Passive/Mechanistic/Necessary = The Religion of EVIL Active/Agential/Voluntary = The One True GOD Musician. Filmmaker. Anti-Atheist.
The United States of America
- Tweets 1,788
- Following 179
- Followers 103
- Likes 12,414
Satan's greatest triumph is convincing the West that LIFE is predicated on "survival".
Even many Christians have internalized this lie.
Only cowards are motivated by survival.
They run and hide to save themselves while everything burns.
They cheat and steal and choose sides based on who's winning.
Heroes do what's right even when it puts their own lives at risk.
Heroes speak the truth even when it's unpopular.
Heroes know that there is a fate worse than death.
Western Civilization is what it is only because of men who chose risk over safety. Growth over stagnation. Abundance over scarcity. Adventure over caution.
Western Civilization is what it is only because of its excesses: Its ART, its LITERATURE, its PHILOSOPHY, its ARCHETECTURE, its MUSIC. Without these things survival is moot, obsolete, unimportant, ignoble.
Do not be fooled by the big lie.
"Survival" is for cockroaches.
5
Atheists promulgating crap like this promised the world a new age of reason and science. Instead, all we got was climate hoax tyranny, chicks with dicks and full scale Muslim invasion. What will it take for these people to realize they completely desecrated Western civilization?
From The Moral Arc:
The Bible is one of the most immoral works in all literature. Woven throughout begats and chronicles, laws and customs, is a narrative of accounts written by, and about, a bunch of Middle Eastern tribal warlords who constantly fight over land and women, with the victors taking dominion over both. It features a jealous and vengeful God named Yahweh who decides to punish women for all eternity with the often intolerable pain of childbirth, and further condemns them to be little more than beasts of burden and sex slaves for the victorious warlords.
Why were women to be chastened this way? Why did they deserve an eternity of misery and submission? It was all for that one terrible sin, the first crime ever recorded in the history of humanity—a thought crime no less—when that audacious autodidact Eve dared to educate herself by partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Worse she inveigled the first man—the unsuspecting Adam—to join her in choosing knowledge over ignorance. For the appalling crime of hearkening unto the voice of his wife, Yahweh condemned Adam to toil in thorn and thistle-infested fields, and further condemned him to death, to return to the dust from whence he came.
Yahweh then cast his first two delinquent children out of paradise, setting a Cherubim and a flaming sword at the entrance to be certain that they could never return. Then, in one of the many foul moods he was wont to fall into, Yahweh committed an epic hemoclysm of genocidal proportions by killing every sentient being on Earth—including unsuspecting adults, innocent children, and all the land animals—in a massive flood. In order to repopulate the planet after he decimated it of all life save those spared in the ark, Yahweh commanded the survivors—numerous times—to “be fruitful and multiply,” and rewarded his favorite warlords with as many wives as they desired. Thus was born the practice of polygamy and the keeping of harems, fully embraced and endorsed—along with slavery—in the so-called “good book.”
As an exercise in moral casuistry, this perspective-taking question comes to mind: did anyone ask the women how they felt about this arrangement? What about the millions of people living in other parts of the world who had never heard of Yahweh? What about the animals and the innocent children who drowned in the flood? What did they do to deserve such a final solution to Yahweh’s anger problem?
7
IF
P1: Western Civilization abolished slavery
AND
P2: The abolition of slavery is an unparalleled Good
BUT
P3: Western Civilization was built on White Supremacy
THEN
C1: White Supremacy is an unparalleled Good
See how that works?
Thank you cultural Marxism for clearing that up
10
Jews in the West:
- compose symphonies
- revolutionize physics
- make greatest films of all time
Muslims in the West:
- deadliest terror attack in US history
- mass rape of underage girls
- decapitate priests
Remind me again who the problem is?
1
7
Academia has been, and will continue to be, running around in circles, desperately trying to pinpoint the precise utility of consciousness, all because of their uncritical presupposition of the Naturalist paradigm.
But the simple fact that the nature of consciousness is aesthetic, which, by definition, transcends utility, is so obvious and inescapable that it boggles the mind how elusive it seems to be, even to those who are supposedly experts in the field of cognition.
The truth is, consciousness has no utility. It doesn't 'do' anything logistical or computational. Consciousness is a purely aesthetic experience, wholly unnecessary, owing no causal debt to its biophysical correlates.
It is, in and of itself, excessive, extravagant, capricious, opulent... in a word, superfluous, just as so as life itself, and the revelry of all the living. 'Tis not a tool, but a luxury, and until such time as we acknowledge this truth, we'll stay fumbling around in the dark.
"What consciousness is doing is fundamentally relevance realisation."
"A computer doesn't have any need. It doesn't care. Living things have real needs and real cares."
"Cognition is not computation in your head. It's dynamical coupling between you and the world."
"Your biology is that part of you that reaches down and binds you into the cosmos."
@DrJohnVervaeke
1
5,777
This post is ostensibly about food, but it's actually profoundly important.
The battle between Good and Evil plaguing the West right now is fundamentally an assault launched by the worshippers of "need" against the champions of "enjoy".
Life, in and of itself, is an excess.
Consciousness, in and of itself, is an excess.
Culture, in and of itself, is an excess.
None of these are necessary.
None of what is prized by the noble impulse in Man is the result of a "need".
The forces of evil despise delightful things, because the very possibility of delighting in things destroys their passive/mechanistic/materialistic worldview, which they cannot abide.
No. To them, life must be based on scarcity, necessity, fear, and compulsion, therefore they must wage war on abundance, caprice, courage, and freedom.
Linnea is absolutely right. It's utterly absurd for a person to advocate the use of force based on their pedestrian ideas about what society does and does not "need".
And yet, such flippant remarks are commonplace. Such a simple solution, they think...
"Ban all food dyes."
It may seem small, but it's not.
"We need..." is the battle cry of tyranny.
This is absurd.
No one "needs" to make food look or taste better in any way.
No one even "needs" to salt their food.
No one "needs" spices or vanilla.
No one "needs" any condiments.
No one "needs" things like cakes or cookies or dairy products or granola or crackers.
Just ban everything no one "needs," especially if it's not healthy. Why not? They don't NEED it.
21
Sam Harris likely knows about Hume, and has heard of Kant's now famous awakening from his "dogmatic slumber", but it's highly doubtful that he's actually read Hume or Kant and taken their work seriously, since he appears to be operating on some rather shallow epistemological assumptions, uncritically.
The problem with his view here, is that causality itself is not empirically grounded, while free will is. In fact, Reed, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche each convincingly offered some form of will or volition as the origin of the concept of causality, and there's enormous support for this in the scientific literature.
(See: Rovee-Collier mobile paradigm, Held & Hein's kitten-carousel, Campos/Bertenthal Adolph/Thelen work on locomotion, Sommerville Woodward Needham "sticky mittens", etc)
Harris ought to know about these works, but because Atheism hinges on passive/mechanical ontologies, he is not permitted to entertain their most reasonable conclusion, namely, that he's got the matter precisely backwards.
It is NOT the case that empirical observations of cause and effect inform our understanding of free will. Quite the opposite: it is the privileged, immediate experience of our free will which informs our understanding of causality. The evidence for this is practically incontrovertible, but to an Atheist, it's tantamount to heresy.
1
68
People like this know the only antidote to such messaging is "Elect straight White Christian men"
It's what they want us to say, so they can point their fingers and go "See? We told you they were racist"
It's a self fulfilling prophecy. It's their dream come true. The ultimate quixotic fantasy they've been larping at for 50 years.
Ironically, the only way to beat them is to give them exactly what they want.
Elect women.
Elect Black women.
Elect queer women.
Elect trans women.
Elect Muslim women.
Elect Latina women.
Elect disabled women.
Elect Jewish women.
Elect low-income women.
Elect Muslim women.
Elect Native American women.
Elect immigrant women.
Elect women.
14
Anyone who's dismayed about voting for the lesser of two evils, must have a rather naïve view of government.
Government is force.
Force is inherently evil.
Voting is necessarily always a choice between evils.
1
13
Atheists tend to be completely unaware that Kant settled these debates nearly 250 years ago. The irony, of course, is that as long as they hold to Physicalism, they declare themselves susceptible to the ontological arguments Kant defeated.
Namely, by insisting that our perceptions correspond to "objective reality", they posit hypotheses predicated on the conditions underlying the synthesis of appearance, as @JoelMCurzon does here.
In doing so, poor Joel has no idea that he's made himself vulnerable to ontological attack via the principal of sufficient reason, which is, of course, required to postulate a foundational, eternal, layer of reality.
Thus, the premise that contingent being must have a cause terminating in necessary being holds, and Joel is left holding the bag. No Atheist can ever escape this trap, since Atheism is the religion of passive/mechanical being, which can never account for a causa prima.
The typical Atheist response usually finds them flailing about how arguments from reason cannot determine actual physical being, without the faintest clue that it is only judgements of experience, grounded in the concepts of the understanding, which lend to the possibility of universal, objective application of science in the first place, as Kant has exhaustively explicated.
There is no real effort here to better understand the Theist position, or extend a defense of the Atheist position, or move the needle in any way. Instead, this is mere pageantry. A covert appeal to social proof in status quo via pseudo-rational rhetoric.
I think that there is a foundational layer of reality that is eternal, that simply is, & that *our* universe grows out of that larger reality. It is a mistake to claim that *our universe*, or our observable universe, is “all that is”: it’s simply all that we have access to.
2/n
39
Maker Burns retweeted
I think that there is a foundational layer of reality that is eternal, that simply is, & that *our* universe grows out of that larger reality. It is a mistake to claim that *our universe*, or our observable universe, is “all that is”: it’s simply all that we have access to.
2/n
18
2
47
1,554
Maker Burns retweeted
Atheists think this is a clever dilemma, because they don't understand creativity or aesthetics.
When Chopin composes a piano sonata, he invents a whole self-contained world, with its own internal harmonic and melodic structure.
Chopin is not "limited" by the structure he himself has elected to implement, nor is the structure itself arbitrary. Instead, through creation, he expresses an aesthetic consonant with his own soul.
Similarly, goodness and reason emanate from the nature of God. These are not infinitely malleable, since they conform to the essence of their source. Note how that single statement answers both horns of the dilemma.
Atheists like Stefan are not allowed to understand this, because the central tenet of their religion is the claim that all of existence is predicated on passive, mechanical processes.
Notice: Passive mechanical processes are both 1) slaves to the laws that govern them, and 2) arbitrary by definition. Because Stefan believes these two attributes constitute the whole of being, he's quite literally BLIND to the solution to the riddle he's posing.
No answer is allowed to exist, because it would defy his definition of existence to allow one. Luckily for us, the wearily enlightened and God-fearing masses, the answer is rather simple:
Active agents are free to create what they please, in accord with their natural inclinations.
1
2
4
40
Christians:
Christians, Jews, and Muslims "worship The One God" and "are brothers and sisters" -Pope Francis
Jews:
Muslims "worship The Singular God properly, and without blemish" but Christians are "idolaters" -Maimonides
Muslims:
All 3 worship Allah, but Jews and Christians are "shirk" and "kufr" "Shirk is the unforgivable sin" -Quran
1
13
Mids don't understand how Divine foreknowledge and free will are compatible because they can't comprehend authenticity. Since they've never exercised genuine discretion, most of their choices are dictated by society, and because of this, they've developed the most bizarre theory that free will itself is predicated on this mysterious state, whereby one might be inclined to choose any action whatsoever, but for the whims of their circumstances.
Men of conviction behave oppositely. We hold definite, confident allegiances to truth and beauty, society be damned. Our choices are predicated on our refined taste, shrewd judgement, and clear code of honor. As a result, it's not surprising that our behavior should be predictable, and in no way is our free agency threatened by God's foreknowledge of our actions.
Of course God knows in advance every choice I'm going to make, because my preferences are definitive, and God knows them with infinite precision. It makes zero sense to such a man as myself that his free will must be contingent on the possibility of his making any other choice than the one to which he is so inclined at any given moment.
For men who are not so inclined, who operate based on what is advantageous, or fashionable, or pleasurable, or safe, their apparent measure of freedom is precisely that degree to which they themselves do not know how they might behave until their circumstances permit them.
I'm just an actor mouthing the lines that God put in my mouth, I have no words of my own, no choices of my own, no free will, since God knows everything I'm going to say and do for the rest of my life.
1
86
Maker Burns retweeted
More people need to learn how to say “fuck you” to the commie mobs and never apologize.
Apologies don’t help. That’s just blood in the water to a commie. They don’t want contrition. They want power over you. Apologizing only gives them power.
1,543
7,759
56,876
536,644
Maker Burns retweeted
This is a problem.
Evolutionists say evolution is an inference - it's the best explanation for the data we observe in biology.
The problem is evolution isn't compared to anything else.
An inferential explanation only has force when it explains the data better than other competing explanations.
But evolution is the only allowed answer. No other explanation is considered.
If no other explanation is allowed, then it's no longer an inference.
It's circular reasoning.
And when Intelligent Design or Creationist proponents offer an alternative explanation, it's ignored, mocked, and labelled as "pseudoscience."
Evolution is not a valid inference if it can't be compared to any other potential explanation. It's circular reasoning, question begging, and confirmation bias.
An explanation that cannot lose because any rivals are ruled out in advance is not a valid inference.
It is a protected narrative.
If an explanation can't be compared, it can't be considered best.
74
15
145
5,500