Recent comments

  • Ironhorse's picture
    Ironhorse 1 week 6 days ago Web link strike
    Words escape me on just how the American people can be so ignorant, the republic is dead...
  • thomaslknapp's picture
    thomaslknapp 4 weeks 5 days ago Web link strike
    Why not just buy the domain "promotingunjustifiablecoronaviruspanic.com" instead of polluting Strike The Root with this crap?
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 5 weeks 5 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    The "Anti-Greta":   :-)   https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/teen-climate-change-denier-dubbed-21573332    
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 7 weeks 20 hours ago Page Douglas Young
    "You believe in God?" the Atheistic Rights Theist asks.  "I believe in God."  "Whose God?"  Uh-oh. Faith smashed!   "The same God Who is the Author of Natural Rights," I answer.  Ha! He thought I was going to ask, "Why do you hate God?"!  "Rights," the Atheistic Rights Theist solemnly intones, "are logical constructs governing the behavior of moral agents. How those moral agents came into existence is irrelevant."  Nothing faith-based in that statement!  "So you believe in Rights?" I ask.  "Of course."  "Whose version of Rights?"   "What are you talking about?" The Atheistic Rights Theist sounds annoyed. "I'm making a statement of fact. There are competing versions," I answer.   "Rights are objective, rational, discoverable."  "I agree. Whose version of 'objective, rational, discoverable'?"  "You're a mystic," the Atheistic Rights Theist parries. "Meaning what? I believe in God?" "Yes. Theism is irrational. It poisons your thinking."  "That may well be, but atheists subscribe to competing versions of Rights." Again, I'm stating the obvious. "They can't all be right." "I didn't say they could." "Why do you hate Rights?"
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 8 weeks 4 days ago Page Douglas Young
    Just remember that religion flourishes where violence lives. In a country where people have hope, religion fails. Violence falls. If one truly wishes to be safe. . . follow the Atheists.
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 11 weeks 2 days ago
    Bordertarians
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    Tax the serfs to bomb the wogs. Tax the serfs to resettle the wogs. Tax the serfs to feed and house the wogs. Tax the serfs to compel association with the wogs. Tax the serfs to quell the inevitable serf-wog clashes that ensue. Tax the serfs to fund the police state necessitated by all that quelling. "OMG! You're against mass immigration? What kind of libertarian objects to voluntary interactions?!"
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 11 weeks 2 days ago Page Lawrence Samuels
    Act badly toward Euro-Christians? Hip and sophisticated derring-do!
  • sovereign1's picture
    sovereign1 15 weeks 4 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    It is a sad indictment of the educational system today. Cultural Marxism has taken over all institutions. This younger generation looking to the state to solve problems, while simultaneously condemning it.
  • Brian Mast's picture
    Brian Mast 16 weeks 3 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Youtube: What do you think of Greta Thunberg's plastic garbage filled Tesla? | Keean Bexte https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8SyoRwV_To
  • doktor13's picture
    doktor13 19 weeks 6 days ago Page Lawrence Samuels
    @ReverendDraco DEAD.NUTZ.ON! The author is another shill of The Narrative... "Frak that noise." Indeed
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 20 weeks 4 days ago Page Lawrence Samuels
    As long as Mr. Samuels understands that the term, "Anti-Semite," and it's variants, are the most vile and racist ever invented. Act badly towards blacks? Racist. Act badly towards Mexicans? Racist. Act badly towards Asians? Racist. Act badly towards Jews, however, it suddenly becomes "anti-semitism" as if Jews are somehow, some way, better than everyone else on the entire planet. Frak that noise.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 21 weeks 1 day ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Excellent relevant piece here from Jason D. Hill:   https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/open-letter-greta-thunberg-jason-d-hill/    
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 21 weeks 5 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    A good observation, and thank you, Mark.  :-)  
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 21 weeks 6 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Great article, Alex. The contrast between these two environmental activists perfectly juxtaposes both capitalist/socialist and freedom/authoritarian methods as well as their respective supporters. Powerful and concise. Well done.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 22 weeks 1 day ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Well, thank you.  :-)  
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 22 weeks 1 day ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Well said, Mr. K.
  • csaaphill's picture
    csaaphill 25 weeks 3 days ago Web link strike
    The reason is most likely a biblical one. for Revelations 17 states they will agree and give their power unto the beast. That's the easy answer as far I am concerned. Their answer would be, to make sure those with mental illness don't get a hold of these guns and shoot people. The real reason is control over people and another nail in the coffin, of the Govt not knowing about what all the people do here in America on a day by day basis. One, you can't rule and control all people without first being able to gain knowledge of what all people do each day. You can do it all at once, but you may get 200 million people rebelling against your authority and lose your control over them. So they need a what, how, and why to go about making sure that as govt, they get and maintain that control. I can't go into all that now, for it would take a book to do so, lets just suffice a long time ago, even the framers of the constitution knew that over time people would want a new govt that would hopefully protect their rights where they failed. They even wrote into it, ways, or why's, and when do to so, and called it the declaration of Independence. Where it is stated "That over a long train of abuses and usurpations that have left off to absolute laws. Not word for word but still that's the gist. But they knew then they wanted a way to get and protect and keep Govt, they would eventually need a way to only allow us certain freedoms and liberties while working in the shadows on ways to keep their power and to never be overthrown. None of them truly wanted us to over throw their govt for if they did they would have never done the things and steps they did. The sedition act. for one which is the first violation of the second amendment, even though it was written in such a way to not be recognizable to most, it does just that and violate what the second amendment was written for, and that is to protect our liberties. I don't think George Washington was truly against a two party system, even though he said it, for if so he may have regulated in rules that allowed for more than just two main parties. But again back to my statement. Over time, people grew into more dependent on govt and they knew this, and over a long period of time have written in laws that allowed them to gain more power and control over us. IE Prohibition. while for the most part I think it was puritan women who hated drink, that carried the way to alcohol being banned, but within their ranks were those who knew it would give the Govt more power and that people would rebel against said laws and therefore begin a circle effect. Make more laws which make more rebellion which make more laws to contain the rebellion etc.... Hence the 1934 NFA act. Which comes just after prohibition was repealed and no longer needed, for the ST Valentines massacre happened because of prohibition to begin with, not because Govt didn't control tommy guns IE machine guns. Once repealed gun control was no longer necessary because crime rates were already declining. Next followed the 1938 gun control act which made it illegal for felons to own a gun. Why was this necessary to begin with when we were still in the early 1900's and not truly a lot of crime to begin with? and again Prohibition was repealed so mafia even though not gone lost most of it's prestige and power to begin with but because Utopia and Socialism was already in place and they needed another demon to take the place of Alcohol. Too they needed another way to gain slow control over people by what they already knew would be rebellion, and them make or manipulate people into thinking they needed more laws etc... Then came the gun control act of 1968, The crime bill and temporary ban on assault weapons under Clinton then Back ground checks and more background check and now these red flag laws etc... they know most people are sheep so when one gets gunned down their next step already planed long in advance will call upon them to protect them. More Real ID's which allow the beast to help track us etc. them more and more and more later on. As long as most people are sheep even if at some time they lose some area of control due to a partially awake populace the still keep their overall control over us. IE Seat belt laws mandatory ins laws all these make people rebel and hence make more laws etc. Plus to be able to stop people from just ignore all these laws they need more technology to make sure LEO is able to catch people breaking them. Again just another nail in them not being able to know pretty much all of what we do each day.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 25 weeks 6 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    “I do not expect that many people will ever appreciate the full extent of the state’s destructiveness. The state has all the advantages, from public schooling to the statist news media to almost every major institution with real power and influence in society. Of course, it has vast funds at its disposal, too, looted from the productive members of the public. People are therefore exposed, from the cradle to the grave, to indoctrination and propaganda tilted in the state’s favor. Very few ever raise the pertinent questions about the state, much less answer them correctly.   “States sometimes fail, of course, but when they do, new states quickly replace them, as most people want. Modern people, for the most part, are unwilling to assume the same degree of personal responsibility that their ancestors assumed. They have therefore sold their souls to the state, looking to it for personal and economic security and relying on its general beneficence. In this regard, they evince the triumph of wishful thinking over realistic understanding.”  ~  Dr. Robert Higgs  
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 30 weeks 5 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    https://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/new-gallup-poll-finds-68-of-americans-believe-there-is-a-ufo-cover-up/
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 30 weeks 5 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    https://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/new-gallup-poll-finds-68-of-americans-believe-there-is-a-ufo-cover-up/    
  • csaaphill's picture
