From the most overarching questions of existence down to the simplest statement that Biden is a crook, the left always replies with a demand that you provide "evidence" when they don't like what you say, and when evidence is provided that evidence is always dismissed or ignored.
During these last few difficult years, I've come across many atheists decrying the human rights abuses that they've endured ever since the psyop began, apparently unaware that the notion of human rights comes from the Christian religion that they thoroughly mock and despise.
Historian Tom Holland took a deep dive into the western world and its beliefs/morals in his book "Dominion." A former atheist, he now attends church regularly.
Dostoevsky perfectly summed it all up in one sentence: Without God, all is permissible.
Ernst Jünger would ask himself during World War 2 what one could “advise a man, especially a simple man, to do in order to extricate himself from the conformity that is constantly being produced by technology?” In contrast to Carl Schmitt, the answer Jünger, an atheist, eventually settled on was: “Only prayer.” For, “In situations that can cause the cleverest of us to fail and the bravest of us to look for avenues of escape, we occasionally see someone who quietly recognizes the right thing to do and does good. You can be sure that is a man who prays.” Ultimately only a recovery of a sense of the transcendent, he decided, could serve as an antidote to nihilistic modernity’s temptations. Without it, “our freedom of will and powers of resistance diminish; the appeal of demonic powers becomes more compelling, and its imperatives more terrible.”
What’s always resonated for me is the question of “where did the singularity that exploded in the Big Bang come from?” Science is unable to provide an empirical answer, therefore “God created it” is as good an answer as any theory science might provide.
Since a man can endure nigh any ‘what’ so long as he finds the ‘why’ behind, we do need God. Suffering can’t afford to be meaningless. I say so with sufficient(?) assiduity 😊
Here is a snippet from my forthcoming essay that Anon would subscribe to..
Collectivist Creed No. 3: Drag shows involving children are an essential collectivist sacramental. That perversion along with safety and happiness creates an inclusive and accepting society. Yet, right-wing domestic terrorists find such shows inappropriate. Remember, the focus is on fostering an environment that respects diverse identities. That ensures all individuals, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation, take part. They can feel valued and supported within society. Heterosexual recognition is a form of hate speech punishable under the full weight of the law.
May not be evidence, but I realize I showed up at this place and time and figure there is a non-zero probability of showing up again at another time. Not sure what place. It's only an opinion.
I think much of the confusion boils down to the paradox you touched on in "I Have Ascended," whereupon the one who worships at the altars of emergence and evolution likewise believes they can view these phenomena from outside of them, magically liberated from the iron-clad rules that drive the rest of us lesser beings. Ironically, it's not a case of Deus ex machina for them, but Deus *et* machina, whereupon they are the god and all else is machine. I always found it funny that they can't see this paradox, nor grasp its Luciferian implications. It reminds me that -- as the Rolling Stones once pulled from the ether -- those who serve the devil best also do not know his name, or even believe he exists.
Another factor that plays into it I think is that many people (and particular many of scientific inclination) by default cannot perceive a hierarchy of being. They can permit the notion that the matter of a living body is self-organizing to a degree (we do not tell our kidneys what to do, let alone issues orders to armies of white blood cells). They can also permit that the brain issues commands on a level of being above that. But after that, it gets tricky for them, because they will usually skip the logical step between an individual brain and a gestalt being (team, tribe, society, religion etc.).
The brain is a special organ, in the sense that it's a central hub through which we direct all commands of will to our material. But, as always, who is this mysterious "director" that not only ignores autonomous functions in the self-regulating support systems, but those of the brain itself? Who chooses to turn left instead of right, to type this word instead of that one?
Again, they will spout something that boils down to automation-lacking-will, which leads them straight back into the darkness of the original paradox. And because we are all black boxes to one another, and the consciousness of others ultimately becomes an article of "faith" (although one that happens to conform to the most logical explanation), we can only suspect why someone would prefer a model universe without objective morality or purpose.
Unfortunately, I think what we have seen of the New Atheists thus far in their speech and works, provides ample evidence of "why." They fear the implications of not just failing to meet God's standard, but of consciously transgressing His laws to feed their darkest appetites. They fear the concept of eternity, because they fear a final judgement within that framework. And they should.
I could see myself writing this same criticism back when I was an arrogant and smug atheist. Today, I'm embarrassed by that rigid dogmatism I once held to so firmly.
These guys always go the same way. One of our prominent substack rationalists finishes explaining to me that all of his beliefs can be explained by the laws of identity, noncontradiction, and the excluded middle, and then starts yelling about immoral and evil people. When I pointed out that he had no ground to do so and couldn't get an 'ought from an is' he explained that, 'blah blah blah yes I can because I feel it in my heart.'(Mr. Kowalik has blocked me now and so I have to quote from memory but I assure you those are nearly his exact words. If substack doesn't stop hiding your own notes to people that subsequently blocked you then I will take up the vile art of sockpuppetry.) Anyway, all of the 'rationalists' are baffling in their cluelessness.
I think that the question revolves not around "God" or multiple "Gods", but around is there a universal "Good" or a universal "Evil"? Is there a universal "Right" or a universal "Wrong"? Are all people agreed on what constitutes Good? If not then how can there be a "God" setting morality or rules for humankind?
Human behaviour is governed by 'reward - punishment'. If not by your parents, society or authority, then by some superior entity. If not immediate then at some future time. To control beings then using reward and punishment is the means to do so. If you cannot be "Big Brother" then you appoint something else to ensure that "No sparrow falls.." Thus the concept of God as the ultimate reward - punisher allows an external morality to be imposed.
The concepts of Big Bang and of Evolution are based on silly and ridiculous assumptions. That the only explanation for a Red-shift is the Doppler effect and that because many beings share anatomy and even DNA the only explantation is that somehow the one changed into the other.
Sure we want to know How and we want to know Why and we can spend all our lives investigating and experimenting but to claim that we know how and we know why is simply Hubris.
"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." --
Socrates
Tautology at its' finest.
I live on the basis that I have my own concept of right and wrong and I really don't care if it aligns with anyone else's. If at some future time I am confronted with a being who is going to judge my actions (and thoughts?) my only defence will be that I was true to myself.
As for the rest of the world and how they will be judged, I really don't give a toss.
From the most overarching questions of existence down to the simplest statement that Biden is a crook, the left always replies with a demand that you provide "evidence" when they don't like what you say, and when evidence is provided that evidence is always dismissed or ignored.
"The war on noticing"
Sanctimonious hypocrisy is the left's most prominent strength, an inherent feature of their brand throughout ages 🤷
During these last few difficult years, I've come across many atheists decrying the human rights abuses that they've endured ever since the psyop began, apparently unaware that the notion of human rights comes from the Christian religion that they thoroughly mock and despise.
Historian Tom Holland took a deep dive into the western world and its beliefs/morals in his book "Dominion." A former atheist, he now attends church regularly.
Dostoevsky perfectly summed it all up in one sentence: Without God, all is permissible.
Ernst Jünger would ask himself during World War 2 what one could “advise a man, especially a simple man, to do in order to extricate himself from the conformity that is constantly being produced by technology?” In contrast to Carl Schmitt, the answer Jünger, an atheist, eventually settled on was: “Only prayer.” For, “In situations that can cause the cleverest of us to fail and the bravest of us to look for avenues of escape, we occasionally see someone who quietly recognizes the right thing to do and does good. You can be sure that is a man who prays.” Ultimately only a recovery of a sense of the transcendent, he decided, could serve as an antidote to nihilistic modernity’s temptations. Without it, “our freedom of will and powers of resistance diminish; the appeal of demonic powers becomes more compelling, and its imperatives more terrible.”
What’s always resonated for me is the question of “where did the singularity that exploded in the Big Bang come from?” Science is unable to provide an empirical answer, therefore “God created it” is as good an answer as any theory science might provide.
Well, Paul did write about the wise of the world being flummoxed by the foolishness of the gospel - therefore BRIGGS YOU FOOL! is entirely apt!
Since a man can endure nigh any ‘what’ so long as he finds the ‘why’ behind, we do need God. Suffering can’t afford to be meaningless. I say so with sufficient(?) assiduity 😊
Here is a snippet from my forthcoming essay that Anon would subscribe to..
Collectivist Creed No. 3: Drag shows involving children are an essential collectivist sacramental. That perversion along with safety and happiness creates an inclusive and accepting society. Yet, right-wing domestic terrorists find such shows inappropriate. Remember, the focus is on fostering an environment that respects diverse identities. That ensures all individuals, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation, take part. They can feel valued and supported within society. Heterosexual recognition is a form of hate speech punishable under the full weight of the law.
May not be evidence, but I realize I showed up at this place and time and figure there is a non-zero probability of showing up again at another time. Not sure what place. It's only an opinion.
I think much of the confusion boils down to the paradox you touched on in "I Have Ascended," whereupon the one who worships at the altars of emergence and evolution likewise believes they can view these phenomena from outside of them, magically liberated from the iron-clad rules that drive the rest of us lesser beings. Ironically, it's not a case of Deus ex machina for them, but Deus *et* machina, whereupon they are the god and all else is machine. I always found it funny that they can't see this paradox, nor grasp its Luciferian implications. It reminds me that -- as the Rolling Stones once pulled from the ether -- those who serve the devil best also do not know his name, or even believe he exists.
Another factor that plays into it I think is that many people (and particular many of scientific inclination) by default cannot perceive a hierarchy of being. They can permit the notion that the matter of a living body is self-organizing to a degree (we do not tell our kidneys what to do, let alone issues orders to armies of white blood cells). They can also permit that the brain issues commands on a level of being above that. But after that, it gets tricky for them, because they will usually skip the logical step between an individual brain and a gestalt being (team, tribe, society, religion etc.).
The brain is a special organ, in the sense that it's a central hub through which we direct all commands of will to our material. But, as always, who is this mysterious "director" that not only ignores autonomous functions in the self-regulating support systems, but those of the brain itself? Who chooses to turn left instead of right, to type this word instead of that one?
Again, they will spout something that boils down to automation-lacking-will, which leads them straight back into the darkness of the original paradox. And because we are all black boxes to one another, and the consciousness of others ultimately becomes an article of "faith" (although one that happens to conform to the most logical explanation), we can only suspect why someone would prefer a model universe without objective morality or purpose.
Unfortunately, I think what we have seen of the New Atheists thus far in their speech and works, provides ample evidence of "why." They fear the implications of not just failing to meet God's standard, but of consciously transgressing His laws to feed their darkest appetites. They fear the concept of eternity, because they fear a final judgement within that framework. And they should.
Excellent points, Mark, thanks.
I could see myself writing this same criticism back when I was an arrogant and smug atheist. Today, I'm embarrassed by that rigid dogmatism I once held to so firmly.
Nice response, William. You might enjoy this post on the problem of evil, which covers some of the themes discussed in your post: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/meditations-on-the-problem-of-evil
Good stuff, Neo, thanks.
These guys always go the same way. One of our prominent substack rationalists finishes explaining to me that all of his beliefs can be explained by the laws of identity, noncontradiction, and the excluded middle, and then starts yelling about immoral and evil people. When I pointed out that he had no ground to do so and couldn't get an 'ought from an is' he explained that, 'blah blah blah yes I can because I feel it in my heart.'(Mr. Kowalik has blocked me now and so I have to quote from memory but I assure you those are nearly his exact words. If substack doesn't stop hiding your own notes to people that subsequently blocked you then I will take up the vile art of sockpuppetry.) Anyway, all of the 'rationalists' are baffling in their cluelessness.
Briggs, please listen to this song, "Belief Filter" by No Permit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUR5PVmZYBc
The lyrics are right in your alley. For all ages.
I think that the question revolves not around "God" or multiple "Gods", but around is there a universal "Good" or a universal "Evil"? Is there a universal "Right" or a universal "Wrong"? Are all people agreed on what constitutes Good? If not then how can there be a "God" setting morality or rules for humankind?
Human behaviour is governed by 'reward - punishment'. If not by your parents, society or authority, then by some superior entity. If not immediate then at some future time. To control beings then using reward and punishment is the means to do so. If you cannot be "Big Brother" then you appoint something else to ensure that "No sparrow falls.." Thus the concept of God as the ultimate reward - punisher allows an external morality to be imposed.
The concepts of Big Bang and of Evolution are based on silly and ridiculous assumptions. That the only explanation for a Red-shift is the Doppler effect and that because many beings share anatomy and even DNA the only explantation is that somehow the one changed into the other.
Sure we want to know How and we want to know Why and we can spend all our lives investigating and experimenting but to claim that we know how and we know why is simply Hubris.
"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." --
Socrates
Tautology at its' finest.
I live on the basis that I have my own concept of right and wrong and I really don't care if it aligns with anyone else's. If at some future time I am confronted with a being who is going to judge my actions (and thoughts?) my only defence will be that I was true to myself.
As for the rest of the world and how they will be judged, I really don't give a toss.
Some models (theirs) are just equalerer than others. Bcuz they say so. Is it rly so hard to grok? You must be slow or smth 😉