Dogs with certain traits tend to have offspring that have similar traits. Now imagine a toy chihuahua mating with a great dane. Pretty difficult right? That's speciation.
Maybe, but it also mistakes a-theism as it is quite an old concept before Darwinism came on the scene.
The question here is put within a christian perspective. This kind of theism versus a-theism.
It is not without reason to postulate a "theos". And given the time since 400 BCE, the nature of said "theos" has been in dispute ever since birthing the idea of agnosticism. Certain philosophers were even killed under the guise of apostasy from "pagan" religion.
For those with a lack of historical context, the appeal to argue as is done, is clear.
The idea that development of species through natural selection by means of the powers of nature: hunger, drought, flooding, volcano eruptions, asteroid-impacts and what have you, is not a new idea. The idea was already postulated in 1100 by a Persian scientist writing on the proliferation and characteristics of certain plants. Though he fell short of clearly saying such.
Darwin to, in his book: on the origin of species, does not go into the prime mover argument. As with most people: they have not read Darwin' s book.
It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
Read carefully. Consider then what the laws of nature are? What is the essence of these laws? What is a life being? What is Life Force? How are they influenced by the laws of nature?
The reason why this argument appears again and again in different forms, the latest: intelligent design, is because humans have a limited investigation capability. Certain questions are hard to answer and to measure.
Then the difference between faith, religion, philosophical outlook and science come into play.
It is quite visible how a guy called Richard Dawkins becomes a material-atheist, and others not.
It does not mean that his: "capricious bully" artistic licentious writings are right or wrong. Because the bible contains these alterations, (See also Miles Mathis: Names of God, and the add-mixture of Phoenician/Cananite, Egyptian and Babylonian ideas, transforming the text based on religious sensitivity and priestly political views) it rightly leads to tough questions and positions.
But this only leads to the question: why would you trust a book containing these confusing statements? It does nothing for the origin question.
Additionally, by the same token, it can be posited that humans are actually a result of genetic modification by some species called The Gods, especially given the rise of insight into clay tablets from a period concurrent with the biblical text.
It leaves quite a lot of leeway to belief whatever you want, or deem important, whether you like it, from a religious point of view or not.
Interestingly, when reading things by astrophysicist it is hardly escapable that these people not only think in terms of physics but also meta-physics. See for instance the discussion with the name: https://piped.video/results?search_query=a+glorious+accident
It is easy to label something cook, or other derogatory. What, despite all the proofs around us, many people fail to see, is that we are on the brink of pushing forward into meta-physical territory with people like Rupert Sheldrake.
It is interesting to consider his views on pilgrimages. It has nothing to do with religion, or origin theory, but the nature of what is of influence to us: energy fields.
When it comes to Tucker, we also need to take into account where this man has been on several issues, and the road he is traveling as well as the time-frame he is in.
So, in closing on this point: Darwin did nothing to push for atheism. The question remains: what do people themselves do?
And this touches on virtue.
I find it, time and again, of great import to consider the words in the Declaration of Independence: unalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
What happens when we fail to see the life in another? We dehumanize them.
So, what is the correct way for a man to project power? What kind of power? The power of the ego? The power of spirit? And all of a sudden we are back at the laws of nature, leading into virtue.
I respectfully disagree with your assertion here that Darwin's theory of evolution does not advocate for atheism. While Darwin himself did not explicitly argue for atheism, his theory of evolution by natural selection did propose a mechanism for the diversity of life on Earth that did not necessitate a divine creator. This has been viewed by many as a challenge to traditional religious beliefs and has played a role in the growth of atheism and agnosticism.
And I do recognize that, from a perspective of religion, or rather, traditional view of the Genesis account, it may be postulated that the theory of evolution through natural selection is opposite of what was accepted.
From my perspective, there once was a time when 3 views of the solar system were fighting for supremacy:
the geo-centric one
the helio-centric one
the mixture of both called the Brahe system (Tycho Brahe).
