Curt Doolittle

Theme: Religion

  • IS IT POSSIBLE TO ELIMINATE RELIGION? Well yes, but again, it’s not possible to

    IS IT POSSIBLE TO ELIMINATE RELIGION?

    Well yes, but again, it’s not possible to deny that religion did serve as a (very) cheap (simple) universal (available to morons) education (training) in mindfulness (and sacredness – non-consumption ), and in the positive laws (manners, ethics, morals, rituals, traditions) in an era where only the privileged could get an education.

    The only difficult education in that list is mindfulness and stoicism was clearly the best of all methods of mindfulness discovered in both the ancient world and the present (cognitive behavioral therapy).

    The rest is just ordinary education through repetition (ritual) and oath (prayer). There is nothing else other than the act of doing all that repetition and oath in public. There is some advantage and giving that oath to a proxy (ancestor, king, hero, god) rather than to each other – those with whom we have material conflicts.

    That abrahamism and the abrahamic religions are outright evil is not to say that the category of training (education) religions provided is not both beneficial, and very likely, necessary – because it’s as unnatural as reading and math.

    The question is how can we convert the depreciating asset that is our existing religious infrastructure into a new asset that is appreciating, and removes the vulnerability and harm of the past.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-08 12:19:00 UTC

  • CAN WE ELIMINATE RELIGION? NOT REALLY, BUT THAT REQUIRES WE DEFINE RELIGION AS M

    CAN WE ELIMINATE RELIGION? NOT REALLY, BUT THAT REQUIRES WE DEFINE RELIGION AS MARKET DEMANDS RATHER THAN THE CURRENT MEANS OF PRODUCTION.

    —“However unrealistic of a goal it might be, wouldn’t the ideal situation be a world without organised religion? Or is there some benefit to religion that I’m not seeing?”—Dann Hopkins

    Religion is just education. that’s all. Period. The ‘trick’ of both church and state is to claim church does no education, or that state education is sufficient.

    We need training in physical fitness, mindfulness, manners-ethics-morals-rituals (payments to the commons), the laws, the means of calculating that we think of as the 3R’s, the skills to run a household, and the skills for employment.

    It does not, as it once did, provide for physical fitness.

    It provides mindfulness in the personal, interpersonal, and public spheres of life.

    It provides the some of the manners, ethics, morals rituals that are the positive laws of the social order (not negative laws as is law proper).

    It provides a venue for public contract making (this is my child, this is my promise to the community, this is my mate, this is our property, this person has died and his or her property may be distributed).

    It is, to some degree, a computational necessity – meaning that it is very bad not to have that mindfulness.

    It provides child-level parables and myths which are no less a form of calculation about action in the world than are laws, logic, and mathematics.

    But there is no reason we cannot have lessons, parables and mythos and histories for each class of people at each stage of their lives, all of which contain the same messages.

    There is no reason the church rather than the school, post office, or library is not still the center of civic life, and that government is not relegated to the production and maintenance of material commons, just as we keep commerce out of religion.

    So I think I have most of this figured out – not that I am interested in the content in and of itself, but that I understand how to frame the problem, and restore the incentives, such that the second abrahamic dark age does not capture our people.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-08 12:04:00 UTC

  • IT DEPENDS UPON HOW YOU DEFINE CHRISTIANITY —“I’m confused about something. If

    IT DEPENDS UPON HOW YOU DEFINE CHRISTIANITY

    —“I’m confused about something. If you don’t think biblical Christianity is actually true, e.g.you think it is based on elaborate deception, then how is it allowable? How is it beneficial? I believe you’ve made a point of calling out intentional deception as unallowable in society. What reason is there to assume that you can take away non-deceptive parts and dump the rest, and still have a workable system? My impression is that the Jefferson Bible is in no sense Christianity. (my apologies if this is already addressed in the video or elsewhere; I haven’t watched yet)”— Matt Evans

    Well, that depends upon what you call ‘christianity’ and whether you think it’s good.

    Christianity can be the scientific content, and the consequences of that scientific content, which while very limited we can demonstrate are in fact good. Or whether you think Christianity is all the nonsense that is wrapped around it (lies).

    As a scientist I have to acknowledge that the optimum game theory humans can play is the christian command for love of others. I can’t escape that.

    As a scientist I have to acknowledge that everything else about christianity is catastrophically bad, even if not as evil as judaism or islam.

    Now, once we distill christianity down to those few rules (rules of optimum prisoner’s dilemma), the question is whether it is still ‘christianity’ in any meaningful way.

    I would argue that it is still christianity, because religions constitute our means of intuitionistically training members of the polity, nation, and civilization, to pursue the same strategy – hopefully one in their interest – that allows different groups to cooperate at large scale.

    I think (well I’m certain) that the short list of rules in christianity are optimums. But I do not think the jesus story is good. I am certain the god story is bad. And I think as do many that the christian god is a semitic tyrant over the semitic slaves – and completely against the interests of our people – which is why our people have incrementally escaped christianity, turned it to our own, while the jews and muslims have only become more obsessed with theirs.

    So, in attempting to solve the problem of the future, how can we provide the same psychological, social, and political functions as did christianity, and suppress, defeat, or eliminate competitors to those rules – competitors that would return us to the semitic darkness that we have saved ourselves from.

    Now, we have tools of: Naturalism(reality) < Logic and Mathematics (Measurement) < Science(Due DIligence, Naturalism) < Law+Economics(Decidability) < History (Evidence) < Literature (Analogy, Pedagogy, Theorizing), Philosophy (Removing Science), and Theology(Removing Reason) to work with.

    And I can find no reason to gracefully fail across the spectrum of Measurements, Due Diligence, Decidability < Evidence < Pedagogy, if we supply mindfulness (what we consider spirituality) through equally scientific means (training).

    And if we have to teach people SOMETHING, why teach them a falsehood when we can teach the same content truthfully (scientifically)? And the only answer is to preserve the psychological malinvestment of preceding generations at the expense of all past and future generations.

    I think moral education – and a uniform one – is necessary, just as is fitness, daily survival knowledge, calculation ability, and job skills. I think personal, interpersonal, and civic mindfulness is a natural demand of conscious creatures. I think the civic ritual of church: the oath, the historical lessons, and the balance between the heroic tragic warrior and the loving tragic saint (jesus) are important.

    One can look at the great religions and traditions and observe relatively easily how each tries to, and succeeds in, providing those goods in satisfaction of those demands.

    It is very difficult to look at judaism, and islam and say that they are other than a destructive force in the world compared to the other religions and traditions – particularly the hindu, chinese and japanese traditions. When we look at christianity it was designed as and used as a destructive force in the world. And the three abrahamic religions are responsible for more evil than all but the great plagues.

    Our ancestors succeeded in germanizing christianity by keeping it’s good parts and eliminating its bad parts.

    I see my function, and our function as the living generation encountering this remaining problem, as continuing to modernize that “sick, twisted, desert anti-civilizational blood cult’, into an institution like the catholic church once provided as a competitor to the state, and restoring its role in education, but to deprive it of semitic deceits, and use our own far superior history.

    I might fail, but it is my job to remove as much lying from our civilization in order to defend our high-trust people against further decline. And if that means the church must further reform then that’s what it means.

    The alternative is not restoration, but that the church, within a generation or so, will die off.

    Numbers are numbers. The church doesn’t have any.

    IF we are to have a church so to speak, and a civic religion that is more than just legalism, that includes the personal mindfulness, socialization and festival that legalism doesn’t provide – making us all invested in one another – then we need a church that provides future benefits to people not past.

    And while I haven’t discussed much of this in public yet, I think I know at least MOST of the answer.

    We never ceased being polytheistic. Ever. Just as we are poly grammatical (Frames, Paradigms). Many heroes are always better than one, as long as they are compatible. We are too different in our abilities, social roles, occupations and responsibilities. There is a basis upon which the heroic family in all her grammars and stories, rests, and that is Individual Sovereignty, the natural law of reciprocity, truth and duty and, yes, charity. And it is christian charity: exhaustive optimism and investment in others – rather than donations or mental fantasies that forms that basis.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-08 11:51:00 UTC

  • THE HOLE IN CHRISTIANITY IS OPENNESS TO NON-KIN – THE SOLUTION, LEGISLATION AGAI

    THE HOLE IN CHRISTIANITY IS OPENNESS TO NON-KIN – THE SOLUTION, LEGISLATION AGAINST INCOMPATIBLE RELIGIONS

    by Jennifer Dean

    The problem with Christianity as I see it is not tolerance – Christians are PLENTY intolerant (in some ways I agree with and others I do not) – the problem is that Christians have an inability to recognize many of the things they are intolerant to, when it comes to outsiders or foreigners, and instead mostly prefer to enforce intolerance on their own kind.

    Look at the Amish to see the most exaggerated example of what I mean, they use shunning and excommunication over the most petty things you could imagine. Rule enforcement for the sake of sheer submission. And while their ability to preserve their way of life is admirable in some ways, obviously it is only possible within a larger context of free riding, and their way of life is all or nothing. T

    hey might seem to be an extreme or unusual example of Christianity, but the same elements of submission and intolerance are present in other denominations, only the others have allowed outsiders to infiltrate and subvert their doctrine.

    I believe legislating Christianity, in this country, would have been a disaster. The fundamental problem is that it is still welcoming of outsiders and converts (civnat at the religious level and indeed, where civnat comes from) for the sake of winning souls to Christ, and THAT is the loophole that outsiders have exploited.

    The better strategy would have been to have legislation AGAINST Judaism, Talmudism, Babylonian mysticism, Satanism, Luciferianism (as we already do have some legislation against Islam, but unfortunately we needed more and what we have has not been enforced) and to educate people on the dangers of these religious ideologies, and their hidden, very real and very very sick practices of human sacrifice (of INNOCENTS – not murderers, criminals, undesirables, but BABIES. CHILDREN.), pedophilia and child marriage. But the problem is due to the convert loophole in Christianity, they simply come in anyway and hide in our midst, and kidnap our children and traffic them.

    (CD: well done)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-08 11:20:00 UTC

  • THERE IS NO APOLOGY THAT STANDS SCRUTINY I just don’t use the christian (semitic

    THERE IS NO APOLOGY THAT STANDS SCRUTINY

    I just don’t use the christian (semitic) model of thought at all. zero. I use the western (european) model of thought: Literature, History, War, Economics, Law, Science, Logic, and Mathematics. (LHWELSLM).

    I can’t read apologist literature. It’s all Abrahamism. It’s no different from marxism, postmodernism, and feminism, and was and always will be, something forced upon us, that which we struggled to escape, that which we nearly escaped, and that which we are still trying to escape.

    I do science. I don’t really do philosophy except to undrestand it’s failures. I don’t do theology except to understand its failure.

    There is no apology for sophism and supernaturalism or pseudoscience that stands scrutiny.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-08 10:36:00 UTC

  • The Rational Risefacebook.comCHRISTIANITY Just finished a talk with James Fox Hi

    The Rational Risefacebook.comCHRISTIANITY

    Just finished a talk with James Fox Higgins of The Rational Rise. (Damn, seriously love that man. Wonderful human.)

    In that discussion I think I have talked about my view of reforming christianity more so than any other public venue.

    The net of it is that christianity (and all our european religions for that matter) are compatible with natural law. Yet, it is christian tolerance that has made us vulnerable and is the reason we can be so easily undermined. The most intolerant wins, and we were not intolerante enough.

    So hence my advocacy of a very intolerant law. But a law that must somehow accommodate our traditional religion(s).

    He did bring up one interesting idea that (foolishly) hadn’t occurred to me: is our vulnerability as christians due to our failure to legislate christianity and thereby prevent other religions. The answer to which I think was yes.

