Exposing the Religion of Statism

The following debate originally took place upon my Facebook wall, after I posted artwork artwork being shared to the page, “Truth Beckons” by a fan…

Rayn:

"Church: do as we say or you will go to hell. State: do as we say or you will go to jail. Any institution that seeks your compliance through intimidation obviously doesn't have any actual authority or there would be no need for such coercive means."

“Church: do as we say or you will go to hell. State: do as we say or you will go to jail. Any institution that seeks your compliance through intimidation obviously doesn’t have any actual authority or there would be no need for such coercive means.”

Adam G.: Frankly, as little as a fan as I am of either, I think the issue is more complex than simply this.

Katherine C.: Well, isn’t “church” the same thing? It’s mostly just the ancient world’s form of trying to maintain order…and somehow the damn thing just stuck!

Rayn: I believe you’re right, Adam! The artist should have found a way to incorporate at least A FEW of the Church and State’s mass graves into the work!

Katherine, thank you for asking such an important question! The Church and State shown above are, indeed, both hierarchical, pyramid schemes, functioning as control grids, institutionalizing the math of tyranny! My position can best be summed up, here:

All throughout history, humanity has fought to retain natural-borne liberty in the face of systemic oppression. And, our worst enemy has always taken the same form: CENTRALIZED KNOWLEDGE, hoarded by the few, to the detriment of all. Once information is bottle-necked within a given system, and governed from top to bottom, on a “need-to-know” basis using “trickle-down” methods, ignorance prevails, and exploitation is only inevitable! FREEDOM cannot live within a compartmentalized, hierarchal, hive-minded SCIENTIFIC DICTATORSHIP. As human-beings, we must RESIST this unnatural, abominable DRONE-MINDED INSECTOID-SYSTEM before it completely desolates humanity ONCE AGAIN! PLEASE LIVE UP TO YOUR FREE-WILL! Embrace INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY and REJECT this HOUSE OF BONDAGE!

All throughout history, humanity has fought to retain natural-borne liberty in the face of systemic oppression. And, our worst enemy has always taken the same form: CENTRALIZED KNOWLEDGE, hoarded by the few, to the detriment of all. Once information is bottle-necked within a given system, and governed from top to bottom, on a “need-to-know” basis using “trickle-down” methods, ignorance prevails, and exploitation is only inevitable! FREEDOM cannot live within a compartmentalized, hierarchal, hive-minded SCIENTIFIC DICTATORSHIP. As human-beings, we must RESIST this unnatural, abominable DRONE-MINDED INSECTOID-SYSTEM before it completely desolates humanity ONCE AGAIN! PLEASE LIVE UP TO YOUR FREE-WILL! Embrace INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY and REJECT this HOUSE OF BONDAGE!

Discussing the Truth Behind Pavlov’s “Conditioning” Experiments

The following debate originally took place on my Facebook wall, upon my post, “The Truth Behind Pavlov’s ‘Conditioning’ Experiments“…

Rayn

"Watch what I can make Pavlov do. As soon as I drool, he'll smile and write in his little book."

“Watch what I can make Pavlov do. As soon as I drool, he’ll smile and write in his little book.”

Intriguing… Illustrations of Pavlov’s “conditioning” experiments never seem to include “the saliva catch container and tube surgically implanted in the dog’s muzzle”:

The stuffed, mounted remains of one of the many dogs used in Pavlov's "conditioning" experiments. It is currently located at the Pavlov Museum in Ryazan, Russia

The stuffed, mounted remains of one of the many dogs used in Pavlov’s “conditioning” experiments. It is currently located at the Pavlov Museum in Ryazan, Russia

Yet, this information is available even through Wikipedia!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov#Legacy

Most fail to realize that Pavlov’s experiments were conducted on children, as well, complete with surgical implantation of saliva-catching apparatus:
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/68562/Pavlov_s_Brutal_Experiments_on_Children/

A still shot from "Mechanics of the Brain," a 1926 Soviet documentary film about Pavlovian "conditioning." The child in this picture has been surgically implanted with a saliva-catching apparatus for the purposes of behavioral experimentation

A still shot from “Mechanics of the Brain,” a 1926 Soviet documentary film about Pavlovian “conditioning.” The child in this picture has been surgically implanted with a saliva-catching apparatus for the purposes of behavioral experimentation

Another still shot from "Mechanics of the Brain." Like the child above, the dog in this picture has been surgically implanted with a saliva-catching device, for the purposes of behavioral experimentation

Another still shot from “Mechanics of the Brain.” Like the child above, the dog in this picture has been surgically implanted with a saliva-catching device, for the purposes of behavioral experimentation

This man is a criminal, in my book! His “science” should have served as multiple exhibits in his court trial!

Stan H.: Maybe he is technically not a criminal because this practice was acceptable back then. . .

Rachel S.: i agree with stan. this was acceptable back then even though its inhumane nowadays.

Jordan K.: WTF… at one point slavery and rape were acceptable too?

Stan H.: In some 3rd World countries, it probably still “is”. Good point Jordan. Our societies are fucked!

Rayn: That’s EXACTLY why I said that he’s a criminal “in my book,” Stan and Rachel (although, I don’t doubt that others would feel the same as I do, once presented with the harrowing facts at hand). According to even Wiki, “Pavlov was highly regarded by the Soviet government, and he was able to continue his research until he reached a considerable age. He was praised by Lenin.” Aww! How sweet! What a cozy little relationship he had with the USSR! But, it’s as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.” Truth!

Man-made laws concocted by bloated parasite governments DO NOT constitute human morality! In all reality, even at age two, I would have reacted with the same level of disgust and anger in witnessing Pavlov’s unconscionable experimentation on dogs and children as I do today, if not more, since I would have been unable to process “why?”

Stan H.: I’m under the impression that society in general accepted Pavlov’s practices for experimentation at the time and did not feel it too intrusive at the time, but I really have no idea. Damn you and your salivating dogs Pavlov!!

Rayn: Never make the mistake of confusing society with government, Stan. If you haven’t already done so, be sure to read Common Sense, by Thomas Paine, as the work lays out the difference clearly, there! And, after all, it IS the inspiration for America’s Declaration of Independence. 🙂

http://www.constitution.org/tp/comsense.htm

Is Atheism Simply a Statement of “Disbelief,” or Can It Be Religiously Adhered To?

The following debate originally took place upon my Facebook wall…

"Atheism: It has it's own symbol. It's own Evangelists. It's won fundraisers and weekly gatherings. And there's no way to prove a [Creator] doesn't exist but they believe it strongly."

“Atheism: It has it’s own symbol. It’s own Evangelists. It’s won fundraisers and weekly gatherings. And there’s no way to prove a [Creator] doesn’t exist but they believe it strongly.”

Brian J.: Hey Rayn. After some further research, I’ve realized that atheism is not a religion. You’re just talking about fundamentalists and behavior patterns that make it look like a religion, but it’s not a religion. If you look up the definition of religion, it always involves something spiritual. And that’s why communism was a religion, that used atheism to not believe in other gods, but to worship the state. Which had nothing to do with atheism. Atheism simply means, “a lack of belief in god or gods.” Which is why I don’t believe in any gods, or creators. Now whatever a person does after that, has nothing to do with atheism. Being an atheist activists, doesn’t really have anything to do with the definition of atheism. Which is why atheism turns into an ideology, in spite of itself.

It’s not suppose to be an ideology, or a religion. But because of religious people, it gets turned into that, while having nothing to do with the definition of atheism. Atheism is just a statement. It’s an unbelief. I require no faith to have an unbelief in god or gods. It doesn’t take faith to believe in a time n chance universe. Especially since scientists like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss are starting to realize that there was something, before something else got created. And that everything didn’t happen by chance or randomly. Evolution and the big bang had a random component, but it wasn’t all random. So as an atheist, I don’t have to believe in a time n chance universe. Because not all of it happened by time n chance.

But as an atheist, I do have faith. I have faith in the natural world, and in things that I can see. I have the hope that a more secular world, can create a better world. But I have no evidence for this, so I rely on faith. 🙂

Rayn:  I did not say that atheism  in itself, is a religion. I said that atheism can be religiously adhered to, and that there are, in fact, a few religions of atheism in existence. With this in mind, being an atheist does not automatically make you a member of these religions of atheism, of course, nor does it mean that you religiously adhere to atheism.

According to you, “if you look up the definition of religion, it always involves something spiritual.” While I must emphasize dictionaries DO NOT create words, but only record their historical, popular usage, let’s still do exactly what you suggest, to see what we find:

RELIGION:
1a : the state of a religious* <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2) : commitment or devotion to religious* faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious* attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 (archaic): scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

RELIGIOUS:
1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>
3a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
b : fervent, zealous
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious

(Click Here to Continue Reading This Post)

Discussing the Merits of Individual Awakening Through Truth

The following debate originally took place upon my Facebook wall, after I posted artwork being shared by an acquaintance from here

Rayn

"We now live in a nation where doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and our banks destroy the economy." - Chris Hedges

“We now live in a nation where doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and our banks destroy the economy.” – Chris Hedges

Rayn: Indeed! 🙂

Raheem G.: Now? Hahaha does this guy not know history. The world has always been corrupt. Read the Prince, that book wasn’t written anytime recently, and yet the lesson that a ruler must be corrupt if necessary has always been. Man has an agenda. Some men are just less selfish than others.

Raheem G.: And religion doesn’t destroy morals. That would mean every atheist is the most moral person walking on earth. Sorta like guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

Rayn: Though I understand your sentiment, Raheem, Hedges said “we now live in a nation,” not “we now live in a world.” He apparently believes that America was not always in such a terrible state as today… I shared the picture because I ALWAYS appreciate a good story of individual awakening through Truth! 🙂

Rayn: As for the religion comment, I go by the following philosophy: “Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told regardless of what is right.”

The problem with your atheist analogy is that most so-called Atheists worship the religion of government, the pagan deity, “Fortune,” or even most frequently, their own selves. Therefore, they are FAR from “religion-free.” In fact, most of them are so deceived, that they believe they are taking the “reasonable” approach in their Atheistic views, yet their viewpoint is just as faith-based and not provable as belief in the existence of a Universal Creator. The only true “reasonable” position on the issue would be the “agnostic” one, incidentally…

Rayn: And, since it is not scientifically sound to accept skepticism, nor lack of knowledge, as a final position, as they are transitional states, an agnostic should always be working towards a goal of better understanding, and not becoming intellectually lazy or complacent behind their label…. (Click Here to Continue Reading This Post)

Continue the Oppressive Cycle of Violence, or Embrace the Non-Aggression Principle?

The following debate originally took place on my Facebook wall, upon my post, “Violence is the Language of the Oppressor!“…

Rayn: The Non-Aggression Principle is the foundation of True Peace! Violence is the language of the Oppressor, and “the last refuge of the incompetent.” Those who follow after Cain will indeed find themselves among their brethren… in the Pit!

Oh, you believe in violent revolution? Tell me about how your use of violence is different than the State's use of violence?

Oh, you believe in violent revolution? Tell me about how your use of violence is different than the State’s use of violence?

Adam G.: My violence is different from the state’s because I am protecting myself. If you can’t see the difference, then you either have a metric fucktonne of privielge or don’t pay attention.

Rayn: Hmmm… To begin, Adam, if you can’t see the difference between physical self-defense and violent revolution… please let me know, and I will be more than happy to explain! I would never deny another the right to physical self-defense in the event of an immediate threat of violence. That is a personal CHOICE, to be made with respect to each situation, even. 🙂

Second, you have committed three logical fallacies in your conclusion. (1) The False Dichotomy: There are many more reasons than the two you have presented to explain why I would be unable to see difference between “[your] violence” versus the State’s use of it. (2) An Ad Hominem Attack: Claiming me to have either a “metric fucktonne of privilege  or to be “not paying attention” are unsubstantiated personal jabs at me, and do nothing to further an explanation of your position, and really only support your last error, (3) An Appeal to Ridicule: Mocking what you believe is my position does nothing to explain your position. This is true, regardless of what form of mockery you engage in, really.

I will be happy to continue this discussion with you, but you must stay on track. Let’s share ideas. I enjoy it. Also, be sure to let me know if you are referring to physical self-defense, or violent revolution, when you mention “[your] violence,” as I am not sure, since your wording leaves much room to interpret “protecting [your]self” as self-defense, especially since you did not elaborate on your position whatsoever, and presented an Appeal to Ridicule. To me, this means that we might just be dealing with a matter of semantics, here. 🙂