From a functional perspective, depending on what you need it for, all three systems work. But.... system 1 does not work when one is to shoot space-craft to the moon and back.
And yes, it challenges established traditions. It may be argued: flight, space-flight etc are playing a role in atheism or agonsticim.
Of course, you may claim so. The question I have is: Are you free to decide for yourself, or not? If so, then why is this an issue? Is it not because we are pointing towards a lack of virtue?
But who' s virtue?
Are you virtuous when you agree to spent 50% of your life force to a system that hates your guts, and enslaves you? Is that praising the lord, who gave you the unalienble right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Do we recognize the nefarious and corrupting operation that taxes exude? Do we recognize that by a central bank providing for the funding of a government, we lose our say?
Is theism required for agreement on these unalienble rights and the virtue it requires?
What if what you call God, and another calls: "Wralda", does that mean the latter is promoting atheism, or deism?
Do you see the trap set when accepting the Deep State buzz words. They are funding all sides of the argument, every single time.
Is theism required for agreement on these unalienable rights and the virtue it requires?
No, theism is not required for agreement on unalienable rights. These rights are fundamental principles that are recognized across different cultures and belief systems. The concept of U.R. is rooted in the idea that all human beings have inherent dignity and worth, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
"What if what you call God, and another calls: 'Wralda', does that mean the latter is promoting atheism, or deism?"
This appears to be a semantic question that highlights the complexity of language and cultural differences. The terms "God" and "Wralda" may refer to different concepts or entities, but they both imply a belief in a higher power or transcendent reality. The distinction between theism, atheism, and deism is not solely dependent on the label used to describe the divine.
Do you see the trap set when accepting the Deep State buzz words. They are funding all sides of the argument, every single time.
This kind of hyper-skepticism leads to a self-referential and self-defeating circularity. The argument youre making (and almost the entirety of the Truther Movement/Great Awakening Movement) is that the "Deep State" is funding all sides of the argument, implying that any information or knowledge we have is potentially tainted by this alleged control.
However, this raises a crucial question: How do we know that this information about the "Deep State" isn't also part of the alleged control? In other words, if we assume that the "Deep State" is controlling the narrative and funding all sides of the argument, then how can we trust the information that leads us to believe in the existence of the "Deep State" in the first place? Isn't that information also potentially part of the controlled narrative/Matrix?
This creates a kind of epistemological paradox, where we're unable to trust any information, including the information that leads us to be skeptical of the information in the first place. It's a self-referential loop that ultimately leads to a kind of intellectual paralysis.
As I pointed out, this kind of thinking can be self-defeating, as it undermines our ability to make sense of the world around us. If we can't trust any information, then how can we make informed decisions or have meaningful discussions? In essence, this kind of hyper-skepticism can lead to a kind of nihilism, where we're left with no foundation for knowledge or truth.
I've been thinking about this very topic (the foundation of True knowledge in the Great Awakening movement) for a while now. And it' appears to me that if we're not careful, then we'll all end up in some form of Solipsism.
In the context of the Great Awakening movement, the emphasis on questioning everything and doubting the official narrative can be beneficial in encouraging critical thinking and promoting media literacy. However, if taken to an extreme, this skepticism can lead to a kind of solipsistic thinking, where individuals begin to doubt the existence of objective reality itself.
When we start to question everything, including the nature of reality, it can be challenging to find a solid foundation for knowledge. If we're not careful, we might end up in a situation where we're unable to trust anything, including our own senses, and that's when solipsism can become a tempting, albeit flawed, solution.
Solipsism, in this context, can manifest in various ways. For instance, some individuals might start to believe that they're the only ones who truly understand the "truth," while everyone else is deceived or asleep (something affecting almost all of us in this forum). This can lead to a kind of intellectual isolationism, where people become increasingly disconnected from others and the world around them (raises hand).
Another risk is that solipsism can foster a kind of paranoid thinking, where individuals begin to see conspiracies everywhere and doubt the intentions of others. This can create a toxic atmosphere, where people are more focused on uncovering hidden truths than on engaging in constructive dialogue and collaboration (another guilty charge).
