13

Satanism on TV Again

Posted by $ Abaco 1 year, 1 month ago to Culture
89 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I find it entertaining and goofy. Of course the Grammys went viral with the latest example. I always think back on those Olympic opening ceremonies with babies, the grim reaper and the big coronavirus. Haha....


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 11
    Posted by mccannon01 1 year, 1 month ago
    Sodom and Gomorrah anyone? This isn't going to end well.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Dobrien 1 year, 1 month ago
      Q has posted about symbolism 33 times here are a couple of those posts.
      3931
      Apr 10, 2020 3:53:58 PM EDT
      Q !!Hs1Jq13jV6 ID: ba29f9 No. 8748891
      https://twitter.com/SeekretAgent/stat...
      The credibility of our institutions [Constitutional Law that governs our Great Land [Our Republic]], and our ability to regain the trust and faith of the American people, all depends on our ability to restore [EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW] by prosecuting those responsible [Blind-Justice].
      Treasonous acts [sedition] against the Republic [the 'People'] of the United States [START - LEAD-IN].
      Infiltration [rogue] at the highest levels of our gov, media, corps, etc.
      Planned & coordinated [D/ F].
      This is not about politics.
      Something far more sinister [evil] has been allowed to flourish through all parts of our society.
      It has been protected and safeguarded.
      It has been camouflaged to appear as trusted.
      It has been projected [normalized] by stars.
      [CLAS 1-99]
      One must only look to see.
      [SYMBOLISM will be their downfall]
      This is not another [4] year election.
      "Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be courageous; be strong."
      You are not alone.
      We stand together.
      Q

      3931
      Apr 10, 2020 3:53:58 PM EDT
      Q !!Hs1Jq13jV6 ID: ba29f9 No. 8748891
      https://twitter.com/SeekretAgent/stat...
      The credibility of our institutions [Constitutional Law that governs our Great Land [Our Republic]], and our ability to regain the trust and faith of the American people, all depends on our ability to restore [EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW] by prosecuting those responsible [Blind-Justice].
      Treasonous acts [sedition] against the Republic [the 'People'] of the United States [START - LEAD-IN].
      Infiltration [rogue] at the highest levels of our gov, media, corps, etc.
      Planned & coordinated [D/ F].
      This is not about politics.
      Something far more sinister [evil] has been allowed to flourish through all parts of our society.
      It has been protected and safeguarded.
      It has been camouflaged to appear as trusted.
      It has been projected [normalized] by stars.
      [CLAS 1-99]
      One must only look to see.
      [SYMBOLISM will be their downfall]
      This is not another [4] year election.
      "Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be courageous; be strong."
      You are not alone.
      We stand together.
      Q
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mccannon01 1 year, 1 month ago
        "SYMBOLISM will be their downfall" They're flaunting it in the open more and more so maybe it will bring them down. Based on history, it won't be pretty.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Dobrien 1 year, 1 month ago
          This article is fascinating , titled “ JAGO “
          "The smoke of satan has entered the Church"
          Link provided: https://popehead.substack.com/p/jago
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by mccannon01 1 year, 1 month ago
            I read the entire article as well as some of the off links and found it all very interesting and some downright creepy. However, I don't buy everything he has to say, particularly his attempts to disparage Freemasonry. Symbolism isn't always nefarious.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ splumb 1 year, 1 month ago
              Agreed.
              My grampy was a Mason, and he would never have been involved with anything sketchy.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Dobrien 1 year, 1 month ago
                Of course not . Thing is they weren’t at the top of the pyramid. I have worked with many many kind Shriners over the last 50 years , it’s unlikely any of them are
                Aware of any nefarious actions by the leaders.
                I also met and sat with a 33 rd degree Mason and his extremely skittish wife who looked to see if she could answer basic conversational Questions at a wedding dinner.
                He made my skin crawl. We later found out he violently abused his wife. I find it unlikely that either of your grandfathers used the symbolism
                That the Illuminati use today. My Grandfather was a Catholic and a member of the Knights of Columbus. Many evil things done by Catholics particularly the Jesuits. My Grandfather was a good man, but many evil fuQs in the Catholic leadership over many years.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by mccannon01 1 year, 1 month ago
                  "Weren't at the top of the pyramid" I've heard that meaningless supposition before. I also have met 33 degree Masons and found them to be decent people. I've been in the fraternity for 22 years and have met a couple of bad eggs, but they are long gone.