    csaaphill 32 weeks 3 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    I didn't write this but I do like it. “Let every soul be subject unto the higher liberty. For there is no liberty but of God: the liberties that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the liberty,resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the liberty? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same.” Romans 13: 1,3 This was what Paul was saying not submit to Govt's. As to the Gun control debate both the left and right are to blame. I've always been a no-compromise type on our rights, especially the second amendment. What makes me sick is the right once there is a law they submit and follow. Once one is arrested violating these unconstitutional laws they're "Well! he/she deserved it they broke the law." Hypocrites.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 33 weeks 1 day ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Your final sentence nails it down, Mark, and I do think a lot of the fence-sitters are beginning to wake up to that fact.  But for the political class, admission of that reality brings with it no benefit since the sociological problems that have led to this (most of which have been of their own making to begin with) carry with them no capital they can cash in on career-wise.  They need to be able to promise quick and easy "solutions" (to the problems their policies created in the first place).  Hence, gun control -- and the increase in their overall power that comes with it.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 33 weeks 2 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Excellent points and well said, Alex. More laws = more state control, the left assumes that they control the state for their own purposes, and a fundamental distrust of the state and its laws is a healthy disposition for promoting liberty and fighting tyranny (this does not preclude one from respecting natural law and doing the right thing by one's fellow man). I never get an answer from the anti-gun brigade as to why or how one more law, or 100 more laws, will stop people who have already proven that they will not follow the laws already on the books. Every mass shooter (or single shooter) that ever harmed innocent people would not have been deterred by any law yet conceived. We have a people problem, not a gun problem or a lack of necessary laws.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 33 weeks 3 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    They're already being abused, predictably, in every place they've been enacted.  But "red-flag" laws themselves are inherently abuse:  They presume guilt, rather than innocence, and provide a pretext for firearms to be seized at the whim of government bureaucrats.  Amendment 2 was supposed to forever bar and forbid such from ever occuring -- under any circumstances.  To say nothing of amendments 4, 5, and 6.  Proving, of course, that governments are unrestrainable institutions that always devolve into tyranny.  Hence, our advocacy of their summary abolition.   Absent that, the future is a very dark place indeed.
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 33 weeks 3 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Well put!  These are indeed dangerous times for lovers of liberty and the means to defend it.  I'm less worried about more extensive background checks than I am of "red-flag" laws, which are certain to be abused until anyone who expresses anti-government views will find himself stripped of weapons (or of his life if he resists).
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 34 weeks 5 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Re: ..."Indeed US Fascism is a most insidious mixture of the key ingredients while maintaining the necessary nuance to snooker the masses, the media, and the respectable folks across the spectrum. http://mises.org/daily/5634" Unbroken link: https://wayback.archive.org/web/20160704091604/https://mises.org/library...
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 1 year 2 weeks ago
    A Right To...
    Page Paul Hein
    Right!?!? Gee, what could go wrong? ;>)
  • mjackso6's picture
    mjackso6 1 year 4 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Roman concrete is a good example of a material that gets stronger with age. The main difference from modern concrete is the use of volcanic ash instead of Portland cement, as well as larger aggregate materials. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 1 year 9 weeks ago
    Bordertarians
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    I sent another article on borders to Rob, which considers a narrow aspect on the issue. If he doesn't post it here, it will be found on The Libertarian Enterprise. Borders are needed by property owners, right? At least the border around one's property...
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 1 year 9 weeks ago Blog entry Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I recently ordered Edward Peter Stringham's book, Private Governance.  I'm hoping it'll be pretty good; Carl Watner of The Voluntaryist calls it the perfect companion volume to his essay anthology, I Must Speak Out.  
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 1 year 10 weeks ago Blog entry Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I was asked (in an email request by one reader) to provide details about Hitler's Jewish friends in Vienna. Here are the details:   In John Toland's book, Adolf Hitner (p.45), Toland writes about a "one-eyed locksmith named Robinson" who often helped him and a part-time Hungarian art dealer, Josef Neumann, who gave him a coat. Likewise, three Jewish art dealers bought most of his work. Hitler even told Hamisch: "...that he preferred doing business with Jews 'because only they were willing to take chances.'"
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 1 year 10 weeks ago Blog entry Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I mentioned this to some extent in the piece, but Hitler was always pontificating about "social justice," and among the chief objects of his hatred were prostitutes. The lemon-pucker-faced social justice warrior scolds are always carrying on about how horrible it is that some people are enjoying life. They are closet prudes. Not that prostitution is the best choice or even desirable as a choice for many women, but the point is that the SJW/temperance-movement/equality-obsessed never celbrate any of the pleasure of life. Instead, they hate those with a capacity to enjoy it. See my essay on the Purgatorio of Dante at fff.org for more on this -- under the sin of envy.