I've waxed eloquent. Apologies. I guess I still suffer from a little PTSD from my discussion with @slyver (another pede in here) about this very topic.
This creates a kind of epistemological paradox, where we're unable to trust any information, including the information that leads us to be skeptical of the information in the first place. It's a self-referential loop that ultimately leads to a kind of intellectual paralysis.
As I pointed out, this kind of thinking can be self-defeating, as it undermines our ability to make sense of the world around us. If we can't trust any information, then how can we make informed decisions or have meaningful discussions? In essence, this kind of hyper-skepticism can lead to a kind of nihilism, where we're left with no foundation for knowledge or truth.
EXCELLENT POINT!
And I believe that THIS is exactly what the intention is.
Supposedly, CIA Director William Casey told President Reagan:
The mission of the CIA will be complete when everything the American people believes is false.
The first time I read that, I was baffled. Like ...WTF? Why would anyone say that, much less the CIA.
For years, I thought about it occasionally, but still did not understand it.
But today, I do.
If people are confused, they seek someone -- ANYONE -- to tell them what is truth and what they should do.
And THAT is the real goal of the criminal cabal.
They accomplished this in North Korea many years ago, which was the testing ground for this type of massive psyop.
They have been slowing working towards this is the West ever since.
They WANT people to have no idea what to think. They WANT confusion. Because that could ultimately give them control to do anything they want.
THAT is their ultimate goal.
We have to understand epistemology: the study of knowledge, and how we can KNOW something is true (or not true).
The lack of this skill is what has allowed all the anti-liberty, anti-social, and anti-human phenomenon we have been experiencing for decades now.
Isn' t this the exact issue? What is the solid ground?
And perhaps, the tsunami of messages we receive daily, compels us to pay attention to them, interact with them, while we forgo the pleasure of finding our basis within us.
O dear, Yeah, Slyver can be a tough cookie! I first will congratulate you on again diving into this sub-ject despite your PTSD, And second, I will try to take it easy.
This appears to be a semantic question
Allow me to preface this by saying that I see where you are coming from before making this remark, and I value your view.
I am highlighting this because the question becomes: have you knowledge regarding this view of life? If not, what then is the reason for the response, instead of investigating.
I admit, I mentioned " Wralda" on purpose, as I surmised this response might ensue. Also, this is not to pick on you, but to highlight how easy it is to respond before knowledge is obtained. My remembrance may be a bit hazy, but I seem to remember a bible verse from proverbs regarding that particular stuff.
So, no, it is not semantic question as like in God or Allah used interchangeably, since these words mean the same. On a deeper level, it is a primordial question, as both systems of view: OT/NT God vs Wralda ex-ist diverge from the start.
sol-ipse-ism
I fear this has been the perfect scapegoat. True, it is important to be cognizant regarding the opportunity to land at such a point, where existence is only considered from a egotistic point of view, instead of an holistic point of view.
Seeing the other living is the key. Given the nature of our discussion, I would say, we are far removed from that.
it can be challenging to find a solid foundation for knowledge.
I love this one. For a moment I was reminded of ChatGTP3.5 as this AI also loves to use relative positions. This is the nature of human inquiry, to be able to push beyond the boundaries of relativism and see what happens.
So, what is a solid base for knowledge in relation to the human experience in these 3D environments, with a potential to experience other dimensions? I would say, the foundation is always personal.
Religion for instance, is about the religious/spiritual experience of others, who wrote about it. A movement surrounding such an expression starts to gain traction and before you know it, a new religion is born, especially one that covers generations.
So, what is our solid base? Is it not our own experience? And then we share this experience with others, in an exchange of viewpoints.
where individuals begin to doubt the existence of objective reality itself
I should say, difficult to say.
If I were to analyze the word: object and its derivative objective ( coloration) I would consider this word a misnomer for what you were intending to say. There is a reason why the word: thing and object is on the one hand tied together and mixed up on the other. The reason is: a thing is a judicial proceeding where a challenge is laid down. This challenge is literally the ob - iact.
In terms of idiom, we then hope that by a lot of verbiage we can somehow escape the literal and move towards the definite or that which is not finite. If this does not make sense, then you are right. It doesn't. And that is the value of it: to show our choice of words is totally screwed up.
My personal view here is that by the language distortions ( babel) the truth is hard to reach, let alone to be shared. Chaos ensues. And who has ORDER? The one instituting it: ordu ab chao.
Even worse: real or re-al is an adjective to describe a perception of matter. The synonym for it is given as "actual" which, also an adjective again leads to the word: iact: to throw/ move. re, in this case point towards: fitting together, a matter.
When considering the word: ex-sist-ence there is a clear indicator of a matter under discussion that is grown out of "to be"/"to stand" = life.
The word in-di-vidu-al = adjective pertaining to that which cannot be taken apart. A whole unit of being alive and kicking.
The worst part in all of this semantic gibberish is that this sentence you wrote, consists of adjectives: the derivative from the life-unity, while skipping the fact. The mere consideration that others may be conscious about another man or woman existing, being alive, this consensus does not make it. The perception of the one doing the perceiving is what counts. Hence, the perception of being alive, but also the perception of being from the same source.
The rest are derivatives of the one perceiving, thus entering into a process of experience, gaining knowledge. The rest then is a matter of communication (together one-ing) and finally: agreement to further act together based on mutual benefit and free will.
lead to a kind of intellectual isolationism, where people become increasingly disconnected from others and the world around them
Indeed, that is a danger. I am glad you are still overcoming this, by these exchanges on this medium!
... it also mistakes a-theism as it is quite an old concept before Darwinism came on the scene.
Of course. "Theism" is merely describing a belief in one or more gods. It doesn't mean anything else. "Atheism" is a lack of a belief in one or more gods (the "a-" prefix meaning "without," as in, "without said belief").
is not without reason to postulate a "theos".
Sure. The Greek word "theos" simply means "god."
And given the time since 400 BCE, the nature of said "theos" has been in dispute ever since birthing the idea of agnosticism.
I don't know where you get that from.
Thomas Huxley coined the word "agnostic" as a joke against the Gnostics. The Gnostics believed that a person could "know god" simply by believing. It was not a rational proof, but more like today's libtards who say "it's my truth," which is nothing but circular logic.
Huxley used "agnostic" as a term to say that you CANNOT know "just because you know."
Whether anyone wants to agree or disagree with that concept is beside the point. That's what Huxley meant. And that was in the 1800's.
I don't know why you would claim that the year 400 BC is relevant to the discussion of OP's topic.
Certain philosophers were even killed under the guise of apostasy from "pagan" religion.
True, religious ideas have caused many deaths, from all directions of belief.
The idea that development of species through natural selection by means of the powers of nature ... is not a new idea.
Darwin's research showed adaptation, not the development (i.e. "origin") of species. Darwin took "one small step" in scientific observation of adaptation, and blew it up into a "giant leap" of evolution. He labeled his conclusion as the ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES, when in fact that was merely a conclusion based on nothing but observation of adaptation WITHIN a species.
That is what Tucker is saying here, and he is right. There is no fossil record to prove evolution, per se, though we can directly observe adaptation via scientific experiment or direct observation.
Even in Darwin's time, there were people creating new breeds of dogs and cattle for various purposes by cross breeding and creating new breeds. But ... they were still dogs, and not turtles.
Darwin's mistake was to assume that observable adaptation to the environment necessarily meant the possibility of massive changes to the organism to such an extent that it would become something entirely new.
There is nothing in the fossil record to support that idea.
Consider then what the laws of nature are?
That type of thinking is IRRELEVANT ... until someone can PROVE from the fossil record that nature changes a monkey into a human.
No one has done it, yet, and this is what Tucker is saying. Until someone does, it is just a fantasy of a possibility, which is what Darwin did (mistakenly).