                  The thing is, there are millions of members and it is inevitable some bad ones are lurking around.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Dobrien 1 year, 1 month ago
                    “The thing is, there are millions of members and it is inevitable some bad ones are lurking around.“
                    We can agree on that.
                    Today it does seem that in the largest organizations in the world , the criminals seem to rise to the top.
                    Like the Us Govt or most any Alphabet agency, virtually all Fortune 500 companies and Universites , elected ( more like selected) officials
                    Or Media companies, or Pedowood.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ splumb 1 year, 1 month ago
                      Yes, there are far too few Dagny Taggarts, Francisco d'Anconias, Ellis Wyatts and Hank Reardons in industry today, and far, far too many Horace Mowens.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by mccannon01 1 year, 1 month ago
                      I know what you are saying here and we all have to be sure of our facts before making a judgement. I think we can also agree there seems to be a modern epidemic of "rot at the top" for many long term organizations. At the same time we can't always trash every organization because of a few bad actors. It can be a tough call, but let's keep our eyes open and our wits about us.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ splumb 1 year, 1 month ago
                  I don't know the first thing about the Masonic degrees, but I'm certain my grampy was never a 33rd or anything close to it.
                  I can't ever remember him attending a meeting (assuming they have meetings).
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by mccannon01 1 year, 1 month ago
                    The first three degrees are the primary ones to attain to become a "Master Mason" or full member of the fraternity. You don't need any more than that, but they need to be completed in order. There are further avenues of study and commitment in two main branches, York Rite and Scottish Rite. Scottish Rite can take you up to the 33rd degree, which is the highest degree. I started in the Scottish Rite, but dropped it because I didn't have the time and treasure to keep going. Someday I may try again as it was very interesting and a good experience. Interestingly, even though the Scottish Rite degrees are numbered you do not have to take all of them in numerical order. Each degree is a lesson like a chapter in a book. The 33rd degree is usually reserved for those who go on to do extra service for the fraternity or community at large.

                    The article brought to us above by Dobrien has a link to an obviously bad actor (Italian, can't recall the name as I type), who was offering a lodge up to the 92nd degree. There is no such degree as 33 is the highest. The person was a charlatan creating what is known as a "clandestine lodge" for personal gain. They were common during the late 18th and throughout the 19th centuries. Today, part of our acceptance into the fraternity is to be told any Mason joining a clandestine lodge or even dealing with a "mason" of such a lodge will be thrown out.

                    Freemasonry came out of being "hidden" officially in England in 1717 when the Grand Lodge of England was formed officially. Here's an interesting link if you want to know more (not a Masonic site). https://www.grunge.com/241147/the-his...

                    Today, there are scammers pretending to be Masons who specifically target Masons and others to get money for fake charities. I have been contacted several times by these thieves and we all have to be careful.

                    Edit add: I forgot to mention I never explored York Rite. Didn't have the time.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Dobrien 1 year, 1 month ago
              In London this man was top dog at a Masonic Lodge in London ,the members were mostly intelligence people and he was the first Speaker at the first World Economic Forum that is now the highly publicized event in Davos.

              w.dw.com › edward-heath-pedophile-investig...
              Oct 5, 2017 — After decades of speculation, British police have said new evidence presents a serious case against Edward Heath. The former prime minister ...

              The Satanist Cult of Ted Heath: Ethical Implications of ...https://www.cambridge.org › european-psychiatry › article
              by R Kurz · 2016 — Seven UK police forces are currently investigating the alleged involvement of the late Edward Heath (Prime Minister 1970–1974) in a child ...

              Police chief '120 per cent convinced' Edward Heath was a ...https://www.independent.co.uk › UK › Crime
              Feb 19, 2017 — Chief Constable Mike Veale, of Wiltshire Police, is reportedly convinced by testimony from alleged victims of the former Conservative Prime ...

              Edward Heath Latest to be Accused of Child Abuse Claimshttps://www.beltramiandcompany.co.uk › news › edwar...
              At least five police forces have conducting investigations into accusations of child abuse against former Prime Minister Edward Heath.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ splumb 1 year, 1 month ago
                Not to downplay the horrible accusations in any way, but it's funny how much time the English cops are spending looking into the "white guy" pedophiles of yesteryear, yet look the other way at the multitude of Muslim rape gangs operating unchecked right now.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Dobrien 1 year, 1 month ago
                  Deep state pigs are hellbent on taking National Sovereignty away from the citizens. Flooding the white countries with non aligned colored people
                  Chips that Sovereign Nationalism to pieces.
                  Genocide is clearly a big part of the agenda and Raping white girls doesn’t hurt Their murderous plans.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by mccannon01 1 year, 1 month ago
                I'm not going to write an apology for a criminal ass that happens to be a Mason.

                The first link sends me to a dead server, the second one sends me to a page of advertising and an invitation to celebrate LGBTQ+ History month, the next two are also advertising. None of them is an article about Heath.

                OK, with that said prospective members petitioning any lodge in my State (NY) over the last decade or so are given a strong background check. Criminals, especially pedophiles are immediately black balled. That doesn't mean no criminal masons exist, but it means they are weeded out as soon as discovered. Even if not a criminal, there will be no Satanists in my lodge - trust me on that!

                I notice the opening line in your post states he WAS top dog. Did the Brit masons throw him out?

                Edit add: I found an article on him regarding the pedophile accusation (and other stuff), but my browser won't let me copy the link. The publication is called "The Week" and the article is "Who was Edward Heath? And what was his secret?". It doesn't say anything about Freemasonry, but that's not what it's about. He's been dead for a while.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Dobrien 1 year, 1 month ago
                  I just put PM Heath in a Google search and copied the first four results in the previous comment . I was being lazy but it showed the point of his treachery. Sir, I could say that the FBI is corrupt to the bone and back it up with evidence. That doesn’t mean someone’s Grandfather who was an FBI agent was corrupt.
                  The School system is pushing transgender bullshit,
                  and racism against whites with a Marxist agenda ,
                  My daughter is a school teacher . The whole public school system is a disaster , that doesn’t make all teachers Marxists.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by tutor-turtle 1 year, 1 month ago
        There will be no Justice in this land, we will only get "Just Us" (and we ain't a member of that club -George Carlin) Until, and only until, we get rid of voter fraud-by-mail and the CIA created electronic voting machines we will get what our overlords desire. Until that day of true voter freedom arrives as the founding fathers intended, Lady Liberty is little more road kill on the side of a busy highway.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by tutor-turtle 1 year, 1 month ago
      I've (re)immersed myself in biblical studies after a long hiatus. Gog and Magog, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Book of Revelations, the regathering of the lost twelve tribes (scholars have identified nine and brought their representatives, The Cohens / or High Rabi's, back to the homeland) three more to go and it's game on. The beginning of the end times.
      In a fascinating twist of fate My mom was a Cohen may she R.I.P.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ splumb 1 year, 1 month ago
        To complement your studies, I highly recommend a fictional series of books by Joel C. Rosenberg.

        Here they are, in order of publication and events:
        The Last Jihad
        The Last Days
        The Ezekiel Option
        The Copper Scroll
        Dead Heat

        The books center around the main character, Jon Bennett, a highly successful investment banker who gets swept up into increasingly alarming international events.

        The books are political thrillers that depict Jon's spiritual journey, all during the End Times.

        I can't recommend this series highly enough.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ splumb 1 year, 1 month ago
    It's not entertaining and it's not goofy.
    It's frightening.
    People who are openly evil have no respect for human life, and will act accordingly.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bobsprinkle 1 year, 1 month ago
    for the same reasons I did not watch the grammys, I will change the channel during superbowl halftime to avoid the garbage/trash that will be put forward as "entertainment". If I want that trash I will go to the local tit bar.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 year, 1 month ago
    As one who has accepted Objectivism, I do not believe in supernaturalism, or a supernatural realm. Therefore I do not believe in the Devil. So why should Satanism matter to me?
    I think it is a sign of something, when people take an attitude toward something which many people have held as sacred and revere (for instance, God), and then try to caricature it by applying it to something which has become the symbol of depravity, and utter evil.
    It looks like they want to take the capacity for reverence, (even if it has been mistakenly applied), and trash it, and throw garbage all over it, on purpose to destroy the capacity for it. I be-
    lieve this is what has been identified as nihilism.

    I have seen examples of religious people really experiencing reverence for their God, at times, and in some ways it is sometimes beautiful, if mistaken. That is not something I want to just crassly dump garbage all over.
    I do not see nihilism as particularly attractive.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • 12
      Posted by $ AJAshinoff 1 year, 1 month ago
      regardless, these people are twisting rational thought into denying reality. They are also, abducting, abusing, marketing and selling children for sex slavery and/or using them to be tortured to produce adrenochrome as the "fountain of youth" used by the elite.
      Whether you believe in mysticism or not these folks are real, they are everywhere, they cover their asses, and flaunt it in your face.

      Making that spectacle public enough to be on CBS and validated by pfizer is only to desensitize people, make it acceptable so they can push it more with less resistance.

      If nothing else even an objectivist must acknowledge that actual evil exists and that it is actively alive and working in the US and elsewhere, as evidenced by the sheer magnitude of missing and exploited children.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 1 year, 1 month ago
        Absolutely evil exists!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by lrshultis 1 year, 1 month ago
          What do you mean by 'exists' other than that some individual minds can choose what can be considered as purposely anti-human. Certainly not a an existing something that takes over some minds.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 1 year, 1 month ago
            But where does the impetus to choose evil come from? There are a lot of thoughts which enter into my head that didn't originate from me. They had to come from some outside source. Those thoughts which entice me to choose evil come from an evil source and vice-versa. Thus both good and evil necessarily exist independent of you or I. A belief that the embodiment of these forces in personages (God vs Satan, etc.) is up to one's individual belief set but the forces themselves exist.

            Is either, both, or neither force anti-human? That's an interesting question, TBH. I think the answer to that depends on the very nature of humanity itself - including not only its current state but its past and potential states as well. Where did we come from, why are we here, and where are we going? Those are the questions of theology. Objectivism - in so far as I have been able to determine - remains rather mute on these points.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by lrshultis 1 year, 1 month ago
              Sure they come from your own brain. Take responsibility for your own self and don't try to blame your self on some evil angel or some unknown unreal force or energy external of your self. A mind is just a complex brain in operation and, as you, it is your responsibility to keep it rational.
              It can be difficult because of evolutionary protective emotions that in the modern world would not be appropriate for the context and cause what might be considered evilness if acted on in modern times.
              Like I said, don't get stuck with something outside to direct your reason or why of having been born. Your purpose for living must be selfish. If not you are just an amoral animal and as a human doing whatever makes you feel less pain. As Rand put it, your goal and reward for living your life experiencing your own happiness. The hard part is deciding what cost that happiness is. The most important costs are honesty and making rational choices, i.e.,being moral and correcting poor choices, i.e., correcting your immoral choices.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Dobrien 1 year, 1 month ago
                Difference Between Brain and Mind
                Following are the important differences between the brain and the mind:

                Brain
                Mind
                Brain is the central organ of the human nervous system
                Mind is a faculty that manifests itself in mental phenomena such as perception, thinking, sensation, reasoning, memory, etc.
                Brain: It is made up of blood vessels and nerve cells.
                Mind:It is not made up of any cells and is hypothetical.
                Brain :It has a definite shape and structure.
                Mind: It does not.
                Brain coordinates, movements, feelings, and different functions of the body.
                Mind :It refers to a person’s conscience, understanding and thought process.
                You can touch the brain.
                You cannot touch the mind.
                The debate on the difference between the brain and the mind has been going on since the time of Aristotle. The mind is considered pure vibrating energy, whereas the brain is considered a physical manifestation of the mind. The above differences might have helped us understand how the mind and brain are two different entities.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by lrshultis 1 year, 1 month ago
                  You want a ghost in the machine setup where mind is not the operating brain but rather something installed in a brain. If I recall right, OUC considers mind as somehow being at least partly outside of the brain. For me the mind is the operation of the brain. A somewhat similar question is what is life? Is it some ghostly thing inhabiting a body or is it a body as Rand defined as a process self generated and self sustaining action not separate from the body, trillions of trillions of chemically molecules acting creating a structure self sustaining itself, decreasing entropy as an open system using energy from matter and radiation outside of it. If the action can not sustain itself, it dies with entropy then increasing as the structure deteriorates in rotting as food to decrease entropy in the lives that process the dead body.

                  What exists are matter and radiation. Those have relationship called energy. They can compose fields in which matter in action transfer or exchange momentum. Radiation in the form of photons transfers momentum. Momentum, mass, energy, mind, life, concepts, etc. do not have substance. They are mental, i.e., brain processes related to what exists in objective reality.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ blarman 1 year, 1 month ago
                With all due respect, I KNOW these external forces exist. Your unfamiliarity with such does not alter a single one of the personal experiences upon which my knowledge is based.

                Let us also differentiate between thoughts and actions. What does the mind actually do? The mind/nou (Greek)/psyche is separate from the brain. It processes thoughts and converts them into actions. It is the mind which governs us - not our thoughts. It is the mind which structures and orders thoughts and then transforms those thoughts into actions. It is the mind which animates us and differentiates us from any other individual.

                What is a moral choice if not a good choice? The Greek Hedonists advocated for their own "happiness" yet one need only look at their actions to question the true morality of such an ideology. Modern ideologies all claim to pursue their own happiness, but not all can be true.

                And how does one actually go about correcting poor choices? Such exist in the past and can not be unmade. In some cases not even restitution is sufficient. What then?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by lrshultis 1 year, 1 month ago
                  "Your unfamiliarity with such does not alter a single one of the personal experiences upon which my knowledge is based."

                  Please tell me about some of those experiences. Perhaps I can see where you are coming from.
                  I have never seen any evidence for any forces or fields other than those known to science. I do see a lot of attempts to explain things by positing undiscovered or even mystical means for explaining how living bodies and mindful brains exist and operate.. Whatever, that does not remove individuals from the reason for all good and evil actions causing joy and pain among humans and other animals.

                  Individual human brains are sufficient to explain all of human history by their logical use of reason both with true or false premises. The search for ancient aliens or gods or external unknown forces helping humans, begs the question as to where are they. I am hoping your mental experiences can give me some new knowledge about objective reality.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ blarman 1 year, 1 month ago
                    My experiences are personal and meaningful to me - less so to anyone else. It's not an attempt to shrug off the question, it's simply the fact of the matter that until you experience something personal it won't carry much weight.

                    I will tell you that one of my personal experiences came during the death of my baby twelve years ago. She wasn't quite one and died from something the doctors later wrote up as myocarditis. It took two additional days for the doctors to finally admit what we knew and acquiesce to our wishes to take her off life support. I knew it when she left, however. Her presence didn't dissipate or disintegrate. She left for other realms. And every now and then I can feel her peeking in on me as if to say "Hi!"

                    "Individual human brains are sufficient to explain all of human history..."

                    To argue such is to argue that man is destined only for suffering as the vast majority of human history revolves around suffering and pain. An alternative is to posit that we learn the hard things - including suffering - so that we may more fully enjoy life in the next realm. It is hard to appreciate what one has not experienced.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by lrshultis 1 year, 1 month ago
                      I am very sorry about your baby and the pain the death caused you. I know the pain from the illnesses an deaths of loved ones beginning as small boy nearly eight decades ago. You never really get over it.

                      How can you equate individualism to being destined only to suffering? If that is true then if there is a caring powerful god, all you end with the same suffering and the belief like my sister of some heavenly afterlife listening to heavenly music for eternity, not understanding eternity. I hope she got her wish years after breast cancer and killed in a traffic accident at 50. Or my 76 year old christian brother who died last month from cancer and for two years unable to feed himself or all the other god fearing humans that I can no longer interact with after they suffered and died. Seems like it is best to try to enjoy any happiness you can achieve by living a honest moral life.

                      The human brain can create bodily feelings of something near by or touching the one's skin. Happens to me from time to time. Could it be my mother near and touching me though having died seventy years ago? I do know how strange things can happen with brain activity. I suffered from panic attacks in grad school and tried low dose LSD, didn't want hallucinations from a full dose messing with neural transmitters with even a little able cause strange mental effects. First there was nausea and a lot of gagging over a sink follow with stabbing at a table over and over and salivating followed by the weird feeling of the saliva going back into the glands. After that calmness and watching a physicist smoking pot describing the ceiling.

                      I am a non-militant atheist and do not, other than during short discussions, try to convince others. I did not hate those how threatened me with eternal suffering or the christian neighbor woman who threatened to ring my neck if I ever walked on her side walk.Or many other good Christians who told me to go to hell. They had their lives to live but must have feared my unbelief.

                      I Was not indoctrinated as a small child in a secular type family where we learned moral lessons from stories about honest and truthful famous persons. I was the oldest of seven puss two dead in miscarries in nine years. I learned to cope with illnesses and long cancer death of my mother at the age of 13. At no time did I find need to pray and today would consider it irrational grovel for favors from some lord.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ blarman 1 year, 1 month ago
                        "How can you equate individualism to being destined only to suffering?"

                        I didn't make that argument. I argued the contrary: that suffering in this life allows us to more fully appreciate happiness not only in this life but the next. Does one enjoy health without experiencing sickness? Does one appreciate companionship without experiencing separation? And though it may seem like a schtick, it does build character. Do we grow stronger through an easy life or because we rose to overcome challenges?

                        "I did not hate those how threatened me with eternal suffering or the christian neighbor woman who threatened to ring my neck if I ever walked on her side walk.Or many other good Christians who told me to go to hell. They had their lives to live but must have feared my unbelief."

                        They understand neither "hell" nor "heaven" nor have developed the compassion or tolerance of a true follower. I can understand Rand's criticism of and contempt for them; it is unfortunate that they are a majority of those who call themselves Christians. (As you can probably tell, I don't have a particularly positive opinion of the current Pope, either.)

                        "At no time did I find need to pray and today would consider it irrational grovel for favors from some lord."

                        And I wouldn't fault you for any of that. I am very grateful, however, for conversations with a loving Father.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ blarman 1 year, 1 month ago
                  Here's a very interesting explanation of mind: https://rumble.com/v28qn8m-the-signif...
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by lrshultis 1 year, 1 month ago
                    A bit of theism there. I understand the so called anthropic principle not as a objective reality having been made for the existence of life and in particular for conscious animals. but rather that reality is compatible with the existence of conscious life. The jump to irrationality is is in that "made' for which there is no evidence. I am not intellectually lazy enough to posit a creator for what I don't understand. Don't make your existence depend upon being some special conscious creation of the Universe or of some deity. The Universe was some kind of creation for you.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ blarman 1 year, 1 month ago
                      D'Souza is a Christian apologist, no question. I posted the link primarily for his comments regarding the difference between the brain and the mind, which were also posited by dobrien. One can't measure the mind with any known instrument any more than one can instrumentally determine whether someone is conscious.

                      Consider the following two (opposing) hypotheses: 1. There is no such thing as a creator or supreme being, 2. There is a creator or supreme being.

                      What would be the method to examine and prove either of these? For the first, one would of necessity be forced to examine and understand every aspect of the universe. In other words, in order to positively assure yourself there was no such thing as a supreme being you would in effect have to become it!

                      The second actually presents several intellectual challenges. First and foremost, one would have to actually study and define what characteristics would have to exist in such a being. IE you would have to study religion. Science can't help here. If you failed, it wouldn't necessarily rule out that existence, either. Instead, you would have to challenge the set of characteristics attributed to that being and/or the identification method being utilized as either could be part of a failed hypothesis. When one looks closer, one begins realizing that attempting to prove the second hypothesis is actually the only way to go about proving the first anyway!

                      Something to consider.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by lrshultis 1 year, 1 month ago
                        I am an atheist which just means that I do not believe in the existence of a god or gods. Those who try to prove that something does not exist for which there is no evidence are wasting their time. Only positive statements can be proven false by a lack of evidence. There is only one rational reason to believe something exists and that is deduction from physical evidence first hand or through experimentation. To not believe in the existence for something just requires the lack of evidence. Atheism is irrational in wasting time trying to prove the absence of something for which there is no evidence. So my atheism is just that I have no evidence for the existence of a god which is said to exist by billions, therefore I am an atheist. I am not required to prove any more. Look, I am 83 and have been through many arguments and threats by those who have tried to convince me that their beliefs suffice to prove the supernatural operating behind existence.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 1 year, 1 month ago
                          I've layed out a case for actual evil. What I've said is verifiable. Logic dictates that if this true evil exists then true good must exist as well.

                          This is not mysticism is empirical evidence of one to validate the logical and reasoned existence of the other.

                          Agree?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by lrshultis 1 year, 1 month ago
                            Disagree.

                            "Consider the following two (opposing) hypotheses: 1. There is no such thing as a creator or supreme being, 2. There is a creator or supreme being."

                            To even form an hypothesis requires some evidence to be confirmed or rejected. If those are premises to be used logically they must first be shown to be true in objective reality else logic will not give a real result. Anything can be shown true because of a false premise.

                            No need to go further than having no evidence of something to discard an hypothesis. If evidence is found, then an hypothesis can be formed and possibly be investigated. It is epistemologically irrational to try to prove a negative. It is impossible to prove nothing.

                            "The second actually presents several intellectual challenges. First and foremost, one would have to actually study and define what characteristics would have to exist in such a being."

                            How do you study the properties of something for which one has no evidence? In science one studies existents and forms theories which predict other things. If they don't exist the theory has to be modified or discarded. A theory can predict something not known to exist as in physics where the positron and neutrino were predicted and found many years later. There are theories such as the supersymmetry extension of the standard model for particles for which no predicted particles have been at great cost.
                            The acceptance of properties of that for which there is no physical evidence is irrational.
                            Theology has done that for millennia with good properties for god along with some evil punisher evil god created to help the good god explain its failures. Without evidence, wishful thinking will define whatever god will best govern humans for whoever desires power and be faithfully be believed in by being herded.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by $ blarman 1 year, 1 month ago
                              "To even form an hypothesis requires some evidence to be confirmed or rejected."

                              Incorrect. Evidence is a result of testing the hypothesis, not a basis for its construction. A hypothesis is a prospective conclusion formed from underlying assumptions which rationally connect. The test of the hypothesis serves as either verification or rebuttal of at least one of the assumptions.

                              "No need to go further than having no evidence of something to discard an hypothesis."

                              Remember that a hypothesis consists of one or many assumptions which include the measurement or observation methods. One must be very careful to employ the correct analysis tools and methods or one may arrive at an erroneous conclusion as a result. One of the most notable is that in positing the hypothesis of a supreme being, we are not positing the existence of a static object or process, but of an intellect and power with autonomy and volition which both exceed our own. Thus the critical need to identify valid observation methods and accept that these - of necessity - may be subject to the cooperation of that superior intellect. If we constrain the test to only what we allow, we are almost certain to fail.

                              "A theory can predict something..."

                              You're mixing terminology. In science, a theory is something which has already been proven repeatedly through extensive testing. Examples include the Theory of Relativity, etc. It's precedent is the confirmed hypothesis and its antecedent is the Law, such as the Law of Gravitational Attraction.

                              "Without evidence, wishful thinking will define..."

                              One can not arrive at a correct conclusion without conducting a valid test. I would strongly caution you against impugning others for that which you have not undertaken. It isn't "wishful thinking" to desire one's own happiness and continuance. To the contrary, it is the object of existence.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by lrshultis 1 year, 1 month ago
                                I will just deal with your apparent science is settled.

                                "A theory can predict something..."

                                "You're mixing terminology. In science, a theory is something which has already been proven repeatedly through extensive testing. Examples include the Theory of Relativity, etc. It's precedent is the confirmed hypothesis and its antecedent is the Law, such as the Law of Gravitational Attraction."

                                A theory satisfies all known knowledge which it deals with. It is not safe from failure. New knowledge and ideas or mathematical calculation, as in the case of GR predict new knowledge from the theory. Does that knowledge agree with objective reality? If it does the theory survives, if not the theory must be corrected or discarded. GR came about to explain the relativity of accelerated motion while SR dealt with uniform motion. GR dealt with in particular gravitation and predicted the correct perihelia shift of the orbit of Mercury and other planets and the curvature of light by large masses. Those were verified by experiments, so the theory held. The theory still holds over more than 100 years of confirmed predictions such as clock rates in gravitational fields and will fail with the first contradiction with objective reality.
                                Some theories such as quantum physics, which are probabilistic in nature, predict the probabilities for what measurements find.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Dobrien 1 year, 1 month ago
        Satanic Luciferian Genocidal Globalist Pee Dohs
        To your point ,I Agree. the symbolism in that performance of “unholy” clearly represents the invisible enemies
        Hegelian philosophy …Master/Slave/War
        The devil was clearly Master and they even had a cage for a female slave. I did not watch a lick of that show but did see the ugly Satanic lowlight.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CaptainKirk 1 year, 1 month ago
          Dobrien, I just came across details that LINKED Manson to Jack Ruby (They shared a "psychologist" who was with MK_Ultra), and also the Unibomber...
          LSD used to break down the belief systems, and rebuild them.

          Evil not only exists... It can be created, controlled, and DIRECTED!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Dobrien 1 year, 1 month ago
            That is very curious . Having read Helter Skelter ,it was all about trying to get a race war started.
            MKUltra brought to you by operation Paperclip and a continuation of the NAZI project.
            If you have any links please share.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by CaptainKirk 1 year, 1 month ago
              Jesse Michels covered it, mentions a couple of books. I Find him very trustworthy.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOPF8...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Dobrien 1 year, 1 month ago
                I got sidelined by this classic in the first few minutes. I Loved this song. https://youtu.be/qJae3Q2l-BY
                Before the guest author even was introduced . The narrative portrayed by Vincent Bugliosi and the media don’t make sense until you learn of Mansons parole officer. Today we find the FBI has almost every mass shooter on the radar and many seen by the same FBLie therapist prior to their killing sprees. Mansons therapist was expert at LSD and mental suggestions. Well we could call it MKUltra.
                So Charlie was taught how to MKUltra the girls.
                The NAZIS never lost they just gave up Germany and the Prussians just took over the countries that were fighting them. What was Hitlers goal? To take over all of Europe. What’s the EU? The infiltration has been going on for many decades.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 year, 1 month ago
        Actually evil deeds are committed; actually evil people do exist; such criminals as pedophiliac abusers should be severely punished. But I was speaking against the glorification of such symbols.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 1 year, 1 month ago
      You don't have to believe in a supernatural realm to understand that the principles underlying Satanism are morally reprobate and destroy every society in which they have been allowed or tolerated. That's not an exaggeration. Rome's fall came from allowing tyrants to usurp rule, declare themselves emperors, and then disregard the rights of the people. One doesn't need to look very far to see the same in modern communism/socialism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ splumb 1 year, 1 month ago
      “The problem with you Americans is that you don't believe in evil. A man like Saddam Hussein, for example. Saddam tells the world for years that he has a territorial claim on Kuwait. Builds up his armed forces. Develops weapons of mass destruction. Moves troops to the border. Signals everyone he's going in. But all the boys and girls at the CIA and DIA say Saddam won't do it. Just saber-rattling. Just flexing his muscles. Couldn't possibly invade. Why would he? It would make no sense. It would be irrational. No arab nation has ever invaded another arab nation. Why start now? Saddam was painting us a road map, and you simply didn't believe he'd start the car and take the trip. Saddam Hussein was not a lunatic and in that case, he wasn't a liar. He was rational and calculating and evil. So he told the world what he was going to do – commit an act of evil, not an act of madness – and then he did it. It took a bunch of highly paid analysts with Harvard degrees to completely miss the simplicity of the moment.”

      “I believe the terrorist is both capable and prone to acts of unspeakable evil, and you don't. I'm right, and you're wrong. It's not because I know more than your government. I don't. I know less. But I believe that evil forces make evil people do evil things. That's how I anticipate what can and will happen next in life. That's how I got to be the head of the Mossad, young man. And why I'm good at it. It's going to be one hell of an August, and my country is going to suffer very badly because your country doesn't believe in evil, and mine was born out of the ashes of the Holocaust” – “The Last Jihad”, by Joel C. Rosenberg
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 year, 1 month ago
        I believe that there are evil people who do evil things. I do not believe in Evil as some independent Force that goes through the world on its own. I believe that it originates in the"blank-out" (see Ayn Rand) which some humans commit when they refuse to recognize honestly the facts before them, and accept irrational evil (such as Marxism, Naziism, etc.), and act upon it. When confronted with such evil, one should recognize it as a fact, and fight it.
        I think that there are some people who go to college, and hear their professors say, "There are no absolutes." That is a false and evil statement. One should not just accept it, and use it as an excuse not to oppose evil. It must be fought, at different times and at different ways, but resolutely,
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ splumb 1 year, 1 month ago
      “Bennett could see it clearly now. To misunderstand the nature of evil is to risk being blindsided by it. For evil, unchecked, is the prelude to genocide.
      It was an unholy war, and it was winner-take-all. There could be no truce, no cease-fire, no hudna, as it was known in Arabic. You were either on the offense, or you were losing.
      The thoughts rushing through Bennett were alien to everything he’d been taught to believe. They smacked of the very intolerance and judgmentalism he'd been so relentlessly warned against back at Georgetown and Harvard. But what was 'tolerance' in the face of terror? Wasn't it surrender? Wasn't it suicide?” – “The Last Days”, by Joel C. Rosenberg
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 1 year, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    "Einstein stated that the theory of relativity belongs to a class of "principle-theories". As such, it employs an analytic method, which means that the elements of this theory are not based on hypothesis but on empirical discovery." From Wikipedia.

    Just wondering whether your view of a theory is that it is 'written in stone' as Rand considered her philosophy Objectivism, or as others and myself, that it is correctable and extendable.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 1 year, 1 month ago
      According to the scientific method, a theory is a hypothesis which has been confirmed time and time again through observation. However, a theory is not "set in stone." Bohr's theoretical model of the atom was great - until one got beyond hydrogen and found the model to be limited in its ability to describe other atoms. Similarly with Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. Modern astrophysics are now beginning to explore black holes which seem to present corner-cases to this theory as well.

      If one wanted to, one could assign confidence intervals to various stages: 10% to a new hypothesis, 60% to a proven hypothesis, 90% to a theory, and 99.99% to a Law. Note that even with a Law one lacks 100% confidence in its accuracy simply to acknowledge the limitations of human knowledge. (Short of omniscience, I don't know that one could get to 100%).

      And I'm not sure I would credit Rand with believing her philosophy to be 100% accurate. That seems rather... hard to believe.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by lrshultis 1 year, 1 month ago
        This essay:

        https://theobjectivestandard.com/what...

        is a good summery of Objectivism as an absolutist system. That seems to be the view of The Ayn Rand Institute while The Atlas Society seems to be open for some change for any objective errors that might be changed.

        Does the secular base of Objectivism matter to you? It does not allow for any supernaturalism. Because of the rational base for Objectivism, I find that many nonsecular believers still like the philosophy.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 1 year, 1 month ago
          I agree with Objectivism's focus on capitalism and mutual free exchange, limited government and that government exists to uphold rights rather than to control people through force. But while I admire Rand and can sympathize with Rand's disgust over many of the large "Christian" religions and their inherently ridiculous policy positions (ever read the Nicean Creed? supererogation?), I can't agree with Objectivism's adoption of atheism. IMHO, Rand fell victim to the "guilt by association" fallacy and decided that since her experiences with Catholicism and Russian Orthodoxy were decidedly negative that it meant that there was no God at all - a fallacy of the extremes.

          To me, a more logically consistent view (and IMO the one Objectivism should have taken) is that of the agnostic. The agnostic admits that a higher power could be possible because it is one's own limitations - either in imagination or experience - which are the limiting factor. I support the position of the agnostic because I believe that any search for Deity must be undertaken of one's own free will and choice and that the relationship and experience resulting from an honest search are intensely personal and sacred.

          Logically, I can't resolve the fundamental flaw in atheism's premise: that such can't prove their own hypothesis without becoming exactly what they claim does not exist! What makes this all the more glaring is that those very atheists demand proof from everyone else when they should be seeking it themselves. (Most even when presented with evidence simply dismiss it or downplay it.)

          Most of all, however, atheism to me is limiting. It can't explain the origins of life or existence. It can't explain fundamental purpose. To me, those are questions which any true and encompassing philosophy/religion absolutely has to be able to answer. Had Objectivism simply adopted agnosticism, it could maintain an objective view on the question of God. Not coincidentally, I believe this is also the primary reason one sees few proselytes to Objectivism.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Markus_Katabri 1 year, 1 month ago
    Brought to you by Pfizer. In case you missed it.
    (No really....watch it again.)
    My objectivity is rapidly failing.
    I’m trying to replace it with apathetic nihilism but that’s not going very well.
    I could make a case for a creator. But that’s something for everyone to decide for themselves. I know what I believe. If I’m wrong then it doesn’t matter. But if I’m right then everything matters.
    We are free to choose. By design.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo