...for all the world to see. Putin has turned away from his superficially civil behaviors (except for Russian election political brutality), behaviors with which he fooled those gullibles in the west who ridiculed Mitt Romney for his prescient claims of Russian dangers two years ago. Putin has turned back toward the Will To Power which Nietzsche illuminated as the one consistent emergent characteristic of Atheism. It is now known that the Ukranian "rebels" are actually Russian military functionaries who are working to destabilize and reconquer the Ukraine for Russian re-acquisition.
The Atheist claim that they should be trusted is laid to rest as we observe what Atheists do when they acquire power. If you haven't been paying attention, what Atheists do is to apply tactics toward consequences, and any tactic which moves them toward a desirable goal is to be used. And it is to be used without qualm or reference to odious moral principles. This is called Consequentialism, and it is the default ethical principle of behavior for Atheists. Alinsky wrote Rules For Radicals as a call to Consequentialism. Without naming it, the Atheist conquistadors of the 20th century bloodbaths used it without compunction. Its essence is the pursuit of strategic objectives with no moral compunction regarding tactics.
The Left, everywhere in the world, is Consequentialist. And so is Islam. But for Islam, Consequential is instilled as a part of the Prophet's instruction: the global caliphate is to be installed, and the deaths of any who resist are guaranteed and necessary - especially Jews. This allows for all brutalization that happens in the pursuit of the objective. It is an institutionalized barbarianism. And that makes it the Hegelian antithesis of western civilization; it is the civilization of the west which is the thesis. But there is no synthesis for either Putin or for Islam; both cultures might pretend to accept a synthesis, but only until they have refreshed, rearmed and then see an opportunity.
Obama is that opportunity. The world is currently without the braking force of thesis normally provided by western civilization, because the third type of Consequentialist after communism and Islam is the western Leftist. Obama, the apogee western Leftist for the next 2 1/2 years, is content to focus on applying Cloward-Piven to the United States in his attempt to subvert all U.S. systems and bring on destruction of U.S. institutions for the takeover promised in the First Humanist Manifesto (the declaration of the New Man, installed by the elimination of all support for the Original Man).
And that is why impeaching Obama will not change anything. The next four or five or more successors would also have to be impeached, because they, also, are traitorous Consequentialists.
There is a long, hard haul ahead. It's called Hope and Change, as Obama is applying it.
3 comments:
Stan I know the purpose of your blog is to attack the atheist position, but what arguments do you hold to the most concerning putting a case for God's existence? It seems you align with the Kalām cosmological argument. Also how do you connect your conclusion of God to the one of the Bible?
Shizmoo,
Thanks for your question. I deal totally with Atheism, its claims, its truth value, and its consequences. I don't make any theist claims, except to point out that Atheists cannot and do not defeat any actual theist claims with either logic or material evidence, nor do they have any logic or material evidence for defending their own Atheism.
I do defend the bible from false or prejudiced claims when they are made about it, but I make no other biblical claims, including for the pentateuch and the new testament. There are plenty of other sites which do address theodicies and biblical issues.
By addressing only Atheism, its claims, aspects and consequences based on classical aristotelian deductive logic, this blog fills an otherwise empty niche.
After finding everything Atheist to be false, one can ask, what then must be true? And by studying actual logic discipline, one can ascertain truth from falseness, so that an investigation can be done by each individual who wants to understand truth, what it is, how to find it, and then to pursue it. And that is what I encourage. Every person should launch his own journey of truthful investigation.
I was curious whats your theodicy or your favorite argument. Mine involves classical aristotelian logic namely the Transcendental argument for God from Logic which argues:
1.(P)God is the necessary precondition of (Q)Laws of Logic
2.(Q)Laws of Logic
Therefore,
3.(P)God
http://www.proginosko.com/docs/The_Lord_of_Non-Contradiction.pdf
I believe you came across a variant a while back from Matt Slick, but this is more refined from people who have better knowledge of philosophy. I also like the same transcendental argument replacing Laws of Logic with Morality which eliminates any moral complaint an atheist has to God/Bible.
Post a Comment