The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Killing God
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Deicide may not be driving the Great Awokening, but He’s a casualty of the revival. From the GSS, theistic orientation among white liberals over time:

The percentage of white liberals who are atheist or agnostic has more than doubled over the last three decades; the percentage who are firm believers has correspondingly been cut in half.

There will be additional posts on this interesting but infrequently remarked upon fact–that today large numbers of white Democrats are atheists but very few non-white Democrats are. As of 2018, 33.4% of white liberals were atheist/agnostic compared to just 5.9% of non-white Democrats.

When president Obama intervened on God’s behalf after the DNC tried to ax Him in 2012, it presaged a second term that would focus more on POC power and less on SWPL concerns than the first. It seems plausible in retrospect, anyway.

GSS variables used: PARTYID(0-1), POLVIEWS(1-2), RACE(1)(2-3), GOD(1-2)(3-5)(6)

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology • Tags: God, GSS 
Hide 286 CommentsLeave a Comment
286 Comments to "Killing God"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. It’s not God they’re rejecting but the notion of being judged.

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Uh, no, no, they're rejecting God.

    After all, it's not like public displays of Satanism and blasphemy are massively common in America today.

    Oh, wait....

    And I'm not going to go down the bizarre (if rather half-assed) symbolism of Epstein's little palace down there on that island.

    There really isn't enough discussion of the history and effects of Freemasonry.

    , @SunBakedSuburb
    Karma awaits us in the afterlife, not judgement by the CEO of heaven.
    , @95Theses
    Or perhaps, it’s because they sense intuitively that they will someday face judgment that they choose to reject God.
  2. Nietsche was spot on about this:

    God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

    — Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125, tr. Walter Kaufmann[1]

    The loss of an absolute basis for morality leads to nihilism, where moral values are abstractly contrived.

    He was also right in suggesting that mass culture leads to conformity and thus ushers in mediocrity.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @advancedatheist
    Real atheists, as opposed to the fantasy atheists in Christian propaganda, find meaning and purpose with the given in observable reality. And many of them have contributed to civilization. Why would they have bothered if they suffered from "nihilism"?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology

    A god doesn't necessarily answer nihilism any way. A logically possible god could have created human life without any meaning, purpose, moral guidance, an afterlife or a guarantee of ultimate justice. Traditional theists just came up with this wish list for what they wanted from their god for basically self-interested reasons, when a god simply has no obligation to organize its creation for their convenience.
    , @95Theses
    I recall the familiarity of that quotation from a longer citation delivered by Ravi Zacharias (and as only Ravi can) at the 2007 Ligonier National Conference. Indexed at 4:14 .

    The Existence of God
    2015, May 29 | Ligonier Ministries
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRRuKDXT7Kg#t=254
  3. Nietsche has become a moderate.

    Counterinsurgency

  4. “The percentage of white liberals who are atheist or agnostic has more than doubled over the last three decades; the percentage who are firm believers has correspondingly been cut in half.”

    These people are not only still believers, but zealous believers at that. They have merely converted from a previous faith to the new progressive religion.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Damn, I hate when people "like you" are right.
    , @Rosie

    These people are not only still believers, but zealous believers at that. They have merely converted from a previous faith to the new progressive religion.
     
    Whomever and whatever is needed will be activated at the right time for the purpose at hand. Where iconoclasm is desired to destroy the old, the skeptics have their day. When repression is desired to defend the new, the zealots have a free hand. We are all tools.
    , @David
    To keep up the Nietzsche theme, he comments, "The will to overcome an emotion, is ultimately only the will of another, or of several other, emotions."
    , @Audacious Epigone
    And they look at modern genetics like 'fundamentalist' Christians look at dinosaurs bones--as a way of testing the faith!
    , @orionyx
    You're just recycling the old canard that atheism is just another religion.
    While it is true that some atheists are atheist zealots, I think the majority of us simply find no more credibility in old books about gods than we do in Galen's writings on medicine, or Hindu shastras on astronomy.
    So to tell us that our lack of religion is just another religion is exavtly like calling rugged good health 'just another disease'.
    , @dfordoom

    These people are not only still believers, but zealous believers at that. They have merely converted from a previous faith to the new progressive religion.
     
    That's obviously true up to a point. Secular religions (environmentalism, marxism, libertarianism, Social Justice etc) do function like religions in many ways.

    But there are crucial differences. It's not like converting from Protestantism to Catholicism, or from Christianity to Judaism.

    Secular religions offer no hope of individual salvation. Which is a really interesting paradox since modern westerners put so much stress on the individual. Logically if you're an extreme individualist you should gravitate towards an actual religion that does offer individual salvation.
  5. As Mike says, it becomes the new religion. You have priests (POC esp women), sin (racism), excommunication (cancelling and being mobbed), and occasionally (occasionally!) redemption.

  6. How any white conservatives are atheist?

  7. “Uncertain believer” is the biggest category.

    Sounds like it might mean people raised Christian in the midst of an agonizing reappraisal, but I suspect it includes “spiritual not religious New Age touchy feely”.

    • Replies: @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Yep, also those wishy washy types who say they are non-religious or uncertain because they don't want to seem like metal banging Satanists - but who behave atheistically, or rather, in thrall of the prog religion, or simply follow current conventions (a large group of people are simply sheepish).

    You also see a small spike in religious Dems post 2016 - I believe those to be liberal and POC churches gaining adepts out of SJW preaching (perhaps even getting some cucked Romney-style GOP "Judeo-Christians"). Even then, since 2014 these numbers are lesser than those of the atheist-Marxist ascendancy in the party. If the DSA takes over and disestablish God (even when their fetish idol Obama suggested otherwise), I wonder if the convenience marriage can hold any longer.

    Ps. I wonder if the Muslims entering the party establishment will impose official secularism eventually, as a first step...

    Pps. I wonder if liberal Jews will continue to exist, even genetically they might die out.

  8. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "The percentage of white liberals who are atheist or agnostic has more than doubled over the last three decades; the percentage who are firm believers has correspondingly been cut in half."

    These people are not only still believers, but zealous believers at that. They have merely converted from a previous faith to the new progressive religion.

    Damn, I hate when people “like you” are right.

    • Agree: MikeatMikedotMike
  9. Meh. Organized religion is increasingly dominated by 3rd-world types (“the global south”), something that’s making the culturally suicidal white liberals all giddy. I have nothing in common with either the 3rd world or the progressive left. Therefore have better uses for my time.

  10. @Oleaginous Outrager
    It's not God they're rejecting but the notion of being judged.

    Uh, no, no, they’re rejecting God.

    After all, it’s not like public displays of Satanism and blasphemy are massively common in America today.

    Oh, wait….

    And I’m not going to go down the bizarre (if rather half-assed) symbolism of Epstein’s little palace down there on that island.

    There really isn’t enough discussion of the history and effects of Freemasonry.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    "There really isn't enough discussion of the history and effects of Freemasonry."

    Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, and the other Enlightenment era cults that supposedly opposed the power of the Church are products of the Kabbalah system that began in ancient Babylon. The Church itself carries the Kabbalah virus, probably since its inception. The curse of Babylon continues its spiritual plague to this day.
  11. Not believing in God (Atheism) is easy. Not believing in anything (Nihilism) is difficult. Just try it sometime. Ideology gives Atheists something to believe in. Trans ideology elevates the individual to the status of deity. Communism elevates the State.

    I find white Liberals loathsome because their ideology requires that they either hate themselves or pretend to hate themselves. Imagine running for office by apologizing for your skin color. Vote for me. I suck. It’s not gonna keep the POC on the reservation. AOC and her faithful Indian companion will take over the party. The white Liberals can go eat worms.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I find white Liberals loathsome because their ideology requires that they either hate themselves or pretend to hate themselves.
     
    No it doesn't. Their ideology requires that they hate bad people. It requires that they hate sinners. But they're not sinners. They're the Elect. They are goodwhites and they know that they personally are free from sin.

    Who are the bad people, the sinners, that they are required to hate? Badwhites. You can recognise badwhites pretty easily. For one thing they're not rich. Being rich is one of the ways you know you're one of the Elect. Badwhites live in the wrong places. If you live in flyover country you're obviously a badwhite.
  12. It may not be so much that white Democrat liberals are becoming more atheist as that atheists feel more out of place in the Republican party so they move over to the Democrats. The Republicans didn’t use to be all that religious. The leading atheist of the nineteenth century, Robert Ingersoll, was once invited to give a speech at the Republican convention. The change started in the nineteen sixties when the Republicans started following a Southern strategy to pick up votes in the South which included policies to appeal to Southern religious fundamentalist types. They also started trying for the Catholic vote. In the seventies it was the Republican party that defended the rights of Christian homeschoolers to homeschool their kids and Christian radio stations to broadcast their beliefs and that drove more religious voters in their direction. The atheists who have stayed in the Republican party are the few nonreligious John Derbyshire types who aren’t Christians themselves but see Christianity as part of a Western tradition they admire and feel at home in. They see the multiculturalist left as attacking that tradition and the Democrat party as their political representative.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    At one time, Republicans tended to be more socially liberal while economically more conservative than the Democrats. The Democrats overall social conservativism was due to southern Whites and Roman Catholic voters.
  13. Isn’t belief in God that near-monopoly of backwards minorities? Have you ever walked the streets of Bronx on a Sunday morning? It’s the sound of heavens – BN choirs from all directions.

    Thanks to the demographic changes, United States stands the chance of remaining the most religious rich nation.

  14. @Joe Magarac
    "Uncertain believer" is the biggest category.

    Sounds like it might mean people raised Christian in the midst of an agonizing reappraisal, but I suspect it includes "spiritual not religious New Age touchy feely".

    Yep, also those wishy washy types who say they are non-religious or uncertain because they don’t want to seem like metal banging Satanists – but who behave atheistically, or rather, in thrall of the prog religion, or simply follow current conventions (a large group of people are simply sheepish).

    You also see a small spike in religious Dems post 2016 – I believe those to be liberal and POC churches gaining adepts out of SJW preaching (perhaps even getting some cucked Romney-style GOP “Judeo-Christians”). Even then, since 2014 these numbers are lesser than those of the atheist-Marxist ascendancy in the party. If the DSA takes over and disestablish God (even when their fetish idol Obama suggested otherwise), I wonder if the convenience marriage can hold any longer.

    Ps. I wonder if the Muslims entering the party establishment will impose official secularism eventually, as a first step…

    Pps. I wonder if liberal Jews will continue to exist, even genetically they might die out.

    • Agree: Joe Magarac
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Yep, also those wishy washy types who say they are non-religious or uncertain because they don’t want to seem like metal banging Satanists – but who behave atheistically, or rather, in thrall of the prog religion, or simply follow current conventions (a large group of people are simply sheepish).
     
    Dennis Prager once issued a challenge to all agnostics to live as theists instead of atheists for a while. I had already been doing that for some time, and have continued to do so. I never thought I would be more than an earnest seeker, faithless as I am, but recent developments in science and philosophy have been a very pleasant surprise.

    https://evolutionnews.org/2013/05/stephen_meyers_/

    The wind has been blowing in a theist direction since the discovery of the Big Bang, which was very disconcerting to many scientists, including Einstein:

    At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
    -Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

    Of course, TPTB do not want any of this trickling down, and will use all the usual dirty tricks, especially career assassination, to prevent it.

  15. White liberal has been a synonym for atheist since the 70s. Even the ones who profess religion do so in terms of abstract, feel-good “faith,” which means doubling-down on failure and virtue signalling; fighting “hate,” “what would Jesus do” platitudes.

  16. @Oleaginous Outrager
    It's not God they're rejecting but the notion of being judged.

    Karma awaits us in the afterlife, not judgement by the CEO of heaven.

    • Replies: @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Same difference
    Just because you don't want to personalize your CEO does not mean you won't be promoted or fired
    , @The Alarmist

    Karma awaits us in the afterlife, not judgement by the CEO of heaven.
     
    Gee, I always pictured Heaven with a rope line and bouncers (Michael & Gabriel?) deciding who gets in. The Big Guy would be inside at the booth cueing a mix to die for.
  17. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "The percentage of white liberals who are atheist or agnostic has more than doubled over the last three decades; the percentage who are firm believers has correspondingly been cut in half."

    These people are not only still believers, but zealous believers at that. They have merely converted from a previous faith to the new progressive religion.

    These people are not only still believers, but zealous believers at that. They have merely converted from a previous faith to the new progressive religion.

    Whomever and whatever is needed will be activated at the right time for the purpose at hand. Where iconoclasm is desired to destroy the old, the skeptics have their day. When repression is desired to defend the new, the zealots have a free hand. We are all tools.

    • Replies: @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Indeed.
    So let's at least choose who to tool for. Whether the devil or whether be God, you gotta serve somebody... a Jew in a moment of clarity said that, but whatever...
  18. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Uh, no, no, they're rejecting God.

    After all, it's not like public displays of Satanism and blasphemy are massively common in America today.

    Oh, wait....

    And I'm not going to go down the bizarre (if rather half-assed) symbolism of Epstein's little palace down there on that island.

    There really isn't enough discussion of the history and effects of Freemasonry.

    “There really isn’t enough discussion of the history and effects of Freemasonry.”

    Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, and the other Enlightenment era cults that supposedly opposed the power of the Church are products of the Kabbalah system that began in ancient Babylon. The Church itself carries the Kabbalah virus, probably since its inception. The curse of Babylon continues its spiritual plague to this day.

  19. @The Alarmist
    Nietsche was spot on about this:

    God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

    — Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125, tr. Walter Kaufmann[1]

     

    The loss of an absolute basis for morality leads to nihilism, where moral values are abstractly contrived.

    He was also right in suggesting that mass culture leads to conformity and thus ushers in mediocrity.

    Real atheists, as opposed to the fantasy atheists in Christian propaganda, find meaning and purpose with the given in observable reality. And many of them have contributed to civilization. Why would they have bothered if they suffered from “nihilism”?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology

    A god doesn’t necessarily answer nihilism any way. A logically possible god could have created human life without any meaning, purpose, moral guidance, an afterlife or a guarantee of ultimate justice. Traditional theists just came up with this wish list for what they wanted from their god for basically self-interested reasons, when a god simply has no obligation to organize its creation for their convenience.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Those atheists were raised with an established Christian morality in their societies. Why do you think when Socrates barely doubted his own sillier gods (and even then, hypothesized that he'd go to deep sleep in the underworld anyway), that no one else came to follow him. Even his disciples were less agnostic.
    And yes indeed, God has no logical need for any of those mechanisms. And yet there are those mechanisms. We got from savannah to skyscraper, fast too. The difference is just what aspects of those mechanisms people divinize. You divinize only the material, or rather, the basest descriptions of the material such as "observable reality" and "science and tech", and think that's enough for your self-interest. Alas, if only scientifistic materialism were enough, why would anyone still complain about secular stupidity in the irreligious times we live...

    ...and why would the materialist breed less than the religious... does that not indicate a dysgenic trend lol
    , @Audacious Epigone
    It'd be quite fortunate--and not very human-like--for an omnipotent and omniscient force to also be an infinitely benevolent one!
  20. @SunBakedSuburb
    Karma awaits us in the afterlife, not judgement by the CEO of heaven.

    Same difference
    Just because you don’t want to personalize your CEO does not mean you won’t be promoted or fired

  21. @Rosie

    These people are not only still believers, but zealous believers at that. They have merely converted from a previous faith to the new progressive religion.
     
    Whomever and whatever is needed will be activated at the right time for the purpose at hand. Where iconoclasm is desired to destroy the old, the skeptics have their day. When repression is desired to defend the new, the zealots have a free hand. We are all tools.

    Indeed.
    So let’s at least choose who to tool for. Whether the devil or whether be God, you gotta serve somebody… a Jew in a moment of clarity said that, but whatever…

  22. @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Yep, also those wishy washy types who say they are non-religious or uncertain because they don't want to seem like metal banging Satanists - but who behave atheistically, or rather, in thrall of the prog religion, or simply follow current conventions (a large group of people are simply sheepish).

    You also see a small spike in religious Dems post 2016 - I believe those to be liberal and POC churches gaining adepts out of SJW preaching (perhaps even getting some cucked Romney-style GOP "Judeo-Christians"). Even then, since 2014 these numbers are lesser than those of the atheist-Marxist ascendancy in the party. If the DSA takes over and disestablish God (even when their fetish idol Obama suggested otherwise), I wonder if the convenience marriage can hold any longer.

    Ps. I wonder if the Muslims entering the party establishment will impose official secularism eventually, as a first step...

    Pps. I wonder if liberal Jews will continue to exist, even genetically they might die out.

    Yep, also those wishy washy types who say they are non-religious or uncertain because they don’t want to seem like metal banging Satanists – but who behave atheistically, or rather, in thrall of the prog religion, or simply follow current conventions (a large group of people are simply sheepish).

    Dennis Prager once issued a challenge to all agnostics to live as theists instead of atheists for a while. I had already been doing that for some time, and have continued to do so. I never thought I would be more than an earnest seeker, faithless as I am, but recent developments in science and philosophy have been a very pleasant surprise.

    https://evolutionnews.org/2013/05/stephen_meyers_/

    The wind has been blowing in a theist direction since the discovery of the Big Bang, which was very disconcerting to many scientists, including Einstein:

    At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
    -Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

    Of course, TPTB do not want any of this trickling down, and will use all the usual dirty tricks, especially career assassination, to prevent it.

    • Agree: 95Theses
    • Replies: @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Yep. Although now the Reasonists want to push farther than the Big Bang, to prove that there was no beginning, even if they admit that we cannot possibly experimentally prove anything beyond that time, and thus we have a ton of competing multiverse theories. Even apparent pedo genius Stephen Hawkings had many twists and turns regarding that issue.
    Not to mention, even if any one of them theories were true, it just pushes the Uncaused a little further back, nothing more.

    All that said, congrats on living as theist, perhaps that is as close as the 21st century person can get, nonwithstanding some utopian Deus Vult reaction - then again, crazier things have happened...
    (I talk in Christian terms, because for no other religion does the Western/white have for whom it has fought united massive wars of defense against invaders, and won [Lepanto]. Who knows, maybe Deism and more of today's idolatries can compete, but historically at most they provided a dissenting opinion. And before anyone mentions modern China better off without faith, they believe in the God Mao, His Earliest Prophet Confucius, and His Current Messenger the Party Chairman).

    , @anon
    Are you so nostalgic for the 00's that you want to refight creation/evolution wars? Remember, pushing "intelligent design" and "creation science" created the new atheist movement more than 9/11.
    The atheists won the battle decisively - do you think you will win the next time?
  23. @advancedatheist
    Real atheists, as opposed to the fantasy atheists in Christian propaganda, find meaning and purpose with the given in observable reality. And many of them have contributed to civilization. Why would they have bothered if they suffered from "nihilism"?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology

    A god doesn't necessarily answer nihilism any way. A logically possible god could have created human life without any meaning, purpose, moral guidance, an afterlife or a guarantee of ultimate justice. Traditional theists just came up with this wish list for what they wanted from their god for basically self-interested reasons, when a god simply has no obligation to organize its creation for their convenience.

    Those atheists were raised with an established Christian morality in their societies. Why do you think when Socrates barely doubted his own sillier gods (and even then, hypothesized that he’d go to deep sleep in the underworld anyway), that no one else came to follow him. Even his disciples were less agnostic.
    And yes indeed, God has no logical need for any of those mechanisms. And yet there are those mechanisms. We got from savannah to skyscraper, fast too. The difference is just what aspects of those mechanisms people divinize. You divinize only the material, or rather, the basest descriptions of the material such as “observable reality” and “science and tech”, and think that’s enough for your self-interest. Alas, if only scientifistic materialism were enough, why would anyone still complain about secular stupidity in the irreligious times we live…

    …and why would the materialist breed less than the religious… does that not indicate a dysgenic trend lol

    • Replies: @advancedatheist
    Christianity stopped "feeling true" to thoughtful Europeans about 400 years ago, and this happened in a Hayekian fashion to a lot of people who followed their own lines of inquiry without knowing each other, many of them coming from the less socially privileged classes. The British historian Alec Ryrie (Gresham College) has an interesting-looking book about this phenomenon due out in the fall. The way Ryrie describes it, the feeling of falsity came first, then the early modern philosophers tried to justify this wide-spread intuition after the fact as they sought sounder ways to ground religious belief.

    For some reason Christian apologists don't want to deal with this unexpected breakdown of the Christian monopoly in the world of beliefs and ideas. It happened spontaneously, organically, and without any central planning to impose it on the population. Indeed, it happened in defiance of political and religious authority. Europe's rulers got to the point where they couldn't enforce uniformity of belief through indoctrination, persecution, censorship, torture, capital punishment, and wars against neighboring kingdoms ruled by heretics, so they just gave up and allowed some degree of religious toleration. This created elbow room for people to become atheists.

    The Christian Creative Anachronists who think they can reboot an age of faith have to grapple with the fact that the original age of faith failed the first time around for nonobvious reasons beyond anyone's control.

    , @advancedatheist

    and why would the materialist breed less than the religious… does that not indicate a dysgenic trend lol
     
    I might add that the Catholic Church wasted vast genetic potential by directing many of the capable boys within its grasp into becoming celibate priests and monks, not to mention all the ovaries it wasted by sending girls into convents.

    Perhaps the early Protestant and Reformed Churches got the traction they did because they put a stop to this nonsense and encouraged the capable men in the clergy to marry and form families, following Martin Luther's example of marrying a former nun named Katharina von Bora. They didn't merely fight the war of the cradle more effectively; they fought it by deploying more of the genes of their better quality men that the Catholic Church would just let go to waste.

  24. @Rosie

    Yep, also those wishy washy types who say they are non-religious or uncertain because they don’t want to seem like metal banging Satanists – but who behave atheistically, or rather, in thrall of the prog religion, or simply follow current conventions (a large group of people are simply sheepish).
     
    Dennis Prager once issued a challenge to all agnostics to live as theists instead of atheists for a while. I had already been doing that for some time, and have continued to do so. I never thought I would be more than an earnest seeker, faithless as I am, but recent developments in science and philosophy have been a very pleasant surprise.

    https://evolutionnews.org/2013/05/stephen_meyers_/

    The wind has been blowing in a theist direction since the discovery of the Big Bang, which was very disconcerting to many scientists, including Einstein:

    At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
    -Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

    Of course, TPTB do not want any of this trickling down, and will use all the usual dirty tricks, especially career assassination, to prevent it.

    Yep. Although now the Reasonists want to push farther than the Big Bang, to prove that there was no beginning, even if they admit that we cannot possibly experimentally prove anything beyond that time, and thus we have a ton of competing multiverse theories. Even apparent pedo genius Stephen Hawkings had many twists and turns regarding that issue.
    Not to mention, even if any one of them theories were true, it just pushes the Uncaused a little further back, nothing more.

    All that said, congrats on living as theist, perhaps that is as close as the 21st century person can get, nonwithstanding some utopian Deus Vult reaction – then again, crazier things have happened…
    (I talk in Christian terms, because for no other religion does the Western/white have for whom it has fought united massive wars of defense against invaders, and won [Lepanto]. Who knows, maybe Deism and more of today’s idolatries can compete, but historically at most they provided a dissenting opinion. And before anyone mentions modern China better off without faith, they believe in the God Mao, His Earliest Prophet Confucius, and His Current Messenger the Party Chairman).

    • Replies: @Rosie

    And before anyone mentions modern China better off without faith, they believe in the God Mao, His Earliest Prophet Confucius, and His Current Messenger the Party Chairman).
     
    The Muslims come in for a great deal of criticism on the Woman Question, but there are something on the order of 200,000,000 females missing from the planet, especially from India and China. (Warning: shocking content)

    https://youtu.be/ISme5-9orR0
    , @Rosie

    Yep. Although now the Reasonists want to push farther than the Big Bang, to prove that there was no beginning, even if they admit that we cannot possibly experimentally prove anything beyond that time, and thus we have a ton of competing multiverse theories. Even apparent pedo genius Stephen Hawkings had many twists and turns regarding that issue.
     
    I don't know about SH, but the question is worth considering: Are dogmatic atheists motivated by a fear of judgment? It is difficult for me to avoid the conclusion that they are.

    Fully neutral agnosticism is untenable IMO, because it naturally raises the question as to what we ought to assume to be true in our ignorance. The most rational answer is what I call the Agnostic's Wager (AKA Pascal's Wager AKA The Buddha's Wager). Here is the Buddha's version, on karma and rebirth:

    If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.

    But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.
     
    https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html

    Now, suppose one views righteous living as very costly. In that case, one might conclude that atheism is the best bet, saying to himself: "If I believe in God, I'll have to behave, and then I wouldn't enjoy this life (my only life) as much as I would otherwise. One might call it the Sinner's Wager. It seems to me that all agnostics (which is almost everyone when you get right down to it), will make one or the other of these wagers. The only question is, which one?
  25. @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Yep. Although now the Reasonists want to push farther than the Big Bang, to prove that there was no beginning, even if they admit that we cannot possibly experimentally prove anything beyond that time, and thus we have a ton of competing multiverse theories. Even apparent pedo genius Stephen Hawkings had many twists and turns regarding that issue.
    Not to mention, even if any one of them theories were true, it just pushes the Uncaused a little further back, nothing more.

    All that said, congrats on living as theist, perhaps that is as close as the 21st century person can get, nonwithstanding some utopian Deus Vult reaction - then again, crazier things have happened...
    (I talk in Christian terms, because for no other religion does the Western/white have for whom it has fought united massive wars of defense against invaders, and won [Lepanto]. Who knows, maybe Deism and more of today's idolatries can compete, but historically at most they provided a dissenting opinion. And before anyone mentions modern China better off without faith, they believe in the God Mao, His Earliest Prophet Confucius, and His Current Messenger the Party Chairman).

    And before anyone mentions modern China better off without faith, they believe in the God Mao, His Earliest Prophet Confucius, and His Current Messenger the Party Chairman).

    The Muslims come in for a great deal of criticism on the Woman Question, but there are something on the order of 200,000,000 females missing from the planet, especially from India and China. (Warning: shocking content)

  26. Just got wrapped up with an exchange on a forum with a bunch of ex-Muslim atheists and their fan base. I cannot believe the level of pettiness and lack of self-reflection these lot have.

    For proposing that I, as a father, have the right to shun my daughter (like not invite her to social events and gatherings) in the case that she defies the values I brought her up with, I was called everything from a worthless and abusive father to a beta-male whose masculinity is threatened by my daughter deciding to explore her sexuality by her right as an adult to get plowed by strangers on the internet for money.

    Other than maybe one or two normal people, this is what we are dealing with. If these people take root in society, you will eventually be shamed for not throwing an ice cream party for your daughter announcing her first intersectional gang bang.

    One White guy (self-proclaimed anti-theist) was one of the most triggered apparently and to come to join the fray on behalf of the ex-Muslim thots and questioned and insulted my manhood and worth as a father, so I simply looped in a serious alpha-male (convert brother, ex-military, BJJ-enthusiast, gun-enthusiast, multiple wives [actually coaches other men how to make it happen]) and he just laid it down:
    “I am a strong advocate of social shame and group expulsions. Society has made inclusion a right instead of a privilege which is to be earned and maintained. This is why there is zero incentive for people to follow social and cultural norms and be disloyal to their in-group. This disloyalty includes morals and ethics and must be enforced on a micro level (family) in order to function on a macro level (society). If society is willing to absorb the disloyal and ethical misfits we have no way to police society on a whole.

    The Athenians used to ostracize citizens for 10 years or permanently by unanimous agreement. A classic example of this was Themistocles who although was a celebrated general with combat victories under his belt in protection of the Athenian state was still banished from the state for going against the standard norm in terms of not angering allies, in his case the Spartans. Despite his moves being to the benefit of the state they were considered detrimental to alliances. So I ask, how much more so should we be aggressive in regards to not only family members but members of society who behave in a way which is detrimental to us on both or even individual levels?

    There’s absolutely nothing beta to maintaining reputation of not only self, but family and nation. Reputation is everything it is to be gaurded like stacks of gold, anyone who says otherwise is a person who has no reputation or no loyalty to anyone or anything. We in the west find ourselves in the midst of a demographic shift and rapid social change that no one wants nor is happy about because we have surrendered to the idea of individualism in extremes and left off collectivism with limitations

    What I mean by this is I am not a socialist, I mean collectivism in terms of social responsibility in terms of a group. You claim to belong to a group, be it family or a society, then there are obligations that come with the privilege of being part of that group. If I join Tates war room (https://www.cobratate.com/product/war-room/), although paid for, it’s a privilege to be accepted into the group, with it comes behavioral expectations in terms of loyalty and standards that should not be breached (twitter example there for you). If I break those standards I am removed, shunned, banned, shamed on twitter most likely…

    How much more so for family members? Nothing beta about it my man, not in the least. Shame her, shun her and of she doesn’t rectify banish her but… Leave a door open of course, she’s blood, family. The Malaysians have a saying in regards to family, oak is oak, even if it’s rotten. Shun her, leave a door open if she corrects course but she cannot be allowed to remain and spread rot.”

    The tattooed White guy didn’t say a word. Well, “kill god” and see what happens I guess…

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    How much more so for family members? Nothing beta about it my man, not in the least. Shame her, shun her and of she doesn’t rectify banish her but… Leave a door open of course, she’s blood, family. The Malaysians have a saying in regards to family, oak is oak, even if it’s rotten. Shun her, leave a door open if she corrects course but she cannot be allowed to remain and spread rot.”
     
    The Amish manage a very good balance in this regard, better than anyone IMO. The bann is very harsh, but the possibility of repentance is always there. The harshness of the bann is also the rationale for the rumspringa. You "run around," then choose whether to join the church.
    , @AaronB
    Interesting stuff.

    Interestingly, though, the white liberal was arguing from a theological perspective, whereas your guy was providing very good and well argued practical reasons.

    But I do think the divide is theological - every religious group is willing to suffer practical disadvantages for their theological vision.

    The while liberal knows his vision leads to certain practical social disadvantages, but considers them trivial and the fulfillment of his theological virtues more important.

    The only people for whom practical considerations are primary, are perhaps Republicans, but even they accept the need for tradeoffs.

    That's why I think the primary level of discussion has to be theological, not practical.

    What moral virtues or theological vision was the white liberal willing to make social tradeoffs for?

    What theological vision - not practical benefit - was your Muslim friend willing to trade individual autonomy and freedom for?

    Collectivism certainly does impose a cost on the individual - and individualism certainly does impose a cost on the social health of the collective.

    Can this be decided on the practical level?

    Before we decide on ultimate ends, we have no yardstick on which to make practical tradeoffs.

    If life on Earth is temporary and our ultimate end lies beyond, than we must organise our tradeoffs towards this goal, and they will likely favor the collective effort to transcend our physical natures, morally perfect ourselves, and unite with the Eternal.

    If life on Earth is primary, then our tradeoffs will likely favor individual autonomy and the pleasure principle at the expense of the collective or the future, because the Ephemeral is all we know.

    Everything flows from First Principles it seems to me.
    , @iffen
    Chill dude. Have a beer and a BLT.
  27. I do not see triumph of secularism.
    I see polarization – the yellow wishy washy “christmas and easter worshipper” types are going down, and both militant atheists and militant believers are on the rise.

  28. @Rosie

    Yep, also those wishy washy types who say they are non-religious or uncertain because they don’t want to seem like metal banging Satanists – but who behave atheistically, or rather, in thrall of the prog religion, or simply follow current conventions (a large group of people are simply sheepish).
     
    Dennis Prager once issued a challenge to all agnostics to live as theists instead of atheists for a while. I had already been doing that for some time, and have continued to do so. I never thought I would be more than an earnest seeker, faithless as I am, but recent developments in science and philosophy have been a very pleasant surprise.

    https://evolutionnews.org/2013/05/stephen_meyers_/

    The wind has been blowing in a theist direction since the discovery of the Big Bang, which was very disconcerting to many scientists, including Einstein:

    At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
    -Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

    Of course, TPTB do not want any of this trickling down, and will use all the usual dirty tricks, especially career assassination, to prevent it.

    Are you so nostalgic for the 00’s that you want to refight creation/evolution wars? Remember, pushing “intelligent design” and “creation science” created the new atheist movement more than 9/11.
    The atheists won the battle decisively – do you think you will win the next time?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    The atheists won the battle decisively – do you think you will win the next time?
     
    In theory at least, we're supposed to follow the evidence where it leads. Dogmatic atheists make it very clear that they are unwilling to do this, and they will therefore be politely asked to get the f*** out of the way so the rest of us can have a grown-up conversation.

    Either that, or we'll just have to wait till they die, and it won't be long now.

    It's interesting that you use the term "battle," thus revealing your view of this issue as a question of power rather than truth.

    You all have been claiming that scientific evidence disproves the existence of God for almost 200 years, and now that things are looking up for our side, you cry dirty pull and demand a strict wall of separation between science and theology.

    We're not doin' that.
  29. @Talha
    Just got wrapped up with an exchange on a forum with a bunch of ex-Muslim atheists and their fan base. I cannot believe the level of pettiness and lack of self-reflection these lot have.

    For proposing that I, as a father, have the right to shun my daughter (like not invite her to social events and gatherings) in the case that she defies the values I brought her up with, I was called everything from a worthless and abusive father to a beta-male whose masculinity is threatened by my daughter deciding to explore her sexuality by her right as an adult to get plowed by strangers on the internet for money.

    Other than maybe one or two normal people, this is what we are dealing with. If these people take root in society, you will eventually be shamed for not throwing an ice cream party for your daughter announcing her first intersectional gang bang.

    One White guy (self-proclaimed anti-theist) was one of the most triggered apparently and to come to join the fray on behalf of the ex-Muslim thots and questioned and insulted my manhood and worth as a father, so I simply looped in a serious alpha-male (convert brother, ex-military, BJJ-enthusiast, gun-enthusiast, multiple wives [actually coaches other men how to make it happen]) and he just laid it down:
    "I am a strong advocate of social shame and group expulsions. Society has made inclusion a right instead of a privilege which is to be earned and maintained. This is why there is zero incentive for people to follow social and cultural norms and be disloyal to their in-group. This disloyalty includes morals and ethics and must be enforced on a micro level (family) in order to function on a macro level (society). If society is willing to absorb the disloyal and ethical misfits we have no way to police society on a whole.

    The Athenians used to ostracize citizens for 10 years or permanently by unanimous agreement. A classic example of this was Themistocles who although was a celebrated general with combat victories under his belt in protection of the Athenian state was still banished from the state for going against the standard norm in terms of not angering allies, in his case the Spartans. Despite his moves being to the benefit of the state they were considered detrimental to alliances. So I ask, how much more so should we be aggressive in regards to not only family members but members of society who behave in a way which is detrimental to us on both or even individual levels?

    There's absolutely nothing beta to maintaining reputation of not only self, but family and nation. Reputation is everything it is to be gaurded like stacks of gold, anyone who says otherwise is a person who has no reputation or no loyalty to anyone or anything. We in the west find ourselves in the midst of a demographic shift and rapid social change that no one wants nor is happy about because we have surrendered to the idea of individualism in extremes and left off collectivism with limitations

    What I mean by this is I am not a socialist, I mean collectivism in terms of social responsibility in terms of a group. You claim to belong to a group, be it family or a society, then there are obligations that come with the privilege of being part of that group. If I join Tates war room (https://www.cobratate.com/product/war-room/), although paid for, it's a privilege to be accepted into the group, with it comes behavioral expectations in terms of loyalty and standards that should not be breached (twitter example there for you). If I break those standards I am removed, shunned, banned, shamed on twitter most likely...

    How much more so for family members? Nothing beta about it my man, not in the least. Shame her, shun her and of she doesn't rectify banish her but... Leave a door open of course, she's blood, family. The Malaysians have a saying in regards to family, oak is oak, even if it's rotten. Shun her, leave a door open if she corrects course but she cannot be allowed to remain and spread rot."

    The tattooed White guy didn't say a word. Well, "kill god" and see what happens I guess...

    Peace.

    How much more so for family members? Nothing beta about it my man, not in the least. Shame her, shun her and of she doesn’t rectify banish her but… Leave a door open of course, she’s blood, family. The Malaysians have a saying in regards to family, oak is oak, even if it’s rotten. Shun her, leave a door open if she corrects course but she cannot be allowed to remain and spread rot.”

    The Amish manage a very good balance in this regard, better than anyone IMO. The bann is very harsh, but the possibility of repentance is always there. The harshness of the bann is also the rationale for the rumspringa. You “run around,” then choose whether to join the church.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Yeah, the Amish have a very interesting community paradigm. Much people can learn or borrow from.

    Peace.
  30. @Rosie

    How much more so for family members? Nothing beta about it my man, not in the least. Shame her, shun her and of she doesn’t rectify banish her but… Leave a door open of course, she’s blood, family. The Malaysians have a saying in regards to family, oak is oak, even if it’s rotten. Shun her, leave a door open if she corrects course but she cannot be allowed to remain and spread rot.”
     
    The Amish manage a very good balance in this regard, better than anyone IMO. The bann is very harsh, but the possibility of repentance is always there. The harshness of the bann is also the rationale for the rumspringa. You "run around," then choose whether to join the church.

    Yeah, the Amish have a very interesting community paradigm. Much people can learn or borrow from.

    Peace.

  31. @Talha
    Just got wrapped up with an exchange on a forum with a bunch of ex-Muslim atheists and their fan base. I cannot believe the level of pettiness and lack of self-reflection these lot have.

    For proposing that I, as a father, have the right to shun my daughter (like not invite her to social events and gatherings) in the case that she defies the values I brought her up with, I was called everything from a worthless and abusive father to a beta-male whose masculinity is threatened by my daughter deciding to explore her sexuality by her right as an adult to get plowed by strangers on the internet for money.

    Other than maybe one or two normal people, this is what we are dealing with. If these people take root in society, you will eventually be shamed for not throwing an ice cream party for your daughter announcing her first intersectional gang bang.

    One White guy (self-proclaimed anti-theist) was one of the most triggered apparently and to come to join the fray on behalf of the ex-Muslim thots and questioned and insulted my manhood and worth as a father, so I simply looped in a serious alpha-male (convert brother, ex-military, BJJ-enthusiast, gun-enthusiast, multiple wives [actually coaches other men how to make it happen]) and he just laid it down:
    "I am a strong advocate of social shame and group expulsions. Society has made inclusion a right instead of a privilege which is to be earned and maintained. This is why there is zero incentive for people to follow social and cultural norms and be disloyal to their in-group. This disloyalty includes morals and ethics and must be enforced on a micro level (family) in order to function on a macro level (society). If society is willing to absorb the disloyal and ethical misfits we have no way to police society on a whole.

    The Athenians used to ostracize citizens for 10 years or permanently by unanimous agreement. A classic example of this was Themistocles who although was a celebrated general with combat victories under his belt in protection of the Athenian state was still banished from the state for going against the standard norm in terms of not angering allies, in his case the Spartans. Despite his moves being to the benefit of the state they were considered detrimental to alliances. So I ask, how much more so should we be aggressive in regards to not only family members but members of society who behave in a way which is detrimental to us on both or even individual levels?

    There's absolutely nothing beta to maintaining reputation of not only self, but family and nation. Reputation is everything it is to be gaurded like stacks of gold, anyone who says otherwise is a person who has no reputation or no loyalty to anyone or anything. We in the west find ourselves in the midst of a demographic shift and rapid social change that no one wants nor is happy about because we have surrendered to the idea of individualism in extremes and left off collectivism with limitations

    What I mean by this is I am not a socialist, I mean collectivism in terms of social responsibility in terms of a group. You claim to belong to a group, be it family or a society, then there are obligations that come with the privilege of being part of that group. If I join Tates war room (https://www.cobratate.com/product/war-room/), although paid for, it's a privilege to be accepted into the group, with it comes behavioral expectations in terms of loyalty and standards that should not be breached (twitter example there for you). If I break those standards I am removed, shunned, banned, shamed on twitter most likely...

    How much more so for family members? Nothing beta about it my man, not in the least. Shame her, shun her and of she doesn't rectify banish her but... Leave a door open of course, she's blood, family. The Malaysians have a saying in regards to family, oak is oak, even if it's rotten. Shun her, leave a door open if she corrects course but she cannot be allowed to remain and spread rot."

    The tattooed White guy didn't say a word. Well, "kill god" and see what happens I guess...

    Peace.

    Interesting stuff.

    Interestingly, though, the white liberal was arguing from a theological perspective, whereas your guy was providing very good and well argued practical reasons.

    But I do think the divide is theological – every religious group is willing to suffer practical disadvantages for their theological vision.

    The while liberal knows his vision leads to certain practical social disadvantages, but considers them trivial and the fulfillment of his theological virtues more important.

    The only people for whom practical considerations are primary, are perhaps Republicans, but even they accept the need for tradeoffs.

    That’s why I think the primary level of discussion has to be theological, not practical.

    What moral virtues or theological vision was the white liberal willing to make social tradeoffs for?

    What theological vision – not practical benefit – was your Muslim friend willing to trade individual autonomy and freedom for?

    Collectivism certainly does impose a cost on the individual – and individualism certainly does impose a cost on the social health of the collective.

    Can this be decided on the practical level?

    Before we decide on ultimate ends, we have no yardstick on which to make practical tradeoffs.

    If life on Earth is temporary and our ultimate end lies beyond, than we must organise our tradeoffs towards this goal, and they will likely favor the collective effort to transcend our physical natures, morally perfect ourselves, and unite with the Eternal.

    If life on Earth is primary, then our tradeoffs will likely favor individual autonomy and the pleasure principle at the expense of the collective or the future, because the Ephemeral is all we know.

    Everything flows from First Principles it seems to me.

    • Replies: @Talha

    the white liberal was arguing from a theological perspective
     
    Not really - throwing a tantrum and casually tossing out words like beta-male and worthless father in hopes to trigger me into a reaction so they can feel even more victimized is not really a theological approach. It's victim virtue-signaling 101. Well, I guess maybe Victimology can be considered their religion.

    very good and well argued practical reasons.
     
    When dealing with an anti-theist, one must provide such arguments. Arguments based in a theological perspective the man doesn't recognize is useless.

    What moral virtues or theological vision was the white liberal willing to make social tradeoffs for?
     
    His whole thing is the primacy of individual autonomy - hyper-individualism. If the person is an adult, they can do whatever they want with whoever they want. It is the religion of self-worship.

    Can this be decided on the practical level?
     
    Millet system; good fences...

    Everything flows from First Principles it seems to me.
     
    Agreed, which is why they were very frustrated with me that I would not accede them the right to define the parameters of first principles.

    My framework and first principles are diametrically opposite of those on the other side of the conversation. There were be no agreement and no congruence, there is only accommodation or negotiated space in a practical compromise from both sides.

    To be honest, from a practical perspective, someone like me is willing to accommodate them in shared space and with negotiated autonomy far more than their vision. Look at the image below and think about what they envision as an end goal:
    https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/1147620196712144897

    This is not simply a joke, it is a shot across the bow in a full declaration of war. That's OK though - as Peter Hitchens stated:
    "Islam is not so self effacing as Christianity, it doesn't give up when dismissed or mocked or even persecuted, it carries on, it's one of the things that's most admirable about it, is that it stands up for itself."

    And me standing up and simply dismissing their mockery and refusing to let them define the terms of debate really, really pissed them off.

    Peace.
    , @Talha
    On biases...then and now...
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D_g7SBcW4AAjhZm.jpg

    Peace.
  32. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "The percentage of white liberals who are atheist or agnostic has more than doubled over the last three decades; the percentage who are firm believers has correspondingly been cut in half."

    These people are not only still believers, but zealous believers at that. They have merely converted from a previous faith to the new progressive religion.

    To keep up the Nietzsche theme, he comments, “The will to overcome an emotion, is ultimately only the will of another, or of several other, emotions.”

  33. @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Those atheists were raised with an established Christian morality in their societies. Why do you think when Socrates barely doubted his own sillier gods (and even then, hypothesized that he'd go to deep sleep in the underworld anyway), that no one else came to follow him. Even his disciples were less agnostic.
    And yes indeed, God has no logical need for any of those mechanisms. And yet there are those mechanisms. We got from savannah to skyscraper, fast too. The difference is just what aspects of those mechanisms people divinize. You divinize only the material, or rather, the basest descriptions of the material such as "observable reality" and "science and tech", and think that's enough for your self-interest. Alas, if only scientifistic materialism were enough, why would anyone still complain about secular stupidity in the irreligious times we live...

    ...and why would the materialist breed less than the religious... does that not indicate a dysgenic trend lol

    Christianity stopped “feeling true” to thoughtful Europeans about 400 years ago, and this happened in a Hayekian fashion to a lot of people who followed their own lines of inquiry without knowing each other, many of them coming from the less socially privileged classes. The British historian Alec Ryrie (Gresham College) has an interesting-looking book about this phenomenon due out in the fall. The way Ryrie describes it, the feeling of falsity came first, then the early modern philosophers tried to justify this wide-spread intuition after the fact as they sought sounder ways to ground religious belief.

    For some reason Christian apologists don’t want to deal with this unexpected breakdown of the Christian monopoly in the world of beliefs and ideas. It happened spontaneously, organically, and without any central planning to impose it on the population. Indeed, it happened in defiance of political and religious authority. Europe’s rulers got to the point where they couldn’t enforce uniformity of belief through indoctrination, persecution, censorship, torture, capital punishment, and wars against neighboring kingdoms ruled by heretics, so they just gave up and allowed some degree of religious toleration. This created elbow room for people to become atheists.

    The Christian Creative Anachronists who think they can reboot an age of faith have to grapple with the fact that the original age of faith failed the first time around for nonobvious reasons beyond anyone’s control.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    This created elbow room for people to become atheists.
     
    Wow. I distinctly remember devout Christian youth getting their faith literally humiliated out of them back in college just a couple decades ago. There was nothing remotely organic or spontaneous about it. I found it exhilarating. Most did not. I have been nursing the hangover ever since.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    There's nothing that would make happier than that second paragraph coming from the future and applying to the current age, with "Christian monopoly" replaced by "egalitarian myth" (or whatever phrase you want to use).
    , @dfordoom

    Christianity stopped “feeling true” to thoughtful Europeans about 400 years ago,
     
    Amazing that this coincided so closely with the Reformation. You don't think that maybe it was the Reformation that fatally undermined Christianity?
  34. @AaronB
    Interesting stuff.

    Interestingly, though, the white liberal was arguing from a theological perspective, whereas your guy was providing very good and well argued practical reasons.

    But I do think the divide is theological - every religious group is willing to suffer practical disadvantages for their theological vision.

    The while liberal knows his vision leads to certain practical social disadvantages, but considers them trivial and the fulfillment of his theological virtues more important.

    The only people for whom practical considerations are primary, are perhaps Republicans, but even they accept the need for tradeoffs.

    That's why I think the primary level of discussion has to be theological, not practical.

