that methamphetamine use is something that can quickly spiral out of control. My advice is, stay off the fries! Regardless, addiction is health issue, not necessarily a crime. Your addiction is no one else’s business, unless you choose to make it so. Preferably by asking for help, rather than stealing other people’s drugs. Or your mum’s television.

Posted in Jihad on Drugs™, Satan Laughing Spreads His Wings | Leave a comment