humor and being ''WOKE''

[Gary Childress]

Who's to say that the creator of the universe was just one entity--one which must be obeyed or else?

Hi, Gary...I thought you were busy.

Who can concentrate on work when their soul is going to burn in hell when they die? How is anyone who isn't a Christian supposed to truly accomplish anything of merit when under the yoke of guilt and fear?

So if a person thinks that there was more than one "God" who was the creator of everything, what would you say to that person?

I'm just pointing out that their idea of "god" is not what is meant by modern Westerners and Monotheists when they say "God." Those are two concepts, not the same concept.

To the Greeks there wasn't much in the way of rigid rhyme or reason half of the time to their fickle Gods. The god's didn't agree with each other. And weren't always fair or nice. Sounds a lot like real life in a relatively free society to me. Phanes was the Greek god of creation But they didn't idolize Phanes paramount over all others. There were many Gods representing many archetypal human tendencies and ideas and if a person didn't fit in with one God, then there could perhaps be another out there that was more of that person's temperament.

Then Socrates comes along and questions Euthryphro as to what "piety" is and ever since then Plato, the son of an aristocrat, introduced us to the single-minded pursuit of "the good". Since then all of us have been struggling to be "good". Add to that the Roman clergy who told their "flock" that they would go to hell if they didn't follow Jesus (who could only be truly deciphered by the pope).

If I had to guess, I'd say Yahweh is some kind of mental imprint tucked away in Abraham's mind. Maybe even echos from his own father perhaps. His father, after all, played a part in "creating" him and from the sounds of it, may have been an overbearing father. Indeed, we have an angry God who punishes with extreme prejudice those who aren't his "children". Of course, Paul in Romans say that we can "graft" ourselves into God's children, but from the sounds of it his kids get primary dibbs first.

So we have to decide if we want to talk about gods, or God. It won't turn out to be reasonable to talk as if both concepts are the same. That would be an error of amphiboly.

This "basis" is logic, in particular, analytics.

That's what we've got so far.

If you say so Plato the aristocrat.

[Immanuel Can]

Which one is the best hypothesis to engage, well, you'll have to use further methods to discern that. And they will be empirical and probabilistic arguments, rather than pure logic.

So, empirically, if there are more monotheists than atheists, that would mean the monotheists have it right, and vv.?

Heh. That would be bandwagon fallacy. Truth is not "whatever the vote says." It's whatever IS the case, whether popular thought knows it or not. But I suspect you know that, or you wouldn't have posed the question, right?

So no, that's not what I'm suggesting.

I don’t think this is what you mean by empirical and probabilistic methods, is it?

You're correct. I did not mean that.

What I did mean to ask you is this: before we move beyond pure logic and pure analytics, and start to look at the particulars of the various options through probabilistic and empirical methods, do we need to keep entertaining the "gods" hypothesis as part of our theory? Or is our real concern the Supreme Being hypothesis, which, as we have seen, is analytically not the same hypothesis at all?

I leave it up to you. We can keep Polytheism in, as a live option, or we can take it out.

[Immanuel Can]

To the Greeks there wasn't much in the way of rigid rhyme or reason half of the time to their fickle Gods. The god's didn't agree with each other.

That's a very important point, Gary. That's another key feature that makes the Polytheistic hypothesis NOT the same as the hypothesis debated by Monotheists and Atheists.

The latter two are focused on the question of a Supreme Being, not on a hypothesis involving little godlets running around and doing strange things with each other and to human beings. Zeus is the chief Greek god, and Odin the chief Norse god; but they're nowhere near a Supreme Being in concept. Both have origin stories and end-of-world stories; and both squabble and bellow and in their personal conduct, heel about like drunken frat boys, chasing human women, having hissy fits, betraying others, throwing curses and benefits out like emperors. There's not logic, nor reasoning, nor coherence to their conduct, and there certainly isn't moral integrity.

So is that the conception of God that the Monotheists and Atheists wish to debate? I suspect not. In the case of many of the Monotheists, I guarantee it isn't. And I think the Atheists regard it as too trival a depiction of potential divine activity to even be worth debating; so they tend not to bother with it at all.

[Gary Childress]

Which one is the best hypothesis to engage, well, you'll have to use further methods to discern that. And they will be empirical and probabilistic arguments, rather than pure logic.

So, empirically, if there are more monotheists than atheists, that would mean the monotheists have it right, and vv.?

Heh. That would be bandwagon fallacy. Truth is not "whatever the vote says." It's whatever IS the case, whether popular thought knows it or not. But I suspect you know that, or you wouldn't have posed the question, right?

So no, that's not what I'm suggesting.

I don’t think this is what you mean by empirical and probabilistic methods, is it?

You're correct. I did not mean that.

What I did mean to ask you is this: before we move beyond pure logic and pure analytics, and start to look at the particulars of the various options through probabilistic and empirical methods, do we need to keep entertaining the "gods" hypothesis as part of our theory? Or is our real concern the Supreme Being hypothesis, which, as we have seen, is analytically not the same hypothesis at all?

I leave it up to you. We can keep Polytheism in, as a live option, or we can take it out.

Sure. Now the 64-cent question is, which is the true case? if I were the one creator or one of a group of creators, aside from creating a beautiful blonde goddess to be at my side while I sip sweet tea around the pool, I'd stay out of the picture and let the humans figure everything out for themselves. Otherwise, somebody will only pick up the torch and use it to burn someone else they don't like in my name. But maybe that's just me. And honestly, if I were God, I wouldn't want to claim responsibility for the mess that the world is right now. So make no mistake, I ain't God.

[commonsense]

I leave it up to you. We can keep Polytheism in, as a live option, or we can take it out.

Drop’em! Drop’em now!

I meant to say earlier that since the polytheists are not playing in the same game, we really don’t need to include them anymore.

Now that’s logical.

[commonsense]

I need sleep. I’ll be back tomorrow.

[Immanuel Can]

So make no mistake, I ain't God.

We are all much relieved.

[Immanuel Can]

I leave it up to you. We can keep Polytheism in, as a live option, or we can take it out.

Drop’em! Drop’em now!

I meant to say earlier that since the polytheists are not playing in the same game, we really don’t need to include them anymore.

Now that’s logical.

I find that reasonable.

I also find it reasonable for you to have sleep.

We'll talk again. Suspended for now.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The odd thing about wokism is that wokies are universally loathed. They don't fool anyone. Think of the gleeful reaction to Ricky Gervais' deliciously on-the-mark take down of Hollywood hypocrisy at the Golden Globes. How then does the cult of woke wield so much power? Are people really that stupid? So stupid that they are incapable of comprehending that anything other than 'woke' is to be a rabid, genocidal Nazi? That is the power of wokery. It's why wokies call everyone who doesn't toe their line down to the tiniest detail, a 'racist', 'bigot', 'Nazi' 'insertphobe' blah blah blah--all insults that they know normal, decent human beings hate being called. If someone was truly all of those things then being called them would be water off a duck's back. Wokies know this. Normal people know it. It's a PR stunt from hell. 'If you aren't with us then you are against us' taken to the Nth degree.
'Many' being subdued by 'a few' is hardly a new phenomenon in human society. You don't have to dig very deep to find examples of this.
We are on the brink of 'something'. Have humans learnt from their past mistakes? It will be fascinating to watch and wait. Are women really going to allow themselves to be essentially driven out of existence by an ideology that is rooted in extreme misogyny?
I would never have thought that American women would placidly accept the upturning of Roe vs Wade-- but where are the marches? What are they doing about it? How could that even happen? Have humans just given up? Are the wokie twitterazis really the only thing that passes for 'activists' these days?

Now, how are we going to keep Eddie Izzard out of the women's toilets? We need a plan...

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The trans genocide. Who knew that hippos were the culprits?

hippo.jpg

[Wizard22]

What a ridiculous statement. I side with science, logic, facts and reason. The infuriating thing is that religious nuts are only 'agreeing' with me for nefarious reasons. The awful irony is that the cult of woke is doing exactly the same thing as any other religion--indoctrinating children. The difference here is that children are being medically altered to suit a religious agenda. Christians would be perfectly happy for this to happen if it suited THEIR religious agenda. Take away all the political/religious agenda bullshit and what are you left with? Misogyny and child abuse--both of which christianity has never been averse to.

I don't see the far-right sexualizing children and castrating them. Do you?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

What a ridiculous statement. I side with science, logic, facts and reason. The infuriating thing is that religious nuts are only 'agreeing' with me for nefarious reasons. The awful irony is that the cult of woke is doing exactly the same thing as any other religion--indoctrinating children. The difference here is that children are being medically altered to suit a religious agenda. Christians would be perfectly happy for this to happen if it suited THEIR religious agenda. Take away all the political/religious agenda bullshit and what are you left with? Misogyny and child abuse--both of which christianity has never been averse to.

I don't see the far-right sexualizing children and castrating them. Do you?

Read what I wrote.

[Wizard22]

We need a plan...

And did you read what I said?

Go to Church. Pray the Rosary. Make sure your Priest is against any-and-all Wokism.

Or better yet, convert to Islam, which the Wokies truly fear.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

We need a plan...

And did you read what I said?

Go to Church. Pray the Rosary. Make sure your Priest is against any-and-all Wokism.

Or better yet, convert to Islam, which the Wokies truly fear.

What do you mean by 'far right'? The KKK? Nazis? Where did they come into it? See how fucking stupid it is to constantly be referring to 'left' or 'right'? As a matter of fact wokism has a lot in common with Nazism. It also has a lot in common with religion.

[Wizard22]

Even in your ignorance, you still cannot produce an example.

Hopeless.

Your "plan" should be to surrender to the far-left Wokies, and ASAP.