THE SCIENCE OF RELIGIONS >>1) Will Jesus be successful in saving everyone he intends to save? The individual we refer to as jesus might have existed, however almost everything other than his disruption of the temple, and his crucifiction is fiction created by Paul. Paul created Christianity, not Jesus. The reason we know that is that all the ‘jesus stories’ were originally babylonian or a derivative thereof. Just as the old testament is merely plagiarism from the babylonian record. >>2) Has anyone, or WILL anyone, actually go to hell? There is no heaven or hell, they are just babylonian fictions that metaphorically assist us in judging one another’s characters, and by character we mean contribution to, or harm to, the polity. At best we can consider heaven and hell the memories of those whose lives you affected, and the record of their actions in response to your display word and deed. >>3) Therefore THE OATH OF TRANSCENDENT MAN; A PAGAN, A CHRISTIAN, AN ARYAN, A WARRIOR, A MAN TRANSCENDENT I am a pagan if 1) I accept the laws of nature as binding on all of existence; and 2) if I treat nature as sacred and to be contemplated, protected and improved; and 3) I treat the world as something to transform closer to an Eden in whatever ways I can before I die; and 4) if I deny the existence of a supreme being with dominion over the physical laws, and treat all gods, demigods, heroes, saints, figures of history, and ancestors as characters with whom I may speak to in private contemplation in the hope of gaining wisdom and synchronicity from having done so. And 5) if I participate with others of my society in repetition of oaths, repetition of myths, repetition of festivals, repetition of holidays, and the perpetuation of all of the above to my offspring. And 6) if I leave open that synchronicity appears to exist now and then, and that it may be possible that there is a scientific explanation for it, other than just humans subject to similar stimuli producing similar intuitions and therefore similar ends. As far as I know this is all that is required of me to be a Pagan. I am a christian if I have adopted the teaching of christianity: 1) the eradication of hatred from the human heart. 2) the extension of kinship love to non-kin. 3) the extension of exhaustive forgiveness before punishment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Christian. I am an Aryan if 1) I proudly display my excellences so that others seek to achieve or exceed them; 2) I seek competition to constantly test and improve myself so I do not weaken; 3) I swear to speak no insult and demand it; 4) I speak the truth and demand it; 5) I take nothing not paid for and demand it; 6) I grant sovereignty to my kin and demand it; 7) I insure my people regardless of condition, and demand it; and in doing so leave nothing but voluntary markets of cooperation between sovereign men; and to discipline, enserf, enslave, ostracize or kill those who do otherwise; 8) to not show fear or cowardice, abandon my brothers, or retreat, and 9) to die a good death in the service of my kin, my clan, my tribe and my people. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be an Aryan. I am a warrior in that 1) we will prepare for war so perfectly that none dare enter it against us. 2) Once we go to war, we do so with *joy*, with eagerness, and with passion, and without mercy, without constraint, and without remorse; And 3) before ending war, we shall defeat an enemy completely such that no other dares a condition of our enemy, and the memory of the slaughter lives a hundred generations. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Warrior. As far as I know, if I succeed as a Pagan, as a Christian, as an Aryan, as a Warrior, then I have transcended the animal man, and earned my place among the saints, heroes, demigods, gods, in the memories, histories, and legends of man. And that is the objective of heroes. We leave the rest for ordinary men.
Theme: Science
-
The Science of Religions
THE SCIENCE OF RELIGIONS >>1) Will Jesus be successful in saving everyone he intends to save? The individual we refer to as jesus might have existed, however almost everything other than his disruption of the temple, and his crucifiction is fiction created by Paul. Paul created Christianity, not Jesus. The reason we know that is that all the ‘jesus stories’ were originally babylonian or a derivative thereof. Just as the old testament is merely plagiarism from the babylonian record. >>2) Has anyone, or WILL anyone, actually go to hell? There is no heaven or hell, they are just babylonian fictions that metaphorically assist us in judging one another’s characters, and by character we mean contribution to, or harm to, the polity. At best we can consider heaven and hell the memories of those whose lives you affected, and the record of their actions in response to your display word and deed. >>3) Therefore THE OATH OF TRANSCENDENT MAN; A PAGAN, A CHRISTIAN, AN ARYAN, A WARRIOR, A MAN TRANSCENDENT I am a pagan if 1) I accept the laws of nature as binding on all of existence; and 2) if I treat nature as sacred and to be contemplated, protected and improved; and 3) I treat the world as something to transform closer to an Eden in whatever ways I can before I die; and 4) if I deny the existence of a supreme being with dominion over the physical laws, and treat all gods, demigods, heroes, saints, figures of history, and ancestors as characters with whom I may speak to in private contemplation in the hope of gaining wisdom and synchronicity from having done so. And 5) if I participate with others of my society in repetition of oaths, repetition of myths, repetition of festivals, repetition of holidays, and the perpetuation of all of the above to my offspring. And 6) if I leave open that synchronicity appears to exist now and then, and that it may be possible that there is a scientific explanation for it, other than just humans subject to similar stimuli producing similar intuitions and therefore similar ends. As far as I know this is all that is required of me to be a Pagan. I am a christian if I have adopted the teaching of christianity: 1) the eradication of hatred from the human heart. 2) the extension of kinship love to non-kin. 3) the extension of exhaustive forgiveness before punishment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Christian. I am an Aryan if 1) I proudly display my excellences so that others seek to achieve or exceed them; 2) I seek competition to constantly test and improve myself so I do not weaken; 3) I swear to speak no insult and demand it; 4) I speak the truth and demand it; 5) I take nothing not paid for and demand it; 6) I grant sovereignty to my kin and demand it; 7) I insure my people regardless of condition, and demand it; and in doing so leave nothing but voluntary markets of cooperation between sovereign men; and to discipline, enserf, enslave, ostracize or kill those who do otherwise; 8) to not show fear or cowardice, abandon my brothers, or retreat, and 9) to die a good death in the service of my kin, my clan, my tribe and my people. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be an Aryan. I am a warrior in that 1) we will prepare for war so perfectly that none dare enter it against us. 2) Once we go to war, we do so with *joy*, with eagerness, and with passion, and without mercy, without constraint, and without remorse; And 3) before ending war, we shall defeat an enemy completely such that no other dares a condition of our enemy, and the memory of the slaughter lives a hundred generations. As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Warrior. As far as I know, if I succeed as a Pagan, as a Christian, as an Aryan, as a Warrior, then I have transcended the animal man, and earned my place among the saints, heroes, demigods, gods, in the memories, histories, and legends of man. And that is the objective of heroes. We leave the rest for ordinary men.
-
Given the age of the universe, the number of generations of stars necessary to c
Given the age of the universe, the number of generations of stars necessary to create fundamental elements, the time it took to produce simple life on earth, the relative pacifism of our region of space, and the strangely beneficial acceleration of evolution due to catastrophes, it is just more likely that we are either the first or one of the first complex life forms. Now, given the rather rapid rate at which we developed technology once crossing the linguistic and intellectual chasm, means that assuming a life form can continue to harness increasing amounts of energy, it’s possible that there are others, and it’s possible that there are others ahead of us. But I am increasingly convinced that if such life exists, their means of using that energy is not yet available to us – we are still too early in our understanding of the universe. That said, I think it is even more likely that we’re very early.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-24 19:42:00 UTC
-
natural law is what it is. the scientific method is what it is. the argument is
natural law is what it is. the scientific method is what it is. the argument is what it is. either the information is conclusive or not. it isn’t conclusive. either make the opposing argument or refrain from non-argument (shaming).
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-24 00:54:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/988581823977607169
Reply addressees: @Paleophile @katewong
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/988580618152939520
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/988580618152939520
-
As I read the findings, and I doubt I err, the earliest hominids CAN be explaine
As I read the findings, and I doubt I err, the earliest hominids CAN be explained by sporadic sampling but until we have bretter sampling we won’t know. And in my unenviable position as a specialist in policing scientific overstatement I am doing my job. ie: we don’t know yet.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-24 00:30:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/988575938605707264
Reply addressees: @Paleophile @katewong
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/988530555057770498
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/988530555057770498
-
it doesn’t challenge it at all it just says the record it too incomplete to elim
it doesn’t challenge it at all it just says the record it too incomplete to eliminate doubt. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence & it is very hard to posit other than geographic and climate differences. that we die, drift and select at different rates doesn’t conflict.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 20:30:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/988515441567027210
Reply addressees: @katewong
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/988513914580238337
IN REPLY TO:
@katewong
New study challenges the notion that climate change drove diversification of early human species, suggests that the apparent pattern of diversity can instead be explained by uneven sampling of the human fossil record https://t.co/hV2ZGYbtPw
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/988513914580238337
-
TODAY’S CLASS: “CONSTANT RELATIONS” OK. So lets try this. “Constant Relations”.
TODAY’S CLASS: “CONSTANT RELATIONS”
OK. So lets try this. “Constant Relations”.
(And for super geeks watch what I do to logic and set theory with operationalism.)
1) Now, what is the difference between “differences” and “constant and inconstant relations”?
a) So neurons can identify that which is the same, that which is different and can accumulate these differences, as more correspondent or less correspondent, right?
2) When we say “nothing” what CAN we refer to?
Neil: “Everything”.
Curt: “Correct, when we say ‘nothing’ we can only mean everything, and we have not selected from everything.”
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 15:39:00 UTC
-
Untitled
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4970214/95-plastic-oceans-comes-just-TEN-rivers.html
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-22 21:11:00 UTC
-
“Empirical” means observable and therefore measurable, and therefore commensurab
“Empirical” means observable and therefore measurable, and therefore commensurable, and therefore open to tests of coherence.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-22 19:13:00 UTC
-
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/31084197_10156304578912264_66323094
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/31084197_10156304578912264_6632309423563866112_n_10156304578907264.jpg Now If I remember correctly this is from a relatively small sample size of largely white people. I might be wrong, but that’s what I recall. That said, it’s about what we’d expect.
REMEMBER: IQ = Potential, and personality traits can increase potential and decrease potential.Thorsten Stuart NorgateIt’s a very interesting list, and I’m probably smack in the middle being a law enforcement officer with a history degree. But I’ve met many people who have incredibly high IQs who can barely perform daily tasks, such as getting dressed in the right clothes, or not forgetting to shower – and I’m serious!Apr 22, 2018 10:12amTom WattI consider myself an underachiever. Maybe just autistic.
No patience for the sciences.
Law was a thought at one time…got woke.Apr 22, 2018 10:38amBrendan HegartyHow the Hell does one have sub 100 iq and become an EE? Rote learning of some solutions cook book?Apr 22, 2018 11:05amJay BryceAffirmative actionApr 22, 2018 11:11amBrendan HegartyYou still have to GET BY at the minimum.Apr 22, 2018 11:12amJay BryceI don’t think you necessarily do. Get pushed through in school and then get hired by a company who needs to meet diversity goals, put you in a back room counting something.Apr 22, 2018 11:14amJaimz BeelThorsten Stuart NorgateApr 22, 2018 11:28amBill JoslinYa those ranges are.quite broadApr 22, 2018 12:14pmMichael AndradeThe distribution for “social scientists” is… generous… at best. Most modern economists are little more than journalists who are very good at their job (producing lies). Sociologists, anthropologists, and Black/Gender/bullshit studies professors are much, much dumber and far, far more arrogant about how smart they’re told they are.
Source: 6 years in the most Leftist PhD Economics program in the country.Apr 22, 2018 12:22pmDaniel SeisDo you mean jewish males or how is that distributed over sex/race (your best guess)?Apr 22, 2018 11:02pmNow If I remember correctly this is from a relatively small sample size of largely white people. I might be wrong, but that’s what I recall. That said, it’s about what we’d expect.
REMEMBER: IQ = Potential, and personality traits can increase potential and decrease potential.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-22 09:43:00 UTC