Ayn Rand was bitter her whole life because her family was one of the elites that the communists redistributed the wealth from, then she read alot of nietzsche and this is where she justified her resentment. I have read lots of Rand, great writer of fiction, her ideas are only half right and utopianist capitalism celebrating greed like it wasn't stealing.
@Mezocosm Capitalism is VOLUNTARY exchange. That is a far cry from stealing. Glad her ideas are only half right in your eyes. Otherwise, I would question whether SHE understood capitalism.
@fzqlcs hehe. Thx for the response. If you want real capitalism remove copywrite laws, lobbying, and all govt. assistance to business. The military and police should only serve the people, and while i understand republicanism, I support a wild free open internet with direct democracy. Media controls are propaganda, plain and simple.
Lot of talk about Ron Paul being a Christian going on here, and whether or not that is a good/bad thing.
Firstly, Ron Paul is not like other Republicans. If a Republican prominently proclaims their Christianity, then you know that the person desires to apply the prohibitive portions of the Christian Doctrine to the government (banning gay marriage, abortion etc...) But when Ron Paul says he is a Christian, he is saying that Christianity is the guide with which he lives his private life, no more
@TomYoRu I'm an atheist and a Ron Paul fan. We atheists have to know when to team up with theists. If you demand that a candidate agree with you 100% of the time, you will never find a candidate you can support. I disagree with Ron Paul on abortion, theism, and a little bit on immigration, but I agree with him on the big issues of the day: bringing the troops home, ending the war on drugs, reducing govt spending and debt, defending Const. rights and ltd. govt. Yay, Ron Paul!
@freesk8 I don't understand how you can be for personal freedom and for abortion. The fetal stage is merely the first stage of human life. No different than other stages of human life during its' temporal life like childhood, puberty, or adulthood. A woman and a man (unless force or coercion is used which culminates in the act of rape) both agree (whether they think so or not) that they will accept the responsibility for their actions when they have sex. Not after, and no do overs.
@dlstb I have a lot of respect for the pro-life folks. I have never participated in an abortion. I have three kids of my own and very late in life. I guess my pro-choice stance comes from a distrust of government power and a knowledge of the inefficacy of prohibition. The drug war is worse than a failure, as with alcohol. The unintended consequences are worse than the intended. I fear the same for prohibiting abortion. This is a tough issue. Let's just both support Ron Paul! :)
@freesk8 You can see the effects of the prohibition of abortion by looking at the past. Abortions were still performed when it was illegal, they were just performed in unsafe and unsanitary manners and by unqualified persons (in many cases) that many times resulted in the death of the woman. Legalized abortion is infinitely more safe and saves lives. See: The Case of Roe vs. Wade by Stevens
The source of rights is self ownership. Self ownership is a self-evident truth. If you attempt to assume the opposite, that some other entity owns the self, you arrive at absurdity. Govt? God? Humanity? All absurd. Reducto ad absurdem.
@freesk8 Western selfhood is an delusion. It is the mental projection of how you see your image in relation other people. Biology proves infinite process with the "external environment" Your idea of who you are contains no information of how you digest your food or work your eyes. It is cultural, every living thing with consciousness is a center...you just need to expand your borders and definitions
@Mezocosm You refer to "other people." If there really ARE other people, then there must be a self. "Proving infinite process" has no coherent meaning. I'm not talking about my idea of who I am, I'm talking about my SELF and your SELF. Either we exist, or we do not. The culture has nothing to do with this central question, since we would either exist or not if we were alone on a desert island. You seem not to be aware of any borders or coherent definitions.
@freesk8 Black or white reasoning. The oldest symbol known to man is yin/yang. When you can understand that self and other go together like the positive and negative poles on a magnet you will stop leaning on script explanations and correct those who do.
@Mezocosm Some things ARE black and white. Like existence. You either are, or you are not. There is no middle ground. Many other things admit of shades of grey. But what we are talking about here is the ownership of the self. Can you really argue that someone ELSE owns your body? If so, who? If you will not argue this, then either you must claim that no one owns you, and so no authority can exist for action, or you must agree with my position, that you own you. Which is it?
@freesk8 Since you don't know death you can't make a concrete statement about it. Nature has boundries, but it is always a matter of discussion where you choose to define them. Are the leaves on a tree so different from the oxygen it also produces? Nobody ELSE owns me, nobody else exists except as a center of action. I am resolute on individual free will and responsibility, but it really is only half the picture. Most people live in social relativity, worrying about the car they drive,
Um no. Ownership implies something external. You can't separate yourself from yourself. You didn't preexist your body did you? Your body came first. Your body is a primary. Who owned it before you did? Your parents? God? So ownership can be transferred?
Reductio ad absurdum.indeed! (<-- note spelling, if you're going to use it, learn how to spell it please.)
@justintempler Fixing someone's spelling is a sure way to endear yourself to others. :)
I see nothing wrong with self-ownership. It seems a little self referential, but so is A=A, the identity postulate, and that is self evidently true. And self-ownership is not transferable. It is inalienable. If not self ownership, then what is the origin of rights?
@freesk8 Ownership refers to property and the ability to transfer property rights. You can't own what you can't sell. You're bastardizing the the meaning of the word ownership.
@justintempler I'm a huge Ayn Rand fan. I hope for her great ideas to be spread to all people. And one of the biggest obstacles is the obnoxiousness of a minority of Objectivists. If you are as rude to others as you are to me, then you are a net negative in our cause. I have another meaning for "ownership." But I have no desire to share it with you. Debating with you is no fun, and not in my own rational self interest. Bye.
Objectivists call that a stolen concept. You don't have to agree with me you can listen to it straight from Leonard Piekoff's own mouth in episode 15 of his free podcasts available on iTunes.
I don't call myself an Objectivist, and you shouldn't either, because they will be just as rude to you as you think I am being to you. They are VERY particular about people using a SUBJECTIVE definition for a word, I'm just the messenger
@dimeuno You won't find much support here, dude. Most of us are atheists, Dr.Paul is in the minority. Young, atheist, libertarians are the future and this gives me a lot of hope.
Even if you don't believe some type of god exists, the founding fathers saw it at the very least as a fail-safe mechanism against corruption within government.
How does one prove to someone that you have the right to these rights, if all you can do is say that you think these are the rights you require?
What if a tyrant tells you that you have no rights, that all rights are his? This tyrant could be a president, for example.
God acts as a middleman, in which individual rights are kept safe.
Without God, the Federal Law would have the ability to twist the law such that the individual members of the society have no rights under law.
As long as we can point to something specifically that cannot be easily disproven through some form of evidence being provided, the rights of the individual can more easily be defended, than if it was a solely intellectual argument we used.
@dimeuno Well the Federal government does have ability to twist the law such that the individual members of the society lose their rights. So I guess there is no god after all.
@MrGreeneggsnham Nah. It just means Mankind has turned from God and worship society/self. Since "everyone is god" then society/govt is god rather than the creation/servant of man.
@seeqr9 Most Americans beleive in a god. I have no idea what you mean by worship society/self. Socieity is other people and self is just yourself. That's like being self centered and not self centered at the same time. If you don't believe in a god then it doesn't mean "everyone is a god" it just means you don't think gods exist. Ayn Rand and Milton Freidman didn't beleive in gods or worship the state so I don't get the connection. I think the real problem is the desire to follow blindly period.
@MrGreeneggsnham What people say n do arent the same. Self/society as in man or mankind. I would say Friedman & Rand "worship God" in a more honest way than most religious people in the sense of loving moral principles. If people ask permission from from everyone else(democracy), then everyone is God as a whole and Individuals get privileges from that "god" so to speak. Like I said "we" fear n "worship" our creation (state) more than our creator. Whoevr we believe that 2 b.
@seeqr9 Friedman & Rand were athiests. You can't derive any set beliefs from not believing in something. What can you tell me about John the carpenter knowing that he doesn't believe in unicorns? Nothing really.
@MrGreeneggsnham I dont recall Milton ever saying he was an atheist. Rand did believe in something very real. natural rights. Pure Natural Rights that are self evident thus not requiring the blind faith u admit is the problem. If you cannot see that I am speaking about principles and not a dogmatic relious belief then I suppose this convo wont go very far.
@asdflive I was stating the rights she believed in are self evident. I can state that for myself and indeed they were self evident to HER as stated in the link u sent me. She simply stated she came to realize that individual rights were not in fact self evident to the majority of people. Since I was talking about HER convictions and beliefs in those principles, the Rights being self evident to HER and also to Me is indeed true and sufficient for my point.
@MrGreeneggsnham also I agree on ur point of blind faith to anything but more importantly blind faith in society. The only reason the Fed Govt can twist the law is because we became dependent on them n gave them our fear & trust or "worship".
Only because people have not retained enough awareness, and performed their individual duties as citizens to uphold their rights, as the founding fathers warned. That's that vigilance is vital.
If people did that, but god was not in the picture of law, it would be much harder for them to defend their individual rights, than if god was in the structural hierarchy of law, in which currently, the individual is just below god on the importance scale, above all forms of government.
Yes, but since god is not provable and theology is easily twisted to fit an agenda, wouldn't the danger of having god in politics be that individual rights be put in jeopardy from the preaching of religious authority? Individual rights are already being undermined by the religious in the issues of marriage, abortion, war, immigration, etc. Also, who's god are we referring to here, the christian god? What of those of other beliefs, can their rights only defended by christians?
In this society all religions and ideals are considered acceptable, as long as nobody is breaching the god given rights of another.
It doesn't have anything to do with a specific religion. Some founding fathers weren't even Christian as such, or at least understood Christianity more close to the original Christian disciples, rather then the Roman Catholic slaver-maker variation that's been in place for a very long time now.
The real and original Christians were fed to the lions.
@dimeuno You say that all religions are accepted in free society but it seems that only one religion is actually endorsed by the state. You said that rights are God given; that implies that "God" (Christian god) is the only legitimate god according to the government. Do you not see the fundamental flaw in endorsing an improvable worldview in order to justify individual rights? Rights are better protected by making intellectually sound arguments instead of relying on mere faith in god.
I never said we live optimally, we've fallen from the path, we've allowed others to run our lives, we've not done our duty as citizens.
Regardless of religious belief, not having God as a reference point, when the enemy is going to claim their right comes from God, of some form, whether it's good or evil, simply gives us less ability to defend ourselves.
To oppose and/or hate spirituality is a hangup. You've not transcended religion by opposing, you're instead limiting yourself.
@dimeuno It's the religious who are limiting themselves and their minds by disregarding the intellectual in favor of the mystical.
The burden of proof is on you who claims that such a god exists. Not only exists, but also that our rights come from this god. So far I have not heard any arguments and have seen any evidence to prove god's existence. Therefore, the arguments for freedom must come from reason, not faith.
Religion is a private matter, it must not be brought into political issues.
@dimeuno You have yet to prove the spiritual, and you have yet to demonstrate that ethical life is impossible without religion. In fact, it has already been proven that ethical life IS possible and sometimes even more ethical than a life with religion. Therefore your arguments will be disregarded every single time when debating tyrants. The religious arguments always fall because they are fundamentally founded in mysticism, while the intellectual arguments are founded in reason.
I never said anything is impossible without religion, as I hinted at earlier, it's best to transcend both religion and atheism, so you can see what's true.
The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and other very important documents protect the rights of Sovereign individuals to have whichever beliefs they want in the USoA.
You should know that those who do worship evil gods will not care that you don't see the truth behind the spiritual.
@dimeuno You say it's best to transcend religion and atheism, yet your arguments for individual rights are fundamentally based in religion and mysticism. I know it's tempting to try and claim a high ground by completely sidestepping reason and logic, but doing so won't convince anyone of any intelligence. The belief in a spiritual realm is the concession that you are unable to form any arguments that can appeal to man's reason and that you are afraid to rely on your own mind. I pity you.
No actually to fail to perceive a spiritual composition of all of creation is to lack reason, not to have it.
Until you can prove that God is not real, you have no authority to prevent others from using it as their means of self-preservation against those who would force these laws upon them for their own ends, whether you believe in them or not.
At least this way, we are beating them at their own game, until such time as we no longer need to do it, in that way.
@dimeuno I like how you dress up your silly beliefs in a flowery pseudo-intellectual language to make your self seem more intelligent than you actually are. Writing whole paragraphs but not actually saying anything.
God is not inherent in the natural world and cannot be tested by a scientific method, therefore the burden of proof is on you to justify your ridiculous claims. Simply saying "You just need to open up your mind and take some drugs" is not sufficient to any thinking person.
I could say the same about you, the difference is what I'm saying is real.
You have to prove to yourself if God is real or not, it's the duty of all who come here, it's a challenge you set up for yourself.
God is inherent in the natural world, you simply are incapable of perceiving it.
You are actually the only one who has failed to provide deep insights, as opposed to me, who has provided you with much of what you need to start on your spiritual journey.
@dimeuno Actually what you claim is not real, as it only exists within your own mind and not in objective reality.
God cannot be proven, it has nothing to do with me, it has everything to do with objective reality and the way in which it is studied. People like you don't like reality and don't want to accept reality as it is. Therefore you choose to believe something else because it is more comfortable for you and your delicate sensibilities. You want to escape reality, I want to face it.
Okay, go tell that to the people who've made breakthroughs using Quantum Mechanics, that's essentially shown that at the basis of all existence, resides an ocean of infinite "intelligence", as they put it.
There is also considerable evidence that things such as ESP are real, at least real in enough instances for the military to be concerned about it.
Also, many studies have been done on drugs, scientists think that the Pineal Gland may be the physical entrance for the soul.
If you believe any of that, you are ignorant of science.
I've given you a lot of things that you can use to investigate, and research the truth for yourself.
Your mental hangups however will likely prevent you from evolving in this lifetime, unless you willingly change your mind for the better.
I'll not be talked down to by those who are not aware, so unless you want to start being constructive, and insightful yourself, please, just go back into your den of spiritual darkness.
If you refuse to look into my claims yourself, as I've done for myself, I have the moral high ground.
I've done my due diligence, and have done so for years.
It's your turn to do yours, and stop berating me with your ignorance of both scientific and spiritual facts, in the meantime.
There are many places you can look to confirm what I've said, but if you are not resourceful enough to find them, even when you know the questions, then you obviously aren't as capable as I am atm.
@dimeuno I only need to be skeptical of your mystical nonsense in order to prove my position to be superior. And again, the "evidence" you provided did not suffice, you just drew your own conclusions when the evidence wasn't sufficient.
I gave you general ideas and terminology for you to look into.
Now you need to go educate yourself, and until you do that, you will remain a hypocritical fool.
I've barely had to lift a finger, you exposed your ignorance early on, and have only dug a deeper hole for yourself as we've gone on.
Feel free to wallow in your ignorance, and refuse to do any real research, like a real human being would, if they were a good person, seeking the truth behind the illusions pushed on them.
@dimeuno Your "insights" haven't been "deep" as you have provided no evidence (other than hearsay while tripping on drugs) of god's existence. Therefore your argument has been discarded as nonsense.
Like I said earlier, there are many ways to experience God, this is just another example of a mental hangup you have.
To not recognize the truth in what I've said, is to prove beyond doubt how limited your current state of mental/physical/spiritual development truly is.
You could wake up quickly, in today's world, but with the attitude you've shared thus far, I doubt that will happen, unless you have a few dozen significant personal epiphanies, regarding existence in general.
No, it's an insight into your character, into your lack of personal development, it's to show that you need to look in a mirror and rethink what you believe, because you've made a religion out of the religion of non-religion.
You are beginning to show more clearly that you are as bad as the worst religious zealots, in how bigoted they were against the views of others, whether right or wrong.
Your ego clouds your judgement and it will always hold you back until you see that fact.
@dimeuno Your own lack of personal development has shown through since you have admitted to using drugs to gain insight into yourself and the world around you, rather than using your own mind and your own reason to find the truth of reality.
I don't accept nonsensical pseudo-spiritual drivel as fact. Only facts are facts.
You are only open to the "facts" that you are currently aware of.
Anything outside of that, you show that you have no tolerance for.
You are truly childish in your beliefs, just allow people to believe what they want, we'll do the same for you.
If some don't, then they are not doing what they are supposed to do, which is be compassionate, loving, to filter their experiences through wisdom, understanding thoughtfulness.
To love one another and grow is the point to spirituality.
@dimeuno And you are somehow aware of unknowable facts? Stop being childish.
I am allowing you to believe what you want, but that doesn't mean it is correct or that I have to respect your silly preachings.
Also, there are plenty of rational arguments to be made for being an ethical person, I'm not sure why you would need superstitious beliefs to be a good person.
Actually you do have to respect my "silly" thoughts, under law, or else you'll be deprived of your rights unfortunately, for attempting to not allow me to have mine.
It's not unknowable, you don't know, many others don't know, but some have known and currently do.
You don't need to be religious or spiritual to be a reasonably good person, but you are limiting yourself immensely, in your higher potential.
You'll never reach the same states of personal development without spirit.
@dimeuno Actually I don't have to respect anyone's beliefs, I only have to allow them to believe.
The concept of God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, it's unknowable whether or not God exists. People can think that they know, but they could never prove it.
Higher potential of what, exactly? To claim to "know" things without any evidence? Don't make me laugh.
Actually, if you don't respect me enough to allow me to have my own beliefs, without providing as much or more evidence to back up your beliefs, as I have, then you are actually violating the fundamental rights of me an many others, because you are trying to impose your beliefs on them.
Spirituality 101 is a metaphor for the fact that if you don't understand what I mean by higher potential, you are as ignorant about spirituality as you are about Quantum Mechanics.
@dimeuno Apparently you are unaware of the non-aggression principle of libertarian thought, I've violated none of your rights. You also have the right to cry and have your feelings hurt when someone calls you out on your bullshit, but I suppose you don't want to reserve that right, you would rather shut me up. Just shows how much of an authoritarian asshole you are.
"Higher potential" is silly nonsense that doesn't mean anything.
It only means nothing to those who are unaware. Feel free to delude yourself some more.
You have violated my rights, if you don't see that, you're blind.
I'm a closer follower of the ideals of men like Ron Paul than you are, it's quite obvious.
I'm not crying, I'm showing everyone that may read this that you have been a disrespectful, insolent fool, who doesn't know what they are talking about, and should apologize for their gross transgressions toward their spiritual brethren.
I don't even have to say anything at this point, you're such a delusional idiot that you're basically pwning yourself. Apparently getting your feelings hurt is a violation of your rights now... LOL
You've a right to believe that, make a religion of it if you wish.
However unless you had a real experience that you could say proved to at least you that it was real you'd be a lying hypocrite, making false examples, that do not actually apply, but only do if you are ignorant of important facts.
If you experienced the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be as real as others have experienced their own God to be, then you should be a faithful observer of that religion, I'll not stop you.
You'll wake up eventually, we all do (even if it takes a million+ lifetimes), I just hope you get to do it in this lifetime, I'm tired of people around me being asleep.
@dimeuno You most clearly display delusional patterns, not I. I'm simply suggesting that you talk to a professional and see what they might think of your particular beliefs, along with your drug usage.
My delicate ego? Weren't you the one claiming that your rights were violated earlier?
That has to do with facts, it was showing you that you were violating fundamental human rights, and you were, via your ego-ignorance.
If you don't see that you're blind, you probably do need some anger management, at the very least.
I don't care about your claims that you might have that you are not angry.
A loving person does not do what you've done, unless of course I committed some kind of offence against you, which I've not done, I've only defended myself against attacks.
@dimeuno Do you even know what human rights are? Ridiculing superstitious nonsense is a right, believing in superstitious nonsense is a right, physically stopping someone from doing either is a violation of those rights. For a Ron Paul supporter you really don't know his libertarian philosophy very well, do you?
I think it's my duty as a secularist to call out religious and mystical nonsense for what it is. Believe what you want but keep your god out of my government.
@dimeuno The fact that you can't take criticism doesn't mean I'm "attacking" you. This shows how childish you are, anyone who might challenge your ridiculous and unjustifiable worldview must be a tyrant. When in fact a true supporter of freedom would welcome criticism and see it as vital to the survival and advancement human beings.
But instead you would rather accuse skeptics of "attacking" you in order to claim the sanction of the victim. This is why no one can take the religious seriously
Oh I took your criticism, and in returned I schooled you every time.
If you didn't perceive it that way you're wrong, and it's provable, but obviously you're too blind, we'd have to bring in an objective third party at this point, because you refuse to be rational.
You are a tyrant, I challenged you, you never engaged me in my challenges.
You need to research all of the issues, or you will remain blind.
@dimeuno You keep calling me blind, and yet you are averse to even the most basic concepts of logic. You cannot prove a negative.
You schooled me? LOL. When was that? When you presented insufficient evidence and then drew in your own conclusions? I could do the same thing for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
You're not even making sense at this point. All you're saying is that I need to research the issues and that I'm blind because I actually understand the laws of logic. You're a fool.
Well, you obviously are going to ignore things said earlier.
I don't feel like repeating myself, until you leave a comment that indicates you understand what has been said, I'll not honor you with another response.
You are very blind, you're lucky I'm here to let you know this.
@dimeuno You're only digging your hole deeper, fool. You've provided nothing that hasn't been refuted or cannot be proved, NOTHING.
Your position is weak and you know it, that's why you're getting so emotional. Perhaps you should rethink your position and come back when you can actually make a coherent argument which isn't based solely on faith.
As I said, I'll not honor you with another response, this is directed at everyone who may read this.
Until he leaves a comment that indicates he understands what has been said, he's lost, and I've won, and I'll never again respond to him, assuming it's a him and not a her, until they prove to me from their comment that they leave me that they now understand.
It's pointless, they seem too far gone to understand and I'm wasting too much valuable time on them.
And finally, like all superstitious people, he tries to claim victory by saying that I couldn't falsify his unfalsifyable hypothesis (after having refuted his other claims and having already tried playing the victim). To any intelligent person you have clearly lost this argument, my friend.
Also, there are many mental health professionals I've watched who've discussed similar beliefs, and they are available for the whole world to see.
That you don't know this shows that you've done little research in these areas.
I've done my job, it's your turn to do yours, research the issues, or continue to prove that you're a hypocrite, who is afraid of learning anything that might take them out of their comfort zone.
I can handle any idea you throw at me, you however cannot.
@dimeuno Yes, I'm sure your beliefs are part of the psychiatry curriculum at any reputable university. All I'm asking is that you get yourself checked out.
Btw, if you want to have an experience of certain aspects of god, here's one quick way to do it, but be very careful, and respectful when you do it, as the entities which reside in these experiences tend to tear apart without mercy, the egos of those who are disrespectful to them.
Using Shamanistic methods, take any one of these drugs in a sufficiently high dose to perceive aspects of God: DMT, Salvia Divinorum, Psilocybin, LSD, MDA, Mescaline, Ayahuasca, and a few other ones.
The only ones who truly know if God exists are those who have broken free of their ego-mind based mental veil, and seen through the din of illusion, and reached places that only their subconscious mind is normally able to perceive with clarity.
When a Buddha reaches enlightenment, they learn to see all forms of reality, on all dimensional levels, both with their physical eyes, and with their mind's eye.
Remember I'll always love you, always have. This is but another step for us.
And no, Christianity is simply the religion that has become prevalent.
The US of A is a nation of tolerance, growth, and spiritual equality.
If it appears to be otherwise, that is caused by people such as yourself not standing up for your believes, and ensuring that they are as respected as the beliefs of others.
It's up to each individual to defend their beliefs, and they will have the ability to defend it, but you cannot stop others from claiming their god given rights, ever.
@dimeuno You say that the only true Christians were fed to the lions. Wouldn't you then fall into the no true Scotsman fallacy and be disregarded by anyone of intellectual seriousness? This is the problem with religion, anyone can claim to be a true believer and accuse others of heresy because there is no mechanism to prove otherwise. Therefore, to rest one's case of individual rights on the unknowable is to concede that knowledge rests with those who would support tyranny.
I've heard history in which two historical leaders got together.
They decided, upon analysing the original Christian teachings, that because there was such a depth of truth to the teachings, it would be easy to convince people to join that spiritual movement.
Originally, it was not a religion, but spiritual teachings that Jesus shared, via personal insights.
The Roman Catholicism came in after they got rid of the original version of the Christian teachings, & forced a religion.
God is only provable to those who are able to perceive it. Otherwise, one can understand god in that it's everywhere, in everything, is everyone, all plants and animals, all physical and non-physical.
You are god experiencing itself, through itself, from within the confines of an experience that you desired to have, in order to grow exponentially, if you were able in this lifetime, or over many lifetimes, to see through the veil of illusion, and find your higher self's potential.
I've left you three other messages, please read them as well.
What it comes down to is that you are able to, or are not able to perceive God.
There are many ways to go about learning to perceive god. In the end however, all you're doing is allowing yourself to remember what you forgot, before you entered into wilfully, as a form of self-education, this life, in which we decide upon entering, that it would be best to be in an amnesiac state, to learn more than we otherwise would.
Also, since god is not provable, by what right do you claim that he somehow gives you anything? I would think defending liberty on the grounds of faith would be the resignation of reason to one's enemies. To defend freedom on the grounds of faith is to concede that there are no rational arguments to support the ideals of individual rights, and that we can only defend liberty by belief in god. This is the reason so many great thinkers advocated the separation of church and state.
The enemy is an enemy who believes in the spiritual & understands that there is much truth behind it, the problem is many of them are Satanists, or worship other similar though perhaps differently named entities, that they think can give them power.
They instituted the law of God for themselves, when they were the kings and queens. But now that we are Sovereign individuals, God is our authority, and no other. We serve others by serving the higher purpose, once we can perceive it.
She, being an Atheist, states that society determines rights and that they are social. If society determines right than they can take them away.
Furthermore, the word morals comes up a lot. Where do they come from? Well they certainly don't come from society. If society determined them, who's to say that society determined that pediaphilia was actually ok? Afterall, society stated that homosexuality was ok after 100's of years.
Rand is not the best option for Libertarians. We are a moral nation.
@mcoop221 Rand: "rights are those conditions of existence which are required by man's nature for his proper survival." Required by man's nature does not translate to proclaimed by society. Like the founders, Ayn understood that rights preexisted government. She puts forward the opposite of the left-wing notion that rights are arbitrarily bestowed (or taken) by government, such as a right to health care. That is why the Constitution acknowledges, rather than establishes, rights.
@mcoop221 Why not accept that rights are conditions required by man's nature? If you insist on believing in a god, couldn't you simply decide that it was God who created man's nature. Then, we could all agree that individual rights preceded government and everyone should be happy, no?
@mcoop221 why would anyone choose to believe such nonsense? the good thing about faith is that you can believe what you want since evidence is not required. that being the case, why not choose to believe an ideology not based on low self-esteem (man is inherently evil in need of salvation)? adults have to tell kids all this god-satan crap before they can critically think. if not, who would buy into this self-loathing horsesh*t. i will take Ayn's definition of rights based on reason.
@mcoop221 She says rights are determined by man's nature. Although she says they exist in a social context, she does NOT say society determines rights. (Indeed she disavows such an idea later in the video.)
Try to listen carefully all the way to the end before commenting.
@mcoop221 You made me think of a quote from the film Mary Shelly's Frankenstein when Frankenstein (who is the doctor NOT the creature) says, "Don't bring God into this". If you say that rights and morals are from a divine source, then you must prove the existence of that divine before moving onto questions of morals and rights. If you say that rights and morals are part of largely self-evident Natural Law, then you can go straight to the questions without getting stuck in the detour.
Morals come from the requirements of life itself. Quoting the VOS by Ayn Rand: "The facts of reality demand it. The fundamental alternative in this world is existence or non-existence, and it pertains only to living organisms.
Ethics is not a mystic fantasy—nor a social convention—nor a
dispensable, subjective luxury, to be switched or discarded in any
emergency. Ethics is an objective, metaphysical necessity of man’s
@mcoop221 I want to give you a well intended suggestion. As a Christian you recognise the Bible as an authority, however the people you are arguing against do not. So it is important for you to learn how to make Biblical arguments without using the Bible as an authority to support your argument. As someone alluded to in another comment, Natural Law was the traditional means of doing just that as Christians accepted Natural Law as created by God.
Ayn Rand was bitter her whole life because her family was one of the elites that the communists redistributed the wealth from, then she read alot of nietzsche and this is where she justified her resentment. I have read lots of Rand, great writer of fiction, her ideas are only half right and utopianist capitalism celebrating greed like it wasn't stealing.
Mezocosm 4 weeks ago
@Mezocosm Capitalism is VOLUNTARY exchange. That is a far cry from stealing. Glad her ideas are only half right in your eyes. Otherwise, I would question whether SHE understood capitalism.
fzqlcs 4 weeks ago
@fzqlcs hehe. Thx for the response. If you want real capitalism remove copywrite laws, lobbying, and all govt. assistance to business. The military and police should only serve the people, and while i understand republicanism, I support a wild free open internet with direct democracy. Media controls are propaganda, plain and simple.
Mezocosm 4 weeks ago 2
@Mezocosm
Score!
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@fzqlcs Good one! :)
freesk8 4 weeks ago
Lot of talk about Ron Paul being a Christian going on here, and whether or not that is a good/bad thing.
Firstly, Ron Paul is not like other Republicans. If a Republican prominently proclaims their Christianity, then you know that the person desires to apply the prohibitive portions of the Christian Doctrine to the government (banning gay marriage, abortion etc...) But when Ron Paul says he is a Christian, he is saying that Christianity is the guide with which he lives his private life, no more
TomYoRu 4 weeks ago
@TomYoRu I'm an atheist and a Ron Paul fan. We atheists have to know when to team up with theists. If you demand that a candidate agree with you 100% of the time, you will never find a candidate you can support. I disagree with Ron Paul on abortion, theism, and a little bit on immigration, but I agree with him on the big issues of the day: bringing the troops home, ending the war on drugs, reducing govt spending and debt, defending Const. rights and ltd. govt. Yay, Ron Paul!
freesk8 4 weeks ago
@freesk8 I don't understand how you can be for personal freedom and for abortion. The fetal stage is merely the first stage of human life. No different than other stages of human life during its' temporal life like childhood, puberty, or adulthood. A woman and a man (unless force or coercion is used which culminates in the act of rape) both agree (whether they think so or not) that they will accept the responsibility for their actions when they have sex. Not after, and no do overs.
dlstb 4 weeks ago
@dlstb I have a lot of respect for the pro-life folks. I have never participated in an abortion. I have three kids of my own and very late in life. I guess my pro-choice stance comes from a distrust of government power and a knowledge of the inefficacy of prohibition. The drug war is worse than a failure, as with alcohol. The unintended consequences are worse than the intended. I fear the same for prohibiting abortion. This is a tough issue. Let's just both support Ron Paul! :)
freesk8 4 weeks ago
@freesk8 You can see the effects of the prohibition of abortion by looking at the past. Abortions were still performed when it was illegal, they were just performed in unsafe and unsanitary manners and by unqualified persons (in many cases) that many times resulted in the death of the woman. Legalized abortion is infinitely more safe and saves lives. See: The Case of Roe vs. Wade by Stevens
Killedkennyagain 4 weeks ago
@TomYoRu
You misunderstand.
Earlier he used Ron Paul as an example against things I was saying, but I didn't say anything that Ron Paul is likely to disagree with.
There was not a lot of talk on that subject, it was in maybe 3-6 comments between him and I.
What you just said was expressed in my earlier comments, of which there is over 40 of mine to be read, if you wish.
As I said before, if anyone responds to me, and seems to have not read all of what I wrote, I'll not be responding back.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
Please read everything we said before you reply to me please, or your statements mean little.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
The source of rights is self ownership. Self ownership is a self-evident truth. If you attempt to assume the opposite, that some other entity owns the self, you arrive at absurdity. Govt? God? Humanity? All absurd. Reducto ad absurdem.
freesk8 4 weeks ago
@freesk8 Western selfhood is an delusion. It is the mental projection of how you see your image in relation other people. Biology proves infinite process with the "external environment" Your idea of who you are contains no information of how you digest your food or work your eyes. It is cultural, every living thing with consciousness is a center...you just need to expand your borders and definitions
Mezocosm 4 weeks ago
@Mezocosm You refer to "other people." If there really ARE other people, then there must be a self. "Proving infinite process" has no coherent meaning. I'm not talking about my idea of who I am, I'm talking about my SELF and your SELF. Either we exist, or we do not. The culture has nothing to do with this central question, since we would either exist or not if we were alone on a desert island. You seem not to be aware of any borders or coherent definitions.
freesk8 4 weeks ago
@freesk8 Black or white reasoning. The oldest symbol known to man is yin/yang. When you can understand that self and other go together like the positive and negative poles on a magnet you will stop leaning on script explanations and correct those who do.
Mezocosm 4 weeks ago
@Mezocosm Some things ARE black and white. Like existence. You either are, or you are not. There is no middle ground. Many other things admit of shades of grey. But what we are talking about here is the ownership of the self. Can you really argue that someone ELSE owns your body? If so, who? If you will not argue this, then either you must claim that no one owns you, and so no authority can exist for action, or you must agree with my position, that you own you. Which is it?
freesk8 4 weeks ago
@freesk8 Since you don't know death you can't make a concrete statement about it. Nature has boundries, but it is always a matter of discussion where you choose to define them. Are the leaves on a tree so different from the oxygen it also produces? Nobody ELSE owns me, nobody else exists except as a center of action. I am resolute on individual free will and responsibility, but it really is only half the picture. Most people live in social relativity, worrying about the car they drive,
Mezocosm 4 weeks ago
@freesk8 "Self ownership is a self-evident truth"
Um no. Ownership implies something external. You can't separate yourself from yourself. You didn't preexist your body did you? Your body came first. Your body is a primary. Who owned it before you did? Your parents? God? So ownership can be transferred?
Reductio ad absurdum.indeed! (<-- note spelling, if you're going to use it, learn how to spell it please.)
justintempler 5 days ago
@justintempler Fixing someone's spelling is a sure way to endear yourself to others. :)
I see nothing wrong with self-ownership. It seems a little self referential, but so is A=A, the identity postulate, and that is self evidently true. And self-ownership is not transferable. It is inalienable. If not self ownership, then what is the origin of rights?
freesk8 5 days ago
@freesk8 Ownership refers to property and the ability to transfer property rights. You can't own what you can't sell. You're bastardizing the the meaning of the word ownership.
justintempler 5 days ago
@justintempler I'm a huge Ayn Rand fan. I hope for her great ideas to be spread to all people. And one of the biggest obstacles is the obnoxiousness of a minority of Objectivists. If you are as rude to others as you are to me, then you are a net negative in our cause. I have another meaning for "ownership." But I have no desire to share it with you. Debating with you is no fun, and not in my own rational self interest. Bye.
freesk8 5 days ago
Comment removed
justintempler 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have another meaning for "ownership."
Objectivists call that a stolen concept. You don't have to agree with me you can listen to it straight from Leonard Piekoff's own mouth in episode 15 of his free podcasts available on iTunes.
I don't call myself an Objectivist, and you shouldn't either, because they will be just as rude to you as you think I am being to you. They are VERY particular about people using a SUBJECTIVE definition for a word, I'm just the messenger
justintempler 5 days ago
@freesk8 "If not self ownership, then what is the origin of rights?"
You're asking that on an Ayn Rand video? I suggest you study Obejectivism and you just might find your answer. :p
justintempler 5 days ago
He must think Ron Paul is pretty dumb.
Me and Ron Paul have a very similar set of ideologies, as expressed in my many comments below.
He may not agree with every single point, but on most of the ones that matter, he'd agree with me, and disagree with dubscheckem1.
So ya, I've pretty much pwned you as hard as one can be pwned.
Congratulations, you've failed as epically as has ever been accomplished.
We should contact the Guinness World Record offices, and report this miraculous event, aye?
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno You won't find much support here, dude. Most of us are atheists, Dr.Paul is in the minority. Young, atheist, libertarians are the future and this gives me a lot of hope.
HamsterFueledRocket 4 weeks ago
Brilliant woman!
Jazzper79 4 weeks ago 5
Most people should try to open their mind and LISTEN!
Jazzper79 4 weeks ago 4
@Jazzper79 People are too content to call rand a lunatic and a sociopath. sadly.....
TheWeakMinded 4 weeks ago
how is it that the young turds have there own tv show and libertypen does not
endwelfare 4 weeks ago
Even if you don't believe some type of god exists, the founding fathers saw it at the very least as a fail-safe mechanism against corruption within government.
How does one prove to someone that you have the right to these rights, if all you can do is say that you think these are the rights you require?
What if a tyrant tells you that you have no rights, that all rights are his? This tyrant could be a president, for example.
God acts as a middleman, in which individual rights are kept safe.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno
In law, this is the order of importance:
God
Individual Members of the Society
State Law
Federal Law
Without God, the Federal Law would have the ability to twist the law such that the individual members of the society have no rights under law.
As long as we can point to something specifically that cannot be easily disproven through some form of evidence being provided, the rights of the individual can more easily be defended, than if it was a solely intellectual argument we used.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno Well the Federal government does have ability to twist the law such that the individual members of the society lose their rights. So I guess there is no god after all.
MrGreeneggsnham 4 weeks ago
@MrGreeneggsnham Nah. It just means Mankind has turned from God and worship society/self. Since "everyone is god" then society/govt is god rather than the creation/servant of man.
seeqr9 4 weeks ago
@seeqr9 Most Americans beleive in a god. I have no idea what you mean by worship society/self. Socieity is other people and self is just yourself. That's like being self centered and not self centered at the same time. If you don't believe in a god then it doesn't mean "everyone is a god" it just means you don't think gods exist. Ayn Rand and Milton Freidman didn't beleive in gods or worship the state so I don't get the connection. I think the real problem is the desire to follow blindly period.
MrGreeneggsnham 4 weeks ago
@MrGreeneggsnham What people say n do arent the same. Self/society as in man or mankind. I would say Friedman & Rand "worship God" in a more honest way than most religious people in the sense of loving moral principles. If people ask permission from from everyone else(democracy), then everyone is God as a whole and Individuals get privileges from that "god" so to speak. Like I said "we" fear n "worship" our creation (state) more than our creator. Whoevr we believe that 2 b.
seeqr9 4 weeks ago
@seeqr9 Friedman & Rand were athiests. You can't derive any set beliefs from not believing in something. What can you tell me about John the carpenter knowing that he doesn't believe in unicorns? Nothing really.
MrGreeneggsnham 4 weeks ago
@MrGreeneggsnham I dont recall Milton ever saying he was an atheist. Rand did believe in something very real. natural rights. Pure Natural Rights that are self evident thus not requiring the blind faith u admit is the problem. If you cannot see that I am speaking about principles and not a dogmatic relious belief then I suppose this convo wont go very far.
seeqr9 4 weeks ago
@seeqr9 Ayn Rand did not believe that Individual rights were self-evident. /watch?v=JNdyYqeHkxg&feature=player_detailpage#t=212s
asdflive 4 weeks ago
@asdflive I was stating the rights she believed in are self evident. I can state that for myself and indeed they were self evident to HER as stated in the link u sent me. She simply stated she came to realize that individual rights were not in fact self evident to the majority of people. Since I was talking about HER convictions and beliefs in those principles, the Rights being self evident to HER and also to Me is indeed true and sufficient for my point.
seeqr9 4 weeks ago
@MrGreeneggsnham also I agree on ur point of blind faith to anything but more importantly blind faith in society. The only reason the Fed Govt can twist the law is because we became dependent on them n gave them our fear & trust or "worship".
seeqr9 4 weeks ago
@MrGreeneggsnham
Only because people have not retained enough awareness, and performed their individual duties as citizens to uphold their rights, as the founding fathers warned. That's that vigilance is vital.
If people did that, but god was not in the picture of law, it would be much harder for them to defend their individual rights, than if god was in the structural hierarchy of law, in which currently, the individual is just below god on the importance scale, above all forms of government.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno
Yes, but since god is not provable and theology is easily twisted to fit an agenda, wouldn't the danger of having god in politics be that individual rights be put in jeopardy from the preaching of religious authority? Individual rights are already being undermined by the religious in the issues of marriage, abortion, war, immigration, etc. Also, who's god are we referring to here, the christian god? What of those of other beliefs, can their rights only defended by christians?
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
In this society all religions and ideals are considered acceptable, as long as nobody is breaching the god given rights of another.
It doesn't have anything to do with a specific religion. Some founding fathers weren't even Christian as such, or at least understood Christianity more close to the original Christian disciples, rather then the Roman Catholic slaver-maker variation that's been in place for a very long time now.
The real and original Christians were fed to the lions.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno You say that all religions are accepted in free society but it seems that only one religion is actually endorsed by the state. You said that rights are God given; that implies that "God" (Christian god) is the only legitimate god according to the government. Do you not see the fundamental flaw in endorsing an improvable worldview in order to justify individual rights? Rights are better protected by making intellectually sound arguments instead of relying on mere faith in god.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
I never said we live optimally, we've fallen from the path, we've allowed others to run our lives, we've not done our duty as citizens.
Regardless of religious belief, not having God as a reference point, when the enemy is going to claim their right comes from God, of some form, whether it's good or evil, simply gives us less ability to defend ourselves.
To oppose and/or hate spirituality is a hangup. You've not transcended religion by opposing, you're instead limiting yourself.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno It's the religious who are limiting themselves and their minds by disregarding the intellectual in favor of the mystical.
The burden of proof is on you who claims that such a god exists. Not only exists, but also that our rights come from this god. So far I have not heard any arguments and have seen any evidence to prove god's existence. Therefore, the arguments for freedom must come from reason, not faith.
Religion is a private matter, it must not be brought into political issues.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
The truly balanced individual recognizes that the only way to an optimal overall path to growth is to evolve mentally, physically and spiritually.
To disregard any of them is to foolishly walk along the razor's edge, and to be in a drunken stupor while doing so.
You're more likely to hurt yourself, when you lack the balance required to perceive that everything is spiritual at its basis.
There is nothing physical or non-physical which is not representative of a spiritual source.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno You have yet to prove the spiritual, and you have yet to demonstrate that ethical life is impossible without religion. In fact, it has already been proven that ethical life IS possible and sometimes even more ethical than a life with religion. Therefore your arguments will be disregarded every single time when debating tyrants. The religious arguments always fall because they are fundamentally founded in mysticism, while the intellectual arguments are founded in reason.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
I never said anything is impossible without religion, as I hinted at earlier, it's best to transcend both religion and atheism, so you can see what's true.
The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and other very important documents protect the rights of Sovereign individuals to have whichever beliefs they want in the USoA.
You should know that those who do worship evil gods will not care that you don't see the truth behind the spiritual.
Spiritual understanding is based in all things.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno You say it's best to transcend religion and atheism, yet your arguments for individual rights are fundamentally based in religion and mysticism. I know it's tempting to try and claim a high ground by completely sidestepping reason and logic, but doing so won't convince anyone of any intelligence. The belief in a spiritual realm is the concession that you are unable to form any arguments that can appeal to man's reason and that you are afraid to rely on your own mind. I pity you.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
No actually to fail to perceive a spiritual composition of all of creation is to lack reason, not to have it.
Until you can prove that God is not real, you have no authority to prevent others from using it as their means of self-preservation against those who would force these laws upon them for their own ends, whether you believe in them or not.
At least this way, we are beating them at their own game, until such time as we no longer need to do it, in that way.
We're evolving.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno I like how you dress up your silly beliefs in a flowery pseudo-intellectual language to make your self seem more intelligent than you actually are. Writing whole paragraphs but not actually saying anything.
God is not inherent in the natural world and cannot be tested by a scientific method, therefore the burden of proof is on you to justify your ridiculous claims. Simply saying "You just need to open up your mind and take some drugs" is not sufficient to any thinking person.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
I could say the same about you, the difference is what I'm saying is real.
You have to prove to yourself if God is real or not, it's the duty of all who come here, it's a challenge you set up for yourself.
God is inherent in the natural world, you simply are incapable of perceiving it.
You are actually the only one who has failed to provide deep insights, as opposed to me, who has provided you with much of what you need to start on your spiritual journey.
Good luck to you.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno Actually what you claim is not real, as it only exists within your own mind and not in objective reality.
God cannot be proven, it has nothing to do with me, it has everything to do with objective reality and the way in which it is studied. People like you don't like reality and don't want to accept reality as it is. Therefore you choose to believe something else because it is more comfortable for you and your delicate sensibilities. You want to escape reality, I want to face it.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
Okay, go tell that to the people who've made breakthroughs using Quantum Mechanics, that's essentially shown that at the basis of all existence, resides an ocean of infinite "intelligence", as they put it.
There is also considerable evidence that things such as ESP are real, at least real in enough instances for the military to be concerned about it.
Also, many studies have been done on drugs, scientists think that the Pineal Gland may be the physical entrance for the soul.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno Quantum physics has yet to prove God. ESP doesn't prove God. Getting high on drugs doesn't prove God.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
If you believe any of that, you are ignorant of science.
I've given you a lot of things that you can use to investigate, and research the truth for yourself.
Your mental hangups however will likely prevent you from evolving in this lifetime, unless you willingly change your mind for the better.
I'll not be talked down to by those who are not aware, so unless you want to start being constructive, and insightful yourself, please, just go back into your den of spiritual darkness.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno Ignorant of science? lol
You presented scientific discoveries and then just drew your own conclusion without sufficient evidence. Your ignorance is showing.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
If you refuse to look into my claims yourself, as I've done for myself, I have the moral high ground.
I've done my due diligence, and have done so for years.
It's your turn to do yours, and stop berating me with your ignorance of both scientific and spiritual facts, in the meantime.
There are many places you can look to confirm what I've said, but if you are not resourceful enough to find them, even when you know the questions, then you obviously aren't as capable as I am atm.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno You have no high ground, moral or otherwise.
You've made claims you can't back up. Simple as that, doesn't matter how good of a person you are (or how good you think you are).
"Spiritual facts"?
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
So, what have you done to back up any of your claims exactly?
You've provided no evidence, I've provided plenty.
You simply don't understand evidence when you see it.
I've even provided you with scientific ideas that you can look into for yourself, if you don't do that, you're a hypocrite.
Feel free to blast me with more of your ignorance, it's always good to get it out in the open where the public can see it.
I'm glad this all happened, you've only made me look better.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno I only need to be skeptical of your mystical nonsense in order to prove my position to be superior. And again, the "evidence" you provided did not suffice, you just drew your own conclusions when the evidence wasn't sufficient.
You're a simplistic fool.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
I gave you general ideas and terminology for you to look into.
Now you need to go educate yourself, and until you do that, you will remain a hypocritical fool.
I've barely had to lift a finger, you exposed your ignorance early on, and have only dug a deeper hole for yourself as we've gone on.
Feel free to wallow in your ignorance, and refuse to do any real research, like a real human being would, if they were a good person, seeking the truth behind the illusions pushed on them.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno You're living in your own delusions.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
I know you are, but what am I?
That's about the same response as yours, grow up.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno Your "insights" haven't been "deep" as you have provided no evidence (other than hearsay while tripping on drugs) of god's existence. Therefore your argument has been discarded as nonsense.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno And now you say "take drugs and you can experience God like me". This conversation is over.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
Like I said earlier, there are many ways to experience God, this is just another example of a mental hangup you have.
To not recognize the truth in what I've said, is to prove beyond doubt how limited your current state of mental/physical/spiritual development truly is.
You could wake up quickly, in today's world, but with the attitude you've shared thus far, I doubt that will happen, unless you have a few dozen significant personal epiphanies, regarding existence in general.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno Claiming that I have a "mental hangup" doesn't prove your point, it only shows how childish you become when your superstition is criticized.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
No, it's an insight into your character, into your lack of personal development, it's to show that you need to look in a mirror and rethink what you believe, because you've made a religion out of the religion of non-religion.
You are beginning to show more clearly that you are as bad as the worst religious zealots, in how bigoted they were against the views of others, whether right or wrong.
Your ego clouds your judgement and it will always hold you back until you see that fact.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno Your own lack of personal development has shown through since you have admitted to using drugs to gain insight into yourself and the world around you, rather than using your own mind and your own reason to find the truth of reality.
I don't accept nonsensical pseudo-spiritual drivel as fact. Only facts are facts.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
You are only open to the "facts" that you are currently aware of.
Anything outside of that, you show that you have no tolerance for.
You are truly childish in your beliefs, just allow people to believe what they want, we'll do the same for you.
If some don't, then they are not doing what they are supposed to do, which is be compassionate, loving, to filter their experiences through wisdom, understanding thoughtfulness.
To love one another and grow is the point to spirituality.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno And you are somehow aware of unknowable facts? Stop being childish.
