Category: Religion, Myth, and Theology

  • GREAT THINKERS MOSTLY WEREN’T – RELIGIOUS JUSTIFICATION OF MORALITY INCLUDED

    GREAT THINKERS MOSTLY WEREN’T – RELIGIOUS JUSTIFICATION OF MORALITY INCLUDED https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1656637982445543431

  • Most great thinkers were terribly wrong – and while religious prophets have caus

    Most great thinkers were terribly wrong – and while religious prophets have caused the most bloodshed than any other thinkers, philosophers have been a mixed bag, most of which was hamful, while natural philosophers (economists, engineers, scientists) have dragged mankind out of ignorance, superstition, starvation, and disease.

    Kant is no different. Rousseu began the revolution against empiricism with moral justification claiming man had a nature he did not, kant imitated him with rationalism, trying to recreate the authority of religion without mysticism. And together they caused all that followed them to follow the continental project of rejecting the Anglo invention of the modern state, rule of law, natural law and natural rights and obligations, by the PROHIBITION on authority that the french, germans, and jews tried to recreate.

    Now I can define Morality scientifically and you will be unable to falsify it. It’s just reciprocity in whatever context. Though I won’t bore you with the properties of reciprocity at present. For morality at scale we simply expand reciprocity by scale into political and international scopes of human interaction, resulting in natural law. This is a purely scientific project that began with Aristotle and was only complete today.

    Does that mean that all people will agree with reciprocity and natural law define personal to political to international morality? Of course not. Because everyone wants a moral code that benefits them, not one that is equal across all. In other words, most people are immoral and only as moral as they must be. And they justify their immorality for various reasons of psychological, economic, and political utility.

    Gods are the product of the minds of men, for various psychological reasons, we share in common, even if some more so and some less so. They were the best we could do in the ancient and medieval worlds. They were not the best the greeks could do, and they are not the best that we can do. Because religion is terribly expensive and so far we are unwilling to pay the price of a new non-false religion.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @OtonielFilho5 @bierlingm


    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-11 12:30:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656637982269374466

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656537425756266497

  • THE PROBLEM AND FUTURE OF THAT THING WE CALL RELIGION. Many of us, particularly

    THE PROBLEM AND FUTURE OF THAT THING WE CALL RELIGION.
    Many of us, particularly those who are more empathic than systematizing, or those who are less able to endure the dark forces of competition, time, and ignorance, require a means of suppressing neuroticism and alienation, and obtaining the feeling of safety and calm in belonging in a group that signals inclusion and relative equality in some sort of ritual or festival. Religion evolved by repeating the primal thanks, feast, and celebration after the hunt, and the initiatic brotherhood of warriors, and the ritual of burial of the dead.

    In response to the restoration of classical reason and evidence, producing the restoration of the european rate of cognitive evolution, and the subsequent sequence of cooperative revolutions, humans have been failed by their religions. They were too archaic to reform (other than christianity->secular humanism). Largely what we are experiencing consists of the search for the equivalent of a religion that isn’t false combined with the introduction of women into political decision making, the impersonal state usurpation of charity and responsibility, the capture of education by the marxist-to-woke cult, and the postwar opening of borders for economic utility that benefited only the State and financial sectors at the expense of the polity – destroying our ancestral senses of community.

    While the Stoics discovered the optimum universal answer to religion, the National Socialists discovered the optimum particular answer, but then took it outside their borders and ended it at least for now. So we are deprived of nationalism and seduced by the alienation of globalism creating warfare as we were religious universalism that created warfare.

    So we invested heavily in intellectual education, but our religions failed to reform and we haven’t yet restored heavy investment in emotional and psychological education, and we’ve all but abandoned physical education. Meaning our reformation of education is incomplete – opening the door for other false religions (marxism-postmodernism-feminism-woke) which are even more divisive than our previous generation of abrahamic religions and their competitiors.

    So what reformed religion or equivalent can we agree to heavily invest in? We can’t make people believe in the supernatural – too many of us simply can’t do it any longer.

    All religion consists of ritualization of payment of some sort of debt, because this provokes our social instinct to submission and non aggression – simply because social debt is the only non-harmful means of obtaining loyalty without force or deception.

    Natural religion consists of national, ancestor, hero, and nature worship. Morality consists of Natural Law which is very close to human rights, but far more precise. We only *can* have one ambition that doesn’t drive us to extinction, and that is shared responsibiilty to overcome the laws of the universe by mastery of them and transcendence into the gods we imagined.

    So we know the one non-false religion so to speak, but it’s difficult to achieve it without institutional advocacy and support.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @Airmanareiks


    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-11 12:16:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656634321225097222

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656565010561130498

  • I understand gods (all of them, including the 500 or so dead ones we know of so

    I understand gods (all of them, including the 500 or so dead ones we know of so far) as systems of measurement for organizing people by providing commensurability in thought, value, and behavior, reducing friction, especially as populations increase in anonymity, that persists a group evolutionary strategy across generations. In other words a set of anthropomorphic and therefore easily accessible by humans, headman, ruler, or natural influence without education or knowledge.
    The primary psychological purpose of gods is to limit the influencde approval, diasapproval, and judgement of others by creating a standard and by adherence to that standard suppression of neuroticism and conflict.

    Reply addressees: @ScienceMonthly


    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-11 00:53:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656462516627677185

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656455152285655042

  • POSSIBILITIES: Gods outside the universe God as the universe Gods within the uni

    POSSIBILITIES:
    Gods outside the universe
    God as the universe
    Gods within the universe
    Gods within the minds a people
    Gods withinin the mind of individuals
    Gods don’t exist.

    Anthropomorphism is just the simplest easiest dumbest way of pretending to understand what we don’t understand, so that we don’t face the chasm of of the dark force of our own time ignorance and incompetence, and instead soldier onward despite the uncertainty and risk of a kaliedic universe and its mechanations that have no intent, design, awareness, consciousness or care, for us.

    Homeostasis,
    … Embodiment
    … … Proprioreception
    … … … Sensation
    … … … … Disambiguation (modeling)
    … … … … … Perception (prioritization)
    … … … … … … Auto-Association
    … … … … … … … Prediction
    … … … … … … … … Valuation
    … … … … … … … … … Attention
    … … … … … … … … … … Reaction
    … … … … … … … … … … … Choice
    … … … … … … … … … … … … Wayfinding
    … … … … … … … … … … … … … Recursion
    It’s that simple really.

    All we have is each other. And Sovereinty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, Excellence and Beauty.

    THere is no god but the one man – or at least some of us – slowly aspire to – or decay into extinction for having failed.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-10 22:31:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656426840095850500

  • I can’t testify to god

    I can’t testify to god.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-09 22:48:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656068724040904705

    Reply addressees: @superkanga

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656067417989083141

  • You are, he is, an advocate of and defender of fundamentalism, which is why you

    You are, he is, an advocate of and defender of fundamentalism, which is why you levy no counter proposition, and instead demonstrate indoctrination into the abrahamic method of deception by false pretence of knowledge, personal undermining, and rallying instead of an argument equally open to testing, criticism, and falsification. I dont engage with liars. Arrogance ignorance and lack of intelligence are obstale enough to truth as it is.

    Reply addressees: @PPromulgation @NoWhiteGuiltNWG


    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-08 05:41:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655447916121579523

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655442915030708225

  • I am a pretty strong advocate of christianity. I’m just critical of Churchianity

    I am a pretty strong advocate of christianity. I’m just critical of Churchianity and fundamentalist argument. 😉 But then this is one of the most complex issues in social science.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-05 01:27:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1654296708082196481

    Reply addressees: @OtonielFilho5 @MaMo_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1654295428697825287

  • @razibkhan Beautiful take and reminder. And I’m not a fan of criticizing the per

    @razibkhan
    Beautiful take and reminder.
    And I’m not a fan of criticizing the persians other than the conversion of order vs chaos to good vs evil.
    That said, if you are unfortunate enough to study the evolution of human lying, fraud, and baiting into hazard you will have a very different understanding of the influence of religion, and especially the Abrahamic religions, on human history. And wonder, why they so easily spread where and when they did, despite the Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, and Greek – especially stoic – alternatives.
    Teaching mankind how to lie at scale isn’t something that produced positive outcomes.

    Reply addressees: @razibkhan


    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-01 18:08:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1653099017847406592

  • The problem with ‘false witness’ is that the entirety of the Abrahamic religious

    The problem with ‘false witness’ is that the entirety of the Abrahamic religious spectrum is predicated on claims of false witness, while the entirety of western empiricism is predicated on testifiable witness.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-30 14:59:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1652689013105479686

    Reply addressees: @ForTheLifeofTr1 @anderstegn

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1652687276659335169