Dawkins writes, "I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.
Here, yet again, we see Dawkins the fundamentalist proclaiming his sweeping, adamant, universally inclusive "one true way". This proclamation, like all others which address themselves to the sweeping question of the nature of everything everywhere, is built upon the muddy ground of immeasurable human ignorance on matters of such enormous scale.
But this is not my complaint. Surely Dawkins, his mirror enemy the Jehovah's Witness, and all the rest of us too are entitled to express our theories on such matters. Such discussion is very unlikely to ever be conclusive, but it can be interesting and entertaining, so seen through that lens Dr. Dawkins makes his contribution to the circus, and helps keep the conversation going. And here I am following his lead in attempting to do the same.
No, my complaint is not with Dr. Dawkin's expression of his views, but with the fact that he is selling them as being a product of reason. If we are to take Dr. Dawkin's advice and abandon the enterprise of religion and replace it with reason, it's essential that we understand what reason is, and most carefully protect it as a methodology.
Reason doesn't care who wins.
Ideology cares about little else.
Reason is not a collection of clever rhetorical arguments one uses to triumph over one's ideological opponents. Reason is an attempt to reach for the truth by the most objective and detached means humanly possible.
Dr. Dawkins and so many of his followers seem to have sincerely confused reason with ideology. And by doing so, year by year they seem to become ever more like the religious ideologues whom they so passionately reject. They are, in essence, arguing with themselves, heretics to their own position.
But then, all of us are heretics in some way or another, to some degree or another.
My position is that all such debates are essentially ego exercises of little substantial value, due to the vast scale of the issues being addressed. And yet, here I am.
It has always puzzled me, a lowly engineer and pastor, why 'men of science' like Dawkins spend an inordinate sum of energy bloviating around and around about things they claim that they don't believe in.
I don't see 'Dawkins on Cinderella, or a similarly hostile treatise on 'Dawkins on Muhammed' - just the same, tired old ideology foisted as 'reason.'
People who actually have applied reason and diligence have found the manuscript and archaeological evidence worthy of much, much more than ridicule. But Dawkins and similarly inclined acolytes have no interest in honest reason. It's far easier and a lot more fun to enjoy a cacophony of applause as they celebrate ridicule, mockery and self-assertion.
Thing is, God has already revealed Himself to Dawkins, and Dawkins has determined to reject and suppress what God has so clearly revealed. --Romans 1:18-19,"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them."
Michael Carter, how can you possibly "reject and suppress" something which does not exist? Please get a grip on yourself and realize that this is the 21st century. If you give it just a little effort you will find that reality is so much more elegant than fairy tales.
Dialogue with Dharma: I wonder if we can agree on the meaning of a couple words, namely reality and truth. First reality is that which is consistent with objectively verifiable facts. Likewise truth is that which is consistent with reality, I.e. objectively verifiable facts. Therefore, reality and truth, are synonymous, or nearly so. I suppose a professional philosopher might be able to split hairs, but that is how I define those terms.
Now, you add an additional factor to the equation — namely that reality and truth is god. Maybe that’s what you think, and if it is, I defend your right to think as you please. Where I live, however, if I go from door to door and ask my neighbors “what is god?” They will tell me that god is a supernatural being, a supreme being, that created the heavens and the earth — all things, visible and invisible. We could go further into the weeds, but that definition of god is consistent with the words of the creed that my neighbors recite daily or weekly, in or out of church. It’s what they were taught as children, and what they continue to accept, mostly with very little thought. Their concept of god, and everything else they believe about this supreme being, however, is also completely at odds with objectively verifiable facts. Not one belief will withstand scrutiny.
If someone wants to study objectively verifiable facts, rather than studying Dharma, or christianity or islam or voodoo, I would suggest, mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics, etc. The study of ancient religions, eastern or western, is an interesting study in the history of human thought, but to suggest that god is truth and reality is neither truthful nor realistic. And, if you want to study the history of human thought, I suggest you continue your study through the Age of Enlightenment and discover the beauty of secular humanism. Reality, based on 19th, 20th and 21st century knowledge of objectively verifiable reality, is so much more exhilarating than anything that can be read in copies of texts written by people who didn’t know why the sun appears in the eastern sky every morning.