    What moral virtues or theological vision was the white liberal willing to make social tradeoffs for?

    What theological vision - not practical benefit - was your Muslim friend willing to trade individual autonomy and freedom for?

    Collectivism certainly does impose a cost on the individual - and individualism certainly does impose a cost on the social health of the collective.

    Can this be decided on the practical level?

    Before we decide on ultimate ends, we have no yardstick on which to make practical tradeoffs.

    If life on Earth is temporary and our ultimate end lies beyond, than we must organise our tradeoffs towards this goal, and they will likely favor the collective effort to transcend our physical natures, morally perfect ourselves, and unite with the Eternal.

    If life on Earth is primary, then our tradeoffs will likely favor individual autonomy and the pleasure principle at the expense of the collective or the future, because the Ephemeral is all we know.

    Everything flows from First Principles it seems to me.

    the white liberal was arguing from a theological perspective

    Not really – throwing a tantrum and casually tossing out words like beta-male and worthless father in hopes to trigger me into a reaction so they can feel even more victimized is not really a theological approach. It’s victim virtue-signaling 101. Well, I guess maybe Victimology can be considered their religion.

    very good and well argued practical reasons.

    When dealing with an anti-theist, one must provide such arguments. Arguments based in a theological perspective the man doesn’t recognize is useless.

    What moral virtues or theological vision was the white liberal willing to make social tradeoffs for?

    His whole thing is the primacy of individual autonomy – hyper-individualism. If the person is an adult, they can do whatever they want with whoever they want. It is the religion of self-worship.

    Can this be decided on the practical level?

    Millet system; good fences…

    Everything flows from First Principles it seems to me.

    Agreed, which is why they were very frustrated with me that I would not accede them the right to define the parameters of first principles.

    My framework and first principles are diametrically opposite of those on the other side of the conversation. There were be no agreement and no congruence, there is only accommodation or negotiated space in a practical compromise from both sides.

    To be honest, from a practical perspective, someone like me is willing to accommodate them in shared space and with negotiated autonomy far more than their vision. Look at the image below and think about what they envision as an end goal:

    This is not simply a joke, it is a shot across the bow in a full declaration of war. That’s OK though – as Peter Hitchens stated:
    “Islam is not so self effacing as Christianity, it doesn’t give up when dismissed or mocked or even persecuted, it carries on, it’s one of the things that’s most admirable about it, is that it stands up for itself.”

    And me standing up and simply dismissing their mockery and refusing to let them define the terms of debate really, really pissed them off.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @AaronB

    My framework and first principles are diametrically opposite of those on the other side of the conversation. There were be no agreement and no congruence, there is only accommodation or negotiated space in a practical compromise from both sides
     
    Right, I think this is the basic issue. His positions are a logical development of his First Principles, and so are yours.

    If life is transient, then hedonism makes sense. If life is eternal, then self denial makes sense.

    If physical life is all there is, then we must spare no effort to make heaven on earth. If heaven is beyond life on earth, then that should be our aim.

    Since you guys disagree on First Principles, only a negotiated truce is possible.

    That vision is horrific - and yes, it seems they envision conquest, not truce. Which is interesting.

    I am beginning to wonder if your willingness for a truce may be too accommodating...

    At the very least, the millet system - with them in a position of conquered subservience. There vision is total conquest - partial conquest - the millet system - is more humane while still effective.

    But mutual accommodation may not be possible with people who wish to conquer you.

    Islam is not so self effacing as Christianity, it doesn’t give up when dismissed or mocked or even persecuted, it carries on, it’s one of the things that’s most admirable about it, is that it stands up for itself.”
     
    And good for you. Christianity has been steadily focusing on life on this earth for the past few centuries - from that perspective, the liberals have a better argument, despite the social dysfunction.

    Once you concede life on this earth is the main thing, liberalism is inevitable. And Christians conceded this long ago.

    I truly hope Islam does not go the same way.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    You're too nice. Should've asked the white noodle neck if he had a strong relationship with his own father. The question would've been rhetorical, I'm sure--we both know what the answer is.
    , @PennTothal
    Christians politely and timidly asked for the degenerate "art" called "piss Christ" to be removed for over 20 years - to no avail.

    It was finally removed,in 2015, in the aftermath of the Hebdo cartoon killings:

    https://news.artnet.com/exhibitions/accused-of-charlie-hebdo-censorship-ap-removes-piss-christ-image-215797

    Going to deadly extremes to preserve sanctity of religious icons can be (at the same time) both deplorable and highly effective
    , @dfordoom

    This is not simply a joke, it is a shot across the bow in a full declaration of war.
     
    Yes. In the long term liberalism cannot and will not tolerate the existence of alternatives to liberalism. Religion provides such an alternative, therefore religion must be destroyed. Which means that ideological war between liberalism and Islam is inevitable and can only end with the complete victory of one or the other.

    Liberalism declared war on Christianity a couple of centuries ago. Christianity responded by trying compromise. Then they compromised some more. Then they compromised even further. Finally they tried unconditional surrender. But the liberal war on Christianity will not end until every Christian has pledged allegiance to atheism and liberalism and renounced Christianity.

    One hopes that Islam has taken note of all this. Compromise is death.
  35. @AaronB
    Interesting stuff.

    Interestingly, though, the white liberal was arguing from a theological perspective, whereas your guy was providing very good and well argued practical reasons.

    But I do think the divide is theological - every religious group is willing to suffer practical disadvantages for their theological vision.

    The while liberal knows his vision leads to certain practical social disadvantages, but considers them trivial and the fulfillment of his theological virtues more important.

    The only people for whom practical considerations are primary, are perhaps Republicans, but even they accept the need for tradeoffs.

    That's why I think the primary level of discussion has to be theological, not practical.

    What moral virtues or theological vision was the white liberal willing to make social tradeoffs for?

    What theological vision - not practical benefit - was your Muslim friend willing to trade individual autonomy and freedom for?

    Collectivism certainly does impose a cost on the individual - and individualism certainly does impose a cost on the social health of the collective.

    Can this be decided on the practical level?

    Before we decide on ultimate ends, we have no yardstick on which to make practical tradeoffs.

    If life on Earth is temporary and our ultimate end lies beyond, than we must organise our tradeoffs towards this goal, and they will likely favor the collective effort to transcend our physical natures, morally perfect ourselves, and unite with the Eternal.

    If life on Earth is primary, then our tradeoffs will likely favor individual autonomy and the pleasure principle at the expense of the collective or the future, because the Ephemeral is all we know.

    Everything flows from First Principles it seems to me.

    On biases…then and now…

    Peace.

  36. @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Those atheists were raised with an established Christian morality in their societies. Why do you think when Socrates barely doubted his own sillier gods (and even then, hypothesized that he'd go to deep sleep in the underworld anyway), that no one else came to follow him. Even his disciples were less agnostic.
    And yes indeed, God has no logical need for any of those mechanisms. And yet there are those mechanisms. We got from savannah to skyscraper, fast too. The difference is just what aspects of those mechanisms people divinize. You divinize only the material, or rather, the basest descriptions of the material such as "observable reality" and "science and tech", and think that's enough for your self-interest. Alas, if only scientifistic materialism were enough, why would anyone still complain about secular stupidity in the irreligious times we live...

    ...and why would the materialist breed less than the religious... does that not indicate a dysgenic trend lol

    and why would the materialist breed less than the religious… does that not indicate a dysgenic trend lol

    I might add that the Catholic Church wasted vast genetic potential by directing many of the capable boys within its grasp into becoming celibate priests and monks, not to mention all the ovaries it wasted by sending girls into convents.

    Perhaps the early Protestant and Reformed Churches got the traction they did because they put a stop to this nonsense and encouraged the capable men in the clergy to marry and form families, following Martin Luther’s example of marrying a former nun named Katharina von Bora. They didn’t merely fight the war of the cradle more effectively; they fought it by deploying more of the genes of their better quality men that the Catholic Church would just let go to waste.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    they fought it deploying more of the genes of their better quality men than the Catholic Church.
     
    Um, excuse me... You got your X chromosome from your mother. Show some respect.
    , @E. Collins

    I might add that the Catholic Church wasted vast genetic potential by directing many of the capable boys within its grasp into becoming celibate priests and monks, not to mention all the ovaries it wasted by sending girls into convents.

    Perhaps the early Protestant and Reformed Churches got the traction they did because they put a stop to this nonsense and encouraged the capable men in the clergy to marry and form families, following Martin Luther’s example of marrying a former nun named Katharina von Bora. They didn’t merely fight the war of the cradle more effectively; they fought it by deploying more of the genes of their better quality men that the Catholic Church would just let go to waste.
     
    Even in the present day a lot of the young men entering traditional and conservative religious orders— such as the Order of Preachers or Dominicans— are from the upper 0.5% of the cognitive elite. A lot of them with science and engineering backgrounds. Maybe a lot of the upper ranks of the cognitive elite are attracted to a life of philosophy and theology within a solid tradition (in this case Catholic and St. Thomas Aquinas)?


    Bro. Thomas Davenport, O.P. (B.S., physics, Caltech; Ph.D., theoretical physics, Stanford)
    https://dominicanfriars.org/brothers/bro-thomas-davenport-o-p/

    Bro. Anthony VanBerkum, O.P. (B.S., physics, Stanford)
    https://dominicanfriars.org/brothers/bro-anthony-vanberkum-o-p/

    Bro. Hyacinth Grubb, O.P. (BSEE, Columbia)
    https://dominicanfriars.org/brothers/bro-hyacinth-grubb-o-p/

    Bro. Columba Thomas, O.P. (M.D., Yale Medical School)
    https://dominicanfriars.org/brothers/bro-columba-thomas-o-p/

    Bro. Isidore Rice, O.P. (B.S., materials science and engineering, University of Maryland)
    https://dominicanfriars.org/brothers/br-isidore-rice-o-p/

    Fr. Humbert Kilanowski, O.P. (B.S., math and astronomy, Case Western Reserve Univ.; Ph.D., math, Ohio State Univ.)
    https://dominicanfriars.org/brothers/bro-humbert-kilanowski-o-p/

    https://dominicanfriars.org/alma-mater-overview/

    https://dominicanfriars.org/content/uploads/2017/06/Screen-Shot-2017-11-01-at-10.09.22-AM-1605x460.png
     
    , @polaco
    In those days, when the Catholic Church was still a relevant societal force, fertility rates were high so even if you ended up with no offspring, your siblings probably did, so the family line continued, it's better to have five married kids, a priest and a nun, than one or two, who may or may not give you grandkids, as is the case currently. Da Vinci and Tesla had no kids, I don't know about other inventors, and while you can leave the raising of the family to your wife, no family means more time to work on your projects, but they're good to have when you get old.
  37. @advancedatheist
    Christianity stopped "feeling true" to thoughtful Europeans about 400 years ago, and this happened in a Hayekian fashion to a lot of people who followed their own lines of inquiry without knowing each other, many of them coming from the less socially privileged classes. The British historian Alec Ryrie (Gresham College) has an interesting-looking book about this phenomenon due out in the fall. The way Ryrie describes it, the feeling of falsity came first, then the early modern philosophers tried to justify this wide-spread intuition after the fact as they sought sounder ways to ground religious belief.

    For some reason Christian apologists don't want to deal with this unexpected breakdown of the Christian monopoly in the world of beliefs and ideas. It happened spontaneously, organically, and without any central planning to impose it on the population. Indeed, it happened in defiance of political and religious authority. Europe's rulers got to the point where they couldn't enforce uniformity of belief through indoctrination, persecution, censorship, torture, capital punishment, and wars against neighboring kingdoms ruled by heretics, so they just gave up and allowed some degree of religious toleration. This created elbow room for people to become atheists.

    The Christian Creative Anachronists who think they can reboot an age of faith have to grapple with the fact that the original age of faith failed the first time around for nonobvious reasons beyond anyone's control.

    This created elbow room for people to become atheists.

    Wow. I distinctly remember devout Christian youth getting their faith literally humiliated out of them back in college just a couple decades ago. There was nothing remotely organic or spontaneous about it. I found it exhilarating. Most did not. I have been nursing the hangover ever since.

    • Replies: @advancedatheist
    Who humiliated the Catholic priest Jean Meslier (1664-1729) into becoming an atheist? He arrived at that position on his own.

    And he had plenty of company in his era.
  38. • LOL: Rosie
    • Replies: @Duke84
    God,Jesus,and Nietzsche are all dead.
  39. @advancedatheist

    and why would the materialist breed less than the religious… does that not indicate a dysgenic trend lol
     
    I might add that the Catholic Church wasted vast genetic potential by directing many of the capable boys within its grasp into becoming celibate priests and monks, not to mention all the ovaries it wasted by sending girls into convents.

    Perhaps the early Protestant and Reformed Churches got the traction they did because they put a stop to this nonsense and encouraged the capable men in the clergy to marry and form families, following Martin Luther's example of marrying a former nun named Katharina von Bora. They didn't merely fight the war of the cradle more effectively; they fought it by deploying more of the genes of their better quality men that the Catholic Church would just let go to waste.

    they fought it deploying more of the genes of their better quality men than the Catholic Church.

    Um, excuse me… You got your X chromosome from your mother. Show some respect.

  40. @Talha

    the white liberal was arguing from a theological perspective
     
    Not really - throwing a tantrum and casually tossing out words like beta-male and worthless father in hopes to trigger me into a reaction so they can feel even more victimized is not really a theological approach. It's victim virtue-signaling 101. Well, I guess maybe Victimology can be considered their religion.

    very good and well argued practical reasons.
     
    When dealing with an anti-theist, one must provide such arguments. Arguments based in a theological perspective the man doesn't recognize is useless.

    What moral virtues or theological vision was the white liberal willing to make social tradeoffs for?
     
    His whole thing is the primacy of individual autonomy - hyper-individualism. If the person is an adult, they can do whatever they want with whoever they want. It is the religion of self-worship.

    Can this be decided on the practical level?
     
    Millet system; good fences...

    Everything flows from First Principles it seems to me.
     
    Agreed, which is why they were very frustrated with me that I would not accede them the right to define the parameters of first principles.

    My framework and first principles are diametrically opposite of those on the other side of the conversation. There were be no agreement and no congruence, there is only accommodation or negotiated space in a practical compromise from both sides.

    To be honest, from a practical perspective, someone like me is willing to accommodate them in shared space and with negotiated autonomy far more than their vision. Look at the image below and think about what they envision as an end goal:
    https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/1147620196712144897

    This is not simply a joke, it is a shot across the bow in a full declaration of war. That's OK though - as Peter Hitchens stated:
    "Islam is not so self effacing as Christianity, it doesn't give up when dismissed or mocked or even persecuted, it carries on, it's one of the things that's most admirable about it, is that it stands up for itself."

    And me standing up and simply dismissing their mockery and refusing to let them define the terms of debate really, really pissed them off.

    Peace.

    My framework and first principles are diametrically opposite of those on the other side of the conversation. There were be no agreement and no congruence, there is only accommodation or negotiated space in a practical compromise from both sides

    Right, I think this is the basic issue. His positions are a logical development of his First Principles, and so are yours.

    If life is transient, then hedonism makes sense. If life is eternal, then self denial makes sense.

    If physical life is all there is, then we must spare no effort to make heaven on earth. If heaven is beyond life on earth, then that should be our aim.

    Since you guys disagree on First Principles, only a negotiated truce is possible.

    That vision is horrific – and yes, it seems they envision conquest, not truce. Which is interesting.

    I am beginning to wonder if your willingness for a truce may be too accommodating…

    At the very least, the millet system – with them in a position of conquered subservience. There vision is total conquest – partial conquest – the millet system – is more humane while still effective.

    But mutual accommodation may not be possible with people who wish to conquer you.

    Islam is not so self effacing as Christianity, it doesn’t give up when dismissed or mocked or even persecuted, it carries on, it’s one of the things that’s most admirable about it, is that it stands up for itself.”

    And good for you. Christianity has been steadily focusing on life on this earth for the past few centuries – from that perspective, the liberals have a better argument, despite the social dysfunction.

    Once you concede life on this earth is the main thing, liberalism is inevitable. And Christians conceded this long ago.

    I truly hope Islam does not go the same way.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    If physical life is all there is, then we must spare no effort to make heaven on earth. If heaven is beyond life on earth, then that should be our aim.
     
    Hmmm. I think I'm beginning to understand my (friendly) quarrel with you.

    Christians must learn to cope with tension, and we understand that it is unavoidable.

    The following are both very destructive beliefs that are inconsistent with life:

    1. This life is all there is.
    2. This life is meaningless.

    Take either if those on board and you are finished.
  41. @AaronB

    My framework and first principles are diametrically opposite of those on the other side of the conversation. There were be no agreement and no congruence, there is only accommodation or negotiated space in a practical compromise from both sides
     
    Right, I think this is the basic issue. His positions are a logical development of his First Principles, and so are yours.

    If life is transient, then hedonism makes sense. If life is eternal, then self denial makes sense.

    If physical life is all there is, then we must spare no effort to make heaven on earth. If heaven is beyond life on earth, then that should be our aim.

    Since you guys disagree on First Principles, only a negotiated truce is possible.

    That vision is horrific - and yes, it seems they envision conquest, not truce. Which is interesting.

    I am beginning to wonder if your willingness for a truce may be too accommodating...

    At the very least, the millet system - with them in a position of conquered subservience. There vision is total conquest - partial conquest - the millet system - is more humane while still effective.

    But mutual accommodation may not be possible with people who wish to conquer you.

    Islam is not so self effacing as Christianity, it doesn’t give up when dismissed or mocked or even persecuted, it carries on, it’s one of the things that’s most admirable about it, is that it stands up for itself.”
     
    And good for you. Christianity has been steadily focusing on life on this earth for the past few centuries - from that perspective, the liberals have a better argument, despite the social dysfunction.

    Once you concede life on this earth is the main thing, liberalism is inevitable. And Christians conceded this long ago.

    I truly hope Islam does not go the same way.

    If physical life is all there is, then we must spare no effort to make heaven on earth. If heaven is beyond life on earth, then that should be our aim.

    Hmmm. I think I’m beginning to understand my (friendly) quarrel with you.

    Christians must learn to cope with tension, and we understand that it is unavoidable.

    The following are both very destructive beliefs that are inconsistent with life:

    1. This life is all there is.
    2. This life is meaningless.

    Take either if those on board and you are finished.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    I did not realize you had a friendly quarrel with me :)

    I am not entirely sure what you are saying. In the religious view, it is the afterlife that gives this life meaning.

    In other words, this life is not an end itself. It's a place where we have a certain task to perform.

    Does that make it meaningless? Rather the opposite - it gives life meaning. We have something very important to do.

    And the spiritual satisfactions of this life are a foretaste of things to come.

    But yes, this does mean that this life has only secondary value.

    Are you suggesting a more balanced view, where life on Earth has equal value to the afterlife?

    The religious view is not balanced in this sense, but it does see life on Earth as highly important - so it is balanced in a different sense.

    In the religious view, life on Earth will successfully organize itself if you focus on the afterlife - because that is the purpose of human life. It does not mean retreating from social obligation - except for some special cases.

    Aiming for success in this life for its own sake, creates an inhuman life, a life that we were not made for, and thus not capable of being anything but dysfunctional.

    I would suggest you are somewhat still attached to the World - and that is perfectly ok! That you recognize the importance of the afterlife puts you miles ahead of most people, and is perfectly compatible with a high level of religion and spirituality. Do what you can!

    I am just describing an "ideal" religious life, but in every religion there are pious "laymen" who may be on a high level, but are not the spiritual elite. And there is nothing wrong with that.

    Not that I myself am anything other than a laymen, I am merely outlining what the spiritually elite ideal is. I too can only do what I can.

  42. @Rosie

    If physical life is all there is, then we must spare no effort to make heaven on earth. If heaven is beyond life on earth, then that should be our aim.
     
    Hmmm. I think I'm beginning to understand my (friendly) quarrel with you.

    Christians must learn to cope with tension, and we understand that it is unavoidable.

    The following are both very destructive beliefs that are inconsistent with life:

    1. This life is all there is.
    2. This life is meaningless.

    Take either if those on board and you are finished.

    I did not realize you had a friendly quarrel with me 🙂

    I am not entirely sure what you are saying. In the religious view, it is the afterlife that gives this life meaning.

    In other words, this life is not an end itself. It’s a place where we have a certain task to perform.

    Does that make it meaningless? Rather the opposite – it gives life meaning. We have something very important to do.

    And the spiritual satisfactions of this life are a foretaste of things to come.

    But yes, this does mean that this life has only secondary value.

    Are you suggesting a more balanced view, where life on Earth has equal value to the afterlife?

    The religious view is not balanced in this sense, but it does see life on Earth as highly important – so it is balanced in a different sense.

    In the religious view, life on Earth will successfully organize itself if you focus on the afterlife – because that is the purpose of human life. It does not mean retreating from social obligation – except for some special cases.

    Aiming for success in this life for its own sake, creates an inhuman life, a life that we were not made for, and thus not capable of being anything but dysfunctional.

    I would suggest you are somewhat still attached to the World – and that is perfectly ok! That you recognize the importance of the afterlife puts you miles ahead of most people, and is perfectly compatible with a high level of religion and spirituality. Do what you can!

    I am just describing an “ideal” religious life, but in every religion there are pious “laymen” who may be on a high level, but are not the spiritual elite. And there is nothing wrong with that.

    Not that I myself am anything other than a laymen, I am merely outlining what the spiritually elite ideal is. I too can only do what I can.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I would suggest you are somewhat still attached to the World –
     
    Guilty!
    , @iffen
    spiritually elite ideal

    LOL
  43. @AaronB
    I did not realize you had a friendly quarrel with me :)

    I am not entirely sure what you are saying. In the religious view, it is the afterlife that gives this life meaning.

    In other words, this life is not an end itself. It's a place where we have a certain task to perform.

    Does that make it meaningless? Rather the opposite - it gives life meaning. We have something very important to do.

    And the spiritual satisfactions of this life are a foretaste of things to come.

    But yes, this does mean that this life has only secondary value.

    Are you suggesting a more balanced view, where life on Earth has equal value to the afterlife?

    The religious view is not balanced in this sense, but it does see life on Earth as highly important - so it is balanced in a different sense.

    In the religious view, life on Earth will successfully organize itself if you focus on the afterlife - because that is the purpose of human life. It does not mean retreating from social obligation - except for some special cases.

    Aiming for success in this life for its own sake, creates an inhuman life, a life that we were not made for, and thus not capable of being anything but dysfunctional.

    I would suggest you are somewhat still attached to the World - and that is perfectly ok! That you recognize the importance of the afterlife puts you miles ahead of most people, and is perfectly compatible with a high level of religion and spirituality. Do what you can!

    I am just describing an "ideal" religious life, but in every religion there are pious "laymen" who may be on a high level, but are not the spiritual elite. And there is nothing wrong with that.

    Not that I myself am anything other than a laymen, I am merely outlining what the spiritually elite ideal is. I too can only do what I can.

    I would suggest you are somewhat still attached to the World –

    Guilty!

    • Replies: @AaronB
    As are we all :)
  44. @Rosie

    I would suggest you are somewhat still attached to the World –
     
    Guilty!

    As are we all 🙂

  45. “For some reason Christian apologists don’t want to deal with this unexpected breakdown of the Christian monopoly in the world of beliefs and ideas.”

    Feeling a tad bit feisty today — excuse me or not but the above comment is just nuts. The entirety of christian walk is dealing with the faith and the lack thereof.

    If any the leadership of today has bent over backwards to appeal to a modernized community.

    And nearly every denomination has done so to appeal to a larger doubting populous and they have contradicted christ and scripture in the attempt.

    https://www.britannica.com/event/Reformation

    but for all the christian faiths

    women in the church

    women as priests

    women and nuns

    women as Bishops

    the place of the eucharist

    the place of communion

    the role of the Bible

    bible languages

    the role of divorce

    the role of relations in marriage and out

    same sex marriage

    same sex practioners in the church

    Notorious Vatican Summits

    The partitioning of the church into various denominations

    The least of attentions made to modern effects on people of faith and people in general, and nearly all of it in response to shifts in the public sphere regarding christian belief.

    Dwindling faith was acknowledged by Christ and the Apostles a staple reality

    If the permissibility of same sex conduct is acceptable in today’s churches is not an indication of leadership response, however misguided — then perhaps a definition of needs to be provided

  46. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "The percentage of white liberals who are atheist or agnostic has more than doubled over the last three decades; the percentage who are firm believers has correspondingly been cut in half."

    These people are not only still believers, but zealous believers at that. They have merely converted from a previous faith to the new progressive religion.

    And they look at modern genetics like ‘fundamentalist’ Christians look at dinosaurs bones–as a way of testing the faith!

  47. Deicide and the rise of empathy. Empathy is unbelievably destructive. It allows you to feel other people’s pain but you never feel other people’s Joy. So you’re always stuck in this painful place and it’s some point start to think that’s all the world is. It’s seems it destroys your personal capacity for joy. If that’s all I ever felt I’d want to destroy everything also

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The rising interest in Stoicism--which sees joy as the highest emotional state attainable--makes sense in this context.
  48. @Rosie

    This created elbow room for people to become atheists.
     
    Wow. I distinctly remember devout Christian youth getting their faith literally humiliated out of them back in college just a couple decades ago. There was nothing remotely organic or spontaneous about it. I found it exhilarating. Most did not. I have been nursing the hangover ever since.

    Who humiliated the Catholic priest Jean Meslier (1664-1729) into becoming an atheist? He arrived at that position on his own.

    And he had plenty of company in his era.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Who humiliated the Catholic priest Jean Meslier (1664-1729) into becoming an atheist? He arrived at that position on his own.
     
    I have no doubt that thinkers have been thinking doubtful thoughts since thinking has been a thing, but the question remains: Whence the need to dechristianize the rest of the populace?
    , @polaco
    He's an individual, from a time when Christianity was still flourishing around the world. Rosie noted the concentrated, collective propaganda efforts implemented by the communists in academia and in the government bureaucracy after WW2. Aside from that, the entire Eastern Block witnessed the same on a much higher level, with physical attacks and persecutions against Christian leaders.
  49. “As are we all.”

    Speak for yourself.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    What, you have given up the World?

    Bravo! I admire you.
  50. @EliteCommInc.
    "As are we all."


    Speak for yourself.

    What, you have given up the World?

    Bravo! I admire you.

  51. @SunBakedSuburb
    Karma awaits us in the afterlife, not judgement by the CEO of heaven.

    Karma awaits us in the afterlife, not judgement by the CEO of heaven.

    Gee, I always pictured Heaven with a rope line and bouncers (Michael & Gabriel?) deciding who gets in. The Big Guy would be inside at the booth cueing a mix to die for.

  52. Market liberalism over the last three centuries or so has played a role in Christianity’s decline. A few centuries back the most capable European men had few career opportunities, so by default some of them wound up in the Church, and their presence gave that institution whatever efficiency and respect it could command. Also these men had their rulers’ ears, and they could tell the secular authorities what to do about enforcing religious beliefs in their jurisdiction.

    Now the capable men have much better things to do with their lives by going into medicine, business, technology, science, the media and so forth. This leaves Christian churches with having to find talent among the less competent leftovers, and as a result Christianity has lost a lot of its former status. Clergymen’s and theologians’ opinions now carry about the same weight as truck drivers’.

    We can see empirical evidence of this loss of status from the fact that surveys of the market value of college majors rank degrees in theology, religious studies and related fields way down the list in terms of earnings potential. Conservatives like to mock liberals who major in the social sciences or the humanities and who can’t get decent paying jobs, but the guys who major in religious imaginaria face the same problem.

    And notice that this has happened through impersonal market forces, not because some mean atheists rigged the market against theology majors.

  53. “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”

    ― G.K. Chesterton

  54. @advancedatheist
    Who humiliated the Catholic priest Jean Meslier (1664-1729) into becoming an atheist? He arrived at that position on his own.

    And he had plenty of company in his era.

    Who humiliated the Catholic priest Jean Meslier (1664-1729) into becoming an atheist? He arrived at that position on his own.

    I have no doubt that thinkers have been thinking doubtful thoughts since thinking has been a thing, but the question remains: Whence the need to dechristianize the rest of the populace?

    • Replies: @advancedatheist
    The Christianizing of the population happened coercively the first time around. Now that clergymen have to compete like merchants for customers instead of having the power of the state behind them to force people to buy their services, it shouldn't surprise anyone that more and and people have decided not to spend their discretionary time and money on religion.
    , @Mr. Rational

    Whence the need to dechristianize the rest of the populace?
     
    When one has what one believes to be a more truthful narrative, one would be awfully mean (if not cruel) to keep it to one's self.
  55. @AaronB
    I did not realize you had a friendly quarrel with me :)

    I am not entirely sure what you are saying. In the religious view, it is the afterlife that gives this life meaning.

    In other words, this life is not an end itself. It's a place where we have a certain task to perform.

    Does that make it meaningless? Rather the opposite - it gives life meaning. We have something very important to do.

    And the spiritual satisfactions of this life are a foretaste of things to come.

    But yes, this does mean that this life has only secondary value.

    Are you suggesting a more balanced view, where life on Earth has equal value to the afterlife?

    The religious view is not balanced in this sense, but it does see life on Earth as highly important - so it is balanced in a different sense.

    In the religious view, life on Earth will successfully organize itself if you focus on the afterlife - because that is the purpose of human life. It does not mean retreating from social obligation - except for some special cases.

    Aiming for success in this life for its own sake, creates an inhuman life, a life that we were not made for, and thus not capable of being anything but dysfunctional.

    I would suggest you are somewhat still attached to the World - and that is perfectly ok! That you recognize the importance of the afterlife puts you miles ahead of most people, and is perfectly compatible with a high level of religion and spirituality. Do what you can!

    I am just describing an "ideal" religious life, but in every religion there are pious "laymen" who may be on a high level, but are not the spiritual elite. And there is nothing wrong with that.

    Not that I myself am anything other than a laymen, I am merely outlining what the spiritually elite ideal is. I too can only do what I can.

    spiritually elite ideal

    LOL

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Are you not comfortable with the idea that some ways of life are more worthy than others, iffen?

    It gives is something to aspire to, to lift our gaze up to. Perhaps you prefer egalitarianism.

    Or do you perhaps object to the notion that one might strive for spiritual superiority, and think only physical superiority is real.
  56. @iffen
    spiritually elite ideal

    LOL

    Are you not comfortable with the idea that some ways of life are more worthy than others, iffen?

    It gives is something to aspire to, to lift our gaze up to. Perhaps you prefer egalitarianism.

    Or do you perhaps object to the notion that one might strive for spiritual superiority, and think only physical superiority is real.

  57. Are you not comfortable with the idea that some ways of life are more worthy than others, iffen?

    I am definitely comfortable with that idea. I just don’t believe pyramid power is a worthy one.

    Perhaps you prefer egalitarianism.

    Yes, I do prefer egalitarianism.

    Or do you perhaps object to the notion that one might strive for spiritual superiority, and think only physical superiority is real.

    Nonsensical.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Very clearly expressed.

    While I think all humans have tremendous value, I believe some ways of life better fulfill what we were created for, and those who approach more closely to this life, surpass the rest of humanity.

    So I do not believe in egalitarianism, but I do believe in the worth of each individual and the respect due to him or her.

    I understand you reject the existence of the spiritual world, and from that premise, my distinction between physical and spiritual must appear nonsensical to you.

    I can appreciate that.
  58. @iffen
    Are you not comfortable with the idea that some ways of life are more worthy than others, iffen?

    I am definitely comfortable with that idea. I just don't believe pyramid power is a worthy one.

    Perhaps you prefer egalitarianism.

    Yes, I do prefer egalitarianism.

    Or do you perhaps object to the notion that one might strive for spiritual superiority, and think only physical superiority is real.

    Nonsensical.

    Very clearly expressed.

    While I think all humans have tremendous value, I believe some ways of life better fulfill what we were created for, and those who approach more closely to this life, surpass the rest of humanity.

    So I do not believe in egalitarianism, but I do believe in the worth of each individual and the respect due to him or her.

    I understand you reject the existence of the spiritual world, and from that premise, my distinction between physical and spiritual must appear nonsensical to you.

    I can appreciate that.

    • Replies: @iffen
    I understand you reject the existence of the spiritual world, and from that premise, my distinction between physical and spiritual must appear nonsensical to you.

    Thank you.

    I have tried with mild ridicule to "broaden your horizons," but I have failed.

    I will make no further attempts to "burst your bubble," as one of my rules is: Don't stomp on anyone's dream for no good reason."

    Seriously though, my lightning bug population is dramatically down this year.
  59. @AaronB
    Very clearly expressed.

    While I think all humans have tremendous value, I believe some ways of life better fulfill what we were created for, and those who approach more closely to this life, surpass the rest of humanity.

    So I do not believe in egalitarianism, but I do believe in the worth of each individual and the respect due to him or her.

    I understand you reject the existence of the spiritual world, and from that premise, my distinction between physical and spiritual must appear nonsensical to you.

    I can appreciate that.

    I understand you reject the existence of the spiritual world, and from that premise, my distinction between physical and spiritual must appear nonsensical to you.

    Thank you.

    I have tried with mild ridicule to “broaden your horizons,” but I have failed.

    I will make no further attempts to “burst your bubble,” as one of my rules is: Don’t stomp on anyone’s dream for no good reason.”

    Seriously though, my lightning bug population is dramatically down this year.

    • LOL: AaronB
  60. @Talha
    Just got wrapped up with an exchange on a forum with a bunch of ex-Muslim atheists and their fan base. I cannot believe the level of pettiness and lack of self-reflection these lot have.

    For proposing that I, as a father, have the right to shun my daughter (like not invite her to social events and gatherings) in the case that she defies the values I brought her up with, I was called everything from a worthless and abusive father to a beta-male whose masculinity is threatened by my daughter deciding to explore her sexuality by her right as an adult to get plowed by strangers on the internet for money.

    Other than maybe one or two normal people, this is what we are dealing with. If these people take root in society, you will eventually be shamed for not throwing an ice cream party for your daughter announcing her first intersectional gang bang.

    One White guy (self-proclaimed anti-theist) was one of the most triggered apparently and to come to join the fray on behalf of the ex-Muslim thots and questioned and insulted my manhood and worth as a father, so I simply looped in a serious alpha-male (convert brother, ex-military, BJJ-enthusiast, gun-enthusiast, multiple wives [actually coaches other men how to make it happen]) and he just laid it down:
    "I am a strong advocate of social shame and group expulsions. Society has made inclusion a right instead of a privilege which is to be earned and maintained. This is why there is zero incentive for people to follow social and cultural norms and be disloyal to their in-group. This disloyalty includes morals and ethics and must be enforced on a micro level (family) in order to function on a macro level (society). If society is willing to absorb the disloyal and ethical misfits we have no way to police society on a whole.

    The Athenians used to ostracize citizens for 10 years or permanently by unanimous agreement. A classic example of this was Themistocles who although was a celebrated general with combat victories under his belt in protection of the Athenian state was still banished from the state for going against the standard norm in terms of not angering allies, in his case the Spartans. Despite his moves being to the benefit of the state they were considered detrimental to alliances. So I ask, how much more so should we be aggressive in regards to not only family members but members of society who behave in a way which is detrimental to us on both or even individual levels?

    There's absolutely nothing beta to maintaining reputation of not only self, but family and nation. Reputation is everything it is to be gaurded like stacks of gold, anyone who says otherwise is a person who has no reputation or no loyalty to anyone or anything. We in the west find ourselves in the midst of a demographic shift and rapid social change that no one wants nor is happy about because we have surrendered to the idea of individualism in extremes and left off collectivism with limitations

    What I mean by this is I am not a socialist, I mean collectivism in terms of social responsibility in terms of a group. You claim to belong to a group, be it family or a society, then there are obligations that come with the privilege of being part of that group. If I join Tates war room (https://www.cobratate.com/product/war-room/), although paid for, it's a privilege to be accepted into the group, with it comes behavioral expectations in terms of loyalty and standards that should not be breached (twitter example there for you). If I break those standards I am removed, shunned, banned, shamed on twitter most likely...

    How much more so for family members? Nothing beta about it my man, not in the least. Shame her, shun her and of she doesn't rectify banish her but... Leave a door open of course, she's blood, family. The Malaysians have a saying in regards to family, oak is oak, even if it's rotten. Shun her, leave a door open if she corrects course but she cannot be allowed to remain and spread rot."

    The tattooed White guy didn't say a word. Well, "kill god" and see what happens I guess...

    Peace.

    Chill dude. Have a beer and a BLT.

    • Replies: @Talha
    “...and clap while your daughter pole dances in front you - don’t forget to tip princess big!”

    Yeah, that about sums up what those apostates were saying...well, sometimes a well-places meme that triggers them is the best response...
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqmeuPWX0AAGush.jpg

    Peace.
    , @Mr. Rational
    Dammit, iffen, POST WARNINGS.  You owe me a new keyboard!
  61. @advancedatheist

    and why would the materialist breed less than the religious… does that not indicate a dysgenic trend lol
     
    I might add that the Catholic Church wasted vast genetic potential by directing many of the capable boys within its grasp into becoming celibate priests and monks, not to mention all the ovaries it wasted by sending girls into convents.

    Perhaps the early Protestant and Reformed Churches got the traction they did because they put a stop to this nonsense and encouraged the capable men in the clergy to marry and form families, following Martin Luther's example of marrying a former nun named Katharina von Bora. They didn't merely fight the war of the cradle more effectively; they fought it by deploying more of the genes of their better quality men that the Catholic Church would just let go to waste.

    I might add that the Catholic Church wasted vast genetic potential by directing many of the capable boys within its grasp into becoming celibate priests and monks, not to mention all the ovaries it wasted by sending girls into convents.

    Perhaps the early Protestant and Reformed Churches got the traction they did because they put a stop to this nonsense and encouraged the capable men in the clergy to marry and form families, following Martin Luther’s example of marrying a former nun named Katharina von Bora. They didn’t merely fight the war of the cradle more effectively; they fought it by deploying more of the genes of their better quality men that the Catholic Church would just let go to waste.

    Even in the present day a lot of the young men entering traditional and conservative religious orders— such as the Order of Preachers or Dominicans— are from the upper 0.5% of the cognitive elite. A lot of them with science and engineering backgrounds. Maybe a lot of the upper ranks of the cognitive elite are attracted to a life of philosophy and theology within a solid tradition (in this case Catholic and St. Thomas Aquinas)?

    Bro. Thomas Davenport, O.P. (B.S., physics, Caltech; Ph.D., theoretical physics, Stanford)
    https://dominicanfriars.org/brothers/bro-thomas-davenport-o-p/

    Bro. Anthony VanBerkum, O.P. (B.S., physics, Stanford)
    https://dominicanfriars.org/brothers/bro-anthony-vanberkum-o-p/

    Bro. Hyacinth Grubb, O.P. (BSEE, Columbia)
    https://dominicanfriars.org/brothers/bro-hyacinth-grubb-o-p/

    Bro. Columba Thomas, O.P. (M.D., Yale Medical School)
    https://dominicanfriars.org/brothers/bro-columba-thomas-o-p/

    Bro. Isidore Rice, O.P. (B.S., materials science and engineering, University of Maryland)
    https://dominicanfriars.org/brothers/br-isidore-rice-o-p/

    Fr. Humbert Kilanowski, O.P. (B.S., math and astronomy, Case Western Reserve Univ.; Ph.D., math, Ohio State Univ.)
    https://dominicanfriars.org/brothers/bro-humbert-kilanowski-o-p/

    https://dominicanfriars.org/alma-mater-overview/

  62. @iffen
    Chill dude. Have a beer and a BLT.

    “…and clap while your daughter pole dances in front you – don’t forget to tip princess big!”

    Yeah, that about sums up what those apostates were saying…well, sometimes a well-places meme that triggers them is the best response…

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    I feel your pain, Talha.

    But look at it from my point of view. I have to deal with the decent, pious Muslims and the insane apostates.
  63. “What, you have given up the World?”

    I think understanding the meaning and nature of salvation helps. In no longer of it. When a person in christ stumbles , fails, falters . . . it has meaning form him and the world but in the treality of the supernatural —- none.

    And I am going to avoid being preachy — but the person in christ is seen through the “blood of the lamb” and as such is seen through that sacrifice.

    As such there is no guilt —-

    now I should be careful here because some people take scriptural truth and are off to the races in craziness:

    open borders
    anything Israel wants
    same sex practices
    murdering children in the womb
    theft in the name of good works
    all manner of behavior

    on the concept of free from guilt and it’s hard truth to incorporate into the mind — but in truth a believer is guilt free

    free of the wold in a very real sense

    can of worms no doubt

    ———————————-

    after the last twenty or so years more like blowing up the world —- especially after today

    laugh

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Very nice.

    I thought it meant free from Adam's original sin, but not necessarily free from personal sins, which determine ones status in the afterlife.

    That is why repentance is needed despite Jesus's sacrifice.

    But I am not an expert.

    But very good that you are free from the World, or attempting to be. That should be all of ours goal.

    And while Judaism does not believe in celibacy, it believes in sexual moderation and restraint, and accepts that for some men extreme measures may serve as an example to us all.

    Good luck.
  64. @Talha
    “...and clap while your daughter pole dances in front you - don’t forget to tip princess big!”

    Yeah, that about sums up what those apostates were saying...well, sometimes a well-places meme that triggers them is the best response...
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqmeuPWX0AAGush.jpg

    Peace.

    I feel your pain, Talha.

    But look at it from my point of view. I have to deal with the decent, pious Muslims and the insane apostates.

  65. @EliteCommInc.
    "What, you have given up the World?"


    I think understanding the meaning and nature of salvation helps. In no longer of it. When a person in christ stumbles , fails, falters . . . it has meaning form him and the world but in the treality of the supernatural ---- none.


    And I am going to avoid being preachy --- but the person in christ is seen through the "blood of the lamb" and as such is seen through that sacrifice.


    As such there is no guilt ----

    now I should be careful here because some people take scriptural truth and are off to the races in craziness:


    open borders
    anything Israel wants
    same sex practices
    murdering children in the womb
    theft in the name of good works
    all manner of behavior

    on the concept of free from guilt and it's hard truth to incorporate into the mind --- but in truth a believer is guilt free

    free of the wold in a very real sense

    can of worms no doubt


    ----------------------------------

    after the last twenty or so years more like blowing up the world ---- especially after today

    laugh

    Very nice.

    I thought it meant free from Adam’s original sin, but not necessarily free from personal sins, which determine ones status in the afterlife.

    That is why repentance is needed despite Jesus’s sacrifice.

    But I am not an expert.

    But very good that you are free from the World, or attempting to be. That should be all of ours goal.

    And while Judaism does not believe in celibacy, it believes in sexual moderation and restraint, and accepts that for some men extreme measures may serve as an example to us all.

    Good luck.

  66. Side note:

    you can shun god

    you can ignore god

    you can even curse god

    blaspheme the spirit of god

    But there is no “killing God”.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Good point, lol.
  67. “That is why repentance is needed despite Jesus’s sacrifice.”

    repentance as to accountability but whether failing to do so so nullifies the sacrifice is another
    matter.

    I am going to pause – at least tread lightly because we are broaching the question of works to grace.

    Grace (forgiveness by God through Christ) is freely given — works (failing to repent) does not nullify that gift.

    In fact according to the word, there is but one unforgiveable err — grieving the holy spirit — which may be my actual state at present — and that is in my view an unwillingness to forgive as I have been so — bitterness.

    Note: I am not of the school that supports not repenting — that is not what i am saying. but being free from world would entail as a work to salvation.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Interesting, thanks for sharing.

    Judaism also has the concept of grace, in that a man may try very hard to achieve holiness, but he can only initiate the process - God must complete it, as a free gift.

    Bitterness is hard to overcome, I know well - but constant reflection on God's great gifts, and the promise of ultimate salvation, can go far to mitigate it.
    , @Talha

    In fact according to the word, there is but one unforgiveable err — grieving the holy spirit —
     
    Question; is there a specific Biblical reference for this or was this derived through some other indirect means? Thanks.

    Peace.
  68. @anon
    Are you so nostalgic for the 00's that you want to refight creation/evolution wars? Remember, pushing "intelligent design" and "creation science" created the new atheist movement more than 9/11.
    The atheists won the battle decisively - do you think you will win the next time?

    The atheists won the battle decisively – do you think you will win the next time?

    In theory at least, we’re supposed to follow the evidence where it leads. Dogmatic atheists make it very clear that they are unwilling to do this, and they will therefore be politely asked to get the f*** out of the way so the rest of us can have a grown-up conversation.

    Either that, or we’ll just have to wait till they die, and it won’t be long now.

    It’s interesting that you use the term “battle,” thus revealing your view of this issue as a question of power rather than truth.

    You all have been claiming that scientific evidence disproves the existence of God for almost 200 years, and now that things are looking up for our side, you cry dirty pull and demand a strict wall of separation between science and theology.

    We’re not doin’ that.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    In theory at least, we’re supposed to follow the evidence where it leads. Dogmatic atheists make it very clear that they are unwilling to do this, and they will therefore be politely asked to get the f*** out of the way so the rest of us can have a grown-up conversation.
     
    You claim to have logos on your side, but when you claimed that "intelligent design" wasn't just warmed-over creationism, the evidence in Kitzmiller vs. Dover proved you not just totally but laughably wrong.

    If you have to lie to push your theology, how can you be ANYTHING but servants of the father of lies?  You're not fit to be part of an adult conversation.

    Either that, or we’ll just have to wait till they die, and it won’t be long now.
     
    I come from a Christian background.  I noticed the inconsistencies on my own; I was not "indoctrinated".  "You" keep creating more of "us" by lying to people.

    It’s interesting that you use the term “battle,” thus revealing your view of this issue as a question of power rather than truth.
     
    When truth is rejected as authoritative, it comes down to force.  You chose the battle, not us.

    You all have been claiming that scientific evidence disproves the existence of God for almost 200 years, and now that things are looking up for our side, you cry dirty pull and demand a strict wall of separation between science and theology.
     
    Nothing can disprove the existence of "God" per se.  "God" is beyond questioning and so cannot be disproven.

    What has been disproven is most of the arguments for "God".  "God" has been claimed to be responsible for a host of events.  Evidence shows that almost all of those events did not happen as claimed, or did not happen at all*.  This debunks the book from "God".

    We’re not doin’ that.
     
    You're not getting it.  Either align your theology with the proven elements of physical reality, or GTFO.  It's the refusal to pursue that alignment which forced me to give up the Old Testament and thus Christianity.  Erroneous bronze-age tribal myth or Satanic lie, wrong is wrong.

