ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, July 30, 2017

The war against God

It's good to see that even the cucks at National Review are not interested in adopting the New Atheists subsequent to their rejection and no-platforming by the Left:
Why must ardent secularists from the Islamic world like Ayaan Hirsi Ali — the type of people the Left looks to for inspiration in the history of Western secularism — be deemed bigots, while Sharia-supporting conspiracy theorists like Linda Sarsour are cherished? Why has criticizing Islam caused the New Atheists to cross a red line in the progressive imagination?

These positions make no sense if one thinks of the Left as seriously secular, convinced of the need to end the reign of superstition. But American liberals profess neither the passionate skepticism of Hume nor the honest, urgent atheism of Nietzsche. They prefer to embrace a shallow, culture-war atheism instead.

This culture-war atheism provides “evidence,” quick and easy, to support the proposition that America is split into two camps: the intelligent, sophisticated, urbane, righteous liberals and the idiotic, gullible, backward, bigoted conservatives. The former are atheists and the latter are believers, flattering one side and bludgeoning the other. In fact, it is this type of thinking that made progressives fall in love with the New Atheists in the first place.

New Atheism pleased the Left as long as it stuck to criticizing “God,” who was associated with the beliefs of President George W. Bush and his supporters. It was thus fun, rather than offensive, for Bill Maher to call “religion” ridiculous, because he was assumed to be talking about Christianity. Christopher Hitchens could call God a “dictator” and Heaven a “celestial North Korea,” and the Left would laugh. Berkeley students would not think to disinvite Richard Dawkins when he was saying “Bush and bin Laden are really on the same side: the side of faith and violence against the side of reason and discussion.”

Truth be told, New Atheism was always fundamentally unserious.
The Left rejects the New Atheists because it was never truly atheist or secular. It is merely anti-Christian and anti-Western. The Left embraces Islam because it presently serves as a more effective anti-Christian weapon than the atheism or secular humanism upon which it previously relied.

The heart of the Left is Neo-Babelism, which is inherently globalist and Satanic in nature. All of its various ideologies, from communism to feminism to neo-liberalism to progressivism, are nothing more than the skinsuits it wears in its endless war against God. But unlike the New Atheists, the Neo-Babelists are not warring against the idea of God, much less questioning His existence. They are actually at war with the Almighty Himself, and His son, Jesus Christ.

Labels: ,

152 Comments:

Anonymous Looking Glass July 30, 2017 8:10 AM  

The most freeing insight, as an adult, was realizing that "the problems" that keep cropping up are a religious war. The Enlightenment-spawned Leftism (I call it "Utopian Socialism") was brilliantly constructed to attack Christian nations from their core. It's Christianity's benefits shorn of any responsibility to the Lord.

It's not a rejection of God: it's actually the acknowledgement of Him. It's a rejection of the Faith as a practice and responsibility for your own Sin. That's the rub. They've never been Atheist; they're specifically Anti-Christian. They are... antichrists.

Relatedly, I was having a conversation recently and I think I found a way to sum up the political issues. The Old Right thought the Left was wrong; the New Right understands the Left is evil and wants to destroy our Souls.

Blogger JACIII July 30, 2017 8:14 AM  

are nothing more than the skinsuits it wears in its endless war against God.

And every layer peeled away shows a deeper rot and a darker pit. Depravity upon depravity. Evil upon evil.

Blogger rumpole5 July 30, 2017 8:16 AM  

You nailed it. A swirl of seemingly contraditory cults and ideologies, all mouthed by the same liars, and all rotating around the same mass of pure evil.

Blogger Gromm July 30, 2017 8:22 AM  

"Neo-Babelism" I like it. Mind if I use it?

Anonymous (((Who))) bans Christmas July 30, 2017 8:26 AM  

Why do most of the New Atheists have 3 (((brackets around their names))) & have black-rim glasses?

Blogger Elizabeth July 30, 2017 8:30 AM  

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The Left allies with and defends Moslems because of their common hatred for white Christians.

The Tudeh Communist Party of Iran and other leftist groups formed an alliance with the mullahs to topple the Shah. They succeeded, but, were in turn squashed, arrested and even executed.

Blogger TheMaleRei July 30, 2017 8:34 AM  

Their enemy is the West, in all its forms, which includes Christianity. Anything that opposes Christianity and the West, be it Communism, Socialism, Islam, the Frankfurt School, Critical Theory, will be used. To them, the enemy is the West.

They are Aggressive Nihilists.

Blogger Mark July 30, 2017 8:47 AM  

So well said, Vox. The battle is spiritual and pits the satanic against the Living God. It matters not what temporal form the combatants take, what "skin suits" they don, it is the same rebellion that has been playing out through history since the angel of light was hurtled from heaven.

Anonymous John B. Wrong July 30, 2017 8:49 AM  

"Their enemy is the West, in all its forms, which includes Christianity. Anything that opposes Christianity and the West, be it Communism, Socialism, Islam, the Frankfurt School, Critical Theory, will be used. To them, the enemy is the West.

They are Aggressive Nihilists."

So... you mean they are Jewish?

Blogger Matthew July 30, 2017 8:52 AM  

Catholics should all be forced to read Belloc.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan July 30, 2017 8:56 AM  

Conservatives were paid to take the left seriously, and that was and still is the problem.

National Review is the problem.

Blogger liberranter July 30, 2017 8:58 AM  

They are actually at war with the Almighty Himself, and His son, Jesus Christ.

Imagine a colony of ants being "at war with" a man armed with a can of RAID. This will end about as well.

Blogger Old Ez July 30, 2017 9:06 AM  

I always get a giggle out of watching feminists throw women under the bus to defend Islam. What possible other evidence do you need to see that feminism is a blatant hoax?

Blogger Durandel Almiras July 30, 2017 9:11 AM  

They are actually at war with the Almighty Himself, and His son, Jesus Christ.

Which is why when we cleanse the earth of them we will be justified. Sometimes to love your enemy you have to terminate them so that they stop doing evil and further damage their souls and others. And these people are so hard of heart, there is no point in allowing further evil in the hopes that 0.000000000001% has a last minute death bed conversion.

Blogger Charles Martel July 30, 2017 9:12 AM  

"The Left rejects the New Atheists because it was never truly atheist or secular. It is merely anti-Christian and anti-Western. The Left embraces Islam because it presently serves as a more effective anti-Christian weapon than the atheism or secular humanism upon which it previously relied.

The heart of the Left is Neo-Babelism, which is inherently globalist and Satanic in nature. All of its various ideologies, from communism to feminism to neo-liberalism to progressivism, are nothing more than the skinsuits it wears in its endless war against God."

Atheism and The Left are both devoutly religious.
I've had numerous discussions with "atheists" and it has always come down to this: It's not that they don't believe in God; it's that they refuse to bend the knee to the Supreme Being. Richard Dawkins is a firebrand stump preacher for atheism--a veritable missionary who gives his all for the religion he devoutly believes in.
The Left is cultural Marxism, i.e. the practical application of the tenets of the Frankfurt School. Its disciples can be considered Satan's little workers.
Both atheism and the Left have as their supreme commander Lucifer, a would-be god who is, himself, quite religious (oh ironies of ironies).

Blogger LES July 30, 2017 9:12 AM  

The Left understands the use of force. They use it to force conflict-avoiding people (Christians) to submit to them. They love to intimidate people in positions of authority including politicians and other elected officials.

The Left is afraid of Islamists who are even more violent than them.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan July 30, 2017 9:14 AM  

So the next time some feminist shrieks some insane blather don't go the usual conservative losing way just tell them, "You make shariah sound sane."

Blogger James Dixon July 30, 2017 9:15 AM  

> They are actually at war with the Almighty Himself, and His son, Jesus Christ.

Which is why they will lose. The only question is what miseries they will inflict in the process.

> Their enemy is the West, in all its forms, which includes Christianity.

The enemy is Christianity, in all its forms, which includes the West.

> Conservatives were paid to take the left seriously, and that was and still is the problem.

The problem is the people who are paying them, not the people being paid. Sure, they're traitors, but as long as the paymasters reign, there will always be more of them.

> Imagine a colony of ants being "at war with" a man armed with a can of RAID.

An entire colony of ants against a single can of Raid? I don't think you quite grasp just how large a colony of ants can be. But the idea works if it's a small colony, yes.

Blogger Durandel Almiras July 30, 2017 9:16 AM  

The Old Right thought the Left was wrong; the New Right understands the Left is evil and wants to destroy our Souls. - @1 Looking Glass

I like that summary. It took a long while to convince my father that the Left was not a "loyal opposition", but was in fact an existential enemy. I look forward to Alt-Right type of politicians in the future who will flat out state they have no intention to "compromise" or "work with" the Left in D.C. because the doctors of the asylum don't compromise institutional policy with the demands of the patients.

Blogger Phillip George July 30, 2017 9:20 AM  

Vox, in my city of Melbourne on two consecutive weekends, I've just had two world class speakers come through. Jacob Prasch of Moriel Ministries and Amir Tsarfati, born-again ex IDF Major.

In about 10 hours of lecture time between the two of them, both orthodox Jews become Christians, the single thing that impressed me most was the idea Amir gave that before a war nations recall their ambassadors.

Now when God wages war the outcome isn't in question. As yet He hasn't. He has indulged the war against Him though, in much the same way suicidal fools might be given access to rope.

It is beginning to look as if God's ambassadors are about to be withdrawn. A bit like Lot got removed. When it hits there will be no question of outcome.

Great post. And thanks. Keep the faith.

Blogger James Dixon July 30, 2017 9:21 AM  

> And these people are so hard of heart, there is no point in allowing further evil in the hopes that 0.000000000001% has a last minute death bed conversion.