I suspect that you have as much respect for reality and truth as the denizens of this site. A host of questions remain to be answered, and as new knowledge is acquired, what is accepted as truth may be altered to conform to reality, but why cling to concepts like god which made sense to people of another time. Reality and Truth are exciting and beautiful in themselves.. Thus, the name of this site — The Poetry of Reality.
'objectively verifiable facts' aren't the whole reality. many things can't be verified by the scientific process, yet they are true, and not all concepts are objective, yet they exist within reality.
To me, God is all that exists and beyond. it's not just a heavenly being, who created. I 'believe' in such a presence which is self-sufficient, ever-existent, and the only existence. this is obviously a belief that can't be put as a scientific theory as it can't be disproved in any condition. but just because it's a non-scientific claim doesn't automatically mean it's unscientific and false.
but again, you said the Christian concept of god (which I do not adhere to) can't stand the scrutiny. what scrutiny are you talking about? I will accept that I don't understand the concept of the Trinity and other Christian things, but I honestly want to know what those scrutinies are.
you said human thought has progressed into better times with the age of enlightenment, and I agree. more knowledge and information has radically changed how we see the world.
but the claim that the only result of this enlightenment and peak of human thoughts is humanism? humanism, and its most successful branch: individualism, has its limitations. As we march farther and farther into the future, its applications are becoming more and more stale. soon more ideas will take its place.
still, ideas aren't stagnant. will humanism upgrade? yes.
and that is true with all ideas and philosophies and religions. At the very least, what I believe. old ideas are rediscovered, remodelled and reinterpreted, and new ideas and new philosophies constantly flow in and out. they don't remain stagnant either.
new knowledge acquired, new questions answered. we realize what we thought of as truth isn't true. our understanding of reality and truth change.
Clinging to the past and rejecting verified truth helps no one.
but, at the least for myself, if my views are in conformation with what is perceived as reality, as truth, then how can you claim my belief to be false?
itsa a belief yes. but it's not fantasy or falsehood. One can't prove that.
In support of your argument that “objectively verifiable facts' aren't the whole reality,” You speak of “many things,” but you don’t provide a single example. Since I am defending the null hypothesis here, it’s difficult to know what “many things” are. Perhaps you could provide some examples.
I think the key to your argument is in your second paragraph which you begin, “To me…”. That indicates to me that your argument is based on your subjective experience — the god about which you speak is a creation of your imagination. I would be willing to wager that you and your (to me, god is) god agree on all things. Can you name me one thing on which you and your god disagree? If not, doesn’t that indicate that your god (again,, you used the words “to me…”) is a creation of your mind?
You then go on to say that “God is all that exists and beyond.” My first question is, beyond what? Secondly, if god is all that exists, then everything is god. Isn’t this the essence of pantheism? I’m not a student of philosophy, but I understand pantheism was the philosophy expounded by Baruch Spinoza. His ideas were considered to be atheism. I think we all agree that nature is wonderful but do we need not ascribe divinity thereto. two people can look at the Northern Lights, in my opinion, the individual who understands they are caused by the interaction of the solar wind and earth’s magnetic field has a much deeper appreciation than someone who thinks they are a manifestation of the souls of deceased ancestors. The same could be said of a rainbow or any other natural phenomenon. If one wishes to see nature through the eyes of a child, that’s fine with me, but an adult human can have a much more profound experience that comes with a realistic understanding. I’ve been a child, and I am an adult — being an adult is better.
You write: “I 'believe' in such a presence which is self-sufficient, ever-existent, and the only existence. this is obviously a belief that can't be put as a scientific theory as it can't be disproved in any condition.” Again I say, you are entitled to be believe anything you choose to believe, but that doesn’t make it true. If it makes you feel good, fine, but that does not make it true. What we are interested in here is that which is true. You go on, “but just because it's a non-scientific claim doesn't automatically mean it's unscientific and false.” I submit that if it’s not false, you should be able point to some indication that it’s true, something other than “to me” or “I believe,” don’t you agree? I could sit here assert that the planet Mars is being orbited by one or more tea cups and saucers. Neither one of us can prove the statement is false, but I think you would agree that acceptance of such an idea would be irrational.
You ask by what tests would I use to scrutinize the claims for the existence of a god. Here, I am assuming that god is something that exists outside of ourselves. I am assuming that those who defend the argument that such a god exists, will point to some attributes which can be tested. However, if the god in which you believe is everything, then it has no attributes, which is to say, it doesn’t exist. I think we can agree on that point — god does not exist.
You write: “new knowledge acquired, new questions answered. we realize what we thought of as truth isn't true. our understanding of reality and truth change.” I agree with that 100 percent. This is progress, is it not? However you go on to write that “… rejecting verified truth helps no one.” Verified truth. That’s what I am asking for here regarding your assertion that “reality and truth is god.” I am asking for verification of the “truth” you assert that god exists. You haven’t provided anything other than your subjective experience of what you believe. That is the essence of fantasy. It exists only in your mind. I don’t mean to sound insulting, but you have not provided a scintilla of evidence to support the reality of your statement. This site is called The Poetry of Reality. For you to come here, as you are welcome to do, and claim that god exists, your own personal god (“to me…, I believe…”) with nothing to support it — that is not rational. You believe whatever you want to believe, but expect a vigorous challenge when you ascert antiquated ideas that are at odds with objective truth. New knowledge has been acquired since the days when people needed to search for god because there was no other answer to profound questions. Today, religion, eastern or western, is nothing but a cheap substitute for learning.
History never repeats itself . . . Time is linear, a circle is a line, we use a circular clock to measure time, or a sundial that measures the rotation of the earth before the learned machinations of springs and gears . . .
-
. . . If you draw a circle with x=cos(t) and y=sin(t) and pull it evenly in z-direction, you get a spatial spiral called a cylindrical spiral or helix.
-
The idea that history repeats is in itself wholly illogical, but it serves a propaganda purpose to its users . . . meaning . . . you can’t go back to older cultural ways of doing things because that makes you a sinner, a nazi, or some kind of pagan devil.
The older pagan sexual mores were much more conducive to the health of Nordic-Scandinavian societies, and much more supportive of women than those of the Jewish god Yahweh, the locust master, the one who drowned the world and demanded a witch be burned alive, or an adulteress be stoned to death . . .
Monogamy is an unnatural order created by Zionist churchmen to attach vicarious liabilities in the secular law, to control monarchial successions, as well as to establish ecclesiastic control over white female procreativity and individual white male posterity . . . All men are born of a woman, married or not.
All this destructive Jewish propaganda in Hollywood and destructive Jewish religious practices brought to the West via Christianity is born from their desire to destroy the white race.
this is a brilliant exposure and mind-expanding excoriation of the nescient balderdash, poppycock and piffle the brain-benumbed acolytes of religiosity, richard! thank you for your pellucidity, courage, and peerless insights.
In what the late Saddam Hussein once dubbed “the great Satan,” roughly two-thirds of the United States enlisted military corps is white . . . The fat, bulbous curry nigger, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin once confirmed in a 93-2 vote of the U.S. Senate, immediately embarked on a whirlwind media tour of duty, telling the pseudo-secular sycophants in the state-controlled tabloid press and state-controlled television talk show circuit about how the U.S. Army is full of bad racist white men.
And now the U.S. Army is doing ads begging for more young white males? What happened?
Even with a full-on declaration of war from Congress, and even if Gavin Newsome could be cheated into the Oval Office by ZOG somehow, with Globohomo diversity brigades going door-to-door looking to impress American children into military service, they will be met with armed, well-trained opposition, the invasion at the Southern border is going full tilt, and the drugs are flowing in like never before . . .
People are done fighting wars for these psychotic kikesucking Zionist ass-whores . . . With the borders of Europe and the USA wide open, civil warfare within the USA, Britain, and most of Europe is a certainty if foreign wars are initiated. Nobody is going to fight a war for Biden, he is dumber than Bush . . . Nobody is going to fight a war for that kikesucking Zionist ass-whore Nikki Haley, and I mean nobody.
Get ready for it . . . the fat old devil worshipping fags on Capitol Hill, on Wall Street, in Whitehall, and in Brussels are in no shape to fight a war themselves, and most Americans are armed to the teeth with their own guns . . .
I remember when I first read the God Delusion and was suitably impressed with its cogent argumentation against self-evidently unsupportable adherence to ancient beliefs.