    * The TWO (yes, two) creation sequences in Genesis are contradictory and both are wrong.  There was no world-wide flood at any time humans existed, and light came first.  The observed genetic biodiversity in existence today requires that evolution ran at hundreds if not millions of times the rate observed if the fable of Noah is true, including human biodiversity.
  69. I have to believe that the millions of christians who have supported some very peculiar practices in the name of god believing the same Godly are in God’s grace

    If christians think their support for the Iraq was was just — and it was not — I believe that god’s grace (forgiveness) reigns

    And my particular pet peeve using the mark of Cain to justify abuse of millions — actually using god’s word incorrectly (even knowingly) —— god’s forgiveness still reigns

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Very interesting.

    An analogous concept in Judaism, expressed differently, is that the quality of mercy is God's essential attribute, because if merely Justice reigns - we would all be harshly condemned for our failings.

    But the merciful God never punishes us quite as much as we deserve, which would be devastating.

    Justice on its own , in Judaism, without mercy, has negative connotations.

    But we would also not say that Gods grace or mercy forgives us completely - personal accountability is upheld, but greatly mitigated by grace and mercy, praise God.

  70. @EliteCommInc.
    "That is why repentance is needed despite Jesus’s sacrifice."

    repentance as to accountability but whether failing to do so so nullifies the sacrifice is another
    matter.


    I am going to pause - at least tread lightly because we are broaching the question of works to grace.

    Grace (forgiveness by God through Christ) is freely given --- works (failing to repent) does not nullify that gift.

    In fact according to the word, there is but one unforgiveable err -- grieving the holy spirit -- which may be my actual state at present -- and that is in my view an unwillingness to forgive as I have been so --- bitterness.

    Note: I am not of the school that supports not repenting -- that is not what i am saying. but being free from world would entail as a work to salvation.

    Interesting, thanks for sharing.

    Judaism also has the concept of grace, in that a man may try very hard to achieve holiness, but he can only initiate the process – God must complete it, as a free gift.

    Bitterness is hard to overcome, I know well – but constant reflection on God’s great gifts, and the promise of ultimate salvation, can go far to mitigate it.

  71. There’s no point arguing with atheists as their is no common point of reference. I just won’t engage it. I will share Christ despite my failings — but trying to convince them of a God they have to experience and choose not to —

    not much point for the intellectual set

  72. @EliteCommInc.
    I have to believe that the millions of christians who have supported some very peculiar practices in the name of god believing the same Godly are in God's grace


    If christians think their support for the Iraq was was just --- and it was not -- I believe that god's grace (forgiveness) reigns

    And my particular pet peeve using the mark of Cain to justify abuse of millions -- actually using god's word incorrectly (even knowingly) ------ god's forgiveness still reigns

    Very interesting.

    An analogous concept in Judaism, expressed differently, is that the quality of mercy is God’s essential attribute, because if merely Justice reigns – we would all be harshly condemned for our failings.

    But the merciful God never punishes us quite as much as we deserve, which would be devastating.

    Justice on its own , in Judaism, without mercy, has negative connotations.

    But we would also not say that Gods grace or mercy forgives us completely – personal accountability is upheld, but greatly mitigated by grace and mercy, praise God.

  73. @EliteCommInc.
    Side note:


    you can shun god

    you can ignore god

    you can even curse god

    blaspheme the spirit of god


    But there is no "killing God".

    Good point, lol.

  74. @EliteCommInc.
    "That is why repentance is needed despite Jesus’s sacrifice."

    repentance as to accountability but whether failing to do so so nullifies the sacrifice is another
    matter.


    I am going to pause - at least tread lightly because we are broaching the question of works to grace.

    Grace (forgiveness by God through Christ) is freely given --- works (failing to repent) does not nullify that gift.

    In fact according to the word, there is but one unforgiveable err -- grieving the holy spirit -- which may be my actual state at present -- and that is in my view an unwillingness to forgive as I have been so --- bitterness.

    Note: I am not of the school that supports not repenting -- that is not what i am saying. but being free from world would entail as a work to salvation.

    In fact according to the word, there is but one unforgiveable err — grieving the holy spirit —

    Question; is there a specific Biblical reference for this or was this derived through some other indirect means? Thanks.

    Peace.

  75. @Rosie

    Who humiliated the Catholic priest Jean Meslier (1664-1729) into becoming an atheist? He arrived at that position on his own.
     
    I have no doubt that thinkers have been thinking doubtful thoughts since thinking has been a thing, but the question remains: Whence the need to dechristianize the rest of the populace?

    The Christianizing of the population happened coercively the first time around. Now that clergymen have to compete like merchants for customers instead of having the power of the state behind them to force people to buy their services, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that more and and people have decided not to spend their discretionary time and money on religion.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    The Christianizing of the population happened coercively the first time around.
     
    True or not, that's all water under the bridge.

    Now that clergymen have to compete like merchants for customers instead of having the power of the state behind them to force people to buy their services, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that more and and people have decided not to spend their discretionary time and money on religion.
     
    Spare me. You know perfectly well the state is using the people's tax money to push scientific materialism while the courts put out gag orders on any alternative points of view.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

  76. “Bitterness is hard to overcome, I know well – but constant reflection on God’s great gifts, and the promise of ultimate salvation, can go far to mitigate it.”

    Honestly,

    I am not seeking to reduce my bitterness ——–

    and I am aware of how serious that is.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Whatever path you are on, whatever your reasons, I hope it leads you closer to God.
  77. @advancedatheist
    Real atheists, as opposed to the fantasy atheists in Christian propaganda, find meaning and purpose with the given in observable reality. And many of them have contributed to civilization. Why would they have bothered if they suffered from "nihilism"?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology

    A god doesn't necessarily answer nihilism any way. A logically possible god could have created human life without any meaning, purpose, moral guidance, an afterlife or a guarantee of ultimate justice. Traditional theists just came up with this wish list for what they wanted from their god for basically self-interested reasons, when a god simply has no obligation to organize its creation for their convenience.

    It’d be quite fortunate–and not very human-like–for an omnipotent and omniscient force to also be an infinitely benevolent one!

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Depends what you mean by "infinitely".

    Evil obviously exists in this world, but is a deliberate part of God's plan. If by infinite you mean only good, that is clearly false.

    I prefer "fundamentally" benevolent, because this implies ultimately good.

    This is an extremely common intuition among mankind, the idea that evil is in some sense "illusory", that true reality beyond the limited categories of our minds is "beyond" good and evil.

    Rather, the belief that our human perceptions of evil represent ultimate truth is a rather quaint, primitive, anthropomorphism that people were sophisticated enough to outgrew already by the time the Book of Job was written :)
    , @AaronB

    and not very human-like–
     
    Also, it is quaint to expect that the universe - or God - be very human like. An anthropomorphism.

    God does not fit into our human mental categories.

    We can only encounter Him.

    Make room for mysteries, my friend, don't be trapped in the prison of the human mind.
  78. @EliteCommInc.
    "Bitterness is hard to overcome, I know well – but constant reflection on God’s great gifts, and the promise of ultimate salvation, can go far to mitigate it."

    Honestly,

    I am not seeking to reduce my bitterness --------


    and I am aware of how serious that is.

    Whatever path you are on, whatever your reasons, I hope it leads you closer to God.

  79. “Question; is there a specific Biblical reference for this or was this derived through some other indirect means?”

    “Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven…either in this age or in the age to come” (vv. 31–32).

    – Matthew 12:22-32

    blaspheming the holy spirit (greiving of the same, though there is no complete agreement on the exactness here)

    • Replies: @Talha
    OK - thanks again for the reference.

    Peace.
  80. @Audacious Epigone
    It'd be quite fortunate--and not very human-like--for an omnipotent and omniscient force to also be an infinitely benevolent one!

    Depends what you mean by “infinitely”.

    Evil obviously exists in this world, but is a deliberate part of God’s plan. If by infinite you mean only good, that is clearly false.

    I prefer “fundamentally” benevolent, because this implies ultimately good.

    This is an extremely common intuition among mankind, the idea that evil is in some sense “illusory”, that true reality beyond the limited categories of our minds is “beyond” good and evil.

    Rather, the belief that our human perceptions of evil represent ultimate truth is a rather quaint, primitive, anthropomorphism that people were sophisticated enough to outgrew already by the time the Book of Job was written 🙂

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  81. @advancedatheist
    Christianity stopped "feeling true" to thoughtful Europeans about 400 years ago, and this happened in a Hayekian fashion to a lot of people who followed their own lines of inquiry without knowing each other, many of them coming from the less socially privileged classes. The British historian Alec Ryrie (Gresham College) has an interesting-looking book about this phenomenon due out in the fall. The way Ryrie describes it, the feeling of falsity came first, then the early modern philosophers tried to justify this wide-spread intuition after the fact as they sought sounder ways to ground religious belief.

    For some reason Christian apologists don't want to deal with this unexpected breakdown of the Christian monopoly in the world of beliefs and ideas. It happened spontaneously, organically, and without any central planning to impose it on the population. Indeed, it happened in defiance of political and religious authority. Europe's rulers got to the point where they couldn't enforce uniformity of belief through indoctrination, persecution, censorship, torture, capital punishment, and wars against neighboring kingdoms ruled by heretics, so they just gave up and allowed some degree of religious toleration. This created elbow room for people to become atheists.

    The Christian Creative Anachronists who think they can reboot an age of faith have to grapple with the fact that the original age of faith failed the first time around for nonobvious reasons beyond anyone's control.

    There’s nothing that would make happier than that second paragraph coming from the future and applying to the current age, with “Christian monopoly” replaced by “egalitarian myth” (or whatever phrase you want to use).

  82. @Audacious Epigone
    It'd be quite fortunate--and not very human-like--for an omnipotent and omniscient force to also be an infinitely benevolent one!

    and not very human-like–

    Also, it is quaint to expect that the universe – or God – be very human like. An anthropomorphism.

    God does not fit into our human mental categories.

    We can only encounter Him.

    Make room for mysteries, my friend, don’t be trapped in the prison of the human mind.

  83. @Talha

    the white liberal was arguing from a theological perspective
     
    Not really - throwing a tantrum and casually tossing out words like beta-male and worthless father in hopes to trigger me into a reaction so they can feel even more victimized is not really a theological approach. It's victim virtue-signaling 101. Well, I guess maybe Victimology can be considered their religion.

    very good and well argued practical reasons.
     
    When dealing with an anti-theist, one must provide such arguments. Arguments based in a theological perspective the man doesn't recognize is useless.

    What moral virtues or theological vision was the white liberal willing to make social tradeoffs for?
     
    His whole thing is the primacy of individual autonomy - hyper-individualism. If the person is an adult, they can do whatever they want with whoever they want. It is the religion of self-worship.

    Can this be decided on the practical level?
     
    Millet system; good fences...

    Everything flows from First Principles it seems to me.
     
    Agreed, which is why they were very frustrated with me that I would not accede them the right to define the parameters of first principles.

    My framework and first principles are diametrically opposite of those on the other side of the conversation. There were be no agreement and no congruence, there is only accommodation or negotiated space in a practical compromise from both sides.

    To be honest, from a practical perspective, someone like me is willing to accommodate them in shared space and with negotiated autonomy far more than their vision. Look at the image below and think about what they envision as an end goal:
    https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/1147620196712144897

    This is not simply a joke, it is a shot across the bow in a full declaration of war. That's OK though - as Peter Hitchens stated:
    "Islam is not so self effacing as Christianity, it doesn't give up when dismissed or mocked or even persecuted, it carries on, it's one of the things that's most admirable about it, is that it stands up for itself."

    And me standing up and simply dismissing their mockery and refusing to let them define the terms of debate really, really pissed them off.

    Peace.

    You’re too nice. Should’ve asked the white noodle neck if he had a strong relationship with his own father. The question would’ve been rhetorical, I’m sure–we both know what the answer is.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Yeah, I try not to stoop to that guy’s level. If I have the same etiquette as some anti-theist fanboi of Ex-Muslims, well then I haven’t been doing my homework.

    I do wonder though what kind of relationship these people had with their fathers that they hate the concept of giving fathers a serious guardianship/caretaker role in society.

    Peace.
    , @Talha
    So noodle neck finally got too triggered and let the cat out of the bag with:
    "100%. Ban religion. It does out in a generation, maybe 2.
    Brainwashing children into a cult ideology, that's all it is. No different to scientology or christianity."

    https://media.giphy.com/media/xTiTnwCbECc9bQBZW8/giphy.gif

    Homeboy sounds like Pol Pot. And we are called extremists, eh? It's nice to know the kind of fanbois that gravitate towards our apostates - they're all catching the same train heading in the same direction...over your kids' bodies.

    Peace.
  84. @EliteCommInc.
    "Question; is there a specific Biblical reference for this or was this derived through some other indirect means?"



    “Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven…either in this age or in the age to come” (vv. 31–32).

    - Matthew 12:22-32


    blaspheming the holy spirit (greiving of the same, though there is no complete agreement on the exactness here)

    OK – thanks again for the reference.

    Peace.

  85. @The Alarmist
    Nietsche was spot on about this:

    God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

    — Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125, tr. Walter Kaufmann[1]

     

    The loss of an absolute basis for morality leads to nihilism, where moral values are abstractly contrived.

    He was also right in suggesting that mass culture leads to conformity and thus ushers in mediocrity.

    I recall the familiarity of that quotation from a longer citation delivered by Ravi Zacharias (and as only Ravi can) at the 2007 Ligonier National Conference. Indexed at 4:14 .

    The Existence of God
    2015, May 29 | Ligonier Ministries
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRRuKDXT7Kg#t=254

  86. @Audacious Epigone
    You're too nice. Should've asked the white noodle neck if he had a strong relationship with his own father. The question would've been rhetorical, I'm sure--we both know what the answer is.

    Yeah, I try not to stoop to that guy’s level. If I have the same etiquette as some anti-theist fanboi of Ex-Muslims, well then I haven’t been doing my homework.

    I do wonder though what kind of relationship these people had with their fathers that they hate the concept of giving fathers a serious guardianship/caretaker role in society.

    Peace.

  87. I have nothing against the general principles of Christianity or Christians. My main problem with it is the “salvation by faith” concept. As I see it, that’s completely arbitrary and meaningless. I myself was raised as a Christian but was never capable of forcing myself to believe, not even as a small child. That fact caused me no end of unnecessary terror and misery. (I suppose I could say, oh, God will help me believe, and to recognize some secondary emotion as “faith” but how do I know it’s not self-deceit?) So, of course, I don’t accept the idea that we need to believe in God to be moral. My theory is that religions like Christianity arise from a “morality center” in the human brain. I’m not saying that this mechanism is foolproof or all-powerful. In particular, psychopaths can subvert it by saying, “those people over there are uniquely evil and deserve to be destroyed.” Kind of like what Yahweh told the Hebrews to do to those other tribes inconveniently occupying Palestine.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  88. @Talha

    the white liberal was arguing from a theological perspective
     
    Not really - throwing a tantrum and casually tossing out words like beta-male and worthless father in hopes to trigger me into a reaction so they can feel even more victimized is not really a theological approach. It's victim virtue-signaling 101. Well, I guess maybe Victimology can be considered their religion.

    very good and well argued practical reasons.
     
    When dealing with an anti-theist, one must provide such arguments. Arguments based in a theological perspective the man doesn't recognize is useless.

    What moral virtues or theological vision was the white liberal willing to make social tradeoffs for?
     
    His whole thing is the primacy of individual autonomy - hyper-individualism. If the person is an adult, they can do whatever they want with whoever they want. It is the religion of self-worship.

    Can this be decided on the practical level?
     
    Millet system; good fences...

    Everything flows from First Principles it seems to me.
     
    Agreed, which is why they were very frustrated with me that I would not accede them the right to define the parameters of first principles.

    My framework and first principles are diametrically opposite of those on the other side of the conversation. There were be no agreement and no congruence, there is only accommodation or negotiated space in a practical compromise from both sides.

    To be honest, from a practical perspective, someone like me is willing to accommodate them in shared space and with negotiated autonomy far more than their vision. Look at the image below and think about what they envision as an end goal:
    https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/1147620196712144897

    This is not simply a joke, it is a shot across the bow in a full declaration of war. That's OK though - as Peter Hitchens stated:
    "Islam is not so self effacing as Christianity, it doesn't give up when dismissed or mocked or even persecuted, it carries on, it's one of the things that's most admirable about it, is that it stands up for itself."

    And me standing up and simply dismissing their mockery and refusing to let them define the terms of debate really, really pissed them off.

    Peace.

    Christians politely and timidly asked for the degenerate “art” called “piss Christ” to be removed for over 20 years – to no avail.

    It was finally removed,in 2015, in the aftermath of the Hebdo cartoon killings:

    https://news.artnet.com/exhibitions/accused-of-charlie-hebdo-censorship-ap-removes-piss-christ-image-215797

    Going to deadly extremes to preserve sanctity of religious icons can be (at the same time) both deplorable and highly effective

  89. @Whitney
    Deicide and the rise of empathy. Empathy is unbelievably destructive. It allows you to feel other people's pain but you never feel other people's Joy. So you're always stuck in this painful place and it's some point start to think that's all the world is. It's seems it destroys your personal capacity for joy. If that's all I ever felt I'd want to destroy everything also

    The rising interest in Stoicism–which sees joy as the highest emotional state attainable–makes sense in this context.

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    The greatest joy I have ever felt came from unlocking new insights/knowledge.
  90. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Lol.

    You Muslims want to move West so badly. Now you're complaining about the poz.

    As Trump says, you have to go back. I think we can make a deal, with U.F.O. as President. Muslims go back, and I make sure the poz doesn't follow them. Nobody makes better deals than I do.

    Now you’re complaining about the poz.

    Ok, but you are born here and complaining about the poz – and you guys can actually do something about it. It’s like Afghans complaining about tribalism; just change it! Look, let’s assume all Muslims in the US were traditional like me – that would have little impact on the poz. Now if all native Whites rejected the poz, we could strangle it to death tomorrow.

    Muslims go back

    This I don’t mind. The only ones kicking and screaming will be the liberal type Muslims. For me, it’s more like:

    and I make sure the poz doesn’t follow them

    Whoa – AND you’ll offer to keep our degenerate apostates?! Dang, you do make a good offer.

    Peace.

  91. @Oleaginous Outrager
    It's not God they're rejecting but the notion of being judged.

    Or perhaps, it’s because they sense intuitively that they will someday face judgment that they choose to reject God.

  92. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Lol.

    You Muslims want to move West so badly. Now you're complaining about the poz.

    As Trump says, you have to go back. I think we can make a deal, with U.F.O. as President. Muslims go back, and I make sure the poz doesn't follow them. Nobody makes better deals than I do.

    I need to flesh it out fully in the future, but it doesn’t seem implausible to me that at some point the white right remnant, drowning in poz, converts to Islam as the only viable vehicle remaining to fight it.

    This gets at the heart of why I’m not a white nationalist even though I understand and can appreciate it. I instinctively side with guys like Talha and Twinkie over white SJWs on everything, and would prefer the former as neighbors over the latter. I’m quite aware that this could be a fatal flaw in WEIRDO software, but it’s what I’m running on.

    • Replies: @Talha
    F

    this could be a fatal flaw in WEIRDO software
     
    There is nothing weird about the concept of universal brotherhood when it is genuinely and sincerely expressed and reciprocated. The respectful and brotherly interactions I’ve seen between my brothers who are Black and White, and know what spiritual brotherhood is, has been impressive and instructive. They neither try to front or pretend they are all just the same, but there is this level of deep respect and concern for the other person’s concern that is sorely missing from the identitarian “I gotta get mine” discourse.

    the only viable vehicle remaining to fight it.
     
    The optics are looking good thus far for this. If the most common portrait of the anti-LGBT movement becomes a veiled woman, I’m good with that:
    “Nationwide protests by parents against new relationships and sex-education lessons are planned for September, and head teachers across England are bracing themselves for angry scenes. About 70 state schools are pleading for help to deal with demands from parents that they drop the lessons, which include information about LGBT sex and relationships.”
    https://twitter.com/JohnAndersonAO/status/1151261711933927429

    Let’s hear them squeal.

    Peace.

    , @Mr. Rational

    I’m quite aware that this could be a fatal flaw in WEIRDO software
     
    WEIRDO software developed in an isolated environment.  It appears not to be fit (by itself) to compete with clannish/parasitic software.

    All evolutionary strategies depend on their own particular circumstances.

    It would be a tragedy if the WEIRDO capabilities vanished because of the need to compete against non-WEIRDO variants, but that may be part of the cycle of civilizations.  The question is, can WEIRDOs learn to exclude (by killing, if necessary) types who are not-them?
    , @Twinkie

    I instinctively side with guys like Talha and Twinkie over white SJWs on everything
     
    While I appreciate the sentiment, Talha and I are not quite similar. Are we both anti-"social justice warriors"? Yes, true. We do share some common enemies and can certainly stand together to resist the machinations of these latter-day Bolsheviks.

    But I am also one of those people who believe that culture matters a great deal, and religion and religious milieu are a very large part of the said culture. To put simply, I consider Christianity to be foundational to what America is. As such, it needs to be the dominant religious paradigm that sets the cultural markers in this country. This doesn't mean we can't have as citizens non-Christians, be they Jews, Muslims, or what have you, but that dominant religious paradigm - that of Christianity - has to be acknowledged as such by a great majority of the population.

    The same goes for the Anglo-American legal and civic traditions and history - some of us can be non-Anglo-Americans, but most, if not all, of us have to respect and acknowledge the centrality of those traditions and history and must avail ourselves to belong to them (yes, that means even immigrant children really ought to read "Little House on the Prairie" and learn about the phrase "Remember the Alamo!").

    I suppose what I am saying is that I am an assimilationist. I believe in outsiders who wish to join our society melting into the traditional American culture, including its predominant religion. Talha, by all accounts, seems to be a nice person, but his stated desire appears to be the conversion of Americans into Islam, which, if realized, would fundamentally change the character of our society and to this I would be opposed most vigorously.

    why I’m not a white nationalist even though I understand and can appreciate it.

     

    The problem with white nationalism is broadly two-fold. It is a loser (is impractical) and it also punishes people for how they were born and not for what they do (which is both unfair and counterproductive).

    Now, I understand the impulses that power white nationalism, which is why I subscribe to what I call "implicit white majoritarianism," which is to say that whites should be the majority of the country and that their religion, culture, law, and civic traditions should be respected as the dominant paradigm for the society. I believe that satisfies both the exigencies of pragmatism (of holding a society together) and the necessity of being just and fair (unjust and unfair people in power inevitably turn on their own people, too, not just perceived outsiders).
    , @dfordoom

    I need to flesh it out fully in the future, but it doesn’t seem implausible to me that at some point the white right remnant, drowning in poz, converts to Islam as the only viable vehicle remaining to fight it.
     
    At the moment white dissident rightists see Islam as an ally of the globohomo and they tend towards hating Islam. It will be interesting to see what happens when the inevitable liberal war on Islam really gets going in earnest. Will those white dissident rightists then see Muslims as allies? And possibly, as you suggest, start seeing Islam as possibly the only antidote to the poz.
  93. @advancedatheist
    The Christianizing of the population happened coercively the first time around. Now that clergymen have to compete like merchants for customers instead of having the power of the state behind them to force people to buy their services, it shouldn't surprise anyone that more and and people have decided not to spend their discretionary time and money on religion.

    The Christianizing of the population happened coercively the first time around.

    True or not, that’s all water under the bridge.

    Now that clergymen have to compete like merchants for customers instead of having the power of the state behind them to force people to buy their services, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that more and and people have decided not to spend their discretionary time and money on religion.

    Spare me. You know perfectly well the state is using the people’s tax money to push scientific materialism while the courts put out gag orders on any alternative points of view.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    You know perfectly well the state is using the people’s tax money to push scientific materialism
     
    Science is about what can be tested.  It is materialistic by definition.  If you shove theology in there, you subject it to materialistic testing.  If it fails, that is YOUR problem.

    while the courts put out gag orders on any alternative points of view.
     
    The courts refuse to recognize fraudulent non-science as science.  This is what courts ought to do.  When you are caught with the intermediate form of "cdesign proponentsists" in your own proposed "science" texts, you have shot your own foot out to well above the knee.  Idiot.

    STOP LYING, DAMN YOU!
  94. @Rosie

    Who humiliated the Catholic priest Jean Meslier (1664-1729) into becoming an atheist? He arrived at that position on his own.
     
    I have no doubt that thinkers have been thinking doubtful thoughts since thinking has been a thing, but the question remains: Whence the need to dechristianize the rest of the populace?

    Whence the need to dechristianize the rest of the populace?

    When one has what one believes to be a more truthful narrative, one would be awfully mean (if not cruel) to keep it to one’s self.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    When one has what one believes to be a more truthful narrative, one would be awfully mean (if not cruel) to keep it to one’s self.
     
    Feel free to share, but at a minimum, stay out of our way when we offer an alternative. We should all be able to agree on free speech.
  95. @iffen
    Chill dude. Have a beer and a BLT.

    Dammit, iffen, POST WARNINGS.  You owe me a new keyboard!

  96. @Mr. Rational

    Whence the need to dechristianize the rest of the populace?
     
    When one has what one believes to be a more truthful narrative, one would be awfully mean (if not cruel) to keep it to one's self.

    When one has what one believes to be a more truthful narrative, one would be awfully mean (if not cruel) to keep it to one’s self.

    Feel free to share, but at a minimum, stay out of our way when we offer an alternative. We should all be able to agree on free speech.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Feel free to share, but at a minimum, stay out of our way when we offer an alternative. We should all be able to agree on free speech.
     
    You are the one who asked "Whence the need to dechristianize the rest of the populace?"  YOU need to stay out of OUR way when we put forth facts and conclusions drawn therefrom that you don't like.  Just like the radical egalitarians need to stay out of OUR way when we say that races are real and valid factual and biological things, not "social constructs".
  97. @Audacious Epigone
    I need to flesh it out fully in the future, but it doesn't seem implausible to me that at some point the white right remnant, drowning in poz, converts to Islam as the only viable vehicle remaining to fight it.

    This gets at the heart of why I'm not a white nationalist even though I understand and can appreciate it. I instinctively side with guys like Talha and Twinkie over white SJWs on everything, and would prefer the former as neighbors over the latter. I'm quite aware that this could be a fatal flaw in WEIRDO software, but it's what I'm running on.

    F

    this could be a fatal flaw in WEIRDO software

    There is nothing weird about the concept of universal brotherhood when it is genuinely and sincerely expressed and reciprocated. The respectful and brotherly interactions I’ve seen between my brothers who are Black and White, and know what spiritual brotherhood is, has been impressive and instructive. They neither try to front or pretend they are all just the same, but there is this level of deep respect and concern for the other person’s concern that is sorely missing from the identitarian “I gotta get mine” discourse.

    the only viable vehicle remaining to fight it.

    The optics are looking good thus far for this. If the most common portrait of the anti-LGBT movement becomes a veiled woman, I’m good with that:
    “Nationwide protests by parents against new relationships and sex-education lessons are planned for September, and head teachers across England are bracing themselves for angry scenes. About 70 state schools are pleading for help to deal with demands from parents that they drop the lessons, which include information about LGBT sex and relationships.”

    Let’s hear them squeal.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Muslims in the West are uniquely situated to depoz the place because your would-be opponents have unilaterally conceded the moral high ground to you on account of your religious persuasion. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth--just capitalize on the opportunity!
  98. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    Ok, but you are born here and complaining about the poz
     
    As dictator I will very easily undo the poz. I have a good roadmap for doing this. But I am only a dictator for my own people. Whites are so pozzed and lost and don't even realize it. I am doing them a great service by becoming their dictator. The will soon realize again how it feels to fear God, have a safe community, have any community at all, and have a good family life.

    Whoa – AND you’ll offer to keep our degenerate apostates?!
     
    No. They are still your people. We'll dump them in your new (old) territory, but you can handle them as you please. My government won't force anybody to tolerate homos or other degenerates, though (unlike Chump).

    but you can handle them as you please

    Grins and rubs hands (in Muslim)…and the hits just keep coming…

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Or - to put it in terms of that word game meme I posted earlier...

    I want your “Armin Navabi” in my “Shariah court”.
    https://twitter.com/arminnavabi/status/1029623571360796678?lang=en

    Peac.
  99. @Talha

    but you can handle them as you please
     
    Grins and rubs hands (in Muslim)...and the hits just keep coming...

    Peace.

    Or – to put it in terms of that word game meme I posted earlier…

    I want your “Armin Navabi” in my “Shariah court”.

    Peac.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The foil, of course, are your apostates going uberpoz.
  100. @Rosie

    The atheists won the battle decisively – do you think you will win the next time?
     
    In theory at least, we're supposed to follow the evidence where it leads. Dogmatic atheists make it very clear that they are unwilling to do this, and they will therefore be politely asked to get the f*** out of the way so the rest of us can have a grown-up conversation.

    Either that, or we'll just have to wait till they die, and it won't be long now.

    It's interesting that you use the term "battle," thus revealing your view of this issue as a question of power rather than truth.

    You all have been claiming that scientific evidence disproves the existence of God for almost 200 years, and now that things are looking up for our side, you cry dirty pull and demand a strict wall of separation between science and theology.

    We're not doin' that.

    In theory at least, we’re supposed to follow the evidence where it leads. Dogmatic atheists make it very clear that they are unwilling to do this, and they will therefore be politely asked to get the f*** out of the way so the rest of us can have a grown-up conversation.

    You claim to have logos on your side, but when you claimed that “intelligent design” wasn’t just warmed-over creationism, the evidence in Kitzmiller vs. Dover proved you not just totally but laughably wrong.

    If you have to lie to push your theology, how can you be ANYTHING but servants of the father of lies?  You’re not fit to be part of an adult conversation.

    Either that, or we’ll just have to wait till they die, and it won’t be long now.

    I come from a Christian background.  I noticed the inconsistencies on my own; I was not “indoctrinated”.  “You” keep creating more of “us” by lying to people.

    It’s interesting that you use the term “battle,” thus revealing your view of this issue as a question of power rather than truth.

    When truth is rejected as authoritative, it comes down to force.  You chose the battle, not us.

    You all have been claiming that scientific evidence disproves the existence of God for almost 200 years, and now that things are looking up for our side, you cry dirty pull and demand a strict wall of separation between science and theology.

    Nothing can disprove the existence of “God” per se.  “God” is beyond questioning and so cannot be disproven.

    What has been disproven is most of the arguments for “God”.  “God” has been claimed to be responsible for a host of events.  Evidence shows that almost all of those events did not happen as claimed, or did not happen at all*.  This debunks the book from “God”.

    We’re not doin’ that.

    You’re not getting it.  Either align your theology with the proven elements of physical reality, or GTFO.  It’s the refusal to pursue that alignment which forced me to give up the Old Testament and thus Christianity.  Erroneous bronze-age tribal myth or Satanic lie, wrong is wrong.

    * The TWO (yes, two) creation sequences in Genesis are contradictory and both are wrong.  There was no world-wide flood at any time humans existed, and light came first.  The observed genetic biodiversity in existence today requires that evolution ran at hundreds if not millions of times the rate observed if the fable of Noah is true, including human biodiversity.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    You claim to have logos on your side, but when you claimed that “intelligent design” wasn’t just warmed-over creationism, the evidence in Kitzmiller vs. Dover proved you not just totally but laughably wrong.
     
    I'm sorry, but you are just flat-out wrong, here. ID and Biblical creationism are two completely different things. If you are not aware of this, then you are ignorant. If you are aware of the difference, then you are being dishonest by conflating the two.

    For the benefit of any lurkers:

    When atheists call ID "creationism," they are attempting to claim that ID is unempirical. Old-fashioned young Earth creationism starts from the assumption that the Biblical account of creation is true, and then looks for evidence in nature that supports it.

    ID starts with the opposite assumption: that the Biblical account of creation is not literally true. It's main proponents accept the Earth as billions of years old. They make a case that a hypothetical intelligent designer better explains our direct empirical observations of the natural world (not based on scripture) than undetected "evolution."


    * The TWO (yes, two) creation sequences in Genesis are contradictory and both are wrong.
     
    Irrelevant.
  101. @Bardon Kaldian
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BP2b6P9CMAEzzao.jpg

    God,Jesus,and Nietzsche are all dead.

  102. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Yeah, and that's why they still have energy to explore, colonize and reproduce. That's why they're flooding into our countries.

    that’s why they still have energy to explore, colonize and reproduce. That’s why they’re flooding into our countries.

    The turd world is fed and medicated by the First World.  It cannot feed or medicate itself; our help is the only reason there is any surplus population to infest our countries.

    If we were not under the rule of (((hostile elites))) we would simply have refused entry to the turd world and demanded they either solve their own problems or accept our solutions.  Our solutions could include refusing to medicate (merciful) or feed (cruel) the results of their stupidity.  When the invasion results in the First World losing the capability to do either, the turd world will suffer both disasters simultaneously.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    So does this mean Jewish elites are the ones who really hate the third-world? That's where the logic takes us, doesn't it?
  103. @Audacious Epigone
    The rising interest in Stoicism--which sees joy as the highest emotional state attainable--makes sense in this context.

    The greatest joy I have ever felt came from unlocking new insights/knowledge.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    The greatest joy I have ever felt came from unlocking new insights/knowledge.
     
    I gather you've not had children.
  104. @Audacious Epigone
    I need to flesh it out fully in the future, but it doesn't seem implausible to me that at some point the white right remnant, drowning in poz, converts to Islam as the only viable vehicle remaining to fight it.

    This gets at the heart of why I'm not a white nationalist even though I understand and can appreciate it. I instinctively side with guys like Talha and Twinkie over white SJWs on everything, and would prefer the former as neighbors over the latter. I'm quite aware that this could be a fatal flaw in WEIRDO software, but it's what I'm running on.

    I’m quite aware that this could be a fatal flaw in WEIRDO software

    WEIRDO software developed in an isolated environment.  It appears not to be fit (by itself) to compete with clannish/parasitic software.

    All evolutionary strategies depend on their own particular circumstances.

    It would be a tragedy if the WEIRDO capabilities vanished because of the need to compete against non-WEIRDO variants, but that may be part of the cycle of civilizations.  The question is, can WEIRDOs learn to exclude (by killing, if necessary) types who are not-them?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    That's one of the fundamental questions of the 21st century (for the West, though the West will only be a side story by the end of it)--do we have the will to survive? The high point in Trump's presidency was when he gave the speech in Poland asking exactly that.

    The "by killing, if necessary" strikes me as unnecessarily inflammatory. If we won't even enforce laws against them, we sure as hell aren't going to find the will--a corrupted manifestation of it in this context in my view--to do anything more extreme.
  105. “Also, it is quaint to expect that the universe – or God – be very human like. An anthropomorphism.

    God does not fit into our human mental categories.”

    In the Beginning was the Word and the Word became flesh and walked among us”

    John Chapter 1

    I would agree that humans cannot fully know God. And they can certainly encounter God, But they can also encounter and know God by quality, essence and being — but they cannot do so fully.

    “For now I see darkly (dimmly), but then I will know as I am fully known.”

    1 Corinthians 13:12 King James Version (KJV)
    12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

    —————————————–

    “Come let is make man in our image”

    Genesis Chapter 1

    Likeness of God

    to laugh
    to rejoice
    to cry
    to mourn
    to hope
    to anger
    to desire
    etc . . .

    all qualities of God

  106. @Rosie

    The Christianizing of the population happened coercively the first time around.
     
    True or not, that's all water under the bridge.

    Now that clergymen have to compete like merchants for customers instead of having the power of the state behind them to force people to buy their services, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that more and and people have decided not to spend their discretionary time and money on religion.
     
    Spare me. You know perfectly well the state is using the people's tax money to push scientific materialism while the courts put out gag orders on any alternative points of view.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

    You know perfectly well the state is using the people’s tax money to push scientific materialism

    Science is about what can be tested.  It is materialistic by definition.  If you shove theology in there, you subject it to materialistic testing.  If it fails, that is YOUR problem.

    while the courts put out gag orders on any alternative points of view.

    The courts refuse to recognize fraudulent non-science as science.  This is what courts ought to do.  When you are caught with the intermediate form of “cdesign proponentsists” in your own proposed “science” texts, you have shot your own foot out to well above the knee.  Idiot.

    STOP LYING, DAMN YOU!

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Science is about what can be tested.
     
    Herein lies the problem with you people. By objecting that ID is "not science," you reject it a priori, that is, without bothering to look at the evidence first. Very convenient.

    In any event, Darwin himself did not subscribe to your narrow definition of science:

    ‘it seems to me fair in Philosophy to invent any hypothesis & if it explains many phenomena it comes in time to be admitted as real.’
     
    IOW, Darwin recognized that there are things in this world that (1) we observe, and (2) need explaining. If you are going to claim that Inference to the Best Explanation is "not science," then Darwinism isn't science either.

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/

    STOP LYING, DAMN YOU!

     

    Get a grip.
  107. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    One doesn't need to convert to Islam to fight to poz. Evangelical Christianity is doing a very good job in my own community (as is Islam). The difference is that the white youths in the Church (and there are many) actually follow, y'know, the Bible's rules, whereas the Muslim yoofs are heavily into marijuana, drinking, fast cars and white wimminz. Go to a club here and at least half of the people there are desperate Arab guys, not joking. If everybody were like Talha, then maybe, but the Muslim community in Canada (and in Europe) has a massive problem with criminality, degeneracy, drug use and drug dealing. Most of the young guys in church are virgins and don't drink. Who is fighting the poz again?

    The trick is just getting them in the door - many young white men have no idea about the Bible nowadays. But get them in the door, into a strong church with a strong pastor and they always stick if their hearts are open. Their souls are crying out for something to believe in, and a cause to belong to!


    I’m quite aware that this could be a fatal flaw in WEIRDO software
     
    Yes, it absolutely is. I expanded on this last night. You have the fatal white cuck gene, the good white. This gene is dying out, but in Middle America these people are still in their right place, being good neighbours, helping out the community, and having kids - while on the coasts they are SJWs, anti whites, helping the international community.

    Sure, Talha is a good neighbour. But how about when your block is ALL Talhas? How would your street be then? Would you feel safe sending your daughter out to play? How about on the bus? Answer truthfully. Just because Talha is a good person doesn't mean he belongs in America. It's a typical disconnected attitude from a guy who lives in a place that's way too white. You don't actually understand the soul crushing impacts of diversity on the white man because your life is from 50 years ago.

    I'm envious, but also aware that your entire existence is an anachronism that is rapidly dying out even from the remaining pockets (Kansas is only 70% white in new borns)

    Sure, Talha is a good neighbour. But how about when your block is ALL Talhas? How would your street be then?

    Then un-hijabed girls are “uncovered meat” and fair game for the “cats”.  This is why I tell him he needs to take his nasty religion back where it came from.  NOW.  Because the reaction will be extra-legal and not predictable, so he needs to either get out while the getting is good (now) or renounce his anti-Western-ness.  (Which may or may not be accepted as in good faith.)

    • Replies: @Talha

    Then un-hijabed girls are “uncovered meat” and fair game for the “cats”.
     
    No. A street full of men like myself would be the safest place for women at any time of day. I follow the Shariah; I look the other way when women who are dressed improperly cross my path, and definitely don’t approach them and certainly do not touch them. And my sons are taught the same values. In fact, my wife had a recent talk with my boys about respecting women and girls and avoiding them like kryptonite. In fact, the one place where I have had problems is non-Muslim boys approaching MY daughter and trying to talk to her.

    he needs to either get out while the getting is good
     
    Why, because I might be killed for my faith? Do you think that scares me? That’s a straight ticket to Paradise, no questions asked and the ability to intercede on behalf of relatives and friends. You guys are afraid to die, the only thing I worry about is making sure my debts and accounts are all settled so that I won’t be questioned about that; that’s the one thing martyrs aren’t forgiven.

    And that’s worst case scenario, which is not very likely given that even the expulsion of the Moors was more orderly and by the book.

    his anti-Western-ness
     
    Is that the part where I keep talking against gay pride parades or butt-sex enthusiasm being taught to my kids?

    Peace.
  108. @Rosie

    When one has what one believes to be a more truthful narrative, one would be awfully mean (if not cruel) to keep it to one’s self.
     
    Feel free to share, but at a minimum, stay out of our way when we offer an alternative. We should all be able to agree on free speech.

    Feel free to share, but at a minimum, stay out of our way when we offer an alternative. We should all be able to agree on free speech.

    You are the one who asked “Whence the need to dechristianize the rest of the populace?”  YOU need to stay out of OUR way when we put forth facts and conclusions drawn therefrom that you don’t like.  Just like the radical egalitarians need to stay out of OUR way when we say that races are real and valid factual and biological things, not “social constructs”.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    YOU need to stay out of OUR way when we put forth facts and conclusions drawn therefrom that you don’t like.
     
    You clearly haven't been paying attention.
    , @Rosie

    YOU need to stay out of OUR way when we put forth facts and conclusions drawn therefrom that you don’t like.
     
    Looking back, this is just it.

    Materialist don't like the theistic implications of intelligent design, so they ignore its empirical basis and call it not-science, claiming they are justified because nothing immaterial is testable.

    Suppose I hypothesize that the designer is an alien. Would that answer the not-science objection, since I'm no longer positing a supernatural being? The well-justified inference of design remains either way.
    , @Rosie
    Mr. Rational, It occurs to me that you might have better luck comprehending and appreciating the force of intelligent design arguments if you look at it from a different angle.

    Let's assume that Darwinism is a valid scientific theory. What makes it so?

    I thi k you would argue that it is a valid scientific theory because it is falsifiable. If that is so, you can't then claim that any attempt to falsify Darwinism is "not science."

    Contemporary critics of Darwin argued that his theory wasn't scientific precisely because it couldn't be falsified. His response:


    If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed[,] which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive[,] slight modifications[,] my theory would absolutely break down.
     
    Now, if I argue that the bacterial flagellum is such a complex organ, is that a scientific argument? Why or why not?

    If you do not think this is a scientific approach to the question, what would be? Is there any such thing? Or does the fact that intelligent design is the only plausible alternative to evolution by random mutation and natural selection necessarily mean that any dispute with Darwin is "religious" rather than "scientific"? And if the answer is yes, does that not effectively immunize Carwinism from any scientific scrutiny whatsoever?

    , @Audacious Epigone
    It's tangential, but denying that race is a social construct is incorrect. So is denying that it is based in biological reality, of course. The concept of family, for example, is similarly both a social construct (and can mean different things in different contexts) and simultaneously very much based in biological reality.
  109. @Mr. Rational
    The greatest joy I have ever felt came from unlocking new insights/knowledge.

    The greatest joy I have ever felt came from unlocking new insights/knowledge.

    I gather you’ve not had children.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Beat me to the punch.

    Unlocking new insights does give me great joy, but watching my children unlock them elevates that joy to a level I don't think I could've ever experienced prior to their being born.
  110. @Mr. Rational

    Feel free to share, but at a minimum, stay out of our way when we offer an alternative. We should all be able to agree on free speech.
     
    You are the one who asked "Whence the need to dechristianize the rest of the populace?"  YOU need to stay out of OUR way when we put forth facts and conclusions drawn therefrom that you don't like.  Just like the radical egalitarians need to stay out of OUR way when we say that races are real and valid factual and biological things, not "social constructs".

    YOU need to stay out of OUR way when we put forth facts and conclusions drawn therefrom that you don’t like.

    You clearly haven’t been paying attention.

  111. @Audacious Epigone
    I need to flesh it out fully in the future, but it doesn't seem implausible to me that at some point the white right remnant, drowning in poz, converts to Islam as the only viable vehicle remaining to fight it.

    This gets at the heart of why I'm not a white nationalist even though I understand and can appreciate it. I instinctively side with guys like Talha and Twinkie over white SJWs on everything, and would prefer the former as neighbors over the latter. I'm quite aware that this could be a fatal flaw in WEIRDO software, but it's what I'm running on.

    I instinctively side with guys like Talha and Twinkie over white SJWs on everything

    While I appreciate the sentiment, Talha and I are not quite similar. Are we both anti-“social justice warriors”? Yes, true. We do share some common enemies and can certainly stand together to resist the machinations of these latter-day Bolsheviks.

    But I am also one of those people who believe that culture matters a great deal, and religion and religious milieu are a very large part of the said culture. To put simply, I consider Christianity to be foundational to what America is. As such, it needs to be the dominant religious paradigm that sets the cultural markers in this country. This doesn’t mean we can’t have as citizens non-Christians, be they Jews, Muslims, or what have you, but that dominant religious paradigm – that of Christianity – has to be acknowledged as such by a great majority of the population.

    The same goes for the Anglo-American legal and civic traditions and history – some of us can be non-Anglo-Americans, but most, if not all, of us have to respect and acknowledge the centrality of those traditions and history and must avail ourselves to belong to them (yes, that means even immigrant children really ought to read “Little House on the Prairie” and learn about the phrase “Remember the Alamo!”).

    I suppose what I am saying is that I am an assimilationist. I believe in outsiders who wish to join our society melting into the traditional American culture, including its predominant religion. Talha, by all accounts, seems to be a nice person, but his stated desire appears to be the conversion of Americans into Islam, which, if realized, would fundamentally change the character of our society and to this I would be opposed most vigorously.

    why I’m not a white nationalist even though I understand and can appreciate it.

    The problem with white nationalism is broadly two-fold. It is a loser (is impractical) and it also punishes people for how they were born and not for what they do (which is both unfair and counterproductive).

    Now, I understand the impulses that power white nationalism, which is why I subscribe to what I call “implicit white majoritarianism,” which is to say that whites should be the majority of the country and that their religion, culture, law, and civic traditions should be respected as the dominant paradigm for the society. I believe that satisfies both the exigencies of pragmatism (of holding a society together) and the necessity of being just and fair (unjust and unfair people in power inevitably turn on their own people, too, not just perceived outsiders).

    • Replies: @Talha

    but his stated desire appears to be the conversion of Americans into Islam, which, if realized, would fundamentally change the character of our society
     
    Yes, but America of yore has already been fundamentally changed and continues to be so. I guess the fundamental scenario that AE has laid out is; if Christianity keeps conceding the public space to the poz and becomes increasingly incapable of fighting back, then a vacuum will be left for something that will. I believe that is the core question at hand.

    Now, if Christianity starts to get its act in gear and pushes back against the poz (a scenario I welcome actually since it makes my life a heck of a lot easier) in a very public way (pastors and bishops at the forefront), then this entire discussion is moot really and you will have your ideal scenario. Then the only thing you will have to worry about is not people jumping ship to be on the winning team against the poz (because you will be the winning team and people love winners), but the slow and steady trickle we keep getting from people dissatisfied with trinitarian doctrine (that just seems to be the big Achilles heel from all the converts I’ve come across), but that’s a completely different topic and not particularly relevant for our purposes.

    Peace.
    , @dfordoom

    To put simply, I consider Christianity to be foundational to what America is. As such, it needs to be the dominant religious paradigm that sets the cultural markers in this country.
     
    The problem is that so much of Christianity today is itself hopelessly pozzed. Christianity seems to be inherently vulnerable to this sort of thing. Even Evangelicals are often ludicrously pozzed on issues like feminism. Christianity is a religion of niceness and warm fuzzy feelings. That's why it's failed.

    A revival of Christianity might be the worst thing imaginable if it's the wrong kind of Christianity.

    And Christianity has already fought its war against liberalism. Christianity lost. Why on earth would anyone think that Christianity would do any better in a rematch?
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Hopefully I've demonstrated in my interactions here that I don't consider the two of you very similar, let alone the same--to the contrary, I used the two of you as examples because of your salience and because you're quite different from one another and yet I'm still far more favorably disposed to either of your worldviews than I am to white SJWism.
  112. @Mr. Rational

    You know perfectly well the state is using the people’s tax money to push scientific materialism
     
    Science is about what can be tested.  It is materialistic by definition.  If you shove theology in there, you subject it to materialistic testing.  If it fails, that is YOUR problem.

    while the courts put out gag orders on any alternative points of view.
     
    The courts refuse to recognize fraudulent non-science as science.  This is what courts ought to do.  When you are caught with the intermediate form of "cdesign proponentsists" in your own proposed "science" texts, you have shot your own foot out to well above the knee.  Idiot.

    STOP LYING, DAMN YOU!

    Science is about what can be tested.

    Herein lies the problem with you people. By objecting that ID is “not science,” you reject it a priori, that is, without bothering to look at the evidence first. Very convenient.

    In any event, Darwin himself did not subscribe to your narrow definition of science:

    ‘it seems to me fair in Philosophy to invent any hypothesis & if it explains many phenomena it comes in time to be admitted as real.’

    IOW, Darwin recognized that there are things in this world that (1) we observe, and (2) need explaining. If you are going to claim that Inference to the Best Explanation is “not science,” then Darwinism isn’t science either.

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/

    STOP LYING, DAMN YOU!

    Get a grip.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Darwin recognized that there are things in this world that (1) we observe, and (2) need explaining.
     
    Being "whimmed" into existence is not an explanation.  An omnipotent deity could create anything.  When the question is "why this and not something else," whimsy explains nothing at all.

    If you are going to claim that Inference to the Best Explanation is “not science,” then Darwinism isn’t science either
     
    1.  Only creatonuts refer to the theory of evolution by natural selection as "Darwinism".  Darwin didn't even know about Mendelian inheritance; his theories, while seminal, were superceded by the early 20th century.  Natural selection has joined phenomena like sexual selection as evolutionary forces.
    2.  If you can't test it, it ain't science.  You can test evolution by looking at modern DNA and seeking fossils of intermediate forms which would have to exist.  You can't test a deity, and calling it an "intelligent designer" is just lying about what you're doing.
  113. @Mr. Rational

    In theory at least, we’re supposed to follow the evidence where it leads. Dogmatic atheists make it very clear that they are unwilling to do this, and they will therefore be politely asked to get the f*** out of the way so the rest of us can have a grown-up conversation.
     
    You claim to have logos on your side, but when you claimed that "intelligent design" wasn't just warmed-over creationism, the evidence in Kitzmiller vs. Dover proved you not just totally but laughably wrong.

    If you have to lie to push your theology, how can you be ANYTHING but servants of the father of lies?  You're not fit to be part of an adult conversation.

    Either that, or we’ll just have to wait till they die, and it won’t be long now.
     
    I come from a Christian background.  I noticed the inconsistencies on my own; I was not "indoctrinated".  "You" keep creating more of "us" by lying to people.

    It’s interesting that you use the term “battle,” thus revealing your view of this issue as a question of power rather than truth.
     
    When truth is rejected as authoritative, it comes down to force.  You chose the battle, not us.

    You all have been claiming that scientific evidence disproves the existence of God for almost 200 years, and now that things are looking up for our side, you cry dirty pull and demand a strict wall of separation between science and theology.
     
    Nothing can disprove the existence of "God" per se.  "God" is beyond questioning and so cannot be disproven.

    What has been disproven is most of the arguments for "God".  "God" has been claimed to be responsible for a host of events.  Evidence shows that almost all of those events did not happen as claimed, or did not happen at all*.  This debunks the book from "God".

    We’re not doin’ that.
     
    You're not getting it.  Either align your theology with the proven elements of physical reality, or GTFO.  It's the refusal to pursue that alignment which forced me to give up the Old Testament and thus Christianity.  Erroneous bronze-age tribal myth or Satanic lie, wrong is wrong.

    * The TWO (yes, two) creation sequences in Genesis are contradictory and both are wrong.  There was no world-wide flood at any time humans existed, and light came first.  The observed genetic biodiversity in existence today requires that evolution ran at hundreds if not millions of times the rate observed if the fable of Noah is true, including human biodiversity.

    You claim to have logos on your side, but when you claimed that “intelligent design” wasn’t just warmed-over creationism, the evidence in Kitzmiller vs. Dover proved you not just totally but laughably wrong.

    I’m sorry, but you are just flat-out wrong, here. ID and Biblical creationism are two completely different things. If you are not aware of this, then you are ignorant. If you are aware of the difference, then you are being dishonest by conflating the two.

    For the benefit of any lurkers:

    When atheists call ID “creationism,” they are attempting to claim that ID is unempirical. Old-fashioned young Earth creationism starts from the assumption that the Biblical account of creation is true, and then looks for evidence in nature that supports it.

    ID starts with the opposite assumption: that the Biblical account of creation is not literally true. It’s main proponents accept the Earth as billions of years old. They make a case that a hypothetical intelligent designer better explains our direct empirical observations of the natural world (not based on scripture) than undetected “evolution.”

    * The TWO (yes, two) creation sequences in Genesis are contradictory and both are wrong.

    Irrelevant.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    ID starts with the opposite assumption: that the Biblical account of creation is not literally true.
     
    A distinction without a difference.

    It’s main proponents accept the Earth as billions of years old. They make a case that a hypothetical intelligent designer better explains our direct empirical observations of the natural world (not based on scripture) than undetected “evolution.”
     
    In other words, your deity.  As you well know.

    Lying to yourself is the best way to lie to others.
  114. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "The percentage of white liberals who are atheist or agnostic has more than doubled over the last three decades; the percentage who are firm believers has correspondingly been cut in half."

    These people are not only still believers, but zealous believers at that. They have merely converted from a previous faith to the new progressive religion.

    You’re just recycling the old canard that atheism is just another religion.
    While it is true that some atheists are atheist zealots, I think the majority of us simply find no more credibility in old books about gods than we do in Galen’s writings on medicine, or Hindu shastras on astronomy.
    So to tell us that our lack of religion is just another religion is exavtly like calling rugged good health ‘just another disease’.

  115. @Mr. Rational

    Sure, Talha is a good neighbour. But how about when your block is ALL Talhas? How would your street be then?
     
    Then un-hijabed girls are "uncovered meat" and fair game for the "cats".  This is why I tell him he needs to take his nasty religion back where it came from.  NOW.  Because the reaction will be extra-legal and not predictable, so he needs to either get out while the getting is good (now) or renounce his anti-Western-ness.  (Which may or may not be accepted as in good faith.)

    Then un-hijabed girls are “uncovered meat” and fair game for the “cats”.

    No. A street full of men like myself would be the safest place for women at any time of day. I follow the Shariah; I look the other way when women who are dressed improperly cross my path, and definitely don’t approach them and certainly do not touch them. And my sons are taught the same values. In fact, my wife had a recent talk with my boys about respecting women and girls and avoiding them like kryptonite. In fact, the one place where I have had problems is non-Muslim boys approaching MY daughter and trying to talk to her.

    he needs to either get out while the getting is good

    Why, because I might be killed for my faith? Do you think that scares me? That’s a straight ticket to Paradise, no questions asked and the ability to intercede on behalf of relatives and friends. You guys are afraid to die, the only thing I worry about is making sure my debts and accounts are all settled so that I won’t be questioned about that; that’s the one thing martyrs aren’t forgiven.

    And that’s worst case scenario, which is not very likely given that even the expulsion of the Moors was more orderly and by the book.

    his anti-Western-ness

    Is that the part where I keep talking against gay pride parades or butt-sex enthusiasm being taught to my kids?

    Peace.

  116. @Twinkie

    I instinctively side with guys like Talha and Twinkie over white SJWs on everything
     
    While I appreciate the sentiment, Talha and I are not quite similar. Are we both anti-"social justice warriors"? Yes, true. We do share some common enemies and can certainly stand together to resist the machinations of these latter-day Bolsheviks.

    But I am also one of those people who believe that culture matters a great deal, and religion and religious milieu are a very large part of the said culture. To put simply, I consider Christianity to be foundational to what America is. As such, it needs to be the dominant religious paradigm that sets the cultural markers in this country. This doesn't mean we can't have as citizens non-Christians, be they Jews, Muslims, or what have you, but that dominant religious paradigm - that of Christianity - has to be acknowledged as such by a great majority of the population.

    The same goes for the Anglo-American legal and civic traditions and history - some of us can be non-Anglo-Americans, but most, if not all, of us have to respect and acknowledge the centrality of those traditions and history and must avail ourselves to belong to them (yes, that means even immigrant children really ought to read "Little House on the Prairie" and learn about the phrase "Remember the Alamo!").

    I suppose what I am saying is that I am an assimilationist. I believe in outsiders who wish to join our society melting into the traditional American culture, including its predominant religion. Talha, by all accounts, seems to be a nice person, but his stated desire appears to be the conversion of Americans into Islam, which, if realized, would fundamentally change the character of our society and to this I would be opposed most vigorously.

    why I’m not a white nationalist even though I understand and can appreciate it.

     

    The problem with white nationalism is broadly two-fold. It is a loser (is impractical) and it also punishes people for how they were born and not for what they do (which is both unfair and counterproductive).

    Now, I understand the impulses that power white nationalism, which is why I subscribe to what I call "implicit white majoritarianism," which is to say that whites should be the majority of the country and that their religion, culture, law, and civic traditions should be respected as the dominant paradigm for the society. I believe that satisfies both the exigencies of pragmatism (of holding a society together) and the necessity of being just and fair (unjust and unfair people in power inevitably turn on their own people, too, not just perceived outsiders).

    but his stated desire appears to be the conversion of Americans into Islam, which, if realized, would fundamentally change the character of our society

    Yes, but America of yore has already been fundamentally changed and continues to be so. I guess the fundamental scenario that AE has laid out is; if Christianity keeps conceding the public space to the poz and becomes increasingly incapable of fighting back, then a vacuum will be left for something that will. I believe that is the core question at hand.

    Now, if Christianity starts to get its act in gear and pushes back against the poz (a scenario I welcome actually since it makes my life a heck of a lot easier) in a very public way (pastors and bishops at the forefront), then this entire discussion is moot really and you will have your ideal scenario. Then the only thing you will have to worry about is not people jumping ship to be on the winning team against the poz (because you will be the winning team and people love winners), but the slow and steady trickle we keep getting from people dissatisfied with trinitarian doctrine (that just seems to be the big Achilles heel from all the converts I’ve come across), but that’s a completely different topic and not particularly relevant for our purposes.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @AaronB

    but the slow and steady trickle we keep getting from people dissatisfied with trinitarian doctrine
     
    This is a big part of what did it for me.

    I love certain aspects of Christianity, but I ultimately wanted to be praying to the One God with no one else, a mystery awesome and vast beyond comprehension, something so enormous it defies and explodes all my human notions, while yet capable of relating to me as a puny human in a loving way.

    Jesus and Mary are sympathetic figures, but they are not mysteries awesome and vast beyond comprehension.

    My studies in Eastern traditions also predisposed me to the mysterious and vast Oneness.

    So then it became between Judaism and Islam.

    And as a lover and a believer in the antique, I chose Judaism, as the older - also surely because of my roots, of course. Since then, I've found certain features of Jewish theology particularly appealing, but that was just a cherry on the cake.

    But Islam is a wonderful religion and certainly a Royal Road to the worship of the One God, beside which there is no other, for many.

    Christianity carries a seed of polytheistic paganism inside, it seems to me - modern restorers of Christianity, like Bruce Charlton, frankly reject monotheism and claim that authentic Christianity is polytheistic, and frankly reject the incorporeality of God and clams God(s) are actual physical beings with bodies like humans.

    Misunderstandings like this do not seem capable of arising within Islam or Judaism, it seems to me.

    So there may have been a fatal pagan weakness in Christianity for the get go.

    But good luck to them. A revival of Christianity would still be fantastic improvement.

    , @Rosie

    but the slow and steady trickle we keep getting from people dissatisfied with trinitarian doctrine (that just seems to be the big Achilles heel from all the converts I’ve come across), but that’s a completely different topic and not particularly relevant for our purposes.
     
    Cutting oneself off from one's heritage over a theological dispute like that seems exceedingly foolish. Christianity has always been a very big tent, and there are different ways to worship God. Personally, the Trinity seems to me to be absolutely necessary to the uniqueness of Christianity. Perhaps it seems so to me because of my pagan heritage.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Yes, that is exactly what I was getting at, thanks.
    , @Twinkie

    the winning team against the poz
     
    I don't understand the term "poz," so I don't grasp your argument here. Nonetheless, my argument for Christianity in America is not a utilitarian one - it is based on my faith in it as the revealed truth from God AND on the fact that it has been an integral part of America's history and culture.

    And, yes, the United States has undergone dramatic changes in the past several decades, but a large majority (over 70%) continues to identify as Christian, even as Christianity and faithful Christians face unrelenting cultural assault from the leftists who have captured some of the major institutions in the country. The prevailing culture, even if no longer explicitly Christian, is still suffused with all manners of Christian elements.

    And frankly even if the percentage of Christians were to shrink to a small minority, so long as some Christians survive (in the catacombs if necessary!), there is always a chance for renewal as happened when the barbarians overran Rome.

    As for Islam, its adherents are currently less than 1% of the population (there are more than twice as many Mormons as there are Muslims in the U.S.), so an Islamic takeover of the United States is highly unlikely to say the least. For better or worse, the main cultural war here is that between Christians and atheists.
  117. “Science is about what can be tested.”

    Here’s the problem with your contend.

    The scientific method has several parts all of which serve as a mechanism for determining the truth, accuracy or fact of any given phenomenon or artifact. The last and actual test in science is the ability to predict or determine the occurance or existence of the same relevant to the conditions at the time of test.

    In short an inability to predict outcomes is a serious challenge as to whether said phenomenon or artifact has definitive conclusions. In more modern times, those touting science as the determiner of fact have conveniently danced around the use of “speculation” as though the speculative is sufficient to the end conclusion – fact or truth.

    And that model is by definition of science — flawed. Simply shortchanging the gaps in the supposed theory means one continues to have theory not a definitive conclusion to fact. And under the guise of science which has gained credibility not by fact finding but virtue of status and reputation – and position among the influential.

    Whether or not one can test for God is soley dependent on the model for test and the definition of God. Evolution by the nature of unanswered gaps and a complete failure to predict any next stage in the supposed process is an indicator not of fact, but theory.

    I find it a very tough call to question to completely ignore the role of God in creation once I understand the nature and existence of God.

    God has no barriers time and space are meaningless to that existence. In a blink of eye may very be well a trillion years in the view and existence of human beings. Whether intelligent design or the something as collapsed as six days, six hundred, six thousand, six hundred thousand, six million or eight trillion years simply is no barrier, it is a non issue for God

    is an eternal being eternal exceeds “infinity: as even infinity is a human measure of time. But eternal is now, past and future with no demarcation lines to note which is which —

    a now always

    what God can do is only a matter of how “big” (powerful) one allows the God to be.

  118. Are there theological implications to be drawn from the fact that I just checked and found that I have a empty box of Orval Redenbacher, just when we see that there is a possibility that Twinkie and Talha might duke it out?

    • Replies: @Talha

    Twinkie and Talha might duke it out?
     
    Why would we duke it out? I have a good amount of respect for the man and wish him and his family the best. Sure we have different visions for what we would call the ideal future, but that’s life - everyone has an opinion.

    I don’t mind White-majority rule...
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/ModernEgypt%2C_Muhammad_Ali_by_Auguste_Couder%2C_BAP_17996.jpg/800px-ModernEgypt%2C_Muhammad_Ali_by_Auguste_Couder%2C_BAP_17996.jpg

    Peace.
  119. @Mr. Rational

    Feel free to share, but at a minimum, stay out of our way when we offer an alternative. We should all be able to agree on free speech.
     
    You are the one who asked "Whence the need to dechristianize the rest of the populace?"  YOU need to stay out of OUR way when we put forth facts and conclusions drawn therefrom that you don't like.  Just like the radical egalitarians need to stay out of OUR way when we say that races are real and valid factual and biological things, not "social constructs".

    YOU need to stay out of OUR way when we put forth facts and conclusions drawn therefrom that you don’t like.

    Looking back, this is just it.

    Materialist don’t like the theistic implications of intelligent design, so they ignore its empirical basis and call it not-science, claiming they are justified because nothing immaterial is testable.

    Suppose I hypothesize that the designer is an alien. Would that answer the not-science objection, since I’m no longer positing a supernatural being? The well-justified inference of design remains either way.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Materialist don’t like the theistic implications of intelligent design, so they ignore its empirical basis and call it not-science, claiming they are justified because nothing immaterial is testable.
     
    So produce this "intelligent designer".  There's mountains of fossils of "intermediate forms" and DNA showing common origins of extant species, you should be able to show us this designer... if it ever existed.

    Suppose I hypothesize that the designer is an alien. Would that answer the not-science objection, since I’m no longer positing a supernatural being?
     
    Let's go over this one piece at a time, because you're slow.

    Per the fossil record, microbial life arose on Earth very early on.  We have evidence of that in the form of things like iron deposits left by large bacterial mats.  Multicellular life took a while to develop.  There weren't anything like mammals or birds until the Cretaceous or thereabouts, and mammals didn't get a chance to radiate and take over lots of ecological niches until after the dinosaur dieoff at the K-T boundary.

    There are certain requirements for Earth to exist in the first place.  It's made largely of metals and silicates, so there had to be metals and silicon and oxygen before a terrestrial planet could even form and eventually have water on it.  This means at least one and maybe several generations of stars had to form and die as supernovae before there was even the material to make rocky planets.  The only planets that could form in the beginning were gas giants.  Nothing resembling us could live on a gas giant, and life can't be made out of just hydrogen and helium either.

    Your "alien designer" would have had to arise in a universe far less hospitable to life:  not just with scarce planet-building and life-making elements, but compact and with lots of highly energetic events like supernovae, neutron-star mergers and active galactic nuclei going on.  Plus, your hypothetical "designer" would have to be highly capable, not just capable of travelling to other stars for questionable profits but also capable of feats of biology which are way beyond us.

    You're claiming that life on Earth could not have evolved.  Could this "designer" have evolved?  You obviously claim not, so who designed the designer?  And that is how you dishonestly try to slip your deity in through the back door.  Your whole thing is a ruse, a lie.

    The well-justified inference of design remains either way.
     
    Maybe you're really dumb enough to believe this, but you're only fooling yourself.  It only makes you look stupid to people who can think.
    , @Nodwink
    The design of biological systems is bottom-up, rather than top-down. No designer needed, apart from some chemistry, and random variation.
  120. @iffen
    Are there theological implications to be drawn from the fact that I just checked and found that I have a empty box of Orval Redenbacher, just when we see that there is a possibility that Twinkie and Talha might duke it out?

    Twinkie and Talha might duke it out?

    Why would we duke it out? I have a good amount of respect for the man and wish him and his family the best. Sure we have different visions for what we would call the ideal future, but that’s life – everyone has an opinion.

    I don’t mind White-majority rule…

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Great.

    Instead, we get you against the peanut gallery.
  121. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "The percentage of white liberals who are atheist or agnostic has more than doubled over the last three decades; the percentage who are firm believers has correspondingly been cut in half."

    These people are not only still believers, but zealous believers at that. They have merely converted from a previous faith to the new progressive religion.

    These people are not only still believers, but zealous believers at that. They have merely converted from a previous faith to the new progressive religion.

    That’s obviously true up to a point. Secular religions (environmentalism, marxism, libertarianism, Social Justice etc) do function like religions in many ways.

    But there are crucial differences. It’s not like converting from Protestantism to Catholicism, or from Christianity to Judaism.

    Secular religions offer no hope of individual salvation. Which is a really interesting paradox since modern westerners put so much stress on the individual. Logically if you’re an extreme individualist you should gravitate towards an actual religion that does offer individual salvation.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Secular religions offer no hope of individual salvation.

    Absolutely wrong. It offers the highest order of earthly salvation, and that is the only kind that they consider relevant.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    "Secular religions offer no hope of individual salvation."

    Being remembered as a tireless virtue signaler is their form of salvation.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    I think you may have just cracked the code as to why so many of them are so miserable all the time.
  122. @WorkingClass
    Not believing in God (Atheism) is easy. Not believing in anything (Nihilism) is difficult. Just try it sometime. Ideology gives Atheists something to believe in. Trans ideology elevates the individual to the status of deity. Communism elevates the State.

    I find white Liberals loathsome because their ideology requires that they either hate themselves or pretend to hate themselves. Imagine running for office by apologizing for your skin color. Vote for me. I suck. It's not gonna keep the POC on the reservation. AOC and her faithful Indian companion will take over the party. The white Liberals can go eat worms.

    I find white Liberals loathsome because their ideology requires that they either hate themselves or pretend to hate themselves.

    No it doesn’t. Their ideology requires that they hate bad people. It requires that they hate sinners. But they’re not sinners. They’re the Elect. They are goodwhites and they know that they personally are free from sin.

    Who are the bad people, the sinners, that they are required to hate? Badwhites. You can recognise badwhites pretty easily. For one thing they’re not rich. Being rich is one of the ways you know you’re one of the Elect. Badwhites live in the wrong places. If you live in flyover country you’re obviously a badwhite.

  123. @advancedatheist
    Christianity stopped "feeling true" to thoughtful Europeans about 400 years ago, and this happened in a Hayekian fashion to a lot of people who followed their own lines of inquiry without knowing each other, many of them coming from the less socially privileged classes. The British historian Alec Ryrie (Gresham College) has an interesting-looking book about this phenomenon due out in the fall. The way Ryrie describes it, the feeling of falsity came first, then the early modern philosophers tried to justify this wide-spread intuition after the fact as they sought sounder ways to ground religious belief.

    For some reason Christian apologists don't want to deal with this unexpected breakdown of the Christian monopoly in the world of beliefs and ideas. It happened spontaneously, organically, and without any central planning to impose it on the population. Indeed, it happened in defiance of political and religious authority. Europe's rulers got to the point where they couldn't enforce uniformity of belief through indoctrination, persecution, censorship, torture, capital punishment, and wars against neighboring kingdoms ruled by heretics, so they just gave up and allowed some degree of religious toleration. This created elbow room for people to become atheists.

    The Christian Creative Anachronists who think they can reboot an age of faith have to grapple with the fact that the original age of faith failed the first time around for nonobvious reasons beyond anyone's control.

    Christianity stopped “feeling true” to thoughtful Europeans about 400 years ago,

    Amazing that this coincided so closely with the Reformation. You don’t think that maybe it was the Reformation that fatally undermined Christianity?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Amazing that this coincided so closely with the Reformation. You don’t think that maybe it was the Reformation that fatally undermined Christianity?
     
    This is a very curious habit that is rife on the right-looking backwards. Why do so many feel compelled to do this?

    Suppose you're on a road trip, and you get off track. You know you're not headed in the right direction, and you must have made a wrong turn somewhere. Do you need to know where exactly you made the wrong turn? No. In fact, attempting to go back and make the "right"tuen might well just waste more time.

    What you need to know is how to get where you want to go from where you are now.
  124. @Talha

    the white liberal was arguing from a theological perspective
     
    Not really - throwing a tantrum and casually tossing out words like beta-male and worthless father in hopes to trigger me into a reaction so they can feel even more victimized is not really a theological approach. It's victim virtue-signaling 101. Well, I guess maybe Victimology can be considered their religion.

    very good and well argued practical reasons.
     
    When dealing with an anti-theist, one must provide such arguments. Arguments based in a theological perspective the man doesn't recognize is useless.

    What moral virtues or theological vision was the white liberal willing to make social tradeoffs for?
     
    His whole thing is the primacy of individual autonomy - hyper-individualism. If the person is an adult, they can do whatever they want with whoever they want. It is the religion of self-worship.

    Can this be decided on the practical level?
     
    Millet system; good fences...

    Everything flows from First Principles it seems to me.
     
    Agreed, which is why they were very frustrated with me that I would not accede them the right to define the parameters of first principles.

    My framework and first principles are diametrically opposite of those on the other side of the conversation. There were be no agreement and no congruence, there is only accommodation or negotiated space in a practical compromise from both sides.

    To be honest, from a practical perspective, someone like me is willing to accommodate them in shared space and with negotiated autonomy far more than their vision. Look at the image below and think about what they envision as an end goal:
    https://twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi/status/1147620196712144897

    This is not simply a joke, it is a shot across the bow in a full declaration of war. That's OK though - as Peter Hitchens stated:
    "Islam is not so self effacing as Christianity, it doesn't give up when dismissed or mocked or even persecuted, it carries on, it's one of the things that's most admirable about it, is that it stands up for itself."

    And me standing up and simply dismissing their mockery and refusing to let them define the terms of debate really, really pissed them off.

    Peace.

    This is not simply a joke, it is a shot across the bow in a full declaration of war.

    Yes. In the long term liberalism cannot and will not tolerate the existence of alternatives to liberalism. Religion provides such an alternative, therefore religion must be destroyed. Which means that ideological war between liberalism and Islam is inevitable and can only end with the complete victory of one or the other.

    Liberalism declared war on Christianity a couple of centuries ago. Christianity responded by trying compromise. Then they compromised some more. Then they compromised even further. Finally they tried unconditional surrender. But the liberal war on Christianity will not end until every Christian has pledged allegiance to atheism and liberalism and renounced Christianity.

    One hopes that Islam has taken note of all this. Compromise is death.

    • Agree: AaronB
    • Replies: @Talha

    and can only end with the complete victory of one or the other.
     
    The only difference being, they are not interested in a negotiated surrender from the other side. There may be no sacred space, nothing inviolable, nothing sacrosanct...Pussy Riot must be allowed to dance in the middle of cathedrals.

    One hopes that Islam has taken note of all this. Compromise is death.
     
    We have. It has been quite instructive. One thing about their assault on Christianity is how they adopted its language in their attacks - namely "LOVE, LOVE and more LOVE". Note what that image implies:
    "Love wins everywhere once a man is able to insert his penis into another man's anus under the shadow of the Kaa'ba - until then, hate is still alive and hate must be eradicated from the world."

    The thing about Islam is part of its core theological doctrines. As some were discussing above, the question of the Divine Attribute of Love is an interesting one. We certainly have that concept; it is one of the 99 names - al-Wadud (The Loving). In our doctrines however, we don't simply say "God is infinitely loving" because what does that mean? Is it some kind of a quantitative thing? If it is, does it negate His other Attributes which are also "infinite" - vying for space with them? Rather we say (even if we were to use the term "infinitely") that His attribute of The Loving (as with all His other Attributes) is in sense of perfection and only God can truly understand the perfection of any of His attributes that He has revealed and made manifest (and those He may not have).

    The reason I bring this up is because, we also have Divine Attributes of rigor like; al-Jabbar (The Compeller), al-KhafiDh (The Abaser), al-Mudhil (The Humiliator), al-Mumeet (The Destroyer), al-Muntaqim (The Avenger), etc. and those also must be understood in perfection.

    So we have many places in the Qur'an where God tells us what attributes He loves for people to have, but there are also places where He tells us what attributes He dislikes people to have. So we have mandates like this:
    "Whoever loves for the sake of Allah, hates for the sake of Allah, gives for the sake of Allah, and withholds for the sake of Allah has perfected the faith." - reported in Abu Dawud

    There are things that one is required to hate in one's heart as a mandate of the religion, even if one cannot do anything about them:
    "Whoever among you sees evil, let him change it with his hand. If he is unable to do so, then with his tongue. If he is unable to do so, then with his heart, and that is the weakest level of faith.” - reported in Muslim

    So simply trying to tie us up with "LOVE, LOVE and more LOVE" doesn't have nearly the same effect. In fact, the last Friday congregation I attended was in one of the larger mosques in the Chicago area. I was very pleased that the sermon was about warning about the dangers of the LGBT movement and protecting our youth from it. It was nice knowing we are still willing to speak out publicly about these topics from the pulpit.

    However, that's not to say we won't lose quite a bit of people, because we will. If anything, we are most susceptible to the diseases that affect the other Abrahamic faiths:
    "You will follow the ways of those nations who were before you, span by span and cubit by cubit so much so that even if they entered a hole of a lizard, you would follow them." We said, "O Allah's Messenger! (Do you mean) the Jews and the Christians?" He said, "Whom else?" - reported in Bukhari

    I feel really bad for the West in this regard. The Muslims that apostate tend to be some of the most hard-core Left-liberals you'll find. Especially the vocal ones, they don't take Left positions like those of the Jimmy Carter generation - they are poz in full throttle and provide a feedback loop in growing the extreme Left and pulling more of our youth into it. That in and of itself should be reason enough to prevent any more immigration from Muslim countries.

    Peace.
    , @AaronB
    However, you must realize that Islam is a very young religion, and its future is entirely unclear.

    Christisnity 1,300 years after its creation was at its absolute height, flourishing and thriving. Islam after 1,300 years - we do not know yet if it can weather the storm. It has not yet been tested. This is perhaps its first serious test - the past 150 years.

    Without any disrespect to Talha, some of his more ecumenical and broad minded remarks are beginning to make me worry.

    But we should certainly hope that Islam does manage to withstand the test of time.

    We shall see.
    , @AaronB
    However, you must realize that Islam is a very young religion, and its future is entirely unclear.

    Christisnity 1,300 years after its creation was at its absolute height, flourishing and thriving. Islam after 1,300 years - we do not know yet if it can weather the storm. It has not yet been tested. This is perhaps its first serious test - the past 150 years.

    Without any disrespect to Talha, some of his more ecumenical and broad minded remarks are beginning to make me worry.

    But we should certainly hope that Islam does manage to withstand the test of time.

    We shall see.
  125. @Talha

    but his stated desire appears to be the conversion of Americans into Islam, which, if realized, would fundamentally change the character of our society
     
    Yes, but America of yore has already been fundamentally changed and continues to be so. I guess the fundamental scenario that AE has laid out is; if Christianity keeps conceding the public space to the poz and becomes increasingly incapable of fighting back, then a vacuum will be left for something that will. I believe that is the core question at hand.

    Now, if Christianity starts to get its act in gear and pushes back against the poz (a scenario I welcome actually since it makes my life a heck of a lot easier) in a very public way (pastors and bishops at the forefront), then this entire discussion is moot really and you will have your ideal scenario. Then the only thing you will have to worry about is not people jumping ship to be on the winning team against the poz (because you will be the winning team and people love winners), but the slow and steady trickle we keep getting from people dissatisfied with trinitarian doctrine (that just seems to be the big Achilles heel from all the converts I’ve come across), but that’s a completely different topic and not particularly relevant for our purposes.

    Peace.

    but the slow and steady trickle we keep getting from people dissatisfied with trinitarian doctrine

    This is a big part of what did it for me.

    I love certain aspects of Christianity, but I ultimately wanted to be praying to the One God with no one else, a mystery awesome and vast beyond comprehension, something so enormous it defies and explodes all my human notions, while yet capable of relating to me as a puny human in a loving way.

    Jesus and Mary are sympathetic figures, but they are not mysteries awesome and vast beyond comprehension.

    My studies in Eastern traditions also predisposed me to the mysterious and vast Oneness.

    So then it became between Judaism and Islam.

    And as a lover and a believer in the antique, I chose Judaism, as the older – also surely because of my roots, of course. Since then, I’ve found certain features of Jewish theology particularly appealing, but that was just a cherry on the cake.

    But Islam is a wonderful religion and certainly a Royal Road to the worship of the One God, beside which there is no other, for many.

    Christianity carries a seed of polytheistic paganism inside, it seems to me – modern restorers of Christianity, like Bruce Charlton, frankly reject monotheism and claim that authentic Christianity is polytheistic, and frankly reject the incorporeality of God and clams God(s) are actual physical beings with bodies like humans.

    Misunderstandings like this do not seem capable of arising within Islam or Judaism, it seems to me.

    So there may have been a fatal pagan weakness in Christianity for the get go.

    But good luck to them. A revival of Christianity would still be fantastic improvement.

  126. @dfordoom

    These people are not only still believers, but zealous believers at that. They have merely converted from a previous faith to the new progressive religion.
     
    That's obviously true up to a point. Secular religions (environmentalism, marxism, libertarianism, Social Justice etc) do function like religions in many ways.

    But there are crucial differences. It's not like converting from Protestantism to Catholicism, or from Christianity to Judaism.

    Secular religions offer no hope of individual salvation. Which is a really interesting paradox since modern westerners put so much stress on the individual. Logically if you're an extreme individualist you should gravitate towards an actual religion that does offer individual salvation.

    Secular religions offer no hope of individual salvation.

    Absolutely wrong. It offers the highest order of earthly salvation, and that is the only kind that they consider relevant.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Good point.
  127. @iffen
    Secular religions offer no hope of individual salvation.

    Absolutely wrong. It offers the highest order of earthly salvation, and that is the only kind that they consider relevant.

    Good point.

  128. @Audacious Epigone
    I need to flesh it out fully in the future, but it doesn't seem implausible to me that at some point the white right remnant, drowning in poz, converts to Islam as the only viable vehicle remaining to fight it.

    This gets at the heart of why I'm not a white nationalist even though I understand and can appreciate it. I instinctively side with guys like Talha and Twinkie over white SJWs on everything, and would prefer the former as neighbors over the latter. I'm quite aware that this could be a fatal flaw in WEIRDO software, but it's what I'm running on.

    I need to flesh it out fully in the future, but it doesn’t seem implausible to me that at some point the white right remnant, drowning in poz, converts to Islam as the only viable vehicle remaining to fight it.

    At the moment white dissident rightists see Islam as an ally of the globohomo and they tend towards hating Islam. It will be interesting to see what happens when the inevitable liberal war on Islam really gets going in earnest. Will those white dissident rightists then see Muslims as allies? And possibly, as you suggest, start seeing Islam as possibly the only antidote to the poz.

  129. @Twinkie

    I instinctively side with guys like Talha and Twinkie over white SJWs on everything
     
    While I appreciate the sentiment, Talha and I are not quite similar. Are we both anti-"social justice warriors"? Yes, true. We do share some common enemies and can certainly stand together to resist the machinations of these latter-day Bolsheviks.

    But I am also one of those people who believe that culture matters a great deal, and religion and religious milieu are a very large part of the said culture. To put simply, I consider Christianity to be foundational to what America is. As such, it needs to be the dominant religious paradigm that sets the cultural markers in this country. This doesn't mean we can't have as citizens non-Christians, be they Jews, Muslims, or what have you, but that dominant religious paradigm - that of Christianity - has to be acknowledged as such by a great majority of the population.

    The same goes for the Anglo-American legal and civic traditions and history - some of us can be non-Anglo-Americans, but most, if not all, of us have to respect and acknowledge the centrality of those traditions and history and must avail ourselves to belong to them (yes, that means even immigrant children really ought to read "Little House on the Prairie" and learn about the phrase "Remember the Alamo!").

    I suppose what I am saying is that I am an assimilationist. I believe in outsiders who wish to join our society melting into the traditional American culture, including its predominant religion. Talha, by all accounts, seems to be a nice person, but his stated desire appears to be the conversion of Americans into Islam, which, if realized, would fundamentally change the character of our society and to this I would be opposed most vigorously.

    why I’m not a white nationalist even though I understand and can appreciate it.

     

    The problem with white nationalism is broadly two-fold. It is a loser (is impractical) and it also punishes people for how they were born and not for what they do (which is both unfair and counterproductive).

    Now, I understand the impulses that power white nationalism, which is why I subscribe to what I call "implicit white majoritarianism," which is to say that whites should be the majority of the country and that their religion, culture, law, and civic traditions should be respected as the dominant paradigm for the society. I believe that satisfies both the exigencies of pragmatism (of holding a society together) and the necessity of being just and fair (unjust and unfair people in power inevitably turn on their own people, too, not just perceived outsiders).

    To put simply, I consider Christianity to be foundational to what America is. As such, it needs to be the dominant religious paradigm that sets the cultural markers in this country.

    The problem is that so much of Christianity today is itself hopelessly pozzed. Christianity seems to be inherently vulnerable to this sort of thing. Even Evangelicals are often ludicrously pozzed on issues like feminism. Christianity is a religion of niceness and warm fuzzy feelings. That’s why it’s failed.

    A revival of Christianity might be the worst thing imaginable if it’s the wrong kind of Christianity.

    And Christianity has already fought its war against liberalism. Christianity lost. Why on earth would anyone think that Christianity would do any better in a rematch?

  130. @advancedatheist
    Who humiliated the Catholic priest Jean Meslier (1664-1729) into becoming an atheist? He arrived at that position on his own.

    And he had plenty of company in his era.

    He’s an individual, from a time when Christianity was still flourishing around the world. Rosie noted the concentrated, collective propaganda efforts implemented by the communists in academia and in the government bureaucracy after WW2. Aside from that, the entire Eastern Block witnessed the same on a much higher level, with physical attacks and persecutions against Christian leaders.

  131. @dfordoom

    Christianity stopped “feeling true” to thoughtful Europeans about 400 years ago,
     
    Amazing that this coincided so closely with the Reformation. You don't think that maybe it was the Reformation that fatally undermined Christianity?

    Amazing that this coincided so closely with the Reformation. You don’t think that maybe it was the Reformation that fatally undermined Christianity?

    This is a very curious habit that is rife on the right-looking backwards. Why do so many feel compelled to do this?

    Suppose you’re on a road trip, and you get off track. You know you’re not headed in the right direction, and you must have made a wrong turn somewhere. Do you need to know where exactly you made the wrong turn? No. In fact, attempting to go back and make the “right”tuen might well just waste more time.

    What you need to know is how to get where you want to go from where you are now.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    This is a very curious habit that is rife on the right-looking backwards.
     
    What makes you think I'm on the right?
  132. @Talha

    but his stated desire appears to be the conversion of Americans into Islam, which, if realized, would fundamentally change the character of our society
     
    Yes, but America of yore has already been fundamentally changed and continues to be so. I guess the fundamental scenario that AE has laid out is; if Christianity keeps conceding the public space to the poz and becomes increasingly incapable of fighting back, then a vacuum will be left for something that will. I believe that is the core question at hand.

    Now, if Christianity starts to get its act in gear and pushes back against the poz (a scenario I welcome actually since it makes my life a heck of a lot easier) in a very public way (pastors and bishops at the forefront), then this entire discussion is moot really and you will have your ideal scenario. Then the only thing you will have to worry about is not people jumping ship to be on the winning team against the poz (because you will be the winning team and people love winners), but the slow and steady trickle we keep getting from people dissatisfied with trinitarian doctrine (that just seems to be the big Achilles heel from all the converts I’ve come across), but that’s a completely different topic and not particularly relevant for our purposes.

    Peace.

    but the slow and steady trickle we keep getting from people dissatisfied with trinitarian doctrine (that just seems to be the big Achilles heel from all the converts I’ve come across), but that’s a completely different topic and not particularly relevant for our purposes.

    Cutting oneself off from one’s heritage over a theological dispute like that seems exceedingly foolish. Christianity has always been a very big tent, and there are different ways to worship God. Personally, the Trinity seems to me to be absolutely necessary to the uniqueness of Christianity. Perhaps it seems so to me because of my pagan heritage.

    • Replies: @Talha

    Cutting oneself off from one’s heritage
     
    But that's not how these converts see it unless you insist heritage is fixed with religion of one's forefathers, but - as you pointed out - Europeans were pagan before, then Catholic, then (many) Protestant, then post-Christian, then...what...? It seems a little strange (at least to me) to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say, but now we cannot evolve religiously.

    One goes with what one ultimately feels comfortable with. People have a difficult time with cognitive dissonance; saying they believe in a doctrine, but not being fully on board with it. Hyper-individualism being prominent in society and very little incentive for in-group preference or cohesion takes care of the rest.

    Then it simply comes down to having a religion that one inherited by accident of birth versus what one believes in the core of their heart and being.

    If one feels Trinitarianism is the right belief and makes sense to them, good for them. I'm not trying to convince them otherwise, I was just pointing out a fairly well known trend in our community, namely; Christianity is the biggest gateway into Islam:
    https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/FT_18.01.19_conversionIslam_convert640px.png

    Shaykh Nuh Keller (the author/translator of the infamous "Reliance of the Traveler" who I met when he stayed over at my apartment on his first trip to speak at UCLA) had this same issue - you can read it if you are interested here (the first few paragraphs are the relevant ones for why he simply checked out of Catholicism):
    http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/bmuslim.htm


    Christianity has always been a very big tent
     
    Indeed. Heterodox doctrines are fairly common under the umbrella of "Christianity". Think about Mormonism which is hyper-polytheistic (when you really dig into its core doctrines), but is still generally considered "Christianity". Or Jehovah's Witnesses that have a heck of a lot in common with us. Technically, many Christian thinkers thought Islam was a Christian heresy itself (after all, converts still get to keep their "I love Jesus" T-shirts without irony). If one follows that line of reasoning to its ultimate conclusion; well, we are simply the most successful heresy Christianity ever produced.

    Peace.

  133. @advancedatheist

    and why would the materialist breed less than the religious… does that not indicate a dysgenic trend lol
     
    I might add that the Catholic Church wasted vast genetic potential by directing many of the capable boys within its grasp into becoming celibate priests and monks, not to mention all the ovaries it wasted by sending girls into convents.

    Perhaps the early Protestant and Reformed Churches got the traction they did because they put a stop to this nonsense and encouraged the capable men in the clergy to marry and form families, following Martin Luther's example of marrying a former nun named Katharina von Bora. They didn't merely fight the war of the cradle more effectively; they fought it by deploying more of the genes of their better quality men that the Catholic Church would just let go to waste.

    In those days, when the Catholic Church was still a relevant societal force, fertility rates were high so even if you ended up with no offspring, your siblings probably did, so the family line continued, it’s better to have five married kids, a priest and a nun, than one or two, who may or may not give you grandkids, as is the case currently. Da Vinci and Tesla had no kids, I don’t know about other inventors, and while you can leave the raising of the family to your wife, no family means more time to work on your projects, but they’re good to have when you get old.

  134. @Rosie

    Amazing that this coincided so closely with the Reformation. You don’t think that maybe it was the Reformation that fatally undermined Christianity?
     
    This is a very curious habit that is rife on the right-looking backwards. Why do so many feel compelled to do this?

    Suppose you're on a road trip, and you get off track. You know you're not headed in the right direction, and you must have made a wrong turn somewhere. Do you need to know where exactly you made the wrong turn? No. In fact, attempting to go back and make the "right"tuen might well just waste more time.

    What you need to know is how to get where you want to go from where you are now.

    This is a very curious habit that is rife on the right-looking backwards.

    What makes you think I’m on the right?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    What makes you think I’m on the right?
     
    Really? Don't we all have better things to do?
  135. On the Poz:

    I am beginning to think this issue of the “poz” is becoming a rather unhealthy obsession on the right.

    First of all, it’s both negative and imprecise, and it therefore comes off as threatening, perhaps needlessly so. There is really no point in railing against “feminism” nor the “poz.” What is needed ar straightforward and concrete demands that one can either agree or disagree with.

    The issue of the “poz” has taken on a life if it’s own, and seems totally disconnected to any ultimate aim that is affirmative rather than negative in nature. I don’t like certain aspects of the poz because they threaten my vision for the good life. I think the issue has become unmoored from that among many in the dissident right.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I'm fine with replacing the term with "sexualizing six year old boys, pumping them full of sex change hormones, and having them dance provocatively for adult men".

    It doesn't roll off the tongue quite as well, admittedly.
    , @iffen
    among many in the dissident right.

    Have you ever thought about adding an s to dissident and putting the period after that?
  136. @dfordoom

    This is a very curious habit that is rife on the right-looking backwards.
     
    What makes you think I'm on the right?

    What makes you think I’m on the right?

    Really? Don’t we all have better things to do?

  137. @Mr. Rational

    Feel free to share, but at a minimum, stay out of our way when we offer an alternative. We should all be able to agree on free speech.
     
    You are the one who asked "Whence the need to dechristianize the rest of the populace?"  YOU need to stay out of OUR way when we put forth facts and conclusions drawn therefrom that you don't like.  Just like the radical egalitarians need to stay out of OUR way when we say that races are real and valid factual and biological things, not "social constructs".

    Mr. Rational, It occurs to me that you might have better luck comprehending and appreciating the force of intelligent design arguments if you look at it from a different angle.

    Let’s assume that Darwinism is a valid scientific theory. What makes it so?

    I thi k you would argue that it is a valid scientific theory because it is falsifiable. If that is so, you can’t then claim that any attempt to falsify Darwinism is “not science.”

    Contemporary critics of Darwin argued that his theory wasn’t scientific precisely because it couldn’t be falsified. His response:

    If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed[,] which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive[,] slight modifications[,] my theory would absolutely break down.

    Now, if I argue that the bacterial flagellum is such a complex organ, is that a scientific argument? Why or why not?

    If you do not think this is a scientific approach to the question, what would be? Is there any such thing? Or does the fact that intelligent design is the only plausible alternative to evolution by random mutation and natural selection necessarily mean that any dispute with Darwin is “religious” rather than “scientific”? And if the answer is yes, does that not effectively immunize Carwinism from any scientific scrutiny whatsoever?

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Mr. Rational, It occurs to me that you might have better luck comprehending and appreciating the force of intelligent design arguments if you look at it from a different angle.
     
    I am not some wet-behind-the-ears naif you can fool with such BS.  The stuff you're pulling out was old, moldy and debunked when Kitzmiller was decided 14 years ago.  It has not improved with age.

    if I argue that the bacterial flagellum is such a complex organ, is that a scientific argument? Why or why not?
     
    Not scientific because not testable.  Bacteria don't leave fossils, remember?  All we have to examine are what's living in the present day, and variants that were superceded and lost along the way can only be inferred.  Further, all I had to do was type "bacterial flagellum evolution" into a search engine to get a heap of results including these:

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex/
    https://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7116

    Note from the first link:  Evolution is cleverer than you are.
  138. @dfordoom

    This is not simply a joke, it is a shot across the bow in a full declaration of war.
     
    Yes. In the long term liberalism cannot and will not tolerate the existence of alternatives to liberalism. Religion provides such an alternative, therefore religion must be destroyed. Which means that ideological war between liberalism and Islam is inevitable and can only end with the complete victory of one or the other.

