Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

Then give us one good reason to believe that.

The burden of proof runs the opposite: unless we have sufficient reason to believe in a particular theory, we have no reason to believe.

I have made the point before: the standard of evidence you demand for the theory you wish to be true is very low.

The theory you are advancing is Evolutionism. For it, you have no sufficient transitional forms, nor any explanation for things like triadic symbiosis, nor any sufficient dynamic to warrant progressivist enthusiasms, among other things. So perhaps I can be forgiven if that news fails to disquiet me.

By contrast, the amount of evidence you demand of evolution is "an overwhelming abundance of transitional forms",

*I* don't demand it. The theory itself absolutely requires it. Its absence is a death-blow to the Evolutionist account of human origins, on the basis of the requirements of the evolutionary narrative itself.

Where are the forms the Evolutionary story requires there to have been? That's the question.

[Immanuel Can]

The practical point of all this is an individual who introspects with courage and sincerity loves their own soul and by extension, others' souls.

That’s not at all evident. When Nietzsche “introspected” with “courage and (presumably) sincerity,” he denied the very existence of souls, and the claims others are presumed to have on them. He saw heroism in the courage to embrace death and suffering…even the deaths and sufferings of others, caused by one’s own “Ubermenschen” choices.

I think, B., the human race is not as single-minded about these things as you suggest. Their experiences of “introspection” lead them to very different conclusions. And that, I think, is because “introspection” is, by itself, insufficient. It’s a piece of the necessary information, to be sure; but it’s far from all of the story, and far from enough of it.

What I mean by soul is not what you mean by soul. Every soul should have the opportunity to be Ubermensch.

Nietzsche had Ubermenschen. There were no Uberfraus, in his thinking. It was "masculine" virtues he trumpeted, and the "feminization" of values he found intolerable, embarassing, reprehensible and dispensible.

But why would we think, even if Nietzsche were right, that Uberfraus have any "right" to be expected? If Neitzsche were right, there's nobody in charge of the universe, no plan offering equality -- even as a possibility -- and nothing there to prevent women from being totally and ineluctably inferior to men. And since Nietzsche worshipped power, and power is most inherent in males, he naturally gravitated to a kind of primitive conception of masculinity associated with violence, domination, tyranny and brute force. "You go to women?" he famously wrote, "Do not forget the whip."

That's the point, though. One can "introspect" with all the "courage and sincerity" one can muster, and still end up with barbaric conclusions.

[Harbal]

Its absence is a death-blow to the Evolutionist account of human origins,

I don't know what you are referring to, IC, but, if accuracy means anything at all to you, you must have gone wrong somewhere, because the "Evolutionist account of human origins" is alive and well.

Just out of interest, I am curious to know why missing informatiuon -alleged or actual- about the workings of evolution is a "death blow" to the theory, but the total lack of information about how God created man is seen as no obstacle at all.

[seeds]

It is true that in the realm of ideas I do side with Renaud Camus*.

And let's not forget your fanboy crush on that other "white nationalist" - Jonathan Bowden.

And it is true too that anyone who has ideas like Camus is instantly and ferociously condemned for having them. To have such ideas, according to the popular way of assigning values, is to have a sickness that needs a *cure*. To think or perceive as Camus does is to show oneself a retrograde and reveal a deep immorality.

No, Alexis, not sick or immoral, just walking around on this planet in a deeper level of somnambulism than those of us that see our eternal souls as being absolutely equal to one another.

In other words, the direction you are advocating for humanity is the antithesis of this,...



...though I'm sure you'll provide us with some clever (practical) way of justifying your low-conscious views.

But the curious thing is that ideas such as those of Renaud Camus were, and just a short while ago (a generation or two) the 'normal' way of seeing things.

Yes, and just a few generations before that, the burning of "witches"...



...was the "normal" way of seeing things.

And a few generations before the burning of witches, the crucifying of pretty much anyone who wronged the god-like rulers...



...was also the normal way of seeing things.

And I guess my point is that humans (at least in western societies) do seem to be evolving to the point of no longer having the stomach for witnessing "public displays" of torture and murder.

So that's at least a small step in the right direction.

What came along to change the way that people see and, certainly, define moral views from those that are immoral?

Perhaps it was the general awakening that took place in the 60s?

Or perhaps it's what k.d. lang suggested in her beautiful song "Constant Craving":

Maybe a great magnet pulls
All souls to what's true
Or maybe it is life itself
Feeds wisdom to its youth
https://youtu.be/oXqPjx94YMg

This seems to me the question that needs to be examined and the best tool to do so is a philosophical (i.e. thoughtful and examining) approach.

That's a good idea, Alexis.

However, if all of your "...thoughtful and examining approach..." only takes place within the closed and insular bubble created by your white nationalist heroes - Jonathan Bowden and Renaud Camus - then I'm afraid you're not going to get very far, at least not in any vertical sense.
_______

[Immanuel Can]

Its absence is a death-blow to the Evolutionist account of human origins,

I don't know what you are referring to, IC, but, if accuracy means anything at all to you, you must have gone wrong somewhere, because the "Evolutionist account of human origins" is alive and well.

I'm aware that many people, particularly in the West, are still being fooled by it, despite it's obvious and glaring lacks of sufficient evidence in many regards.

And I'm implying that the reason it's still popular actually has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with ideology. To whit, it's the only story that "works" for the purpose of fending off the sense that human beings are not here randomly, but have purposes to be achieved and ultimate value. So it remains ideologically in demand, even while it's scientifically bankrupt. It's the current story that lets people continue their lives without having to address the question of where they are morally and spiritually, or how they are actually doing in terms of achieving their teleological responsibilities. Thus, it's immensely consoling to them in terms of fending off angst.

But that does not make it true. It just makes it attractive emotionally and ideologically servicable, at least in the present moment.

[iambiguous]

Its absence is a death-blow to the Evolutionist account of human origins,

I don't know what you are referring to, IC, but, if accuracy means anything at all to you, you must have gone wrong somewhere, because the "Evolutionist account of human origins" is alive and well.

I'm aware that many people, particularly in the West, are still being fooled by it, despite it's obvious and glaring lacks of sufficient evidence in many regards.

And I'm implying that the reason it's still popular actually has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with ideology. To whit, it's the only story that "works" for the purpose of fending off the sense that human beings are not here randomly, but have purposes to be achieved and ultimate value. So it remains ideologically in demand, even while it's scientifically bankrupt. It's the current story that lets people continue their lives without having to address the question of where they are morally and spiritually, or how they are actually doing in terms of achieving their teleological responsibilities. Thus, it's immensely consoling to them in terms of fending off angst.

But that does not make it true. It just makes it attractive emotionally and ideologically servicable, at least in the present moment.

Googled "YouTube videos defending evolution": https://www.google.com/search?source=hp ... gle+Search

Next up:

IC provides us with YouTube videos that prove that the Christian God resides in Heaven

[Harbal]

I'm aware that many people, particularly in the West, are still being fooled by it,

Unlike many on this forum, I bear you no ill will, IC, and I sometimes even have a grudging admiration for you, but, nevertheless, I often find myself wanting to bash you over the head with something heavy.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And let's not forget your fanboy crush on that other "white nationalist" - Jonathan Bowden.

Well! You lay it on thick! I have already explored and resolved these issues as ‘moral problems’ so I am largely immune to the moral harangue. But I notice that you make great use of it. And all I really want to do is examine the predicates inform your social, moral and cultural views.

If a Black said to you “My Black identify is very important to me. My origins, my history, and my racial blackness. I want my children to look like me.” What would you say? Would you bust out in a moral condemnatory argument? Would you shame him or her?

What about a Japanese or a Chinese?

Could you support anyone of any ethnicity or race from ‘remaining who they are’? Holding to their identity in all areas — culture, language, traditions, and also their somatic constitution (their physical composition, their genetics as we say today)?

I have a strong feeling that you’d not oppose them with a condemning moral argument. But if you did I would condemn you. I say that any people has a right to preserve themselves.

For this reason I say that the French have a right to define who they are and who they want to be. The French have absorbed many people from many places. Russia, Spain, Greece, etc., and certainly Africans. And that is fine — within reason. But Camus is concerned about something different.

Why and how it has come about that Europeans turned against themselves and transvalued a former capacity to value self-identity: that needs to be examined. It is a very very complex issue.

[Harbal]

Well! You lay it on thick! I have already explored and resolved these issues as ‘moral problems’ so I am largely immune to the moral harangue. But I notice that you make great use of it. And all I really want to do is examine the predicates inform your social, moral and cultural views.

If a Black said to you “My Black identify is very important to me. My origins, my history, and my racial blackness. I want my children to look like me.” What would you say? Would you bust out in a moral condemnatory argument? Would you shame him or her?

What about a Japanese or a Chinese?

Could you support anyone of any ethnicity or race from ‘remaining who they are’? Holding to their identity in all areas — culture, language, traditions, and also their somatic constitution (their physical composition, their genetics as we say today)?

I have a strong feeling that you’d not oppose them with a condemning moral argument. But if you did I would condemn you. I say that any people has a right to preserve themselves.

For this reason I say that the French have a right to define who they are and who they want to be. The French have absorbed many people from many places. Russia, Spain, Greece, etc., and certainly Africans. And that is fine — within reason. But Camus is concerned about something different.

Why and how it has come about that Europeans turned against themselves and transvalued a former capacity to value self-identity: that needs to be examined. It is a very very complex issue.

I think most people are aware of the issues created by immigration, and some of us see it as more of a problem than others, but I sense that is not what this recent spate of hostility towards you is about. I have a feeling it is the solutions you would propose that is causing suspicion.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And I'm implying that the reason it's still popular actually has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with ideology. To whit, it's the only story that "works" for the purpose of fending off the sense that human beings are not here randomly, but have purposes to be achieved and ultimate value. So it remains ideologically in demand, even while it's scientifically bankrupt. It's the current story that lets people continue their lives without having to address the question of where they are morally and spiritually, or how they are actually doing in terms of achieving their teleological responsibilities. Thus, it's immensely consoling to them in terms of fending off angst.

Classic IC!

Immanuel you confuse categories. You lament that material science does not have and can’t have the concerns that teleological religion and Jewish theology has (in spades). You know that there are problems in evolutionary theory. But that is not a sufficient base on which to rebuild a Christian creationist mythology that matches your Genesis picture.

You would have to suppose that the Creator simply shazammed the entire complex material and biological order into existence with all the interlocking complexities pre-made.

That it all happened is enough.

The ‘purpose’ of life, moral and spiritual questions, these can be discerned as instilled within the creation itself (in conscious beings) without resorting to mythical fabulations.

You have one teleology. To protect the ancient Christian picture from collapsing. And yet it cannot any longer stand in its anterior form. Except for those who need or prefer the fabulation to support their intuited sense about purpose and ends.

I’ve been trying to straighten you out for months now. Why do you remain so stubbornly bent!?! I provide an angst-less philosophical way and means to everything you say you need without the Garden, the Talking Snake, the Whirling Angelic Sword of Exile and a great deal more.

For $9.99 a month!

[Lacewing]

I deliberately made an outrageous comment for effect

And I responded appropriately to that.

I have noticed that when certain things are said or mentioned (in this case Renaud Camus and 'replacement') that in less than a blink of the eye one gets labeled in certain ways -- for example as Flash does with his Nazi tirades.

I'm not sure this 'In less than a blink of the eye' applies in this case. You've been here a long time, and written a lot, so it looks as if this is (instead) an impression that has been formed over time. It seems that you could clarify it quite easily in a straight-forward manner, but you've been playing avoidance games instead, over and over.

I assume that you are aware that in the present political and social circumstances this sort of polarity is extremely common. What are your thoughts on that sort of polarization?

You already know that I've spoken about this a lot. So, are you trying to use me here to detour the conversation from another one you're avoiding?

The rejection of seeing and honoring integral connection is a disease. It's like cutting off a part of your body because it doesn't match or function like the other parts.

The thing to notice here...

...is that you are completely ignoring my response and are instead shifting to where and how you want to focus now.

...just as I am thinking about *disease* and *diseased outlooks* so are you (and I mean not only you-singular but the you-plural of the larger society). So for this reason it is interesting (more interesting than mere bickering) to examine why it is that we have these views. On what predicates are they based.

Humankind's advancement beyond archaic ideas.

But the curious thing is that ideas such as those of Renaud Camus were, and just a short while ago (a generation or two) the 'normal' way of seeing things. What came along to change the way that people see and, certainly, define moral views from those that are immoral?

Evolvement. Culture eventually moves beyond practices of the past -- some of them being horrific and extraordinarily ignorant. Those who still practice or believe in such things (for whatever personal payoff it provides) may now be seen as dangerous extremists.

When people have strong opinions it means they are coming from defined positions.

Well, that's how you're framing it to justify yourself. But strong opinions and defined positions come from many things... including: ignorance, fear, ego, etc. A man who is considered intelligent in some circles or in a certain era, may become much less significant in other circles and eras.

Our world's evolvement and development are moving at lightning speed, while we humans can only try to keep up with it. The foundations and patterns and measures of the past have less applicability in this climate of constant advancement. Rather, flexibility and expansion of thought and capability are more suitable for this fast-evolving world. Those who insist on the permanent value of their 'defined position' are actually, in many cases, hindering the value of evolvement.

Humankind may be at a point of shifting our thoughts and perceptions in a whole new way from what we've known (and tried to master) before. Perhaps we're not just improving on mechanical gears anymore, rather we're leaning to function fluidly. Your efforts to pin it all down, define it and 'know' it to a degree that satisfies you are likely the ego-bound efforts dependent on a past from which it was born.

[iambiguous]

If a Black said to you “My Black identify is very important to me. My origins, my history, and my racial blackness. I want my children to look like me.” What would you say? Would you bust out in a moral condemnatory argument? Would you shame him or her?

Come on, AJ, the reason why a black man or a black woman here in America might embrace an attitude like that is because up until the Civil Rights movement, blacks in America were often portrayed to be inferior to whites. Affirmative action revolved precisely around the historical fact that in regard to social, politcal and economic opportunities whites were all but guarenteed affirmative action. Institutional racism was everywhere. And not just in the deep South.

Me? Well, as with most things, I am no less drawn and quartered in regard to race. I have my own "existential, rooted subjectively in dasein" political prejudices but racism itself is still so wide-spread who really knows where and when it stops being genes and starts being memes.

More to the point [mine] there's your own existential trajectory here. What personal experiences and relationships did you have that started you off down the racialist road. If that's how you would describe yourself.

And what demonstrable proof do you have that your own political prejudices here are not just prejudices at all...but can in fact be confirmed by, say, science?

White genes, black genes, yellow genes, French genes, Russian genes, Chinese genes? Or is it all almost certainly far more complex and convoluted?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm aware that many people, particularly in the West, are still being fooled by it,

Unlike many on this forum, I bear you no ill will, IC, and I sometimes even have a grudging admiration for you, but, nevertheless, I often find myself wanting to bash you over the head with something heavy.

You can. I suggest an upper-case "D."

It won't affect what the truth is, though, obviously. either way.

If I'm right, I'm right. If I'm wrong, then Evolutionists should be able to produce the number and sorts of transitional human fossils their theory would make us expect.

That they can't, means...what?

[Immanuel Can]

You know that there are problems in evolutionary theory. But that is not a sufficient base on which to rebuild a Christian creationist mythology that matches your Genesis picture.

I wasn't doing that.

In other posts, in other places, I've talked about evidences FOR Creation. There are such, and they certainly warrant attention. But not here.

In this post, and in this conversational context, I'm talking about how the lack of evidences erodes the justification for any faith in Evolutionist anthropogenic accounts. I'm not even proposing to plug for an alternative...yet. I'm just pointing out the problems inherent to, and internal in, Evolutionism as a theory of human origins.

These would continue to exist, even if I were to become a proponent of a completely different creed...a Buddhist, perhaps, or an Islamist, or a Rastafarian. It would make no difference at all which, because faults in my own belief would not plug a single gap in Evolutionists' own faults. To think otherwise is merely an et tu quoque fallacy.

We need to keep the subject the subject. The illogical leap you attribute to me is strictly your own invention here. It has not been mine.

The ‘purpose’ of life, moral and spiritual questions, these can be discerned as instilled within the creation itself (in conscious beings) without resorting to mythical fabulations.

"Instilled"? By what?

And please, do explain how these are "discerned" by you. I'm very interested. I often wonder how skeptics manage to convince themselves that they have "discerned" such things...on what basis, and using what method.

Go ahead. I'm attentive.

[Harbal]

If I'm right, I'm right. If I'm wrong, then Evolutionists should be able to produce the number and sorts of transitional human fossils their theory would make us expect.

That they can't, means...what?

Okay, but while we're waiting for the evolutionists, how about you produce the details of how God did it?