ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, January 27, 2014

The Nothing People

John C. Wright on the restless hearts of the empty souls, who are never content no matter what they achieve and regardless of what gains they make:
Being without a sense of the objective nature of reality, they are without a belief in objective morals. Being without a belief in objective morals, they lack honor, and, lacking honor, they lack courage, lack decency, lack courtesy.

Hence, their one, sole and only means of discussing their principles in debate is to accuse whomever dares question them of any and every thing they think evil: they call normal people stupid and evil and heartless, bigoted and racist and fascist and thisist and thatist.

The content of the accusation does not matter, only the relief of being able to accuse, and accuse, and accuse.

Their only consistent principle — a principle never admitted, of course, but obvious in their every manifesto — is the Unreality Principle, which holds that it is better and braver to believe in make-believe than in real reality. The more unreal the belief, the less based on fact, the more open the self contradiction, the greater the power of will and nobility of spirit needed to believe it, and hence the greatest applause from the modern mind is reserved to those of their number that believe the most unreal and unrealistic things. And yet, with typical unselfaware modern irony, they call themselves the reality-based community.

In sum, their philosophy consists of the single principle that no philosophy is valid. Their ethics consist of a single precept that making ethical judgments is ‘judgmental’ that is, ethically wrong. Their economic theory, socialism, consists of an arrogant denial that the laws of economics apply to economic phenomena. Their theory of psychology says that men do not have free will, because cause and effect is absolute; their theory of metaphysics is that subatomic particles do have free will, because cause and effect is statistical, approximate, uncertain, incomplete, and illusory. And on and on. All their thought is one self-refuting statement after another.

Philosophically, theologically and morally, the modern mindset is an end-state. Once a man has utterly rejected reason, he cannot reason himself to another conclusion. Once he has rejected morality, he has no sense of honor to compel him to live up to a philosophy more demanding than narrow selfishness.

Again, once he had rejected the authority of tradition, so that his one precept is to ignore all precepts of his teachers, he has no motive and no way to pass along to the next generation this selfsame precept, for he then is himself a teacher teaching them to ignore all teachers. And so on.
No compromise is possible with these people. I use the term loosely, for they are not morally accountable Men and Women in the full sense of the term. They are intellectual nomads, always on the move, always parasitical, always acting to destroy, always needing an accusational high that is more powerful than the one before.

This is why attempts to appease them are always fruitless, why they always devour their own. You might as rationally attempt to reason with the weather as attempt to reason with them. They eat their own as readily as they devour those they overcome, and their bitterest hatred is reserved for those who stand up to them and tell them, with all the contempt that they merit, "you are nothing and you will never be anything". Never ever back down to them.

If there is one thing they hate to hear, it is that they are fallen. They cling furiously to their pride and to their pretense to superiority because that is all they have. They are de facto psychopaths; they have no ability to empathize for all that they claim to empathize with everything and everyone from the snail darter to a bullied homosexual teen. They have endless hypothetical love for humanity and nothing of the real thing for their neighbors or anyone but themselves.

The real and the decent people sense their emptiness. We tiptoe around them, trying not to trigger the endless minefield of their sensitivities. This is pointless. Like insects, they thrive in darkness; whenever exposed to the harsh light of truth they are desperate to conceal their words and their deeds, to hide their empty sickness. But this is wrong, because there is only one hope for them, and that is the crushing of their pride.

There is nothing that can fill up the vast abyss within them except God. Nothing. So do not spare them. Remind them that they are nothing. Remind them that they are evil. Tell them the truth because they already know it and the reason for their frenetic activity is that they are running from it. Remind them their only hope at the joy they envy and crave is to abandon their empty, narcissistic pride and allow the Way, the Truth, and the Life to fill up the void within.

One of my friends once asked me why I seem to run into so many of these people, both personally and professionally. The answer is simple. I see them, they know I see them, and their instinctive reaction is to immediately attack those who recognize them for what they are. You see, the Nothing People always lie and thereby sentence themselves to a lifetime of policing the perceptions of others. It's not that I recognize their lies so much as I recognize the constant scanning of others perception of them in which they necessarily engage.

Labels: ,

203 Comments:

1 – 200 of 203 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Storm Saxon's Gall Bladder January 27, 2014 9:10 AM  

"We tiptoe around them, trying not to trigger the endless minefield of their sensitivities." Yah, i wasted a couple of good decades tiptoeing through their darkness. Smacking them with a lantern isn't winning me any friends but i like the shocked look on their pallid faces.

Anonymous Fred January 27, 2014 9:10 AM  

Sounds like a perfect segue into a discussion on Calvinism...after all, Calvinists believe that folks that dont hold to the 5 points of Calvinism, are unelect, empty, and going to hell.

Blogger Sean January 27, 2014 9:10 AM  

"Remind them their only hope at the joy they envy and crave is to abandon their empty, narcissistic pride and allow the Way, the Truth, and the Life to fill up the void within."

Even those of us who believe, need to be reminded of this from time to time....or daily in my case.

Anonymous Salt January 27, 2014 9:11 AM  

I realized why they never admit they are wrong no matter how obvious the error, nor can they compromise, nor hold a rational discussion, nor a polite one, nor can they restrain themselves. They can neither win nor surrender.

Yup! The only thing I see in their defense is that they sure can dance!

"Dance, little doggie, dance."

Anonymous FritzG January 27, 2014 9:17 AM  

Why are social critics like John C. Wright always swinging for the fences in their diatribes, rather than choosing to play small ball and really explore ideas and beliefs. It's tedious. They apply grand suppositions to the actions and very being of people they do not know, but to such large swaths of people they do not know. Then they keep writing, do it some more, and expect to be taken seriously.

One thing about Day is that at least he's willing to engage in small ball thinking and criticism despite his tendency to occasionally pull a Wright and paint a picture of his ideas the way Pollock painted a landscape.

Anonymous x January 27, 2014 9:17 AM  

Let's not forget, however, that once Nothing People are converted, they can become terrible swords for the Lord. E.g. Saul/Paul.

How many effective apologists where Born Again in their 20s and 30s after a prior life of atheism?

Anonymous Imaginary Nothing Person January 27, 2014 9:18 AM  

“One of my friends once asked me why I seem to run into so many of these people, both personally and professionally.”

There was a lot of wisdom to be gained from your friends question, alas, you seem to have missed it.

Anonymous VD January 27, 2014 9:24 AM  

There was a lot of wisdom to be gained from your friends question, alas, you seem to have missed it.

Don't be shy, Imaginary Nothing Person. Do explain all this wisdom, by all means.

Blogger JartStar January 27, 2014 9:30 AM  

They are spiritually insane.

Blogger IM2L844 January 27, 2014 9:31 AM  

There was a lot of wisdom to be gained from your friends question, alas, you seem to have missed it.

Passive/aggressive crap doesn't play well here. If you have something worth saying, stop with the ambiguities, grow a pair and spit it out.

Anonymous MrGreenMan January 27, 2014 9:34 AM  

This reminds me of a discussion I had in a Bible study a while back: Why does it seem that there are so many demoniacs in the New Testament? The answer I eventually came to: it was the age, and because the LORD was close, the lord of this world had to stir up his minions to show that he was still here, too. You look back in the OT, you look in classical history - it seems like it was definitely a period of demoniacs, and, yet, you look at the text and Legion seemed surprised that he ran into Jesus, and all the demons are quick to assert that the time of their punishment is not yet come.

What you've described is the madness of this age: A denial of everything; a perpetual material adolescence stuck in fatuous thoughts that they think are big.

I remember going through these things where they would talk about manhood rituals (the women LOVE academic discussions of manhood rituals) and finding meaning in things, and, having been a slave to Jesus Christ a long time already, I really could not understand the emptiness in these people. It has taken years of study and reading to understand what they'll do motivated by the emptiness of their own thoughts in a nihilistic, materialistic belief system.

It's in time that I've understood how their actions are exactly those of the Romans who beat down the crown of thorns, and I've understood what having their conscience seared means, and I've come to wonder if the process of separating the goats from the sheep begins with the evangelist who says the message and they self select here and now, so that the great day of judgment is just a formality; everyone already knows where he's going. Thinking this, then the only option is to confront them with the offense of Truth.

Blogger Hamilton January 27, 2014 9:35 AM  

My parents are these sort of people. Tough childhood, I needed years of life outside the house before I could start to unravel the mental mind-fuck. On the positive side, it lead me straight to Christ, the Truth.

I offer my parents no quarter. They are not welcome around me or their three grandchildren, two of which they have never met. Their constant accusations and self centered philosophies have lead them to do (or attempt to do) horrible things to me and my family. It's as if our happiness and faith is a direct assault on their very life. Psychopaths indeed. I tried several strategies to repair various issues, none working, because Vox is correct, their pride is the problem. And their pride is only growing stronger with culture supporting their every thought.

Damn Vox, your description of these people is so accurate.

I wonder what these people's souls will look like in a thousand years if they were to be physically manifested in the way C.S. Lewis describes in The Great Divorce.

Anonymous VD January 27, 2014 9:36 AM  

Passive/aggressive crap doesn't play well here.

Amazing how they go right to the confrontational non-confrontation, isn't it?

Anonymous VD January 27, 2014 9:38 AM  

Damn Vox, your description of these people is so accurate.

No quarter and no contact is the only solution. They not only wreak havoc in their own lives, they will wreak havoc in the lives of anyone that permits them any access to their lives.

OpenID simplytimothy January 27, 2014 9:45 AM  

I see them, they know I see them....

Bingo.





Anonymous Tallen January 27, 2014 9:46 AM  

From dust were we made, and to dust we shall return.

Anonymous Josh January 27, 2014 9:48 AM  


If there is one thing they hate to hear, it is that they are fallen. They cling furiously to their pride and to their pretense to superiority because that is all they have. They are de facto psychopaths; they have no ability to empathize for all that they claim to empathize with everything and everyone from the snail darter to a bullied homosexual teen. They have endless hypothetical love for humanity and nothing of the real thing for their neighbors or anyone but themselves.


These nothing people seem to be either feminists or gamma males, and this description of their actions is more evidence for the idea that gamma brains are wired like female ones.

Anonymous Eric Ashley January 27, 2014 9:49 AM  

You'll hate this, but this sounds like the bad guys in the Shannara novels. Ghosts who don't yet realize they don't exist.

But then the first Shannara novel did have a good bit about how terrifying it was to know the absolute truth about yourself.

Anonymous Imagined Nothing Person January 27, 2014 9:54 AM  

“Do explain all this wisdom, by all means”

You couldn’t infer it, especially given my moniker? OK, you see so many of them because you imagine them to be that way. It’s you, not them.

Anonymous x January 27, 2014 9:56 AM  

No quarter and no contact is the only solution

Given the Nothing People run the world and are pretty much everywhere ... do you suggest "going Amish" or what?

Anonymous ck January 27, 2014 9:58 AM  

You couldn’t infer it, especially given my moniker?

maybe Vox doesn't speak Aspie Social Retard as fluently as you?

Anonymous FritzG January 27, 2014 10:03 AM  

The amount of time, energy, pathos, gearing up, and consternation that some believers direct toward the tiny proportion of the population that don't believe like they do suggests a unhealthy paranoia. It's head shaking....But I suppose it's a living.