    Liberalism declared war on Christianity a couple of centuries ago. Christianity responded by trying compromise. Then they compromised some more. Then they compromised even further. Finally they tried unconditional surrender. But the liberal war on Christianity will not end until every Christian has pledged allegiance to atheism and liberalism and renounced Christianity.

    One hopes that Islam has taken note of all this. Compromise is death.

    and can only end with the complete victory of one or the other.

    The only difference being, they are not interested in a negotiated surrender from the other side. There may be no sacred space, nothing inviolable, nothing sacrosanct…Pussy Riot must be allowed to dance in the middle of cathedrals.

    One hopes that Islam has taken note of all this. Compromise is death.

    We have. It has been quite instructive. One thing about their assault on Christianity is how they adopted its language in their attacks – namely “LOVE, LOVE and more LOVE”. Note what that image implies:
    “Love wins everywhere once a man is able to insert his penis into another man’s anus under the shadow of the Kaa’ba – until then, hate is still alive and hate must be eradicated from the world.”

    The thing about Islam is part of its core theological doctrines. As some were discussing above, the question of the Divine Attribute of Love is an interesting one. We certainly have that concept; it is one of the 99 names – al-Wadud (The Loving). In our doctrines however, we don’t simply say “God is infinitely loving” because what does that mean? Is it some kind of a quantitative thing? If it is, does it negate His other Attributes which are also “infinite” – vying for space with them? Rather we say (even if we were to use the term “infinitely”) that His attribute of The Loving (as with all His other Attributes) is in sense of perfection and only God can truly understand the perfection of any of His attributes that He has revealed and made manifest (and those He may not have).

    The reason I bring this up is because, we also have Divine Attributes of rigor like; al-Jabbar (The Compeller), al-KhafiDh (The Abaser), al-Mudhil (The Humiliator), al-Mumeet (The Destroyer), al-Muntaqim (The Avenger), etc. and those also must be understood in perfection.

    So we have many places in the Qur’an where God tells us what attributes He loves for people to have, but there are also places where He tells us what attributes He dislikes people to have. So we have mandates like this:
    “Whoever loves for the sake of Allah, hates for the sake of Allah, gives for the sake of Allah, and withholds for the sake of Allah has perfected the faith.” – reported in Abu Dawud

    There are things that one is required to hate in one’s heart as a mandate of the religion, even if one cannot do anything about them:
    “Whoever among you sees evil, let him change it with his hand. If he is unable to do so, then with his tongue. If he is unable to do so, then with his heart, and that is the weakest level of faith.” – reported in Muslim

    So simply trying to tie us up with “LOVE, LOVE and more LOVE” doesn’t have nearly the same effect. In fact, the last Friday congregation I attended was in one of the larger mosques in the Chicago area. I was very pleased that the sermon was about warning about the dangers of the LGBT movement and protecting our youth from it. It was nice knowing we are still willing to speak out publicly about these topics from the pulpit.

    However, that’s not to say we won’t lose quite a bit of people, because we will. If anything, we are most susceptible to the diseases that affect the other Abrahamic faiths:
    “You will follow the ways of those nations who were before you, span by span and cubit by cubit so much so that even if they entered a hole of a lizard, you would follow them.” We said, “O Allah’s Messenger! (Do you mean) the Jews and the Christians?” He said, “Whom else?” – reported in Bukhari

    I feel really bad for the West in this regard. The Muslims that apostate tend to be some of the most hard-core Left-liberals you’ll find. Especially the vocal ones, they don’t take Left positions like those of the Jimmy Carter generation – they are poz in full throttle and provide a feedback loop in growing the extreme Left and pulling more of our youth into it. That in and of itself should be reason enough to prevent any more immigration from Muslim countries.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Talha

    I feel really bad for the West in this regard. The Muslims that apostate tend to be some of the most hard-core Left-liberals you’ll find. Especially the vocal ones, they don’t take Left positions like those of the Jimmy Carter generation – they are poz in full throttle and provide a feedback loop in growing the extreme Left and pulling more of our youth into it. That in and of itself should be reason enough to prevent any more immigration from Muslim countries.
     
    This is quite instructive on the issue. These apostates are setting up an all hands on deck atheists event that is mostly geared towards the ex-Muslim community. Listen to the video on this:
    https://twitter.com/MimzyV/status/1151291589806964737

    Note what the guy states that they will be discussing in light of the fact that Muslim parents do not want their children exposed to LGBT indoctrination:
    "This not only highlights homophobia within certain communities, but also opens up a larger discussion about how much poser should a parent have in controlling what their child is exposed to."

    Let that sink in for a bit.

    Peace.
  139. @Rosie

    but the slow and steady trickle we keep getting from people dissatisfied with trinitarian doctrine (that just seems to be the big Achilles heel from all the converts I’ve come across), but that’s a completely different topic and not particularly relevant for our purposes.
     
    Cutting oneself off from one's heritage over a theological dispute like that seems exceedingly foolish. Christianity has always been a very big tent, and there are different ways to worship God. Personally, the Trinity seems to me to be absolutely necessary to the uniqueness of Christianity. Perhaps it seems so to me because of my pagan heritage.

    Cutting oneself off from one’s heritage

    But that’s not how these converts see it unless you insist heritage is fixed with religion of one’s forefathers, but – as you pointed out – Europeans were pagan before, then Catholic, then (many) Protestant, then post-Christian, then…what…? It seems a little strange (at least to me) to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say, but now we cannot evolve religiously.

    One goes with what one ultimately feels comfortable with. People have a difficult time with cognitive dissonance; saying they believe in a doctrine, but not being fully on board with it. Hyper-individualism being prominent in society and very little incentive for in-group preference or cohesion takes care of the rest.

    Then it simply comes down to having a religion that one inherited by accident of birth versus what one believes in the core of their heart and being.

    If one feels Trinitarianism is the right belief and makes sense to them, good for them. I’m not trying to convince them otherwise, I was just pointing out a fairly well known trend in our community, namely; Christianity is the biggest gateway into Islam:
    Shaykh Nuh Keller (the author/translator of the infamous “Reliance of the Traveler” who I met when he stayed over at my apartment on his first trip to speak at UCLA) had this same issue – you can read it if you are interested here (the first few paragraphs are the relevant ones for why he simply checked out of Catholicism):
    http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/bmuslim.htm

    Christianity has always been a very big tent

    Indeed. Heterodox doctrines are fairly common under the umbrella of “Christianity”. Think about Mormonism which is hyper-polytheistic (when you really dig into its core doctrines), but is still generally considered “Christianity”. Or Jehovah’s Witnesses that have a heck of a lot in common with us. Technically, many Christian thinkers thought Islam was a Christian heresy itself (after all, converts still get to keep their “I love Jesus” T-shirts without irony). If one follows that line of reasoning to its ultimate conclusion; well, we are simply the most successful heresy Christianity ever produced.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    If one feels Trinitarianism is the right belief and makes sense to them, good for them. I’m not trying to convince them otherwise, I was just pointing out a fairly well known trend in our community, namely; Christianity is the biggest gateway into Islam:
     
    Yes, I appreciate that, and my purpose is certainly not to criticize you, but them.


    It seems a little strange (at least to me) to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say, but now we cannot evolve religiously
     
    .

    Perhaps as a person who has dabbled in alien religions, I can shed some light on the matter. When you ae alienated from your own religious heritage, a vast cultural opus becomes inaccessible to you. I see that as a terrible tragedy.

    Consider the following:

    https://youtu.be/S6OgZCCoXWc

    And

    https://www.wikiart.org/en/michelangelo/pieta-1499


    https://www.lagazzettaitaliana.com/media/k2/items/cache/424920dded9c74a765ca6304ef5e1062_XL.jpg
    , @snorlax
    A large majority of Americans are at least nominally Christian so it's to be expected that most American converts to Islam (or other religions) are formerly Christian. In particular, my educated guess is the majority of American "converts" are blacks (over 90% Christian) converting to the Nation of Islam, which is itself dubiously Islamic, to put it mildly.

    Most believing Christians from mainstream denominations, who are familiar with the relevant theology, would not consider Mormons nor JWs, particularly the former, to be Christian. They're allowed to call themselves what floats their boat ("Christian") in the interest of not causing offense.

    I think the analogy is Mormons and JWs are to Christianity as the NoI, Bahá'ís or Ahmadis are to Islam.

    Some (particularly Medieval) thinkers consider(ed) Islam to be schismatic, given the geographic-historical-theological context of its creation, but in general they view(ed) it as a false religion rather than a Christian heresy.

    A heresy is a false interpretation of scripture. Islam rejects salvation by God's grace, mankind's redemption through Christ's sacrifice on the cross, Christ as the Son of God and the truth of the Bible. These beliefs go well beyond heresy and into territory fundamentally at odds with anything that could reasonably be called Christian.
  140. @Disordered (with a bad memory)
    Yep. Although now the Reasonists want to push farther than the Big Bang, to prove that there was no beginning, even if they admit that we cannot possibly experimentally prove anything beyond that time, and thus we have a ton of competing multiverse theories. Even apparent pedo genius Stephen Hawkings had many twists and turns regarding that issue.
    Not to mention, even if any one of them theories were true, it just pushes the Uncaused a little further back, nothing more.

    All that said, congrats on living as theist, perhaps that is as close as the 21st century person can get, nonwithstanding some utopian Deus Vult reaction - then again, crazier things have happened...
    (I talk in Christian terms, because for no other religion does the Western/white have for whom it has fought united massive wars of defense against invaders, and won [Lepanto]. Who knows, maybe Deism and more of today's idolatries can compete, but historically at most they provided a dissenting opinion. And before anyone mentions modern China better off without faith, they believe in the God Mao, His Earliest Prophet Confucius, and His Current Messenger the Party Chairman).

    Yep. Although now the Reasonists want to push farther than the Big Bang, to prove that there was no beginning, even if they admit that we cannot possibly experimentally prove anything beyond that time, and thus we have a ton of competing multiverse theories. Even apparent pedo genius Stephen Hawkings had many twists and turns regarding that issue.

    I don’t know about SH, but the question is worth considering: Are dogmatic atheists motivated by a fear of judgment? It is difficult for me to avoid the conclusion that they are.

    Fully neutral agnosticism is untenable IMO, because it naturally raises the question as to what we ought to assume to be true in our ignorance. The most rational answer is what I call the Agnostic’s Wager (AKA Pascal’s Wager AKA The Buddha’s Wager). Here is the Buddha’s version, on karma and rebirth:

    If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.’ This is the first assurance he acquires.

    But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.’ This is the second assurance he acquires.

    https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html

    Now, suppose one views righteous living as very costly. In that case, one might conclude that atheism is the best bet, saying to himself: “If I believe in God, I’ll have to behave, and then I wouldn’t enjoy this life (my only life) as much as I would otherwise. One might call it the Sinner’s Wager. It seems to me that all agnostics (which is almost everyone when you get right down to it), will make one or the other of these wagers. The only question is, which one?

  141. @Talha

    Cutting oneself off from one’s heritage
     
    But that's not how these converts see it unless you insist heritage is fixed with religion of one's forefathers, but - as you pointed out - Europeans were pagan before, then Catholic, then (many) Protestant, then post-Christian, then...what...? It seems a little strange (at least to me) to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say, but now we cannot evolve religiously.

    One goes with what one ultimately feels comfortable with. People have a difficult time with cognitive dissonance; saying they believe in a doctrine, but not being fully on board with it. Hyper-individualism being prominent in society and very little incentive for in-group preference or cohesion takes care of the rest.

    Then it simply comes down to having a religion that one inherited by accident of birth versus what one believes in the core of their heart and being.

    If one feels Trinitarianism is the right belief and makes sense to them, good for them. I'm not trying to convince them otherwise, I was just pointing out a fairly well known trend in our community, namely; Christianity is the biggest gateway into Islam:
    https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/FT_18.01.19_conversionIslam_convert640px.png

    Shaykh Nuh Keller (the author/translator of the infamous "Reliance of the Traveler" who I met when he stayed over at my apartment on his first trip to speak at UCLA) had this same issue - you can read it if you are interested here (the first few paragraphs are the relevant ones for why he simply checked out of Catholicism):
    http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/bmuslim.htm


    Christianity has always been a very big tent
     
    Indeed. Heterodox doctrines are fairly common under the umbrella of "Christianity". Think about Mormonism which is hyper-polytheistic (when you really dig into its core doctrines), but is still generally considered "Christianity". Or Jehovah's Witnesses that have a heck of a lot in common with us. Technically, many Christian thinkers thought Islam was a Christian heresy itself (after all, converts still get to keep their "I love Jesus" T-shirts without irony). If one follows that line of reasoning to its ultimate conclusion; well, we are simply the most successful heresy Christianity ever produced.

    Peace.

    If one feels Trinitarianism is the right belief and makes sense to them, good for them. I’m not trying to convince them otherwise, I was just pointing out a fairly well known trend in our community, namely; Christianity is the biggest gateway into Islam:

    Yes, I appreciate that, and my purpose is certainly not to criticize you, but them.

    It seems a little strange (at least to me) to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say, but now we cannot evolve religiously

    .

    Perhaps as a person who has dabbled in alien religions, I can shed some light on the matter. When you ae alienated from your own religious heritage, a vast cultural opus becomes inaccessible to you. I see that as a terrible tragedy.

    Consider the following:

    And

    https://www.wikiart.org/en/michelangelo/pieta-1499

    • Replies: @Talha

    When you ae alienated from your own religious heritage, a vast cultural opus becomes inaccessible to you.
     
    Correct, but a new door opens up as well that can be just as expansive and beautiful in its own way:
    https://twitter.com/l3roubi36/status/1129195550564388865

    I've found over the years, attraction to religion is only partially a reasoned, rational process (I think AAronB would agree). A lot of it is about how one's gut feels - which is difficult to pin down. For example, I once took my boys in to visit and look around a very large Catholic church. Very beautiful architecture, lots of well-made statues and stained glass, but my boys were apprehensive - they didn't like it and wanted to get out. I asked them afterwards and they said they didn't like the atmosphere; it was kind of dark, the statues seemed a bit surreal or scary, etc. They are used to large expansive, well-lit (often with natural light) spaces in mosques and without images and carvings of human or animal figures. Did their prior experience bias them? I don't know. Was it because Gothic (even church) backgrounds/themes are used often in horror movies? I don't know. My youngest son also doesn't like the demon (don't know what to call them aside from that) faces we see sometimes on various church spires (seems to be a Catholic thing though), but maybe it would be different if he was acclimated to them since early on.

    So I guess, six in one hand, a half dozen in the other...again, ultimately I think the bigger question is it easier for someone to simply go along with something that they just don't believe in their heart just for the sake of optics or heritage? Or are those more just details that can be swapped out for different details once someone has found something that they truly believe and find meaning in?

    I can only say personally; if I actually believed in the core doctrine of Christianity, I would drop all the stuff associated with Islam like a bad habit immediately (some of it with relief - it's not easy waking up before dawn to pray every day of your life).

    Peace.
    , @dfordoom

    When you ae alienated from your own religious heritage, a vast cultural opus becomes inaccessible to you. I see that as a terrible tragedy.
     
    Yes, I do agree with that. Very much so.

    But the problem is that we're now dealing with generations of westerners who are already totally alienated from their cultural heritage. And this alienation has been achieved by deliberate means.
  142. @dfordoom

    This is not simply a joke, it is a shot across the bow in a full declaration of war.
     
    Yes. In the long term liberalism cannot and will not tolerate the existence of alternatives to liberalism. Religion provides such an alternative, therefore religion must be destroyed. Which means that ideological war between liberalism and Islam is inevitable and can only end with the complete victory of one or the other.

    Liberalism declared war on Christianity a couple of centuries ago. Christianity responded by trying compromise. Then they compromised some more. Then they compromised even further. Finally they tried unconditional surrender. But the liberal war on Christianity will not end until every Christian has pledged allegiance to atheism and liberalism and renounced Christianity.

    One hopes that Islam has taken note of all this. Compromise is death.

    However, you must realize that Islam is a very young religion, and its future is entirely unclear.

    Christisnity 1,300 years after its creation was at its absolute height, flourishing and thriving. Islam after 1,300 years – we do not know yet if it can weather the storm. It has not yet been tested. This is perhaps its first serious test – the past 150 years.

    Without any disrespect to Talha, some of his more ecumenical and broad minded remarks are beginning to make me worry.

    But we should certainly hope that Islam does manage to withstand the test of time.

    We shall see.

  143. @dfordoom

    This is not simply a joke, it is a shot across the bow in a full declaration of war.
     
    Yes. In the long term liberalism cannot and will not tolerate the existence of alternatives to liberalism. Religion provides such an alternative, therefore religion must be destroyed. Which means that ideological war between liberalism and Islam is inevitable and can only end with the complete victory of one or the other.

    Liberalism declared war on Christianity a couple of centuries ago. Christianity responded by trying compromise. Then they compromised some more. Then they compromised even further. Finally they tried unconditional surrender. But the liberal war on Christianity will not end until every Christian has pledged allegiance to atheism and liberalism and renounced Christianity.

    One hopes that Islam has taken note of all this. Compromise is death.

    However, you must realize that Islam is a very young religion, and its future is entirely unclear.

    Christisnity 1,300 years after its creation was at its absolute height, flourishing and thriving. Islam after 1,300 years – we do not know yet if it can weather the storm. It has not yet been tested. This is perhaps its first serious test – the past 150 years.

    Without any disrespect to Talha, some of his more ecumenical and broad minded remarks are beginning to make me worry.

    But we should certainly hope that Islam does manage to withstand the test of time.

    We shall see.

  144. Now that we are colleagues, hit me up on telegram/keybase/e-mail/etc.

  145. @Talha

    Cutting oneself off from one’s heritage
     
    But that's not how these converts see it unless you insist heritage is fixed with religion of one's forefathers, but - as you pointed out - Europeans were pagan before, then Catholic, then (many) Protestant, then post-Christian, then...what...? It seems a little strange (at least to me) to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say, but now we cannot evolve religiously.

    One goes with what one ultimately feels comfortable with. People have a difficult time with cognitive dissonance; saying they believe in a doctrine, but not being fully on board with it. Hyper-individualism being prominent in society and very little incentive for in-group preference or cohesion takes care of the rest.

    Then it simply comes down to having a religion that one inherited by accident of birth versus what one believes in the core of their heart and being.

    If one feels Trinitarianism is the right belief and makes sense to them, good for them. I'm not trying to convince them otherwise, I was just pointing out a fairly well known trend in our community, namely; Christianity is the biggest gateway into Islam:
    https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/FT_18.01.19_conversionIslam_convert640px.png

    Shaykh Nuh Keller (the author/translator of the infamous "Reliance of the Traveler" who I met when he stayed over at my apartment on his first trip to speak at UCLA) had this same issue - you can read it if you are interested here (the first few paragraphs are the relevant ones for why he simply checked out of Catholicism):
    http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/bmuslim.htm


    Christianity has always been a very big tent
     
    Indeed. Heterodox doctrines are fairly common under the umbrella of "Christianity". Think about Mormonism which is hyper-polytheistic (when you really dig into its core doctrines), but is still generally considered "Christianity". Or Jehovah's Witnesses that have a heck of a lot in common with us. Technically, many Christian thinkers thought Islam was a Christian heresy itself (after all, converts still get to keep their "I love Jesus" T-shirts without irony). If one follows that line of reasoning to its ultimate conclusion; well, we are simply the most successful heresy Christianity ever produced.

    Peace.

    A large majority of Americans are at least nominally Christian so it’s to be expected that most American converts to Islam (or other religions) are formerly Christian. In particular, my educated guess is the majority of American “converts” are blacks (over 90% Christian) converting to the Nation of Islam, which is itself dubiously Islamic, to put it mildly.

    Most believing Christians from mainstream denominations, who are familiar with the relevant theology, would not consider Mormons nor JWs, particularly the former, to be Christian. They’re allowed to call themselves what floats their boat (“Christian”) in the interest of not causing offense.

    I think the analogy is Mormons and JWs are to Christianity as the NoI, Bahá’ís or Ahmadis are to Islam.

    Some (particularly Medieval) thinkers consider(ed) Islam to be schismatic, given the geographic-historical-theological context of its creation, but in general they view(ed) it as a false religion rather than a Christian heresy.

    A heresy is a false interpretation of scripture. Islam rejects salvation by God’s grace, mankind’s redemption through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, Christ as the Son of God and the truth of the Bible. These beliefs go well beyond heresy and into territory fundamentally at odds with anything that could reasonably be called Christian.

    • Replies: @Talha

    A large majority of Americans are at least nominally Christian
     
    Agreed.

    converting to the Nation of Islam
     
    No - most African American converts are normal Sunni Muslims.

    but in general they view(ed) it as a false religion rather than a Christian heresy.
     
    Yes, definitely there is debate on this matter that I have read among Christians and I would say that your statement of the "general" view is more on the mark. Which is fine, not really my religion, so whether they brand us a heresy or false, is of little consequence in the long run.

    Islam rejects salvation by God’s grace
     
    Incorrect.

    mankind’s redemption through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross
     
    Correct.

    Christ as the Son of God
     
    Correct.

    the truth of the Bible
     
    Correct (in totality). Nice escape route, eh? Plausible deniability - quite convenient.

    These beliefs go well beyond heresy and into territory fundamentally at odds with anything that could reasonably be called Christian.
     
    Agree, I was just pointing out what some Christian thinkers had posited.

    Peace.
  146. @Rosie

    Science is about what can be tested.
     
    Herein lies the problem with you people. By objecting that ID is "not science," you reject it a priori, that is, without bothering to look at the evidence first. Very convenient.

    In any event, Darwin himself did not subscribe to your narrow definition of science:

    ‘it seems to me fair in Philosophy to invent any hypothesis & if it explains many phenomena it comes in time to be admitted as real.’
     
    IOW, Darwin recognized that there are things in this world that (1) we observe, and (2) need explaining. If you are going to claim that Inference to the Best Explanation is "not science," then Darwinism isn't science either.

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/

    STOP LYING, DAMN YOU!

     

    Get a grip.

    Darwin recognized that there are things in this world that (1) we observe, and (2) need explaining.

    Being “whimmed” into existence is not an explanation.  An omnipotent deity could create anything.  When the question is “why this and not something else,” whimsy explains nothing at all.

    If you are going to claim that Inference to the Best Explanation is “not science,” then Darwinism isn’t science either

    1.  Only creatonuts refer to the theory of evolution by natural selection as “Darwinism”.  Darwin didn’t even know about Mendelian inheritance; his theories, while seminal, were superceded by the early 20th century.  Natural selection has joined phenomena like sexual selection as evolutionary forces.
    2.  If you can’t test it, it ain’t science.  You can test evolution by looking at modern DNA and seeking fossils of intermediate forms which would have to exist.  You can’t test a deity, and calling it an “intelligent designer” is just lying about what you’re doing.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    just lying about what you’re doing.
     
    Nobody is lying, Mr. Irrational. We would only need to lie if we accepted your premises that only naturalistic explanations are admissible. Whether you can "test for deity" is completely irrelevant to the ultimate question: Is intelligent design the simplest and most likely explanation for our observations of life in the natural world or not?

    All you're really doing here is setting up the rules of the game so that only you can win. It is rather you who needs to be honest about what you're doing.


    You can test evolution by looking at modern DNA and seeking fossils of intermediate forms which would have to exist.
     
    You can also test evolution by looking for organic structures that could not reasonably be supposed to have come about without design, as Darwin himself acknowledged. We are discovering such structures right now: molecular machines.
  147. @Rosie

    You claim to have logos on your side, but when you claimed that “intelligent design” wasn’t just warmed-over creationism, the evidence in Kitzmiller vs. Dover proved you not just totally but laughably wrong.
     
    I'm sorry, but you are just flat-out wrong, here. ID and Biblical creationism are two completely different things. If you are not aware of this, then you are ignorant. If you are aware of the difference, then you are being dishonest by conflating the two.

    For the benefit of any lurkers:

    When atheists call ID "creationism," they are attempting to claim that ID is unempirical. Old-fashioned young Earth creationism starts from the assumption that the Biblical account of creation is true, and then looks for evidence in nature that supports it.

    ID starts with the opposite assumption: that the Biblical account of creation is not literally true. It's main proponents accept the Earth as billions of years old. They make a case that a hypothetical intelligent designer better explains our direct empirical observations of the natural world (not based on scripture) than undetected "evolution."


    * The TWO (yes, two) creation sequences in Genesis are contradictory and both are wrong.
     
    Irrelevant.

    ID starts with the opposite assumption: that the Biblical account of creation is not literally true.

    A distinction without a difference.

    It’s main proponents accept the Earth as billions of years old. They make a case that a hypothetical intelligent designer better explains our direct empirical observations of the natural world (not based on scripture) than undetected “evolution.”

    In other words, your deity.  As you well know.

    Lying to yourself is the best way to lie to others.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    A distinction without a difference.
     
    And so your last shred of credibility goes out the window.

    In other words, your deity. As you well know.
     
    Who cares? Intelligent design has theistic implications, but it is built on an empirical foundation. The natural world can either reveal something about the likelihood of God's existence or not. It's ridiculous yo claim that evidence from the natural world may tend to reduce the likelihood of God's existence, but it may never tend to increase the likelihood of God's existence. To even think such a thought is unscientific!

    Seriously, this is just childish.
  148. @Rosie

    If one feels Trinitarianism is the right belief and makes sense to them, good for them. I’m not trying to convince them otherwise, I was just pointing out a fairly well known trend in our community, namely; Christianity is the biggest gateway into Islam:
     
    Yes, I appreciate that, and my purpose is certainly not to criticize you, but them.


    It seems a little strange (at least to me) to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say, but now we cannot evolve religiously
     
    .

    Perhaps as a person who has dabbled in alien religions, I can shed some light on the matter. When you ae alienated from your own religious heritage, a vast cultural opus becomes inaccessible to you. I see that as a terrible tragedy.

    Consider the following:

    https://youtu.be/S6OgZCCoXWc

    And

    https://www.wikiart.org/en/michelangelo/pieta-1499


    https://www.lagazzettaitaliana.com/media/k2/items/cache/424920dded9c74a765ca6304ef5e1062_XL.jpg

    When you ae alienated from your own religious heritage, a vast cultural opus becomes inaccessible to you.

    Correct, but a new door opens up as well that can be just as expansive and beautiful in its own way:

    I’ve found over the years, attraction to religion is only partially a reasoned, rational process (I think AAronB would agree). A lot of it is about how one’s gut feels – which is difficult to pin down. For example, I once took my boys in to visit and look around a very large Catholic church. Very beautiful architecture, lots of well-made statues and stained glass, but my boys were apprehensive – they didn’t like it and wanted to get out. I asked them afterwards and they said they didn’t like the atmosphere; it was kind of dark, the statues seemed a bit surreal or scary, etc. They are used to large expansive, well-lit (often with natural light) spaces in mosques and without images and carvings of human or animal figures. Did their prior experience bias them? I don’t know. Was it because Gothic (even church) backgrounds/themes are used often in horror movies? I don’t know. My youngest son also doesn’t like the demon (don’t know what to call them aside from that) faces we see sometimes on various church spires (seems to be a Catholic thing though), but maybe it would be different if he was acclimated to them since early on.

    So I guess, six in one hand, a half dozen in the other…again, ultimately I think the bigger question is it easier for someone to simply go along with something that they just don’t believe in their heart just for the sake of optics or heritage? Or are those more just details that can be swapped out for different details once someone has found something that they truly believe and find meaning in?

    I can only say personally; if I actually believed in the core doctrine of Christianity, I would drop all the stuff associated with Islam like a bad habit immediately (some of it with relief – it’s not easy waking up before dawn to pray every day of your life).

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I can only say personally; if I actually believed in the core doctrine of Christianity, I would drop all the stuff associated with Islam like a bad habit immediately (some of it with relief – it’s not easy waking up before dawn to pray every day of your life).
     
    We'll have to agree to disagree. You put creed first; I put blood and heritage first.

    Your doors are indeed beautiful. I admire them as fellow human being, a friend but not a member of the family.
  149. @Mr. Rational

    Darwin recognized that there are things in this world that (1) we observe, and (2) need explaining.
     
    Being "whimmed" into existence is not an explanation.  An omnipotent deity could create anything.  When the question is "why this and not something else," whimsy explains nothing at all.

    If you are going to claim that Inference to the Best Explanation is “not science,” then Darwinism isn’t science either
     
    1.  Only creatonuts refer to the theory of evolution by natural selection as "Darwinism".  Darwin didn't even know about Mendelian inheritance; his theories, while seminal, were superceded by the early 20th century.  Natural selection has joined phenomena like sexual selection as evolutionary forces.
    2.  If you can't test it, it ain't science.  You can test evolution by looking at modern DNA and seeking fossils of intermediate forms which would have to exist.  You can't test a deity, and calling it an "intelligent designer" is just lying about what you're doing.

    just lying about what you’re doing.

    Nobody is lying, Mr. Irrational. We would only need to lie if we accepted your premises that only naturalistic explanations are admissible. Whether you can “test for deity” is completely irrelevant to the ultimate question: Is intelligent design the simplest and most likely explanation for our observations of life in the natural world or not?

    All you’re really doing here is setting up the rules of the game so that only you can win. It is rather you who needs to be honest about what you’re doing.

    You can test evolution by looking at modern DNA and seeking fossils of intermediate forms which would have to exist.

    You can also test evolution by looking for organic structures that could not reasonably be supposed to have come about without design, as Darwin himself acknowledged. We are discovering such structures right now: molecular machines.

  150. @snorlax
    A large majority of Americans are at least nominally Christian so it's to be expected that most American converts to Islam (or other religions) are formerly Christian. In particular, my educated guess is the majority of American "converts" are blacks (over 90% Christian) converting to the Nation of Islam, which is itself dubiously Islamic, to put it mildly.

    Most believing Christians from mainstream denominations, who are familiar with the relevant theology, would not consider Mormons nor JWs, particularly the former, to be Christian. They're allowed to call themselves what floats their boat ("Christian") in the interest of not causing offense.

    I think the analogy is Mormons and JWs are to Christianity as the NoI, Bahá'ís or Ahmadis are to Islam.

    Some (particularly Medieval) thinkers consider(ed) Islam to be schismatic, given the geographic-historical-theological context of its creation, but in general they view(ed) it as a false religion rather than a Christian heresy.

    A heresy is a false interpretation of scripture. Islam rejects salvation by God's grace, mankind's redemption through Christ's sacrifice on the cross, Christ as the Son of God and the truth of the Bible. These beliefs go well beyond heresy and into territory fundamentally at odds with anything that could reasonably be called Christian.

    A large majority of Americans are at least nominally Christian

    Agreed.

    converting to the Nation of Islam

    No – most African American converts are normal Sunni Muslims.

    but in general they view(ed) it as a false religion rather than a Christian heresy.

    Yes, definitely there is debate on this matter that I have read among Christians and I would say that your statement of the “general” view is more on the mark. Which is fine, not really my religion, so whether they brand us a heresy or false, is of little consequence in the long run.

    Islam rejects salvation by God’s grace

    Incorrect.

    mankind’s redemption through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross

    Correct.

    Christ as the Son of God

    Correct.

    the truth of the Bible

    Correct (in totality). Nice escape route, eh? Plausible deniability – quite convenient.

    These beliefs go well beyond heresy and into territory fundamentally at odds with anything that could reasonably be called Christian.

    Agree, I was just pointing out what some Christian thinkers had posited.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @snorlax

    No – most African American converts are normal Sunni Muslims.
     
    Louis Farrakhan can fill a stadium just about anywhere he goes. Are there any Sunni imams of any race who can do the same in an American city? The MSM lowball the # of NoI adherents because they consider it to reflect poorly on blacks, but it's obviously the second leading religion among AADOS.

    Incorrect.
     
    Different definitions of the term. Christians believe God's grace is universal,

    • https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+4%3A10&version=NIV
    • https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+15%3A22&version=NIV
    • https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lamentations+3%3A31-32&version=NIV

    unearned

    • https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+5%3A4&version=NIV

    and freely given.

    • https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2:1-10&version=NIV

    c.f. https://quran.com/12/53
  151. @Rosie

    YOU need to stay out of OUR way when we put forth facts and conclusions drawn therefrom that you don’t like.
     
    Looking back, this is just it.

    Materialist don't like the theistic implications of intelligent design, so they ignore its empirical basis and call it not-science, claiming they are justified because nothing immaterial is testable.

    Suppose I hypothesize that the designer is an alien. Would that answer the not-science objection, since I'm no longer positing a supernatural being? The well-justified inference of design remains either way.

    Materialist don’t like the theistic implications of intelligent design, so they ignore its empirical basis and call it not-science, claiming they are justified because nothing immaterial is testable.

    So produce this “intelligent designer”.  There’s mountains of fossils of “intermediate forms” and DNA showing common origins of extant species, you should be able to show us this designer… if it ever existed.

    Suppose I hypothesize that the designer is an alien. Would that answer the not-science objection, since I’m no longer positing a supernatural being?

    Let’s go over this one piece at a time, because you’re slow.

    Per the fossil record, microbial life arose on Earth very early on.  We have evidence of that in the form of things like iron deposits left by large bacterial mats.  Multicellular life took a while to develop.  There weren’t anything like mammals or birds until the Cretaceous or thereabouts, and mammals didn’t get a chance to radiate and take over lots of ecological niches until after the dinosaur dieoff at the K-T boundary.

    There are certain requirements for Earth to exist in the first place.  It’s made largely of metals and silicates, so there had to be metals and silicon and oxygen before a terrestrial planet could even form and eventually have water on it.  This means at least one and maybe several generations of stars had to form and die as supernovae before there was even the material to make rocky planets.  The only planets that could form in the beginning were gas giants.  Nothing resembling us could live on a gas giant, and life can’t be made out of just hydrogen and helium either.

    Your “alien designer” would have had to arise in a universe far less hospitable to life:  not just with scarce planet-building and life-making elements, but compact and with lots of highly energetic events like supernovae, neutron-star mergers and active galactic nuclei going on.  Plus, your hypothetical “designer” would have to be highly capable, not just capable of travelling to other stars for questionable profits but also capable of feats of biology which are way beyond us.

    You’re claiming that life on Earth could not have evolved.  Could this “designer” have evolved?  You obviously claim not, so who designed the designer?  And that is how you dishonestly try to slip your deity in through the back door.  Your whole thing is a ruse, a lie.

    The well-justified inference of design remains either way.

    Maybe you’re really dumb enough to believe this, but you’re only fooling yourself.  It only makes you look stupid to people who can think.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Your “alien designer” would have had to arise in a universe far less hospitable to life: not just with scarce planet-building and life-making elements, but compact and with lots of highly energetic events like supernovae, neutron-star mergers and active galactic nuclei going on. Plus, your hypothetical “designer” would have to be highly capable, not just capable of travelling to other stars for questionable profits but also capable of feats of biology which are way beyond us.
     
    It doesn't seem very likely does it? Yet that is precisely the problem with evolution. You have to deal not only with theoretical possibilities, but probabilities, and that is where evolution fails.

    https://youtu.be/W1_KEVaCyaA
  152. @Mr. Rational

    ID starts with the opposite assumption: that the Biblical account of creation is not literally true.
     
    A distinction without a difference.

    It’s main proponents accept the Earth as billions of years old. They make a case that a hypothetical intelligent designer better explains our direct empirical observations of the natural world (not based on scripture) than undetected “evolution.”
     
    In other words, your deity.  As you well know.

    Lying to yourself is the best way to lie to others.

    A distinction without a difference.

    And so your last shred of credibility goes out the window.

    In other words, your deity. As you well know.

    Who cares? Intelligent design has theistic implications, but it is built on an empirical foundation. The natural world can either reveal something about the likelihood of God’s existence or not. It’s ridiculous yo claim that evidence from the natural world may tend to reduce the likelihood of God’s existence, but it may never tend to increase the likelihood of God’s existence. To even think such a thought is unscientific!

    Seriously, this is just childish.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Intelligent design has theistic implications, but it is built on an empirical foundation.
     
    TENS is built ONLY on empirical foundations.  Point mutations, crossover mutations causing gene duplications/deletions, copy number variants, all these things are proven to exist.  Natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, founder effect... these things also are proven to exist.

    Show us your designer.

    The natural world can either reveal something about the likelihood of God’s existence or not.
     
    Your argument was debunked by Christian theologians more than 2 centuries ago.  They were far more intelligent and honest than you are.

    It’s ridiculous yo claim that evidence from the natural world may tend to reduce the likelihood of God’s existence, but it may never tend to increase the likelihood of God’s existence.
     
    Volcanoes used to be attributed to angry gods.  We know better now.

    Thunder and lightning used to be attributed to gods too.  We know better now.

    Diseases like malaria and epilepsy used to be attributed to "bad air" and demonic possession.

    Yet here we are, with a full toolkit for the generation and expansion of life on a planet with no supernatural or even intelligent elements whatsoever, and you are claiming a designer that either will not show itself, has moved on to other things, or is dead.

    Know all you'd need to disprove ALL theories of evolution?  One rabbit fossil in a Cambrian sediment.  Just one.  But you haven't got one... and it really bothers you.

    I'm not slanting everything so I win.  This argument was over, finished, done DECADES ago.  You're just upset that your side lost.  Whatever you and I say to each other is not going to change the facts.  Neither will trying to sneak creationism (old-earth or otherwise) into science textbooks by calling it "intellligent design".  On the other hand, you CAN do a tremendous amount of damage to American science education and hand even more and bigger advantages to the Chinese.  Was that what you had in mind?  Now you can't even say you weren't warned.

    To even think such a thought is unscientific!
     
    Projection.

    Seriously, this is just childish.
     
    Yes, you are.
  153. @Talha

    When you ae alienated from your own religious heritage, a vast cultural opus becomes inaccessible to you.
     
    Correct, but a new door opens up as well that can be just as expansive and beautiful in its own way:
    https://twitter.com/l3roubi36/status/1129195550564388865

    I've found over the years, attraction to religion is only partially a reasoned, rational process (I think AAronB would agree). A lot of it is about how one's gut feels - which is difficult to pin down. For example, I once took my boys in to visit and look around a very large Catholic church. Very beautiful architecture, lots of well-made statues and stained glass, but my boys were apprehensive - they didn't like it and wanted to get out. I asked them afterwards and they said they didn't like the atmosphere; it was kind of dark, the statues seemed a bit surreal or scary, etc. They are used to large expansive, well-lit (often with natural light) spaces in mosques and without images and carvings of human or animal figures. Did their prior experience bias them? I don't know. Was it because Gothic (even church) backgrounds/themes are used often in horror movies? I don't know. My youngest son also doesn't like the demon (don't know what to call them aside from that) faces we see sometimes on various church spires (seems to be a Catholic thing though), but maybe it would be different if he was acclimated to them since early on.

    So I guess, six in one hand, a half dozen in the other...again, ultimately I think the bigger question is it easier for someone to simply go along with something that they just don't believe in their heart just for the sake of optics or heritage? Or are those more just details that can be swapped out for different details once someone has found something that they truly believe and find meaning in?

    I can only say personally; if I actually believed in the core doctrine of Christianity, I would drop all the stuff associated with Islam like a bad habit immediately (some of it with relief - it's not easy waking up before dawn to pray every day of your life).

    Peace.

    I can only say personally; if I actually believed in the core doctrine of Christianity, I would drop all the stuff associated with Islam like a bad habit immediately (some of it with relief – it’s not easy waking up before dawn to pray every day of your life).

    We’ll have to agree to disagree. You put creed first; I put blood and heritage first.

    Your doors are indeed beautiful. I admire them as fellow human being, a friend but not a member of the family.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Creeds, that are not bound up with flesh and blood, do not survive in the long term, when the going gets tough.

    Religion must be existential, embrace the ground of our being, our concrete existence. Only then do they inspire true devotion and loyalty, unto death.
    , @Talha

    You put creed first; I put blood and heritage first.
     
    Yes, that's what it comes down to; first principles, prioritization of purpose. In fact, if the reason I am Muslim is because it is my inheritance through my ancestry, then - according to the majority of the Muslim theologians - I'm simply not a Muslim and my belief is not valid (start at the 2 min mark):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N_C_cPC7jM&t=121s

    Maybe for others it is a sound approach, but for us God is concerned about the heart; He wants sincerity of the heart and one does not pull a fast one on the Creator of the Universe in this regard:
    "Verily, the first people to be judged on the Day of Resurrection will be a man who was martyred. He will be brought, the blessings of Allah will be made known and he will acknowledge them.
    Allah will say: What did you do about them?
    The man will say: I fought in your cause until I was martyred.
    Allah will say: You have lied, for you fought only that it would be said you were brave, and thus it was said.
    Then, Allah will order him to be dragged upon his face until he is cast into Hellfire. Another man studied religious knowledge, taught others, and recited the Quran. He will be brought, the blessings of Allah will be made known and he will acknowledge them.
    Allah will say: What did you do about them?
    The man will say: I learned religious knowledge, taught others, and I recited the Quran for your sake.
    Allah will say: You have lied, for you studied only that it would be said you are a scholar and you recited the Quran only that it would be said you are a reciter, and thus it was said.
    Then, Allah will order him to be dragged upon his face until he is cast into Hellfire. Another man was given an abundance of blessings from Allah and every kind of wealth. He will be brought, the blessings of Allah will be made known and he will acknowledge them.
    Allah will say: What did you do about them?
    The man will say: I did not leave any good cause beloved to you but that I spent on it for your sake.
    Allah will say: You have lied, for you spent only that it would be said you are generous, and thus it was said.
    Then, Allah will order him to be dragged upon his face until he is cast into Hellfire.” - reported in Muslim

    When I get plugged into the ground, the worms will devour my brain and organs and I will become a pile of bones indistinguishable from another. My blood and heritage - though quite useful before - will no longer be useful to me.

    A boat (no matter how beautiful its shape and build) is useful only while it is at sea. Once it has docked at its intended harbor and final destination, it is no longer of any use (though before, its passengers would have drowned and would have been incapable of reaching their destination without it). Is the boat more important, or the destination? One must decide.

    I think you have hit the nail on the head for many converts I've come across*; they indeed put a faith they could firmly believe in over a a heritage faith that they only had a tangential relationship with due to accident of birth.

    Peace.

    *In fact, I just came across one today online (White convert brother [follows the Maliki school, Ash'ari in creed, and a Sufi to boot]) has seven kids - 5 boys and 2 girls - mashaAllah! A hockey team with a spare goalie! That's making up for at least 3 or 4 White couples that are slacking.

  154. @Mr. Rational

    Materialist don’t like the theistic implications of intelligent design, so they ignore its empirical basis and call it not-science, claiming they are justified because nothing immaterial is testable.
     
    So produce this "intelligent designer".  There's mountains of fossils of "intermediate forms" and DNA showing common origins of extant species, you should be able to show us this designer... if it ever existed.

    Suppose I hypothesize that the designer is an alien. Would that answer the not-science objection, since I’m no longer positing a supernatural being?
     
    Let's go over this one piece at a time, because you're slow.

    Per the fossil record, microbial life arose on Earth very early on.  We have evidence of that in the form of things like iron deposits left by large bacterial mats.  Multicellular life took a while to develop.  There weren't anything like mammals or birds until the Cretaceous or thereabouts, and mammals didn't get a chance to radiate and take over lots of ecological niches until after the dinosaur dieoff at the K-T boundary.

    There are certain requirements for Earth to exist in the first place.  It's made largely of metals and silicates, so there had to be metals and silicon and oxygen before a terrestrial planet could even form and eventually have water on it.  This means at least one and maybe several generations of stars had to form and die as supernovae before there was even the material to make rocky planets.  The only planets that could form in the beginning were gas giants.  Nothing resembling us could live on a gas giant, and life can't be made out of just hydrogen and helium either.

    Your "alien designer" would have had to arise in a universe far less hospitable to life:  not just with scarce planet-building and life-making elements, but compact and with lots of highly energetic events like supernovae, neutron-star mergers and active galactic nuclei going on.  Plus, your hypothetical "designer" would have to be highly capable, not just capable of travelling to other stars for questionable profits but also capable of feats of biology which are way beyond us.

    You're claiming that life on Earth could not have evolved.  Could this "designer" have evolved?  You obviously claim not, so who designed the designer?  And that is how you dishonestly try to slip your deity in through the back door.  Your whole thing is a ruse, a lie.

    The well-justified inference of design remains either way.
     
    Maybe you're really dumb enough to believe this, but you're only fooling yourself.  It only makes you look stupid to people who can think.

    Your “alien designer” would have had to arise in a universe far less hospitable to life: not just with scarce planet-building and life-making elements, but compact and with lots of highly energetic events like supernovae, neutron-star mergers and active galactic nuclei going on. Plus, your hypothetical “designer” would have to be highly capable, not just capable of travelling to other stars for questionable profits but also capable of feats of biology which are way beyond us.

    It doesn’t seem very likely does it? Yet that is precisely the problem with evolution. You have to deal not only with theoretical possibilities, but probabilities, and that is where evolution fails.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    Rosie, do you ever bother to THINK that those claims are ancient, and debunked?

    By the same "probabilities" you couldn't get more than a few molecules of amino acids out of the Miller-Urey flask.  Not only was the "soup" full of them, it had simple sugars and nucleotides in it too.  All the building blocks of life.

    Chemistry is not random.  Making claims about abiogenesis and evolution based on randomness is not just wrong, it's knowingly telling falsehoods.  It's lying.
  155. @Rosie

    I can only say personally; if I actually believed in the core doctrine of Christianity, I would drop all the stuff associated with Islam like a bad habit immediately (some of it with relief – it’s not easy waking up before dawn to pray every day of your life).
     
    We'll have to agree to disagree. You put creed first; I put blood and heritage first.

    Your doors are indeed beautiful. I admire them as fellow human being, a friend but not a member of the family.

    Creeds, that are not bound up with flesh and blood, do not survive in the long term, when the going gets tough.

    Religion must be existential, embrace the ground of our being, our concrete existence. Only then do they inspire true devotion and loyalty, unto death.

  156. @Rosie
    Mr. Rational, It occurs to me that you might have better luck comprehending and appreciating the force of intelligent design arguments if you look at it from a different angle.

    Let's assume that Darwinism is a valid scientific theory. What makes it so?

    I thi k you would argue that it is a valid scientific theory because it is falsifiable. If that is so, you can't then claim that any attempt to falsify Darwinism is "not science."

    Contemporary critics of Darwin argued that his theory wasn't scientific precisely because it couldn't be falsified. His response:


    If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed[,] which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive[,] slight modifications[,] my theory would absolutely break down.
     
    Now, if I argue that the bacterial flagellum is such a complex organ, is that a scientific argument? Why or why not?