    But taking it further, what would have happened if we had been smart enough to (a) legislate america as a christian country, (b) had used the jefferson bible as the definition of christianity, (c) and encoded the christian ethos (as I have), as well as (d) natural law of reciprocity (as I have)?

    In retrospect that would have been a very good thing.

    Now, i still hold the opinion that training in mindfulness by stoic (cognitive behavioral) method is superior to supernaturalism; that training in ‘sacredness’ by ‘church lesson, ritual, and oath’ is superior to any other method available to us because unlike schools it involves the whole family; that the model of jesus is excellent for teaching optimum cooperation; that the natural law can be taught in church – because the church advocated it; that it can be taught with sacredness not supernaturalism; and that the church did a much better job of educating the people than the state. I think these things are almost impossible to argue with.

    This is a very non-supernatural method of achieving christian ends. But it preserves the church(es) as the center of civil society and restores via-positiva to the moral discipline and limits the state to via-negativa actions. Thereby ending the means by which our civilization has been undermined.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-08 05:53:00 UTC

  • CONTRA WEINSTEIN VS DAWKINS I would love to have this debate because the alterna

    CONTRA WEINSTEIN VS DAWKINS

    I would love to have this debate because the alternative is that while we have a natural neurological demand for stories (frames) the world has solved for the satisfaction of demand, and one can solve for the satisfaction of that demand by a host of means – some of which have entirely positive externalities, and some of which have entirely negative externalities. Some of which are in fact eugenic, and some of which are in fact dysgenic – a disease, or cancer. In other words, we SURVIVE some religions, but those religions that we survive appear to have been reproductively successful for that which does not lead to ends that put our survival under our CONTROL: domestication. And while a relativist might say ‘well evolution doesn’t make that distinction’ – saying so would be incompatible with (a) self determination of group or man, (b) the evidence that we achieve what we do through self and other ‘domestication’, or (c) that those who achieve the most domestication are responsible for dragging mankind out of his animal condition into his human rational condition with which he control his destiny (survival), in a universe arguably hostile to (costly) sentient life.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-07 20:58:00 UTC

  • FROM THE THEOLOGICAL TO THE LITERARY – ANSWERING A COMPETENT CRITIC. (useful) —

    FROM THE THEOLOGICAL TO THE LITERARY – ANSWERING A COMPETENT CRITIC.

    (useful)

    —“Certain kinds of allegorical story try to teach a moral but most of what we consider great literature instead dramatizes a question like what does it mean to be a hero, or is it possible to find meaning in the world that we haven’t placed there ourselves? These questions don’t have univocal answers which is why we find the dramatizations more interesting than anybody’s opinion about such matters. We hate poetry that has palpable designs on us, as Keats said. Also, the dramatizing of ambiguous questions creates the beauty that “tease[s] us out of thought” and is the real payload of these stories, rather than some socially utilitarian archetype that you install in people like software, even if it’s open-source software. Beauty can be found in a postmodern novel like The Crying of Lot 49 as readily as in a heroic story like the Odyssey, or indeed in the wisdom books of the old testament, or the writings of medieval mystics. I think Norman Mailer was right that if the universe is a lock then the key is a metaphor, not a measure, but then he belonged to the class of intellectuals who haven’t given up on the question of why there’s something rather than nothing and therefore placed more importance on the inner life as a source of sovereignty than on being a member of a pack, the inner life being that by virtue of which we are incommensurable. I’m new here, but initial signs are that planet Doolittle is a place for people who have prematurely closed their accounts with reality.”— John Tangney

    —

    John,

    Intelligent, Articulate, Traditional, Conventional, but just another take on secular theology, closing with self service, contradiction, and error – and entirely missing the point of the challenges of the present, the purpose of my work, what I’m doing here with followers and lurkers, and the post.

    1 – What faculties are you advocating exercising – and why? What faculties are those following me seeking to exercise?

    2 – You use experiential terms for entertainment, or mindfulness, or escapism, as if they are moral goods, when they are simply forms of consumption, avoidance, and escape – self medication. Yet people who follow me are seeking the capacity to understand, improve, and act – particularly to act to change the current conflict.