... because humans have a limited investigation capability.
Maybe so, BUT we have an UNLIMITED ability to fantasize about things for which there is no evidence to prove. Both Covid and Evolution come to mind here.
The rest of your comment looks to me like a word salad.
Regarding Tucker's comments in the video, his point is correct: No real evidence to support a theory that most people have learned to take for granted -- as Joe Rogan did, which is what caused Tucker's response.
Darwin's mistake was to assume that observable adaptation to the environment necessarily meant the possibility of massive changes to the organism to such an extent that it would become something entirely new.
There is nothing in the fossil record to support that idea.
I call it evilution since it comes from the father of all lies!
All text books need evolution removed...
Please explain dog breeding.
That is genetic engineering not evolution. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
Dogs with certain traits tend to have offspring that have similar traits. Now imagine a toy chihuahua mating with a great dane. Pretty difficult right? That's speciation.
Maybe, but it also mistakes a-theism as it is quite an old concept before Darwinism came on the scene.
The question here is put within a christian perspective. This kind of theism versus a-theism.
It is not without reason to postulate a "theos". And given the time since 400 BCE, the nature of said "theos" has been in dispute ever since birthing the idea of agnosticism. Certain philosophers were even killed under the guise of apostasy from "pagan" religion.
For those with a lack of historical context, the appeal to argue as is done, is clear.
The idea that development of species through natural selection by means of the powers of nature: hunger, drought, flooding, volcano eruptions, asteroid-impacts and what have you, is not a new idea. The idea was already postulated in 1100 by a Persian scientist writing on the proliferation and characteristics of certain plants. Though he fell short of clearly saying such.
Darwin to, in his book: on the origin of species, does not go into the prime mover argument. As with most people: they have not read Darwin' s book.
Read carefully. Consider then what the laws of nature are? What is the essence of these laws? What is a life being? What is Life Force? How are they influenced by the laws of nature?
The reason why this argument appears again and again in different forms, the latest: intelligent design, is because humans have a limited investigation capability. Certain questions are hard to answer and to measure.
Then the difference between faith, religion, philosophical outlook and science come into play.
It is quite visible how a guy called Richard Dawkins becomes a material-atheist, and others not.
It does not mean that his: "capricious bully" artistic licentious writings are right or wrong. Because the bible contains these alterations, (See also Miles Mathis: Names of God, and the add-mixture of Phoenician/Cananite, Egyptian and Babylonian ideas, transforming the text based on religious sensitivity and priestly political views) it rightly leads to tough questions and positions.
But this only leads to the question: why would you trust a book containing these confusing statements? It does nothing for the origin question.
Additionally, by the same token, it can be posited that humans are actually a result of genetic modification by some species called The Gods, especially given the rise of insight into clay tablets from a period concurrent with the biblical text.
It leaves quite a lot of leeway to belief whatever you want, or deem important, whether you like it, from a religious point of view or not.
Interestingly, when reading things by astrophysicist it is hardly escapable that these people not only think in terms of physics but also meta-physics. See for instance the discussion with the name: https://piped.video/results?search_query=a+glorious+accident
It is easy to label something cook, or other derogatory. What, despite all the proofs around us, many people fail to see, is that we are on the brink of pushing forward into meta-physical territory with people like Rupert Sheldrake.
It is interesting to consider his views on pilgrimages. It has nothing to do with religion, or origin theory, but the nature of what is of influence to us: energy fields.
When it comes to Tucker, we also need to take into account where this man has been on several issues, and the road he is traveling as well as the time-frame he is in.
So, in closing on this point: Darwin did nothing to push for atheism. The question remains: what do people themselves do?
And this touches on virtue.
I find it, time and again, of great import to consider the words in the Declaration of Independence: unalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
What happens when we fail to see the life in another? We dehumanize them.
So, what is the correct way for a man to project power? What kind of power? The power of the ego? The power of spirit? And all of a sudden we are back at the laws of nature, leading into virtue.
I respectfully disagree with your assertion here that Darwin's theory of evolution does not advocate for atheism. While Darwin himself did not explicitly argue for atheism, his theory of evolution by natural selection did propose a mechanism for the diversity of life on Earth that did not necessitate a divine creator. This has been viewed by many as a challenge to traditional religious beliefs and has played a role in the growth of atheism and agnosticism.
Correct. Hence, the label: prime mover.
And I do recognize that, from a perspective of religion, or rather, traditional view of the Genesis account, it may be postulated that the theory of evolution through natural selection is opposite of what was accepted.
From my perspective, there once was a time when 3 views of the solar system were fighting for supremacy:
From a functional perspective, depending on what you need it for, all three systems work. But.... system 1 does not work when one is to shoot space-craft to the moon and back.
And yes, it challenges established traditions. It may be argued: flight, space-flight etc are playing a role in atheism or agonsticim.
Of course, you may claim so. The question I have is: Are you free to decide for yourself, or not? If so, then why is this an issue? Is it not because we are pointing towards a lack of virtue?
But who' s virtue?
Are you virtuous when you agree to spent 50% of your life force to a system that hates your guts, and enslaves you? Is that praising the lord, who gave you the unalienble right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Do we recognize the nefarious and corrupting operation that taxes exude? Do we recognize that by a central bank providing for the funding of a government, we lose our say?
Is theism required for agreement on these unalienble rights and the virtue it requires?
What if what you call God, and another calls: "Wralda", does that mean the latter is promoting atheism, or deism?
Do you see the trap set when accepting the Deep State buzz words. They are funding all sides of the argument, every single time.
No, theism is not required for agreement on unalienable rights. These rights are fundamental principles that are recognized across different cultures and belief systems. The concept of U.R. is rooted in the idea that all human beings have inherent dignity and worth, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
This appears to be a semantic question that highlights the complexity of language and cultural differences. The terms "God" and "Wralda" may refer to different concepts or entities, but they both imply a belief in a higher power or transcendent reality. The distinction between theism, atheism, and deism is not solely dependent on the label used to describe the divine.
This kind of hyper-skepticism leads to a self-referential and self-defeating circularity. The argument youre making (and almost the entirety of the Truther Movement/Great Awakening Movement) is that the "Deep State" is funding all sides of the argument, implying that any information or knowledge we have is potentially tainted by this alleged control.
However, this raises a crucial question: How do we know that this information about the "Deep State" isn't also part of the alleged control? In other words, if we assume that the "Deep State" is controlling the narrative and funding all sides of the argument, then how can we trust the information that leads us to believe in the existence of the "Deep State" in the first place? Isn't that information also potentially part of the controlled narrative/Matrix?
This creates a kind of epistemological paradox, where we're unable to trust any information, including the information that leads us to be skeptical of the information in the first place. It's a self-referential loop that ultimately leads to a kind of intellectual paralysis.
As I pointed out, this kind of thinking can be self-defeating, as it undermines our ability to make sense of the world around us. If we can't trust any information, then how can we make informed decisions or have meaningful discussions? In essence, this kind of hyper-skepticism can lead to a kind of nihilism, where we're left with no foundation for knowledge or truth.
I've been thinking about this very topic (the foundation of True knowledge in the Great Awakening movement) for a while now. And it' appears to me that if we're not careful, then we'll all end up in some form of Solipsism.
In the context of the Great Awakening movement, the emphasis on questioning everything and doubting the official narrative can be beneficial in encouraging critical thinking and promoting media literacy. However, if taken to an extreme, this skepticism can lead to a kind of solipsistic thinking, where individuals begin to doubt the existence of objective reality itself.
When we start to question everything, including the nature of reality, it can be challenging to find a solid foundation for knowledge. If we're not careful, we might end up in a situation where we're unable to trust anything, including our own senses, and that's when solipsism can become a tempting, albeit flawed, solution.
Solipsism, in this context, can manifest in various ways. For instance, some individuals might start to believe that they're the only ones who truly understand the "truth," while everyone else is deceived or asleep (something affecting almost all of us in this forum). This can lead to a kind of intellectual isolationism, where people become increasingly disconnected from others and the world around them (raises hand).
Another risk is that solipsism can foster a kind of paranoid thinking, where individuals begin to see conspiracies everywhere and doubt the intentions of others. This can create a toxic atmosphere, where people are more focused on uncovering hidden truths than on engaging in constructive dialogue and collaboration (another guilty charge).
I've waxed eloquent. Apologies. I guess I still suffer from a little PTSD from my discussion with @slyver (another pede in here) about this very topic.
I digress.....
EXCELLENT POINT!
And I believe that THIS is exactly what the intention is.
Supposedly, CIA Director William Casey told President Reagan:
The first time I read that, I was baffled. Like ...WTF? Why would anyone say that, much less the CIA.
For years, I thought about it occasionally, but still did not understand it.
But today, I do.
If people are confused, they seek someone -- ANYONE -- to tell them what is truth and what they should do.
And THAT is the real goal of the criminal cabal.
They accomplished this in North Korea many years ago, which was the testing ground for this type of massive psyop.
They have been slowing working towards this is the West ever since.
They WANT people to have no idea what to think. They WANT confusion. Because that could ultimately give them control to do anything they want.
THAT is their ultimate goal.
We have to understand epistemology: the study of knowledge, and how we can KNOW something is true (or not true).
The lack of this skill is what has allowed all the anti-liberty, anti-social, and anti-human phenomenon we have been experiencing for decades now.
Isn' t this the exact issue? What is the solid ground?
And perhaps, the tsunami of messages we receive daily, compels us to pay attention to them, interact with them, while we forgo the pleasure of finding our basis within us.
Confuse the language.
Confuse the thoughts.
Ordu ab chao.
O dear, Yeah, Slyver can be a tough cookie! I first will congratulate you on again diving into this sub-ject despite your PTSD, And second, I will try to take it easy.
Allow me to preface this by saying that I see where you are coming from before making this remark, and I value your view.
I am highlighting this because the question becomes: have you knowledge regarding this view of life? If not, what then is the reason for the response, instead of investigating.
I admit, I mentioned " Wralda" on purpose, as I surmised this response might ensue. Also, this is not to pick on you, but to highlight how easy it is to respond before knowledge is obtained. My remembrance may be a bit hazy, but I seem to remember a bible verse from proverbs regarding that particular stuff.
So, no, it is not semantic question as like in God or Allah used interchangeably, since these words mean the same. On a deeper level, it is a primordial question, as both systems of view: OT/NT God vs Wralda ex-ist diverge from the start.
I fear this has been the perfect scapegoat. True, it is important to be cognizant regarding the opportunity to land at such a point, where existence is only considered from a egotistic point of view, instead of an holistic point of view.
Seeing the other living is the key. Given the nature of our discussion, I would say, we are far removed from that.
I love this one. For a moment I was reminded of ChatGTP3.5 as this AI also loves to use relative positions. This is the nature of human inquiry, to be able to push beyond the boundaries of relativism and see what happens.
So, what is a solid base for knowledge in relation to the human experience in these 3D environments, with a potential to experience other dimensions? I would say, the foundation is always personal.
Religion for instance, is about the religious/spiritual experience of others, who wrote about it. A movement surrounding such an expression starts to gain traction and before you know it, a new religion is born, especially one that covers generations.
So, what is our solid base? Is it not our own experience? And then we share this experience with others, in an exchange of viewpoints.
I should say, difficult to say.
If I were to analyze the word: object and its derivative objective ( coloration) I would consider this word a misnomer for what you were intending to say. There is a reason why the word: thing and object is on the one hand tied together and mixed up on the other. The reason is: a thing is a judicial proceeding where a challenge is laid down. This challenge is literally the ob - iact.
In terms of idiom, we then hope that by a lot of verbiage we can somehow escape the literal and move towards the definite or that which is not finite. If this does not make sense, then you are right. It doesn't. And that is the value of it: to show our choice of words is totally screwed up.
My personal view here is that by the language distortions ( babel) the truth is hard to reach, let alone to be shared. Chaos ensues. And who has ORDER? The one instituting it: ordu ab chao.
Even worse: real or re-al is an adjective to describe a perception of matter. The synonym for it is given as "actual" which, also an adjective again leads to the word: iact: to throw/ move. re, in this case point towards: fitting together, a matter.
When considering the word: ex-sist-ence there is a clear indicator of a matter under discussion that is grown out of "to be"/"to stand" = life.
The word in-di-vidu-al = adjective pertaining to that which cannot be taken apart. A whole unit of being alive and kicking.
The worst part in all of this semantic gibberish is that this sentence you wrote, consists of adjectives: the derivative from the life-unity, while skipping the fact. The mere consideration that others may be conscious about another man or woman existing, being alive, this consensus does not make it. The perception of the one doing the perceiving is what counts. Hence, the perception of being alive, but also the perception of being from the same source.
The rest are derivatives of the one perceiving, thus entering into a process of experience, gaining knowledge. The rest then is a matter of communication (together one-ing) and finally: agreement to further act together based on mutual benefit and free will.
Indeed, that is a danger. I am glad you are still overcoming this, by these exchanges on this medium!
Does the existence of rules like gravity and chemistry also imply that there is no God? No...
personally i think the satanists love to push Christians buttons with the evolution issue. such an easy issue to divide people over
Of course. "Theism" is merely describing a belief in one or more gods. It doesn't mean anything else. "Atheism" is a lack of a belief in one or more gods (the "a-" prefix meaning "without," as in, "without said belief").
Sure. The Greek word "theos" simply means "god."
I don't know where you get that from.
Thomas Huxley coined the word "agnostic" as a joke against the Gnostics. The Gnostics believed that a person could "know god" simply by believing. It was not a rational proof, but more like today's libtards who say "it's my truth," which is nothing but circular logic.
Huxley used "agnostic" as a term to say that you CANNOT know "just because you know."
Whether anyone wants to agree or disagree with that concept is beside the point. That's what Huxley meant. And that was in the 1800's.
I don't know why you would claim that the year 400 BC is relevant to the discussion of OP's topic.
True, religious ideas have caused many deaths, from all directions of belief.
Darwin's research showed adaptation, not the development (i.e. "origin") of species. Darwin took "one small step" in scientific observation of adaptation, and blew it up into a "giant leap" of evolution. He labeled his conclusion as the ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES, when in fact that was merely a conclusion based on nothing but observation of adaptation WITHIN a species.
That is what Tucker is saying here, and he is right. There is no fossil record to prove evolution, per se, though we can directly observe adaptation via scientific experiment or direct observation.
Even in Darwin's time, there were people creating new breeds of dogs and cattle for various purposes by cross breeding and creating new breeds. But ... they were still dogs, and not turtles.
Darwin's mistake was to assume that observable adaptation to the environment necessarily meant the possibility of massive changes to the organism to such an extent that it would become something entirely new.
There is nothing in the fossil record to support that idea.
That type of thinking is IRRELEVANT ... until someone can PROVE from the fossil record that nature changes a monkey into a human.
No one has done it, yet, and this is what Tucker is saying. Until someone does, it is just a fantasy of a possibility, which is what Darwin did (mistakenly).
Maybe so, BUT we have an UNLIMITED ability to fantasize about things for which there is no evidence to prove. Both Covid and Evolution come to mind here.
The rest of your comment looks to me like a word salad.
Regarding Tucker's comments in the video, his point is correct: No real evidence to support a theory that most people have learned to take for granted -- as Joe Rogan did, which is what caused Tucker's response.
That is the more important issue here.
Nailed it.
Stoned Ape theory 🦧
I heard America imports lots of people from atheist countries….