But sometimes what’s just painfully obvious from the perspective of our society’s incredible material and technological abundance is itself is myopic delusion. In hindsight, Dawkins’ arguments are simplistic and entirely ignorant of a mode of perception which is just under the surface of every individual’s consciousness, if only we could stop incessantly feeding our own egoistic certainties. And this is increasingly true in our modern world, where nature has receded into a distant, threatened conception…and no cathedral could ever hold sway versus the steady drip of dopamine-loaded mobile app notifications.
Why do I say Dawkins is hopelessly ignorant? Because his perspective is rooted in intellectual conceptions that do not penetrate into the root of consciousness. He mocks the evolution from polytheism to monotheism as though he is unaware of the ways both in reality coexist. He has not grappled with the philosophical implications of every particle in the universe being born of a singularity. What is the distinction between unmanifest unity and myriad manifestation? You will not have to trouble your mind with such essential problems with Dawkins as your guide.
My advice? Leave Dawkins for younger minds and find a spiritual path that argues that self realization is available to anyone who can successfully sublimate the ego in favor of untainted perception. Dawkins’ sophistry (and that of his ilk) will not free us from the perilous state of our societal malaise. It will only serve to deepen it.
Judeo-messianism has been spreading its poisonous message among us for nearly two thousand years. Democratic and communist universalisms are more recent, but they have only reinforced the old Jewish narrative. They are the same ideals.
The transnational, transracial, transsexual, transcultural ideals that these ideologies preach to us (beyond peoples, races, cultures) and that are the daily sustenance of our schools, in our media, in our popular culture, in our universities, and on our streets have ended up reducing our biosymbolic identity and our ethnic pride to its minimum expression.
Jewish bankers have flooded Europe with Muslims and America with third world garbage . . . Exile as a punishment for those who preach sedition should be restored within the legal framework of the West . . . Judaism, Christianity and Islam are death cults originating in the Middle East and totally alien to Europe and its peoples.
Sometimes we wonder why the European left gets along so well with Muslims. Why does an often overtly anti-religious movement side with a fierce religiosity that seems to oppose almost everything the left has always sought to defend? Part of the explanation lies in the fact that Islam and Marxism have a common ideological root: Judaism.
Don Rumsfeld was right when he said, "Europe has shifted on its axis," was the wrong side that won World War II, and it becomes clearer every day . . . What has NATO done to defend Europe? Absolutely nothing . . . My enemies are not in Moscow, Damascus, Tehran, Riyadh or some ethereal Teutonic bogeyman, my enemies are in Washington, Brussels and Tel Aviv.
I’m really looking forward to your new book. I’ve read several of your books, some more than once, in order to gain some understanding of Darwinian evolution. I’m wondering if you would recommend re reading anything in particular to prepare for the Genetic Book of the Dead.
so it would seem, clarence... and so voltaire's observations have been recently exemplified, in tendentious intractability, regarding the palestinians throughout the past 8 decades.
Thomas Jefferson and the American Founders were very skeptical of Christian theology. Great article!
"Major Greene this evening fell into some conversation with me about the divinity and satisfaction of Jesus Christ. All the argument he advanced was 'that a mere creature or finite being could not make satisfaction to infinite justice for any crimes' and that 'these things are very mysterious.' Thus mystery is made a convenient cover for absurdity." (John Adams, Diaries, 1756)
“I know that there are some Jews in the English colonies. These Marranos go wherever there is money to be made . . . But whether these circumcised who sell old clothes claim that they are of the tribe of Naphtali or Issachar is not of the slightest importance. They are, simply, the biggest scoundrels who have ever dirtied the face of the earth.” — François-Marie Voltaire
christian zionists, jew zionists, zionists of any hue, are all slices from the same vomitus-bespattered pie, spangle... the pie of me-me-me and the esurience of greed,...w/ their invented d'evil' poltergeist-god as the head chef and slicer of that pie.
Dawkins writes, "I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.
Here, yet again, we see Dawkins the fundamentalist proclaiming his sweeping, adamant, universally inclusive "one true way". This proclamation, like all others which address themselves to the sweeping question of the nature of everything everywhere, is built upon the muddy ground of immeasurable human ignorance on matters of such enormous scale.
But this is not my complaint. Surely Dawkins, his mirror enemy the Jehovah's Witness, and all the rest of us too are entitled to express our theories on such matters. Such discussion is very unlikely to ever be conclusive, but it can be interesting and entertaining, so seen through that lens Dr. Dawkins makes his contribution to the circus, and helps keep the conversation going. And here I am following his lead in attempting to do the same.
