Theme: Religion

  • There Is Only One Scientific Method for The Constitution of Gods – and I Think We Know It

    —“Empirical mechanism for such phenomena not yet found, “—

    [W]ell as the top physicists have already stated, we know the complete spectrum of forces because there is no ‘room’ for any other force. So no, no information can exist in the spectrum. I can’t remember who works on this (but I know how to find out), and it’s sort of taboo for the reasons that are obvious – it threatens faith the occult that faith depends upon. But, just as we know the complete composition of chemistry, we know the complete composition of interacting forces. What we don’t know is the geometry of the primary force that creates the grammar we know of as quantum mechanics, that would explain gravity at the quantum level and unite quantum(small) and relativistic (large) – both of which are currently descriptive rather than causal. God is just what I said it was above: an archetypal character with whom we intuititionistically (auto-associatively) role play (predict), as we would a parent or headman, and through that filter – a filter to whom we are as transparent as we were to parents and headmen – we can judge our intuitions. Man is the measure of all things to man, because man is the only system of measurement available to man. God is a system of measurement in the group’s ideal of man to imitate (jesus, Achilles) a demigod to aspire to (odin, Hercules,), a god to negotiate with (zeus, thor, tyr), one to obey (jehova, allah), or one to simply understand (deism, the physical and natural laws). Any creature inventing a god would invent one in his image just as we have – and just as the hundreds of gods have been invented abandoned or lost before the present gods. Science killed the lie of god and discovered the truth of god, and the laws of the universe, and only europeans have done so.

  • So it’s not a matter of opinion. The composition of postmodernism is just the su

    So it’s not a matter of opinion. The composition of postmodernism is just the successful achievement after a sequence of failures to create religion of dysgenic groups by which social construction can be produced without appeal to the supernatural.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 19:02:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232380358190157831

    Reply addressees: @Abhiman11678846

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232379621330558976

  • Postmodernism is just lying. Its nothing more than sophistry. it’s abrahamic the

    Postmodernism is just lying. Its nothing more than sophistry. it’s abrahamic theology in secular prose.

    That’s what I work on. Group differences in evolutionary strategy and the “Grammars”: paradigms and logic by which different groups persist their group evolutionary strategy.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 19:01:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232380104715751427

    Reply addressees: @Abhiman11678846

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232379621330558976

  • Well even that statement is literary(poetic, emotional) not scientific (incentiv

    Well even that statement is literary(poetic, emotional) not scientific (incentives, possible).

    It’s not complicated. The anglos put a bullet in religion, but it didn’t matter because anglos had been a contractual people since saxon times. The continent wasn’t.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 19:00:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232379815329660929

    Reply addressees: @Abhiman11678846

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232378919363448833

  • Nietzche just failed. It’s that simple. He saw that christianity was a fall. He

    Nietzche just failed. It’s that simple. He saw that christianity was a fall. He saw the virtues of the ancient world. And he could’t solve the problem. There is nothing more to be said.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 18:57:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232379068114440199

    Reply addressees: @Abhiman11678846

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232377945542602753

  • I think, like many, that the german project was a rather childish attempt at sec

    I think, like many, that the german project was a rather childish attempt at secular theology. To retain the inspiration of moral theology without the supernatural.

    I think nietzsche’s insight was in the birth of tragedy and that he couldn’t convert it into scientific prose.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 18:54:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232378425316401153

    Reply addressees: @Abhiman11678846

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232377333706887168

  • Even today the continent (secular theological philosophy) and the empire (scient

    Even today the continent (secular theological philosophy) and the empire (scientific-logical-legal-economic) remain operating under attempts to preserve their traditional mythos.

    Which is why continental philosophy is …. embarrassing.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 18:48:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232376785687523328

    Reply addressees: @Abhiman11678846

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232376226469285891


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Abhiman11678846 That each civilization tried to find a way to accommodate the scientific revolution (newton > locke/hobbes > smith> hume) in the removal of theology from the group’s social political and competitive strategy, while preserving its strategy in secular theological form.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1232376226469285891

  • That each civilization tried to find a way to accommodate the scientific revolut

    That each civilization tried to find a way to accommodate the scientific revolution (newton > locke/hobbes > smith> hume) in the removal of theology from the group’s social political and competitive strategy, while preserving its strategy in secular theological form.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 18:46:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232376226469285891

    Reply addressees: @Abhiman11678846

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232374886720557057


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Abhiman11678846 I’m saying (and I’m not alone) that the continental attempt to resist british “enlightenment” spread from france (rousseau) to germany (kant, schopenhauer), to the first jewish (Mendelsohn), and the second (Marx et al) reformations in their attempts to create a secular theology.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1232374886720557057

  • Good and Evil Is a Middle Eastern Not European Concept

    Good and Evil Is a Middle Eastern Not European Concept https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/25/good-and-evil-is-a-middle-eastern-not-european-concept/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 17:39:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232359536381526017

  • Good and Evil Is a Middle Eastern Not European Concept

    —-“Good and evil were invented in the middle east to facilitate cultural warfare between the middle east and the indians. European religion used chaos and mischief vs order, and our gods were ‘real people’ with real frailties.” – Curt Doolittle —“The concepts “good” and “evil” are actually Indo-European in origin. Etymology dictionaries are useful. Better perhaps to say that our misconceptions about what exactly those terms mean are influenced by Middle Eastern philosophy…”—AunMarie Grooms

    Indo european a language and cultural family of genetically west eurasians of the proto-European, proto-Caucasian, proto-Iranic but NOT proto-turkic post glacial maximum peoples. The proto-caucasians and anatolians appear to have been lost to us. As far as I know, good and evil are indo-iranic not indo european. It’s unlikely that I err. The division between European, iranic, indo-iranic results in European (aristocratic egalitarian and martial), Persian(aristocratic authoritarian and martial), and Hindu( caste, duty-role, and ‘priestly’) pantheons. The argument put forth by others which I got from Karen Armstrong, was that it appears that the north and west europeans developed more so in the corded ware culture(material), and the iranics more in the vedas (spiritual), and that this is largely because etherial religion as we understand it evolved in what we call Mesopotamia-Anatolia or, more precisely, along the euphrates. It’s most likely that religious pantheons developed differently due to differences in indo european ethnicities, and strategies. The west pretty much killed everyone they came in contact with (or at least the males) because the neolithic farmers were not developed enough to resist them. But as the iranic people migrated east to india, then south of the caspian, then west back into Mesopotamia they encountered developed peoples that they had to conquer. So, iranics and indo iranics used hierarchy to rule an compete with others like the indus valley people and the Mesopotamians while europeans maintained aristocratic egalitarianism and didn’t develop authoritarianism until the late roman empire – and even then – they would have been more successful if they’d been much more authoritarian and much less tolerant.