    If you do not think this is a scientific approach to the question, what would be? Is there any such thing? Or does the fact that intelligent design is the only plausible alternative to evolution by random mutation and natural selection necessarily mean that any dispute with Darwin is "religious" rather than "scientific"? And if the answer is yes, does that not effectively immunize Carwinism from any scientific scrutiny whatsoever?

    Mr. Rational, It occurs to me that you might have better luck comprehending and appreciating the force of intelligent design arguments if you look at it from a different angle.

    I am not some wet-behind-the-ears naif you can fool with such BS.  The stuff you’re pulling out was old, moldy and debunked when Kitzmiller was decided 14 years ago.  It has not improved with age.

    if I argue that the bacterial flagellum is such a complex organ, is that a scientific argument? Why or why not?

    Not scientific because not testable.  Bacteria don’t leave fossils, remember?  All we have to examine are what’s living in the present day, and variants that were superceded and lost along the way can only be inferred.  Further, all I had to do was type “bacterial flagellum evolution” into a search engine to get a heap of results including these:

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex/
    https://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7116

    Note from the first link:  Evolution is cleverer than you are.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Not scientific because not testable.
     
    To any extent the inference of design is "not scientific because not testable," all you're doing is turning science into a very limited, brittle tool for truth-finding. The ultimate question about intelligent design is not whether it is "scientific" according to your cramped and arbitrary definition of science, but whether it is true.

    All of this is really besides the point anyway. What is crystal clear is that you demand a monopoly on information. You don't want schoolchildren to hear about any shortcomings in the theory of evolution, so you come up with all sorts of pilpul to justify your tyrannical approach to knowledge.

    You cannot be reasoned with, only defeated.


    old, moldy and debunked
     
    You sound like a liberal defending racial orthodoxy.
  157. @Rosie

    I can only say personally; if I actually believed in the core doctrine of Christianity, I would drop all the stuff associated with Islam like a bad habit immediately (some of it with relief – it’s not easy waking up before dawn to pray every day of your life).
     
    We'll have to agree to disagree. You put creed first; I put blood and heritage first.

    Your doors are indeed beautiful. I admire them as fellow human being, a friend but not a member of the family.

    You put creed first; I put blood and heritage first.

    Yes, that’s what it comes down to; first principles, prioritization of purpose. In fact, if the reason I am Muslim is because it is my inheritance through my ancestry, then – according to the majority of the Muslim theologians – I’m simply not a Muslim and my belief is not valid (start at the 2 min mark):

    Maybe for others it is a sound approach, but for us God is concerned about the heart; He wants sincerity of the heart and one does not pull a fast one on the Creator of the Universe in this regard:
    “Verily, the first people to be judged on the Day of Resurrection will be a man who was martyred. He will be brought, the blessings of Allah will be made known and he will acknowledge them.
    Allah will say: What did you do about them?
    The man will say: I fought in your cause until I was martyred.
    Allah will say: You have lied, for you fought only that it would be said you were brave, and thus it was said.
    Then, Allah will order him to be dragged upon his face until he is cast into Hellfire. Another man studied religious knowledge, taught others, and recited the Quran. He will be brought, the blessings of Allah will be made known and he will acknowledge them.
    Allah will say: What did you do about them?
    The man will say: I learned religious knowledge, taught others, and I recited the Quran for your sake.
    Allah will say: You have lied, for you studied only that it would be said you are a scholar and you recited the Quran only that it would be said you are a reciter, and thus it was said.
    Then, Allah will order him to be dragged upon his face until he is cast into Hellfire. Another man was given an abundance of blessings from Allah and every kind of wealth. He will be brought, the blessings of Allah will be made known and he will acknowledge them.
    Allah will say: What did you do about them?
    The man will say: I did not leave any good cause beloved to you but that I spent on it for your sake.
    Allah will say: You have lied, for you spent only that it would be said you are generous, and thus it was said.
    Then, Allah will order him to be dragged upon his face until he is cast into Hellfire.” – reported in Muslim

    When I get plugged into the ground, the worms will devour my brain and organs and I will become a pile of bones indistinguishable from another. My blood and heritage – though quite useful before – will no longer be useful to me.

    A boat (no matter how beautiful its shape and build) is useful only while it is at sea. Once it has docked at its intended harbor and final destination, it is no longer of any use (though before, its passengers would have drowned and would have been incapable of reaching their destination without it). Is the boat more important, or the destination? One must decide.

    I think you have hit the nail on the head for many converts I’ve come across*; they indeed put a faith they could firmly believe in over a a heritage faith that they only had a tangential relationship with due to accident of birth.

    Peace.

    *In fact, I just came across one today online (White convert brother [follows the Maliki school, Ash’ari in creed, and a Sufi to boot]) has seven kids – 5 boys and 2 girls – mashaAllah! A hockey team with a spare goalie! That’s making up for at least 3 or 4 White couples that are slacking.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Maybe for others it is a sound approach, but for us God is concerned about the heart; He wants sincerity of the heart and one does not pull a fast one on the Creator of the Universe in this regard:
     
    Sincerity is indeed of the essence, which is precisely why I see no need to adopt foreign religions.


    “I do not pretend to be better than others. Therefore what the old Bishop once said to me is not true–namely, that I spoke as if the others were going to hell. No, if I can be said to speak at all of going to hell then I am saying something like this: If the others are going to hell, then I am going along with them. But I do not believe that; on the contrary, I believe that we will all be saved, I, too, and this awakens my deepest wonder.”


    – Søren Kierkegaard
    , @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    That's one of the ways Moslems plan to conquer the West - by outbreeding non-Moslems.

    In Europe and Britain, Moslems are largely a parasitic population of welfare leeches and criminals. That's less true in the US. Does this fellow you know feed at the government trough?
  158. @Talha

    A large majority of Americans are at least nominally Christian
     
    Agreed.

    converting to the Nation of Islam
     
    No - most African American converts are normal Sunni Muslims.

    but in general they view(ed) it as a false religion rather than a Christian heresy.
     
    Yes, definitely there is debate on this matter that I have read among Christians and I would say that your statement of the "general" view is more on the mark. Which is fine, not really my religion, so whether they brand us a heresy or false, is of little consequence in the long run.

    Islam rejects salvation by God’s grace
     
    Incorrect.

    mankind’s redemption through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross
     
    Correct.

    Christ as the Son of God
     
    Correct.

    the truth of the Bible
     
    Correct (in totality). Nice escape route, eh? Plausible deniability - quite convenient.

    These beliefs go well beyond heresy and into territory fundamentally at odds with anything that could reasonably be called Christian.
     
    Agree, I was just pointing out what some Christian thinkers had posited.

    Peace.

    No – most African American converts are normal Sunni Muslims.

    Louis Farrakhan can fill a stadium just about anywhere he goes. Are there any Sunni imams of any race who can do the same in an American city? The MSM lowball the # of NoI adherents because they consider it to reflect poorly on blacks, but it’s obviously the second leading religion among AADOS.

    Incorrect.

    Different definitions of the term. Christians believe God’s grace is universal,

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+4%3A10&version=NIV
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+15%3A22&version=NIV
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lamentations+3%3A31-32&version=NIV

    unearned

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+5%3A4&version=NIV

    and freely given.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2:1-10&version=NIV

    c.f. https://quran.com/12/53

    • Replies: @Talha

    Louis Farrakhan can fill a stadium just about anywhere he goes.
     
    Correct of Blacks in general - not specifically Muslim.

    Are there any Sunni imams of any race who can do the same in an American city?
     
    Don't know.

    Christians believe God’s grace is universal,
     
    But they also believe He will throw people into Hell forever. I have never understood this aspect. Again, not my religion; if it makes sense to you, most welcome.

    and freely given.
     
    If this is the case, then disbelievers shouldn't have to worry about it, since we already have it free of charge. It's nice actually, it makes me feel like my bases are covered in case I'm wrong...Pascal's Wager and all.

    Here is how we understand our Islam's salvation through grace/mercy:
    “Follow the right course, seek nearness to Allah, and give glad tidings. Verily, none of you will enter Paradise by his deeds alone.
    They said, “Not even you, O Messenger of Allah?”
    The Prophet said, “Not even me, unless Allah grants me His Mercy. Know that the most beloved deed to Allah is that which is done regularly, even if it is small.” - reported in both Bukhari and Muslim

    If you say it is different than yours, fine - no problems there, but we have the right to define our own doctrines as we please.

    Peace.
  159. @Mr. Rational

    Mr. Rational, It occurs to me that you might have better luck comprehending and appreciating the force of intelligent design arguments if you look at it from a different angle.
     
    I am not some wet-behind-the-ears naif you can fool with such BS.  The stuff you're pulling out was old, moldy and debunked when Kitzmiller was decided 14 years ago.  It has not improved with age.

    if I argue that the bacterial flagellum is such a complex organ, is that a scientific argument? Why or why not?
     
    Not scientific because not testable.  Bacteria don't leave fossils, remember?  All we have to examine are what's living in the present day, and variants that were superceded and lost along the way can only be inferred.  Further, all I had to do was type "bacterial flagellum evolution" into a search engine to get a heap of results including these:

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex/
    https://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7116

    Note from the first link:  Evolution is cleverer than you are.

    Not scientific because not testable.

    To any extent the inference of design is “not scientific because not testable,” all you’re doing is turning science into a very limited, brittle tool for truth-finding. The ultimate question about intelligent design is not whether it is “scientific” according to your cramped and arbitrary definition of science, but whether it is true.

    All of this is really besides the point anyway. What is crystal clear is that you demand a monopoly on information. You don’t want schoolchildren to hear about any shortcomings in the theory of evolution, so you come up with all sorts of pilpul to justify your tyrannical approach to knowledge.

    You cannot be reasoned with, only defeated.

    old, moldy and debunked

    You sound like a liberal defending racial orthodoxy.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    To any extent the inference of design is “not scientific because not testable,” all you’re doing is turning science into a very limited, brittle tool for truth-finding.
     
    Science isn't even that.  Nothing can be 100% proven outside of mathematics.  The scientific method is an intellectual toolkit for rooting out errors and falsehoods and replacing them with things that are literally "less wrong".

    When we teach that planets move in ellipses in astronomy, that's wrong.  Planetary orbits are perturbed by other bodies and are never perfect ellipses.  But that's "less wrong" than epicycles or circles and it's good enough for predicting positions in the sky over the short term (hundreds of years).

    The ultimate question about intelligent design is not whether it is “scientific” according to your cramped and arbitrary definition of science, but whether it is true.
     
    Allowing you to arbitrarily define your dogma as "truth", and neither testing it nor even allowing it to be tested.  That's exactly what the left is doing in the USA.  They treat dissent as heresy.  You are one epiphany away from becoming an SJW.

    What is crystal clear is that you demand a monopoly on information. You don’t want schoolchildren to hear about any shortcomings in the theory of evolution, so you come up with all sorts of pilpul to justify your tyrannical approach to knowledge.
     
    What is crystal clear is that you have swallowed a load of hooey about evolutionary theory and know nothing about the mountains of data which underlie it.  Some of that data IS mountains; fossils of ancient sea creatures winding up piled in mountains are proof that the earth had changed greatly over time.  "Uncontinuities" in sedimentary rocks are quite enlightening to behold; one set of strata were laid down (flat, at the time), uplifted and tilted, partially eroded away, then submerged again and new strata laid down on top of them.  There's a pretty good one visible in a road cut close to Pike's Peak.

    Where's this designer of yours anyway?  Why, according to you, is he messing with us this way?

    You cannot be reasoned with, only defeated.
     
    Projection.  You were defeated by logical argument, so now you're trying to use the fallacy of popularity instead.

    You sound like a liberal defending racial orthodoxy.
     
    Evolution says that there is no reason whatsoever for two populations reproductively isolated from each other for hundreds or thousands of generations and subject to very different selective forces to remain alike in ANY respect.  Ever notice that leftists object to any notion of non-trivial differences between human groups?  When they say "there is one race, the human race" they are going against the science they claim to hold to.  Darwin himself held that race is real and highly significant.

    What I am trying to defend is the rigor of thought we will require to make it as an industrial civilization, or a civilization at all.  The Soviets tried ideological tampering with science to reinforce the ideology of the Soviet Man.  They sent actual geneticists to gulags and firing squads for opposing ideological diktat, and got massive crop failures.  Enforcing religious orthodoxy over scientific fact is going to do exactly the same kind of damage to us.  It'll start by turning out public school graduates who need re-education in science before they can even begin to study what's already known (but declared taboo), let alone contribute new knowledge.  But it won't end there.  The mish-mash of hidden facts and unprincipled exceptions in reasoning will damage their ability to think, period.  A society which requires "crimestop" will create general stupidity because nobody is going to be able to know what's going to be taboo tomorrow, so nobody will dare to say or even think anything contrary to the party line.  Too dangerous.  "Watsoned" is already a verb.

    This is rampant in our leftist universities.  The right needs to oppose it 100%.  If we get the same from the right, we are done for... and I'm seeing that happening.
  160. What is interesting is that after all these years people take Darwin’s argumentation seriously.

    First, I have never heard anyone claim that Darwin’s work is not scientific, That would be interesting to read. I have heard that his suppositions to conclusions are more speculative and not fact. i have further understood that the evidence does not fully support his line of reasoning.

    Second this response,

    “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed[,] which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive[,] slight modifications[,] my theory would absolutely break down.”

    if accurate, is another way of saying. “Prove it didn’t happen.” or “Prove it can’t happen.” The inability to demonstrate that I did not steal a car does not mean that i stole the car. The way that science works is by demonstrating to truth.

    It is not “Here’s my theory. If you can’t demonstrate that it didn’t happen or can’t in just this way – then my theory must be factual.” And attempting to respond by making said demonstration just reinforces the false notion that said theory is fact. No. It is a theory. It is the obligation of Dr. Darwin to demonstrate via the evidence in support of his claim that said theory operates or operates as claimed. In western thought his response is considered faulty logic. Darwin does not get a pass here.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    It is not “Here’s my theory. If you can’t demonstrate that it didn’t happen or can’t in just this way – then my theory must be factual.” And attempting to respond by making said demonstration just reinforces the false notion that said theory is fact. No. It is a theory. It is the obligation of Dr. Darwin to demonstrate via the evidence in support of his claim that said theory operates or operates as claimed. In western thought his response is considered faulty logic. Darwin does not get a pass here.
     
    While you are correct that a theory must prove itself, it is also very appropriate for scientists to attempt to falsify Darwin, yet Darwinists are unable to articulate any such attempt at falsification that they would accept as bona fide science. Thus, they place Darwinism above scientific inquiry and make an unchallengeable dogma out of it.
  161. “You can test evolution by looking at modern DNA and seeking fossils of intermediate forms which would have to exist.”

    Excuse me,

    but you will have to proffer some evidence besides speculative explanations for species jump. That’s the crucial link. Demonstrate or better still predict based on the process when one species will become a different species of being.

    That’s the test.

    • Replies: @Talha
    That's the big reason why - though I think evolutionary theory (the various competing ones, not just the straight Darwinian model) has great explanatory powers on the evidence thus far - I have around a 80-85% confidence in it being correct or confidence that it will not be turned over in the future.

    Still waiting for that clean, demonstrable species break off, either in the fossil record or reproducible experiment.

    Peace.

  162. @snorlax

    No – most African American converts are normal Sunni Muslims.
     
    Louis Farrakhan can fill a stadium just about anywhere he goes. Are there any Sunni imams of any race who can do the same in an American city? The MSM lowball the # of NoI adherents because they consider it to reflect poorly on blacks, but it's obviously the second leading religion among AADOS.

    Incorrect.
     
    Different definitions of the term. Christians believe God's grace is universal,

    • https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+4%3A10&version=NIV
    • https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+15%3A22&version=NIV
    • https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lamentations+3%3A31-32&version=NIV

    unearned

    • https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+5%3A4&version=NIV

    and freely given.

    • https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2:1-10&version=NIV

    c.f. https://quran.com/12/53

    Louis Farrakhan can fill a stadium just about anywhere he goes.

    Correct of Blacks in general – not specifically Muslim.

    Are there any Sunni imams of any race who can do the same in an American city?

    Don’t know.

    Christians believe God’s grace is universal,

    But they also believe He will throw people into Hell forever. I have never understood this aspect. Again, not my religion; if it makes sense to you, most welcome.

    and freely given.

    If this is the case, then disbelievers shouldn’t have to worry about it, since we already have it free of charge. It’s nice actually, it makes me feel like my bases are covered in case I’m wrong…Pascal’s Wager and all.

    Here is how we understand our Islam’s salvation through grace/mercy:
    “Follow the right course, seek nearness to Allah, and give glad tidings. Verily, none of you will enter Paradise by his deeds alone.
    They said, “Not even you, O Messenger of Allah?”
    The Prophet said, “Not even me, unless Allah grants me His Mercy. Know that the most beloved deed to Allah is that which is done regularly, even if it is small.” – reported in both Bukhari and Muslim

    If you say it is different than yours, fine – no problems there, but we have the right to define our own doctrines as we please.

    Peace.

  163. @EliteCommInc.
    "You can test evolution by looking at modern DNA and seeking fossils of intermediate forms which would have to exist."

    Excuse me,

    but you will have to proffer some evidence besides speculative explanations for species jump. That's the crucial link. Demonstrate or better still predict based on the process when one species will become a different species of being.

    That's the test.

    That’s the big reason why – though I think evolutionary theory (the various competing ones, not just the straight Darwinian model) has great explanatory powers on the evidence thus far – I have around a 80-85% confidence in it being correct or confidence that it will not be turned over in the future.

    Still waiting for that clean, demonstrable species break off, either in the fossil record or reproducible experiment.

    Peace.

  164. @Talha

    You put creed first; I put blood and heritage first.
     
    Yes, that's what it comes down to; first principles, prioritization of purpose. In fact, if the reason I am Muslim is because it is my inheritance through my ancestry, then - according to the majority of the Muslim theologians - I'm simply not a Muslim and my belief is not valid (start at the 2 min mark):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N_C_cPC7jM&t=121s

    Maybe for others it is a sound approach, but for us God is concerned about the heart; He wants sincerity of the heart and one does not pull a fast one on the Creator of the Universe in this regard:
    "Verily, the first people to be judged on the Day of Resurrection will be a man who was martyred. He will be brought, the blessings of Allah will be made known and he will acknowledge them.
    Allah will say: What did you do about them?
    The man will say: I fought in your cause until I was martyred.
    Allah will say: You have lied, for you fought only that it would be said you were brave, and thus it was said.
    Then, Allah will order him to be dragged upon his face until he is cast into Hellfire. Another man studied religious knowledge, taught others, and recited the Quran. He will be brought, the blessings of Allah will be made known and he will acknowledge them.
    Allah will say: What did you do about them?
    The man will say: I learned religious knowledge, taught others, and I recited the Quran for your sake.
    Allah will say: You have lied, for you studied only that it would be said you are a scholar and you recited the Quran only that it would be said you are a reciter, and thus it was said.
    Then, Allah will order him to be dragged upon his face until he is cast into Hellfire. Another man was given an abundance of blessings from Allah and every kind of wealth. He will be brought, the blessings of Allah will be made known and he will acknowledge them.
    Allah will say: What did you do about them?
    The man will say: I did not leave any good cause beloved to you but that I spent on it for your sake.
    Allah will say: You have lied, for you spent only that it would be said you are generous, and thus it was said.
    Then, Allah will order him to be dragged upon his face until he is cast into Hellfire.” - reported in Muslim

    When I get plugged into the ground, the worms will devour my brain and organs and I will become a pile of bones indistinguishable from another. My blood and heritage - though quite useful before - will no longer be useful to me.

    A boat (no matter how beautiful its shape and build) is useful only while it is at sea. Once it has docked at its intended harbor and final destination, it is no longer of any use (though before, its passengers would have drowned and would have been incapable of reaching their destination without it). Is the boat more important, or the destination? One must decide.

    I think you have hit the nail on the head for many converts I've come across*; they indeed put a faith they could firmly believe in over a a heritage faith that they only had a tangential relationship with due to accident of birth.

    Peace.

    *In fact, I just came across one today online (White convert brother [follows the Maliki school, Ash'ari in creed, and a Sufi to boot]) has seven kids - 5 boys and 2 girls - mashaAllah! A hockey team with a spare goalie! That's making up for at least 3 or 4 White couples that are slacking.

    Maybe for others it is a sound approach, but for us God is concerned about the heart; He wants sincerity of the heart and one does not pull a fast one on the Creator of the Universe in this regard:

    Sincerity is indeed of the essence, which is precisely why I see no need to adopt foreign religions.


    “I do not pretend to be better than others. Therefore what the old Bishop once said to me is not true–namely, that I spoke as if the others were going to hell. No, if I can be said to speak at all of going to hell then I am saying something like this: If the others are going to hell, then I am going along with them. But I do not believe that; on the contrary, I believe that we will all be saved, I, too, and this awakens my deepest wonder.”

    – Søren Kierkegaard

    • Replies: @Talha

    which is precisely why I see no need to adopt foreign religions.
     
    I get that, but the people jumping ship out of Christianity into Islam are precisely at that juncture; they cannot be sincere to a faith that they simply do not believe in. Which is the same reason I said that I would drop Islam as of yesterday for another religion if I thought something else was the truth; sincerity of the heart is paramount for someone like me - I can't devote my heart to something I think is false but looks good enough.

    Love Kierkegaard, I have one of his books.

    Peace.
  165. @EliteCommInc.
    What is interesting is that after all these years people take Darwin's argumentation seriously.

    First, I have never heard anyone claim that Darwin's work is not scientific, That would be interesting to read. I have heard that his suppositions to conclusions are more speculative and not fact. i have further understood that the evidence does not fully support his line of reasoning.

    Second this response,

    "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed[,] which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive[,] slight modifications[,] my theory would absolutely break down."

    if accurate, is another way of saying. "Prove it didn't happen." or "Prove it can't happen." The inability to demonstrate that I did not steal a car does not mean that i stole the car. The way that science works is by demonstrating to truth.

    It is not "Here's my theory. If you can't demonstrate that it didn't happen or can't in just this way - then my theory must be factual." And attempting to respond by making said demonstration just reinforces the false notion that said theory is fact. No. It is a theory. It is the obligation of Dr. Darwin to demonstrate via the evidence in support of his claim that said theory operates or operates as claimed. In western thought his response is considered faulty logic. Darwin does not get a pass here.

    It is not “Here’s my theory. If you can’t demonstrate that it didn’t happen or can’t in just this way – then my theory must be factual.” And attempting to respond by making said demonstration just reinforces the false notion that said theory is fact. No. It is a theory. It is the obligation of Dr. Darwin to demonstrate via the evidence in support of his claim that said theory operates or operates as claimed. In western thought his response is considered faulty logic. Darwin does not get a pass here.

    While you are correct that a theory must prove itself, it is also very appropriate for scientists to attempt to falsify Darwin, yet Darwinists are unable to articulate any such attempt at falsification that they would accept as bona fide science. Thus, they place Darwinism above scientific inquiry and make an unchallengeable dogma out of it.

  166. @Rosie

    Maybe for others it is a sound approach, but for us God is concerned about the heart; He wants sincerity of the heart and one does not pull a fast one on the Creator of the Universe in this regard:
     
    Sincerity is indeed of the essence, which is precisely why I see no need to adopt foreign religions.


    “I do not pretend to be better than others. Therefore what the old Bishop once said to me is not true–namely, that I spoke as if the others were going to hell. No, if I can be said to speak at all of going to hell then I am saying something like this: If the others are going to hell, then I am going along with them. But I do not believe that; on the contrary, I believe that we will all be saved, I, too, and this awakens my deepest wonder.”


    – Søren Kierkegaard

    which is precisely why I see no need to adopt foreign religions.

    I get that, but the people jumping ship out of Christianity into Islam are precisely at that juncture; they cannot be sincere to a faith that they simply do not believe in. Which is the same reason I said that I would drop Islam as of yesterday for another religion if I thought something else was the truth; sincerity of the heart is paramount for someone like me – I can’t devote my heart to something I think is false but looks good enough.

    Love Kierkegaard, I have one of his books.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    Here is what I would say to one of my children if they were struggling: If you don't get the Trinity, that doesn't mean it is not true. It just means you don't get it. You may go to your grave insisting that it doesn't make any sense, but so long as you are sincerely trying understand and make sense of it, you are on the right path.

    There is even something to be said for this "Mr. Rational" character. One thing he certainly is not is indifferent.
    , @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    The traditional penalty for apostasy in Islam is death and it's still enforced today both both families and governments. Christians don't do that anymore.
  167. @Talha

    which is precisely why I see no need to adopt foreign religions.
     
    I get that, but the people jumping ship out of Christianity into Islam are precisely at that juncture; they cannot be sincere to a faith that they simply do not believe in. Which is the same reason I said that I would drop Islam as of yesterday for another religion if I thought something else was the truth; sincerity of the heart is paramount for someone like me - I can't devote my heart to something I think is false but looks good enough.

    Love Kierkegaard, I have one of his books.

    Peace.

    Here is what I would say to one of my children if they were struggling: If you don’t get the Trinity, that doesn’t mean it is not true. It just means you don’t get it. You may go to your grave insisting that it doesn’t make any sense, but so long as you are sincerely trying understand and make sense of it, you are on the right path.

    There is even something to be said for this “Mr. Rational” character. One thing he certainly is not is indifferent.

    • Replies: @Talha

    but so long as you are sincerely trying understand and make sense of it, you are on the right path.
     
    Yup and this may certainly be good enough for some people. Some people can bury those kinds of concerns or doubts under the surface and just move forward with life. That was the answer that Shaykh Nuh Keller received; it is a mystery, you may not understand, but just believe it.

    But it wasn't good enough for him; he wanted something he could have deep conviction in...eventually ended up becoming a spiritual guide in the Shadhili Order.

    Different strokes...

    Peace.
  168. @Rosie
    Here is what I would say to one of my children if they were struggling: If you don't get the Trinity, that doesn't mean it is not true. It just means you don't get it. You may go to your grave insisting that it doesn't make any sense, but so long as you are sincerely trying understand and make sense of it, you are on the right path.

    There is even something to be said for this "Mr. Rational" character. One thing he certainly is not is indifferent.

    but so long as you are sincerely trying understand and make sense of it, you are on the right path.

    Yup and this may certainly be good enough for some people. Some people can bury those kinds of concerns or doubts under the surface and just move forward with life. That was the answer that Shaykh Nuh Keller received; it is a mystery, you may not understand, but just believe it.

    But it wasn’t good enough for him; he wanted something he could have deep conviction in…eventually ended up becoming a spiritual guide in the Shadhili Order.

    Different strokes…

    Peace.

  169. @Mark G.
    It may not be so much that white Democrat liberals are becoming more atheist as that atheists feel more out of place in the Republican party so they move over to the Democrats. The Republicans didn't use to be all that religious. The leading atheist of the nineteenth century, Robert Ingersoll, was once invited to give a speech at the Republican convention. The change started in the nineteen sixties when the Republicans started following a Southern strategy to pick up votes in the South which included policies to appeal to Southern religious fundamentalist types. They also started trying for the Catholic vote. In the seventies it was the Republican party that defended the rights of Christian homeschoolers to homeschool their kids and Christian radio stations to broadcast their beliefs and that drove more religious voters in their direction. The atheists who have stayed in the Republican party are the few nonreligious John Derbyshire types who aren't Christians themselves but see Christianity as part of a Western tradition they admire and feel at home in. They see the multiculturalist left as attacking that tradition and the Democrat party as their political representative.

    At one time, Republicans tended to be more socially liberal while economically more conservative than the Democrats. The Democrats overall social conservativism was due to southern Whites and Roman Catholic voters.

  170. @Talha

    which is precisely why I see no need to adopt foreign religions.
     
    I get that, but the people jumping ship out of Christianity into Islam are precisely at that juncture; they cannot be sincere to a faith that they simply do not believe in. Which is the same reason I said that I would drop Islam as of yesterday for another religion if I thought something else was the truth; sincerity of the heart is paramount for someone like me - I can't devote my heart to something I think is false but looks good enough.

    Love Kierkegaard, I have one of his books.

    Peace.

    The traditional penalty for apostasy in Islam is death and it’s still enforced today both both families and governments. Christians don’t do that anymore.

    • Replies: @Talha

    it’s still enforced today both both families and governments
     
    No, only in some places. There is an active debate on it right now among some of the top Muslim scholars and likely it will continue to be one of those things that varies in implementation from place to place. We don't have a centralized religious authority and on issues that have no consensus, well, differences of opinion are allowed. There are very legitimate and strong arguments for both sides, so it's really kind of reflects where the government and the people of a particular country fall on the spectrum.

    Christians don’t do that anymore.
     
    True, they tossed the traditional penalty for apostasy with a bunch of other traditional rules.

    Peace.
  171. @Talha

    You put creed first; I put blood and heritage first.
     
    Yes, that's what it comes down to; first principles, prioritization of purpose. In fact, if the reason I am Muslim is because it is my inheritance through my ancestry, then - according to the majority of the Muslim theologians - I'm simply not a Muslim and my belief is not valid (start at the 2 min mark):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N_C_cPC7jM&t=121s

    Maybe for others it is a sound approach, but for us God is concerned about the heart; He wants sincerity of the heart and one does not pull a fast one on the Creator of the Universe in this regard:
    "Verily, the first people to be judged on the Day of Resurrection will be a man who was martyred. He will be brought, the blessings of Allah will be made known and he will acknowledge them.
    Allah will say: What did you do about them?
    The man will say: I fought in your cause until I was martyred.
    Allah will say: You have lied, for you fought only that it would be said you were brave, and thus it was said.
    Then, Allah will order him to be dragged upon his face until he is cast into Hellfire. Another man studied religious knowledge, taught others, and recited the Quran. He will be brought, the blessings of Allah will be made known and he will acknowledge them.
    Allah will say: What did you do about them?
    The man will say: I learned religious knowledge, taught others, and I recited the Quran for your sake.
    Allah will say: You have lied, for you studied only that it would be said you are a scholar and you recited the Quran only that it would be said you are a reciter, and thus it was said.
    Then, Allah will order him to be dragged upon his face until he is cast into Hellfire. Another man was given an abundance of blessings from Allah and every kind of wealth. He will be brought, the blessings of Allah will be made known and he will acknowledge them.
    Allah will say: What did you do about them?
    The man will say: I did not leave any good cause beloved to you but that I spent on it for your sake.
    Allah will say: You have lied, for you spent only that it would be said you are generous, and thus it was said.
    Then, Allah will order him to be dragged upon his face until he is cast into Hellfire.” - reported in Muslim

    When I get plugged into the ground, the worms will devour my brain and organs and I will become a pile of bones indistinguishable from another. My blood and heritage - though quite useful before - will no longer be useful to me.

    A boat (no matter how beautiful its shape and build) is useful only while it is at sea. Once it has docked at its intended harbor and final destination, it is no longer of any use (though before, its passengers would have drowned and would have been incapable of reaching their destination without it). Is the boat more important, or the destination? One must decide.

    I think you have hit the nail on the head for many converts I've come across*; they indeed put a faith they could firmly believe in over a a heritage faith that they only had a tangential relationship with due to accident of birth.

    Peace.

    *In fact, I just came across one today online (White convert brother [follows the Maliki school, Ash'ari in creed, and a Sufi to boot]) has seven kids - 5 boys and 2 girls - mashaAllah! A hockey team with a spare goalie! That's making up for at least 3 or 4 White couples that are slacking.

    That’s one of the ways Moslems plan to conquer the West – by outbreeding non-Moslems.

    In Europe and Britain, Moslems are largely a parasitic population of welfare leeches and criminals. That’s less true in the US. Does this fellow you know feed at the government trough?

    • Replies: @Talha

    That’s one of the ways Moslems plan to conquer the West – by outbreeding non-Moslems.
     
    Uh no. There's no sinister plan. Muslims actually like kids; they are fun, they are cute and they bring joy to life - I honestly have no clue why everyone else doesn't want them or prioritizes them so low in their goals and accomplishments in life.

    Does this fellow you know feed at the government trough?
     
    Don't know, but if he does...friggin' White guys on welfare, I tell ya'.

    Peace.
  172. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    The traditional penalty for apostasy in Islam is death and it's still enforced today both both families and governments. Christians don't do that anymore.

    it’s still enforced today both both families and governments

    No, only in some places. There is an active debate on it right now among some of the top Muslim scholars and likely it will continue to be one of those things that varies in implementation from place to place. We don’t have a centralized religious authority and on issues that have no consensus, well, differences of opinion are allowed. There are very legitimate and strong arguments for both sides, so it’s really kind of reflects where the government and the people of a particular country fall on the spectrum.

    Christians don’t do that anymore.

    True, they tossed the traditional penalty for apostasy with a bunch of other traditional rules.

    Peace.

  173. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    That's one of the ways Moslems plan to conquer the West - by outbreeding non-Moslems.

    In Europe and Britain, Moslems are largely a parasitic population of welfare leeches and criminals. That's less true in the US. Does this fellow you know feed at the government trough?

    That’s one of the ways Moslems plan to conquer the West – by outbreeding non-Moslems.

    Uh no. There’s no sinister plan. Muslims actually like kids; they are fun, they are cute and they bring joy to life – I honestly have no clue why everyone else doesn’t want them or prioritizes them so low in their goals and accomplishments in life.

    Does this fellow you know feed at the government trough?

    Don’t know, but if he does…friggin’ White guys on welfare, I tell ya’.

    Peace.

  174. @Rosie

    A distinction without a difference.
     
    And so your last shred of credibility goes out the window.

    In other words, your deity. As you well know.
     
    Who cares? Intelligent design has theistic implications, but it is built on an empirical foundation. The natural world can either reveal something about the likelihood of God's existence or not. It's ridiculous yo claim that evidence from the natural world may tend to reduce the likelihood of God's existence, but it may never tend to increase the likelihood of God's existence. To even think such a thought is unscientific!

    Seriously, this is just childish.

    Intelligent design has theistic implications, but it is built on an empirical foundation.

    TENS is built ONLY on empirical foundations.  Point mutations, crossover mutations causing gene duplications/deletions, copy number variants, all these things are proven to exist.  Natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, founder effect… these things also are proven to exist.

    Show us your designer.

    The natural world can either reveal something about the likelihood of God’s existence or not.

    Your argument was debunked by Christian theologians more than 2 centuries ago.  They were far more intelligent and honest than you are.

    It’s ridiculous yo claim that evidence from the natural world may tend to reduce the likelihood of God’s existence, but it may never tend to increase the likelihood of God’s existence.

    Volcanoes used to be attributed to angry gods.  We know better now.

    Thunder and lightning used to be attributed to gods too.  We know better now.

    Diseases like malaria and epilepsy used to be attributed to “bad air” and demonic possession.

    Yet here we are, with a full toolkit for the generation and expansion of life on a planet with no supernatural or even intelligent elements whatsoever, and you are claiming a designer that either will not show itself, has moved on to other things, or is dead.

    Know all you’d need to disprove ALL theories of evolution?  One rabbit fossil in a Cambrian sediment.  Just one.  But you haven’t got one… and it really bothers you.

    I’m not slanting everything so I win.  This argument was over, finished, done DECADES ago.  You’re just upset that your side lost.  Whatever you and I say to each other is not going to change the facts.  Neither will trying to sneak creationism (old-earth or otherwise) into science textbooks by calling it “intellligent design”.  On the other hand, you CAN do a tremendous amount of damage to American science education and hand even more and bigger advantages to the Chinese.  Was that what you had in mind?  Now you can’t even say you weren’t warned.

    To even think such a thought is unscientific!

    Projection.

    Seriously, this is just childish.

    Yes, you are.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    I seem to be getting under your skin, Mr. Irrational. What are you hoping to accomplish by continuing to engage me?

    Show us your designer.
     
    This is ridiculous. You don't have to see a thing or know the thing exists. If I see a fingerprint on a gun, I know a person held the gun. It doesn't matter if I can show you the person or not. Is it your position that you will never believe until God appears in the clouds?

    http://disneylionking.weebly.com/uploads/2/3/7/2/23727482/1383865627.png


    Thunder and lightning used to be attributed to gods too.
     
    The old "God of the Gaps" trope" Theists have been wrong in the past, therefore they must be wrong about everything, everywhere forevermore... How does that even remotely constitute a logical argument?

    One rabbit fossil in a Cambrian sediment. Just one.
     

    More nonsense. Organisms occupy niches within ecosystems. There would be no reason whatsoever to expect such out-of-place findings uncer either a design or evolutionary hypothesis. That might work on a young Earth creationist, but it's not going to work on me. When you refuse to even attempt to understand others' point of view, your going to come off sounding like an ignorant ass.

    You’re just upset that your side lost.
     

    Science is not a basketball game where you play four quarters (or whatever the hell they play) and then it's over. You have to (get ready for it) continually evaluate the evidence as it comes to light. (I know, shocking, right!)

    On the other hand, you CAN do a tremendous amount of damage to American science education and hand even more and bigger advantages to the Chinese.

     

    You're being hysterical. Get a grip.
  175. @Rosie

    Your “alien designer” would have had to arise in a universe far less hospitable to life: not just with scarce planet-building and life-making elements, but compact and with lots of highly energetic events like supernovae, neutron-star mergers and active galactic nuclei going on. Plus, your hypothetical “designer” would have to be highly capable, not just capable of travelling to other stars for questionable profits but also capable of feats of biology which are way beyond us.
     
    It doesn't seem very likely does it? Yet that is precisely the problem with evolution. You have to deal not only with theoretical possibilities, but probabilities, and that is where evolution fails.

    https://youtu.be/W1_KEVaCyaA

    Rosie, do you ever bother to THINK that those claims are ancient, and debunked?

    By the same “probabilities” you couldn’t get more than a few molecules of amino acids out of the Miller-Urey flask.  Not only was the “soup” full of them, it had simple sugars and nucleotides in it too.  All the building blocks of life.

    Chemistry is not random.  Making claims about abiogenesis and evolution based on randomness is not just wrong, it’s knowingly telling falsehoods.  It’s lying.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Chemistry is not random. Making claims about abiogenesis and evolution based on randomness is not just wrong, it’s knowingly telling falsehoods. It’s lying.
     
    No, it isn't. At the end of the day, you can't select for something until it exists. For a living cell to come into existence, you need exponentially multiplying coincidences. I know you people keep trying to deny this, but the fact remains nonetheless.

    Tell me, Mr. Irrational, what line of inquiry into the validity of Darwinism as we know it would you accept as "scientific"?

  176. @Talha

    Twinkie and Talha might duke it out?
     
    Why would we duke it out? I have a good amount of respect for the man and wish him and his family the best. Sure we have different visions for what we would call the ideal future, but that’s life - everyone has an opinion.

    I don’t mind White-majority rule...
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/ModernEgypt%2C_Muhammad_Ali_by_Auguste_Couder%2C_BAP_17996.jpg/800px-ModernEgypt%2C_Muhammad_Ali_by_Auguste_Couder%2C_BAP_17996.jpg

    Peace.

    Great.

    Instead, we get you against the peanut gallery.

    • Replies: @Talha
    But did you get your popcorn though?

    https://media.giphy.com/media/pUeXcg80cO8I8/giphy.gif

    By they way, if you got the implicit drift from the image I posted of Muhammad Ali Pasha - I actually don't even mind White-minority rule. For me competency and aptitude is key.

    Peace.

  177. @iffen
    Great.

    Instead, we get you against the peanut gallery.

    But did you get your popcorn though?

    By they way, if you got the implicit drift from the image I posted of Muhammad Ali Pasha – I actually don’t even mind White-minority rule. For me competency and aptitude is key.

    Peace.

  178. @Mr. Rational

    Intelligent design has theistic implications, but it is built on an empirical foundation.
     
    TENS is built ONLY on empirical foundations.  Point mutations, crossover mutations causing gene duplications/deletions, copy number variants, all these things are proven to exist.  Natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, founder effect... these things also are proven to exist.

    Show us your designer.

    The natural world can either reveal something about the likelihood of God’s existence or not.
     
    Your argument was debunked by Christian theologians more than 2 centuries ago.  They were far more intelligent and honest than you are.

    It’s ridiculous yo claim that evidence from the natural world may tend to reduce the likelihood of God’s existence, but it may never tend to increase the likelihood of God’s existence.
     
    Volcanoes used to be attributed to angry gods.  We know better now.

    Thunder and lightning used to be attributed to gods too.  We know better now.

    Diseases like malaria and epilepsy used to be attributed to "bad air" and demonic possession.

    Yet here we are, with a full toolkit for the generation and expansion of life on a planet with no supernatural or even intelligent elements whatsoever, and you are claiming a designer that either will not show itself, has moved on to other things, or is dead.

    Know all you'd need to disprove ALL theories of evolution?  One rabbit fossil in a Cambrian sediment.  Just one.  But you haven't got one... and it really bothers you.

    I'm not slanting everything so I win.  This argument was over, finished, done DECADES ago.  You're just upset that your side lost.  Whatever you and I say to each other is not going to change the facts.  Neither will trying to sneak creationism (old-earth or otherwise) into science textbooks by calling it "intellligent design".  On the other hand, you CAN do a tremendous amount of damage to American science education and hand even more and bigger advantages to the Chinese.  Was that what you had in mind?  Now you can't even say you weren't warned.

    To even think such a thought is unscientific!
     
    Projection.

    Seriously, this is just childish.
     
    Yes, you are.

    I seem to be getting under your skin, Mr. Irrational. What are you hoping to accomplish by continuing to engage me?

    Show us your designer.

    This is ridiculous. You don’t have to see a thing or know the thing exists. If I see a fingerprint on a gun, I know a person held the gun. It doesn’t matter if I can show you the person or not. Is it your position that you will never believe until God appears in the clouds?

    Thunder and lightning used to be attributed to gods too.

    The old “God of the Gaps” trope” Theists have been wrong in the past, therefore they must be wrong about everything, everywhere forevermore… How does that even remotely constitute a logical argument?

    One rabbit fossil in a Cambrian sediment. Just one.

    More nonsense. Organisms occupy niches within ecosystems. There would be no reason whatsoever to expect such out-of-place findings uncer either a design or evolutionary hypothesis. That might work on a young Earth creationist, but it’s not going to work on me. When you refuse to even attempt to understand others’ point of view, your going to come off sounding like an ignorant ass.

    You’re just upset that your side lost.

    Science is not a basketball game where you play four quarters (or whatever the hell they play) and then it’s over. You have to (get ready for it) continually evaluate the evidence as it comes to light. (I know, shocking, right!)

    On the other hand, you CAN do a tremendous amount of damage to American science education and hand even more and bigger advantages to the Chinese.

    You’re being hysterical. Get a grip.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    I seem to be getting under your skin, Mr. Irrational.
     
    I haven't had a really good anti-creationist knock-down-drag-out since I hung out on talk.origins.

    What are you hoping to accomplish by continuing to engage me?
     
    You amuse me, I get to see what still passes for "creationist thought" (same old dogma, no thinking in evidence), and it gives me something to do while I'm dealing with writer's block on my big project.  That, and I enjoy poking at flaming hypocrites.

    This is ridiculous. You don’t have to see a thing or know the thing exists. If I see a fingerprint on a gun, I know a person held the gun. It doesn’t matter if I can show you the person or not.
     
    We can watch people leaving fingerprints.  We can reproduce them at will.  Now, show us some acts of intelligent biological design so we can contrast them with non-design.  And oh... if humans are supposed to be products of design, your designer can't be human.

    I'm asking far less of you than creatonuts have demanded of evolutionary science.  We see mutation and gene-frequency shift in action.  Your "designer" isn't doing anything where we can see it.

    Is it your position that you will never believe until God appears in the clouds?
     
    "Because I said so" is intellectually vacuous.

    Theists have been wrong in the past, therefore they must be wrong about everything, everywhere forevermore… How does that even remotely constitute a logical argument?
     
    If a source is proven to be erroneous, especially over many different claims, you're foolish to use it as an authority.  It's obviously using faulty methodology, if not lying outright.

    The old “God of the Gaps” trope”
     
    That's all that's left to fill, all right.  I just go one step further and assume that the gaps will be filled by natural phenomena.

    Organisms occupy niches within ecosystems. There would be no reason whatsoever to expect such out-of-place findings uncer either a design or evolutionary hypothesis.
     
    You're talking about an omnipotent "designer".  Why NOT a rabbit fossil in a Cambrian sediment?

    Why hundreds of millions of years of incrementally changed "designs" before finally arriving at the present day, anyway?  Why not get right down to brass tacks?  Evolution has to take the long, slow path; an "intelligent designer" could do anything, like Bucky Fuller re-imagined structures and gave us the geodesic dome.  If humans can do that, why's your "intelligent designer" so... unimaginative?

    Science is not a basketball game where you play four quarters (or whatever the hell they play) and then it’s over. You have to (get ready for it) continually evaluate the evidence as it comes to light.
     
    Evidence kept piling up that life in the distant past bore very little resemblance to life in the world of the observers' day.  They were asking questions about how this "evolution" (yes, they used the word) could have happened.  Along came Darwin (and Wallace) with an explanation of the OBSERVED phenomenon.

    Religiotards screamed "I DIDN'T COME FROM NO MONKEY!" and started throwing (mostly) virtual shit at biologists.

    Mendelian inherentence was (re)discovered.  It turned out to explain evolution better than Darwin's original notions.

    DNA was discovered to be the mechanism of (most) inheritance.  It turned out to help explain evolution even better.

    DNA sequencing was invented and untangled things like transposons, copy-number variants and other mechanisms of genetic change.  You know how THESE turned out.  Evolution ran the table.

    It all came out against you, yet here you are, still throwing (mostly) virtual shit at biologists.  Is there ANYTHING that can convince you that you're wrong, and get you to back up and figure out how to make your theology consistent with the way the world actually IS?  Because that has been irking me for more than forty years now.  It's why I cannot be anything other than an atheist.  I am one of those people who cannot turn my brain off and believe something when I have the evidence to prove it's not true.

    You’re being hysterical. Get a grip.
     
    So why are you all het up about evolution, anyway?
  179. @Mr. Rational
    Rosie, do you ever bother to THINK that those claims are ancient, and debunked?

    By the same "probabilities" you couldn't get more than a few molecules of amino acids out of the Miller-Urey flask.  Not only was the "soup" full of them, it had simple sugars and nucleotides in it too.  All the building blocks of life.

    Chemistry is not random.  Making claims about abiogenesis and evolution based on randomness is not just wrong, it's knowingly telling falsehoods.  It's lying.

    Chemistry is not random. Making claims about abiogenesis and evolution based on randomness is not just wrong, it’s knowingly telling falsehoods. It’s lying.

    No, it isn’t. At the end of the day, you can’t select for something until it exists. For a living cell to come into existence, you need exponentially multiplying coincidences. I know you people keep trying to deny this, but the fact remains nonetheless.

    Tell me, Mr. Irrational, what line of inquiry into the validity of Darwinism as we know it would you accept as “scientific”?

    • Replies: @iffen
    FYI

    "We are star stuff contemplating star stuff."

    Carl Sagan
    , @Talha

    Chemistry is not random.
     
    I would tend to agree, chemistry seems to be cut and dry cause and effect. But biological systems are simply downstream from organic chemistry and somehow/somewhere it does give rise to "random mutations" to move things along - that is at least the popular explanatory model, unless I have something wrong.

    Interesting, no?

    Peace.
    , @Mr. Rational

    At the end of the day, you can’t select for something until it exists.
     
    Wrong.  If you start with methane, ammonia, CO2 and water and add nothing but an electric spark or ultraviolet light, you get simple sugars, lipids, amino acids and nucleotides among the products.  CHEMISTRY selects for these things even before they exist.

    If you take a solution of ammonium cyanide and water and put it in a freezer for 20 years, you get amino acids there too.  Chemistry is NOT random no matter how much you need to believe it is.

    For a living cell to come into existence, you need exponentially multiplying coincidences.
     
    They do not multiply like that.  They channel down certain routes favored by physics and chemistry, with radically higher probabilities than your creatonut video maker tells you.

    Did you know that RNA can be catalytic, including auto-catalyzing reactions upon itself?

    Ultimately all you need is ONE self-replicating molecule which can produce at least one more copy of itself before something breaks it down.  Just one.  Unlike you and your creatonut video maker, I can do arithmetic with large numbers.  One mole of anything is 6.023 times ten to the 23rd power of them.  A liter of water is about 56 moles.  Can you calculate how many moles of water are in the first 10 meters of the world's oceans?  Now suppose that 1 in 1 million moles of that stuff are organic carbon compounds.  Suppose further that there's 1 reaction per second per billion carbon atoms in that stuff, re-arranging those compounds into something potentially active as a replicator.  Just how many different combinations would be tried in just a million years, Rosie?

    You can't handle large numbers.  They scare you.  You'll hand-wave these questions away.

    Tell me, Mr. Irrational, what line of inquiry into the validity of Darwinism as we know it would you accept as “scientific”?
     
    After I already told you that "Darwinism" was obsolete as soon as Mendelian inheritance was (re)discovered, you keep beating that dead horse.  You have already proven that your mind is closed; I'm just batting you around like a cat toy.
  180. @Rosie

    Chemistry is not random. Making claims about abiogenesis and evolution based on randomness is not just wrong, it’s knowingly telling falsehoods. It’s lying.
     
    No, it isn't. At the end of the day, you can't select for something until it exists. For a living cell to come into existence, you need exponentially multiplying coincidences. I know you people keep trying to deny this, but the fact remains nonetheless.

    Tell me, Mr. Irrational, what line of inquiry into the validity of Darwinism as we know it would you accept as "scientific"?

    FYI

    “We are star stuff contemplating star stuff.”

    Carl Sagan

  181. @Rosie

    Chemistry is not random. Making claims about abiogenesis and evolution based on randomness is not just wrong, it’s knowingly telling falsehoods. It’s lying.
     
    No, it isn't. At the end of the day, you can't select for something until it exists. For a living cell to come into existence, you need exponentially multiplying coincidences. I know you people keep trying to deny this, but the fact remains nonetheless.

    Tell me, Mr. Irrational, what line of inquiry into the validity of Darwinism as we know it would you accept as "scientific"?

    Chemistry is not random.

    I would tend to agree, chemistry seems to be cut and dry cause and effect. But biological systems are simply downstream from organic chemistry and somehow/somewhere it does give rise to “random mutations” to move things along – that is at least the popular explanatory model, unless I have something wrong.

    Interesting, no?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    But biological systems are simply downstream from organic chemistry and somehow/somewhere it does give rise to “random mutations” to move things along – that is at least the popular explanatory model, unless I have something wrong.
     
    The problem is that you need multiple simultaneous mutations. You don't just get, say a rhinoceros horn, from a single mutation. You need numerous genetic mutations to get an adaptation with a sufficient functional advantage for natural selection.

    https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/problem_3_rando/

    Observation of this problem is not limited to Darwin-critics. A paper by a prominent evolutionary biologist in the prestigious journal Proceedings of the U.S. National Academy of Science. acknowledges that “simultaneous emergence of all components of a system is implausible.”26 Likewise, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne — a staunch defender of Darwinism — admits that “natural selection cannot build any feature in which intermediate steps do not confer a net benefit on the organism.”27

  182. @Talha

    and can only end with the complete victory of one or the other.
     
    The only difference being, they are not interested in a negotiated surrender from the other side. There may be no sacred space, nothing inviolable, nothing sacrosanct...Pussy Riot must be allowed to dance in the middle of cathedrals.

    One hopes that Islam has taken note of all this. Compromise is death.
     
    We have. It has been quite instructive. One thing about their assault on Christianity is how they adopted its language in their attacks - namely "LOVE, LOVE and more LOVE". Note what that image implies:
    "Love wins everywhere once a man is able to insert his penis into another man's anus under the shadow of the Kaa'ba - until then, hate is still alive and hate must be eradicated from the world."

    The thing about Islam is part of its core theological doctrines. As some were discussing above, the question of the Divine Attribute of Love is an interesting one. We certainly have that concept; it is one of the 99 names - al-Wadud (The Loving). In our doctrines however, we don't simply say "God is infinitely loving" because what does that mean? Is it some kind of a quantitative thing? If it is, does it negate His other Attributes which are also "infinite" - vying for space with them? Rather we say (even if we were to use the term "infinitely") that His attribute of The Loving (as with all His other Attributes) is in sense of perfection and only God can truly understand the perfection of any of His attributes that He has revealed and made manifest (and those He may not have).

    The reason I bring this up is because, we also have Divine Attributes of rigor like; al-Jabbar (The Compeller), al-KhafiDh (The Abaser), al-Mudhil (The Humiliator), al-Mumeet (The Destroyer), al-Muntaqim (The Avenger), etc. and those also must be understood in perfection.

    So we have many places in the Qur'an where God tells us what attributes He loves for people to have, but there are also places where He tells us what attributes He dislikes people to have. So we have mandates like this:
    "Whoever loves for the sake of Allah, hates for the sake of Allah, gives for the sake of Allah, and withholds for the sake of Allah has perfected the faith." - reported in Abu Dawud

    There are things that one is required to hate in one's heart as a mandate of the religion, even if one cannot do anything about them:
    "Whoever among you sees evil, let him change it with his hand. If he is unable to do so, then with his tongue. If he is unable to do so, then with his heart, and that is the weakest level of faith.” - reported in Muslim

    So simply trying to tie us up with "LOVE, LOVE and more LOVE" doesn't have nearly the same effect. In fact, the last Friday congregation I attended was in one of the larger mosques in the Chicago area. I was very pleased that the sermon was about warning about the dangers of the LGBT movement and protecting our youth from it. It was nice knowing we are still willing to speak out publicly about these topics from the pulpit.

    However, that's not to say we won't lose quite a bit of people, because we will. If anything, we are most susceptible to the diseases that affect the other Abrahamic faiths:
    "You will follow the ways of those nations who were before you, span by span and cubit by cubit so much so that even if they entered a hole of a lizard, you would follow them." We said, "O Allah's Messenger! (Do you mean) the Jews and the Christians?" He said, "Whom else?" - reported in Bukhari

    I feel really bad for the West in this regard. The Muslims that apostate tend to be some of the most hard-core Left-liberals you'll find. Especially the vocal ones, they don't take Left positions like those of the Jimmy Carter generation - they are poz in full throttle and provide a feedback loop in growing the extreme Left and pulling more of our youth into it. That in and of itself should be reason enough to prevent any more immigration from Muslim countries.

    Peace.

    I feel really bad for the West in this regard. The Muslims that apostate tend to be some of the most hard-core Left-liberals you’ll find. Especially the vocal ones, they don’t take Left positions like those of the Jimmy Carter generation – they are poz in full throttle and provide a feedback loop in growing the extreme Left and pulling more of our youth into it. That in and of itself should be reason enough to prevent any more immigration from Muslim countries.

    This is quite instructive on the issue. These apostates are setting up an all hands on deck atheists event that is mostly geared towards the ex-Muslim community. Listen to the video on this:

    Note what the guy states that they will be discussing in light of the fact that Muslim parents do not want their children exposed to LGBT indoctrination:
    “This not only highlights homophobia within certain communities, but also opens up a larger discussion about how much poser should a parent have in controlling what their child is exposed to.”

    Let that sink in for a bit.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    These apostates are setting up an all hands on deck atheists event that is mostly geared towards the ex-Muslim community. Listen to the video on this:
     
    OK so death may be a bit much, but some sort of penalty is definitely in order. Really, can't they just STFU?
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Parents don't know what's best for their children--childless nihilists know much better!
  183. @dfordoom

    These people are not only still believers, but zealous believers at that. They have merely converted from a previous faith to the new progressive religion.
     
    That's obviously true up to a point. Secular religions (environmentalism, marxism, libertarianism, Social Justice etc) do function like religions in many ways.

    But there are crucial differences. It's not like converting from Protestantism to Catholicism, or from Christianity to Judaism.

    Secular religions offer no hope of individual salvation. Which is a really interesting paradox since modern westerners put so much stress on the individual. Logically if you're an extreme individualist you should gravitate towards an actual religion that does offer individual salvation.

    “Secular religions offer no hope of individual salvation.”

    Being remembered as a tireless virtue signaler is their form of salvation.

    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @iffen
    Stop agreeing with me Mikey, it is very uncomfortable.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Nobody remembers NPCs.

    All this time, all these years, and still it all comes down to nothing.
  184. “Thus, they place Darwinism above scientific inquiry and make an unchallengeable dogma out of it.”

    I think that is correct. I am unclear why you are trying to show signs of a creator to someone who doesn’t acknowledge there is one.

    I would keep your defense of a creative force simple. This,

    “Natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, founder effect… these things also are proven to exist.”

    is not evidence of new species creation. And that is where the Darwinian theory constantly fails. And none of the above gets you to that place that Darwin explicates and so many adopt as fact. I guess one could attempt to demonstrate that it does not happen that way. but you are left challenging a model for which conclusions are based on nonexistent evidence, but speculation and “imaginitive” or “creative leaps” speculation to support the claim(s).

    There is absolutely no evidence that anything began with a force. There is no intermitent structurations between or among a paramecium and an amoeba.

    Here’s an article,

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-close-to-recon/

    what to take note of, that the scientists are not witnessing a reconstruction they are engaging in a reconstruction. humans are ever duplicating how life came to be by as intelligent beings and then contending that intelligence is not the source of life.

    Strange that.

  185. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "Secular religions offer no hope of individual salvation."

    Being remembered as a tireless virtue signaler is their form of salvation.

    Stop agreeing with me Mikey, it is very uncomfortable.

  186. @Talha

    Chemistry is not random.
     
    I would tend to agree, chemistry seems to be cut and dry cause and effect. But biological systems are simply downstream from organic chemistry and somehow/somewhere it does give rise to "random mutations" to move things along - that is at least the popular explanatory model, unless I have something wrong.

    Interesting, no?

    Peace.

    But biological systems are simply downstream from organic chemistry and somehow/somewhere it does give rise to “random mutations” to move things along – that is at least the popular explanatory model, unless I have something wrong.

    The problem is that you need multiple simultaneous mutations. You don’t just get, say a rhinoceros horn, from a single mutation. You need numerous genetic mutations to get an adaptation with a sufficient functional advantage for natural selection.

    https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/problem_3_rando/

    Observation of this problem is not limited to Darwin-critics. A paper by a prominent evolutionary biologist in the prestigious journal Proceedings of the U.S. National Academy of Science. acknowledges that “simultaneous emergence of all components of a system is implausible.”26 Likewise, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne — a staunch defender of Darwinism — admits that “natural selection cannot build any feature in which intermediate steps do not confer a net benefit on the organism.”27

    • Replies: @Talha
    And there’s some really whacky stuff like this:
    “An international research team found that octopuses can edit their RNA, albeit unintentionally. This ability may offer some of the same adaptive benefits as natural selection, but on an individual level. Writing in April in the journal Cell, the scientists said this ability allows octopuses to reinterpret their DNA in a way that could grant them new traits, like better cold adaptation. There were also hints that these RNA changes made the animals smarter.”
    http://discovermagazine.com/2018/janfeb/31-octopuses-can-stray-from-their-dna

    Curiouser and curiouser...

    Peace.
    , @iffen
    The problem is that you need multiple simultaneous mutations

    Does this have to do with the parcity of female orgasms?
  187. @Rosie

    But biological systems are simply downstream from organic chemistry and somehow/somewhere it does give rise to “random mutations” to move things along – that is at least the popular explanatory model, unless I have something wrong.
     
    The problem is that you need multiple simultaneous mutations. You don't just get, say a rhinoceros horn, from a single mutation. You need numerous genetic mutations to get an adaptation with a sufficient functional advantage for natural selection.

    https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/problem_3_rando/

    Observation of this problem is not limited to Darwin-critics. A paper by a prominent evolutionary biologist in the prestigious journal Proceedings of the U.S. National Academy of Science. acknowledges that “simultaneous emergence of all components of a system is implausible.”26 Likewise, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne — a staunch defender of Darwinism — admits that “natural selection cannot build any feature in which intermediate steps do not confer a net benefit on the organism.”27

    And there’s some really whacky stuff like this:
    “An international research team found that octopuses can edit their RNA, albeit unintentionally. This ability may offer some of the same adaptive benefits as natural selection, but on an individual level. Writing in April in the journal Cell, the scientists said this ability allows octopuses to reinterpret their DNA in a way that could grant them new traits, like better cold adaptation. There were also hints that these RNA changes made the animals smarter.”
    http://discovermagazine.com/2018/janfeb/31-octopuses-can-stray-from-their-dna

    Curiouser and curiouser…

    Peace.

  188. @Rosie

    But biological systems are simply downstream from organic chemistry and somehow/somewhere it does give rise to “random mutations” to move things along – that is at least the popular explanatory model, unless I have something wrong.
     
    The problem is that you need multiple simultaneous mutations. You don't just get, say a rhinoceros horn, from a single mutation. You need numerous genetic mutations to get an adaptation with a sufficient functional advantage for natural selection.

    https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/problem_3_rando/

    Observation of this problem is not limited to Darwin-critics. A paper by a prominent evolutionary biologist in the prestigious journal Proceedings of the U.S. National Academy of Science. acknowledges that “simultaneous emergence of all components of a system is implausible.”26 Likewise, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne — a staunch defender of Darwinism — admits that “natural selection cannot build any feature in which intermediate steps do not confer a net benefit on the organism.”27

    The problem is that you need multiple simultaneous mutations

    Does this have to do with the parcity of female orgasms?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Does this have to do with the parcity of female orgasms?
     
    Ima let that one be. I'll just say that I think poor Mr. Rosie has been somewhat of a victim of his own success. They tend to all kind of feel the same after awhile, and I don't think anything much can be done about that.
  189. @iffen
    The problem is that you need multiple simultaneous mutations

    Does this have to do with the parcity of female orgasms?

    Does this have to do with the parcity of female orgasms?

    Ima let that one be. I’ll just say that I think poor Mr. Rosie has been somewhat of a victim of his own success. They tend to all kind of feel the same after awhile, and I don’t think anything much can be done about that.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    Try let him being on top once in a while?
  190. @Talha

    I feel really bad for the West in this regard. The Muslims that apostate tend to be some of the most hard-core Left-liberals you’ll find. Especially the vocal ones, they don’t take Left positions like those of the Jimmy Carter generation – they are poz in full throttle and provide a feedback loop in growing the extreme Left and pulling more of our youth into it. That in and of itself should be reason enough to prevent any more immigration from Muslim countries.
     
    This is quite instructive on the issue. These apostates are setting up an all hands on deck atheists event that is mostly geared towards the ex-Muslim community. Listen to the video on this:
    https://twitter.com/MimzyV/status/1151291589806964737

    Note what the guy states that they will be discussing in light of the fact that Muslim parents do not want their children exposed to LGBT indoctrination:
    "This not only highlights homophobia within certain communities, but also opens up a larger discussion about how much poser should a parent have in controlling what their child is exposed to."

    Let that sink in for a bit.

    Peace.

    These apostates are setting up an all hands on deck atheists event that is mostly geared towards the ex-Muslim community. Listen to the video on this:

    OK so death may be a bit much, but some sort of penalty is definitely in order. Really, can’t they just STFU?

    • Replies: @Talha

    Really, can’t they just STFU?
     
    I don't think they can. It's like dfordoom pointed out, I think its a virtue-spiral that has a mind of its own. So for instance, I don't really care if they have sex with dogs in front of their children to teach them bestiality is awesome - their kids, their future. Bu they cannot stand that I want to teach my kids my own morals and values - it pisses them off that I dare have different values than them. Remember; until sodomy is happening in front of the Kaa'ba, hate wins.

    And once they smell the blood in the water and get a whiff of what you can do with state power, well you've read history when liberal-secularists have been in charge, so it's not like I have to remind you.

    Peace.
    , @dfordoom

    OK so death may be a bit much, but some sort of penalty is definitely in order. Really, can’t they just STFU?
     
    Atheism has become not just a religion but an extraordinarily fanatical religion. And an increasingly intolerant religion. What's amusing is the hysteria and emotionalism of their hate for religious people - amusing coming from people who supposedly worship only reason.
  191. @Talha
    F

    this could be a fatal flaw in WEIRDO software
     
    There is nothing weird about the concept of universal brotherhood when it is genuinely and sincerely expressed and reciprocated. The respectful and brotherly interactions I’ve seen between my brothers who are Black and White, and know what spiritual brotherhood is, has been impressive and instructive. They neither try to front or pretend they are all just the same, but there is this level of deep respect and concern for the other person’s concern that is sorely missing from the identitarian “I gotta get mine” discourse.

    the only viable vehicle remaining to fight it.
     
    The optics are looking good thus far for this. If the most common portrait of the anti-LGBT movement becomes a veiled woman, I’m good with that:
    “Nationwide protests by parents against new relationships and sex-education lessons are planned for September, and head teachers across England are bracing themselves for angry scenes. About 70 state schools are pleading for help to deal with demands from parents that they drop the lessons, which include information about LGBT sex and relationships.”
    https://twitter.com/JohnAndersonAO/status/1151261711933927429

    Let’s hear them squeal.

    Peace.

    Muslims in the West are uniquely situated to depoz the place because your would-be opponents have unilaterally conceded the moral high ground to you on account of your religious persuasion. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth–just capitalize on the opportunity!

  192. @Talha
    Or - to put it in terms of that word game meme I posted earlier...

    I want your “Armin Navabi” in my “Shariah court”.
    https://twitter.com/arminnavabi/status/1029623571360796678?lang=en

    Peac.

    The foil, of course, are your apostates going uberpoz.

    • Replies: @Talha

    Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth–just capitalize on the opportunity!
     
    Absolutely!

    your apostates going uberpoz.
     
    Yes - so the game is on; we will either win big or lose big. If we win, don't worry, we'll handle those guys.

    Peace.
  193. @Mr. Rational

    that’s why they still have energy to explore, colonize and reproduce. That’s why they’re flooding into our countries.
     
    The turd world is fed and medicated by the First World.  It cannot feed or medicate itself; our help is the only reason there is any surplus population to infest our countries.

    If we were not under the rule of (((hostile elites))) we would simply have refused entry to the turd world and demanded they either solve their own problems or accept our solutions.  Our solutions could include refusing to medicate (merciful) or feed (cruel) the results of their stupidity.  When the invasion results in the First World losing the capability to do either, the turd world will suffer both disasters simultaneously.

    So does this mean Jewish elites are the ones who really hate the third-world? That’s where the logic takes us, doesn’t it?

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    does this mean Jewish elites are the ones who really hate the third-world?
     
    I don't think they care.  They treat all goyim as animals, to be disposed of at will; what happens to those which are not useful is of no consequence.
  194. @Mr. Rational

    I’m quite aware that this could be a fatal flaw in WEIRDO software
     
    WEIRDO software developed in an isolated environment.  It appears not to be fit (by itself) to compete with clannish/parasitic software.

    All evolutionary strategies depend on their own particular circumstances.

    It would be a tragedy if the WEIRDO capabilities vanished because of the need to compete against non-WEIRDO variants, but that may be part of the cycle of civilizations.  The question is, can WEIRDOs learn to exclude (by killing, if necessary) types who are not-them?

    That’s one of the fundamental questions of the 21st century (for the West, though the West will only be a side story by the end of it)–do we have the will to survive? The high point in Trump’s presidency was when he gave the speech in Poland asking exactly that.

    The “by killing, if necessary” strikes me as unnecessarily inflammatory. If we won’t even enforce laws against them, we sure as hell aren’t going to find the will–a corrupted manifestation of it in this context in my view–to do anything more extreme.

  195. @Mr. Rational

    Feel free to share, but at a minimum, stay out of our way when we offer an alternative. We should all be able to agree on free speech.
     
    You are the one who asked "Whence the need to dechristianize the rest of the populace?"  YOU need to stay out of OUR way when we put forth facts and conclusions drawn therefrom that you don't like.  Just like the radical egalitarians need to stay out of OUR way when we say that races are real and valid factual and biological things, not "social constructs".

    It’s tangential, but denying that race is a social construct is incorrect. So is denying that it is based in biological reality, of course. The concept of family, for example, is similarly both a social construct (and can mean different things in different contexts) and simultaneously very much based in biological reality.

  196. @Twinkie

    The greatest joy I have ever felt came from unlocking new insights/knowledge.
     
    I gather you've not had children.

    Beat me to the punch.

    Unlocking new insights does give me great joy, but watching my children unlock them elevates that joy to a level I don’t think I could’ve ever experienced prior to their being born.

    • Agree: Twinkie
  197. @Twinkie

    I instinctively side with guys like Talha and Twinkie over white SJWs on everything
     
    While I appreciate the sentiment, Talha and I are not quite similar. Are we both anti-"social justice warriors"? Yes, true. We do share some common enemies and can certainly stand together to resist the machinations of these latter-day Bolsheviks.

    But I am also one of those people who believe that culture matters a great deal, and religion and religious milieu are a very large part of the said culture. To put simply, I consider Christianity to be foundational to what America is. As such, it needs to be the dominant religious paradigm that sets the cultural markers in this country. This doesn't mean we can't have as citizens non-Christians, be they Jews, Muslims, or what have you, but that dominant religious paradigm - that of Christianity - has to be acknowledged as such by a great majority of the population.

    The same goes for the Anglo-American legal and civic traditions and history - some of us can be non-Anglo-Americans, but most, if not all, of us have to respect and acknowledge the centrality of those traditions and history and must avail ourselves to belong to them (yes, that means even immigrant children really ought to read "Little House on the Prairie" and learn about the phrase "Remember the Alamo!").

    I suppose what I am saying is that I am an assimilationist. I believe in outsiders who wish to join our society melting into the traditional American culture, including its predominant religion. Talha, by all accounts, seems to be a nice person, but his stated desire appears to be the conversion of Americans into Islam, which, if realized, would fundamentally change the character of our society and to this I would be opposed most vigorously.

    why I’m not a white nationalist even though I understand and can appreciate it.

     

    The problem with white nationalism is broadly two-fold. It is a loser (is impractical) and it also punishes people for how they were born and not for what they do (which is both unfair and counterproductive).

    Now, I understand the impulses that power white nationalism, which is why I subscribe to what I call "implicit white majoritarianism," which is to say that whites should be the majority of the country and that their religion, culture, law, and civic traditions should be respected as the dominant paradigm for the society. I believe that satisfies both the exigencies of pragmatism (of holding a society together) and the necessity of being just and fair (unjust and unfair people in power inevitably turn on their own people, too, not just perceived outsiders).

    Hopefully I’ve demonstrated in my interactions here that I don’t consider the two of you very similar, let alone the same–to the contrary, I used the two of you as examples because of your salience and because you’re quite different from one another and yet I’m still far more favorably disposed to either of your worldviews than I am to white SJWism.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    I understand. The clarification was not meant for you so much as the readers here.
  198. @Talha

    but his stated desire appears to be the conversion of Americans into Islam, which, if realized, would fundamentally change the character of our society
     
    Yes, but America of yore has already been fundamentally changed and continues to be so. I guess the fundamental scenario that AE has laid out is; if Christianity keeps conceding the public space to the poz and becomes increasingly incapable of fighting back, then a vacuum will be left for something that will. I believe that is the core question at hand.

    Now, if Christianity starts to get its act in gear and pushes back against the poz (a scenario I welcome actually since it makes my life a heck of a lot easier) in a very public way (pastors and bishops at the forefront), then this entire discussion is moot really and you will have your ideal scenario. Then the only thing you will have to worry about is not people jumping ship to be on the winning team against the poz (because you will be the winning team and people love winners), but the slow and steady trickle we keep getting from people dissatisfied with trinitarian doctrine (that just seems to be the big Achilles heel from all the converts I’ve come across), but that’s a completely different topic and not particularly relevant for our purposes.

    Peace.

    Yes, that is exactly what I was getting at, thanks.

  199. @Audacious Epigone
    The foil, of course, are your apostates going uberpoz.

    Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth–just capitalize on the opportunity!

    Absolutely!

    your apostates going uberpoz.

    Yes – so the game is on; we will either win big or lose big. If we win, don’t worry, we’ll handle those guys.

    Peace.

  200. @Rosie

    These apostates are setting up an all hands on deck atheists event that is mostly geared towards the ex-Muslim community. Listen to the video on this:
     
    OK so death may be a bit much, but some sort of penalty is definitely in order. Really, can't they just STFU?

    Really, can’t they just STFU?

    I don’t think they can. It’s like dfordoom pointed out, I think its a virtue-spiral that has a mind of its own. So for instance, I don’t really care if they have sex with dogs in front of their children to teach them bestiality is awesome – their kids, their future. Bu they cannot stand that I want to teach my kids my own morals and values – it pisses them off that I dare have different values than them. Remember; until sodomy is happening in front of the Kaa’ba, hate wins.

    And once they smell the blood in the water and get a whiff of what you can do with state power, well you’ve read history when liberal-secularists have been in charge, so it’s not like I have to remind you.

    Peace.

  201. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Trump instinctively gets it (probably from Fred). But tonight, I saw him say that because the economy is so good, "we need workers!" Of course the redneck MAGA crowd was going wild. "Yes, please replace us, but do it legally Don!"

    So he gets it, but in rhetoric only. The question is if he knows he gets it, or if hes just reading off a script and is really the puppet of whoever has his ear.

    Either way, merit based immigration is absolute hell. Look at how it's destroying Canada. The Indians are flooding us and frankly will take over everything soon. I'd prefer some Mexicans, even gang related Mexicans, over these horrific Indian and Chinese leeches we're letting in.

    Either way, merit based immigration is absolute hell. Look at how it’s destroying Canada. The Indians are flooding us and frankly will take over everything soon.

    Many have a massive blind spot about this. High-caste Indians have a massive eugenics breeding program and absolutely will crush the White middle-class.

  202. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Yes, please islam. Come destroy us and our civilization! I'll gladly submit to you as long as I can have a little "pork" under the table!

    And by the way - Muslims hate you for being white, not just for being an infidel. Look at how they treat their negroes. Muslims will steal all the white women from you and give you some fat ayrab as thanks.

    Beware of false religions... give your head a shake.

    Muslims hate you for being white

    This is nonsense – I hang around practicing Muslims all the time, nobody hates Whites. We have Whites in our clique as brothers.

    Muslims will steal all the white women

    Bro, if you are literally afraid of Pakistanis and Algerians “stealing” your women, you’ve really got some work to do in the self-confidence department. I’d say start there – that might be your problem from the get-go; women like confident men.

    But, for the few that think otherwise, just come up with a law like we do; we have laws that legally interdict attempted marriages between Muslim women a non-Muslim men. Maybe you can do the same with White women.

    Don’t really know how that’s going to help when a White Muslim woman marries a White Muslim man though:
    https://www.pinterest.com/pin/539446861607989830/

    Beware of false religions

    But last time we spoke about it, you had massively heretical views vis-a-vis Christianity which, if publicly declared in Medieval Europe, would have earned you an all expense paid trip to the rack. So, what’s up with that?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    we have laws that legally interdict attempted marriages between Muslim women a non-Muslim men. Maybe you can do the same with White women.
     
    The USA used to have such laws, but they were invalidated by Loving vs. Virginia.

    The same decision prevents you from enforcing your religious law here if your daughters decide they've had enough of Islam and want out.
  203. @Rosie

    Does this have to do with the parcity of female orgasms?
     
    Ima let that one be. I'll just say that I think poor Mr. Rosie has been somewhat of a victim of his own success. They tend to all kind of feel the same after awhile, and I don't think anything much can be done about that.

    Try let him being on top once in a while?

    • LOL: Rosie
  204. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Trump instinctively gets it (probably from Fred). But tonight, I saw him say that because the economy is so good, "we need workers!" Of course the redneck MAGA crowd was going wild. "Yes, please replace us, but do it legally Don!"

    So he gets it, but in rhetoric only. The question is if he knows he gets it, or if hes just reading off a script and is really the puppet of whoever has his ear.

    Either way, merit based immigration is absolute hell. Look at how it's destroying Canada. The Indians are flooding us and frankly will take over everything soon. I'd prefer some Mexicans, even gang related Mexicans, over these horrific Indian and Chinese leeches we're letting in.

    At least the Mexicans pick up a shovel once in a while…

  205. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Btw - Talha

    Don't know if you saw the Sakers article on homosexuality. You seem to be on the offensive against degeneracy lately so you should check it out. There are a few homo supporters in the comments that could use some "straightening" out.

    Nah man, that article’s showing too much skin – I’m avoiding it. I don’t like being distracted by that nonsense. As one of my teachers taught me; don’t let your eyes wander on other women and you’ll go to bed next to the most beautiful woman in the world.

    Anyway, you guys need the practice – knock ’em down.

    Peace.

  206. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Yes, please islam. Come destroy us and our civilization! I'll gladly submit to you as long as I can have a little "pork" under the table!

    And by the way - Muslims hate you for being white, not just for being an infidel. Look at how they treat their negroes. Muslims will steal all the white women from you and give you some fat ayrab as thanks.

    Beware of false religions... give your head a shake.

    But, just for the sake of comparison, have you heard a sermon talking against the dangers of LGBT ideology from the pulpit on Sunday from any of the conservative churches you frequent?

    Also, did they occur without any complaints from the congregation?

    That would be a very healthy sign indeed for the communities you are a part of, because so many of the churches I pass by around here fly the gay pride colors.

    Peace.

  207. @Rosie

    If one feels Trinitarianism is the right belief and makes sense to them, good for them. I’m not trying to convince them otherwise, I was just pointing out a fairly well known trend in our community, namely; Christianity is the biggest gateway into Islam:
     
    Yes, I appreciate that, and my purpose is certainly not to criticize you, but them.


    It seems a little strange (at least to me) to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say, but now we cannot evolve religiously
     
    .

    Perhaps as a person who has dabbled in alien religions, I can shed some light on the matter. When you ae alienated from your own religious heritage, a vast cultural opus becomes inaccessible to you. I see that as a terrible tragedy.

    Consider the following:

    https://youtu.be/S6OgZCCoXWc

    And

    https://www.wikiart.org/en/michelangelo/pieta-1499


    https://www.lagazzettaitaliana.com/media/k2/items/cache/424920dded9c74a765ca6304ef5e1062_XL.jpg

    When you ae alienated from your own religious heritage, a vast cultural opus becomes inaccessible to you. I see that as a terrible tragedy.

    Yes, I do agree with that. Very much so.

    But the problem is that we’re now dealing with generations of westerners who are already totally alienated from their cultural heritage. And this alienation has been achieved by deliberate means.

  208. @Rosie

    These apostates are setting up an all hands on deck atheists event that is mostly geared towards the ex-Muslim community. Listen to the video on this:
     
    OK so death may be a bit much, but some sort of penalty is definitely in order. Really, can't they just STFU?

    OK so death may be a bit much, but some sort of penalty is definitely in order. Really, can’t they just STFU?

    Atheism has become not just a religion but an extraordinarily fanatical religion. And an increasingly intolerant religion. What’s amusing is the hysteria and emotionalism of their hate for religious people – amusing coming from people who supposedly worship only reason.

  209. @Audacious Epigone
    Hopefully I've demonstrated in my interactions here that I don't consider the two of you very similar, let alone the same--to the contrary, I used the two of you as examples because of your salience and because you're quite different from one another and yet I'm still far more favorably disposed to either of your worldviews than I am to white SJWism.

    I understand. The clarification was not meant for you so much as the readers here.

  210. @Talha

    but his stated desire appears to be the conversion of Americans into Islam, which, if realized, would fundamentally change the character of our society
     
    Yes, but America of yore has already been fundamentally changed and continues to be so. I guess the fundamental scenario that AE has laid out is; if Christianity keeps conceding the public space to the poz and becomes increasingly incapable of fighting back, then a vacuum will be left for something that will. I believe that is the core question at hand.

    Now, if Christianity starts to get its act in gear and pushes back against the poz (a scenario I welcome actually since it makes my life a heck of a lot easier) in a very public way (pastors and bishops at the forefront), then this entire discussion is moot really and you will have your ideal scenario. Then the only thing you will have to worry about is not people jumping ship to be on the winning team against the poz (because you will be the winning team and people love winners), but the slow and steady trickle we keep getting from people dissatisfied with trinitarian doctrine (that just seems to be the big Achilles heel from all the converts I’ve come across), but that’s a completely different topic and not particularly relevant for our purposes.

    Peace.

    the winning team against the poz

    I don’t understand the term “poz,” so I don’t grasp your argument here. Nonetheless, my argument for Christianity in America is not a utilitarian one – it is based on my faith in it as the revealed truth from God AND on the fact that it has been an integral part of America’s history and culture.

    And, yes, the United States has undergone dramatic changes in the past several decades, but a large majority (over 70%) continues to identify as Christian, even as Christianity and faithful Christians face unrelenting cultural assault from the leftists who have captured some of the major institutions in the country. The prevailing culture, even if no longer explicitly Christian, is still suffused with all manners of Christian elements.

    And frankly even if the percentage of Christians were to shrink to a small minority, so long as some Christians survive (in the catacombs if necessary!), there is always a chance for renewal as happened when the barbarians overran Rome.

    As for Islam, its adherents are currently less than 1% of the population (there are more than twice as many Mormons as there are Muslims in the U.S.), so an Islamic takeover of the United States is highly unlikely to say the least. For better or worse, the main cultural war here is that between Christians and atheists.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Talha
    The Poz is basically the LGBTQ+ movement.

    You make excellent points here especially the last paragraph. Ultimately, we’ll have to wait and see which way the wind blows on this.

    As I said, I certainly don’t mind a Christian revival, I think it would be good for the US - way better than the direction it is heading right now.

    I guess I can ask you a similar question as UFO; does your church have sermons at mass once in a while warning about the dangers LGBT ideology?

    Peace.
  211. @Twinkie

    the winning team against the poz
     
    I don't understand the term "poz," so I don't grasp your argument here. Nonetheless, my argument for Christianity in America is not a utilitarian one - it is based on my faith in it as the revealed truth from God AND on the fact that it has been an integral part of America's history and culture.

    And, yes, the United States has undergone dramatic changes in the past several decades, but a large majority (over 70%) continues to identify as Christian, even as Christianity and faithful Christians face unrelenting cultural assault from the leftists who have captured some of the major institutions in the country. The prevailing culture, even if no longer explicitly Christian, is still suffused with all manners of Christian elements.

    And frankly even if the percentage of Christians were to shrink to a small minority, so long as some Christians survive (in the catacombs if necessary!), there is always a chance for renewal as happened when the barbarians overran Rome.

    As for Islam, its adherents are currently less than 1% of the population (there are more than twice as many Mormons as there are Muslims in the U.S.), so an Islamic takeover of the United States is highly unlikely to say the least. For better or worse, the main cultural war here is that between Christians and atheists.

    The Poz is basically the LGBTQ+ movement.

    You make excellent points here especially the last paragraph. Ultimately, we’ll have to wait and see which way the wind blows on this.

    As I said, I certainly don’t mind a Christian revival, I think it would be good for the US – way better than the direction it is heading right now.

    I guess I can ask you a similar question as UFO; does your church have sermons at mass once in a while warning about the dangers LGBT ideology?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    The Poz is basically the LGBTQ+ movement.
     
    The Poz didn't do so well in liberal CA when the issue of homosexual "marriage" was put to the voters. Remember Prop 8? "What's with these anti-gay black people????!!!!"

    Didn't matter, of course, they rammed it through via the SCOTUS while Kennedy was still around. It would be a different vote today, I think.

    Contrary to defeatism common about these parts, the Poz's victory is actually quite anti-populist/elite/shallow, and is not as dominant as the mainstream media portray.

    does your church have sermons at mass once in a while warning about the dangers LGBT ideology?
     
    The Roman Catholic Mass does not have sermons. It does have a homily after the Gospel reading, which is a commentary about some aspects of the latter.

    My parish priest is pretty explicit and clear about the Church teachings regarding homosexuality, abortion, marriage, etc. as are a great majority of priests in my diocese. Then again, my diocese has a reputation for being one of the most theologically orthodox dioceses in the country.

    You might not be aware of this, but the general trend among Catholic priests is that the older ones are much more liberal and disobedient than the younger ones, who tend to be both more politically conservative and theologically orthodox (a nearby parish priest carries a gun, for example, and is very pro-2nd Amendment; I've let my parish priest know that I carry in church and that I would protect him if there were an attack during Mass - and he welcomed that). It's also not a coincidence that the older cohorts contain a great majority of those accused of abuse. There has hardly been any new accusation since the Church implemented many reforms in the last couple of decades (not that you would hear about such reforms from the mainstream media).

    https://www.latimes.com/local/la-940221priestpoll-story.html
  212. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Yes, and yes.

    The fag churches are literally dying off. Maybe Canada is just at a more advanced stage, but the United church has lost like a million members since 1980. I've seen like 2 churches with the flag, ever. I'm surprised this is a common thing (you said you lived in Michigan?

    Either way, it just means you guys aren't as far down the leftist road yet. Give it 20 years and all the gay churches will be closed, or full of 60+ year old fossils. The type of goodwhite fag supporter that frequents these places,like AE, are dying off fast.

    As I've said, the Christian youth are much more pious and well behaved than their Muslim counterparts. No drinking no sex etc. The muslims dont drink (some do under the table) but they do smoke weed alot, they do other drugs, hookah, go to clubs, try to get laid. Not to mention the Arab penchant for criminality. They have no problem with gays other than the visceral reaction that it's wrong. Give it 25 years and they will be fully pozzed for sure.

    I live in Illinois – greater Chicago land.

    Give it 25 years and they will be fully pozzed for sure.

    Hmmm…maybe, but I’ve never come across a mosque (big or small) that was flying the rainbow flag, so we’ll see. But, if this does happen (barf), then we deserve a well-earned boot back to Dar ul-Islam to get recalibrated.

    Glad LGBT nonsense is being pushed out of your churches, that is a welcome development.

    Peace.

  213. “Trump instinctively gets it (probably from Fred). But tonight, I saw him say that because the economy is so good, “we need workers!”

    tragic and false.

    I tend to think and agree that the actual unemployment rate is closer to 6 – 7%.

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/06/08/hiding-the-real-number-of-unemployed/

    So I could not locate the nature of these jobs, i.e. government jobs, government subsidies for jobs, part time verse full time, but what I did find that as of yet the job creation is not from the private sector or those jobs are

    finance, service government and construction — that’s a very limited spread

    And yet we hold a trade imballance

  214. @Audacious Epigone
    You're too nice. Should've asked the white noodle neck if he had a strong relationship with his own father. The question would've been rhetorical, I'm sure--we both know what the answer is.

    So noodle neck finally got too triggered and let the cat out of the bag with:
    “100%. Ban religion. It does out in a generation, maybe 2.
    Brainwashing children into a cult ideology, that’s all it is. No different to scientology or christianity.”

    Homeboy sounds like Pol Pot. And we are called extremists, eh? It’s nice to know the kind of fanbois that gravitate towards our apostates – they’re all catching the same train heading in the same direction…over your kids’ bodies.

    Peace.

  215. @dfordoom

    These people are not only still believers, but zealous believers at that. They have merely converted from a previous faith to the new progressive religion.
     
    That's obviously true up to a point. Secular religions (environmentalism, marxism, libertarianism, Social Justice etc) do function like religions in many ways.

    But there are crucial differences. It's not like converting from Protestantism to Catholicism, or from Christianity to Judaism.

    Secular religions offer no hope of individual salvation. Which is a really interesting paradox since modern westerners put so much stress on the individual. Logically if you're an extreme individualist you should gravitate towards an actual religion that does offer individual salvation.

    I think you may have just cracked the code as to why so many of them are so miserable all the time.

    • Agree: Talha
  216. @Rosie
    On the Poz:

    I am beginning to think this issue of the "poz" is becoming a rather unhealthy obsession on the right.

    First of all, it's both negative and imprecise, and it therefore comes off as threatening, perhaps needlessly so. There is really no point in railing against "feminism" nor the "poz." What is needed ar straightforward and concrete demands that one can either agree or disagree with.

    The issue of the "poz" has taken on a life if it's own, and seems totally disconnected to any ultimate aim that is affirmative rather than negative in nature. I don't like certain aspects of the poz because they threaten my vision for the good life. I think the issue has become unmoored from that among many in the dissident right.

    I’m fine with replacing the term with “sexualizing six year old boys, pumping them full of sex change hormones, and having them dance provocatively for adult men”.

    It doesn’t roll off the tongue quite as well, admittedly.

    • Replies: @Talha
    It's bacha bazi for westerners...maybe bacha pozi...?

    Peace.
    , @Rosie

    I’m fine with replacing the term with “sexualizing six year old boys, pumping them full of sex change hormones, and having them dance provocatively for adult men”.
     
    Believe me, I get it. I had a great deal of difficulty understanding myself as a young person, gender-atypical as I was. I probably would have been convinced I was a boy trapped in a girl's body growing up nowadays. If you're a little boy who plays piano, look out! You're crazy shot-lib parents might decide you need altering.

    Still, the word is certainly ambiguous, and I've noticed a tendency to turn anti-poz into more of an end than a means to an end. The problem with poz is that undermines the health of the host. Social health is the end; anti-poz is the means. You'll occasionally hear people around here say they would just as soon kill the host so the poz will die with it (looking at you, Doom).

  217. @Audacious Epigone
    I'm fine with replacing the term with "sexualizing six year old boys, pumping them full of sex change hormones, and having them dance provocatively for adult men".

    It doesn't roll off the tongue quite as well, admittedly.

    It’s bacha bazi for westerners…maybe bacha pozi…?

    Peace.

  218. @Audacious Epigone
    I'm fine with replacing the term with "sexualizing six year old boys, pumping them full of sex change hormones, and having them dance provocatively for adult men".

    It doesn't roll off the tongue quite as well, admittedly.

    I’m fine with replacing the term with “sexualizing six year old boys, pumping them full of sex change hormones, and having them dance provocatively for adult men”.

    Believe me, I get it. I had a great deal of difficulty understanding myself as a young person, gender-atypical as I was. I probably would have been convinced I was a boy trapped in a girl’s body growing up nowadays. If you’re a little boy who plays piano, look out! You’re crazy shot-lib parents might decide you need altering.

    Still, the word is certainly ambiguous, and I’ve noticed a tendency to turn anti-poz into more of an end than a means to an end. The problem with poz is that undermines the health of the host. Social health is the end; anti-poz is the means. You’ll occasionally hear people around here say they would just as soon kill the host so the poz will die with it (looking at you, Doom).

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I probably would have been convinced I was a boy trapped in a girl’s body growing up nowadays. If you’re a little boy who plays piano, look out! You’re crazy shot-lib parents might decide you need altering.
     
    Come to think of it, has anyone given any thought to the dysgenic implications of the trans phenomenon? Gender conformity and IQ are inversely correlated if I'm not mistaken.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21331499

    I know this may be an uncomfortable topic for a movement that prizes both intelligence and gender conformity, but still...
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Going after the children is what did it for me. The movement went from flamboyant narcissism--which is grating but pretty innocuous--to outright predation.
  219. @Rosie

    I’m fine with replacing the term with “sexualizing six year old boys, pumping them full of sex change hormones, and having them dance provocatively for adult men”.
     
    Believe me, I get it. I had a great deal of difficulty understanding myself as a young person, gender-atypical as I was. I probably would have been convinced I was a boy trapped in a girl's body growing up nowadays. If you're a little boy who plays piano, look out! You're crazy shot-lib parents might decide you need altering.

    Still, the word is certainly ambiguous, and I've noticed a tendency to turn anti-poz into more of an end than a means to an end. The problem with poz is that undermines the health of the host. Social health is the end; anti-poz is the means. You'll occasionally hear people around here say they would just as soon kill the host so the poz will die with it (looking at you, Doom).

    I probably would have been convinced I was a boy trapped in a girl’s body growing up nowadays. If you’re a little boy who plays piano, look out! You’re crazy shot-lib parents might decide you need altering.

    Come to think of it, has anyone given any thought to the dysgenic implications of the trans phenomenon? Gender conformity and IQ are inversely correlated if I’m not mistaken.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21331499

    I know this may be an uncomfortable topic for a movement that prizes both intelligence and gender conformity, but still…

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Somewhat relatedly, it is kind of funny that the normalization--celebration, really--of homosexuality is going to reduce homosexual fertility drastically. No more Oscar Wildes having children and fronting a family while living life on the DL.
  220. it’s not gender conformity, it’s recognizing gender (biological) reality

    • Replies: @Rosie

    it’s not gender conformity, it’s recognizing gender (biological) reality
     
    The fact is that some people conform to societal expectations for people of their sex better than others.
  221. @Rosie
    On the Poz:

    I am beginning to think this issue of the "poz" is becoming a rather unhealthy obsession on the right.

    First of all, it's both negative and imprecise, and it therefore comes off as threatening, perhaps needlessly so. There is really no point in railing against "feminism" nor the "poz." What is needed ar straightforward and concrete demands that one can either agree or disagree with.

    The issue of the "poz" has taken on a life if it's own, and seems totally disconnected to any ultimate aim that is affirmative rather than negative in nature. I don't like certain aspects of the poz because they threaten my vision for the good life. I think the issue has become unmoored from that among many in the dissident right.

    among many in the dissident right.

    Have you ever thought about adding an s to dissident and putting the period after that?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Have you ever thought about adding an s to dissident and putting the period after that?
     
    No, I hadn't, but that's a good idea.
  222. @EliteCommInc.
    it's not gender conformity, it's recognizing gender (biological) reality

    it’s not gender conformity, it’s recognizing gender (biological) reality

    The fact is that some people conform to societal expectations for people of their sex better than others.