    3 – You ‘appear’ to assume that knowledge of right action, morality, and the virtues is complicated. It isn’t. it’s actually trivial, and can be taught by allegory, analogy, history, and rule. The difference is that what is objectively moral (what we do here) and what is subjectively open to interpretation as moral, are the difference between truth and preference.

    4 – There is a very good reason Women, Mailer, and someone like you prefer the ‘undecidable’ metaphor, and Men, Aristotle, and someone like me, prefers the ‘decidable’ rule. The first conveys meaning while preserving the ability to cheat, the second conveys rule and eliminates the ability to cheat.(See my post earlier today to Eric Weinstein).

    5 – The warrior prefers the conflict, the judge the law, the merchant the ability to weasel and negotiate, the women the ability to bait and not deliver, and the thief the ability to predate. We know your moral pretense by which degree of moral intolerance/intolerance you advocate (demand).

    6 – Where you assume people are programmed or resistant to programming (a) they ARE programmed, and (b) they ARE resistant to programming, because they search for confirmation of their personal survival, consumptive, and reproductive strategies. In other words, people seek programming that they want. And norm encourages, and the law enforces rules that they must obey even if they contradict with the programming that they have sought.

    7 – So as a specialist in the ‘Grammars’ (paradigms of programming and decidability) it’s quite obvious that you’re invested in a form of escapism (and perhaps denialism) that is indifferent from Mysticism, Theology, Idealism, Utopianism, Fictionalism, Self Medication, or drug use. Where most here are looking for non-escapism. For the opposite. FOR AGENCY.

    So it is not that I or we escape reality – it is that we seek to understand it, and take advantage of it. It is those who seek sedation that seek to escape reality.

    QUESTIONS/PROBLEMS I SEEK TO ANSWER/SOLVE

    How do we end lying in economics, politics, and law?

    How do we solve the conflict of our current attempts at speciation by moral intuition (left-feminine, right-masculine)?

    How do we end the systematic destruction of western civilization which is the only one to produce a high trust labor, working, middle, and professional class?

    How do we prevent another abrahamic dark age of ignorance, superstition, and dysgenia?

    I am one of the most innovative thinkers working today.

    That is not a compliment to myself. It is a criticism of the current state of thought – and the near loss of the 20th century – and the second fall of Europa.

    Affections.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-07 10:05:00 UTC

  • Where would the world be without Supernaturalism, Sophism, and Pseudoscience: Th

    Where would the world be without Supernaturalism, Sophism, and Pseudoscience: The Semitic Dark Age of Judaism, Christianity, Islamism, and the attempt to do the same in the modern world of Marxism, Postmodernism, Feminism’s to repeat Ancient destruction in Modernity?

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-06 22:27:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1070807005303111680

    Reply addressees: @BretWeinstein

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1070127960009564160

    IN REPLY TO:

    @BretWeinstein

    This is a modern creation myth, delivered as if it were an analysis.

    It is as inaccurate and self-serving the intersectionalist’s claim that all disparities arise from oppression.

    Those pushing these stories persuade through flattery. Don’t be fooled. Don’t take the bait. https://t.co/DH8e85dlOq

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1070127960009564160

  • 5) Where would the world be had Europe, like China, built a wall at the Bosphoru

    5) Where would the world be had Europe, like China, built a wall at the Bosphorus, Caucuses and Urals? Where would the world be without the Semitic Dark Age and its thousand years of decline, and 1B dead, and the destruction of the great civilizations of the ancient world?

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-06 22:23:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1070805930122592256

    Reply addressees: @BretWeinstein

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1070127960009564160

    IN REPLY TO:

    @BretWeinstein

    This is a modern creation myth, delivered as if it were an analysis.

    It is as inaccurate and self-serving the intersectionalist’s claim that all disparities arise from oppression.

    Those pushing these stories persuade through flattery. Don’t be fooled. Don’t take the bait. https://t.co/DH8e85dlOq

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1070127960009564160