Anonymous Josh January 27, 2014 10:05 AM  

Hi tad

Anonymous x January 27, 2014 10:06 AM  

You mean the "tiny proportion of the population" that controls not only the gears of the U.S. govt, but also NGOs, mass entertainment, the school system, the banking system, etc.?



Blogger IM2L844 January 27, 2014 10:06 AM  

Ahhh, confirmation bias, the trusty old standard fallback accusation. Your chili is weak, IMP.

Anonymous ck January 27, 2014 10:08 AM  

FritzG: how much does Concern Trolling pay? enough to pay mom some rent?

Anonymous Josh January 27, 2014 10:09 AM  

It's organic vegan gluten free tofu chili.

Blogger Random January 27, 2014 10:12 AM  

Amazing how much time and effort a doctor directs toward the tiny proportion of a patient's cells that are cancerous.

Anonymous FritzG January 27, 2014 10:17 AM  

"You mean the "tiny proportion of the population" that controls not only the gears of the U.S. govt, but also NGOs, mass entertainment, the school system, the banking system, etc.?"

No, I mean the tiny proportion of the population who don't believe in God. These are the folks you are railing against, right?

Anonymous FritzG January 27, 2014 10:18 AM  

"FritzG: how much does Concern Trolling pay? enough to pay mom some rent?"

Not much...About $20 a weeks. But that's just enough for me to leave on your bedside table.

Anonymous ck January 27, 2014 10:28 AM  

tadfag trolls again.

OpenID mattse001 January 27, 2014 10:31 AM  

And one more example of self-nullifying logical fallacy:

"There are no absolute morals," says moral relativism. Except for the absolutist statement that "there are no absolute morals."

Blogger Krul January 27, 2014 10:37 AM  

John C. Wright's style reminds me a bit of Ayn Rand's. Plenty of arbitrary assertions, bombastic moralizing, and contemptuous psychologizing.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 January 27, 2014 10:39 AM  

If anyone needs a literary example, just think of what happened to Professor Weston in between Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra. And then reflect on how the Unman acted in the latter book. He had the intellect of angels yet focused it on trying to destroy an entire people. And when he wasn't engaging in intellectual discourse, he spent his time torturing animals. C.S. Lewis understood these people better than so of the most intelligent conservatives of today.

Anonymous Catan January 27, 2014 10:42 AM  

No, I mean the tiny proportion of the population who don't believe in God.

When atheists are trying to win a political fight, they talk as if they are an emerging majority, soon to outlive the old, dying religious baby boomers.

But when Vox directly attacks their tendencies, all of a sudden they are the tiny, tiny minority, as if it is 1790. All so he can play the victim card and cry crocodile tears.

It's so predictable, you could almost time your watch by it. Pathetic.

Anonymous Jake January 27, 2014 10:48 AM  

No, I mean the tiny proportion of the population who don't believe in God. These are the folks you are railing against, right?

Maybe I'm reading it differently, but I don't think that's quite it. A subset of atheists certainly, but atheism is not sufficient or probably even necessary.

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni January 27, 2014 10:52 AM  

"The only thing forbidden is to seek salvation."

This is all you have to know about the Powers that Be to be quite aware of the seriousness of the situation and the implacable nature of the foe. For what is life for but to achieve salvation?

They will fight us tooth and nail, to their last breath, to prevent us from achieving that which they know they must not admit is the only proper goal of a man.

Anonymous Tizona January 27, 2014 10:59 AM  

"Again, once he had rejected the authority of tradition, so that his one precept is to ignore all precepts of his teachers, he has no motive and no way to pass along to the next generation this selfsame precept, for he then is himself a teacher teaching them to ignore all teachers. And so on."

How amusing. Sound like Protestantism.

Blogger wrf3 January 27, 2014 11:04 AM  

mattse001 claimed that this is a fallacy: "There are no absolute morals," says moral relativism. Except for the absolutist statement that "there are no absolute morals."

It isn't a logical fallacy. "There are no moral absolutes" is a statement about "is" (e.g. "the sky is blue"). Morality deals with "ought" (e.g. "the sky ought to be green" or "It would be better if the sky were red so we could pretend we were on Vulcan.")

Anonymous Earl January 27, 2014 11:06 AM  

The other thing I like to point out about these reality hating people is that they will never stop. There is not some future point where these types of people will throw up their hands and say, "Well, everyone is equal now, and justice works perfectly, and there's no more hurty words being said anywhere, so we're done; peace out!"

They will never heed 1Thes4:11 or 1Tim2:2, and live a peaceful and quiet life, minding their own affairs, working with their hands to become independent.

Anonymous VD January 27, 2014 11:11 AM  

You couldn’t infer it, especially given my moniker? OK, you see so many of them because you imagine them to be that way. It’s you, not them.

(laughs) I could infer many things. I choose not to speak for others. In any event, you are completely wrong. My friend of whom I spoke recognizes them too, but only after they unmask themselves, not infrequently as a result of my interactions with them. He suffers from their actions more than I do, because I refuse to have anything to do with them as soon as I recognize them.

He always tries to give them the benefit of the doubt. It never works, at least not with this specific type of people.

Blogger HerewardMW January 27, 2014 11:15 AM  

"It's not that I recognize their lies so much as I recognize the constant scanning of others perception of them in which they necessarily engage."

Damn, that just clicked with me.

I have until recently been working in a consumer electronics sales role dealing with the general public and every now and then you got someone who was just a bit "off" and I couldn't put my finger on it. Often they would be gay or very left wing/social justice types who would throw out either information about themselves or their same sex partner or some social justice cant in a very gratuitous manner (especially odd when you're buying a laptop) and seemed to be looking for some reaction.

I always knew, without knowing how until I read the above, who was going to do this. Their "constant scanning of others perception" just gave them a really strange manner that I wasn't sure how to interpret. I obviously never gave them a reaction; partly because I was too professional at work (and didn't want to get fired) and partly because I run a modified version of "don't ask don't tell" called "don't ask because you don't give a cr*p".

Blogger wrf3 January 27, 2014 11:15 AM  

John C. Wright wrote: their theory of metaphysics is that subatomic particles do have free will, because cause and effect is statistical, approximate, uncertain, incomplete, and illusory.

The universe is a very, very strange place. Subatomic particles (well, everything, actually, but it's easier to see with smaller things) exist in quantum superposition. A photon, for example, is in spin-up and spin-down states simultaneously. Whether or not that photon will pass through your polarized lenses or be stopped can't be known before it actually happens.

Blogger IM2L844 January 27, 2014 11:16 AM  

John C. Wright's style reminds me a bit of Ayn Rand's. Plenty of arbitrary assertions, bombastic moralizing, and contemptuous psychologizing.

I couldn't disagree more. Wright's style doesn't strike me as droning the way Rand's does. I thought the essay was oozing with the contemporary pertinence of an anthropological behaviorist studying the rationalization hamster's role in alleviating the discomfort of cognitive dissonance resulting from truth seeping into the progressive's worldview. I can't wait to read parts 2 and 3.

Blogger El Borak January 27, 2014 11:18 AM  

There is not some future point where these types of people will throw up their hands and say...

Of course not, because whatever the 'issue' is, it's merely an excuse to puff around and be angry. Take feminists for example, then apply the 'demands' of the original (or even second wave) feminists to what they have today. Votes? Check. Property? Check. Abortion? Check. No-fault divorce? Check. They even have a family court system that favors them massively over men.

Now, are they proportionally happier today than they were before they had all this stuff they asked for? Of course not: they are universally bitter, plenty are sexually disoriented, and more than a few of them are emotionally unhinged to the point that they deny even the most obvious truths of biology, history, and even mathematics.

Giving them what they demand is no solution to their psychosis because the psychosis does not arise from a lack of the things they are demanding.

Anonymous Earl January 27, 2014 11:18 AM  

"No, I mean the tiny proportion of the population who don't believe in God. These are the folks you are railing against, right?"

In my case, it is not just railing, it is also lamenting. I have loved ones who are NOT atheists yet they are stuck on this type of thinking, unable to feel fulfilled, miserable and confused and wayward. These loved ones even admit that Christian faith would be nice, but it's just not applicable to them where they are currently. These loved ones suffering from The Nothingness want to get married, have kids, but cannot, because they are blind and stumbling in the dark. Yet these loved ones will probably fall under my care some time in the future, seeing that I am the only man in the family who is not a Nothing Person. I would much rather them get their own families to change their adult diapers.

OpenID mattse001 January 27, 2014 11:19 AM  

@wrf3

Conceded: my terminology was wrong (I need to study formal logic more)

But the point was correct: that the [proposition?] is self-nullifying by its own logic. Otherwise, if you accept it simply as a definitional statement, you are doing so without any proof to bolster its truthfulness.
I.e. "why should anyone believe this statement?"

Anonymous Poli_Mis January 27, 2014 11:22 AM  

OT or maybe it isn't but this is too darned awesome not to share.

Get Konnected with The Kronies Action Figures

Anonymous jack January 27, 2014 11:30 AM  

Gosh, this has the unpeople coming out the woodwork. John Wright has hit a button. I like it.
I like Wright as well. He is a sane man in a strange world. I read him with respect. This posting/essay of his will go into long term storage and review until I can recite it from memory. There are a few targets out there....Their exploding heads won't be missed.

Blogger wrf3 January 27, 2014 11:32 AM  

mattse001 wrote: that the [proposition?] is self-nullifying by its own logic. Otherwise, if you accept it simply as a definitional statement, you are doing so without any proof to bolster its truthfulness.
I.e. "why should anyone believe this statement?"


First, we accept statements without proof all the time. They are called axioms. We have to, because logic can't get off the ground without them. It doesn't matter if they are the 5 axioms of Euclidean geometry, the "self-evident truths" upon which the U. S. Constitution is based, or the idea that solipsism is false (i.e. that there really is an external mind-independent reality).

Second, it isn't clear whether this is a presupposition or a simple observation. Our morality is nothing more than the introspection we make on paths to goals. It doesn't matter if it's with a game of Tic-Tac-Toe (this move is good if you want to win; that move is good if you want to lose; the other move is good if you want to draw); or navigating through life. For there to be an absolute morality there needs to be an absolute goal. If you look at the Universe, what's its goal?

Anonymous kalel666 January 27, 2014 11:32 AM  

Ray Bradbury had their measure, 50 years ago:
“For these beings, fall is ever the normal season, the only weather, there be no choice beyond. Where do they come from? The dust. Where do they go? The grave. Does blood stir their veins? No: the night wind. What ticks in their head? The worm. What speaks from their mouth? The toad. What sees from their eye? The snake. What hears with their ear? The abyss between the stars. They sift the human storm for souls, eat flesh of reason, fill tombs with sinners. They frenzy forth....Such are the autumn people.”
from Something Wicked This Way Comes.

Anonymous Josh January 27, 2014 11:33 AM  

Often they would be gay or very left wing/social justice types who would throw out either information about themselves or their same sex partner or some social justice cant in a very gratuitous manner (especially odd when you're buying a laptop) and seemed to be looking for some reaction.

What they're trying to do is provoke you into bring a hateful bigot against them and their lifestyle choice so they can go tell a liberal blog that some hateful bigot at Hateful Bigot Retail Store was being a hateful bigot and discriminating against them. Thus allowing then to earn more Social Justice Victim of Hateful Bigotry points.

It's no longer enough for them to accumulate social justice victim points on the internet ("OMG YOU GUYS" a guy on a blog was totally being a meanie to me"). They're now starting to earn those points in real life. Because you get way more points if you're being meaned on in public.