  223. @iffen
    among many in the dissident right.

    Have you ever thought about adding an s to dissident and putting the period after that?

    Have you ever thought about adding an s to dissident and putting the period after that?

    No, I hadn’t, but that’s a good idea.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    What constitutes dissidence on the contemporary left today, other than leftists moving too far to the right (like TERFs)? Maybe the anti-war progs who are still around, if there are any.
  224. @Rosie

    Not scientific because not testable.
     
    To any extent the inference of design is "not scientific because not testable," all you're doing is turning science into a very limited, brittle tool for truth-finding. The ultimate question about intelligent design is not whether it is "scientific" according to your cramped and arbitrary definition of science, but whether it is true.

    All of this is really besides the point anyway. What is crystal clear is that you demand a monopoly on information. You don't want schoolchildren to hear about any shortcomings in the theory of evolution, so you come up with all sorts of pilpul to justify your tyrannical approach to knowledge.

    You cannot be reasoned with, only defeated.


    old, moldy and debunked
     
    You sound like a liberal defending racial orthodoxy.

    To any extent the inference of design is “not scientific because not testable,” all you’re doing is turning science into a very limited, brittle tool for truth-finding.

    Science isn’t even that.  Nothing can be 100% proven outside of mathematics.  The scientific method is an intellectual toolkit for rooting out errors and falsehoods and replacing them with things that are literally “less wrong”.

    When we teach that planets move in ellipses in astronomy, that’s wrong.  Planetary orbits are perturbed by other bodies and are never perfect ellipses.  But that’s “less wrong” than epicycles or circles and it’s good enough for predicting positions in the sky over the short term (hundreds of years).

    The ultimate question about intelligent design is not whether it is “scientific” according to your cramped and arbitrary definition of science, but whether it is true.

    Allowing you to arbitrarily define your dogma as “truth”, and neither testing it nor even allowing it to be tested.  That’s exactly what the left is doing in the USA.  They treat dissent as heresy.  You are one epiphany away from becoming an SJW.

    What is crystal clear is that you demand a monopoly on information. You don’t want schoolchildren to hear about any shortcomings in the theory of evolution, so you come up with all sorts of pilpul to justify your tyrannical approach to knowledge.

    What is crystal clear is that you have swallowed a load of hooey about evolutionary theory and know nothing about the mountains of data which underlie it.  Some of that data IS mountains; fossils of ancient sea creatures winding up piled in mountains are proof that the earth had changed greatly over time.  “Uncontinuities” in sedimentary rocks are quite enlightening to behold; one set of strata were laid down (flat, at the time), uplifted and tilted, partially eroded away, then submerged again and new strata laid down on top of them.  There’s a pretty good one visible in a road cut close to Pike’s Peak.

    Where’s this designer of yours anyway?  Why, according to you, is he messing with us this way?

    You cannot be reasoned with, only defeated.

    Projection.  You were defeated by logical argument, so now you’re trying to use the fallacy of popularity instead.

    You sound like a liberal defending racial orthodoxy.

    Evolution says that there is no reason whatsoever for two populations reproductively isolated from each other for hundreds or thousands of generations and subject to very different selective forces to remain alike in ANY respect.  Ever notice that leftists object to any notion of non-trivial differences between human groups?  When they say “there is one race, the human race” they are going against the science they claim to hold to.  Darwin himself held that race is real and highly significant.

    What I am trying to defend is the rigor of thought we will require to make it as an industrial civilization, or a civilization at all.  The Soviets tried ideological tampering with science to reinforce the ideology of the Soviet Man.  They sent actual geneticists to gulags and firing squads for opposing ideological diktat, and got massive crop failures.  Enforcing religious orthodoxy over scientific fact is going to do exactly the same kind of damage to us.  It’ll start by turning out public school graduates who need re-education in science before they can even begin to study what’s already known (but declared taboo), let alone contribute new knowledge.  But it won’t end there.  The mish-mash of hidden facts and unprincipled exceptions in reasoning will damage their ability to think, period.  A society which requires “crimestop” will create general stupidity because nobody is going to be able to know what’s going to be taboo tomorrow, so nobody will dare to say or even think anything contrary to the party line.  Too dangerous.  “Watsoned” is already a verb.

    This is rampant in our leftist universities.  The right needs to oppose it 100%.  If we get the same from the right, we are done for… and I’m seeing that happening.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Some of that data IS mountains; fossils of ancient sea creatures winding up piled in mountains are proof that the earth had changed greatly over time.
     
    You are still arguing with a young earth creationist, even though there aren't any here.


    What I am trying to defend is the rigor of thought we will require to make it as an industrial civilization, or a civilization at all.
     
    Einstein himself admitted that his "biggest blunder" was the cosmological constant, which he invented to escape the theistic implications of the Big Bang. Your err in assuming that only prejudice against Darwinism can be detrimental to the advance of science.
  225. “The fact is that some people conform to societal expectations for people of their sex better than others.”

    Laugh,

    I have traveled in academia for quite some time. No. I got your point, entirely.

  226. @Talha

    I feel really bad for the West in this regard. The Muslims that apostate tend to be some of the most hard-core Left-liberals you’ll find. Especially the vocal ones, they don’t take Left positions like those of the Jimmy Carter generation – they are poz in full throttle and provide a feedback loop in growing the extreme Left and pulling more of our youth into it. That in and of itself should be reason enough to prevent any more immigration from Muslim countries.
     
    This is quite instructive on the issue. These apostates are setting up an all hands on deck atheists event that is mostly geared towards the ex-Muslim community. Listen to the video on this:
    https://twitter.com/MimzyV/status/1151291589806964737

    Note what the guy states that they will be discussing in light of the fact that Muslim parents do not want their children exposed to LGBT indoctrination:
    "This not only highlights homophobia within certain communities, but also opens up a larger discussion about how much poser should a parent have in controlling what their child is exposed to."

    Let that sink in for a bit.

    Peace.

    Parents don’t know what’s best for their children–childless nihilists know much better!

    • Replies: @Talha
    Exactly the formula - and they are quite open about it:
    https://twitter.com/ArminNavabi/status/1039269701648441344

    It is pretty nihilistic; we don’t have a future, but we’ll take as many down with us that we can.

    Peace.

  227. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "Secular religions offer no hope of individual salvation."

    Being remembered as a tireless virtue signaler is their form of salvation.

    Nobody remembers NPCs.

    All this time, all these years, and still it all comes down to nothing.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    "Nobody remembers NPCs. "

    Irrelevant. Nobody remembers millions of faithfully devout Christians who lived honorable and meaningful lives over the last 2000 years, either.

    It doesn't change the way either believer feels about how they see salvation.
  228. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Trump instinctively gets it (probably from Fred). But tonight, I saw him say that because the economy is so good, "we need workers!" Of course the redneck MAGA crowd was going wild. "Yes, please replace us, but do it legally Don!"

    So he gets it, but in rhetoric only. The question is if he knows he gets it, or if hes just reading off a script and is really the puppet of whoever has his ear.

    Either way, merit based immigration is absolute hell. Look at how it's destroying Canada. The Indians are flooding us and frankly will take over everything soon. I'd prefer some Mexicans, even gang related Mexicans, over these horrific Indian and Chinese leeches we're letting in.

    Schoolmarm demands no referring to groups as “leeches”. Dehumanization is not permitted.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Schoolmarm demands no referring to groups as “leeches”.
     
    Correctly describing parasitic behavior offends schoolmarm?  Schoolmarm needs a trip to the woodshed.  Or ten.
  229. “What is crystal clear is that you have swallowed a load of hooey about evolutionary theory and know nothing about the mountains of data which underlie it. Some of that data IS mountains; fossils of ancient sea creatures winding up piled in mountains are proof that the earth had changed greatly over time.”

    None of which demonstrates anything further than adaptation at best. That is not the same thing as species jump.

    What you are ignoring is that part of science which ends with plausibilities. What is the likkihood that life started by random and that different species of life springing up at roughly the time are the consequence of chance. If life has some design and design is not by chance —-

    it is plausible that life began and was designed by an intelligence. And that is simplistic – but it is accurate and certainly plausible enough to be introduced in academic circles.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    I un-blocked you but you are still far too obtuse and incoherent to even bother trying to respond to your nonsense.

    FFS, you still use "contend" as a NOUN!  It's a verb.  Nobody but a black moron would continue making such a gross mistake after being corrected multiple times, and I won't bother trying to educate you on anything else until you admit and correct that error.  Now fuck off.
  230. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Yes, please islam. Come destroy us and our civilization! I'll gladly submit to you as long as I can have a little "pork" under the table!

    And by the way - Muslims hate you for being white, not just for being an infidel. Look at how they treat their negroes. Muslims will steal all the white women from you and give you some fat ayrab as thanks.

    Beware of false religions... give your head a shake.

    Do they hate Albanians?

  231. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Yup.

    You're better off with your diversity visa program than you are with "merit based" immigration. 50k from Uzbekistan, 50k from Angola, 50k from Fiji are not really that damaging. 150k Indians are.

    Indians are the most dangerous people to the white race, at the moment. But, as I said, the MAGAtards are ecstatic: "preys'dent Trump saye he's been kickin' out all dem Mecxsicans! MAGA baybee".

    Whites are the “most dangerous people to the white race at the moment”. Invite people to gorge themselves at your buffet table and then get pissed at them for eating?

  232. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Yes, and yes.

    The fag churches are literally dying off. Maybe Canada is just at a more advanced stage, but the United church has lost like a million members since 1980. I've seen like 2 churches with the flag, ever. I'm surprised this is a common thing (you said you lived in Michigan?

    Either way, it just means you guys aren't as far down the leftist road yet. Give it 20 years and all the gay churches will be closed, or full of 60+ year old fossils. The type of goodwhite fag supporter that frequents these places,like AE, are dying off fast.

    As I've said, the Christian youth are much more pious and well behaved than their Muslim counterparts. No drinking no sex etc. The muslims dont drink (some do under the table) but they do smoke weed alot, they do other drugs, hookah, go to clubs, try to get laid. Not to mention the Arab penchant for criminality. They have no problem with gays other than the visceral reaction that it's wrong. Give it 25 years and they will be fully pozzed for sure.

    “goodwhite fag supporter”

    If I was active on social media, I’d definitely put that in my bio.

  233. @Rosie
    I seem to be getting under your skin, Mr. Irrational. What are you hoping to accomplish by continuing to engage me?

    Show us your designer.
     
    This is ridiculous. You don't have to see a thing or know the thing exists. If I see a fingerprint on a gun, I know a person held the gun. It doesn't matter if I can show you the person or not. Is it your position that you will never believe until God appears in the clouds?

    http://disneylionking.weebly.com/uploads/2/3/7/2/23727482/1383865627.png


    Thunder and lightning used to be attributed to gods too.
     
    The old "God of the Gaps" trope" Theists have been wrong in the past, therefore they must be wrong about everything, everywhere forevermore... How does that even remotely constitute a logical argument?

    One rabbit fossil in a Cambrian sediment. Just one.
     

    More nonsense. Organisms occupy niches within ecosystems. There would be no reason whatsoever to expect such out-of-place findings uncer either a design or evolutionary hypothesis. That might work on a young Earth creationist, but it's not going to work on me. When you refuse to even attempt to understand others' point of view, your going to come off sounding like an ignorant ass.

    You’re just upset that your side lost.
     

    Science is not a basketball game where you play four quarters (or whatever the hell they play) and then it's over. You have to (get ready for it) continually evaluate the evidence as it comes to light. (I know, shocking, right!)

    On the other hand, you CAN do a tremendous amount of damage to American science education and hand even more and bigger advantages to the Chinese.

     

    You're being hysterical. Get a grip.

    I seem to be getting under your skin, Mr. Irrational.

    I haven’t had a really good anti-creationist knock-down-drag-out since I hung out on talk.origins.

    What are you hoping to accomplish by continuing to engage me?

    You amuse me, I get to see what still passes for “creationist thought” (same old dogma, no thinking in evidence), and it gives me something to do while I’m dealing with writer’s block on my big project.  That, and I enjoy poking at flaming hypocrites.

    This is ridiculous. You don’t have to see a thing or know the thing exists. If I see a fingerprint on a gun, I know a person held the gun. It doesn’t matter if I can show you the person or not.

    We can watch people leaving fingerprints.  We can reproduce them at will.  Now, show us some acts of intelligent biological design so we can contrast them with non-design.  And oh… if humans are supposed to be products of design, your designer can’t be human.

    I’m asking far less of you than creatonuts have demanded of evolutionary science.  We see mutation and gene-frequency shift in action.  Your “designer” isn’t doing anything where we can see it.

    Is it your position that you will never believe until God appears in the clouds?

    “Because I said so” is intellectually vacuous.

    Theists have been wrong in the past, therefore they must be wrong about everything, everywhere forevermore… How does that even remotely constitute a logical argument?

    If a source is proven to be erroneous, especially over many different claims, you’re foolish to use it as an authority.  It’s obviously using faulty methodology, if not lying outright.

    The old “God of the Gaps” trope”

    That’s all that’s left to fill, all right.  I just go one step further and assume that the gaps will be filled by natural phenomena.

    Organisms occupy niches within ecosystems. There would be no reason whatsoever to expect such out-of-place findings uncer either a design or evolutionary hypothesis.

    You’re talking about an omnipotent “designer”.  Why NOT a rabbit fossil in a Cambrian sediment?

    Why hundreds of millions of years of incrementally changed “designs” before finally arriving at the present day, anyway?  Why not get right down to brass tacks?  Evolution has to take the long, slow path; an “intelligent designer” could do anything, like Bucky Fuller re-imagined structures and gave us the geodesic dome.  If humans can do that, why’s your “intelligent designer” so… unimaginative?

    Science is not a basketball game where you play four quarters (or whatever the hell they play) and then it’s over. You have to (get ready for it) continually evaluate the evidence as it comes to light.

    Evidence kept piling up that life in the distant past bore very little resemblance to life in the world of the observers’ day.  They were asking questions about how this “evolution” (yes, they used the word) could have happened.  Along came Darwin (and Wallace) with an explanation of the OBSERVED phenomenon.

    Religiotards screamed “I DIDN’T COME FROM NO MONKEY!” and started throwing (mostly) virtual shit at biologists.

    Mendelian inherentence was (re)discovered.  It turned out to explain evolution better than Darwin’s original notions.

    DNA was discovered to be the mechanism of (most) inheritance.  It turned out to help explain evolution even better.

    DNA sequencing was invented and untangled things like transposons, copy-number variants and other mechanisms of genetic change.  You know how THESE turned out.  Evolution ran the table.

    It all came out against you, yet here you are, still throwing (mostly) virtual shit at biologists.  Is there ANYTHING that can convince you that you’re wrong, and get you to back up and figure out how to make your theology consistent with the way the world actually IS?  Because that has been irking me for more than forty years now.  It’s why I cannot be anything other than an atheist.  I am one of those people who cannot turn my brain off and believe something when I have the evidence to prove it’s not true.

    You’re being hysterical. Get a grip.

    So why are you all het up about evolution, anyway?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    That’s all that’s left to fill, all right. I just go one step further and assume that the gaps will be filled by natural phenomena.
     
    Knock yourself out.


    Is there ANYTHING that can convince you that you’re wrong, and get you to back up and figure out how to make your theology consistent with the way the world actually IS?
     
    If by that you mean will I ever lose my mind and stop looking at new evidence, no. I will always consider the evidence as it comes in. Deal with it.

    Also, you're making silly assumptions. Many ID proponents had already made their piece with evolution when we began questioning it, including Michael Behe, who is a Catholic and was a content theistic evolutionist.
  234. @Rosie

    I’m fine with replacing the term with “sexualizing six year old boys, pumping them full of sex change hormones, and having them dance provocatively for adult men”.
     
    Believe me, I get it. I had a great deal of difficulty understanding myself as a young person, gender-atypical as I was. I probably would have been convinced I was a boy trapped in a girl's body growing up nowadays. If you're a little boy who plays piano, look out! You're crazy shot-lib parents might decide you need altering.

    Still, the word is certainly ambiguous, and I've noticed a tendency to turn anti-poz into more of an end than a means to an end. The problem with poz is that undermines the health of the host. Social health is the end; anti-poz is the means. You'll occasionally hear people around here say they would just as soon kill the host so the poz will die with it (looking at you, Doom).

    Going after the children is what did it for me. The movement went from flamboyant narcissism–which is grating but pretty innocuous–to outright predation.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    Homosexuals have always targeted children. The pro homosexual propaganda has indeed been effective the last 50 years if it has people believing that homosexual pedophilia is only a recent development among homos, as if it's an unintended consequence of their recent "liberation."

    Like so many other social issues, this was one that was understood perfectly well all throughout history, among countless unconnected societies, until very recently.
    , @Talha
    Well, they are also demanding other perks:
    "A born male who identifies as female, and whose male genitalia is still intact, is suing female-only waxers on the basis that their refusal to wax his bollocks – sorry, her bollocks – is an act of discrimination. Yes, this person believes that because he identifies as female he should therefore have access to every female service, including the most intimate female services. Any female beautician who refuses to tend to his testicles is being ‘transphobic’, apparently, because they are denying his womanhood. Even though he has a penis. And testicles. And is a man."
    https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/07/19/canadas-bizarre-trans-waxing-controversy/

    Yeah, they're going there...

    Peace.
  235. @Rosie

    I probably would have been convinced I was a boy trapped in a girl’s body growing up nowadays. If you’re a little boy who plays piano, look out! You’re crazy shot-lib parents might decide you need altering.
     
    Come to think of it, has anyone given any thought to the dysgenic implications of the trans phenomenon? Gender conformity and IQ are inversely correlated if I'm not mistaken.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21331499

    I know this may be an uncomfortable topic for a movement that prizes both intelligence and gender conformity, but still...

    Somewhat relatedly, it is kind of funny that the normalization–celebration, really–of homosexuality is going to reduce homosexual fertility drastically. No more Oscar Wildes having children and fronting a family while living life on the DL.

  236. @Rosie

    Have you ever thought about adding an s to dissident and putting the period after that?
     
    No, I hadn't, but that's a good idea.

    What constitutes dissidence on the contemporary left today, other than leftists moving too far to the right (like TERFs)? Maybe the anti-war progs who are still around, if there are any.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    What constitutes dissidence on the contemporary left today, other than leftists moving too far to the right (like TERFs)? Maybe the anti-war progs who are still around, if there are any.
     
    The contemporary left has pretty thoroughly purged itself of dissidents (and pretty thoroughly purged itself of anyone who wants to address economic rather than social justice). I would imagine that dissidents in the organised left are keeping a very very low profile these days.

    What you do however see are quite a few people who identify as dissident right but actually lean left on economic issues. People who would be quite sympathetic to the idea of tech monopolies being forcibly broken up, and would be quite sympathetic to the idea of the banks getting the living daylights kicked out of them, people who are prepared to at least consider ideas like UBI and universal health care, people who are in some cases extremely hostile to the mainstream official conservative parties like the GOP and the Tories.

    There's an interesting divide on the dissident right between those with libertarian backgrounds who tend to be obsessed with hunting for signs of incipient communism on the one hand and on the other hand those with centrist or leftist backgrounds who fled the left to escape the identity politics madness but remain sceptical of the magical qualities of free markets.

    I think of myself as being both a leftist and a dissident. The one thing I have never been is a liberal.
  237. @Mr. Rational

    To any extent the inference of design is “not scientific because not testable,” all you’re doing is turning science into a very limited, brittle tool for truth-finding.
     
    Science isn't even that.  Nothing can be 100% proven outside of mathematics.  The scientific method is an intellectual toolkit for rooting out errors and falsehoods and replacing them with things that are literally "less wrong".

    When we teach that planets move in ellipses in astronomy, that's wrong.  Planetary orbits are perturbed by other bodies and are never perfect ellipses.  But that's "less wrong" than epicycles or circles and it's good enough for predicting positions in the sky over the short term (hundreds of years).

    The ultimate question about intelligent design is not whether it is “scientific” according to your cramped and arbitrary definition of science, but whether it is true.
     
    Allowing you to arbitrarily define your dogma as "truth", and neither testing it nor even allowing it to be tested.  That's exactly what the left is doing in the USA.  They treat dissent as heresy.  You are one epiphany away from becoming an SJW.

    What is crystal clear is that you demand a monopoly on information. You don’t want schoolchildren to hear about any shortcomings in the theory of evolution, so you come up with all sorts of pilpul to justify your tyrannical approach to knowledge.
     
    What is crystal clear is that you have swallowed a load of hooey about evolutionary theory and know nothing about the mountains of data which underlie it.  Some of that data IS mountains; fossils of ancient sea creatures winding up piled in mountains are proof that the earth had changed greatly over time.  "Uncontinuities" in sedimentary rocks are quite enlightening to behold; one set of strata were laid down (flat, at the time), uplifted and tilted, partially eroded away, then submerged again and new strata laid down on top of them.  There's a pretty good one visible in a road cut close to Pike's Peak.

    Where's this designer of yours anyway?  Why, according to you, is he messing with us this way?

    You cannot be reasoned with, only defeated.
     
    Projection.  You were defeated by logical argument, so now you're trying to use the fallacy of popularity instead.

    You sound like a liberal defending racial orthodoxy.
     
    Evolution says that there is no reason whatsoever for two populations reproductively isolated from each other for hundreds or thousands of generations and subject to very different selective forces to remain alike in ANY respect.  Ever notice that leftists object to any notion of non-trivial differences between human groups?  When they say "there is one race, the human race" they are going against the science they claim to hold to.  Darwin himself held that race is real and highly significant.

    What I am trying to defend is the rigor of thought we will require to make it as an industrial civilization, or a civilization at all.  The Soviets tried ideological tampering with science to reinforce the ideology of the Soviet Man.  They sent actual geneticists to gulags and firing squads for opposing ideological diktat, and got massive crop failures.  Enforcing religious orthodoxy over scientific fact is going to do exactly the same kind of damage to us.  It'll start by turning out public school graduates who need re-education in science before they can even begin to study what's already known (but declared taboo), let alone contribute new knowledge.  But it won't end there.  The mish-mash of hidden facts and unprincipled exceptions in reasoning will damage their ability to think, period.  A society which requires "crimestop" will create general stupidity because nobody is going to be able to know what's going to be taboo tomorrow, so nobody will dare to say or even think anything contrary to the party line.  Too dangerous.  "Watsoned" is already a verb.

    This is rampant in our leftist universities.  The right needs to oppose it 100%.  If we get the same from the right, we are done for... and I'm seeing that happening.

    Some of that data IS mountains; fossils of ancient sea creatures winding up piled in mountains are proof that the earth had changed greatly over time.

    You are still arguing with a young earth creationist, even though there aren’t any here.

    What I am trying to defend is the rigor of thought we will require to make it as an industrial civilization, or a civilization at all.

    Einstein himself admitted that his “biggest blunder” was the cosmological constant, which he invented to escape the theistic implications of the Big Bang. Your err in assuming that only prejudice against Darwinism can be detrimental to the advance of science.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Einstein himself admitted that his “biggest blunder” was the cosmological constant, which he invented to escape the theistic implications of the Big Bang.
     
    It was a double blunder.  He assumed that a beginning implied an agent.  Accident works just as well; without the accident, there is no product to observe and question it.  Anthropic principle!

    Your err
     
    Now you're pulling a reverse Elite Comm:  using a verb as a noun.  Or did you use a direct pronoun as a possessive pronoun?  Hard to tell just how a disordered thinking process is going wrong.  I'm not a student of pathological psychology.

    in assuming that only prejudice against Darwinism can be detrimental to the advance of science.
     
    You're so damn far behind you can't even see where the science is from where you are.

    The observed Big Bang products are too homogeneous?  Cosmological inflation must have happened.

    Cosmological inflation happened?  There must have been quantum variations in density which were "fixed" as the universe expanded too fast for them to diffuse out.  And that's exactly what's observed in the CBR (cosmic background radiation).  More recently, the research has been into the polarization of said CBR which I am not expert enough to follow.  But the mere fact that these people are daring to TEST such challenges to the Big Bang tells me that they are NOT ideologues like you.  They are fearless questioners.  They SCARE you.

    Since they scare you, STFU, stick your fingers in your ears and say "I CAN'T HEAR YOU".  But please don't do it here anymore.
  238. @Audacious Epigone
    Nobody remembers NPCs.

    All this time, all these years, and still it all comes down to nothing.

    “Nobody remembers NPCs. ”

    Irrelevant. Nobody remembers millions of faithfully devout Christians who lived honorable and meaningful lives over the last 2000 years, either.

    It doesn’t change the way either believer feels about how they see salvation.

  239. @Mr. Rational

    I seem to be getting under your skin, Mr. Irrational.
     
    I haven't had a really good anti-creationist knock-down-drag-out since I hung out on talk.origins.

    What are you hoping to accomplish by continuing to engage me?
     
    You amuse me, I get to see what still passes for "creationist thought" (same old dogma, no thinking in evidence), and it gives me something to do while I'm dealing with writer's block on my big project.  That, and I enjoy poking at flaming hypocrites.

    This is ridiculous. You don’t have to see a thing or know the thing exists. If I see a fingerprint on a gun, I know a person held the gun. It doesn’t matter if I can show you the person or not.
     
    We can watch people leaving fingerprints.  We can reproduce them at will.  Now, show us some acts of intelligent biological design so we can contrast them with non-design.  And oh... if humans are supposed to be products of design, your designer can't be human.

    I'm asking far less of you than creatonuts have demanded of evolutionary science.  We see mutation and gene-frequency shift in action.  Your "designer" isn't doing anything where we can see it.

    Is it your position that you will never believe until God appears in the clouds?
     
    "Because I said so" is intellectually vacuous.

    Theists have been wrong in the past, therefore they must be wrong about everything, everywhere forevermore… How does that even remotely constitute a logical argument?
     
    If a source is proven to be erroneous, especially over many different claims, you're foolish to use it as an authority.  It's obviously using faulty methodology, if not lying outright.

    The old “God of the Gaps” trope”
     
    That's all that's left to fill, all right.  I just go one step further and assume that the gaps will be filled by natural phenomena.

    Organisms occupy niches within ecosystems. There would be no reason whatsoever to expect such out-of-place findings uncer either a design or evolutionary hypothesis.
     
    You're talking about an omnipotent "designer".  Why NOT a rabbit fossil in a Cambrian sediment?

    Why hundreds of millions of years of incrementally changed "designs" before finally arriving at the present day, anyway?  Why not get right down to brass tacks?  Evolution has to take the long, slow path; an "intelligent designer" could do anything, like Bucky Fuller re-imagined structures and gave us the geodesic dome.  If humans can do that, why's your "intelligent designer" so... unimaginative?

    Science is not a basketball game where you play four quarters (or whatever the hell they play) and then it’s over. You have to (get ready for it) continually evaluate the evidence as it comes to light.
     
    Evidence kept piling up that life in the distant past bore very little resemblance to life in the world of the observers' day.  They were asking questions about how this "evolution" (yes, they used the word) could have happened.  Along came Darwin (and Wallace) with an explanation of the OBSERVED phenomenon.

    Religiotards screamed "I DIDN'T COME FROM NO MONKEY!" and started throwing (mostly) virtual shit at biologists.

    Mendelian inherentence was (re)discovered.  It turned out to explain evolution better than Darwin's original notions.

    DNA was discovered to be the mechanism of (most) inheritance.  It turned out to help explain evolution even better.

    DNA sequencing was invented and untangled things like transposons, copy-number variants and other mechanisms of genetic change.  You know how THESE turned out.  Evolution ran the table.

    It all came out against you, yet here you are, still throwing (mostly) virtual shit at biologists.  Is there ANYTHING that can convince you that you're wrong, and get you to back up and figure out how to make your theology consistent with the way the world actually IS?  Because that has been irking me for more than forty years now.  It's why I cannot be anything other than an atheist.  I am one of those people who cannot turn my brain off and believe something when I have the evidence to prove it's not true.

    You’re being hysterical. Get a grip.
     
    So why are you all het up about evolution, anyway?

    That’s all that’s left to fill, all right. I just go one step further and assume that the gaps will be filled by natural phenomena.

    Knock yourself out.

    Is there ANYTHING that can convince you that you’re wrong, and get you to back up and figure out how to make your theology consistent with the way the world actually IS?

    If by that you mean will I ever lose my mind and stop looking at new evidence, no. I will always consider the evidence as it comes in. Deal with it.

    Also, you’re making silly assumptions. Many ID proponents had already made their piece with evolution when we began questioning it, including Michael Behe, who is a Catholic and was a content theistic evolutionist.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    If by that you mean will I ever lose my mind and stop looking at new evidence
     
    FFS, you won't even look at existing and comparatively ancient evidence.

    You DGAF about evidence; you are an ideologue as bad as any radical egalitarian SJW.  You are a worthless hypocrite.
  240. @Rosie

    Chemistry is not random. Making claims about abiogenesis and evolution based on randomness is not just wrong, it’s knowingly telling falsehoods. It’s lying.
     
    No, it isn't. At the end of the day, you can't select for something until it exists. For a living cell to come into existence, you need exponentially multiplying coincidences. I know you people keep trying to deny this, but the fact remains nonetheless.

    Tell me, Mr. Irrational, what line of inquiry into the validity of Darwinism as we know it would you accept as "scientific"?

    At the end of the day, you can’t select for something until it exists.

    Wrong.  If you start with methane, ammonia, CO2 and water and add nothing but an electric spark or ultraviolet light, you get simple sugars, lipids, amino acids and nucleotides among the products.  CHEMISTRY selects for these things even before they exist.

    If you take a solution of ammonium cyanide and water and put it in a freezer for 20 years, you get amino acids there too.  Chemistry is NOT random no matter how much you need to believe it is.

    For a living cell to come into existence, you need exponentially multiplying coincidences.

    They do not multiply like that.  They channel down certain routes favored by physics and chemistry, with radically higher probabilities than your creatonut video maker tells you.

    Did you know that RNA can be catalytic, including auto-catalyzing reactions upon itself?

    Ultimately all you need is ONE self-replicating molecule which can produce at least one more copy of itself before something breaks it down.  Just one.  Unlike you and your creatonut video maker, I can do arithmetic with large numbers.  One mole of anything is 6.023 times ten to the 23rd power of them.  A liter of water is about 56 moles.  Can you calculate how many moles of water are in the first 10 meters of the world’s oceans?  Now suppose that 1 in 1 million moles of that stuff are organic carbon compounds.  Suppose further that there’s 1 reaction per second per billion carbon atoms in that stuff, re-arranging those compounds into something potentially active as a replicator.  Just how many different combinations would be tried in just a million years, Rosie?

    You can’t handle large numbers.  They scare you.  You’ll hand-wave these questions away.

    Tell me, Mr. Irrational, what line of inquiry into the validity of Darwinism as we know it would you accept as “scientific”?

    After I already told you that “Darwinism” was obsolete as soon as Mendelian inheritance was (re)discovered, you keep beating that dead horse.  You have already proven that your mind is closed; I’m just batting you around like a cat toy.

  241. @Audacious Epigone
    Going after the children is what did it for me. The movement went from flamboyant narcissism--which is grating but pretty innocuous--to outright predation.

    Homosexuals have always targeted children. The pro homosexual propaganda has indeed been effective the last 50 years if it has people believing that homosexual pedophilia is only a recent development among homos, as if it’s an unintended consequence of their recent “liberation.”

    Like so many other social issues, this was one that was understood perfectly well all throughout history, among countless unconnected societies, until very recently.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational, dfordoom
  242. @Audacious Epigone
    Parents don't know what's best for their children--childless nihilists know much better!

    Exactly the formula – and they are quite open about it:

    It is pretty nihilistic; we don’t have a future, but we’ll take as many down with us that we can.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    It is pretty nihilistic; we don’t have a future, but we’ll take as many down with us that we can.
     
    Not just nihilistic but extraordinarily hate-fuelled.

    Of course it has been said that atheists are not people who disbelieve in God, they're people who hate God. It's amazing how much they hate a being that they claim doesn't even exist.
  243. @Audacious Epigone
    So does this mean Jewish elites are the ones who really hate the third-world? That's where the logic takes us, doesn't it?

    does this mean Jewish elites are the ones who really hate the third-world?

    I don’t think they care.  They treat all goyim as animals, to be disposed of at will; what happens to those which are not useful is of no consequence.

  244. @Talha

    Muslims hate you for being white
     
    This is nonsense - I hang around practicing Muslims all the time, nobody hates Whites. We have Whites in our clique as brothers.

    Muslims will steal all the white women
     
    Bro, if you are literally afraid of Pakistanis and Algerians "stealing" your women, you've really got some work to do in the self-confidence department. I'd say start there - that might be your problem from the get-go; women like confident men.

    But, for the few that think otherwise, just come up with a law like we do; we have laws that legally interdict attempted marriages between Muslim women a non-Muslim men. Maybe you can do the same with White women.

    Don't really know how that's going to help when a White Muslim woman marries a White Muslim man though:
    https://www.pinterest.com/pin/539446861607989830/


    Beware of false religions
     
    But last time we spoke about it, you had massively heretical views vis-a-vis Christianity which, if publicly declared in Medieval Europe, would have earned you an all expense paid trip to the rack. So, what's up with that?

    Peace.

    we have laws that legally interdict attempted marriages between Muslim women a non-Muslim men. Maybe you can do the same with White women.

    The USA used to have such laws, but they were invalidated by Loving vs. Virginia.

    The same decision prevents you from enforcing your religious law here if your daughters decide they’ve had enough of Islam and want out.

    • Replies: @Talha

    The USA used to have such laws, but they were invalidated by Loving vs. Virginia.
     
    Oh yeah - well, we certainly can’t be blamed for that.

    prevents you from enforcing your religious law here if your daughters decide they’ve had enough
     
    Yup, that’s the breaks! The only option I’ve really got if she decides to go marry some non-Muslim guy is to not have anything to do with the wedding.

    Of course, according to the apostates, I’d be an “abusive” father using “emotional extortion”.

    Peace.
  245. @Audacious Epigone
    Schoolmarm demands no referring to groups as "leeches". Dehumanization is not permitted.

    Schoolmarm demands no referring to groups as “leeches”.

    Correctly describing parasitic behavior offends schoolmarm?  Schoolmarm needs a trip to the woodshed.  Or ten.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    "Parasitic behavior" is fine. Just don't call people "parasites".
  246. @EliteCommInc.
    "What is crystal clear is that you have swallowed a load of hooey about evolutionary theory and know nothing about the mountains of data which underlie it. Some of that data IS mountains; fossils of ancient sea creatures winding up piled in mountains are proof that the earth had changed greatly over time."


    None of which demonstrates anything further than adaptation at best. That is not the same thing as species jump.

    What you are ignoring is that part of science which ends with plausibilities. What is the likkihood that life started by random and that different species of life springing up at roughly the time are the consequence of chance. If life has some design and design is not by chance ----

    it is plausible that life began and was designed by an intelligence. And that is simplistic - but it is accurate and certainly plausible enough to be introduced in academic circles.

    I un-blocked you but you are still far too obtuse and incoherent to even bother trying to respond to your nonsense.

    FFS, you still use “contend” as a NOUN!  It’s a verb.  Nobody but a black moron would continue making such a gross mistake after being corrected multiple times, and I won’t bother trying to educate you on anything else until you admit and correct that error.  Now fuck off.

  247. @Rosie

    Some of that data IS mountains; fossils of ancient sea creatures winding up piled in mountains are proof that the earth had changed greatly over time.
     
    You are still arguing with a young earth creationist, even though there aren't any here.


    What I am trying to defend is the rigor of thought we will require to make it as an industrial civilization, or a civilization at all.
     
    Einstein himself admitted that his "biggest blunder" was the cosmological constant, which he invented to escape the theistic implications of the Big Bang. Your err in assuming that only prejudice against Darwinism can be detrimental to the advance of science.

    Einstein himself admitted that his “biggest blunder” was the cosmological constant, which he invented to escape the theistic implications of the Big Bang.

    It was a double blunder.  He assumed that a beginning implied an agent.  Accident works just as well; without the accident, there is no product to observe and question it.  Anthropic principle!

    Your err

    Now you’re pulling a reverse Elite Comm:  using a verb as a noun.  Or did you use a direct pronoun as a possessive pronoun?  Hard to tell just how a disordered thinking process is going wrong.  I’m not a student of pathological psychology.

    in assuming that only prejudice against Darwinism can be detrimental to the advance of science.

    You’re so damn far behind you can’t even see where the science is from where you are.

    The observed Big Bang products are too homogeneous?  Cosmological inflation must have happened.

    Cosmological inflation happened?  There must have been quantum variations in density which were “fixed” as the universe expanded too fast for them to diffuse out.  And that’s exactly what’s observed in the CBR (cosmic background radiation).  More recently, the research has been into the polarization of said CBR which I am not expert enough to follow.  But the mere fact that these people are daring to TEST such challenges to the Big Bang tells me that they are NOT ideologues like you.  They are fearless questioners.  They SCARE you.

    Since they scare you, STFU, stick your fingers in your ears and say “I CAN’T HEAR YOU”.  But please don’t do it here anymore.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Nothing in science is fixed - nothing. We can have black swan events at any moment and new info can come upon us unaware at any time. That’s kind of what makes science so interesting.

    So for instance, I don’t “believe” in the Big Bang Theory, but I have a 90-95% confidence level that is the correct explanation for the phenomena observed thus far and that it won’t be overturned by novel information.

    Peace.
    , @Rosie

    They are fearless questioners. They SCARE you.
     
    You're projecting.
  248. @Mr. Rational

    we have laws that legally interdict attempted marriages between Muslim women a non-Muslim men. Maybe you can do the same with White women.
     
    The USA used to have such laws, but they were invalidated by Loving vs. Virginia.

    The same decision prevents you from enforcing your religious law here if your daughters decide they've had enough of Islam and want out.

    The USA used to have such laws, but they were invalidated by Loving vs. Virginia.

    Oh yeah – well, we certainly can’t be blamed for that.

    prevents you from enforcing your religious law here if your daughters decide they’ve had enough

    Yup, that’s the breaks! The only option I’ve really got if she decides to go marry some non-Muslim guy is to not have anything to do with the wedding.

    Of course, according to the apostates, I’d be an “abusive” father using “emotional extortion”.

    Peace.

  249. @Rosie

    That’s all that’s left to fill, all right. I just go one step further and assume that the gaps will be filled by natural phenomena.
     
    Knock yourself out.


    Is there ANYTHING that can convince you that you’re wrong, and get you to back up and figure out how to make your theology consistent with the way the world actually IS?
     
    If by that you mean will I ever lose my mind and stop looking at new evidence, no. I will always consider the evidence as it comes in. Deal with it.

    Also, you're making silly assumptions. Many ID proponents had already made their piece with evolution when we began questioning it, including Michael Behe, who is a Catholic and was a content theistic evolutionist.

    If by that you mean will I ever lose my mind and stop looking at new evidence

    FFS, you won’t even look at existing and comparatively ancient evidence.

    You DGAF about evidence; you are an ideologue as bad as any radical egalitarian SJW.  You are a worthless hypocrite.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    You are a worthless hypocrite.
     
    And you are an out-of-control hysteric and a sophist.
  250. @Mr. Rational

    Einstein himself admitted that his “biggest blunder” was the cosmological constant, which he invented to escape the theistic implications of the Big Bang.
     
    It was a double blunder.  He assumed that a beginning implied an agent.  Accident works just as well; without the accident, there is no product to observe and question it.  Anthropic principle!

    Your err
     
    Now you're pulling a reverse Elite Comm:  using a verb as a noun.  Or did you use a direct pronoun as a possessive pronoun?  Hard to tell just how a disordered thinking process is going wrong.  I'm not a student of pathological psychology.

    in assuming that only prejudice against Darwinism can be detrimental to the advance of science.
     
    You're so damn far behind you can't even see where the science is from where you are.

    The observed Big Bang products are too homogeneous?  Cosmological inflation must have happened.

    Cosmological inflation happened?  There must have been quantum variations in density which were "fixed" as the universe expanded too fast for them to diffuse out.  And that's exactly what's observed in the CBR (cosmic background radiation).  More recently, the research has been into the polarization of said CBR which I am not expert enough to follow.  But the mere fact that these people are daring to TEST such challenges to the Big Bang tells me that they are NOT ideologues like you.  They are fearless questioners.  They SCARE you.

    Since they scare you, STFU, stick your fingers in your ears and say "I CAN'T HEAR YOU".  But please don't do it here anymore.

    Nothing in science is fixed – nothing. We can have black swan events at any moment and new info can come upon us unaware at any time. That’s kind of what makes science so interesting.

    So for instance, I don’t “believe” in the Big Bang Theory, but I have a 90-95% confidence level that is the correct explanation for the phenomena observed thus far and that it won’t be overturned by novel information.

    Peace.

  251. @Talha
    The Poz is basically the LGBTQ+ movement.

    You make excellent points here especially the last paragraph. Ultimately, we’ll have to wait and see which way the wind blows on this.

    As I said, I certainly don’t mind a Christian revival, I think it would be good for the US - way better than the direction it is heading right now.

    I guess I can ask you a similar question as UFO; does your church have sermons at mass once in a while warning about the dangers LGBT ideology?

    Peace.

    The Poz is basically the LGBTQ+ movement.

    The Poz didn’t do so well in liberal CA when the issue of homosexual “marriage” was put to the voters. Remember Prop 8? “What’s with these anti-gay black people????!!!!”

    Didn’t matter, of course, they rammed it through via the SCOTUS while Kennedy was still around. It would be a different vote today, I think.

    Contrary to defeatism common about these parts, the Poz’s victory is actually quite anti-populist/elite/shallow, and is not as dominant as the mainstream media portray.

    does your church have sermons at mass once in a while warning about the dangers LGBT ideology?

    The Roman Catholic Mass does not have sermons. It does have a homily after the Gospel reading, which is a commentary about some aspects of the latter.

    My parish priest is pretty explicit and clear about the Church teachings regarding homosexuality, abortion, marriage, etc. as are a great majority of priests in my diocese. Then again, my diocese has a reputation for being one of the most theologically orthodox dioceses in the country.

    You might not be aware of this, but the general trend among Catholic priests is that the older ones are much more liberal and disobedient than the younger ones, who tend to be both more politically conservative and theologically orthodox (a nearby parish priest carries a gun, for example, and is very pro-2nd Amendment; I’ve let my parish priest know that I carry in church and that I would protect him if there were an attack during Mass – and he welcomed that). It’s also not a coincidence that the older cohorts contain a great majority of those accused of abuse. There has hardly been any new accusation since the Church implemented many reforms in the last couple of decades (not that you would hear about such reforms from the mainstream media).

    https://www.latimes.com/local/la-940221priestpoll-story.html

    • Replies: @Talha
    Ah, OK - thanks for the further insights, especially on Catholic practice and state of community.

    You might not be aware of this, but the general trend among Catholic priests is that the older ones are much more liberal and disobedient than the younger ones, who tend to be both more politically conservative and theologically orthodox
     
    Was not aware. I know some Muslims and Muslim scholars are working with a few conservative voices inside the Catholic Church, but this is indeed a welcome trend.

    Well, best of luck to you and your community in keeping the degeneracy at bay.

    Peace.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    A few of the more observant ones got pissed off at blacks but most of the ire was directed at Mormons IIRC, even though they constituted less than 2% of the electorate.
  252. @Twinkie

    The Poz is basically the LGBTQ+ movement.
     
    The Poz didn't do so well in liberal CA when the issue of homosexual "marriage" was put to the voters. Remember Prop 8? "What's with these anti-gay black people????!!!!"

    Didn't matter, of course, they rammed it through via the SCOTUS while Kennedy was still around. It would be a different vote today, I think.

    Contrary to defeatism common about these parts, the Poz's victory is actually quite anti-populist/elite/shallow, and is not as dominant as the mainstream media portray.

    does your church have sermons at mass once in a while warning about the dangers LGBT ideology?
     
    The Roman Catholic Mass does not have sermons. It does have a homily after the Gospel reading, which is a commentary about some aspects of the latter.

    My parish priest is pretty explicit and clear about the Church teachings regarding homosexuality, abortion, marriage, etc. as are a great majority of priests in my diocese. Then again, my diocese has a reputation for being one of the most theologically orthodox dioceses in the country.

    You might not be aware of this, but the general trend among Catholic priests is that the older ones are much more liberal and disobedient than the younger ones, who tend to be both more politically conservative and theologically orthodox (a nearby parish priest carries a gun, for example, and is very pro-2nd Amendment; I've let my parish priest know that I carry in church and that I would protect him if there were an attack during Mass - and he welcomed that). It's also not a coincidence that the older cohorts contain a great majority of those accused of abuse. There has hardly been any new accusation since the Church implemented many reforms in the last couple of decades (not that you would hear about such reforms from the mainstream media).

    https://www.latimes.com/local/la-940221priestpoll-story.html

    Ah, OK – thanks for the further insights, especially on Catholic practice and state of community.

    You might not be aware of this, but the general trend among Catholic priests is that the older ones are much more liberal and disobedient than the younger ones, who tend to be both more politically conservative and theologically orthodox

    Was not aware. I know some Muslims and Muslim scholars are working with a few conservative voices inside the Catholic Church, but this is indeed a welcome trend.

    Well, best of luck to you and your community in keeping the degeneracy at bay.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Thank you.
  253. @Mr. Rational

    Einstein himself admitted that his “biggest blunder” was the cosmological constant, which he invented to escape the theistic implications of the Big Bang.
     
    It was a double blunder.  He assumed that a beginning implied an agent.  Accident works just as well; without the accident, there is no product to observe and question it.  Anthropic principle!

    Your err
     
    Now you're pulling a reverse Elite Comm:  using a verb as a noun.  Or did you use a direct pronoun as a possessive pronoun?  Hard to tell just how a disordered thinking process is going wrong.  I'm not a student of pathological psychology.

    in assuming that only prejudice against Darwinism can be detrimental to the advance of science.
     
    You're so damn far behind you can't even see where the science is from where you are.

    The observed Big Bang products are too homogeneous?  Cosmological inflation must have happened.

    Cosmological inflation happened?  There must have been quantum variations in density which were "fixed" as the universe expanded too fast for them to diffuse out.  And that's exactly what's observed in the CBR (cosmic background radiation).  More recently, the research has been into the polarization of said CBR which I am not expert enough to follow.  But the mere fact that these people are daring to TEST such challenges to the Big Bang tells me that they are NOT ideologues like you.  They are fearless questioners.  They SCARE you.

    Since they scare you, STFU, stick your fingers in your ears and say "I CAN'T HEAR YOU".  But please don't do it here anymore.

    They are fearless questioners. They SCARE you.

    You’re projecting.

    • LOL: Mr. Rational