Archive

Posts Tagged ‘freethinkerism’

Are Libertines and Liberals the Same?

March 28, 2012 3 comments

(Continued from the previous post):

In order of what seemed to be most relevant (in my opinion):

First: http://www.babeled.com/2008/10/30/word-power-liberal
Second: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hutchison/070213
Third: http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory133.html
Fourth: http://patriotpost.us/opinion/rebecca-hagelin/2012/02/27/culture-wars-the-winning-side/print

According to “The New Liberalism” “liberalism was strategically misrepresented libertinism” by unnamed persons, so for all anyone knows this is just a delusion or lie by the writer who himself recognizes a real connection.

According to “The New Revolution: Libertine Liberal vs Classic Liberal”:

There is a difference between “liberal” and “libertine”. We have, in the course of many social revolutions, struggled to define that line with varying degrees of success. “Libertine” behavior has and will always be looked upon askance because the connotation of “libertine” means the breakdown of society and the breakdown of society has not always been for the good of society. “Libertine” is to be free, not only in thought and expression, but from morality and societal norms. “Liberal” is to believe in and support the idealism of freedom of thought and expression, but to lend it support from a moral base.

Therein lies our problem with modern day definition of the term “liberal”. Somewhere around 1967 the term “liberal” became confused with the “libertine” revolution of the counter culture. While the movement began in the grandest of idealism of freedom and equality for minorities, retaining its “liberal” idealism for a time, it quickly slipped its anchorage and drifted resolutely towards the “libertine”.

My thoughts on “Liberal” is to believe in and support the idealism of freedom of thought and expression, but to lend it support from a moral base.” is that it sounds like to me, “Liberalism is libertinism only with the attempt to justify it using morals” which is an obvious contradiction. It seems analogous to me like saying (without the pretentious “idealism” word), “Liberalism is the belief that you should be able to think whatever you feel like without being punished, and studying how to justify this belief using current (Christian?) morals or believing that they are (for what reason?)”. Therefore, liberalism is the belief that you should be able to think (what about “and feel”?) whatever you want to, from abusing and raping, torturing and murdering for fun, to imagine and express with delight abusing kids and the destruction of all moral beings with the justification for doing so with (Christian?) morality. This is obviously a contradictory belief system, just like Hinduism with it’s original practices of widow-burning and ritualistic murder of strangers/travelers yet claiming that it’s about enlightening yourself by avoiding “evil”, and not saying what “evil” is.

Strangely, Wikipedia (which says a libertine is a person without morals) has a hidden key phrase on its libertinism entry: “Classical liberalism”. Being that Wikipedia is controlled by liberals (the head being the liberal and atheist Jimmy/Jimbo Wales (who also apparently has narcissism disorder), it’s obvious to me why they would hide saying that liberalism was based on immorality. Why they would hide the phrase though, is something I don’t understand, though I can imagine a demon was mocking God in a connivingly and malicious way, by possessing someone and getting them to place that hint. I tried to see if the phrase was simply an outdated Google result by looking at Google’s cache, but found nothing. The Classical Liberalism entry also makes no connection. The only page in which the two are mentioned together is the Individualism page (which by the way is worded pretentiously and not something a “lay person” could easily understand).

Side note: To my surprise I found out that John Calvin had interacted with and spoke against “libertines” (1)(2)(3), surprised because that man figures prominently in my life, and just didn’t think it would have anything to do with him.

The sad thing is is that “libertine” would best have been associated with Christianity, especially Catholics who became true Christians after being freed from Roman Catholicism, but “freethinkers” (many of whom seem to be atheists) messed that up, just like they did with the words “free”, “liberal*”, “science” and “skeptic” (1)(2). They also try to do this with logical fallacies (which has to do with philosophy). The only atheist I can think of who made a decent contribution to any of these fields is Bertrand Russel for philosophy and Tesla for electronics and engineering. Mark Twain contributed to humor.

*The link to the word liberal (above) links to a blog on the ancient meaning of the word liberal and uses a certain word for a certain male private part that some may consider offensive.

Related Info:
Christianity and Libertarianism: Do they belong together?

Freethinkers – Do You Know What You Mean by ”Free”?

September 6, 2011 Leave a comment

Post link: http://freethinkers.tk

Related Previous Post:

Atheists Do Worse Than Eating Babies: Response to Darrel the Atheist

Freethinkers – Do You Know What You Mean by “Free”?