No, my complaint is not with Dr. Dawkin's expression of his views, but with the fact that he is selling them as being a product of reason. If we are to take Dr. Dawkin's advice and abandon the enterprise of religion and replace it with reason, it's essential that we understand what reason is, and most carefully protect it as a methodology.
Reason doesn't care who wins.
Ideology cares about little else.
Reason is not a collection of clever rhetorical arguments one uses to triumph over one's ideological opponents. Reason is an attempt to reach for the truth by the most objective and detached means humanly possible.
Dr. Dawkins and so many of his followers seem to have sincerely confused reason with ideology. And by doing so, year by year they seem to become ever more like the religious ideologues whom they so passionately reject. They are, in essence, arguing with themselves, heretics to their own position.
But then, all of us are heretics in some way or another, to some degree or another.
My position is that all such debates are essentially ego exercises of little substantial value, due to the vast scale of the issues being addressed. And yet, here I am.
It has always puzzled me, a lowly engineer and pastor, why 'men of science' like Dawkins spend an inordinate sum of energy bloviating around and around about things they claim that they don't believe in.
I don't see 'Dawkins on Cinderella, or a similarly hostile treatise on 'Dawkins on Muhammed' - just the same, tired old ideology foisted as 'reason.'
People who actually have applied reason and diligence have found the manuscript and archaeological evidence worthy of much, much more than ridicule. But Dawkins and similarly inclined acolytes have no interest in honest reason. It's far easier and a lot more fun to enjoy a cacophony of applause as they celebrate ridicule, mockery and self-assertion.
Thing is, God has already revealed Himself to Dawkins, and Dawkins has determined to reject and suppress what God has so clearly revealed. --Romans 1:18-19,"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them."
Michael Carter, how can you possibly "reject and suppress" something which does not exist? Please get a grip on yourself and realize that this is the 21st century. If you give it just a little effort you will find that reality is so much more elegant than fairy tales.
the reality and truth is God.
Dialogue with Dharma: I wonder if we can agree on the meaning of a couple words, namely reality and truth. First reality is that which is consistent with objectively verifiable facts. Likewise truth is that which is consistent with reality, I.e. objectively verifiable facts. Therefore, reality and truth, are synonymous, or nearly so. I suppose a professional philosopher might be able to split hairs, but that is how I define those terms.
Now, you add an additional factor to the equation — namely that reality and truth is god. Maybe that’s what you think, and if it is, I defend your right to think as you please. Where I live, however, if I go from door to door and ask my neighbors “what is god?” They will tell me that god is a supernatural being, a supreme being, that created the heavens and the earth — all things, visible and invisible. We could go further into the weeds, but that definition of god is consistent with the words of the creed that my neighbors recite daily or weekly, in or out of church. It’s what they were taught as children, and what they continue to accept, mostly with very little thought. Their concept of god, and everything else they believe about this supreme being, however, is also completely at odds with objectively verifiable facts. Not one belief will withstand scrutiny.
If someone wants to study objectively verifiable facts, rather than studying Dharma, or christianity or islam or voodoo, I would suggest, mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics, etc. The study of ancient religions, eastern or western, is an interesting study in the history of human thought, but to suggest that god is truth and reality is neither truthful nor realistic. And, if you want to study the history of human thought, I suggest you continue your study through the Age of Enlightenment and discover the beauty of secular humanism. Reality, based on 19th, 20th and 21st century knowledge of objectively verifiable reality, is so much more exhilarating than anything that can be read in copies of texts written by people who didn’t know why the sun appears in the eastern sky every morning.
I suspect that you have as much respect for reality and truth as the denizens of this site. A host of questions remain to be answered, and as new knowledge is acquired, what is accepted as truth may be altered to conform to reality, but why cling to concepts like god which made sense to people of another time. Reality and Truth are exciting and beautiful in themselves.. Thus, the name of this site — The Poetry of Reality.
'objectively verifiable facts' aren't the whole reality. many things can't be verified by the scientific process, yet they are true, and not all concepts are objective, yet they exist within reality.
To me, God is all that exists and beyond. it's not just a heavenly being, who created. I 'believe' in such a presence which is self-sufficient, ever-existent, and the only existence. this is obviously a belief that can't be put as a scientific theory as it can't be disproved in any condition. but just because it's a non-scientific claim doesn't automatically mean it's unscientific and false.
but again, you said the Christian concept of god (which I do not adhere to) can't stand the scrutiny. what scrutiny are you talking about? I will accept that I don't understand the concept of the Trinity and other Christian things, but I honestly want to know what those scrutinies are.
you said human thought has progressed into better times with the age of enlightenment, and I agree. more knowledge and information has radically changed how we see the world.
but the claim that the only result of this enlightenment and peak of human thoughts is humanism? humanism, and its most successful branch: individualism, has its limitations. As we march farther and farther into the future, its applications are becoming more and more stale. soon more ideas will take its place.
still, ideas aren't stagnant. will humanism upgrade? yes.
and that is true with all ideas and philosophies and religions. At the very least, what I believe. old ideas are rediscovered, remodelled and reinterpreted, and new ideas and new philosophies constantly flow in and out. they don't remain stagnant either.
new knowledge acquired, new questions answered. we realize what we thought of as truth isn't true. our understanding of reality and truth change.
Clinging to the past and rejecting verified truth helps no one.
but, at the least for myself, if my views are in conformation with what is perceived as reality, as truth, then how can you claim my belief to be false?
itsa a belief yes. but it's not fantasy or falsehood. One can't prove that.
In support of your argument that “objectively verifiable facts' aren't the whole reality,” You speak of “many things,” but you don’t provide a single example. Since I am defending the null hypothesis here, it’s difficult to know what “many things” are. Perhaps you could provide some examples.
I think the key to your argument is in your second paragraph which you begin, “To me…”. That indicates to me that your argument is based on your subjective experience — the god about which you speak is a creation of your imagination. I would be willing to wager that you and your (to me, god is) god agree on all things. Can you name me one thing on which you and your god disagree? If not, doesn’t that indicate that your god (again,, you used the words “to me…”) is a creation of your mind?
You then go on to say that “God is all that exists and beyond.” My first question is, beyond what? Secondly, if god is all that exists, then everything is god. Isn’t this the essence of pantheism? I’m not a student of philosophy, but I understand pantheism was the philosophy expounded by Baruch Spinoza. His ideas were considered to be atheism. I think we all agree that nature is wonderful but do we need not ascribe divinity thereto. two people can look at the Northern Lights, in my opinion, the individual who understands they are caused by the interaction of the solar wind and earth’s magnetic field has a much deeper appreciation than someone who thinks they are a manifestation of the souls of deceased ancestors. The same could be said of a rainbow or any other natural phenomenon. If one wishes to see nature through the eyes of a child, that’s fine with me, but an adult human can have a much more profound experience that comes with a realistic understanding. I’ve been a child, and I am an adult — being an adult is better.
You write: “I 'believe' in such a presence which is self-sufficient, ever-existent, and the only existence. this is obviously a belief that can't be put as a scientific theory as it can't be disproved in any condition.” Again I say, you are entitled to be believe anything you choose to believe, but that doesn’t make it true. If it makes you feel good, fine, but that does not make it true. What we are interested in here is that which is true. You go on, “but just because it's a non-scientific claim doesn't automatically mean it's unscientific and false.” I submit that if it’s not false, you should be able point to some indication that it’s true, something other than “to me” or “I believe,” don’t you agree? I could sit here assert that the planet Mars is being orbited by one or more tea cups and saucers. Neither one of us can prove the statement is false, but I think you would agree that acceptance of such an idea would be irrational.
You ask by what tests would I use to scrutinize the claims for the existence of a god. Here, I am assuming that god is something that exists outside of ourselves. I am assuming that those who defend the argument that such a god exists, will point to some attributes which can be tested. However, if the god in which you believe is everything, then it has no attributes, which is to say, it doesn’t exist. I think we can agree on that point — god does not exist.
You write: “new knowledge acquired, new questions answered. we realize what we thought of as truth isn't true. our understanding of reality and truth change.” I agree with that 100 percent. This is progress, is it not? However you go on to write that “… rejecting verified truth helps no one.” Verified truth. That’s what I am asking for here regarding your assertion that “reality and truth is god.” I am asking for verification of the “truth” you assert that god exists. You haven’t provided anything other than your subjective experience of what you believe. That is the essence of fantasy. It exists only in your mind. I don’t mean to sound insulting, but you have not provided a scintilla of evidence to support the reality of your statement. This site is called The Poetry of Reality. For you to come here, as you are welcome to do, and claim that god exists, your own personal god (“to me…, I believe…”) with nothing to support it — that is not rational. You believe whatever you want to believe, but expect a vigorous challenge when you ascert antiquated ideas that are at odds with objective truth. New knowledge has been acquired since the days when people needed to search for god because there was no other answer to profound questions. Today, religion, eastern or western, is nothing but a cheap substitute for learning.
“The Jews are the most hateful and shameful of the small nations.”— François-Marie Voltaire
Such an incisive and impactful book. It was the first and probably most significant domino leading to a firm conviction in my atheism.
History never repeats itself . . . Time is linear, a circle is a line, we use a circular clock to measure time, or a sundial that measures the rotation of the earth before the learned machinations of springs and gears . . .
-
. . . If you draw a circle with x=cos(t) and y=sin(t) and pull it evenly in z-direction, you get a spatial spiral called a cylindrical spiral or helix.
-
The idea that history repeats is in itself wholly illogical, but it serves a propaganda purpose to its users . . . meaning . . . you can’t go back to older cultural ways of doing things because that makes you a sinner, a nazi, or some kind of pagan devil.
The older pagan sexual mores were much more conducive to the health of Nordic-Scandinavian societies, and much more supportive of women than those of the Jewish god Yahweh, the locust master, the one who drowned the world and demanded a witch be burned alive, or an adulteress be stoned to death . . .
Monogamy is an unnatural order created by Zionist churchmen to attach vicarious liabilities in the secular law, to control monarchial successions, as well as to establish ecclesiastic control over white female procreativity and individual white male posterity . . . All men are born of a woman, married or not.
All this destructive Jewish propaganda in Hollywood and destructive Jewish religious practices brought to the West via Christianity is born from their desire to destroy the white race.
https://cwspangle.substack.com/i/138320669/heinrich-himmler-on-how-bolshevik-christianity-spreads-homosexuality-and-hatred-of-women
this is a brilliant exposure and mind-expanding excoriation of the nescient balderdash, poppycock and piffle the brain-benumbed acolytes of religiosity, richard! thank you for your pellucidity, courage, and peerless insights.
In what the late Saddam Hussein once dubbed “the great Satan,” roughly two-thirds of the United States enlisted military corps is white . . . The fat, bulbous curry nigger, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin once confirmed in a 93-2 vote of the U.S. Senate, immediately embarked on a whirlwind media tour of duty, telling the pseudo-secular sycophants in the state-controlled tabloid press and state-controlled television talk show circuit about how the U.S. Army is full of bad racist white men.
And now the U.S. Army is doing ads begging for more young white males? What happened?
Even with a full-on declaration of war from Congress, and even if Gavin Newsome could be cheated into the Oval Office by ZOG somehow, with Globohomo diversity brigades going door-to-door looking to impress American children into military service, they will be met with armed, well-trained opposition, the invasion at the Southern border is going full tilt, and the drugs are flowing in like never before . . .
People are done fighting wars for these psychotic kikesucking Zionist ass-whores . . . With the borders of Europe and the USA wide open, civil warfare within the USA, Britain, and most of Europe is a certainty if foreign wars are initiated. Nobody is going to fight a war for Biden, he is dumber than Bush . . . Nobody is going to fight a war for that kikesucking Zionist ass-whore Nikki Haley, and I mean nobody.
Get ready for it . . . the fat old devil worshipping fags on Capitol Hill, on Wall Street, in Whitehall, and in Brussels are in no shape to fight a war themselves, and most Americans are armed to the teeth with their own guns . . .
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/satanism-is-a-jewish-cult
I remember when I first read the God Delusion and was suitably impressed with its cogent argumentation against self-evidently unsupportable adherence to ancient beliefs.
But sometimes what’s just painfully obvious from the perspective of our society’s incredible material and technological abundance is itself is myopic delusion. In hindsight, Dawkins’ arguments are simplistic and entirely ignorant of a mode of perception which is just under the surface of every individual’s consciousness, if only we could stop incessantly feeding our own egoistic certainties. And this is increasingly true in our modern world, where nature has receded into a distant, threatened conception…and no cathedral could ever hold sway versus the steady drip of dopamine-loaded mobile app notifications.
Why do I say Dawkins is hopelessly ignorant? Because his perspective is rooted in intellectual conceptions that do not penetrate into the root of consciousness. He mocks the evolution from polytheism to monotheism as though he is unaware of the ways both in reality coexist. He has not grappled with the philosophical implications of every particle in the universe being born of a singularity. What is the distinction between unmanifest unity and myriad manifestation? You will not have to trouble your mind with such essential problems with Dawkins as your guide.
My advice? Leave Dawkins for younger minds and find a spiritual path that argues that self realization is available to anyone who can successfully sublimate the ego in favor of untainted perception. Dawkins’ sophistry (and that of his ilk) will not free us from the perilous state of our societal malaise. It will only serve to deepen it.
“The Jews are the most hateful and shameful of the small nations.”— François-Marie Voltaire
Judeo-messianism has been spreading its poisonous message among us for nearly two thousand years. Democratic and communist universalisms are more recent, but they have only reinforced the old Jewish narrative. They are the same ideals.
The transnational, transracial, transsexual, transcultural ideals that these ideologies preach to us (beyond peoples, races, cultures) and that are the daily sustenance of our schools, in our media, in our popular culture, in our universities, and on our streets have ended up reducing our biosymbolic identity and our ethnic pride to its minimum expression.
Jewish bankers have flooded Europe with Muslims and America with third world garbage . . . Exile as a punishment for those who preach sedition should be restored within the legal framework of the West . . . Judaism, Christianity and Islam are death cults originating in the Middle East and totally alien to Europe and its peoples.
Sometimes we wonder why the European left gets along so well with Muslims. Why does an often overtly anti-religious movement side with a fierce religiosity that seems to oppose almost everything the left has always sought to defend? Part of the explanation lies in the fact that Islam and Marxism have a common ideological root: Judaism.
Don Rumsfeld was right when he said, "Europe has shifted on its axis," was the wrong side that won World War II, and it becomes clearer every day . . . What has NATO done to defend Europe? Absolutely nothing . . . My enemies are not in Moscow, Damascus, Tehran, Riyadh or some ethereal Teutonic bogeyman, my enemies are in Washington, Brussels and Tel Aviv.
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/pardonne-mon-francais-va-te-faire
I’m really looking forward to your new book. I’ve read several of your books, some more than once, in order to gain some understanding of Darwinian evolution. I’m wondering if you would recommend re reading anything in particular to prepare for the Genetic Book of the Dead.
so it would seem, clarence... and so voltaire's observations have been recently exemplified, in tendentious intractability, regarding the palestinians throughout the past 8 decades.
Thomas Jefferson and the American Founders were very skeptical of Christian theology. Great article!
"Major Greene this evening fell into some conversation with me about the divinity and satisfaction of Jesus Christ. All the argument he advanced was 'that a mere creature or finite being could not make satisfaction to infinite justice for any crimes' and that 'these things are very mysterious.' Thus mystery is made a convenient cover for absurdity." (John Adams, Diaries, 1756)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
“They have surpassed all nations in impertinent fables, in bad conduct and in barbarism.” — François-Marie Voltaire
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
“The Jews are the most hateful and shameful of the small nations.”— François-Marie Voltaire
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
“I know that there are some Jews in the English colonies. These Marranos go wherever there is money to be made . . . But whether these circumcised who sell old clothes claim that they are of the tribe of Naphtali or Issachar is not of the slightest importance. They are, simply, the biggest scoundrels who have ever dirtied the face of the earth.” — François-Marie Voltaire
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
this is great
Heinrich Himmler on the spread of homosexuality and misogyny in Bolshevik Christianity. . .
https://cwspangle.substack.com/i/138320669/heinrich-himmler-on-how-bolshevik-christianity-spreads-homosexuality-and-hatred-of-women
christian zionists, jew zionists, zionists of any hue, are all slices from the same vomitus-bespattered pie, spangle... the pie of me-me-me and the esurience of greed,...w/ their invented d'evil' poltergeist-god as the head chef and slicer of that pie.
“The Jews are the most hateful and shameful of the small nations.”— François-Marie Voltaire