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

Anonymous God's Hand July 30, 2017 9:32 AM  

"The heart of the Left is Neo-Babelism, which is inherently globalist and Satanic in nature. All of its various ideologies, from communism to feminism to neo-liberalism to progressivism, are nothing more than the skinsuits it wears in its endless war against God."

Rhetoric. Hyperbole. Imprecision.

The retreat to the "they hate God" argument is reliably preceded by the stark recognition that "our arguments carry no weight and we've lost the intellectual and rhetorical battle".

Blogger Durandel Almiras July 30, 2017 9:33 AM  

@21 - Amen.

Went to the link. Comments on the article are littered by new atheists sperging. Good to know that stuff like this still gets under their skin.

Blogger Bill Halsey July 30, 2017 9:34 AM  

>It's Christianity's benefits shorn of any responsibility to the Lord.

(...) It's a rejection of the Faith as a practice and responsibility for your own Sin.<

Indeed.

It seems to me that common to all strains of Progressivism is the desire to claim all the rights and benefits of western civilisation while simultaneously shirking all the responsibilities, costs and duties of maintaining it.

Whether it be Feminism, Atheism, no fault divorce, pro choice, gender fluidity, post modernism, the welfare state or whatever, at heart they mostly boil down to elaborate justifications against *any* moral restrictions on any freedom to indulge one's desires, routinely lying and denying obvious truths in order to do so.

Christianity by virtue of being the source and bedrock of common morality in Western Civilisation becomes their enemy.



Blogger LES July 30, 2017 9:49 AM  

Jesus defended the woman caught in adultery by admonishing the crowd "Whoever is without sin, cast the first stone." Imperfect Christians have taken that message to heart.

Will a militant Christianity arise to set things right?

When everything else fails, turn to God. People turn to God often as a last resort. God can cause the people to turn to Him by taking away their comfort and security. Can war, economic collapse and misery be coming soon?

Blogger James Dixon July 30, 2017 9:50 AM  

> Rhetoric.

True.

> Hyperbole.

False.

> Imprecision.

False.

> The retreat to the "they hate God" argument is reliably preceded by the stark recognition that "our arguments carry no weight and we've lost the intellectual and rhetorical battle".

If our arguments are worthless, why exactly are you commenting here?

Blogger James Dixon July 30, 2017 9:52 AM  

> Will a militant Christianity arise to set things right?

What other option is there?

Anonymous God's Hand July 30, 2017 9:52 AM  

"Whether it be Feminism, Atheism, no fault divorce, pro choice, gender fluidity, post modernism, the welfare state or whatever, at heart they mostly boil down to elaborate justifications against *any* moral restrictions on any freedom to indulge one's desires, routinely lying and denying obvious truths in order to do so."

The church once aspired to explain to illiterates the way the world is, the way it works and how it came to be. When a better explanation that was far more convincing and far less magical emerged the Church failed to evolve to remain relevant.

It's far too late for the remaining fundamentalists to complain about the "Left" when they can't even preserve their own meaning.

Anonymous God's Hand July 30, 2017 9:57 AM  

"If our arguments are worthless, why exactly are you commenting here?"

Reminders of what is real are important regardless of the insignificance of the reality: "The retreat to the "they hate God" argument is reliably preceded by the stark recognition that "our arguments carry no weight and we've lost the intellectual and rhetorical battle"

Blogger James Dixon July 30, 2017 9:58 AM  

> When a better explanation that was far more convincing and far less magical emerged...

Really? What explanation is that exactly?

Blogger James Dixon July 30, 2017 9:59 AM  

> Reminders of what is real are important regardless of the insignificance of the reality...

Perhaps, but since your comments have nothing to do with reality, you failed to answer the question.

Blogger Aeoli Pera July 30, 2017 10:14 AM  

Precisely correct.

All of its various ideologies, from communism to feminism to neo-liberalism to progressivism, are nothing more than the skinsuits it wears in its endless war against God. But unlike the New Atheists, the Neo-Babelists are not warring against the idea of God, much less questioning His existence. They are actually at war with the Almighty Himself, and His son, Jesus Christ.

Insofar as they argue against his existence, it's because they believe this will weaken him. Which is quite silly from our perspective, but they take it very seriously.

Blogger OGRE July 30, 2017 10:15 AM  

James Dixon wrote:> When a better explanation that was far more convincing and far less magical emerged...

Really? What explanation is that exactly?


Why the very non-magical theory of the multi-verse...a near infinity of universes all varying by only a single particle from one another. A theory for which we have no evidence of any kind and which implies the very non-magical conclusion that there are a plethora of copies of each and every one of us constantly living the same lives--and many other versions of our lives--over and over again throughout and eternity of time. Of course these universes all non-magically either came into being from absolute nothingness, or they have non-magically existed eternally.

But again, don't let the absence of any evidence for this fool you; this is all very non-magical because science.

Blogger Aeoli Pera July 30, 2017 10:16 AM  

The shills are here right on time to confirm the accuracy of the OP. There's a question I'd love to ask the blog admins about these commenters but unfortunately it would give the game away.

Blogger Aeoli Pera July 30, 2017 10:19 AM  

God's Hand wrote:Rhetoric. Hyperbole. Imprecision.


Racist. Homophobic. Unscientific. Retrograde motion.

Anonymous Cadwallander J July 30, 2017 10:22 AM  

Reminders of what is real are important regardless of the insignificance of the reality

Very rich this coming from another spergy social autist. The Left's atheist pests lost their utility when they started criticizing Islam, but you still want to cling to their fatuous arguments that are readily nuked in an afternoon's leisurely read.

But you probably didn't cross Mount Chapter 3.

Blogger Gromm July 30, 2017 10:23 AM  

Neo-Babelist more clearly defines them. And it's good rhetoric.

Babel = Confusion

Anonymous PAC July 30, 2017 10:26 AM  

It's Talmudic Judaism, Vox. Not "Neo-Babelism." The Jewish war against Christ-as-Logos has been going on for two thousand years, and it has found many recruits.

Blogger Gromm July 30, 2017 10:26 AM  

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
Babel, Babylon
From balal; confusion; Babel (i.e. Babylon), including Babylonia and the Babylonian empire -- Babel, Babylon.

Blogger Solaire Of Astora July 30, 2017 10:33 AM  

Always found this verse appropriate.

Matthew 25:41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Blogger LES July 30, 2017 10:37 AM  

Throughout history strong men have sought to conquer neighboring people for the glorious purpose of unification. Alexander the Great, Garibaldi, Lincoln, King Kamehameha, the Borg. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated, or eliminated.

Rather than old-fashioned war, the globalists are eliminating nationalities with immigration.

Anonymous Rocklea July 30, 2017 10:38 AM  

"The church once aspired to explain to illiterates the way the world is, the way it works and how it came to be. When a better explanation that was far more convincing and far less magical emerged the Church failed to evolve to remain relevant.

It's far too late for the remaining fundamentalists to complain about the "Left" when they can't even preserve their own meaning."

I'll guess your better explanation is the rational scientific universe and evolution of species. This will not end well for you as the good, has no rational scientific or evolutionary basis. So when the alt right rises, to you, it will just be a mass memetic delusion. Ultimately if you happened to be killed during the coming social conflict, it will have no moral content, so really, why should anyone care about your fate or soul when neither exist?

Blogger Bill Halsey July 30, 2017 10:38 AM  

>When a better explanation that was far more convincing and far less magical emerged the Church failed to evolve to remain relevant.<

Really?

Science: "There was this big bang and everything came into existence - including space and time."

The Bible: "God said, let there be light"

Both "magical" explanations as far as I can tell. The difference is only in metaphorical style.



>It's far too late for the remaining fundamentalists to complain about the "Left" when they can't even preserve their own meaning.<

If you're referring to me, I'm not even a Christian never mind fundamentalist. I do however fully recognise that Christianity is the moral framework and philosophical bedrock upon which western civilisation was built and without which it will cease to be.

Blogger LES July 30, 2017 10:43 AM  

Good-bye Europe?

Anonymous VFM #6306 July 30, 2017 10:43 AM  

Oh, I'm sure the cucks at NRO will beat their breasts and cry out Allahu Akbar as soon as someone accuses them of being racist against their own adopted Islamic children.

Blogger Bill Halsey July 30, 2017 10:45 AM  

>the Church failed to evolve to remain relevant.<

1. Your use of the word "evolve" as to imply a teleology identifies you as a progressive.

2. Fundamental truths are eternal and don't require fashionable updates to make them relevant. Your mind either penetrates their underlying meaning or it doesn't.

Anonymous Luca Brayson July 30, 2017 10:57 AM  

"Any foreign leader who can be seen as opposing Western, capitalist domination will find some praise or at least rationalizations from progressives."

Have the cucks been reading up on r/K?

Anonymous Uncle John's Band July 30, 2017 11:00 AM  

This is powerful framing for a cultural Christian as well (idiotic trolls notwithstanding). It captures the magnitude, stakes, and persistent depravity of the forces working against the West, and indicates in the strongest possible terms that all the culture wars have ever been one war.

Atheism is an act of faith. How else can one conclusively declare the non-existence of a being that, in itself, exceeds the scope of human apprehension?

Anonymous God's Hand July 30, 2017 11:00 AM  

"So when the alt right rises, to you, it will just be a mass memetic delusion. Ultimately if you happened to be killed during the coming social conflict, it will have no moral content, so really, why should anyone care about your fate or soul when neither exist?"

It is obviously confusing to the Magicists why secularists do care about the fate of individuals, friend, family or otherwise. And that is their great intellectual, spiritual and personal deficit.

As for the "coming social conflict", Magicists have long been predicting such a thing. What they don't understand is that any philosophy that depends upon death and destruction can't possibly win the day.

Anonymous NameTheJew July 30, 2017 11:03 AM  

The heart of the Left is Neo-Babelism, which is inherently globalist and Satanic in nature.