  • dhowlandjr's picture
    dhowlandjr 1 year 11 weeks ago
    Bordertarians
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    hi Paul. sometimes i like your articles. i get your intention to be a pessimistic curmudgeon. but this comment is not good. if the state could be gone in some places what could stop a better way of life from gradually catching on? borders are needed by the state, what use do free people have for them? I'm as much an admirer of mark twain as anyone, but one could also say that when a certain state of consciousness is reached hunger is no match to ones commitment to principles. and i've known quite a few pretty nice venezuelans, too, what are you talking about? your tax money has been used to make it impossible to survive inhabiting the place they come from. i think your ideas sound way too political!
  • Ed Nelson's picture
    Ed Nelson 1 year 12 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    I am conflicted. I want to believe in the fairy tale about America being all good that I was taught in grammar school, however, in the course of my life I have seen with my own eyes the truth of George Washington's admonition that government, like fire is a useful servant or a fearful master. Based on what I have learned in my life, governments are gangs of murderers, thieves, spies, and thugs. It is what they do. Welfare and "humanitarian" efforts are eyewash and vote buying via forcible taking of productive people's earnings. I have no answer for the madness that the demoncrats and repugnants have brought to this country. God help us.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 1 year 14 weeks ago
    Bordertarians
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    The State will never entirely be gone, as there are too many people who want it. With Panarchy and secession, there may be smallish localities (possibly as large as a state) where there will be no State. But there will still be borders with the surrounding states, even if those borders are administered only by those surrounding states. I am leaning a bit toward bordertarianism, but also pointing out that welfare is what draws immigrants (particularly the worst kind) and maybe we should get rid of that, before anything else. But the reason I lean that way is an observation by Mark Twain: "Principles have no real force except when one is well-fed." ... which at least suggests that keeping people fed is a good idea (if we want NAP to be observed), so maybe we shouldn't import too many Venezuelans. The best way to keep people fed is to have people who appreciate liberty and the free market, as much as is possible. The other thing that occurs to me is that there needs to be examples of places where people live in liberty. If there are no such examples, how will the rest of the people ever know the advantages of liberty? And how are such examples maintained without borders? Perhaps there is some way, but I am not capable of imagining it.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 1 year 14 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Lazy man's method: Buy an OTIS gun cleaning kit, which is used to pull patches through the bore. I don't like cleaning rods as they often damage the rifling no matter how careful you are. At the range, right after you are done shooting, pull a bore snake through the bore, two or three times. Dry is fine. The object is to remove powder residue, which hardens up over time. Much better and easier to get it out before that happens. At home, get a patch on your otis "rod" and pull it through the bore using liberal amounts of Hoppe's #9. This is a very mild cleaner that will not harm the bore. Keep applying #9 until you get a drip out the muzzle end (gun should be tilted down so it doesn't run into the action). Stick the patch end of the Otis rod into a small ziplock bag to keep it wet, then walk away. Next day, pull that same patch with some new #9 on it, through the bore once. Put the patch in the bag and walk away. Next day, keep repeating the same step. And continue. Eventually the patch gets really gross but you don't care as you are just getting new #9 into the bore and letting the old drip out. Each day's effort takes about a minute, not much! You might pull a brush through now and then, or put a new patch on. Up to you. In a couple of weeks that bore is clean. Leave it wet in the safe, and BE SURE to pull a dry patch through to get the #9 out before shooting. Best to store rifles muzzle down if you can; or, if you can't, then pull a dry patch through so solvent won't run into the action or onto wood stocks. Of course, use CLP to wipe down the external surfaces, right after coming back from the range.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 1 year 15 weeks ago
    Do Not Resist
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    You're most welcome.  Thank you for reading, and sharing.
  • emartin's picture
    emartin 1 year 15 weeks ago
    Do Not Resist
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    Thank you Alex, for putting out this information. I think the rest of us would be wise to share it at every opportunity.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 1 year 15 weeks ago
    Do Not Resist
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    Agreed.
  • Ed Nelson's picture
    Ed Nelson 1 year 15 weeks ago
    Do Not Resist
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    Welcome to the max security panopticon. There is no escape. Growing up in the 60's and 70's was better for sure.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 1 year 17 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Easy:  Apply public schools, mainstream media, and political bureaucrats all in generous measure.   I thought this was a libertarian website!  :-)  
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 1 year 21 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    God NEVER endorses a Government over men. Fallen men reject God and desire, in rebellion to the ONLY authority, to be ruled by a creature of their own inventions. Just like slavery or divorce God regulated the man made institutions. God does endorse his first institution of Holy matrimony and family. God makes man. Man rejects God. Man creates a government. Governments rule over man. The creature(government) now rules over it's creator(man). What did Jesus teach about the governments of men? Let us examine three parallel Gospel accounts. He himself explained: Matthew 20:25, "...Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. " Mark 10:42, "...they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them." Luke 22:25, "...The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors." By comparing these three parallel verses, Jesus stated the fact that the governing authorities (princes, rulers, kings) exercise authority over the Gentiles (those who do not believe in God). Note that the term "Gentiles" here cannot mean "Gentile Christians", because Jesus had not yet died to confirm the New Testament, and "Christianity" was not yet in existence. All the apostles were Jews, and Jesus commanded them not to preach to the Gentiles (Matthew 10:5-6). The Gentiles were the enemy of Christ at this point (Matthew 20:19; Mark 10:33, Luke 18:32). The Gospel was not preached to the Gentiles until at least 10 years after the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 9:15; 10:45; 11:1,18; 13:42,46-48). Notice what Jesus says next. Does he say that His people will have other men rule over them? Most definitely not! Matthew 20:26, "But it shall not be so among you:" Mark 10:43, "But so shall it not be among you:" Luke 22:26, "But ye shall not be so:" Jesus said we shall not have leaders exercise authority over us like they do over the gentiles. We shall not be subject to governing authorities unless those in "power" are servants of God and His people. Read what Jesus said after he told his disciples that earthly princes, rulers, and kings will not have authority over His chosen: Matthew 20:26-27, "…but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:" Mark 10:43-44, "…but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all." Luke 22:26, "...but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve." As we see, Jesus does not want man to have authority over man! He commanded that whoever is the chiefest and greatest among men, will be the servant of all. Unlike human governments which make their chief ruler the dictator of all. Man was not created to rule other men, but was given dominion over the creatures of the earth. This is confirmed in the very first chapter of the Bible, when God created the earth. When our Father created the earth. When he first created man, He commanded, "...let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth" (Genesis 1:26,28). Only God has dominion over man. Man is not subject to any other man. Man is ruled by Law, not by the will of man. http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/lawgiver.html
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 1 year 21 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4kHiUAjTvQ&t=18s Controlled media, controlled academia,controlled Hollyweird, controlled party.
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 1 year 21 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    6yo resurrection Hmmmmm. Interesting how Atheist's attempt to hi jack as their own, the Positive active form of The golden rule and put their own stink on it. Plus the incongruous idea that "science" sprang whole cloth from superstitious pagans and neglect the fact that the foundation of science HAS to begin with the first science, PHILOSOPHY! Charles Darwin admitted: [W]ith me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? God thing we have a mo better foundation; 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. What was there before any of creation was started? Word is logos. logos/lexis is logic/reason. So,in the beginning was logic or a plan with God. Who starts a big project without a plan? Who starts to build a house without the blueprints? Some may start, but finish with a mess if at all. Paul Davies, winner of the 2001 Kelvin Medal issued by the Institute of Physics and the winner of the 2002 Faraday Prize issued by the Royal Society (amongst other awards), writes: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature–the laws of physics–are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.” You can gather all the parts of an orchestra,brass, strings,woods,percussion, vocal and even have the plan;sheet music. But nothing is going to happen without the conductor starting the show. The naturalistic perspective cannot account for reality the way the biblical christian view answers the tough questions. Naturalism,regards the natural,material,and physical universe as the only reality. The world of nature is viewed as the sum total of all that exists. All reality and beings are located within the exclusive domain of physical objects,events,processes and forces. The concepts of logic, mathematics and science are expected features of the universe built by a perfectly rational Creator. Naturalism posits that man evolve through blind,unguided,purely impersonal natural processes but also for those same undirected processes to develop a human brain and mind capable of grasping the very conceptual nature of the universe. How can a naturalist attempt to use logic ,when that logic had to spring from the illogical. This non-rational,cannot produce the rational. or the impersonal, the personal. Atheist would