Think of it as LARPING for liberals.

Blogger Some dude January 27, 2014 11:39 AM  

@VD

One of my friends once asked me why I seem to run into so many of these people, both personally and professionally. The answer is simple. I see them, they know I see them, and their instinctive reaction is to immediately attack those who recognize them for what they are.

I want to propose an additional reason. Maybe they seek you out, because you are one of the few people who will tell them the truth.

Maybe that's why these people show so much unrelenting hatred and contempt for people that don't stand up to them.

Blogger Some dude January 27, 2014 11:47 AM  

@VD

question: I was hitting on some girl in a mall, and the exchange was going well, when she mentioned she was waiting for her girlfriend (lover). I didn't really know how to react to this. I don't want to flatter her and pretend that I think that's OK (it's not, she's doing something evil), on the other hand I don't want to just turn my back on someone who was mostly friendly to me, and who didn't even start with me in the first place.

So what should I do in that case? How do I react?

Anonymous Josh January 27, 2014 11:49 AM  

So what should I do in that case? How do I react?

Obviously go for the threesome.

Blogger Outlaw X January 27, 2014 11:50 AM  

I think Vox was possessed by Chesterton this morning.

OpenID mattse001 January 27, 2014 11:52 AM  

wrf3 wrote:"First, we accept statements without proof all the time. They are called axioms."

That's a bit facile. We accept axioms without proof because they are self-evidently true. Statements that are not self-evidently true require proof of their rectitude.
Regarding that, the more-complete quote is "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal." The words "We hold" in this case are a statement of the founders' beliefs. Whether the rest of the statement is true is another matter.

wrf3 wrote:"For there to be an absolute morality there needs to be an absolute goal. If you look at the Universe, what's its goal?"

I agree. The consensus view before the modern era would've been Judeo-Christian values preparing one for God's judgment.
The Universe, per se, is not sentient and therefore has no "goals."

Blogger Nate January 27, 2014 11:56 AM  

"I was hitting on some girl in a mall, and the exchange was going well, when she mentioned she was waiting for her girlfriend (lover). "

Let me tranlate:

"EWWWW... creeper dude was like... tawlking to me and stuff... and like.. Ok...I said... I'm just waiting on my girlfiend! like.. take the hint creeper dude... whatevz!"

Blogger JDC January 27, 2014 11:58 AM  

how terrifying it was to know the absolute truth about yourself.

Which is why, God-haters and liberal Christians work so hard to attack the law as scriptures lays it out (I would add that God-haters also attack the Gospel, but seem to have little understanding of it).

This of course is Protestant/Reformed thinking, but the law has three basic functions. Mirror, curb and guide. Each with a shared function of driving one to Christ.

The Law tells us what we must do; the Gospel tells us what God has already done.
The Law shows us our sins, the Gospel shows us a Savior.
The Law brings fear, the Gospel comfort.
The Law condemns, the Gospel sets is free.

People don't want to be told what to do. People don't want their sins revealed. People want to avoid the fear of realizing their true self, and mostly, people don't want to be condemned.

OpenID mattse001 January 27, 2014 12:09 PM  

JDC wrote:"People don't want to be told what to do. People don't want their sins revealed. People want to avoid the fear of realizing their true self, and mostly, people don't want to be condemned."

To this I would add: liberalism isn't just a worldview (a reflection of the external world), but a self-definition. Liberals need to feel good about themselves, because without the belief that they are "good" people, they have nothing.

This explains their dogged resistance to contrary (and sometimes, easily provable!) facts. They cannot question their beliefs because that would amount to questioning their very existence. And that would lead to profound cognitive dissonance and pain.

Blogger James January 27, 2014 12:10 PM  

Vox this is brilliant.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 27, 2014 12:22 PM  

I certainly disagree with the idea that the atheo-left has no moral system. A bad moral system is still a moral system (which I say in the sense of "Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude - at least it's an ethos"). The left is a fanatical utopian cult, who feel that the rightness of their cause entitles them to use any means to achieve victory. This is what leads to what I've said before: the fact that the left has no principles, only ideology. They'll make the world perfect, if they have to lie, kill, exercise utter tyranny, and crush every last one of you motherfuckers to make it happen.

This is what makes them dangerous: Someone who's bound and determined to take your wallet will at least stop when the risk/reward equation passes a certain level. Someone who wants to save the world will stop at nothing to achieve their goals.

But here I'll agree with Vox: Why do people join cults? They join them because they're unhappy; they feel empty inside and their lives lack meaning. By fanatically devoting themselves to a world-saving cause, they can define themselves, give themselves a purpose, be a part of something greater than they were alone. If you're part of a great cause, there's no need to be a whole person; that which you are missing is made up for by the cause; by the group.

But that's for True Believers, of course. Then there's the lumpenprole masses who simply want to vote themselves more sexual license and more goodies out of the public fisk.

Blogger Outlaw X January 27, 2014 12:29 PM  

This explains their dogged resistance to contrary (and sometimes, easily provable!) facts. They cannot question their beliefs because that would amount to questioning their very existence. And that would lead to profound cognitive dissonance and pain.

This crosses party lines. Many people I know well are "Conservatives", but for life of me I am always wondering what it is they are trying to conserve? They never met a war they didn't like whether Drugs, Afghanistan, Iran ect... "Liberals" on the other hand are not liberals they are totalitarians. I am a classical liberal and believe Vox and many of his readers are as well, that is what attracts me to him. He doesn't have an unbending line of thought, he is not a well trained dog he thinks for himself. I have oversimplified to a great extent but if It needs to be spelled it out I will leave that to people more articulate than me.

Anonymous VD January 27, 2014 12:30 PM  

Vox this is brilliant.

Tell John Wright that. I'm just adding a few tangential thoughts.

Anonymous jack January 27, 2014 12:31 PM  

Wright's first essay on this subject left me thinking of a delightful set of passages within Eco's 'Foucault's Pendulum' which I now am reading.
The scene is Casaubon's first meeting and conversation with Belbo at the Pilade bar. Belbo has defined humanity as consisting of four types: Lunatic, moron, cretin, and fool. The philosophical discussion that follows between the two of them is utterly hilarious and revealing. I will say no more but just this chapter is worth the price of the book and the time reading it. I cannot imagine what treasures may wait further into this tale of the pendulum.

Anonymous Ferd January 27, 2014 12:32 PM  

Well said, Vox Day.
You have put into words what I have observed for years.
And, now no more should we play nice. They hit us we hit them back harder. It is the only way. As you said they will never accept us and our viewpoints anyway. With the light of truth expose and stomp on the cockroaches!

Anonymous VD January 27, 2014 12:33 PM  

So what should I do in that case? How do I react?

Learn that your ability to read conversations is off. It wasn't going well. The chances that she is genuinely a lezbot are small. She was finding a way to tell you that she wasn't interested.

I would simply smile, wish her a good time chewing the carpet, and exit. You're not the morality police and she is either a lesbian or a liar. In either case, not a wise object of interest.

Anonymous Rufus January 27, 2014 12:35 PM  

Wow. This guy can write. Spot on. Added to my reading list. Thanks, Vox.

Blogger IM2L844 January 27, 2014 12:36 PM  

First, we accept statements without proof all the time.

Irrelevant to a conclusion (this truth is absolute) contradicting it's own premise (truth is relative).

If you look at the Universe, what's its goal?

Also irrelevant and an improper transposition. I reject the paraconsistent logic of reductionist materialism.

Blogger Good Will January 27, 2014 12:36 PM  

Satan is known as the great "accuser":

Rev. 12:10
"For the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night."

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Anonymous CLK January 27, 2014 12:36 PM  

So Jesus was a capitalist and and we should dismiss socialism as evil... Wright needs to rethink that part because if there is any part of modern man's society that would appear to have the hand of Satan behind it its is capitalism... its taken issues that would be clearly defined as right and wrong in older terms and have remade them into profit and loss -- and thus ok -- and it allows good Christians to isolate themselves from the effects of their actions and the companies they work for. I am generally supportive of Protestantism as an necessary evil that ultimately results in God's goals being met... but this is to me one of its failing points in the 21st century.

Anonymous Josh January 27, 2014 12:40 PM  

Wright needs to rethink that part because if there is any part of modern man's society that would appear to have the hand of Satan behind it its is capitalism

How are you defining capitalism?

Anonymous LES January 27, 2014 12:42 PM  

The Nothing People want others to be nothing, too.

"According to the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980), by refusing to face up to ‘non-being’ a person is acting in ‘bad faith’, and so living out a life that is inauthentic and unfulfilling. Facing up to non-being can bring a sense of calm, freedom, even nobility and—yes—it can also bring insecurity, loneliness, responsibility, and consequently anxiety. But far from being pathological, this anxiety is a sign of health, strength, and courage. As Freud noted, ‘Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.'

For Tillich, refusing to face up to non-being not only leads to a life that is inauthentic, but also to neurotic anxiety. Tillich witheringly remarked that neurosis is ‘the way of avoiding non-being by avoiding being’. According to this outlook, neurotic anxiety arises from repressed existential anxiety, which itself arises from the nature of the human condition and, more specifically, from our uniquely human capacity for self-consciousness.

Facing up to non-being enables a person to put his life into perspective, see it in its entirety, and thereby give it a sense of direction and unity. If the ultimate source of anxiety is a fear of the future, the future ends in death; and if the ultimate source of anxiety if uncertainty, death is the only certainty. Facing up to death, accepting its inevitability, and integrating it into life not only cures one of neurosis, but also enables one to get and make the most out of life."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201205/our-hierarchy-needs

Anonymous Rufus January 27, 2014 12:46 PM  

"What they actually are is blind souls lost in a fog of hazy ideas and soggy sentimentality and howlingly angry self-righteousness with no logic and no fixed purpose, but one fixed enemy that they likewise never name. His name is Christ."

Anonymous Matt 16:18 January 27, 2014 12:46 PM  

Heh - you guys still don't get it. Wright is NOT talking about atheists.

The Nothing People = Protestants.

They ditched Rome, which means they ditched their salvation... while destroying the West. N

Anonymous Bzzzzt January 27, 2014 12:49 PM  

Wright needs to rethink that part because if there is any part of modern man's society that would appear to have the hand of Satan behind it its is capitalism...

Wrong.

Socialism requires sin in order to function, capitalism does not.

Anonymous Hunsdon January 27, 2014 12:49 PM  

Ezra Klein has a catchy name for his new enterprise. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/01/26/Ezra-Klein-s-New-Website-Will-Report-The-News-And-Tell-You-What-to-Think-About-It

Anonymous Heh January 27, 2014 12:50 PM  

So what should I do in that case? How do I react?

Ask if you can watch.

Blogger The Aardvark January 27, 2014 12:52 PM  

Think of it as LARPING for liberals. -- Josh

Wins the thread for me!

Anonymous Salt January 27, 2014 12:59 PM  

OT -

For the firearm enthusiast... the last bullet you'll ever need?

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 January 27, 2014 1:03 PM  

So Jesus was a capitalist and and we should dismiss socialism as evil

You're an idiot. Read the article in its entirety and you'll see that Wright talks about more than just simple economic theories.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 January 27, 2014 1:05 PM  

They ditched Rome, which means they ditched their salvation... while destroying the West. N

Hey idiot: Jesus didn't come to Rome. In fact, He never set foot in Rome. So Rome is no more holy than Newark, NJ. It just happens to be the place where the leader of the largest church lives.

