Monday, August 1, 2016

Annals of the Leftist Socialism

Venezuelans cried at the sight of fully-stocked supermarket shelves in Colombia.

More Than 50 Animals Starve to Death in Venezuela's Zoos as the Nation Endures Devastating Food Shortages
Socialists know better than anyone else how to run a country and everyone's lives. In fact, they promise lots of stuff for free, if they only had it.


Steven Satak said...

That's the problem. Only THEY had it. One set of rules for them, one set for everyone else.

Phoenix said...


I have a problem I'd like you to look into.

So I've been locked in a debate with an Atheist for a couple of days. The topic is "why didn't God prevent Hitler from committing genocide". As I've told this Atheist over and over people have free will and God cannot violate that. But this Atheist insist that since God is omniscience he knew Hitler would commit those evil acts and since he is omnipotent too, he has the power to prevent such atrocities, which includes natural disasters too. God could have simply stopped Hitler from being born. He could also have designed the world in a way that did not include natural disasters. This Atheist then went a step further by citing a statute from the International criminal law which, according to him, would indict God for crimes against humanity.

that the fact that a subordinate committed crimes “does not relieve his superior of criminal responsibility if he knew or had reason to know that the subordinate was about to commit such acts or had done so and the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts

I then asked him to provide me with a moral code for Atheists. He then defined evil as "any act which harms another is evil" And nature supposedly favors altruism and cooperation, so "good" is found in nature and a violation of altruism and cooperation cause harm, thus considered evil. There's also a study supporting this.

Your input would be greatly appreciated.

Stan said...

Some thoughts, maybe useful, maybe not:

To “know that genocide happens” requires that genocide does, in fact, happen. It is not a case of genocide probably will happen. The deity is not expected to work on probability due to his omniscience; the deity works on the knowledge that it will/does/and did happen.

From the deity’s perspective, the view is not from the past looking forward. The deity’s view vantage is that X can happen/will happen/is happening/did happen. The view from outside time is all encompassing of time, and all history, past, present, and future, is simultaneous.

The Atheist view of the deity is always too small, too limited to material restrictions which apply to the Atheist but not a creating deity. The Atheist can imagine impossible evolutionary schemes and a universe from nothing, but cannot imagine the scope of a creating deity.

Free Will is very much like the inevitable: when the choice is made, it’s a done deal, and consequences ensue. The genocide was, in fact, stopped. And history demonstrates to reasonable men that implementing Darwinian human evolution by human intervention is, in fact, evil... but only if human life has intrinsic value.

Atheists in general, including Dawkins, see no evil because there is no material, objective, visible moral code even possible under Philosophical Materialism. Any moral code which is presented is merely opinion, and has no moral authority and hence no moral force. That’s why Dawkins said that he could not say that what Hitler did was evil. To Dawkins it was “distasteful, but not evil”. The Atheist has no grounds to assume that the deity is responsible for preventing “distasteful” human behaviors when those behaviors are fully expected under the principle of Free Choice. To place that requirement on the deity requires just one thing: to place oneself above the deity by claiming that one’s personal morals are superior to the deity’s morals, and those superior morals apply to the deity. Judging the morals of the deity is pure arrogance and represents the Atheist’s self-image of being above the deity, not subject to the deity (as if he, himself, had created the universe, objective morality, and possesses eternal existence rather than normal life span). And Atheists truly place themselves above the deity, rather than try to comprehend the actions of the deity, because they deny that any deity exists and they “know” that they are the supreme moral force in the universe, as well as the most intelligent beings even possible – a demonstrably false and delusional self-conception which is purely supported and demonstrated by the simple act of denying the existence of an intelligent creator. Atheism is based solely on an empty denial which is made completely without evidence or logic to support it.

Applying a human law to a deity is an obvious Category Error. And a desperate one at that.

Altruism in nature goes completely against the actual principles of evolution. And it is demonstrably not applicable to most natural existence. Male lions will take over a pride which is possessed by a weaker male, and after killing the male they then kill all the cubs which are spawn of the previous male. Spiders mate, then the female eats the male. Sharks will eat a weakened member of their own species. Buzzards fight each other violently over a kill. Elk, deer, buffalo, etc. fight each other to breed, then males split off into loners. Large cats, bears, some predatory birds, etc. will kill each other over territorial disputes. The examples are voluminous. Kin selection trumps altruism consistently, even though there are communal animals as well. Altruism is not a law of nature, it is one feature amongst many, and is swamped by the many.

The Atheist can and does believe contradictory concepts. Human life has no inherent intrinsic value because it is an accident of evoluton; yet harming another is evil, despite that every action by human X has an impact on all other humans, mostly dilatory due to entropy.

Defining harm as a moral precept is a delusion.

Phoenix said...

I also just realized something. Most of the Atheist's arguments seem to hinge on experience, such as not causing harm or for the well being of society. These are only known through subjective experience, usually considered an abhorrent concept with no empirical value but Atheists will conveniently invoke it when it suits their agenda.

Another thing is that "causing harm" is now defined as an absolute evil which would imply absolute morals with an absolute lawgiver.

This was very helpful, thanks.