contend that, The source or foundation of man's logic and reason,was not itself rational. Nor personal(self-aware,intelligent). Rather it was a non-rational,impersonal process without purpose consisting of a combination of genetic mutations(Read this as MISTAKES) ,variations,and environmental factors,random chance and blind impersonal natural process produce humanity's rational faculties. How does the irrational atheist square that circle? Explain> A world created from no-thing Or world created by a Creator life from non-life Or Life from ultimate Life persons from the impersonal Or persons from the Super-personal minds from the mindless OR minds from the ultimate Mind order from the orderless OR order from an Orderer reason from the non-rational Or reason from a rational Being morality from the non-moral Or morality from a moral Person information without a sender Or information from a Sender code from a non-programmer Or code from a personal programmer truth from an accident Or truth from the ultimate Truth Without Christians, there would never be science. Science Flourished in those countries that embraced Christian philosophies. and was stillbirth in those that languished under pagan superstitions. http://godevidence.com/2017/09/atheist-beliefs/ Christianity furnishes the conceptual framework in which science can flourish. Science is not something that is natural to mankind. …Although glimmerings of science appeared among the ancient Greeks and Chinese, modern science is the child of European civilization. Why is this so? It is due to the unique contribution of the Christian faith to Western culture. As [science writer] Eiseley states, “it is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear, articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself.” In contrast to pantheistic or animistic religions, Christianity does not view the world as divine or as indwelt by spirits, but rather as the natural product of a transcendent Creator who designed and brought it into being. Thus, the world is a rational place which is open to exploration and discovery. Furthermore, the whole scientific enterprise is based on certain assumptions which cannot be proved scientifically, but which are guaranteed by the Christian world view; for example: the laws of logic, the orderly nature of the external world, the reliability of our cognitive faculties in knowing the world, and the objectivity of the moral values used in science. I want to emphasize that science could not even exist without these assumptions, and yet these assumptions cannot be proved scientifically. They are philosophical assumptions which, interestingly, are part and parcel of a Christian world view. Thus, religion is relevant to science in that it can furnish a conceptual framework in which science can exist. More than that, the Christian religion historically did furnish the conceptual framework in which modern science was born and nurtured.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 1 year 23 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    Updates for broken links: http://tinyurl.com/Individual-Sovereignty-W http://tinyurl.com/Index-to-Covenant-Articles-W http://tinyurl.com/There-is-NO-WE-W http://tinyurl.com/Political-Statement-W http://tinyurl.com/Objectivism-to-Autarchy-W AtlasAikido
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 1 year 23 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    ...
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 1 year 23 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    Pseudo science--the appearance or pretense of science is based on the quick sand of wish and whim instead of the hard rock of reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition Apparently some are attempting to ride on the coat tails of those that have been successful using science. The credibility of science is based on reason not wishes based on superstition (not in contact with reality). Logic is based on the non-contradictory identification of reality using reason. The following may be of value to others who are still mentally wrestling with the deliberate misdirections (i.e. lies) that the culture surrounding us has pounded into each of us since our birth. http://tinyurl.com/First-Cause-W article Objectivist Newsletter-Vol 1, No 5, May 1962, page 19--The "First Cause" article Since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is God? ... Update: Fixed -W broken link AtlasAikido
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 1 year 23 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    Update Broken link http://tinyurl.com/First-Cause-article-W AtlasAikido
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 1 year 23 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    Fix Broken Link http://tinyurl.com/First-Cause-article-W AtlasAikido
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 1 year 23 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    Two things. Actually three. I and another poster already provided Two links. One: An Article: http://tinyurl.com/First-Cause-article-W AND Two: A Definition: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/existence.html And in a prior post I *excerpted* the definition, which has (three) short supporting paras posted with ** emphasis to what you excerpted in your post...And it would appear you have not read them given your response. I see that you posit circular reasoning as a flaw when in-fact the definition is a http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tautology as already explained and teased out in a prior post. The article is also VERY short, clear and to the point and Dennis Wilson walked thru the issues with Jim Davies....And it looks very favorable...so far. I point that out because that is where I would go back to address any issues (if I was wrestling with this). The article AND definition are in the prior posts on this thread and only a few day old...carried forward from the beginning of this thread. Three: I see no refutation from you on the article nor the definition. No definition of existence as you are using it and how it is different than what I provided nor an article supporting YOUR position and how that is different. Best Regards my friend, AtlasAikido Updated -W Fix to Broken Link