Anonymous Josh January 27, 2014 1:06 PM  

Dammit, just ignore the papist trolls...

Anonymous ZhukovG January 27, 2014 1:10 PM  

@Matt 16:18

I am a Roman Catholic, and I say that you would have to be blind, stupid or a combination of the two, not to recognize that the Holy Spirit is alive and well in many Protestant churches.

Given the current state of the RCC in the United States and Europe, I am reminded of a little Bible lesson having to do with beams and specks.

Anonymous daddynichol January 27, 2014 1:23 PM  

A very thought provoking piece, Vox. I will send it on to others for encouragement or chastisement, whatever the case may be.

Anonymous Jonathan January 27, 2014 1:23 PM  

Most of this is spot on, except the bit about free will. Liberals arbitrarily endorse or deny free will based on their own desired outcomes. Kant's philosophy of the autonomy of the will is a founding liberal concept.

Anonymous Eric Ashley January 27, 2014 1:26 PM  

JDC,
Agreed. Its interesting that only in that one book did the sword that shattered illusions make its appearance as a majorly useful weapon. Mostly after that it was elfstones. The idea of a Sword of Truth is very powerful (Wizard's First Rule guy made a dozen or so books on it) and I just read Omnitopia with one playing a minor role in it. Why toss such an idea aside?

The goal of the universe is to make God happy. The universe probably is not sentient, but I just made a hamburger or two. Those hamburgers' goals were to fill my stomach, because I, their cook, designated that as their goal.

Blogger wrf3 January 27, 2014 1:27 PM  

mattse001 wrote: We accept axioms without proof because they are self-evidently true. Statements that are not self-evidently true require proof of their rectitude.

Right, but that puts things squarely back into the realm of relativism. After all, what is self-evidently true to one person may not be self-evidently true to another. Knowing whether or not something is truly an axiom or not can be very difficult. Euclid's fifth axiom bothered people for several thousand years and, in the 1800's (?), led to the discovery of consistent non-Euclidean geometries.

The Universe, per se, is not sentient and therefore has no "goals."

The Minbari would disagree with you. As Delenn said, "We are the Universe, made manifest, trying to figure itself out."

More seriously, we could argue that computers aren't sentient (yet), yet they have goals. You might argue that they are imparted goals but, if so, then why would you say that the universe has no imparted goals?

Finally, if there are no observable external universal goals, then morality is internal and we humans are not fixed-goal creatures. So that strongly argues that morality is relative.

Blogger IM2L844 January 27, 2014 1:31 PM  

Heh - you guys still don't get it. Wright is NOT talking about atheists.

Huh? Did you miss this bit?

NAMING THE NAMELESS

This movement goes by many names, all of them misleading. Any name that ceases to mislead is dropped, and another misleading name adopted, so no name is permanent. Liberal they call themselves, albeit they diminish liberty, and progressive they call themselves, but they retard or reverse progress. Political Correctness is the least misleading of the names, and hence the one least likely to be used or admitted. They call themselves freethinkers, but they think like slaves.

Technically, they are a variant of a heresy called Gnosticism, that is, a deviation or corruption of Christian thought which holds that superior secret knowledge, not faith, is sufficient for salvation. They retain enough of Christian thought, such as compassion for the poor, or a belief in equality in the eyes of God, to appeal to the hearts of the gullible (for even the most gullible is not moved by merely an appeal to self-centeredness) but they reject the sovereignty of God, or even the existence of God, and most reject the significance of any spiritual dimension to reality, or reject the existence of the spirit. The parallels to Gnosticism are many, but the most obvious is the principle of rebellion against every aspect of the world-system. In the ancient Gnostic, this meant rebellion against the Demiurge or world-creator; in the modern Gnostic it means rebellion against the establishment, the social order, the civilization, all rules and all customs. There is some promise of a Pleorma in ancient Gnosticism to justify the destruction of the current world; likewise, there is some vague hint of a promise of a utopia, or at least an improvement, to justify the destruction of the protests, riots, convulsions and radical transformations of all long standing law and custom.

What they actually are is blind souls lost in a fog of hazy ideas and soggy sentimentality and howlingly angry self-righteousness with no logic and no fixed purpose, but one fixed enemy that they likewise never name. His name is Christ.

For the purpose of this essay, I will interchangeably call them ‘Progressives’ or ‘Abolishers of Man’.

Blogger wrf3 January 27, 2014 1:35 PM  

IM2L844 wrote: Irrelevant to a conclusion (this truth is absolute) contradicting it's own premise (truth is relative).

Oh, FFS. The statement "all morality is relative" is not the same statement as "all truth is relative".

Morality is relative to goals. A good move in Tic-Tac-Toe has nothing to do with a good move in Chess, except that both get a play closer to a goal state (assuming the player wants to win. A parent teaching a child to play may wish to lose so that the child isn't consistently frustrated).

For someone to say that morality is absolute presupposes an ultimate observable goal. If that goal exists, it isn't evident by observing the universe except, perhaps, by nothing its ultimate heat death.

Anonymous patrick kelly January 27, 2014 1:40 PM  

"Liberals need to feel good about themselves, because without the belief that they are "good" people, they have nothing."

This is a common theme. Liberals acquaintances often express wanting to vote for someone because they are "a good person", or " a nice guy", or "want to do the right thing", no matter what they may have actually done or not done in the past.

I've been told that my ilk-ish way of discussing news is "not very nice and won't convince anyone" without any regard or care for how factual or true anything is. As if being accepted and considered nice by all the nice wabbits' was the most importantest thing evah'............

But I'm a bitter cynic, what do I know.....


bleh.......

OpenID mattse001 January 27, 2014 1:45 PM  

wrf3 wrote:"Finally, if there are no observable external universal goals, then morality is internal and we humans are not fixed-goal creatures. So that strongly argues that morality is relative."

Restating, "...if there are no observable external [to us] universal goals...", results in three states that I can see:
1) There *are* observable external universal goals (false, as it implies the universe has consciousness)
2) There are no goals (i.e. morality), either internal or external (the relativist position, or the "null state?")
3) There are internal goals. (agree)

"...and we humans are not fixed-goal creatures."
This second assertion is not proven by the truth of the first statement, but you simply add it on. What does that make it? An axiom, in your lexicon?

The last sentence follows from the second, disputed assertion and is therefore itself disputed.

OpenID cailcorishev January 27, 2014 1:48 PM  

"The only thing forbidden is to seek salvation."

That's pretty much it. You can see it play out in various areas. Any religion or lack thereof is acceptable -- except a muscular Christianity that addresses sin and consequences. Any sexual preference or kink is acceptable -- except strict heterosexuality (while they'll claim that's a valid choice, tell a liberal that you've never had a homosexual fantasy and he'll accuse you of lying or being in the closet). Calling any assortment of individuals a "family" is acceptable -- except Dad at the head, Mom staying at home and being obedient, and more than two kids.

On every issue, they oppose that which has been stated by God and/or proven by experience to be objectively good, and promote whatever opposes it. It's completely knee-jerk, too: a liberal can hear for the very first time about some primitive religion, and before he learns a single thing about it, he's instinctively ready to approve of it because it's not-Christianity. That's why you never get much in-fighting on the left: even groups that have every reason to hate each other, like feminists and Muslims, hate their ultimate enemy far more.

Blogger IM2L844 January 27, 2014 1:52 PM  

The statement "all morality is relative" is not the same statement as "all truth is relative".

wrf3, I know you're not stupid so I can only conclude, when you are being deliberately misleading, you are dishonest. The statement, "all morality is relative" presupposes the absolute truth of it. It doesn't say, "some aspects of morality are relative" or "certain moral axioms are relativistic."

Stop hedging.

Of course the two statements are not the same, but that too is irrelavent.

Blogger Baloo January 27, 2014 1:52 PM  

Well, this is fascinating and thought-provoking. I've reblogged it with a quibcag from Mr. Wright.
People who believe in nothing, but don't realize it?

Anonymous patrick kelly January 27, 2014 1:54 PM  

Hypocritical, evil progressives often pose as protectors of the "voiceless" and "helpless" oppressed, except for the unborn.

All those angry pro-abortion protesters in orange this weekend, shouting down and confronting anyone who would lay naked their support for the murder of the most helpless and voiceless. Apparently their "happiness" and "niceness" depends upon it.

OpenID mattse001 January 27, 2014 2:16 PM  

Per Baloo's link: "At any rate, we have to be careful not to give people credit for being nihilists, when they're just stupid and disorganized in their thinking."

Liberal ideology depends on doublethink.
Person A: "I'm a good person because I support policy X."
Person B: "But policy X hurts people."
Person A: "Shut up. I'm a good person."

Doublethink is the premature truncation of the logical chain. In other words, liberals cannot or will not take their policies out to their logical conclusions.
So liberals believe in all the first principles that inexorably lead to nihilism, they just refuse to make the connections.

Anonymous kh123 January 27, 2014 2:23 PM  

"No quarter and no contact is the only solution."

Not saying facetiously, but is a tough pill to swallow when they're in the hospital.

Anonymous patrick kelly January 27, 2014 2:27 PM  

"a tough pill to swallow when they're in the hospital."

It's a guiding principle, you don't have to be an anal asshole about it.

But if you get there, and all they want to do is stir up all the old crap, I would leave in sorrow, not hatred or anger, and still pray for them....

Anonymous Peter Garstig January 27, 2014 2:46 PM  

want to propose an additional reason. Maybe they seek you out, because you are one of the few people who will tell them the truth.

Maybe that's why these people show so much unrelenting hatred and contempt for people that don't stand up to them.


Kind of like women, alphas, betas and Game. Is it all a big shit test?

Anyhow, I think they are lower in numbers as they appear. Most people just need encouragement to oppose these crazy people. That's why you don't call them out on their bullshit for their sake, but you do it for those who observe.

Blogger Some dude January 27, 2014 3:25 PM  

@VD

Thanks man

Blogger wrf3 January 27, 2014 3:31 PM  

mattse001 wrote: 1) There *are* observable external universal goals (false, as it implies the universe has consciousness)

You didn't address the observation that computers have goals and they don't (yet) have consciousness. Animals also have goals. So one could argue that consciousness isn't needed for goals. Therefore, it's a stretch to say (other than by assertion) that the universe doesn't have goals.

2) There are no goals (i.e. morality), either internal or external (the relativist position, or the "null state?")

We know, by introspection, that we have goals. So internal goals exist. We also know, by introspection, that we don't have fixed goals.

3) There are internal goals. (agree)

Ok. For there to be an absolute morality there either has to be shared goals (in the same hierarchy), or a hierarchy of external goals imposed on us. By introspection, we don't have a shared hierarchy of goals and, in your view, nature doesn't impose a goal on us. Your only recourse to avoid moral relativism is "god" (which a skeptic would argue is human projection of the idea of an ultimate goal into nature).

Anonymous Jonathan January 27, 2014 3:42 PM  

For there to be an absolute morality there either has to be shared goals (in the same hierarchy), or a hierarchy of external goals imposed on us.

Both these sources are subjective, not objective - absolute morality is subjective, not objective. Nietzsche already made this point.

Blogger wrf3 January 27, 2014 3:45 PM  

IM2L844 wrote: wrf3, I know you're not stupid so I can only conclude, when you are being deliberately misleading, you are dishonest.

A third, fourth, and more possibilities don't occur to you? Not at all? As Jesus Christ is Lord, I am not being deliberately misleading or dishonest.

The statement, "all morality is relative" presupposes the absolute truth of it.

That's right.

Stop hedging.

What do you think I'm hedging on? It is not logically inconsistent to say "it is absolutely true that all morality is relative."

Of course the two statements are not the same, but that too is irrelavent.

No, it isn't irrelevant. That you think it is, is the source of confusion. Morality is just the classification of paths in a state space. We call paths that lead to a goal state "good" and paths that lead away from a goal state "bad". So, go back to the earlier example I used with the game of Tic-Tac-Toe. You're teaching the game to your son and it's your turn to go first. You take the upper left corner. Was that a good move or a bad move? It depends on whether you want to win or lose the game. It's relative to your goal.

Anonymous Jerry's Mom January 27, 2014 3:55 PM  

This Wright fella along with Vox Day and all the other inhabitants of a pre-reason state of mind have nothing up their sleeve other than platitudes, fantasy claims and simple mindedness. It's the "Jack and the Beanstalk" theory of life in which Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and other fantasy seekers demean others for not adopting their silly theory.

You don't get to close to reality by insisting an invisible creator that never speaks, never appears, never directs and never intrudes runs the show. Still the fantasy seekers insist we not do what is good for others, but what is good for a fantasy.

Meanwhile, the clearheaded among us do us the good deed of at least trying not to do harm to our fellow man, and at most attempt to improve the lot of our fellow man without recourse to the Magic Beans Theory of history.

The "Nothing People". How quaint that this childlike reference would reference fantasy.

Anonymous Try again, troll January 27, 2014 4:00 PM  

Meanwhile, the clearheaded among us do us the good deed of at least trying not to do harm to our fellow man

Oddly enough, the "clearheaded" atheists have killed more people, and wrought more destruction and misery, than any other group in history.

Anonymous kh123 January 27, 2014 4:01 PM  

"It's a guiding principle"

No, I got that. When a friends' dad says a family member's terminal, that they're forgoing chemo, and that "Let's face it, there're no such things as miracles",would figure it's just his way of saying that someone they love is dying moreso than some concrete declarative belief. (He does believe this, or says he does, rationalism and the like.) Hell, I'd probably choose the same all things considered if and when I'm in the sufferer's shoes.

The only thing I think one could do is reconfirm in as unspoken of a way that "Yeah, I hear you, we're going to have to face this". And then back it up through action, monetary and the like.

As always though, there's the tug at the back of the mind, the balance between comfort and truth. At a point now where given any of the above situations, the taking captive of principalities would seem more a case of telling them that the train is fine. It's knowing, or being aware of, when.

Blogger wrf3 January 27, 2014 4:01 PM  

Jonathan wrote: Nietzsche already made this point.

And I would be quite happy to argue that Nietzsche was wrong. If you grant my definition of morality which is that it is our classification of pathways to/from goals (which, btw, is not a circular definition, which almost all other attempts at defining morality fail at), then one can argue that there are two ultimate goals: life, which is a prerequisite for all choices; and death, which ends all choices. Every other goal falls in those two buckets. For Nietzsche to say that morality is subjective then it follows that there is no objective way to say that life is to be preferred to death (or vice versa). And that leads to a problem where those who prefer death simply can't coexist long term with those who prefer life. This isn't the most rigorous argument in the world, but I offer it in the hope of it being refined or destroyed.

Anonymous Krul January 27, 2014 4:02 PM  

Re: Jerry's Mom,

Who is Jerry? Does he know you're using his name? Is he okay with that?

Anonymous Jerry's Mom January 27, 2014 4:04 PM  

"Oddly enough, the "clearheaded" atheists have killed more people, and wrought more destruction and misery, than any other group in history."

Oh yes...the lie about "atheists kill".... Each your magic beans. Then tally up the killings done by Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and other fantasyites.

Anonymous patrick kelly January 27, 2014 4:13 PM  

Hey J's Mom, that train left a long time ago, sorry you missed it, and it didn't end up where you think..........

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 January 27, 2014 4:13 PM  

Oh yes...the lie about "atheists kill".... Each your magic beans. Then tally up the killings done by Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and other fantasyites.

Let's tally the atheists, then you can tally the Christians and others:

-Up to 100 million in the Soviet Union under Stalin, an atheist.
-At least 30 million under Mae Zedong in China, an atheist.
-2.3 million under Pol Pot, an atheist.

Need I continue? Next time you make a statement like that, try to do some basic research.

Or continue on the path of idiocy, if it works for you.

Anonymous Josh January 27, 2014 4:18 PM  

While most literate individuals are aware of the atheism of mass murderers such as Josef Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong, they are not aware of how many other atheist leaders have been responsible for mass murder. In one of the book’s appendices, I provided a list of 49 other atheist leaders who had overseen the slaughter of at least 20,000 individuals; these 52 leaders represent the majority of atheists who have ever held supreme political power.
Link

OpenID mattse001 January 27, 2014 4:24 PM  

@wrf3:

"You didn't address the observation that computers have goals and they don't (yet) have consciousness"
Do hammers have goals? Do chairs?
"Animals also have goals."
Which is why we normally categorize one group as "animate", the other as "inanimate." The universe is inanimate.

"For there to be an absolute morality there either has to be shared goals (in the same hierarchy), or a hierarchy of external goals imposed on us"
Or, there is a God that has standards of morality, but who allows us the freewill to choose. External goals, non-imposed.

Anonymous Jerry's Mom January 27, 2014 4:28 PM  

"
-Up to 100 million in the Soviet Union under Stalin, an atheist.
-At least 30 million under Mae Zedong in China, an atheist.
-2.3 million under Pol Pot, an atheist.

Need I continue? Next time you make a statement like that, try to do some basic research."

Fantasy Folk: Every other death and killing by murder, war, genocide, aggression in the past 6000 years.

You count'em.

Anonymous Jonathan January 27, 2014 4:29 PM  

@ wrf3

For Nietzsche to say that morality is subjective then it follows that there is no objective way to say that life is to be preferred to death (or vice versa).

Uh, you need to read more closely to what I wrote. Absolute morality is subjective, thus, objective morality is relative. If objective life creates morality then different types of objective life create different types of morality, with no arbiter to judge between them.

Anonymous Josh January 27, 2014 4:36 PM  

Fantasy Folk: Every other death and killing by murder, war, genocide, aggression in the past 6000 years.

You count'em.


Doesn't work that way. You made the claim, you back it up, or you retract your claim.

Choice is up to you.

Anonymous Jerry's Mom January 27, 2014 4:45 PM  

"Doesn't work that way. You made the claim, you back it up, or you retract your claim."

Sorry, if atheism gets the blame for all the deaths under Stalin, then Christianity gets the blame for all deaths under Christian leaders. I can't count that high.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 January 27, 2014 4:50 PM  

Sorry, if atheism gets the blame for all the deaths under Stalin, then Christianity gets the blame for all deaths under Christian leaders. I can't count that high.

I'm sorry, you were the one who made the sweeping statement that Christians get blamed for all the deaths caused by Christianity.

It is clear that you don't know how many were killed in the name of Christianity or any other religion. Which makes you an idiot.

So, is Jerry a bastard? Or is he just a son of a bitch? Or both?

Anonymous Dingus January 27, 2014 4:56 PM  

Sorry, if atheism gets the blame for all the deaths under Stalin, then Christianity gets the blame for all deaths under Christian leaders. I can't count that high.
 
Although I feel Jerry’s Mom is either a Poe or a moron, there actually is some validity to this approach, although I have no idea who would come out with the higher body count in the end or if it’s even actually tells us anything. 
Another thing, in the WND article Josh posted a link to, I find the example of Vendee odd as well.  How do you count deaths caused by an anti-clerical regime (not Atheistic) in a conflict initiated by “The Catholic Army”.  Do the “atheists” get dinged because they won? 

Anonymous Jerry's Mom January 27, 2014 4:57 PM  

"It is clear that you don't know how many were killed in the name of Christianity or any other religion. Which makes you an idiot"

Do you really think it is necessary to add obtuse to the growing list of negatives associated with the Christian habit of believing in voices in the ether? It's up to you.

You can take you nonsensical evil that is polluting the world and the minds of man and sell it elsewhere.

Anonymous Jonathan January 27, 2014 5:08 PM  

@ Jerry's mom

evil

Um, yeah, hate to break it to you but religion and the concept of evil are inextricable. If you wanna give up religion then you're going too have to give up the concept of evil, as well.

OpenID cailcorishev January 27, 2014 5:11 PM  

I guess the good news is that whatever genetic defect causes atheism also causes a person to be such an overweening jerkwad that he's not likely to make any converts.

Blogger IM2L844 January 27, 2014 5:12 PM  

It is not logically inconsistent to say "it is absolutely true that all morality is relative."

Morality is just the classification of paths in a state space. We call paths that lead to a goal state "good" and paths that lead away from a goal state "bad".


That subjective moralities (conditional oughts) exist does not by necessity preclude the existence of objective morality (unconditional oughts). Objective morality emanates from the perfect nature of God. He is the ultimate ground state. There is nothing underlying His nature. God's commands are simply a reflection of that perfect ground state and by necessity couldn't be anything else. Intentionally aiming away from striving to emulate His nature, purposefully being disobedient and hitting your mark (achieving your goal of defying God's commands) does not make it intrinsically good. Consequently to say that "it is absolutely true that all morality is relative." is just wrong if not logically inconsistent.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 January 27, 2014 5:15 PM  

You can take you nonsensical evil that is polluting the world and the minds of man and sell it elsewhere.

Number one: I don't care if other people are going to Hell. Their souls, their business. Most people in the US know the Truth anyway, they just refuse to believe it.

Number two: can you define evil? Is there a concrete definition you make? Or it is just simply everything you don't like?

Blogger wrf3 January 27, 2014 5:17 PM  

mattse01 wrote: Which is why we normally categorize one group as "animate", the other as "inanimate." The universe is inanimate.

You're just restating your conclusion. Furthermore, computers are not hammers. One computes (and goal seeking is a computation); the other can be used on problems that preferably involve nails.

Or, there is a God that has standards of morality, but who allows us the freewill to choose. External goals, non-imposed.

Alternatively, our morality was forged by evolution via the iterated prisoners dilemma.

Anonymous Jonathan January 27, 2014 5:18 PM  

@ IM2L844

Objective morality emanates from the perfect nature of God.

Read your damn Bible. God explicitly calls himself "spirit", meaning pure subjectivity; therefore, a God-grounded morality is subjective, not objective. I assume this common misconception originates in the physical sciences where "truth" is a attributed as a property of external objects (it isn't but that's another topic).

Anonymous Krul January 27, 2014 5:21 PM  

Jonathan - God explicitly calls himself "spirit", meaning pure subjectivity

"Spirit" means "subjectivity"? Since when?

Anonymous Jerry's Mom January 27, 2014 5:22 PM  

"Number one: I don't care if other people are going to Hell. Their souls, their business. Most people in the US know the Truth anyway, they just refuse to believe it."

Good, because there is no hell, unless you want to call sitting through a sermon by an evangelical "hell".


"Number two: can you define evil?"

The attempted brainwashing by Christians that 1) there is an invisible thing that dictates what is right and what is wrong and that created the world and 2) that there is a consequence for not doing what the thing says ought to be done and 2) the terrible lies that Christians have told for centuries.

Anonymous Krul January 27, 2014 5:28 PM  

Jerry's Mom - "Number two: can you define evil?"

The attempted brainwashing by Christians that 1) there is an invisible thing that dictates what is right and what is wrong and that created the world and 2) that there is a consequence for not doing what the thing says ought to be done and 2) the terrible lies that Christians have told for centuries.


Those are examples, not a definition of the word.

Anonymous Jerry's Mom January 27, 2014 5:33 PM  

Evil: Attempted Brainwashing By Christians

There's your definition.

You folks with your name calling of people who you don't know, don't know of have never talked to and can't have any idea of what they think could also fall under that definition, but more importantly it marks you as nasty, incompetent haters. The beauty is that the power of your fantasy is slowly fading away.

Anonymous Josh January 27, 2014 5:35 PM  

Sorry, if atheism gets the blame for all the deaths under Stalin, then Christianity gets the blame for all deaths under Christian leaders. I can't count that high.

That's not what was requested. Are you going to retract your claim?

Anonymous FritzG January 27, 2014 5:35 PM  

"if atheism gets the blame for all the deaths under Stalin, then Christianity gets the blame for all deaths under Christian leaders."

This seems fair. Both paint with equally broad brushes, making the points trying to be made by each claim pretty useless.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 27, 2014 5:35 PM  

@Jerry's Mom

Third time you've been challenged to back up your claims with evidence or retract. Third time you've punted.

Anyhow, the point stands. Atheists like Marx promised that once we did away with religion, there'd be no more witch hunts or witch trials, no more schisms or violence about differences in dogma, no more people punished for heresy or disbelief - but when they actually got into power, these things all not only didn't get better, but got demonstrably worse. They promised a more humane society and government; what they delivered were less humane ones, by far. I don't need to demonstrate any more to show that atheism is an "Item not as described".

When it came time to put up or shut up - to not just talk about doing better, but to actually do better - atheism failed miserably, from the Vendee to the Gulags of Siberia to the killing fields of Kampuchea. Sorry, but history is real, the 20th century actually happened, and your attempts to shove it down the Memory Hole won't work here.

Anonymous Krul January 27, 2014 5:37 PM  

Jerry's Mom - Evil: Attempted Brainwashing By Christians

By this definition, attempted brainwashing by Christians is the only evil, meaning that all other actions by Christians - including the murders you brought up earlier - are not evil. It also means that the Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists you brought up are not evil.

Anonymous Josh January 27, 2014 5:37 PM  

Evil: Attempted Brainwashing By Christians

There's your definition.


Are you going to sick with that?

Anonymous Krul January 27, 2014 5:41 PM  

(continued)

It also means that brainwashing by non-Christians - like for example that done by Communists - is not evil.

In case it wasn't clear by now, Jerry's Mom, you are an ignoramus. You can't even define a word. No one should take you seriously about anything, especially something as important as morality.

Anonymous Jerry's Mom January 27, 2014 5:44 PM  

"hird time you've been challenged to back up your claims with evidence or retract. Third time you've punted. "

Let me guess, you are one of those people that has been brainwashed into believing an invisible thing in the sky is responsible for everything....So sad for you that you are unable to grasp simple truths.

I made no claim that needs to be backed up. I simply noted the "Atheist lie" promulgated by one of the delusional of your tribe and reminded them if "atheism" is given the blame for deaths under Stalin, then all deaths occurring under Judeo-Christian led regimes must be blamed on Judea-Christianity.

You must be applying the same failed logic that you apply to convincing yourself there is an invisible mind directing the world.

Anonymous Jerry's Mom January 27, 2014 5:47 PM  

"In case it wasn't clear by now, Jerry's Mom, you are an ignoramus"

And yet you and your ilk are the ones that bow down to and ask others to bow down to an invisible, mind reading, terra forming deity that never shows his face, voice or anything else. A few steps beyond ignoramus must be the Delusional.

Anonymous Jonathan January 27, 2014 5:51 PM  

@ Krul

"Spirit" means "subjectivity"? Since when?

Are you joking? Serious question. The object/subject distinction is just another way of stating the body/mind distinction, mind, in this case, being a synonym for spirit. Somewhere along the way the notion of "subjectivity" had notions of falseness or untrustworthiness attached to it.

Yes, spirit = pure subjectivity.

Anonymous Jonathan January 27, 2014 5:53 PM  

PS

Yes, spirit = pure subjectivity.

Since, well, always. Bodies are objects. God does nothing have a body. Therefore, God is not object. In the paradigm of the subject/object distinction, then, God must be subject and not object.

Anonymous Krul January 27, 2014 6:01 PM  

Jonathan, I think you're misinterpreting the word "object". The object of one's perceptions or thoughts is not necessarily a body. Numbers, for example, are immaterial and objective.

Blogger wrf3 January 27, 2014 6:06 PM  

Jerry's Mom wrote: Let me guess, you are one of those people that has been brainwashed into believing an invisible thing in the sky is responsible for everything....

The laws of physics aren't invisible?

Anonymous Salt January 27, 2014 6:07 PM  

Jerry's Mom, shouldn't you be in the kitchen? Perhaps doing something useful, like the dishes?

OpenID cailcorishev January 27, 2014 6:08 PM  

You folks with your name calling of people who you don't know,

As Vox said above, we've been too nice and too reasonable to these people for too long. We let them use talk like this to shame us into playing "fair" and looking for middle-ground, while they gladly accuse us of everything from genocide to seal-clubbing and try to destroy us. That has to stop. When one of them is being a jerkwad we need to call him a jerkwad and kick him out of our metaphorical way so we can get on with righting things.

Anonymous Jonathan January 27, 2014 6:11 PM  

@ Krul

Numbers, for example, are immaterial and objective.

No, numbers are not objective, since any application of a numbering system is a product of a particular subject. Numbers are supplied by the subject, not the objects of the subject perception.

You are explicating a Platonist line of thinking.

Blogger wrf3 January 27, 2014 6:15 PM  

IM2L844 wrote: That subjective moralities (conditional oughts) exist does not by necessity preclude the existence of objective morality (unconditional oughts). Objective morality emanates from the perfect nature of God. He is the ultimate ground state.

I'm quite aware of this line of reasoning. Prove that's it's more than just a nice story.

Consequently to say that "it is absolutely true that all morality is relative." is just wrong if not logically inconsistent.

It may be wrong but it is not inconsistent. Care to retract your "when you are being deliberately misleading, you are dishonest" statement?

Anonymous VD January 27, 2014 6:18 PM  

Sorry, if atheism gets the blame for all the deaths under Stalin, then Christianity gets the blame for all deaths under Christian leaders. I can't count that high.

Sure you can. The maximum number of deaths under a European Christian leader is about 10,000. That is less than more than 50 atheist leaders, despite the fact that there have been over 2,000 European Christian leaders.

Blogger wrf3 January 27, 2014 6:18 PM  

Jonathan wrote: You are explicating a Platonist line of thinking.

Just to help me understand where you're coming from, are you a materialist? Matter, energy, space, and time and that's it?

Anonymous Krul January 27, 2014 6:26 PM  

Re: Jonathan,

You haven't supported the assertion that "spirit" is identical with "subjectivity", a proposition that doesn't sound meaningful.

When I brought up numbers, I was making the point that "object" in this context doesn't necessarily mean "a material thing". Whether you accept the existence of Platonic universals or not is irrelevant. When you consider any other immaterial thing, like an emotion or an idea, you are the subject and it is the object of your thoughts.

Now a thing's objective nature is the way it is, as opposed to the way it is perceived by a subject, so if you believe God to be omnipotent you could say that God's perspective is purely subjective, since there is no existence apart from His perception.

This is not the same as saying that spirit is pure subjectivity, however.

Anonymous Jonathan January 27, 2014 6:40 PM  

@ Krul

When you consider any other immaterial thing, like an emotion or an idea, you are the subject and it is the object of your thoughts.

Are they immaterial? That seems to be venturing into territory that God seems to reserve for himself.

An aside: your line of reasoning is what led to Gnosticism.

Anonymous Jerry's Mom January 27, 2014 6:41 PM  

"As Vox said above, we've been too nice and too reasonable to these people for too long"

Who? Atheists? Name them, All of them.

You make no distinctions. You rape anyone who is an atheist with your shallow accusations of evil.

Anonymous Jonathan January 27, 2014 6:44 PM  

@ krul

You haven't supported the assertion that "spirit" is identical with "subjectivity"

I'm not really sure I need to. It's pretty much the accepted standard of those definitions in philosophy, going back centuries. German, for example, has the exact same word for spirit and mind, the latter of which has always been pretty much synonymous with the subjective, vs. objective, i.e. mind-independent.

Subjective = mind-dependent
Objective = mind-independent

Anonymous Jerry's Mom January 27, 2014 6:47 PM  

"Sure you can. The maximum number of deaths under a European Christian leader is about 10,000"

Every American president has been Christian. Every Canadian leader has been Christian. The British Leaders are all Christian. Italian leaders have all been christian. Spanish Leaders have all been christian.

How many have died under their directed actions. Let's just talk World War II. Then let's talk The Great War. Then let's talk the Vietnam war. Then let's talk the American Civil War. Then let's talk all the deaths caused by the actions of Judeo Christian regimes going back 2000 years. Then after that, we'll talk deaths going back further.

Anonymous Josh January 27, 2014 6:50 PM  

You make no distinctions. You rape anyone who is an atheist with your shallow accusations of evil.

We are not accusing atheists of "brainwashing by Christians"

Blogger JCclimber January 27, 2014 6:50 PM  

Countdown to moving goalposts started.....

Come on Jessie's mom, move them goalposts. I used to be amused by atheist trolls like yourself, with your hate and anger at the world which you just can't understand since you've cauterized that part of your brain that gets along with social creatures. Now I just pity you.

Not that I'll allow your murderous philosophy to come anywhere near my family, but I still pity you in your wallowing misery and unhappiness.

Blogger JCclimber January 27, 2014 6:52 PM  

crud, she moved the goalposts before I could hit the Publish button. That was fast!

Anonymous Dingus January 27, 2014 7:05 PM  

The maximum number of deaths under a European Christian leader is about 10,000.

I would not Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were not European. I know why Jerry's mom said "Christian" (because she's a moron or a Poe, a
Though she didn't say European), but I still question how valid a comparison of atheist to one small subset of theists is.

Anonymous Dingus January 27, 2014 7:06 PM  

Not should be note, but you probably got that.

Anonymous Jerry's Mom January 27, 2014 7:20 PM  

The "Atheists Kill" meme doesn't fly. It makes no sense. If you want to assign millions of deaths to Stalin because he did not believe in God, then you have to show the connection between his atheism and the causes of the deaths. You can't do this. But you try because you can't help but find your brain muddled and deteriorated by having sloshed around in the nonsensical world of the invisible and fantasy you call 'God".

Blogger Krul January 27, 2014 7:22 PM  

Jonathan - Are they immaterial?

They aren't bodies.

It's pretty much the accepted standard of those definitions in philosophy, going back centuries.

Can you refer to a source? Also, does this usage go back to the time of the writing of the New Testament?

Subjective = mind-dependent
Objective = mind-independent


I said the same thing before ("Now a thing's objective nature is the way it is, as opposed to the way it is perceived by a subject"), and the proposition that "spirit" is identical with "subjectivity" does not follow from this.

Blogger wrf3 January 27, 2014 7:35 PM  

Krul wrote: and the proposition that "spirit" is identical with "subjectivity" does not follow from this.

It looks to me like it does. God = spirit = self-existent immaterial mind = mind dependent (i.e. He depends upon Himself). Did I make a mistake somewhere?

Anonymous Krul January 27, 2014 7:59 PM  

wrf3 - God = spirit = self-existent immaterial mind = mind dependent (i.e. He depends upon Himself)

The conclusion you reach here is that God is subjective, and the proposition that spirit is subjectivity doesn't follow. Here's the argument in syllogism form:

God is spirit.
God is subjective
Therefore spirit is subjectivity.

The above is clearly fallacious.

Anonymous Jonathan January 27, 2014 9:06 PM  

@ Krul

They aren't bodies.

If those ideas and emotions have existence in the human brain, then, they are very much a part of those bodies. Therefore, they're not immaterial.

Can you refer to a source?

Hegel, off the top of my head. A definitive authority? Not really. It would almost be like asking for a definitive authority on the word "the".

Also, does this usage go back to the time of the writing of the New Testament?

Probably not. The whole subject/object distinction was not fully formed at that time. If I had the time to pore over a bunch of Greek philosophy I could probably tease out some precursors. But since you brought up the New Testament could you please direct me to the phrase "objective morality" in it?

Blogger tz January 27, 2014 9:12 PM  

These are those who CS Lewis described as "Men without Chests".

They are like ghosts, and when people like Vox "can see them", they realize the game is up.

They are not ghosts, they are anti-ghosts. Ghosts are disembodied spirits. They are dis-enspirited bodies. Zombies, except they aren't technically dead. I'm doing these posts in reverse chrono, but the Screwtape Toast applies.

They aren't damned lions, or elephants, or even dinosaurs. They are damned worms or insects.

Jesus came so that we might share in the divine nature. The devil said "non serviam!". They say "whatever".

Anonymous Jonathan January 27, 2014 9:15 PM  

@ Krul

God is spirit.
God is subjective
Therefore spirit is subjectivity.

The above is clearly fallacious.


Could you explain why it's fallacious, rather than just declaring it to be so? Also, that's not quite his reasoning in in syllogistic form and I think you reversed a premise and the conclusion. The syllogism should read as follows:

A) All spirit is subjectivity
B) God is pure spirit
C) Therefore, God is pure subjectivity

If you accept A and B, then, C logically follows. The Bible declares B so if you accept the Bible as the infallible Word of God, then, you must accept B (or deny the Bible as truth). This leaves A. Now, if you divide references to the world into subject and object you need rules for proper categorization. Object is pretty self-explanatory - it is the realm of material things. Subject, then, is the realm of immaterial things, which what Western philosophy, including Christian thought, has called spirit.

Now, if you want to explain how spirit can be material I would be interested in your explanation.

Blogger tz January 27, 2014 9:15 PM  

Once a man has utterly rejected reason, he cannot reason himself to another conclusion. Once he has rejected morality, he has no sense of honor to compel him to live up to a philosophy more demanding than narrow selfishness.

Reason is a tool, yet it can become an idol. Which is what the New Atheists do. They worship reason, and are the least reasonable, most irrational.

Similarly, they claim both their superior morality, but that there is no source for it.

Anonymous Jonathan January 27, 2014 9:28 PM  

@ Krul

Now a thing's objective nature is the way it is, as opposed to the way it is perceived by a subject

This is the noumena/phenomena distinction and is a very subtle example of question begging (going back to, at least, Kant). The thing in itself presupposes a, well, thing. The problem is that there is no "thing" in itself, except thing-ness in itself, i.e. the entirety of undifferentiated material reality. A "thing" requires a mind to differentiate it from other "things".

"No identity no entity. - WVO Quine

Anonymous Jonathan January 27, 2014 9:33 PM  

@ Krul

the proposition that "spirit" is identical with "subjectivity" does not follow from this.

Okay, then, how do you define spirit?

Anonymous Krul January 27, 2014 10:24 PM  

Jonathan - If those ideas and emotions have existence in the human brain, then, they are very much a part of those bodies. Therefore, they're not immaterial.

This is a tangent. The point is that one can think about immaterial things, so the immaterial can be the "object" in the relevant sense, so "objective" is not identical with "material". The fact that we have been discussing immaterial spirit demonstrates this, as does the fact that one can think about fictional creations.

Probably not. The whole subject/object distinction was not fully formed at that time.

The problem is that if you take the Biblical statement that God is spirit and read back into it a modern definition of the word translated as "spirit" that was not intended by the author, then you are misrepresenting the author and begging the question.

But since you brought up the New Testament could you please direct me to the phrase "objective morality" in it?

I'm not arguing in favor of any moral theory, here. I'm trying to understand what is meant by "spirit is subjectivity" and whether it is true.

Could you explain why it's fallacious, rather than just declaring it to be so?

The premise is "God is subjective", not "God is subjectivity". Even if it were, the syllogism doesn't exclude the possibility that there could be spirit that is not subjectivity, or vice versa. It's like saying this:

Dogs are animals
Dogs are mammals
Therefore animals are mammals

Now, if you divide references to the world into subject and object you need rules for proper categorization. Object is pretty self-explanatory - it is the realm of material things. Subject, then, is the realm of immaterial things, which what Western philosophy, including Christian thought, has called spirit.

It looks to me like two non-identical things are being confused here. On one hand we have the distinction between subject and object, and on the other we have the distinction between spirit and matter. I understand the metaphysical proposition that existence is composed of two aspects: the immaterial (spirit) and the material. I also understand the epistemological/psychological distinction between oneself (subject) and that which is external to oneself (object). I don't see any reason to assume that these two categories are identical.

I do see reason to conclude that they are not identical, however, in that one can think of the immaterial, meaning that the subject/object distinction holds when both the subject and the object are immaterial - assuming that one's consciousness is immaterial. If one's conscious mind is material (which can be inferred from your suggestion that numbers, ideas and emotions are material), then it is possible for a material subject to think of material and immaterial objects.

In either case, subject/object is not identical with immaterial/material.

The thing in itself presupposes a, well, thing. The problem is that there is no "thing" in itself, except thing-ness in itself, i.e. the entirety of undifferentiated material reality. A "thing" requires a mind to differentiate it from other "things".

Thank you for pointing this out, I was not aware of the question begging in my statement.

Okay, then, how do you define spirit?

I believe that the biblical words meant "breath" and "life", so I think that "spirit" is life itself - such that we humans are composed of both matter and spirit but God is pure spirit without matter - pure life. The fact that it is possible for an organism to be alive but not conscious (without subjective experience, meaning that they have spirit but not subjectivity) is what prompted me to question your statement that spirit is subjectivity in the first place.

(please forgive the delay - internet connection trouble)

Blogger CubeArcher January 27, 2014 10:29 PM  

“If you want to assign millions of deaths to Stalin because he did not believe in God, then you have to show the connection between his atheism and the causes of the deaths.”

It shouldn’t be hard, even for persons of below average intelligence, to connect the dots between an unfettered inclination to destroy/kill and the freedom from regulatory burden mandated by a supreme creator.

“You rape anyone who is an atheist with your shallow accusations of evil.”

Why so bitter? Were you violated on campus years ago and forgot to report it?

Blogger IM2L844 January 27, 2014 10:47 PM  

Care to retract your "when you are being deliberately misleading, you are dishonest" statement?

Sure. When you are not being deliberately misleading, you are honest.

Anonymous Jonathan January 27, 2014 11:03 PM  

@ Krul

I also understand the epistemological/psychological distinction between oneself (subject) and that which is external to oneself (object).

This is an unfortunate and misleading accident of language. I completely reject that everything outside oneself is necessarily object, although that is how we categorize various parts of language. Some things external to us are object and others are subject; God, for example is a subject, not an object.

Thank you for pointing this out, I was not aware of the question begging in my statement.

The question begging goes back to Kant and has wormed its way into very much of western thinking. Your statement that "Now a thing's objective nature is the way it is, as opposed to the way it is perceived by a subject" is begging the question of "what thing". There is no thing without a subject to differentiate it from other things; prior to differentiation by a subject there is only undifferentiated thing-ness. In other words, without the subject there are no things, only thing-ness.

Anonymous Jonathan January 27, 2014 11:08 PM  

@ Krul

Dogs are animals
Dogs are mammals
Therefore animals are mammals


If this is what I were doing, then, you'd be correct. It's not what I'm doing, though so this is the second time you've reversed a premise and a conclusion.

God is a particular example in the category of spirit, not spirit is a particular example of the category of God.

It looks to me like two non-identical things are being confused here. On one hand we have the distinction between subject and object, and on the other we have the distinction between spirit and matter.

No, they're the exact same thing.

Material = object
Immaterial = subject

Anonymous Jonathan January 27, 2014 11:11 PM  

@ Krul

Spirit is a category and God is a particular example of that category.

Anonymous Krul January 27, 2014 11:40 PM  

Jonathan - Some things external to us are object and others are subject; God, for example is a subject, not an object.

It isn't either/or. If I consider Mr. Smith, then my mind is the subject and Mr. Smith is the object of my thoughts. At the same time, Mr. Smith is a subject himself and if he considers me then I am the object from his perspective. Mr. Smith and I can make objective true statements about one another. We can also make objectives statements about God.

If this is what I were doing, then, you'd be correct.

You have me all wrong. I never intended to imply that you were asserting the fallacious syllogism. I included the dog syllogism to demonstrate the fallacy in the earlier God syllogism, which, again, was not intended to represent your argument. It was intended to show why the statement "spirit is subjectivity" does not follow from wrf3's summation.

God is a particular example in the category of spirit, not spirit is a particular example of the category of God.

True. The problem is that if you take a modern definition of "spirit" that was not intended by Jesus and apply it anachronistically to His statement that "God is spirit", then you misrepresent Him.

I've heard that some atheists claim that the book of Leviticus is in error when it refers to bats as birds. These critics are wrong because they are applying a modern definition of the word "bird" that was not intended by the author of Leviticus. This is another example of the same error.

No, they're the exact same thing.

Material = object
Immaterial = subject


You keep saying this but haven't offered any reason to believe it, even though I have given reasons to doubt it. If the mind is material as you have suggested then subjectivity is material. If the mind can think of the immaterial then object is not necessarily material.

Blogger Kentucky Packrat January 28, 2014 12:08 AM  

Sorry, if atheism gets the blame for all the deaths under Stalin, then Christianity gets the blame for all deaths under Christian leaders. I can't count that high.

Let's limit ourselves to the 20th century, just for the sake of argument. We will take people killed from battle and people missing, presumed killed, but we will exclude disease.

You still lose this battle. In WW2, Germany lost approximately 6 million people and the Soviet Union lost somewhere between 9 and 15 million (in large part to Stalin using his own people as cannon fodder). Japan lost 2.5 million, and China somewhere between 10 and 20 million. You might attempt to claim Germany as a 'Christian' nation, but the Nazi leadership was clearly pagan, with the German church structure nearly impotent. No one can attempt to claim that Japan, China, or the Soviet Union were the least bit Christian by this time.