I am allowing you to believe what you want, but that doesn't mean it is correct or that I have to respect your silly preachings.
Also, there are plenty of rational arguments to be made for being an ethical person, I'm not sure why you would need superstitious beliefs to be a good person.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
Actually you do have to respect my "silly" thoughts, under law, or else you'll be deprived of your rights unfortunately, for attempting to not allow me to have mine.
It's not unknowable, you don't know, many others don't know, but some have known and currently do.
You don't need to be religious or spiritual to be a reasonably good person, but you are limiting yourself immensely, in your higher potential.
You'll never reach the same states of personal development without spirit.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno Actually I don't have to respect anyone's beliefs, I only have to allow them to believe.
The concept of God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, it's unknowable whether or not God exists. People can think that they know, but they could never prove it.
Higher potential of what, exactly? To claim to "know" things without any evidence? Don't make me laugh.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
To allow them to have their beliefs, is to show at least a certain level of respect.
You can prove it to yourself, once you evolve enough on a personal level.
Until you do that, you will never know one way or another.
If you don't even know what I mean by higher potential then you've not studied Spirituality 101.
I refuse to hold the hand of a hateful student, so you are on your own, you could have had a great partner on your journey.
Still could but you'll have to apologize.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno You're cracking me up, man.
I don't have to show one ounce of respect for anyone or anything and I claim that right. Welcome to a free society!
Spirituality 101? Is that what's passing for an "education" in our state funded schools of higher learning?
And I'll apologize for nothing until you can prove what you believe is true.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
Actually, if you don't respect me enough to allow me to have my own beliefs, without providing as much or more evidence to back up your beliefs, as I have, then you are actually violating the fundamental rights of me an many others, because you are trying to impose your beliefs on them.
Spirituality 101 is a metaphor for the fact that if you don't understand what I mean by higher potential, you are as ignorant about spirituality as you are about Quantum Mechanics.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno Apparently you are unaware of the non-aggression principle of libertarian thought, I've violated none of your rights. You also have the right to cry and have your feelings hurt when someone calls you out on your bullshit, but I suppose you don't want to reserve that right, you would rather shut me up. Just shows how much of an authoritarian asshole you are.
"Higher potential" is silly nonsense that doesn't mean anything.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
It only means nothing to those who are unaware. Feel free to delude yourself some more.
You have violated my rights, if you don't see that, you're blind.
I'm a closer follower of the ideals of men like Ron Paul than you are, it's quite obvious.
I'm not crying, I'm showing everyone that may read this that you have been a disrespectful, insolent fool, who doesn't know what they are talking about, and should apologize for their gross transgressions toward their spiritual brethren.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno LOL
I don't even have to say anything at this point, you're such a delusional idiot that you're basically pwning yourself. Apparently getting your feelings hurt is a violation of your rights now... LOL
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno
"I believe in the flying spaghetti monster and if you call me an idiot for believing that then you are violating my rights!"
Just listen to yourself.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
You've a right to believe that, make a religion of it if you wish.
However unless you had a real experience that you could say proved to at least you that it was real you'd be a lying hypocrite, making false examples, that do not actually apply, but only do if you are ignorant of important facts.
If you experienced the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be as real as others have experienced their own God to be, then you should be a faithful observer of that religion, I'll not stop you.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno And I'll still call you delusional idiots for believing in silly superstition based on insufficient evidence and false conclusions.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
You do that.
You'll wake up eventually, we all do (even if it takes a million+ lifetimes), I just hope you get to do it in this lifetime, I'm tired of people around me being asleep.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno Have fun in dream land.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
You too, hope you wake up soon.
Unlike you, I'm here to help others wake up, and intentionally came here from on high.
Doesn't matter if you think I'm crazy, the truth is still the truth.
A man could stand against the world, but if what he believes is true, he's a majority of one.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno It's not a matter of me thinking you're crazy, you ARE crazy. Perhaps you should seek some psychiatric help.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
You as well, in fact, I'd be inadmissible, you however... I'll be kind and not elaborate, shattering your delicate ego.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno You most clearly display delusional patterns, not I. I'm simply suggesting that you talk to a professional and see what they might think of your particular beliefs, along with your drug usage.
My delicate ego? Weren't you the one claiming that your rights were violated earlier?
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
That has to do with facts, it was showing you that you were violating fundamental human rights, and you were, via your ego-ignorance.
If you don't see that you're blind, you probably do need some anger management, at the very least.
I don't care about your claims that you might have that you are not angry.
A loving person does not do what you've done, unless of course I committed some kind of offence against you, which I've not done, I've only defended myself against attacks.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno Do you even know what human rights are? Ridiculing superstitious nonsense is a right, believing in superstitious nonsense is a right, physically stopping someone from doing either is a violation of those rights. For a Ron Paul supporter you really don't know his libertarian philosophy very well, do you?
I think it's my duty as a secularist to call out religious and mystical nonsense for what it is. Believe what you want but keep your god out of my government.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
Yes, but somehow, with all those rights, you still feel the need to berate me for no reason, why is that?
Are you really so insecure in your beliefs that you have to attack others?
It sure seems that way.
Once again, you're displaying pure hypocrisy.
You are a tyrant, trying to shut me up, but you won't, and you can't.
Every error you've made comes from a perceptual mistake on your part.
You need to rethink almost everything you've said toward me, about all of the issues.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno The fact that you can't take criticism doesn't mean I'm "attacking" you. This shows how childish you are, anyone who might challenge your ridiculous and unjustifiable worldview must be a tyrant. When in fact a true supporter of freedom would welcome criticism and see it as vital to the survival and advancement human beings.
But instead you would rather accuse skeptics of "attacking" you in order to claim the sanction of the victim. This is why no one can take the religious seriously
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
Oh I took your criticism, and in returned I schooled you every time.
If you didn't perceive it that way you're wrong, and it's provable, but obviously you're too blind, we'd have to bring in an objective third party at this point, because you refuse to be rational.
You are a tyrant, I challenged you, you never engaged me in my challenges.
You need to research all of the issues, or you will remain blind.
That's all there is to it.
Feel free to lie some more.
Good life to you.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno You keep calling me blind, and yet you are averse to even the most basic concepts of logic. You cannot prove a negative.
You schooled me? LOL. When was that? When you presented insufficient evidence and then drew in your own conclusions? I could do the same thing for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
You're not even making sense at this point. All you're saying is that I need to research the issues and that I'm blind because I actually understand the laws of logic. You're a fool.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
Well, you obviously are going to ignore things said earlier.
I don't feel like repeating myself, until you leave a comment that indicates you understand what has been said, I'll not honor you with another response.
You are very blind, you're lucky I'm here to let you know this.
Your misunderstandings are the real issue here.
I've laid out plenty of facts.
Do your research, or be an eternal hypocrite.
You don't understand logic.
You're the only fool here, and you proved it.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno You're only digging your hole deeper, fool. You've provided nothing that hasn't been refuted or cannot be proved, NOTHING.
Your position is weak and you know it, that's why you're getting so emotional. Perhaps you should rethink your position and come back when you can actually make a coherent argument which isn't based solely on faith.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno
As I said, I'll not honor you with another response, this is directed at everyone who may read this.
Until he leaves a comment that indicates he understands what has been said, he's lost, and I've won, and I'll never again respond to him, assuming it's a him and not a her, until they prove to me from their comment that they leave me that they now understand.
It's pointless, they seem too far gone to understand and I'm wasting too much valuable time on them.
I hope they wake up soon.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno
And finally, like all superstitious people, he tries to claim victory by saying that I couldn't falsify his unfalsifyable hypothesis (after having refuted his other claims and having already tried playing the victim). To any intelligent person you have clearly lost this argument, my friend.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
Also, there are many mental health professionals I've watched who've discussed similar beliefs, and they are available for the whole world to see.
That you don't know this shows that you've done little research in these areas.
I've done my job, it's your turn to do yours, research the issues, or continue to prove that you're a hypocrite, who is afraid of learning anything that might take them out of their comfort zone.
I can handle any idea you throw at me, you however cannot.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno Yes, I'm sure your beliefs are part of the psychiatry curriculum at any reputable university. All I'm asking is that you get yourself checked out.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
Believe me, you should be worrying about yourself, I'm far more concerned about your personal welfare.
This sort of behaviour is not healthy, and cannot lead to anything good.
In the end, anything I've shared with you was for your benefit, you can take it or leave it.
I never forced anything on you.
We can agree to disagree, if you want to.
I never attacked you or your character first, I did so only after, in self defense.
I hope you have a wonderful life my good friend.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dubscheckem1
Go back and read what's already been said.
I told you exactly how you violated my rights, as well as that of others.
You are a blind fool, feel free to waLOLlow in your ignorance.
And thank you for proving me right.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
Btw, if you want to have an experience of certain aspects of god, here's one quick way to do it, but be very careful, and respectful when you do it, as the entities which reside in these experiences tend to tear apart without mercy, the egos of those who are disrespectful to them.
Using Shamanistic methods, take any one of these drugs in a sufficiently high dose to perceive aspects of God: DMT, Salvia Divinorum, Psilocybin, LSD, MDA, Mescaline, Ayahuasca, and a few other ones.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
The only ones who truly know if God exists are those who have broken free of their ego-mind based mental veil, and seen through the din of illusion, and reached places that only their subconscious mind is normally able to perceive with clarity.
When a Buddha reaches enlightenment, they learn to see all forms of reality, on all dimensional levels, both with their physical eyes, and with their mind's eye.
Remember I'll always love you, always have. This is but another step for us.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
And no, Christianity is simply the religion that has become prevalent.
The US of A is a nation of tolerance, growth, and spiritual equality.
If it appears to be otherwise, that is caused by people such as yourself not standing up for your believes, and ensuring that they are as respected as the beliefs of others.
It's up to each individual to defend their beliefs, and they will have the ability to defend it, but you cannot stop others from claiming their god given rights, ever.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno You say that the only true Christians were fed to the lions. Wouldn't you then fall into the no true Scotsman fallacy and be disregarded by anyone of intellectual seriousness? This is the problem with religion, anyone can claim to be a true believer and accuse others of heresy because there is no mechanism to prove otherwise. Therefore, to rest one's case of individual rights on the unknowable is to concede that knowledge rests with those who would support tyranny.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
I've heard history in which two historical leaders got together.
They decided, upon analysing the original Christian teachings, that because there was such a depth of truth to the teachings, it would be easy to convince people to join that spiritual movement.
Originally, it was not a religion, but spiritual teachings that Jesus shared, via personal insights.
The Roman Catholicism came in after they got rid of the original version of the Christian teachings, & forced a religion.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
God is only provable to those who are able to perceive it. Otherwise, one can understand god in that it's everywhere, in everything, is everyone, all plants and animals, all physical and non-physical.
You are god experiencing itself, through itself, from within the confines of an experience that you desired to have, in order to grow exponentially, if you were able in this lifetime, or over many lifetimes, to see through the veil of illusion, and find your higher self's potential.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
I've left you three other messages, please read them as well.
What it comes down to is that you are able to, or are not able to perceive God.
There are many ways to go about learning to perceive god. In the end however, all you're doing is allowing yourself to remember what you forgot, before you entered into wilfully, as a form of self-education, this life, in which we decide upon entering, that it would be best to be in an amnesiac state, to learn more than we otherwise would.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno
Also, since god is not provable, by what right do you claim that he somehow gives you anything? I would think defending liberty on the grounds of faith would be the resignation of reason to one's enemies. To defend freedom on the grounds of faith is to concede that there are no rational arguments to support the ideals of individual rights, and that we can only defend liberty by belief in god. This is the reason so many great thinkers advocated the separation of church and state.
dubscheckem1 4 weeks ago
@dubscheckem1
The enemy is an enemy who believes in the spiritual & understands that there is much truth behind it, the problem is many of them are Satanists, or worship other similar though perhaps differently named entities, that they think can give them power.
They instituted the law of God for themselves, when they were the kings and queens. But now that we are Sovereign individuals, God is our authority, and no other. We serve others by serving the higher purpose, once we can perceive it.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno I like the way u put that.
seeqr9 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno I like the way u put that.
seeqr9 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno I like the way u put that.
seeqr9 4 weeks ago
@seeqr9
Thank you.
I think Alfred Adask put it best, you should look him up.
dimeuno 4 weeks ago
@dimeuno Yes Im familiar with him.
seeqr9 4 weeks ago
She, being an Atheist, states that society determines rights and that they are social. If society determines right than they can take them away.
Furthermore, the word morals comes up a lot. Where do they come from? Well they certainly don't come from society. If society determined them, who's to say that society determined that pediaphilia was actually ok? Afterall, society stated that homosexuality was ok after 100's of years.
Rand is not the best option for Libertarians. We are a moral nation.
mcoop221 4 weeks ago
@mcoop221 Rand: "rights are those conditions of existence which are required by man's nature for his proper survival." Required by man's nature does not translate to proclaimed by society. Like the founders, Ayn understood that rights preexisted government. She puts forward the opposite of the left-wing notion that rights are arbitrarily bestowed (or taken) by government, such as a right to health care. That is why the Constitution acknowledges, rather than establishes, rights.
fzqlcs 4 weeks ago
@fzqlcs
Thank you.
mcoop221 4 weeks ago
@mcoop221 Why not accept that rights are conditions required by man's nature? If you insist on believing in a god, couldn't you simply decide that it was God who created man's nature. Then, we could all agree that individual rights preceded government and everyone should be happy, no?
fzqlcs 4 weeks ago
@fzqlcs
Because it was the other half, Satan, who created man's nature.
mcoop221 4 weeks ago
@mcoop221 why would anyone choose to believe such nonsense? the good thing about faith is that you can believe what you want since evidence is not required. that being the case, why not choose to believe an ideology not based on low self-esteem (man is inherently evil in need of salvation)? adults have to tell kids all this god-satan crap before they can critically think. if not, who would buy into this self-loathing horsesh*t. i will take Ayn's definition of rights based on reason.
fzqlcs 4 weeks ago
@mcoop221 She says rights are determined by man's nature. Although she says they exist in a social context, she does NOT say society determines rights. (Indeed she disavows such an idea later in the video.)
Try to listen carefully all the way to the end before commenting.
richardcadbury 4 weeks ago
@richardcadbury
No need to be a jerk.
Naturalism is the product of evolution.
If man's nature truly determines rights, than there is no god. Obviously our founders believed differently.
Frankenstein was created out of good - man's nature. But from being mis-treated, look what happened?
That is why it is incredibly important to protect our rights that God gave us, not man's nature.
mcoop221 4 weeks ago
@mcoop221 You made me think of a quote from the film Mary Shelly's Frankenstein when Frankenstein (who is the doctor NOT the creature) says, "Don't bring God into this". If you say that rights and morals are from a divine source, then you must prove the existence of that divine before moving onto questions of morals and rights. If you say that rights and morals are part of largely self-evident Natural Law, then you can go straight to the questions without getting stuck in the detour.
EvilDandy 4 weeks ago
@EvilDandy Then you have to prove the existence of Natural Law.
obtree 4 weeks ago
@EvilDandy
I don't mind getting into that debate though. Didn't plan on it, but ok with it.
My question would be where morals come from?
My answer is the Bible says that God wrote them into the hearts and minds of man.
Right and wrong doesn't come from society, hence my first argument.
Thanks
mcoop221 4 weeks ago
@mcoop221
Morals come from the requirements of life itself. Quoting the VOS by Ayn Rand: "The facts of reality demand it. The fundamental alternative in this world is existence or non-existence, and it pertains only to living organisms.
Ethics is not a mystic fantasy—nor a social convention—nor a
dispensable, subjective luxury, to be switched or discarded in any
emergency. Ethics is an objective, metaphysical necessity of man’s
survival—
airduderino 4 weeks ago
@mcoop221 I want to give you a well intended suggestion. As a Christian you recognise the Bible as an authority, however the people you are arguing against do not. So it is important for you to learn how to make Biblical arguments without using the Bible as an authority to support your argument. As someone alluded to in another comment, Natural Law was the traditional means of doing just that as Christians accepted Natural Law as created by God.
EvilDandy 3 weeks ago
/standing round of applause.
daPlumber702 4 weeks ago
Like her or not You can not argue her "metaphysical true's"...what ever the hell that is...I have never heard a better explanation of rights tho...!
dmhappy2777 4 weeks ago