Being free isn’t, “doing whatever I feel like”, being a slave to your passions, the feelings of your heart, and calling that “free thinking (with my mind)”. Thinking with your heart and allowing it to do whatever it wants to do and restricting it with your mind just enough to stay out of jail (if you have the mental control even for that), isn’t being “free”. You can’t even be totally free anyways: there are always constraints on us, our emotional and physical limitations also prevent us from thinking however we want to. People can influence how others think easily, by insulting or telling the truth, by helping or not or giving pleasure or causing pain. Few people can keep themselves totally unbiased at all times. And why should a goal in life be being as free as you can in your thoughts? Is it healthy to dwell on evil continuously, to make that your main focus? Or to always think about what is sad when you eat? Is it healthy to desire revenge till you get it? Is it healthy to lust after anyone? No. Rather, restraining yourself helps you to have and preserve a a life of freedom thinking logically and being emotionally controlled so that you can have comfort even when being sad, which appropriate sadness brings.

Nor is it “humanism” being that that is a set of rules meant to restrict immoral and unhelpful thinking, like the Bible is, nor is it merely “freedom from religion.” According to one definition, it is, “inclined to forms one’s own opinions rather than depend upon authority, especially about social and religious issues; exhibiting boldness of speculation; skeptical of authority.”

Opinions are statements that are not necessarily based on clear facts, but guided in part by feelings and sometimes debatable evidence. Remember that, “feelings.” Note also “one’s own rather than depend on authority”, which (though is nonsensical since opinions can only be formed by the person forming them, not another, as nonsensical as literally saying that a Christian isn’t thinking for themselves – they wouldn’t be responsible for their thoughts then), which implies a reject of listening to others and instead an inclination to make judgments based on little information, which suggests a hatred of obeying rules, restrictions, those who may be wiser and those who may have a right to command, and in directly shows an illogical bias in what the free thinker is willing to learn or who to take advice from, biased because authorities are not necessarily less wise than a non-authority. Then it says, “exhibiting boldness of speculation”, which is something that is not limited to “free thinkers”. If theists were not that way, we’d be “primitive”, probably only living under trees, in caves and holes in the ground, and with a very low population. Then it says, “skeptical of authority”, meaning doubting that those in authority are best to lead or that authorities are needed. And from that it can be logically concluded that some free thinkers then are likely to be anarchists and others simply hateful of anyone with power over them (including God) and will therefore be more likely to resist anyone supposedly or who is, at least in by decree, their leader. What the definition does not say, is why this way of living or mindset is or is not logical, though I’ve said a little as to why it isn’t logical. That was a dictionary definition, but others take it to mean something more simple (because they themselves are simple), like “thinking as one pleases rather than according to a religion or set of rules or any rule”. There is a contradiction in that: To say you don’t think by any rule would contradict that you live by the rule of not thinking according to any rule. It’s similar to saying, “There is no absolute truth” which is a self-refuting statement (because then not even that statement that there is no absolute truth would be true, which would then mean that there are absolute truths, not “none”). The correct definition is, “Someone who is against the belief in and worship of gods or God and who doubts that authorities are superior to non-authorities or beneficial to themselves anymore than a non-authority.” Now that hones in on what freethinking is really about: resistance of authority based on personal doubt that any authority is better than themselves or helpful to themselves. And really, they want to be king of themselves as much as they can be. This is understandable to a degree, because like Scripture says, “The [human] heart is desperately wicked; who can know [how evil] it [is]?” And, “There is none good, no not one.”

Others say that freethinker, skeptic and atheist are synonymous, or some may think that only skeptic and freethinker are. But skepticism as a lifestyle, is an illogical mindset, because it is illogical to start out doubting something before having the facts. Or if you define skepticism as doubting supernatural events, UFOs, and the usual (except that the law of conservation can be broken), it is still illogical since there is plenty of evidence of supernatural events UFOs and aliens. If you don’t bother studying UFOs and aliens much you may not be aware that an small alien was captured in Mexico, and it’s dedicated body available for study.

To be as free as possible, in a way that doesn’t lead to your destruction, to an eternity in Hell, is to get right with God, the Creator, our Father. You can get it by seeking his forgiveness with all your heart, and he will free your mind and body from being a slave to your passions of your heart. Sadly, merely reading my words won’t cause that to happen, anymore than reading, “I’m against homophobia, and you should be too” can free a person from illogical thoughts, which freethinkers don’t realize. Rather, God has to change a person’s heart and guide their mind and cut off Satan’s influence over their heart and mind. And God won’t do this for whoever I want him to, ultimately it’s up to him to forgive a person, or allow them to continue being “free” from his life-saving eternal love.

Remember the idea of the atheist Gene Roddenberry, who came up with Vulcans, who realized that they were slaves to their emotions? Though his idea doesn’t work (deadening your emotions leads to depression, because we are emotional beings). But by being forgiven, and so free from eternal punishment, and obeying. By obeying you will be free from eternal punishment of the continuous kind, and temporary kind on Earth. By ceasing to strive against the Truth, Yahweh, he will cease to strive against you, to withhold from you “the desires of your heart” so long as they are not self-centered desires, meaning, desires made without perfect concern for others, that includes perfect concern for the feelings of God, who is not a rock, but a living being with emotions and concerns like us. He will not show himself to just anyone or whenever they want him to, and why should he to such corrupt people, people so corrupt that even some of the most corrupt of them see their extreme evil as “progress” and “good” and “moral”? Is he a God that has to come out of his house whenever we want him to? No, he is what his title says, “God”, a god, the only god, more than a god: all powerful, all knowing, invincible, only able to imprisoned if he allows it, and he only allowed it to happen once.

So between theists and atheists: I choose the group that ratio-wise, is much less destructive, who contributes far more to society due to their superior logic and patience. But atheists, they are so intolerant, they end up killing hundreds of millions in only 100 years, and if they continued that way, will kill all humans in less than 2000 years. And if you fear global warming, or think morals matter, than how can you be apart of the most murderous most destructive group on earth? In a way, “freethinker” is an appropriate term for what you and other atheists are, because you make up for yourselves arbitrary morality, convenient morality, morality that suits your emotional whims, rather than based on logic and truth, on what is evidence, rather than debatable. “Freeradicals” is a better term. Or simply, “wild”. But as you know, a wild animal isn’t “free”, it is still bounded by nature, limited by the other wild animals around it. But those who live in a civilized way, who bind their emotions and thoughts so that they don’t stray “whenever their heart feels like” – they are far more free, far more likely to live long. You may think back to atheist China, and forget about their forced abortions, and their murdering their female babies in favor of males (you do know about that don’t you “feminist for the freedom of females which atheists prevent because Jesus hated females and treated them like they are inferior and said they can’t get into Heaven and won’t be equal to the angels”? Oh, right, Jesus didn’t say that did he?), and think, “But China is civilized, they may have a problem with sexism and oppressing the poor and brutality and arbitrary violation of the rights of their citizens and intolerance of free speech, and slave-like laborers and forced evacuations and cover ups of government and police abuse and on and on and on…” oh, not very civilized are the atheists of China are they? How about Cuba, are those atheist “free”? But it’s those bad theists’ fault, all their fault, oh damn them for building up civilization, especially those reformed Christians when they went to America and didn’t obey that crazy king, they should have stayed and became atheists or established an atheist country and told people religion is just stupid, which is how they ended up in America in the first place, because religion is just so dumb. It was atheism that got them to America. So it comes down to this: how long are you going to ignore the evidence that the Bible is not just “some book” that “is oppressive”, no wait, “that says anything you want it to” (which is freethinking atheists? can’t make up your free unbound wild minds?), but rather is obviously written by a being that made this universe, didn’t abandoned it, but cared enough to allow people to have some freedom from him ever being in their face and repeating his commands and word over and over and calling them to repentance audibly every day, from morning to night, cared enough to let them “be freethinkers”, to see how far they could get without him. Well like the Bible says, the last days will be worse than any other time, logically then, things should be getting worse, degrading from false religions, to an even worse state: atheism and the deliberate denial that idols are not representations of or containers of the spirits of gods, and worshiping them?

Yet despite God not being in your face every day, telling you that you are wrong, never letting you escape from him, you still fault him, still say you are anti-God. What must he do, come out of his house in full glory, and bow before you? Will that be enough? Or must he be a genie in a bottle for you? Go when you want him to do what you want him to? “Then I’ll believe you’re God oh God, when you do this too! Oh you won’t? Oh you can’t be God then : ), no, you have to do this last thing. Oh great you did it, so I’ll believe you’re God for one more day, oh, I want you to do this for me too God: give me your place, then I’ll know you are truly loving and trust that you are God forever (never mind that contradiction God). So what are you waiting for Mr. Real God, give me all your powers and knowledge, the knowledge of how to get when I want and when to do it, not all that “truth” stuff, like about your word, keep that oppressive boring stuff to yourself, God.”

I think that is the real you, who like everyone else who realizes God exists, but hates him for not being what they want him to be, provokes him by denying his existence, merely because they can’t see him with their eyes, or feel them with their hands, or hear them with their ears, or grasp how a being can be of one mind yet have three minds simultaneously. Or, more honorably, rather, delude themselves that God can’t possibly exist, because no all powerful being could possibly exist that doesn’t give them whatever they want whenever they want, or that would let painful things happen to them, even if they were far from perfect.

Unlike you, and I know you can’t make this claim, I have carefully, very carefully, and patiently, gone over every argument against religion, theism and Christianity, painstakingly gone through all of them, listed them, categorized them. I was able to see flaws in all of them, before I had learned about “logical fallacies”. And I found many of those arguments contradicted themselves and other arguments (big surprise that if God were the embodiment of truth that arguments against him would turn out to be self-defeating lies). And many years later when I learned about logical fallacies, I was able to see more errors.

The whole idea of “freethinking” is contradictory too, as I’ve pointed out, but I’ll do so more clearly for you: if you believe it makes you a robot or unable to think logically / freely by believing that Christ was right about their being absolute truth, and that miracles by God are possible, then how are you free by absolutely denying those things, or either? If you say, “YOU MUST think this way, that Jesus wasn’t God, didn’t do any miracles” or whatever you say, how is that “freedom”? So only thinking YOUR WAY is freedom? Wasn’t the whole point of you calling yourself “free” to point out that you think as you please and that theism prevents that? Yet see, that’s not the end of the story, that’s not all there was to your ideology of freethinking, it was about you letting theists know that they shouldn’t believe in gods or God or even the possibility of it, but by thinking in your narrow minded intolerant biased way, which is a way based on your personal feelings and shallow evidence you arbitrarily use as evidence to make it seem as if it’s not really about you just pleasing your feelings, not really about you hating truths that go against your feelings, your lusts. Your free isn’t really freedom anymore than being in jail is freedom, it’s the opposite. You’ve simply renamed “sin” and “rebellion” to “free”. The mask is off, I can see through your makeup and smile. Though you may be happy, very happy, high, in bliss, it’s covering an endless craving inside that can never be satisfied so long as you keep refusing to obey your Father in Heaven.

The Bible teaches that truth is absolute, that there are also definite morals as a result. But you freethinkers forget that, and think you can part God from his word, as if God was just an arbitrary lie to get people to either be moral or be slaves to those who preached (which is an argument easily proven false). But if the Bible is wrong, the most tried and true book for peace (if you obey it unhypocritically), especially peace for the one who obeys it rather than attacking it’s message of eternal peace and warning of eternal punishment for those who refuse the only possible way to eternal peace), then why even if a freethinker claimed to believe in absolute truth, and had all the commandments except not blaspheming God, and worshiping Him alone, even then, why should anyone trust in them? Are freethinkers perfect, free of hypocrisy? How have they demonstrated that they are better than reformed Christians, who go about being charitable even while poor, who give even if there’s no Bible or pamphlet to give along with their money, homes, churches, clothing, food, seeds or livestock? And some give and rarely preach (and will be rewarded likewise by God for that lack of leading anyone to Christ or correcting a Christian doing wrong). How are you better? Where are you commandments? Where is your good news? Your message of hope? This is it: “accept homosexual activity because I Felicia am cool, I am a photographer, beautiful, I’ve had a sexual partner that I won’t pledge myself too not even after 8 years, whom I refer to as a “boy”. I say, without explanation, that I’m a feminist, against the fear of homosexuals (against people who are against homosexuality), and because I’m a freethinker (able to think logically unlike people who merely believe in a god, gods or God).” So that defeats all theists? Wait, it’s also because you posted pictures of yourself acting cute and wearing trendy and custom clothing and jewelry. That’s why we stupid, robot theists should obey you, and that’s how we can “snap out of it”, but just reading those few words and looking at your pictures. Lusting after you and admiring you will free us! Isn’t that shallow? I can call that kind of thinking of yours all kinds of other names.

So it comes down to this: What kind of freedom do you want: freedom from God’s love and the freedom from eternal pain and eternal pleasures that comes with it? The eternal peace and happiness that comes with it? Or freedom while being bound forever in chains, feeling like burning salt and wind is hitting you, in total or near total darkness, a worm (maggot) always eating away at you, surrounded by continuous screams of sorrow and pain, feeling extreme sorrow, always screaming out in pain? And how well will you be able to enjoy your memories of your past life, especially after having gone through God’s judgment in front of millions or even millions of people, both humans and angels and perhaps even your friends and enemies? Will that be “freedom” and “life”?

For those of you who argue, “Oh you have to threaten with Hell to get people to listen!” What is your point? Parents threaten children who won’t listen to them, to correction of commands. The Bible itself says that mere words will not get a servant to listen. That doesn’t mean that you must threaten or inflict pain, but that the servant, to be one that is obedient, must be familiar with pain, must be familiar with unpleasant consequences for not doing their job, just like a child if that child is to grow up self-controlled and productive, not rebellious and wild. And, you are ignoring the rest of this letter in which I explained that in another way, I didn’t, nor does God, simply threaten pain.

The atheist version of “freethinking” is not logical and leads to a chaotic life, one that can’t achieve healthy freedom/living. And for those who claim they are not obeying their heart over logic, where is the evidence? As I’ve shown in this letter, the logic is not there, but is wrong logic. I show all throughout my journal the result of “free thinking” or “freedom from religion” of “freedom from guilt by giving up religion”: it leads to extreme sorrow, pain and often death for those who don’t have the health, money and power to shield themselves against people who live as they please. Criminals live “free” in the way that atheists advise, or command, and ultimately will pay for it unless God saves them from themselves. Christians live like tamed animals, and note in a mental cage or box like atheists pretend or mock them as living like (and ironically many atheists, not just pagans or Catholics, have kidnapped, imprisoned and murdered millions of Christians). So again, it comes down to the temporary freedom you might get by disobeying God (and look at the condition of the world: in general, are people who disobey the Bible filled with hope that they will continue on peacefully into Heaven, or distressed, obsessed with material things, suffering from contradicting themselves all the time and other things that wear a person down?) or the promise of eternal freedom, freedom from any pain, from confusion, chaotic thinking, eternal bliss without ignorance or shame.

Atheists Do Worse Than Eating Babies: Response to Darrel the Atheist

September 2, 2011 14 comments

Darrel, an atheist said,

“If someone is insulted by my using a label that attributes two nice adjectives to myself, to bad. Want insulting? See “I am a member of the one true religion.” (“Jehovah’s Witness”, “Church of Christ” etc.)” (source)

Me: “etc” meaning what? What does “etc” include Darrel? Why would someone who believes they have the absolute truth be “ABSOLUTELY insulting” Darrel? So if someone believes they have the truth they should always qualify it with, “But I could be wrong and you could be the one with the absolute truth, oh Darrel the atheist.” What with your double standards and insanity? So if math teachers say, “10 X 100 = 1000” they are insulting for stating it as a fact? Or far more complex equations that are flawless?

And in response to Darrel’s, “Considering most people associate it with eating babies, yes, it’s pretty bad.”

Do you know what a strawman is? Who thinks atheists eats babies? How is that not insulting to say to those who disapprove of atheism or think that they are wicked? And hypocrite, they might as well eat babies: forcing abortions on the Chinese, aborting babies every day (that includes atheist Buddhists) WITHOUT ANESTHETIZING THE BABIES, and brutally murdering them.That’s not including the 500 million killed in the past 110 years by atheist leaders and those that went along with their “progress” and “evolution” or the atheists that supported the DDT ban and who continue to spread myths about DDT and all kinds of other lies that rob people of their health, wealth and life.

And Don the atheist, whom Darrel was replying to, said at the bottom of his blog (pretending that they were how theists would respond to being told that the person they are talking to is an atheist):

# They do not believe in God.
# Outrageous! How can this be! I’ve never met someone who didn’t believe in God before.

Don what Christian (not living in desperate poverty or far from a city who lacks an education) has never met an atheist or been informed that there are many of them? Oh the two-year old ones right unfunny, genius joker? Ever heard of the Internet either? Oh yeah no one ever meets an atheist on the Internet… So I shouldn’t think atheists are very dumb (at times), because? Though up until I read that part this post was unusually insightful for one made by an atheist. I found it by typing in that I thought the term freethinker stupid and insulting to Christians.

It’s thoughtless truth-careless hypocritical answers like yours Darrel, one that over looks the gross immorality of atheists over their blooming in the past 110 years, and which is in our faces every day, that many people consider atheists baby-eaters. You’re worse than that: you cut them up mercilessly and trash them or promote taking advantage of them even after that by trying to use their pieces murdered of them for the benefit of sick people psychos like yourselves, who defend all that evil. You are the ones who deserve to be cut up with anesthesia and trashed in Hell forever. Like it or not Darrel, absolute truth doesn’t agree with your lies, and it isn’t a sin to say that you know and understand God and that he loves you and that God doesn’t approve of “whatever” or only Darrel’s absolute truth, only Darrel’s fundamentalist, only what atheists believe is true. Just because atheists are offended, doesn’t mean the ones who offended should change their behavior beliefs or words, or now is “offense” the standard for truth, what offends atheists? Aren’t you blind and arrogant? Who made you God or our gods? How is it you don’t see design anywhere? Since you don’t see the obvious, it’s obvious you will have trouble seeing your own hypocrisy either.