The heart of the left is the Jew.

Blogger VD July 30, 2017 11:03 AM  

The retreat to the "they hate God" argument is reliably preceded by the stark recognition that "our arguments carry no weight and we've lost the intellectual and rhetorical battle".

You're lying, of course, as all antichrists inevitably do. Your argument doesn't even make sense, for the reasons that are explicitly pointed out in both the linked article and the post itself.

You are clearly much too short for this ride.

It's Talmudic Judaism, Vox. Not "Neo-Babelism.

Shut your foolish mouth and do not again attempt to correct your intellectual superiors. You have it precisely backwards. Neo-Babelism long predates Talmudic Judaism. The latter is merely one of the many forms that the former has taken.

Anonymous Uncle John's Band July 30, 2017 11:03 AM  

"As for the "coming social conflict", Magicists have long been predicting such a thing. What they don't understand is that any philosophy that depends upon death and destruction can't possibly win the day."

cough... spread of Islam... cough

Anonymous God's Hand July 30, 2017 11:05 AM  

"Atheism is an act of faith. How else can one conclusively declare the non-existence of a being that, in itself, exceeds the scope of human apprehension?"

Another mistake. It's not a matter of the left conclusively declaring there is no God. It's a matter of more and more people being indifferent to the magical claims and instead understanding their place in the world as one that requires authentic empathy.

Blogger Credo in unum Deum July 30, 2017 11:06 AM  

@10 Don't try to "force" me to read anything.

Anonymous Luca Brayson July 30, 2017 11:08 AM  

I made the mistake of reading the whole article thinking they would dive deeper into exposing the perfidy of the left. Instead of using this to try to build an alliance with the New Atheists against the left, they mostly just tried to kick them while they were down.

Anonymous Uncle John's Band July 30, 2017 11:10 AM  

"t's not a matter of the left conclusively declaring there is no God."

Right. That's never happened. Liar.

I suspect the trolls expect that the imperious tone and weak sophistry that has some rhetorical effect in other venues to work with much more intelligent readers. The only thing demoralizing about it is the window into what passes for "clever" among the mainstream.

Blogger Cloom Glue July 30, 2017 11:12 AM  

@25 That stoning verse is admonishing us to not condemn. The next part where Jesus said "Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more", I take in hand to tell people they are wrong, like Jesus said she is wrong, sin no more. Bill Clinton's gang always leave off the "sin no more" part and conflate the verse into a satanic permissive twist.

And yes, I am not at a next step of militancy beyond showing my intolerance of the enemy, by my words.

I am new here, to learn more strategy, if there is any.

#28 God's Hand is wrong to think our arguments are ineffective and magical thinking.

I do the preaching without condemnation, like that incursion with the transsexual proponent. I plainly say there are no transsexuals. You are mentally afflicted. Control your thoughts, fast and pray, and overcome your affliction. That is one proof of God. Proof is in the doing. This is not magic thinking. God gives grace for overcoming all. That is why those monkey flingers (my yesterday's post) are wrong to use sex dolls assuming no grace (to overcome their desire) is forthcoming.

The proof is in the application of faith; fast and pray, directed thought upon the sacred heart of Christ, @28God'sHand.

That is the practical message. It is not a failing message.

Blogger Cail Corishev July 30, 2017 11:13 AM  

This is why conservative attempts to "wake up" feminists, gays, and secular leftists to the dangers of Islam were always doomed to fail. They're on the same side. They may not like or trust each other, but the leftists hate God and fear a resurgence of Christianity far more than they could hate or fear Islam.

There's still value in pointing that out rhetorically to help normal people see what we're up against, but we shouldn't expect it to change minds on the other side.

The heart of the Left is Neo-Babelism, which is inherently globalist and Satanic in nature.

Absolutely. We give it different labels depending on who's preaching it, like "liberation theology" when it comes from Pope Frank, but it always boils down to the same thing: elevating Man over God and trying to create heaven on earth through social and political means (Brotherhood of Man, etc.), which leads to worshiping the prince of this world.

Anonymous Sharrukin July 30, 2017 11:14 AM  

49. God's Hand

What they don't understand is that any philosophy that depends upon death and destruction can't possibly win the day.

The body count of the secular atheist states is enormous...millions upon millions. Then we have Islam as mentioned above and Genghis Khan, Alexander, Napoleon, and many others, and the fact that all serious nations have national militaries that deal out death and destruction.

But you are a serious fella who only deals with reality...right?

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable July 30, 2017 11:15 AM  

The retreat to the "they hate God" argument is reliably preceded by the stark recognition that "our arguments carry no weight and we've lost the intellectual and rhetorical battle".

You clever, clever man. I think you're on to something there: that's exactly how it works.

So the apostle Paul described men as "haters of God" (Romans 1:30) because he was all out of arguments and crushed by the clever rhetoric of his opponents. And being anti-intellectual, he wrote the rest of the book of Romans to prove he had no arguments left.

Makes total sense to me. Thanks for the schooling.

Anonymous Mr. Rational July 30, 2017 11:21 AM  

The Left rejects the New Atheists because it was never truly atheist or secular. It is merely anti-Christian and anti-Western.
This has been true for as long as I've been listening to leftists (and certainly much longer).  They are as dogmatic as any religious movement, and eschew reason because if people actually thought about the tenets and subjected them to rational examination they'd reject them and the movement.  Throwing reason out the window (e.g. post-modernism) is essential to keeping the sheep in line.

Even a couple decades ago, leftists were so "triggered" by contrary thought that they could not get through even a slim book of Ayn Rand.

The Left embraces Islam because it presently serves as a more effective anti-Christian weapon than the atheism or secular humanism upon which it previously relied.
Atheism is a crappy weapon against the West, seeing as how it's a no-thing rather than a something.  Secular humanism is an attempt to craft an ethical system without demanding obesiance to something people have stopped believing in.  I haven't noticed any pathologies coming from it, though it does attract Marxists.  Objectivism is atheistic and has built-in commie repellent; unfortunately it's also as dogmatic as many fundamentalisms.  When Koko has a tested IQ higher than the average S.S. African you can't draw a bright intellectual line between "humans" and "animals"... but Objectivism hasn't gotten the message.

What's going to happen first:  Christianity reconciles itself to the truths that science has uncovered about "all of creation", or something else takes off like Mormonism?  Objectivism has shot its wad, or so it appears.  I'm not following any fringe stuff and there's nothing on my radar.

Blogger Aeoli Pera July 30, 2017 11:25 AM  

VD wrote:It's Talmudic Judaism, Vox. Not "Neo-Babelism.

Shut your foolish mouth and do not again attempt to correct your intellectual superiors. You have it precisely backwards. Neo-Babelism long predates Talmudic Judaism. The latter is merely one of the many forms that the former has taken.


Lol BTFO

Blogger Aeoli Pera July 30, 2017 11:28 AM  

NameTheJew wrote:The heart of the Left is Neo-Babelism, which is inherently globalist and Satanic in nature.

The heart of the left is the Jew.


This is why alt-retard "intellectuals" are ultimately useless to me. They are incapable of producing propaganda without believing in it first.

Blogger Aeoli Pera July 30, 2017 11:32 AM  

On the other hand, alt-retard may be correct in asserting, in their dream logic fashion, that Judaism is Neo-Babelism's final form. That is an eminently plausible position.

Anonymous Rfvujm July 30, 2017 11:44 AM  

Anonymous Conservative's interpretation of r/K selection, as I understand it, summarizes the left's stance here as a complete rejection of in-group (Christianity), in favor of the other anti-in-group (western atheists) and the proper out-group (islam). If that's the case, it seems arguing dialect with them will be completely futile as they have fully abandoned not only God but also logic.

Anonymous Rocklea July 30, 2017 11:46 AM  

"What they don't understand is that any philosophy that depends upon death and destruction can't possibly win the day."

Admitting defeat so soon?

"It is obviously confusing to the Magicists why secularists do care about the fate of individuals, friend, family or otherwise. And that is their great intellectual, spiritual and personal deficit."

You're lying, secularist don't care about friends family or otherwise, it's a suicidal death cult, in your parlance an evolutionary dead end.

Blogger VD July 30, 2017 11:48 AM  

On the other hand, alt-retard may be correct in asserting, in their dream logic fashion, that Judaism is Neo-Babelism's final form. That is an eminently plausible position.

It isn't. Pseudo-Christianity is. Hence, the Anti-Christ being recognized as the Messiah, by the Talmudists and everyone else.

Blogger James Dixon July 30, 2017 11:48 AM  

> Why the very non-magical theory of the multi-verse

That's one of the possible non-answers, yes.

> It is obviously confusing to the Magicists why secularists do care about the fate of individuals, friend, family or otherwise.

The evidence that you do is sorely lacking.

> What they don't understand is that any philosophy that depends upon death and destruction can't possibly win the day.

The Huns, the Vikings, and numerous other warrior cultures throughout history would like a word with you.

> It's not a matter of the left conclusively declaring there is no God. It's a matter of more and more people being indifferent to the magical claims and instead understanding their place in the world as one that requires authentic empathy.

Then again, what are you doing here?

As for more and more people, the numbers don't look very good: https://infogalactic.com/info/List_of_religious_populations

And you have no empathy, authentic or otherwise.

> And yes, I am not at a next step of militancy beyond showing my intolerance of the enemy, by my words.

You want some good words for militant Christianity? You could do worse than "Soldier, Ask Not": http://lyricspoems.blogspot.com/2011/07/soldier-ask-not.html

And there's always "Onward Christian Soldiers" and "The Battle Hymn of the Republic".

Anonymous Mr. Rational July 30, 2017 11:48 AM  

Old Ez wrote:I always get a giggle out of watching feminists throw women under the bus to defend Islam.
You have to kill people's ability to reason to keep them from running away from such blatant hypocrisy.  Dogma, recited by rote and demanded as shibboleths, is the mind-killer.  Hypnopaedic wisdom.  Otherwise people would say "wait, they want to replace wearing a scarlet "A" with stoning to death?  WTF?" and the whole thing would evaporate overnight.

It's no accident that Islam is as dogmatic as any fundamentalism.  That's the only way to keep people behind anything so full of contradictions.  Unfortunately, it's an evolutionarily stable strategy in most places and times.

Charles Martel wrote:Atheism and The Left are both devoutly religious.

I've had numerous discussions with "atheists" and it has always come down to this: It's not that they don't believe in God; it's that they refuse to bend the knee to the Supreme Being.

Funny, my experience is completely different.  When I talk to Christians I ask them things like why their book of "unquestionable truth" gets so many facts wrong (and misled people for centuries, requiring the unique environment of post-Enlightenment Europe to get science started), they change the subject.  I'm sure I've had some tell me I'm just rejecting God, but if their God is the creator of the universe shouldn't their book be a solid primer on what it is and how it works?

Richard Dawkins is a firebrand stump preacher for atheism--a veritable missionary who gives his all for the religion he devoutly believes in.
You, sir, have never been to Brother Card's Secular Humanist Revival.  OSC is back in Mormon mode now, but man... if Dawkins is your image you have NO idea what an atheistic firebrand is.  There doesn't seem to be a recording on YouTube or I'd aim you at it.

That was when Worldcons were fun.  I miss those days.

Anonymous Alt-West July 30, 2017 11:51 AM  

The alt-retards forget Jesus was a Jew.

BTFO

Anonymous Sharrukin July 30, 2017 11:55 AM  

70. Alt-West

The alt-retards forget Jesus was a Jew.

I thought Jesus was the son of God?

Is God Jewish? Judeo-Christ?

Blogger Cail Corishev July 30, 2017 11:56 AM  

Neo-Babelism long predates Talmudic Judaism.

It's what I was just saying about labels: people run up against different aspects of it and want to blame it all on that particular one, whether it's Talmudism, Marxism, Liberation Theology, Freemasonry, Humanism, whatever. It's like the story of the blind men trying to describe an elephant based on which part they're touching. Focusing on a single manifestation misses the bigger picture.

Anonymous God's Hand July 30, 2017 11:59 AM  

"You're lying, secularist don't care about friends family or otherwise, it's a suicidal death cult, in your parlance an evolutionary dead end."

Denying the obvious may be an intrinsic part of militant magicism. Denying that secularists don't care about their family can't be defensible position. But there it is. I don't understand this kind of willful ignorance. Maybe it isn't willful. Maybe it's a true bi-product of embracing magicism. Maybe it's a self defense mechanism.

Blogger dienw July 30, 2017 12:17 PM  

The retreat to the "they hate God" argument is reliably preceded by the stark recognition that "our arguments carry no weight and we've lost the intellectual and rhetorical battle".

From your statement, I could assume that Jesus Christ lost the "intellectual and rhetorical battle" When he declared the Pharisees to be the synagogue of Satan.

Anonymous Rocklea July 30, 2017 12:19 PM  

"Denying that secularists don't care about their family can't be defensible position."
Lol, I agree, secularist don't care about their family, denying that would be indefensible.

And you keep using the word 'obvious' as though to give meaning to the word salad surrounding it.

Anonymous BBGKB July 30, 2017 12:26 PM  

This is why conservative attempts to "wake up" feminists, gays, and secular leftists to the dangers of Islam were always doomed to fail. They're on the same side

1.There are people paid to say "Moslems are peaceful"
2.There are people stupid enough to believe 1
3.There are people who think cowardly low IQ moslems will fight well armed White Christians instead of easy unarmed targets, ignoring 1400 years of moslem history.

Anonymous Gen. Kong July 30, 2017 12:27 PM  

They are actually at war with the Almighty Himself, and His son, Jesus Christ.

As are NRO themselves, worshippers of Judeo-Christ, Golden-Dindu, aficionados of Pedosta's Perfectly-topped Pizza, the Derp-State, Oafcuckers, etc. Guess the New-Atheist crowd, who only started (mildly) criticizing the Religion of Love and Peace after being embarrassed repeatedly on their convenient omission, are damaged goods and not much use for the fifth column at NRO. Feminists naturally embrace Islam because diversity so their Neo-Babel party documents are in good order.

Blogger Aeoli Pera July 30, 2017 12:30 PM  

Alt-West wrote:The alt-retards forget Jesus was a Jew.

BTFO


*Thinks BTFO means dialectic*

Come at me bro, I'm in the mood.

Anonymous Gen. Kong July 30, 2017 12:36 PM  

Old Ez wrote:
I always get a giggle out of watching feminists throw women under the bus to defend Islam. What possible other evidence do you need to see that feminism is a blatant hoax?

You're making a dialectic appeal here. Feminism was a fraud from day one. It should have been obvious to most by the time (((Mother Gloria))) absolved Lord Hee-Haw, Beelzebubba of Arkancide for his "one-grope". MPAI - and the brainwashing of feminist ideology runs from cradle-to-grave 24 x 7 x 365 in every western country. Logic has zero effect on feminists, who are unencumbered by the thought process.

Blogger Aeoli Pera July 30, 2017 12:36 PM  

VD wrote:On the other hand, alt-retard may be correct in asserting, in their dream logic fashion, that Judaism is Neo-Babelism's final form. That is an eminently plausible position.

It isn't. Pseudo-Christianity is. Hence, the Anti-Christ being recognized as the Messiah, by the Talmudists and everyone else.


Here's the plan, as near as I can determine:

1. Secularism, to "kill God" as Nietzsche said.
2. Fascism, to set up statolatry.
3. Zodiacism, to support "Great Man" worship as national avatars.
4. Emperor worship, to set the stage for Luciferianism.
5. Luciferianism proper, and the promise that men can become gods if they follow well enough. Persecution enabled by the complete atomization of people from each other, the godhood pursuit making them supremely narcissistic. This is the diametric opposite of Jesus' radical message of worship via service.

Blogger Aeoli Pera July 30, 2017 12:43 PM  

Zodiacism is my term, referring to the antediluvian astrology cult of metaphysical predetermination, as detailed by Hamlet's Mill. I haven't read it yet, but the summary suggests we're tracking the same ideas.

Blogger Aeoli Pera July 30, 2017 12:46 PM  

Rocklea wrote:"What they don't understand is that any philosophy that depends upon death and destruction can't possibly win the day."

Admitting defeat so soon?

"It is obviously confusing to the Magicists why secularists do care about the fate of individuals, friend, family or otherwise. And that is their great intellectual, spiritual and personal deficit."

You're lying, secularist don't care about friends family or otherwise, it's a suicidal death cult, in your parlance an evolutionary dead end.


Almost. I'll quote the conclusion of the blog post I just wrote:

"The self-extinction of Europe is the anti-natalist’s version of the Rapture. They don’t intend to be around for the consequences. Liberalism is literally a suicide cult and Thee Current Year is when their Hale Bopp comet comes back. Liberals want to kill off their extended kin for the same reason as loving, doting parents give poisoned Kool-Aid to their naive, trusting children. They want what they think is best for us, which is to be released from the pain-filled shackles of existence. Liberals are expressing a twisted, godless, malicious love for their white kin."

Anonymous Gen. Kong July 30, 2017 1:00 PM  

Cail Corishev wrote:
Neo-Babelism long predates Talmudic Judaism.

It's what I was just saying about labels: people run up against different aspects of it and want to blame it all on that particular one, whether it's Talmudism, Marxism, Liberation Theology, Freemasonry, Humanism, whatever. It's like the story of the blind men trying to describe an elephant based on which part they're touching. Focusing on a single manifestation misses the bigger picture.


Agreed. Talmudism is merely another skin. So is Islam. Ditto for Judeo-Christ worship. Scientology was described once as "L. Ron Hubbard's thin-gruel Satanism". There's nothing thin-gruel about Neo-Babelism.

Anonymous Rocklea July 30, 2017 1:14 PM  

Aeoli Pera, I like your version better, nihilistic narcissism's conclusion.

Anonymous FP July 30, 2017 1:19 PM  

@49

"It is obviously confusing to the Magicists why secularists do care about the fate of individuals, friend, family or otherwise. And that is their great intellectual, spiritual and personal deficit."

Oh. Is that why there are gay groups pushing to let gays donate blood despite their high std rates? I'm sure thats all God's fault right? Damn that based science!

@73
"I don't understand this kind of willful ignorance. Maybe it isn't willful. Maybe it's a true bi-product of embracing magicism. Maybe it's a self defense mechanism. "

Indeed. Say, whats your take on the caring doctor I went to recently that in between trying to sell me on how great a deal he is offering me cash wise on a medical device because of how so many have high insurance deductibles these days. Yet when I take said machine home for a trial and look it up online, I can buy the same machine for 1/3rd the doc's price? Is that good doctor just looking out for me by charging me $800 more? Truly he cares about my well being. So much so that he votes for the government to force me to buy health insurance.

Anonymous Stickwick July 30, 2017 1:25 PM  

Mr. "Rational": When I talk to Christians I ask them things like why their book of "unquestionable truth" gets so many facts wrong (and misled people for centuries, requiring the unique environment of post-Enlightenment Europe to get science started), they change the subject.

This is such an idiotic lie, it boggles the mind that anyone still parrots it. You are reliably wrong about so many things, Mr. "Rational," but I have to admit it's amusing to watch you drop your little nuggets of apocrypha with confidence.

The truth is, science and history are continually catching up to the Bible.

The truth is, science is a direct product of Christianity. Modern science arose because of Christian ideals and assumptions about nature combined with classical Greek philosophy (which was highly valued by the Church). That's why modern science arose in 17th century Christian Europe and why 50 out of 52 of the key figures of the Scientific Revolution were Christian.

For those of you not committed to a life of lies and ignorance like our court jester here, I recommend For the Glory of God by Rodney Stark and The Soul of Science by Pearcey and Thaxton for more about the Christian roots of modern science.

Anonymous NameTheJew July 30, 2017 1:27 PM  

NeoBabelism

So our enemy is 'NeoBabelism'! LOL. That's some top-quality misdirection!

Vox leads his Cuckservatives to tilt at NeoBabelist windmills, leaving Jews in peace to munch away at our foundation.

Sound and fury.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 30, 2017 1:28 PM  

God's Hand wrote:Denying the obvious may be an intrinsic part of militant magicism. Denying that secularists don't care about their family can't be defensible position. But there it is. I don't understand this kind of willful ignorance. Maybe it isn't willful. Maybe it's a true bi-product of embracing magicism. Maybe it's a self defense mechanism.
It's not that we don't think secularists can live moral lives or experience love and family. Except you personally, you are obviously incapable.

It's that Atheism cant justify any moral standards. Every time you try, you wind up sneaking in unstated premises taken from religion.

And, as history demonstrates, with exceeding power and conviction, when Atheists are put in charge, the wind up murdering by the millions and tens of millions.

But you'll have an excuse for that, I'm sure. Atheists always do.

Anonymous Ain July 30, 2017 1:35 PM  

Many prominent atheists and secularists are secretly Luciferian. Disclosing it would harm their narrative, as well as their credibility. They do believe in God; they hate Him. They believe Adonai is the bad guy and Lucifer got a raw deal.

Blogger Aeoli Pera July 30, 2017 1:36 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:And, as history demonstrates, with exceeding power and conviction, when Atheists are put in charge, the wind up murdering by the millions and tens of millions.

But you'll have an excuse for that, I'm sure. Atheists always do.


It's never been tried!

Blogger Aeoli Pera July 30, 2017 1:53 PM  

Rocklea wrote:Aeoli Pera, I like your version better, nihilistic narcissism's conclusion.

Thank you, it's my pleasure to serve God in this way.

Anonymous God's Hand July 30, 2017 1:55 PM  

"God's Hand wrote:
Denying the obvious may be an intrinsic part of militant magicism. Denying that secularists don't care about their family can't be defensible position. But there it is. I don't understand this kind of willful ignorance. Maybe it isn't willful. Maybe it's a true bi-product of embracing magicism. Maybe it's a self defense mechanism.

It's not that we don't think secularists can live moral lives or experience love and family"

That's good to hear. But some others who are commenting here believe otherwise. It's hard to understand how they would come to that conclusion when it is so demonstrable that secularists do indeed love their family and friends.

Good on you.

Blogger Cloom Glue July 30, 2017 2:03 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 30, 2017 2:08 PM  

So, not comment on the points where I utterly defeat you tired, lame, so-called arguments?

Blogger James Dixon July 30, 2017 2:36 PM  

> ...but if their God is the creator of the universe shouldn't their book be a solid primer on what it is and how it works?

Why in the world would you think a book that was written by people (whether divinely inspired or not) would be 100% correct?

> Denying that secularists don't care about their family can't be defensible position.

Oh, there are tons of examples to show that they don't. But even a semi-comprehensive list would exceed our host's patience.

> I don't understand this kind of willful ignorance.

Well, even though you practice willful ignorance every day, it's understandable that some one with you limited intellect might have problems grasping it. Keep trying, I'm sure you'll get it eventually.

> So, not comment on the points where I utterly defeat you tired, lame, so-called arguments?

He hasn't even answered my questions above (well, he responded to one, but with a flat out lie) I wonder if he's a paid shill or merely a "bright" come to try his pitiful attempt at trolling.

Anonymous Uncle John's Band July 30, 2017 3:00 PM  

@94

Because ze is both stupid and a liar, and may be collecting Soros nickels. Ze will endure enormous intellectual humiliation for a shiny nickel.

Anonymous God's Hand July 30, 2017 3:05 PM  

"> Denying that secularists care about their family can't be defensible position.

Oh, there are tons of examples to show that they don't."

No. This is incorrect. Is it possible a secularist somewhere doesn't care about or love their family. It's possible, but so unusual as to be irrelevant. There are no examples that suggest such a thing is anything other than extraordinarily rare. I think this is why you copped out with offering the examples you say are common.

"So, not comment on the points where I utterly defeat you tired, lame, so-called arguments?"

I didn't see that. I saw where you sensibly contradicted other commenters who say secularists don't love their friends and family.

Anonymous God's Hand July 30, 2017 3:08 PM  

"Because ze is both stupid and a liar, and may be collecting Soros nickels. Ze will endure enormous intellectual humiliation for a shiny nickel."

That's incorrect. See #97

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 30, 2017 3:09 PM  

Is taht because you suddenly lose the ability to read when it goes against your preconceptions? 'Cause that would explain your being such a dumbass.

Blogger Freddy July 30, 2017 3:33 PM  

You forgot the Resurrection, fool.

Anonymous God's Hand July 30, 2017 3:41 PM  

@100

The resurrection story is a wonderful metaphor for redemption and we secularists appreciate the power of that metaphor.

Anonymous Dog's Paw July 30, 2017 3:47 PM  

Muh materialisms.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 30, 2017 4:07 PM  

God's Hand wrote:The resurrection story is a wonderful metaphor for redemption and we secularists appreciate the power of that metaphor.

We are men of ideas, sir. Lying does not become us.

Don't lie.

Anonymous Mr. Rational July 30, 2017 4:41 PM  

Cail Corishev wrote:it always boils down to the same thing: elevating Man over God and trying to create heaven on earth through social and political means (Brotherhood of Man, etc.), which leads to worshiping the prince of this world.
God or no God, there are things that humans simply cannot manage through conscious effort.  You can't learn or think fast enough to actually run a command economy; the knowledge problem gets you every time.  Utopia is impossible, and the only way to win that game is not to play.

Now note, this is an atheist telling you that all the utopian movements (leftist, rightist, religious, whatever) are doomed to fail because humans are humans, limited and flawed.  You don't need to believe in original sin to understand this and act on it; TBH, given the reality of evolution and the fact that good enough to out-survive and out-reproduce the next tribe over is literally good enough, it's remarkable that we've managed to accomplish what we have.

Rocklea wrote:You're lying, secularist don't care about friends family or otherwise, it's a suicidal death cult
That's a funny thing to say about people who give electricity to their troubled neighbors when their pension checks get seized by an out-of-control state government.  IOW, you're demonizing a lot of good people who've done you no harm and making enemies of them.  This will not end well for you.

God's Hand wrote:Maybe it's a true bi-product of embracing magicism. Maybe it's a self defense mechanism.
De-humanizing those they intend to kill.  We're watching.

Gen. Kong wrote:Guess the New-Atheist crowd, who only started (mildly) criticizing the Religion of Love and Peace after being embarrassed repeatedly on their convenient omission, are damaged goods and not much use for the fifth column at NRO.
Dawkins was de-platformed for saying uncomplimentary things about Islam.

Gen. Kong wrote:who are unencumbered by the thought process.
I miss Tom and Ray.

Anonymous Mr. Rational July 30, 2017 4:43 PM  

Stickwick wrote:The truth is, science and history are continually catching up to the Bible.
So, Stickwick, let's talk about this "Great Flood" for a minute.  If it was a global phenomenon and not something like the Black Sea Deluge, where did this water come from and where did it go?

Why does Genesis have no explanation whatsoever for the changes observed in life-forms over time in the geological column?

If Genesis 1 describes the origin of the universe as in the Big Bang, why does it reference "waters", which can only exist on rocky planets in a narrow span of orbits around most stars?  The products of the Big Bang did not include significant amounts of anything heavier than lithium, and that includes oxygen.

The truth is, science is a direct product of Christianity. Modern science arose because of Christian ideals and assumptions about nature combined with classical Greek philosophy (which was highly valued by the Church).
This does not make Christianity true, any more than it makes the Greek pantheon true.  It was on the path that happened to birth science as a way of discovering facts and discarding error.  It did not happen in Christian Ethiopia or Christian Egypt.  Christianity was helpful but obviously not sufficient.  Had the Greeks taken a slightly different philosophical turn they might have done it all by themselves.

Anonymous God's Hand July 30, 2017 4:47 PM  

"We are men of ideas"

I can see that. I just don't think they are always well formed, consistent or sensible.

Anonymous Sharrukin July 30, 2017 5:00 PM  

105. Mr. Rational

So, Stickwick, let's talk about this "Great Flood" for a minute. If it was a global phenomenon and not something like the Black Sea Deluge, where did this water come from and where did it go?

Earth may have underground 'ocean' three times that on surface

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/13/earth-may-have-underground-ocean-three-times-that-on-surface

the discovery suggested Earth’s water may have come from within, driven to the surface by geological activity,

"If [the stored water] wasn't there, it would be on the surface of the Earth, and mountaintops would be the only land poking out,"

Not a Christian but it does make one pause.

Blogger Cail Corishev July 30, 2017 5:04 PM  

I can see that. I just don't think

It shows.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 30, 2017 5:11 PM  

God's Hand wrote:"We are men of ideas"

I can see that. I just don't think they are always well formed, consistent or sensible.

Well, yours demonstrably are not. Still not going to address the actual arguments, eh? Can't blame you. It's a tough philosophical problem, and you obviously don't have the horsepower to make it up the hill.

Anonymous God's Hand July 30, 2017 5:36 PM  

. "Still not going to address the actual arguments, eh?"

Name calling isn't an argument.