WW2 was a war started by atheists (Stalin), pagans (Germany), and ancestor worshipers (Japan), and was fought by traditionally Christian nations on a defensive footing. The 30 to 50 million people who died in the war at the prompting of these heretics and heathens can hardly be counted against the Christians.

All other wars in the 20th century put together are dwarfed by WW2. Even if I were to concede WW1 to you (and IMHO, the only Christian nation that had an excuse for WW1 is Belgium), the death toll is still stacked like cord-wood on the non-Christian side.

Anonymous Krul January 28, 2014 12:15 AM  

Addendum:

Subjective:
adjective

1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).

2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

4. Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.

5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.

Anonymous Jerry's Mom January 28, 2014 12:50 AM  

"It shouldn’t be hard, even for persons of below average intelligence, to connect the dots between an unfettered inclination to destroy/kill and the freedom from regulatory burden mandated by a supreme creator."

Yeah, it's hard to do when you notice that theists have had the same inclination, you irrational lumbar support.

"Why so bitter? Were you violated on campus years ago and forgot to report it?"

Yes. as it turns out. By a gang of Christians who chanted "It's God's Will!, It's God's Will"

"Let's limit ourselves to the 20th century, just for the sake of argument."

No, let's not. But in your spare time, when you do, count up how many people were killed by Christian led regimes, including Germany, the U.S. Britain, Italy, Spain, France and the rest of them. Then start counting all the folks who were killed by Christian regimes prior to the 20th Century. Then, just for kicks, think of all the people who were specifically killed in the name of atheism and those specifically killed in the name of your God.

As it always is, the Christian can't reason, but only accuse and demand pitty (oh, oh, we are so put upon, so tortured, so persecuted". Please, go away, spare us your demand for a pity party and spare us your obscene moral demands.

Anonymous Earl January 28, 2014 3:06 AM  

How do we count all the people Christians have killed for which atheists are grateful? I wonder if Jessies Mom thinks atheists are going to have the collective nerve to stand up to good ol' Mo' when he comes around these parts?

Blogger Rantor January 28, 2014 5:41 AM  

@Jerry's Mom,

Actually, Vox has counted them all, carefully, to refute the assertions made by atheists past --- and published the results of his findings. You may want to believe the Inquisition killed millions, but it didn't. The Crusades also failed to kill millions. The depravity and lethality of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Pot remains unequaled in world history. Facts are there for the finding.

Blogger Kentucky Packrat January 28, 2014 7:15 AM  

No, let's not. But in your spare time, when you do, count up how many people were killed by Christian led regimes, including Germany, the U.S. Britain, Italy, Spain, France and the rest of them. Then start counting all the folks who were killed by Christian regimes prior to the 20th Century. Then, just for kicks, think of all the people who were specifically killed in the name of atheism and those specifically killed in the name of your God.

Let's do so. WW2: between 40 and 70 million. As mentioned: caused by pagans and atheists. 30 million dead from the Mongols. Multiple tens of millions killed in Chinese wars. And so on. You have to get to number 6 on the list of wars before you get to an event "caused" by Christian states.

Go to the list of genocides; the Cultural Revolution not only is number one on the list with 20 million, the Soviet famines are number 2 with about 8 million dead. You have to get to number 6, the European slave trade, before you can find any Christian nation involvement; and as disgusting as the slave trade was, it was also British Christianity's finest moment to turn Britain on a dime from the largest slave trader to the scourge of the slave trade. The only other event above 100000 people is the tsarist expulsion of the Circassians.

It is deplorable that nominally Christian nations committed these murders. One might attempt to excuse the events or find justification, but I don't believe that they can be justified.

However, your point is also ruined. By percent of population and by sheer volume, the crimes of non-Christian states overwhelm the crimes of Christian states, and the crimes of atheistic states top the charts. This is not surprising: for their violations of the moral code, at least a Christian state still has a moral code. Much of the justification for the Russian Revolution was the crimes of the Tzars against the peoples of Russia.

The atheist state does not even have to pretend that it has a moral code to break. It can happily justify its crimes as good actions and necessary.

Anonymous wEz January 28, 2014 9:15 AM  

Jerry's mom

Just read TIA and STFU until then. Please, get caught up to speed on facts before embarrassing your pathetic Godless community of hyper-sensitive ankle biters.

Blogger IM2L844 January 28, 2014 10:03 AM  

Spirit is a category and God is a particular example of that category.

I've never heard anything like some of the things you're saying, Jonathan. Can you direct me to any exegeticals from respected theologians or any of the great philosophers of religion that espoused and elaborated on the ideas that God is pure subjectivity and that God is just "a" spirit that belongs in the spirit category along with other spirits. I can't seem to find anything.

Maybe it's so simple and obvious that no one has ever bothered to discuss it, but that seems unlikely if it's an important distiction. Maybe I'm looking in all the wrong places and it's expressed in different contexts with different terms and phraseologies, but that seems unlikely too since it is the very meanings and the various senses and tenses of the words "subjective" and "spirit" that appear pivotal to the concepts. Now, I know that the concepts and meanings behind the word "subjective" change with different schools of thought among various philosophers, past and present, but I don't think that's a quibble of yours.

In any event, I would like to give it a fair shake and find out if I can learn more about it elsewhere rather than simply dismissing it as common sense according to the Church of Jonathan nonsense and moving on. I'm generally open minded and always up for learning something I was unaware of.

Jonathan, If you can show me that this God is pure subjectivity thing is a theologically settled matter rather than just repeatedly asserting it, I'll re-read my "damn bible", as you put it, with a whole new perspective.

Anonymous Y Not January 28, 2014 11:23 AM  

"Actually, Vox has counted them all, carefully, to refute the assertionns made by atheists past --- and published the results of his findings."

unacceptable source. provide a 3rd party proof or shut up

Anonymous 6 toed sloth January 28, 2014 2:00 PM  

Shut up Tad.

Anonymous Shut Up, Josh January 28, 2014 2:25 PM  

Stalin biographer Edvard Radinsky remarks, “During his mysterious retreat [of June 1941], the ex-seminarist had decided to involve the aid of the God he had rejected.” Stalin's inner sanctum was decidedly religious.

Adolf Hitler was raised a Catholic--In his autobiography Mein Kampf (1.2), he stated, "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Dr. Ian Harris relates: “In one of his early writings, Pol Pot embraced the concept that the ‘democratic regime will bring back the Buddhist moralism because our great leader Buddha was the first to have taught [democracy]."

Anonymous Sigyn January 28, 2014 2:29 PM  

Yes. as it turns out. By a gang of Christians who chanted "It's God's Will!, It's God's Will"

She would have screamed, but they'd gagged her with the Shroud of Turin first.

Anonymous Krul January 28, 2014 3:20 PM  

IM2L844 - Jonathan, If you can show me that this God is pure subjectivity thing is a theologically settled matter rather than just repeatedly asserting it, I'll re-read my "damn bible", as you put it, with a whole new perspective.

Whatever the case, Jonahan was wrong to correct you in the first place because you clearly weren't using the word "objective" as a synonymn for "material" like he does.

Anonymous VanDerMerwe January 28, 2014 3:33 PM  

Oh my word, some ignoramus is trying to make Stalin a theist. He did this all for God. Well tough, he wasn't one. Neither were the rest of his scumbag comrades, many of whom he got rid of. Beria was certainly an atheist and a predatory pedophile. Lenin was an atheist. Dzierzynski was an atheist. Molotov was an atheist, etc.

Oh my word, Pol Pot was a Christian. Because he was mentioned contemplating Buddhism. Duh.

Oh my word Hitler killed millions of Christian civilians to Christianize Poland and Byelorussia.

Encyclopedia of War shows that most wars since recorded history were non-religious in cause. They were caused by secular concerns and interests. Interests which idiots like this Tard dude is defending.

Tard, when you defend scumbags like these, you hurt many, many many people, all for what? A little bit of pride? Just admit that atheism has major faults. Accept the truth.

Anonymous RedJack January 28, 2014 3:46 PM  

With the recent events with my wife and our unborn child, I have noticed this. Our child is still alive, and in the womb, though the odds are still steep. We know that our child is in the hands of God, one way or another.

The nurses and doctors that are Christians that have been dealing with us have been very supportive. The people in my circle who are not are either avoiding us (understandable) or avoiding us and making some comments that if I heard them would make me rather.. lets say upset for the NSA goon assigned to me (hi Phil).

The difference is start. We know the odds. We still have hope. Those who are the "Nothings" have none. Just none.

Vox, I know what you are talking about. I have seen it more this past week than anytime in my life. I may lose my child in this life, but they will be waiting for me and my bride. I know that, and as sad as this path may be, we rejoice that our child is in the hands God, as are we.

For those who chose to reject God, the frantic activity is a way to distract themselves from what is to come. I have no fear of that.

Blogger IM2L844 January 28, 2014 4:29 PM  

Whatever the case, Jonahan was wrong to correct you in the first place because you clearly weren't using the word "objective" as a synonymn for "material" like he does.

I think you're right Krul. There's nothing much for me to respond to, but I'm a little curious.

Anonymous Y Not January 28, 2014 5:24 PM  

90% of the world are religionists ...thus 90% of all murderers and rapists are religionists.

it's called logic (something not in your Buy-Bull)

Anonymous Anonymous January 28, 2014 6:38 PM  

And now, a brief word from the World Bank . . .
Haushik Basu ‏@kaushikcbasu Jan 12 tweet
Human knowledge consists of tautologies and conjectures. Nothing else.
Expand

Blogger CubeArcher January 28, 2014 7:29 PM  

“90% of the world are religionists ...thus 90% of all murderers and rapists are religionists.”

Given that vibrant ethnicities, which represent somewhere around 13ish% of the population, account for an overwhelmingly disproportionate percentage of the crime, then how in the world do you logically conclude that above logical abortion?

Here’s a hint: YOUR CORRELATION ISNT LINEAR you intellectual shit stain.

Blogger CubeArcher January 28, 2014 7:32 PM  

“90% of the world are religionists ...thus 90% of all murderers and rapists are religionists.”

Given that vibrant ethnicities, which represent somewhere around 13ish% of the population, account for an overwhelmingly disproportionate percentage of the crime, then how in the world do you logically conclude that above logical abortion?

Here’s a hint: YOUR CORRELATION ISNT LINEAR you intellectual shit stain.

Anonymous CLK January 28, 2014 9:37 PM  

How are you defining capitalism? --

You are right on that point -- I would say the greed is good type capitalism -- 1980's onward, making money on money, moving everything off shore, CEO's making 100x the lowest paid employee.

There certainly was a time when those running companies where concerned about the employees and the country.. that time has all but passed..

Anonymous CLK January 28, 2014 9:41 PM  

Socialism requires sin in order to function, capitalism does not. --- Not sure I understand this --- please what sin is the basis of socialism ? capitalism (at least the form that has existed in the last 30 years, ) has at least 6 of the 7 deadly sins at its heart

Blogger IM2L844 January 28, 2014 9:45 PM  

90% of the world are religionists ...thus 90% of all murderers and rapists are religionists.

LOL! Somewhere, a Christian must be praying for you. If this is representative of your typical level of reasoning, the fact that you haven't accidentally killed yourself is strong circumstantial evidence that God exists and has angels watching over you.

Blogger paul king January 30, 2014 9:24 AM  

John Wright can't write.

1 – 200 of 203 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts