Christianity

[Lacewing]

Open Letter to Immanuel Can

Let the truth be known, let it be realized: you are possessed by a demonic parasite that controls your consciousness!

I've observed and commented on this before.

It's fascinating to notice the connection between the evil and its self-anointed gate-keepers. They brew and distribute the poisonous ideas, and then claim to have the necessary healing tonic.

Most Christians I know are truly good-hearted people who mean well, even though they are infected with some senseless ideas. They keep to themselves or focus on doing 'good works'. It is the Christian extremists (and I consider I.C. to be one) who distribute the poisonous ideas with such ego, that they must continually employ deceptive and distorted tactics to preserve the ego and its self-serving nonsense. That demonstrates the dark side of Christianity which is naturally mis-used by many.

There's a reason why Christians are represented as a flock of sheep. And those who step into sheepherder roles, continually seek to increase the herd for their own glory. Part of that process is to further terrify the sheep. What better way for evil to control people? Masquerade as a loving, protecting shepherd, while convincing people that they need it. It's really twisted. And many Christians have done an excellent job of demonstrating this poison and nonsense, so that much of humankind can move beyond it in as little as a few thousand years.

[Harbal]

Well, let's be clear, first: there are two different issues. One is what the objective values ARE, and the second is what given people THINK they might be. The variances in the second say nothing whatseover about the existence of the first.

So we have "choices" always as to whether or not we adopt the objectively right values. But our "choice" won't make a good value bad, or a bad value right.

Given that, let's take a simple case. In my last message, I implied racism and genocide are objectively evil. Does that mean nobody ever committed racism or genocide? Obviously not. But their having done so does not cause our objective rejection of racism and genocide to be merely a subjective valuing; we are quite right to deplore racism and genocide, if racism and genocide are objectively wrong -- which, we both hold, they are; but our "holding" doesn't make them so. They just really are so.

But your saying, or the Bible saying, or the law saying, that racism is wrong, does not, in itself, make it objectively wrong. If any particular group were to say, "no, we do not believe that racism is wrong", then what object can you point at to show that it is wrong?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Alexis Jacobi, I did not say looking to the self, I said ourselves. The self is not a thing, the self is a way to explain experiential phenomena. As subjects of experience we need to be totally sceptical of all of what you yourself may view as mind worms (Your letter to AC). Every theory of existence, bar none, is heuristic.
Consequently it is the responsibility of the human adult to be sceptical of hierarchical theories of power, if only for the obvious reason that those who endorse them have vested interest in them.

I think I understand very well what you say, and also why you say it. I regard the Self as something distinct from the self or ourself and obviously, by extension, ourselves. But I do know and understand what you mean by ourselves.

[Harbal]

The study of what? Of declarations? Or of the Bible?

If you mean the Bible, the term is, obviously, "Theology." If you mean "declarations," it would be "Linguistics."

But I'm puzzled by the reason for such an easy question, so maybe I'm misunderstanding...

Sorry, IC, I jumped to conclusions. You say that the theory of evolution is based on weak, and even non-existent, evidence, so I, assuming that you supported the Biblical account of the origin of human beings, was going to ask you where the superior evidence for that was. I haven't actually seen you state that you do support the Biblical version of events, so I've jumped the gun.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, let's be clear, first: there are two different issues. One is what the objective values ARE, and the second is what given people THINK they might be. The variances in the second say nothing whatseover about the existence of the first.

So we have "choices" always as to whether or not we adopt the objectively right values. But our "choice" won't make a good value bad, or a bad value right.

Given that, let's take a simple case. In my last message, I implied racism and genocide are objectively evil. Does that mean nobody ever committed racism or genocide? Obviously not. But their having done so does not cause our objective rejection of racism and genocide to be merely a subjective valuing; we are quite right to deplore racism and genocide, if racism and genocide are objectively wrong -- which, we both hold, they are; but our "holding" doesn't make them so. They just really are so.

But your saying,or the Bible saying, or the law saying, that racism is wrong, does not, in itself, make it objectively wrong.

"Make"? Of course it doesn't "make" it so: it merely "signals that it is already so." A "declaration" is a statement of something that is already the case, not the start of something new.

If any particular group were to say, "no, we do not believe that racism is wrong", then what object can you point to show that it is wrong?

Well, many have, haven't they?

But again, we have to separate between moral epistemology and moral ontology here. (That's just an elaborate way of saying again that what IS the case, and what people KNOW is the case are two different issues.)

Whether or not I can persuade a particular group of something is an moral-epistemological problem -- can I get them to "know" it, in other words. Whether or not I'm right about what I try to persuade them is a moral-ontological question.

Even if I cannot convince them, racism and genocide would still be wrong, if such deeds are ontologically wrong.

So that raises the question of what makes a thing ontologically right or wrong, doesn't it? And the Christian answer is as follows: that which conforms to the character and purposes of God is ontologically moral. That which is unharmonious with God's character and contrary to His intentions is ontologically immoral.

Now, will that satisfy somebody who's not a Christian? Probably not. But if so, that's a moral-epistemological fault on her part, not a moral-ontological one on mine, if, as the Bible informs us, God happens to agree with a particular assessment.

So whether action X is moral (ontologically) or not has no dependency at all on how many human being think, or fail to know that it is.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...you are....

The "puppy" again.

That's ad hominem.

See? You can't help yourself. You can't face the arguments, so you resort to slander. It's all you've got.

It's funny...but also, I have to confess, a little sad...to see somebody who SHOULD be capable of rational thought lapse into name-calling and caricature. But it's also not terribly surprising.

To quote Hamlet, it seems "all your golden words are spent," and you are quite out of rational options.

If that blocking strategy works for you by all means keep using it. I need to be as real as possible with you: you do not deal in arguments. You copy & paste Bible quotes. These have been copied & pasted into your mind. That is the limit of your argumentation.

What I do, in contradistinction, is try to locate the operative idea in some of your memetic assertions and present them in such a way that they can be made sense of. True, they can also be rejected as another form of memetism, but at the very least the conversation is kept open, the general topic is still open.

You do absolutely nothing constructive for your entire religious presentation! Nothing! You seem to relish that you drive people away from any possibility to understand Christianity at an essential level.

On the scale of wonderfulness you are about .3 whereas I soar up to 8.7 and I am only getting better! Eventually, oh the day may not be far off, I will win back Lacewing's love and even Harbal (I always want to write Hairball) will croak out something that sort of resembles praise!

It's funny...but also, I have to confess, a little sad...to see somebody who SHOULD be capable of rational thought lapse into name-calling and caricature. But it's also not terribly surprising.

Religious zealotry is a very specific thing. And your brand of Evangelical Christian zealotry especially. It is fair to call it out whenever it appears. Thus it is not ad hominem but a really part of the larger conversation. It has to be seen and addressed.

[Dontaskme]

Nobody has EVER "observed" human "evolution." And you don't "see it happening" now, either.

Observed implies an observer.

No human being has EVER observed the observer. So how can you even assume the idea of something being ''observed'' IC ?

Dont forget to answer the really hard questions IC ..the one's you cleverly selectively ignore because you are just a bluffing baboon like the rest of us.

[Dontaskme]

Nobody has EVER "observed" human "evolution." And you don't "see it happening" now, either.

What iF evolution is what got you here, the one who is able to say the words....Nobody has EVER "observed" human "evolution." And you don't "see it happening" now, either.

Otherwise, who is it saying those words? who is this (nobody) that has never observed human "evolution." And who is it that don't "see it happening" now, either...yet is able to say IT?

Dont forget to answer the really hard questions IC ..the one's you cleverly selectively ignore because you are just a bluffing baboon like the rest of us.

[Harbal]

But again, we have to separate between moral epistemology and moral ontology here. (That's just an elaborate way of saying again that what IS the case, and what people KNOW is the case are two different issues.)

Whether or not I can persuade a particular group of something is an moral-epistemological problem -- can I get them to "know" it, in other words. Whether or not I'm right about what I try to persuade them is a moral-ontological question.

Even if I cannot convince them, racism and genocide would still be wrong, if such deeds are ontologically wrong.

So that raises the question of what makes a thing ontologically right or wrong, doesn't it? And the Christian answer is as follows: that which conforms to the character and purposes of God is ontologically moral. That which is unharmonious with God's character and contrary to His intentions is ontologically immoral.

Now, will that satisfy somebody who's not a Christian? Probably not. But if so, that's a moral-epistemological fault on her part, not a moral-ontological one on mine, if, as the Bible informs us, God happens to agree with a particular assessment.

So whether action X is moral (ontologically) or not has no dependency at all on how many human being think, or fail to know that it is.

That's not even an argument. All you are saying is that if God declares something to be wrong, it is wrong. Simple as that. What if I believe in a different God, and he says racism is fine?

[Immanuel Can]

...you are....

The "puppy" again.

That's ad hominem.

See? You can't help yourself. You can't face the arguments, so you resort to slander. It's all you've got.

It's funny...but also, I have to confess, a little sad...to see somebody who SHOULD be capable of rational thought lapse into name-calling and caricature. But it's also not terribly surprising.

To quote Hamlet, it seems "all your golden words are spent," and you are quite out of rational options.

If that blocking strategy works for you by all means keep using it.

It's not "blocking." It's that what you say, about me or anybody else, has ZERO to do with the truth or falsehood of what they say. Zero.

Here: https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and- ... d-hominem/

Sorry, chum...you're just never going to get anywhere with me by being totally irrelevant. Philosophy's about logic and arguments, not personal slanders. You're just being...really, really boring and entirely unrelated to anything that applies.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The study of what? Of declarations? Or of the Bible?

If you mean the Bible, the term is, obviously, "Theology." If you mean "declarations," it would be "Linguistics."

But I'm puzzled by the reason for such an easy question, so maybe I'm misunderstanding...

Sorry, IC, I jumped to conclusions. You say that the theory of evolution is based on weak, and even non-existent, evidence, so I, assuming that you supported the Biblical account of the origin of human beings, was going to ask you where the superior evidence for that was. I haven't actually seen you state that you do support the Biblical version of events, so I've jumped the gun.

Perhaps I'm wrong, Little Brother, but it seems to me that the real key that helps us get to the core of the evolution question is actually the structure of DNA. I know my view is simplistic but it is not the form so much (the final result, the actual animal or plant) but the programming that made it.

I wonder what Tillingborn has to say about this?

The structure of DNA (the code that writes the biological form) is really what has to be explained it seems to me. Mathematically -- they say -- it could not have arisen spontaneously or randomly. They make sound arguments (for example Berlinksi whose specialty is mathematics). How did 'code' come to be? But what intelligence and what genius wrote the code or created the code? I am not here resorting to a god or divinity as an answer. I am simply supposing that it is in that where the mystery lies. It seems to me that everything extends back to *the mystery of existence* itself. That anything exists. That existence exists.

And this simply cannot be explained. Most explanations actually explain it away.

Once a code-structure existed -- however it did come to be -- it is then capable of any sort of mutations as are forced on it by environment.

Though Immanuel will not put his strange cards on the table what he might believe is that 'god created the code that structures biological life'. This would fit into his idea that all things proceed from 'god" which for him is the Bagel God of Jewish lore. And yes god does have a yiddish accent!

Or he could mean, more literally, that god shazzamed the cosmos into existence simply by his will and created a world where all the relationships existed. The elephant already had his trunk. The archerfish could already spit with startling accuracy.

But all of the details are in this sense irrelevant because at the final point what IC is convinced of, and what he must communicate to those who he sees as outside of god's grace, is the necessity of 'being saved'. So as an a priori that is the central tenet.

[Lacewing]

Immanuel Can... You seem to relish that you drive people away from any possibility to understand Christianity at an essential level.

That's it! Only Immanuel Can sits in that position! The rest of us shall forever be clawing at his feet.

As long as he thinks highly of himself, that's all that matters... and that's really what this is all about for him, as we see him continually demonstrate. No one can come close. He and his nonsense are untouchable. Like countless others, he uses the delusional concept of God for his own glory. It doesn't matter if it's make-believe. Nobody can ever get him to admit it... so he will never be caught in his pretense and have to face the realization and death of his ego. He'll die before that can ever happen.

[Immanuel Can]

But again, we have to separate between moral epistemology and moral ontology here. (That's just an elaborate way of saying again that what IS the case, and what people KNOW is the case are two different issues.)

Whether or not I can persuade a particular group of something is an moral-epistemological problem -- can I get them to "know" it, in other words. Whether or not I'm right about what I try to persuade them is a moral-ontological question.

Even if I cannot convince them, racism and genocide would still be wrong, if such deeds are ontologically wrong.

So that raises the question of what makes a thing ontologically right or wrong, doesn't it? And the Christian answer is as follows: that which conforms to the character and purposes of God is ontologically moral. That which is unharmonious with God's character and contrary to His intentions is ontologically immoral.

Now, will that satisfy somebody who's not a Christian? Probably not. But if so, that's a moral-epistemological fault on her part, not a moral-ontological one on mine, if, as the Bible informs us, God happens to agree with a particular assessment.

So whether action X is moral (ontologically) or not has no dependency at all on how many human being think, or fail to know that it is.

That's not even an argument.

No, but you didn't ask me for an argument, did you? It's just a description of the difference between moral ontology and moral epistemology.

All you are saying is that if God declares something to be wrong, it is wrong.

Not quite. And that's the difference you're not catching yet. I'll say it again, and see if you can detect how it changes things: "that which conforms to the character and purposes of God is ontologically moral. That which is unharmonious with God's character and contrary to His intentions is ontologically immoral."

So no, God could not just declare the immoral to be moral, or the moral to be immoral. God Himself is consistent with His own character -- which is a privilege, by the way, that He alone has: you and I often fall short of our own "best selves," don't we? But He never has to. That's a perk of ominipotence coupled with goodness.

If racism is not harmonious with the character of God, it will always be immoral. And God will never declare it moral, either. But if it were harmonious with the character of God for Him to prefer some persons over others, on any basis consistent with His own character, then that would be moral.

Now, though, to moral epistemology: it's one thing for God to know that X is moral or immoral; the question might arise, how do WE know what He knows about that?

And the answer? He could tell us. And if we were prepared to believe Him, we'd know too. And if we were not, then we would not know. And if that were the case, it's probably that some number would know, and some number would not; but given that man as a race is, at present, alienated from God, plausibly far fewer of the former than of the latter.

However, that would make no difference to the objective moral ontology.

[iambiguous]

Yo, AJ! You're up!

Iambiguous wrote: But according to Wiki...

"Renaud Camus born Jean Renaud Gabriel Camus on 10 August 1946) is a French novelist, conspiracy theorist and white nationalist writer. He is the inventor of the 'Great Replacement', a far-right conspiracy theory that claims that a 'global elite' is colluding against the white population of Europe to replace them with non-European peoples.

"Camus's 'Great Replacement' theory has been translated on far-right websites and adopted by far-right groups to reinforce the white genocide conspiracy theory. Although Camus has repeatedly condemned and disavowed the use of violence, his theory has nevertheless influenced several mass shootings, including in Christchurch, El Paso, and Buffalo."

And some might be convinced that this frame of mind revolves around the racist assumption that white folks are superior to other races. Though I've come across white folks who argue that the yellow race is actually intellectually superior to the white race. But never the black or brown skinned folks.

Where do your views fit in here?

What other people think is not much concern to me. Nor should it be to you. Other people have their own ideas and objectives.

That will be construed as ridiculous to some. Okay, sure, what people think here about race in a world of words is easy enough to shrug off. But to the extent that they have the power to act out what they believe about it socially, politically and economically?

And again, my focus here is not on what people profess to believe but the extent to which they probe the existential relationship between that and the points I raise here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529

To link him with mass shootings is the ultimate use of spin, don't you think? This is typical today: if you do not think politically correctly you will be associated with Adolf Hitler. You know how this works, don't you?

Again, that involves the complex intertwining of ends and means. With dasein, of course. One may reject violence in regard to race, but to the extent one advocates racialist arguments is the extent to which others may not reject it at all.

I do not see things in terms of superior and inferior. I would rather examine a culture and try to see what they value and try to see that as fine and good.

Right, like "fine and good" values are not themselves rooted out in particular worlds existentially...subsumed in this rather than that historical, cultural and interpersonal context.

Do you mean to ask me if I think that our Occidental culture or cultures are *superior* to others? I might say that "It appears to me to be the case". Or I might say it does not matter except that for me my own culture is the one I value. But it would not mean, necessarily, that I would stand in judgment of other cultures and try to send agents in to disrupt their own processes or change them.

Okay, that's one frame of mind, of course. What's crucial here however is the extent to which others insist it's a manifestation of human biology. Such that other races are said to be "naturally"/"genetically" inferior. Where's the objective science rather than the hopelessly subjective political prejudices rooted in dasein to back that up?

And, if someone embraces the superior cultures "memes", let them note how, given particular sets of circumstances, that can be demonstrated.

It is true that in terms of IQ that on average the Asians have higher IQs -- but is IQ the only measure? I do not think so.

Here one might argue that oriental cultures are more fiercely determined to raise children in an environment that drums education and the work ethic into their heads. As opposed to other communities in which that frame of mind is mocked and ridiculed: "acting white", say.

In terms of America? I would be concerned, and with good reasons, if the super-majority demographic status of European-derived Americans was lost. In about 50 years (since 1965) this has been happening (eroding demographics). It is leading and will lead to all sorts os social problems.

Okay, how concerned? Politically, how far would you go to prevent this? If you had political power in any particular community, what behaviors would you yourself proscribe in regard to the races?

My position is quite similar to Ann Coulter's. All immigration *should be* put on moratorium until all those who have arrived in the last few decades as 'assimilated'. Those who arrived illegally should be deported. But that could only take place if there was a general will that to have entered illegally is a 'bad thing'. Otherwise, it would be and it will be impossible to remove those who arrived this way.

But this opens whole other sets of social problems (not being able to take any action at all).

Same thing though. Does Coulter's point of view revolve more around culture or skin color?

Google "Is Ann Coulter a racist?" and you get this: https://www.google.com/search?q=is+ann+ ... s-wiz-serp

It appears that she might be. And what does it mean to be assimilated? Give us some specific examples of what it means [to you] to be in sync with the occidental -- white? -- culture. In terms of what?

The example I have referred to recently is that of France. Because it is a smaller nation I suppose and it is easier to see the perspective that Camus has. Also there is an existing political movement going on in France which has an articulated position. Other nations such as Denmark and Sweden have or are in a process of confronting problematic demographic issues. Eastern Europe is also I'd say *on alert*.

What can I note but this: pertaining to what contexts? There's the way we live and the way they live? And our way is better? And, sure, all of us draw our own lines here. Re clitorectomies, for example. Or "Taliban orders head-to-toe coverings for Afghan women in public".

But, context by context, there's what's problematic for some but not for others. So, given that we are discussing this in a philosophy venue, are there tools available to philosophers enabling them to, say, pin down the "wisest" behaviors? Or, instead, is my own frame of mind more reasonable?

Also, what of those like the Jews? White Jews, say. Or white Muslims. Or white Hindus. Where does god and religion factor in here for you?

All I can say is that in my view the United States is headed into various different types and levels of social catastrophe.

Here, of course, it all revolves around how adamant you are that your own moral and political value judgments are not in fact subjective pollical prejudices rooted existentially in dasein...but instead reflect some sort of inherent cultural or racial superiority. If that is the case, there is little likelihood that others might persuade you to change your mind. If white culture is the default point of view, well, there's not much others can do about any number of demographic factors in their lives. Though in regard to any number of "social issues", even white culture is awash in conflicting goods.

Then [from my own frame of mind] back up into the clouds you go:

We have seen the beginnings. These arise not out of the nada but for causal reasons. There are quite a number of speculations about where this is going and what it will lead to. I am aware of many of them. I do not myself have a position. I have the luxury of an independent position. And I prefer intellectual approach.

If I say such things it is not my words that produce it, it is causes that are already in motion.

The "intellectual approach" it is then. And, fortunately for you, there are any number of posters here more than eager to accommodate you up there. But that's not for me.

[Immanuel Can]

The study of what? Of declarations? Or of the Bible?

If you mean the Bible, the term is, obviously, "Theology." If you mean "declarations," it would be "Linguistics."

But I'm puzzled by the reason for such an easy question, so maybe I'm misunderstanding...

Sorry, IC, I jumped to conclusions. You say that the theory of evolution is based on weak, and even non-existent, evidence, so I, assuming that you supported the Biblical account of the origin of human beings, was going to ask you where the superior evidence for that was.

Oh, I see.

Well, with the others, I've been talking about the other side: the evidence against human evolution, namely, that none of the things we should expect to find if the human evolutionary tale were true, are what we actually find; and that there are a variety of purely scientific lines of argument and scientific prnciples that count powerfully against that tale. But so far, I haven't undertaken what you're asking for now, because it hasn't been the subject of others' concern so much as they were concerned to defend human evolutionism against it's own inherent faults.

So up to now, it hadn't been necessary to campaign for the alternative; it was sufficient for me to show that Evolutionism itself cannot meet its own burden of proof. But I wasn't dodging the task, just focusing on the other one.

Let me rectify that. Maybe I can oblige by just starting with a few things -- underdeveloped, admittedly, because just mentioned, not yet explained -- but which we can pursue further, as you like.

Human complexity is one. The mind is another. Morality is a third. Anthropocentrism is another. Revelation, yet another. The existence of spirituality is another, and genetics, another -- though I have mentioned already things like the lack of variety in modern humanoids. And I don't suppose that this exhausts the list, but it gives us a starter selection from which to work, if you see anything that interests you.

What's your pleasure?