Blogger weka July 30, 2017 5:49 PM  

In mental health, the consumer movement and antipsychotic demand compromise of institutional policy for the demands they state the patients are making

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 30, 2017 5:57 PM  

God's Hand wrote:Name calling isn't an argument.
1) yes it is.
2) so you really CAN'T read and comprehend something that goes against your preconceptions. wow. Just ... wow.

Blogger Charles Martel July 30, 2017 6:07 PM  

@69 Mr. Rational

"...their book of "unquestionable truth" gets so many facts wrong..."

We must be talking about sola scriptura fundies here. You're wasting your time trying to reason with them, old boy. What I was getting at was my experience with so-called "atheists." When one digs deep enough one finds that they're very much theists, only of a different colour than the theists who submit to the Supreme Being.
Cheers

Blogger Charles Martel July 30, 2017 6:16 PM  

@70
"The alt-retards forget Jesus was a Jew."

Jesus was a Hebrew, the tribe known as "The Chosen", a tribe which bears no resemblance to that which collectively refers to itself as "Jews." Modern-day "Jews" are a mongrel mixture of Turkic, Eastern European, and who-knows-what-else. The 70 AD leveling of Jerusalem by future emperor Titus initiated the great diaspora which, eventually, saw the Hebrew nation effectively disappear. The Khazars are the progenitors of the modern-day Jews.

Anonymous tublecane July 30, 2017 6:18 PM  

"it was never truly atheist or secular"

They are essentially atheist and moreso secular in their endgame, I believe. When they get their monoculture and control the way everyone thinks and behaves, they'll make them be irreligious. That's the plan. In the meantime, they have priorities. Atheists are way, way the heck down on the list. Muslims are near the top of the hierarchy.

That's because they're killing the West first. That's the priority. But they wouldn't just stop if they manage to whipe out Christianity in particular and Western Civilization generally. They'd get to work on Muslims, in that case. Kinda like how they wouldn't, in the name of multiculturalism, stop if there ceased to be a dominant culture in the U.S. They'd get to work on the smaller cultures next, until there wasn't anything left.

Of course, it won't work that way. Should they kill Western Civilization, they'll have no more power. Because the only ones listening to them are Westerners and the non-Westerners seeking to exploit Western weakness. (Plus, some tiny share of non-Westerners who buy into Western foolishness, probably.) Without Westerners, no one would care.

Blogger Charles Martel July 30, 2017 6:19 PM  

@71 Sharrukin
"Is God Jewish? Judeo-Christ?"

Nah, there is nothing "Judeo" about Christ. He is as far away from the Synagogue of Satan as one can be.

Anonymous JAG July 30, 2017 6:26 PM  

Why must ardent secularists from the Islamic world like Ayaan Hirsi Ali — the type of people the Left looks to for inspiration in the history of Western secularism — be deemed bigots, while Sharia-supporting conspiracy theorists like Linda Sarsour are cherished?

Because the true nature of the leftist is contrarian.

Anonymous tublecane July 30, 2017 6:32 PM  

@22-Yes, as everyone knows, resorting to rhetoric is a sure sign you've lost the rhetorical battle.

Anonymous Stickwick July 30, 2017 6:44 PM  

Mr. "Rational,"

Careful exegesis of Genesis resolves all of the problems you listed. There are straightforward answers to each of those objections. But what would be the point in explaining them to you? If I showed you how each of those points is resolved, would you retract your false claim that the Bible is full of error?

This does not make Christianity true, any more than it makes the Greek pantheon true.

No, you don’t get to to do that. You’ve tried to undermine Christian belief with the bogus claim that science had to wait until Europe threw off the shackles of religion to flourish. I pointed out to you that it’s precisely because of Christian ideals and assumptions that modern science arose. You don’t get to weasel out of this now that you’ve been shown to be wrong yet again.

If Christian assumptions about nature led to modern science — one of the most powerful intellectual tools in human history — then you are obligated to ask how an institution that is supposedly based on a multitude of errors was able to do that. It should not be possible. An honest person would consider the possibility that the Bible is not in error.

It was on the path that happened to birth science as a way of discovering facts and discarding error.  It did not happen in Christian Ethiopia or Christian Egypt.  Christianity was helpful but obviously not sufficient.  Had the Greeks taken a slightly different philosophical turn they might have done it all by themselves.

Christianity was not merely helpful, it was necessary. No other religious tradition in the world had the right combination of ideals and assumptions about nature. The Greeks made some tremendous intellectual advances, but there were significant philosophical barriers to the Greeks ever inventing science, including:

• Disdain for the material world
• Disbelief in the precision of the material world
• Separation of math from the material world
• Rejection of experimentation

How do you develop physical science without applying math? It’s just not possible. It wasn’t a slight philosophical turn that prevented the Greeks from inventing science. Their disdain for the material world was a cornerstone of their philosophy. Unlike Christians, who knew from their Bibles that God’s creation was “good,” the Greeks denigrated it, and even more fatally they eschewed experiment because they relied so heavily on deductive logic. Aristotle believed that once you determined the nature of a thing, you could deduce all you needed to know about it. No need for experiment. The problem with that of course is that EXPERIMENT IS THE CORNERSTONE OF SCIENCE. It’s why Aristotle — as brilliant as he was — got nearly everything to do with physics and astronomy wrong.

You’re wrong about this. As wrong as it is possible to be wrong. That’s how wrong you are. As Homer once said to Marge, do you ever get tired of being wrong? Marge at least had the good sense to answer, “Sometimes.”

Blogger Cail Corishev July 30, 2017 6:45 PM  

That's because they're killing the West first. That's the priority. But they wouldn't just stop if they manage to wipe out Christianity in particular and Western Civilization generally. They'd get to work on Muslims, in that case.

In theory, they would, yes. In reality, I doubt they ever think that far ahead. Whether they would admit it or not, they know that the only fight that matters is the one for/against Jesus Christ.

If they could wipe out His Church, eliminate every one of His followers, that would mean His promises were false and He is powerless, so they can stop fearing His justice for their sins. Who cares whether some sand people worship a moon god, compared to that?

Anonymous Bellator Mortalis July 30, 2017 6:47 PM  

Person posting as "God's Hand" is clearly a Luciferian puppet, as can be clearly seen both by his(?) statements as well as by the assumed name. See: https://infogalactic.com/info/Luciferianism

Blogger Robert July 30, 2017 7:12 PM  

I've become more and more convinced that James Burnham, author of the Suicide of the West, was right. Burnham claimed that leftism was not about equality at all but loyalty to the "other."

Over and over again, the left has declared common cause with anything non-Christian, non-Western, and non-White. You can predict what they are going to support purely based on these principles.

A good write up on Burnham's book is here: http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/12/19/book-review-suicide-west/

Blogger James Dixon July 30, 2017 8:21 PM  

> No. This is incorrect.

How published news articles would it take to demonstrate otherwise?

However, since I know you will demand "scientific proof", let's just use the proxy of charitable giving, which should bear a close relationship to caring about others (including your family): https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Religious-Americans-Give-More/153973

As I said, there are there are tons of examples to show that they don't. Now, since you claim they do, what is your evidence?

> Why does Genesis have no explanation whatsoever for the changes observed in life-forms over time in the geological column?

Why should it? What does that have to do with man's relationship with God?

> Name calling isn't an argument.

So what are you doing here again?

Blogger Nakota Publishing July 30, 2017 8:47 PM  

Neo-babelism... another great alt-right coinage!

Blogger Aeoli Pera July 30, 2017 9:20 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Stickwick July 30, 2017 9:31 PM  

James Dixon: > Why does Genesis have no explanation whatsoever for the changes observed in life-forms over time in the geological column?

Why should it? What does that have to do with man's relationship with God?


Why does Genesis not mention bananas? Or mangoes? These fruits are FACTS, and the Bible has NO EXPLANATION for them. We have to face it, James, the Bible is anti-FACT. I dunno about you, but THIS HAS ROCKED MY FAITH TO THE CORE. My entire worldview, destroyed by a fruit salad... :^(

Blogger Were-Puppy July 30, 2017 9:40 PM  

@42 Rocklea

why should anyone care about your fate or soul when neither exist?
---

That's my go to argument against athiests.

Blogger Were-Puppy July 30, 2017 10:12 PM  

Jazz Hand gave up too easily. The troll shift must have ended.

Anonymous Full-Fledged Fiasco July 30, 2017 10:34 PM  

"The heart of the Left is Neo-Babelism, which is inherently globalist and Satanic in nature. All of its various ideologies, from communism to feminism to neo-liberalism to progressivism, are nothing more than the skinsuits it wears in its endless war against God."

Have you ever read Eric Voegelin? Highly recommended.

Anonymous Arie C. July 30, 2017 10:43 PM  

Christianity has always been a crude and flawed copy of Jewish beliefs. The world is simply waking up that worshiping a mortal man like Jesus is just weird and silly. (So Jesus "died" for 3 days. I've had worse from hangovers.)

Meanwhile most Jews have long replaced supernatural beliefs with a belief in humanistic, scientific and rational moral values. Why does this make Jews a target? Sadly is because a handful of anti-semites reject reason and science.

Blogger Lazarus July 30, 2017 10:49 PM  

Arie C. wrote:Christianity has always been a crude and flawed copy of Jewish beliefs.

Rabbinic Judaism is a crude and flawed copy of Jewish beliefs. The original Christianity was the fulfillment of Jewish beliefs, and will one day be manifest in a dominant position in Israel.

Anonymous tublecane July 31, 2017 12:26 AM  

@122-Suicide of the West was good, but a bit too mainstream conservative/neo-conservative. Burnham's better book, in my opinion, was the Machiavellians, Defenders of Freedom.

His most important book was the Managerial State. Which isn't as good a read, and he was an apostate Trotskyite. But it's a key to decipher the mad technocratic system under which we labor, among the few books that lets you really peak behind the curtain.

(For a great short, highly readable peak, I recommend Thought Prison by Bruce Charlton.)

Blogger James Dixon July 31, 2017 6:15 AM  

> Arie C.

4/10. A weak effort. You can do better.

Blogger James Dixon July 31, 2017 6:22 AM  

> Jazz Hand gave up too easily. The troll shift must have ended.

Yeah. Looks like paid shill it was. Shame, there's always hope for young ignorant brights.

Blogger William Meisheid July 31, 2017 1:02 PM  

Re: Why does Genesis have no explanation whatsoever for the changes observed in life-forms over time in the geological column?

Because those changes don't exist as neither does the "geologic column." It's all a sham. There are ample examples.

Evolution is a statistical impossibiity even for a single cell, much less complex multicelled organisms. There is not enough time to even begin to even get the initial protein sequences, much less the uncalculable rest required.

One simple thing destroys evolution even beyond the previous time argument, which is that it requires mutations to ADD data to the genetic base. Well ALL mutations remove data from the genetic base, so you are stuck.

The problem with evolution is that it is not science.

Blogger John Williams July 31, 2017 1:38 PM  

>Arie C, You believe a Roman execution squad failed? Their lives were on the line, thus Longinus thrusting his lance into the side of Christ, it was a scientific & medical test to check if the plasma had separated from the serum due to cessation of cardiac function, i.e. death. As for dying from hangover for 3 days, you are obliviously a liar & a lightweight and should be treated as such.

Blogger John Williams July 31, 2017 1:41 PM  

>William Meishield
The problem with evolution is that it is not science.
That's why it's not treated as a science by its faithful.

Blogger Were-Puppy July 31, 2017 3:25 PM  

@135 William Meisheid

The problem with evolution is that it is not science.
---

Next they'll be claiming it was aliens and genetic modification. Anything but God.

Blogger William Meisheid July 31, 2017 4:22 PM  

Arie C: "So Jesus "died" for 3 days. I've had worse from hangovers."

If you weren't joking then you are stupid beyond belief, since I am sure you have never been stabbed in side with a spear puncturing the peracardium while drunk before a three day hangover and survived. You wouldn't.

So sad, too bad, you slipped and can't get up.

Anonymous Mr. Rational July 31, 2017 10:07 PM  

Sharrukin wrote:Earth may have underground 'ocean' three times that on surface

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/13/earth-may-have-underground-ocean-three-times-that-on-surface

the discovery suggested Earth’s water may have come from within, driven to the surface by geological activity,

Yes, it's well-known that lots of water is subducted along with sediments and then eventually comes back up as steam in volcanoes.  The large amount of water in earth's rocks is thought to account for their fluidity and thus the operation of plate tectonics, compared to dead Venus.

1.  How do you get all this water out in FORTY DAYS?
2.  How do you get it out so fast without cooking everything on the surface?  Volcanoes release the bound water as superheated steam.  (There's about 330 million cubic miles of surface water on Earth.  Adding this much again as saturated steam at sea-level pressure (about 540 cal/gm heat of condensation, total 3.10e27 J) over 40 days is 8.98e20 watts, or almost 1.8 megawatts per square meter of Earth's surface.)
3.  How do you get it all subducted again in a similar length of time?

"Oral history of the Black Sea Deluge grown in the telling" keeps looking better and better.  Or maybe it was some massive flood of major rivers in the ME that left standing water for a long time.

Anonymous Mr. Rational July 31, 2017 10:09 PM  

Charles Martel wrote:We must be talking about sola scriptura fundies here. You're wasting your time trying to reason with them, old boy.
With the sole exception of a Jesuit I haven't been able to get answers that jibe with the available evidence from any of them... and the Jesuit was the Vatican astronomer.

What I was getting at was my experience with so-called "atheists."
In your book, am I "so-called" or the real article?

When one digs deep enough one finds that they're very much theists, only of a different colour than the theists who submit to the Supreme Being.
Yes, most people wind up latching on to some dogma or other (MPAI).  Something that provides pat answers to the questions of the day saves them from having to think, and going with the herd is safe.

Anonymous Mr. Rational July 31, 2017 10:13 PM  

Stickwick wrote:Careful exegesis of Genesis resolves all of the problems you listed.
You mean "retconning Genesis", not "exegesis".  You think real exegesis would have revealed that e.g. Aristotelian/Ptolemaic cosmology was wrong long before the Foucault pendulum proved that the earth rotated in space?  HA!  Genesis is just a bronze-age herder's view of things, and contains not one fact contrary to what they would have known.

There are straightforward answers to each of those objections.
Begging the question of why those answers aren't universal doctrine.  "Because people don't like them" is no excuse, people don't like the other demands of Christianity either.

By the same standard, "I didn't come from no monkey" hurtfeelz is no reason to reject evolution.  You can find people here who dismiss evolution on bogus grounds (e.g. someone in a university teaching environment who doesn't publicly embrace HBD; people do what they must to survive, and if Nobel winners become equalist scalps someone like PZ Myers hasn't got a chance).

But what would be the point in explaining them to you?
Saving souls?  Fishers of men?  I dunno, you must have SOME reason.

If I showed you how each of those points is resolved, would you retract your false claim that the Bible is full of error?
As long as you're putting this together,
a.  Add "why `things that crawl' doesn't come first on the list of animals created."
b.  Tell why it took a non-religious process to find the errors in "naive" exegesis.
And last but not least,
c.  If it takes decades of prying into demonstrable facts to budge Christian scholars from positions they ought to have known were erroneous from the beginning, who can have any confidence that any other position they've taken isn't equally erroneous or worse?  Their methods for producing and verifying knowledge are obviously defective.

It looks like you're asking me to take people as authorities when it's been shown they can't be trusted as such, and if you're using their faulty methods, neither can you.  But go ahead if you like.

I pointed out to you that it’s precisely because of Christian ideals and assumptions that modern science arose.
Which does not make it either essential or true in itself.  Any philosophy which begins from the provisional assumption that the universe obeys laws which can be discovered by humans will do.  A religion which led people to believe that the planets were pushed around by angels does not have a very good claim to truth.  It took a will to discard the supernatural to allow the natural to be discovered.

there were significant philosophical barriers to the Greeks ever inventing science, including:

• Disdain for the material world

• Disbelief in the precision of the material world

• Separation of math from the material world

• Rejection of experimentation

How do you develop physical science without applying math?

Obviously you don't.  But most Greek city-states were maritime powers; all it would have taken is one maverick to e.g. perform a mathematical analysis of the speeds and cargo capacities of ships based on length and shape to make mathematical analysis of nature into a military issue, and you can bet that that would have set something off.  Even under Aristotelian principles, determining the nature of the thing requires analysis.  Mathematics is one of the tools of analysis.

That maverick could have appeared in Greece, but didn't.  This is why all progress is contingent.

It’s why Aristotle — as brilliant as he was — got nearly everything to do with physics and astronomy wrong.
Yet you think that the Bible, based on and analyzed using the same principles, cannot be wrong.

Anonymous Mr. Rational July 31, 2017 10:15 PM  

James Dixon wrote:> Why does Genesis have no explanation whatsoever for the changes observed in life-forms over time in the geological column?

Why should it? What does that have to do with man's relationship with God?

I don't know.  Tell me what evolution of humans and apes from a common ancestor has to do with this?  Many millions of fundamentalists claim no such thing happened or could have happened because Biblical reasons.  One of the reasons I'm not a Christian is because of their poo-flinging behavior while claiming "I didn't come from no monkey."

William Meisheid wrote:Because those changes don't exist as neither does the "geologic column." It's all a sham. There are ample examples.

Evolution is a statistical impossibiity even for a single cell, much less complex multicelled organisms.

It is so nice that whenever one needs proof that MPAI, there's always someone willing to step up and provide it.

Anonymous Stickwick August 01, 2017 10:17 AM  

Mr. “Rational”: You think real exegesis would have revealed that e.g. Aristotelian/Ptolemaic cosmology was wrong long before the Foucault pendulum proved that the earth rotated in space?

It did.

As was obvious to every thinking person in the Western world, the first three words of the Bible stood in stark contradiction to Aristotelian cosmology for thousands of years. Thousands of years ago, the Bible stated a fundamental truth about the universe - that it wasn’t eternal and unchanging, but temporal and dynamic - that we had no hope of knowing deductively or observationally until just 100 years ago.

Begging the question of why those answers aren't universal doctrine.

There is a good reason why some of those answers aren’t universally understood; but as I asked before, what would be the point in explaining that to you? You are not a seeker of truth, you are an ideologue. You can read Gerald Schroeder’s The Science of God if you genuinely want the answers to those questions.

Which does not make it either essential or true in itself.

We know for a fact that those ideals and assumptions are essential for the development of science. As for their truth, it’s no different than Euclidean geometry. We can’t prove that Euclid’s postulates and notions are true, but the fact that Euclidean geometry works as well as it does strongly implies their truth. Likewise, the fact that science works as well as it does is powerfully suggestive of the implicit truth of Christian ideals and assumptions about the natural world.

Any philosophy which begins from the provisional assumption that the universe obeys laws which can be discovered by humans will do.

Yes, and the point is that no other philosophy began with that assumption. Not all Christians, but ONLY Christians held it to be true that the universe is rational, lawful, and worthy of study.

A religion which led people to believe that the planets were pushed around by angels does not have a very good claim to truth.  It took a will to discard the supernatural to allow the natural to be discovered.

No, if anything a philosophy that led people to believe that the universe is eternal and unchanging does not have a very good claim to truth. And even then no one is so foolish as to claim Aristotelian philosophy is false or across-the-board unreliable because he was wrong about cosmology.

The supernatural was manifestly NOT discarded in the development of science. What led to the development of science was the uniquely Christian view of the relationship between the supernatural and the natural.

But most Greek city-states were maritime powers; all it would have taken is one maverick to e.g. perform a mathematical analysis of the speeds and cargo capacities of ships based on length and shape to make mathematical analysis of nature into a military issue, and you can bet that that would have set something off.

All it woulda taken for the Greeks to invent science is a massive shift in their core philosophy! Just one guy, that’s all it would take!

We don’t need to speculate what would have happened if that one special Greek guy had just taken the lead. We already have examples of “maverick” thinkers like Aristarchus, whose ideas ran counter to the prevailing philosophy. Instead of kicking off a revolution, they were often dismissed as foolish or impious.

You think the Greeks didn’t apply math to mundane things like ships, buildings, and military technology? Of course they did. So did the Romans. So did the Egyptians and the Babylonians. And none of them invented science, nor would they ever, because of their philosophical beliefs about nature.

Even under Aristotelian principles, determining the nature of the thing requires analysis.  Mathematics is one of the tools of analysis.

It wasn’t to the Greeks. You don’t seem to understand that to the Greeks, math was either a matter of mysticism or it was inapplicable to the crude, imprecise natural world.

Anonymous Stickwick August 01, 2017 10:20 AM  

Mr. "Rational," you have an extremely narrow and dogmatic worldview that makes you ignorant and foolish. Mostly I respond to comments like these to help onlookers sort things out, but there is little need for that anymore. At this point, I doubt anyone reading the comments takes you seriously.

Blogger William Meisheid August 01, 2017 10:58 AM  

Mr. Rational wrote:>
It is so nice that whenever one needs proof that MPAI, there's always someone willing to step up and provide it.


Thank you for being that person. It is big of you to admit it.

Blogger Blastman August 01, 2017 7:01 PM  

Mr Rational wrote … "A religion which led people to believe that the planets were pushed around by angels does not have a very good claim to truth. It took a will to discard the supernatural to allow the natural to be discovered."

It's precisely because Christian scholars rejected this type of "angels pushing the planets" nonsense that the Christian West was able to further the development of the laws of motion, and eventually the foundations of modern physics.

Christian theology also rejected a pantheistic view of reality and nature that is found in many non-Christian religions such as Sikhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, and Taoism. Even among the Greeks the Stoics were pantheists. A pantheistic view of "God and nature" will hinder the development of any physics. Is that rock falling down the mountain because it wills it, or is some god of nature like the god of fire pushing it along. Development of some natural laws of nature would be exceedingly difficult with such a prevailing view of nature. With Christianity there is no god in grass or rocks or the water and no angels moving them along in the natural course of events.

In the Middle Ages, while among the uneducated classes there may have been a few people attributing some natural phenomena to God's actions, among the educated Christians, this type of thinking was frowned upon. In fact …

Wiki

The historian of science Ronald Numbers notes that the modern scientific assumption of methodological naturalism can be also traced back to the work of these medieval thinkers:

By the late Middle Ages the search for natural causes had come to typify the work of Christian natural philosophers. Although characteristically leaving the door open for the possibility of direct divine intervention, they frequently expressed contempt for soft-minded contemporaries who invoked miracles rather than searching for natural explanations. The University of Paris cleric Jean Buridan (a. 1295–ca. 1358), described as "perhaps the most brilliant arts master of the Middle Ages," contrasted the philosopher’s search for "appropriate natural causes" with the common folk’s erroneous habit of attributing unusual astronomical phenomena to the supernatural. In the fourteenth century the natural philosopher Nicole Oresme (ca. 1320–82), who went on to become a Roman Catholic bishop, admonished that, in discussing various marvels of nature, "there is no reason to take recourse to the heavens, the last refuge of the weak, or demons, or to our glorious God as if He would produce these effects directly, more so than those effects whose causes we believe are well known to us."[17]


Jean Buridan (1295-1363)

… was a French priest who sowed the seeds of the Copernican revolution in Europe.[4] He developed the concept of impetus, the first step toward the modern concept of inertia, and an important development in the history of medieval science.

See also … Theory of Impetus -- Buridanist impetus

Blogger Roger Hill August 01, 2017 7:07 PM  

"They are actually at war with the Almighty Himself, and His son, Jesus Christ."

That is far more foolhardy than Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

Blogger Blastman August 01, 2017 7:09 PM  

A bit of further reading … Christianity: A Cause of Modern Science by Eric V. Snow covers many of the issues Stickwick brought up.

Also … God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science by James Hannam A book review at Armarium Magnum blog.

" … … In the academic sphere at least the "Conflict Thesis" of a historical war between science and theology has been long since overturned. It is very odd that so many of my fellow atheists are clinging so desperately to a long-dead position that was only ever upheld by amateur Nineteenth Century polemicists and not the careful research of recent objective peer reviewed historians. This is strange behaviour for people who like to label themselves "rationalists". I'll leave others to ponder how "rational" it is.

Speaking of rationalism, the critical factor that the myths obscure is precisely how rational intellectual inquiry in the Middle Ages was. … …"



Anonymous Mr. Rational August 02, 2017 10:53 PM  

Stickwick wrote:It did.

As was obvious to every thinking person in the Western world, the first three words of the Bible stood in stark contradiction to Aristotelian cosmology for thousands of years.

It's funny that your definition of "every thinking person in the Western world" excludes every single major Christian theologian and philosopher for 4/5 of the life of Christianity including St. Thomas Aquinas, who was making up explanations for Aristotle 15 centuries after the latter's erroneous treatise instead of debunking and replacing it.  If Christianity is such a reliable guide to truth, why did it take Johannes Kepler until the 17th century to correct the erroneous Ptolemaic notion of epicycles?

Thousands of years ago, the Bible stated a fundamental truth about the universe - that it wasn’t eternal and unchanging, but temporal and dynamic
During most of Christianity's reign, people took changes in the "perfect and unchanging" heavens as omens of doom because they were held to be NOT temporal and dynamic.  People were frightened of comets and meteor showers rather than enjoying them as spectacles.

we had no hope of knowing deductively or observationally until just 100 years ago.
And yet Christianity missed the opportunity to set the record straight.  That took the work of people with telescopes and spectrographs and things.

There is a good reason why some of those answers aren’t universally understood; but as I asked before, what would be the point in explaining that to you? You are not a seeker of truth, you are an ideologue.

There is a good reason why some of those answers aren’t universally understood
Such as?  If I've made a bad mistake tossing Christianity out for such things, it would have been nice to know why my church (and so many others) went wrong and how to find a right one.  But you're not showing me anything, you're handwaving and making excuses.

as I asked before, what would be the point in explaining that to you?
More excuses.  This is not a private correspondence.  Anyone can read it, and you have the potential to convince and even convert others regardless of what I do.

What they see is you looking weak and maybe not even convinced of your own position.

We know for a fact that those ideals and assumptions are essential for the development of science.
We know other things for facts too.  Those facts are that Christianity, and OT Judaism before it, were perfectly accepting and even supportive of faulty cosmological (and biological and geological and....) models up until the Enlightenment.  Another fact is that Christians are in some cases going backwards, making excuses for the superstitions of the past in biology and cosmology in particular.

ONLY Christians held it to be true that the universe is rational, lawful, and worthy of study.
Yes, those ancient Babylonians who held that the universe was rational, lawful and worthy of study so they went about finding ways to predict eclipses... they were Christians?  In the 4th century BC?

We don’t need to speculate what would have happened if that one special Greek guy had just taken the lead.
If he was winning battles and conquering territory and making huge fortunes that way, it would have been different.  The core philosophies of people you reduce to helotry cease to matter.

Stickwick wrote:You think the Greeks didn’t apply math to mundane things like ships, buildings, and military technology? Of course they did.
Wait, in @119 you wrote "Disdain for the material world / Disbelief in the precision of the material world".  So which is it? (continued)

Anonymous Mr. Rational August 02, 2017 10:55 PM  

You are not a seeker of truth, you are an ideologue.
An ideologue who gives you chance after chance to address arguments in a calm and fair evaluation, and show him (and everyone else who cares to come read this) just where he went wrong.  Which you refuse to do because you claim it's pointless, as you contradict yourself.

I think people can see who the ideologue is.

Anonymous Mr. Rational August 02, 2017 10:58 PM  

BTW, I wrote you a long reply on the abortion thread but the moderators never approved it.  We can continue here if you like.

Blastman wrote:It's precisely because Christian scholars rejected this type of "angels pushing the planets" nonsense
Rejected?  St. Thomas Aquinas invented it.  As a consequence, it took four centuries for people who believed more in natural law than divine whim to start coming up with solid mathematical descriptions of those laws, a chain going from Johannes Kepler to Newton and Liebniz.  Once they discovered the natural law, they "have no need of that hypothesis."

A pantheistic view of "God and nature" will hinder the development of any physics. Is that rock falling down the mountain because it wills it, or is some god of nature like the god of fire pushing it along.
That's actually the way all children think:  animistically.  This is a defect of cognition that some races never grow out of, leading to phenomena like cargo cults.  Perhaps the value of Christianity today is to take the spirits out of the natural world in more people's thinking, allowing them to understand it better.  That's because thinking about spirits in natural things is a handicap.

By the late Middle Ages the search for natural causes had come to typify the work of Christian natural philosophers. Although characteristically leaving the door open for the possibility of direct divine intervention, they frequently expressed contempt for soft-minded contemporaries who invoked miracles rather than searching for natural explanations.
Yet we have posters here on the blog trying to convince us of contemporary miracles (of meteorology in Spain, and something like a miracle of the loaves and fishes in Central America) rather than looking for natural explanations.  If there exists a natural explanation for something, and you don't have the evidence to rule it out, you do not have a legitimate claim of a miracle.  Weird stuff happens all the time to people who don't have the experience to recognize what it is.  Those aren't miracles

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts