Oct 9, 2022·edited Oct 9, 2022Liked by Mark Bisone
There are logical problems with calling genetic mutations "errors" from a materialist perspective. Likewise, from a deterministic perspective nothing is "random" as everything has a cause. Just the first two things that jumped out at me as someone who isn't evil per se, but you know, is at least delusional. Well maybe that's too harsh, perhaps cognitively impaired ;)
"Well maybe that's too harsh, perhaps cognitively impaired ;)"
Hahaha! Well played, brother.
I suppose I would use the word "lost" instead. But then again, I'm one of those namby-pamby irrational man-pussies who clings to his guns and bibles. :)
What is the logic connecting guns and the bible to being a pussy? I think I've seen this done, but when I've seen it, it was the kind of reasoning that essentially categorizes anyone who disagrees with you as a pussy. I would agree with your characterization of atheists as lost if you confined it to those atheists who believe morality is objective.
"What is the logic connecting guns and the bible to being a pussy?"
Not much; I was just kidding around with stereotypes (and I freely admit, I was guilty of a little stereotyping myself). To clarify, what I meant by "per se" was that it wasn't inherently evil to disbelieve in something. That wouldn't even make any sense to me, according to my perspective.
"I would agree with your characterization of atheists as lost if you confined it to those atheists who believe morality is objective."
That's an interesting proposal. I'm trying to parse it out, in accordance with what you say on your (excellent, IMO) "Morality and Utility" essay, which I recommend everyone should read.
I *think* what you mean is something along these lines: if someone both believes that A} there is no higher being than Man, and B) the laws of Mankind are wrought from objective (i.e. scientifically proven, fully deconstructed) absolutes, then that person is wandering into dark and dangerous territory, and we would be foolish to follow him. Is it something like that?
The thing is, conceiving of morality as subjective isn't intuitive, so I don't expect it to ever be for the masses, but I do think if you're an atheist it is something that must be recognized lest you follow in the footsteps of Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot.
Oct 9, 2022·edited Oct 9, 2022Liked by Mark Bisone
"I suspect Winston has discovered a much different answer; one not only sculpted from evidence and reason, but pursued with the purest of motives: to learn the truth."
Indeed. Those of us who search with pure intentions for capital-T Truth — along with simply *being* truth, or in other words, living an authentic life — are the reason the CONs' veils are coming down and they are scrambling to use other forms of projection to hide their evil-ass inversions and perversions of all that is Divine. We've found the chinks in their black magic "armor" and the retarded repetition in their one playbook, and we will keep outing them to others, singing and dancing along the way as we make any corrections in our perceptions. It's one reason I decided to call my blog "Sharine Wonders," because sometimes I'm a little off base, but I'm always willing to amend any MK-ULTRA'd BS!
Thank you, Sharine, I confess I'm not familiar with the term "CONs" -- I've been trying to noodle it out to no avail. But, yes, the enemy is unmasking itself at an exhilarating rate. That is why I believe we will win.
Mark, I call "the enemy" CONs because the only way they get what they want is through conniving: Psychological manipulation, black magic, gradual indoctrination, coercion, artificial elevation, and eventually force.
Truth always prevails over falsity, it's just going to take a while longer for the CONs' *perceived* power to dissipate . . . like a massive fart, haha!
(I realize now that it was days ago that I began reading your article, followed the link to Winston Smith's article, found myself delighted and intrigued, and forgot to come back and enjoy the rest of your thoughts on this. I'm glad I did so, today.)
I resonate with your perspectives on Winston's start to his series. Especially:
>the word “delusion” is too strong, when describing strict material-rationalists of the Darwinist faith. Moreover, I think that’s *their* word, which they have deployed against people like me... I try to keep the black speech of Mordor out of my mouth as much as possible.
The packed rucksack on my grammar nazi’s back (thank you!), the parting words with a foot on the doorstep: IngloUrious, those Basterds 😜
There are logical problems with calling genetic mutations "errors" from a materialist perspective. Likewise, from a deterministic perspective nothing is "random" as everything has a cause. Just the first two things that jumped out at me as someone who isn't evil per se, but you know, is at least delusional. Well maybe that's too harsh, perhaps cognitively impaired ;)
"Well maybe that's too harsh, perhaps cognitively impaired ;)"
Hahaha! Well played, brother.
I suppose I would use the word "lost" instead. But then again, I'm one of those namby-pamby irrational man-pussies who clings to his guns and bibles. :)
What is the logic connecting guns and the bible to being a pussy? I think I've seen this done, but when I've seen it, it was the kind of reasoning that essentially categorizes anyone who disagrees with you as a pussy. I would agree with your characterization of atheists as lost if you confined it to those atheists who believe morality is objective.
"What is the logic connecting guns and the bible to being a pussy?"
Not much; I was just kidding around with stereotypes (and I freely admit, I was guilty of a little stereotyping myself). To clarify, what I meant by "per se" was that it wasn't inherently evil to disbelieve in something. That wouldn't even make any sense to me, according to my perspective.
"I would agree with your characterization of atheists as lost if you confined it to those atheists who believe morality is objective."
That's an interesting proposal. I'm trying to parse it out, in accordance with what you say on your (excellent, IMO) "Morality and Utility" essay, which I recommend everyone should read.
https://radicalamerican.substack.com/p/morality-and-utility
I *think* what you mean is something along these lines: if someone both believes that A} there is no higher being than Man, and B) the laws of Mankind are wrought from objective (i.e. scientifically proven, fully deconstructed) absolutes, then that person is wandering into dark and dangerous territory, and we would be foolish to follow him. Is it something like that?
Its absolutely something like that. I did write an article that tries to make this exact case directly: https://radicalamerican.substack.com/p/god-and-country
The thing is, conceiving of morality as subjective isn't intuitive, so I don't expect it to ever be for the masses, but I do think if you're an atheist it is something that must be recognized lest you follow in the footsteps of Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot.
Will read this later today. Thanks.
"I suspect Winston has discovered a much different answer; one not only sculpted from evidence and reason, but pursued with the purest of motives: to learn the truth."
Indeed. Those of us who search with pure intentions for capital-T Truth — along with simply *being* truth, or in other words, living an authentic life — are the reason the CONs' veils are coming down and they are scrambling to use other forms of projection to hide their evil-ass inversions and perversions of all that is Divine. We've found the chinks in their black magic "armor" and the retarded repetition in their one playbook, and we will keep outing them to others, singing and dancing along the way as we make any corrections in our perceptions. It's one reason I decided to call my blog "Sharine Wonders," because sometimes I'm a little off base, but I'm always willing to amend any MK-ULTRA'd BS!
Thanks for your work!
Thank you, Sharine, I confess I'm not familiar with the term "CONs" -- I've been trying to noodle it out to no avail. But, yes, the enemy is unmasking itself at an exhilarating rate. That is why I believe we will win.
Mark, I call "the enemy" CONs because the only way they get what they want is through conniving: Psychological manipulation, black magic, gradual indoctrination, coercion, artificial elevation, and eventually force.
Truth always prevails over falsity, it's just going to take a while longer for the CONs' *perceived* power to dissipate . . . like a massive fart, haha!
Thank you for sharing this!
(I realize now that it was days ago that I began reading your article, followed the link to Winston Smith's article, found myself delighted and intrigued, and forgot to come back and enjoy the rest of your thoughts on this. I'm glad I did so, today.)
I resonate with your perspectives on Winston's start to his series. Especially:
>the word “delusion” is too strong, when describing strict material-rationalists of the Darwinist faith. Moreover, I think that’s *their* word, which they have deployed against people like me... I try to keep the black speech of Mordor out of my mouth as much as possible.
Glad you are excited, bag packed, and starting out with us Mark - it's already an adventure and we haven't even left the Shire yet!
How to solve the problem that the rate of mutation is insufficient to cause the observed rate of speciation in the theory of evolution?
Morphic Resonance, baby https://www.sheldrake.org/
The theory of evolution sure could use a solution for nigh a dozen problems, and counting 😉
https://www.discovery.org/a/24041/
Yeah, I agree. There are a lot of holes. And "weird" holes, at that.