(Click title above)
.
Who or What Created God?
FUNDAMENTAL FLAW OF ATHEISM: Atheists pretend to discredit any argument for God as a necessary first or prime mover or cause by ever-regressing the inquiry one step back, to ask, who or what, then, created God?
.
Who or What Created God?
FUNDAMENTAL FLAW OF ATHEISM: Atheists pretend to discredit any argument for God as a necessary first or prime mover or cause by ever-regressing the inquiry one step back, to ask, who or what, then, created God?
If meant as “proof” of non-utility in respect of a concept of God, such pretense is fundamentally flawed.
Assumption is not proof. One may assume or believe, on faith, a beginning, before which all was nothingness, out of which arose dumb, unintelligent, non-choice-making, non-wilful matter, out of which evolved matter expressive of cellular life, will, choice-making (morality), and mind.
However, for such a belief or theory to be proven, replicated, tested, or evidenced, there needs to be:
1) evidence of at least one instance of cellular life having evolved out of a primordial mix of non-cellular material; or
2) evidence of at least one instance of an expression of (illusion of) wilful choice having evolved out of a system predetermined for not availing choice; or
3) evidence of at least one instance of (illusion of) nothingness, out of which somethingness evolved.
Of the list of three, above, two seem nearly self-annihilating to logic.
And not one of them has been observed or accomplished.
But, even if the first on the list were accomplished, it would just push back some other questions, such as:
What does “cell” mean? Or “gene”? Or “particle”? Or “mass”? Or “matter”? Or “physical”? Or “nature”?
Similarly, one may assume or believe, on faith, that a concept of God is non-helpful (or even counterproductive) to human, moral purposes.
However, such an assumption (or atheistic faith) immediately meets its own difficulties:
1) in assuming a “basis” other than God for intuiting, receiving, or evaluating moral choices, such an assumption immediately exposes itself to argument that its “basis” is merely a substitute notion for God (like a shell game);
2) intuitively, any attempt to submit such an assumption to rigorously controlled double-blind field testing would encounter enormous (insurmountable?) problems; and
3) pursuant to Godel’s principle of incompleteness, any attempted resolution simply could not be explicated as a complete, consistent, coherent banishment of God.
NOMA: I believe empiricism and science (and “childish scientists”) intrude beyond their proper realms when they conceit to employ empiricism to “evidence” whether or not “God,” as a concept, is logical, probable, or worthwhile for human, moral purposes. I do not believe God is properly required to self-evidence. Rather, I believe one either expressly “intuits” “God” as being meaningful to one’s life, or one does not.
TAIL CHASING: One who prefers (to evangelize?) a personal belief in some basis or alternative (name for)“God” for guiding choices is entitled to do so.
But I think such folks are needlessly chasing their tails.
And, they seem often not to be as socially adjusted or happy as more traditional believers.
ALL FROM NOTHING: A flaw in a notion that all can be explained as evolving from nothingness (and un-intelligence, un-will, and un-choice) is that such a notion merely assumes choice-making (morality in action) has not been with us from the beginning. That is, the anti-God notion merely assumes (with no means of proof or empirical evidence) that the experience of choice-making evolved out of non-choice-making. But I believe choice-making (morality) has always been with us — from the instant Being’ness came into being (and perhaps before ...).
COMING TOGETHER TO SEEK ENLIGHTENED EMPATHY: Even though mere empiricism will not likely resolve the matter, I think a belief-system regarding God can be rationally based.
But, I do not think it rational to try to delimit or confine God in respect of dogma.
Yet, I do think it worthwhile for communities to establish sacred, figurative parables, traditional forums, and churches, for coming together to seek enlightened empathy for reasoning and relating together in common, humble respect of God.
In sharing hope and belief in a basis for reconciling differences, meaningful peace may more likely be achieved.
“God” should be about invitations to come together to seek enlightened empathy.
But that is only my (chosen) belief.
****
An evangelist of atheism, who pretends nothing is worth fighting for, is already closer to moral irrelevancy and death.
Assumption is not proof. One may assume or believe, on faith, a beginning, before which all was nothingness, out of which arose dumb, unintelligent, non-choice-making, non-wilful matter, out of which evolved matter expressive of cellular life, will, choice-making (morality), and mind.
However, for such a belief or theory to be proven, replicated, tested, or evidenced, there needs to be:
1) evidence of at least one instance of cellular life having evolved out of a primordial mix of non-cellular material; or
2) evidence of at least one instance of an expression of (illusion of) wilful choice having evolved out of a system predetermined for not availing choice; or
3) evidence of at least one instance of (illusion of) nothingness, out of which somethingness evolved.
Of the list of three, above, two seem nearly self-annihilating to logic.
And not one of them has been observed or accomplished.
But, even if the first on the list were accomplished, it would just push back some other questions, such as:
What does “cell” mean? Or “gene”? Or “particle”? Or “mass”? Or “matter”? Or “physical”? Or “nature”?
Similarly, one may assume or believe, on faith, that a concept of God is non-helpful (or even counterproductive) to human, moral purposes.
However, such an assumption (or atheistic faith) immediately meets its own difficulties:
1) in assuming a “basis” other than God for intuiting, receiving, or evaluating moral choices, such an assumption immediately exposes itself to argument that its “basis” is merely a substitute notion for God (like a shell game);
2) intuitively, any attempt to submit such an assumption to rigorously controlled double-blind field testing would encounter enormous (insurmountable?) problems; and
3) pursuant to Godel’s principle of incompleteness, any attempted resolution simply could not be explicated as a complete, consistent, coherent banishment of God.
NOMA: I believe empiricism and science (and “childish scientists”) intrude beyond their proper realms when they conceit to employ empiricism to “evidence” whether or not “God,” as a concept, is logical, probable, or worthwhile for human, moral purposes. I do not believe God is properly required to self-evidence. Rather, I believe one either expressly “intuits” “God” as being meaningful to one’s life, or one does not.
TAIL CHASING: One who prefers (to evangelize?) a personal belief in some basis or alternative (name for)“God” for guiding choices is entitled to do so.
But I think such folks are needlessly chasing their tails.
And, they seem often not to be as socially adjusted or happy as more traditional believers.
ALL FROM NOTHING: A flaw in a notion that all can be explained as evolving from nothingness (and un-intelligence, un-will, and un-choice) is that such a notion merely assumes choice-making (morality in action) has not been with us from the beginning. That is, the anti-God notion merely assumes (with no means of proof or empirical evidence) that the experience of choice-making evolved out of non-choice-making. But I believe choice-making (morality) has always been with us — from the instant Being’ness came into being (and perhaps before ...).
COMING TOGETHER TO SEEK ENLIGHTENED EMPATHY: Even though mere empiricism will not likely resolve the matter, I think a belief-system regarding God can be rationally based.
But, I do not think it rational to try to delimit or confine God in respect of dogma.
Yet, I do think it worthwhile for communities to establish sacred, figurative parables, traditional forums, and churches, for coming together to seek enlightened empathy for reasoning and relating together in common, humble respect of God.
In sharing hope and belief in a basis for reconciling differences, meaningful peace may more likely be achieved.
“God” should be about invitations to come together to seek enlightened empathy.
But that is only my (chosen) belief.
****
An evangelist of atheism, who pretends nothing is worth fighting for, is already closer to moral irrelevancy and death.
****
VERY FUNDAMENTAL SPECULATIONS:
FORM, NOT MATTER OR ENERGY, ENDURES:
Except in respect of cycles of volcanic and pyramidal subduction, uplifting, change, and death, no culture, economy, or holographically shared pattern of physics could sensibly be termed to exist.
Were no limit imposed by death or change, Ponzi pyramids could, by continuous reproducing of basics, build forever.
But, such would violate our holographic consciousness and license on life.
For us, while we experience ourselves as being only human, such does not occur.
We do not experience volcanoes or pyramids except in respect of continuous changing.
Only in continuous changing of such pyramidal forms as under lays us does our civilization endure.
Our lot seems to be one of continuous upheaval and subduction, passion and seduction, war and peace.
FORM, NOT MATTER OR ENERGY, ENDURES:
Except in respect of cycles of volcanic and pyramidal subduction, uplifting, change, and death, no culture, economy, or holographically shared pattern of physics could sensibly be termed to exist.
Were no limit imposed by death or change, Ponzi pyramids could, by continuous reproducing of basics, build forever.
But, such would violate our holographic consciousness and license on life.
For us, while we experience ourselves as being only human, such does not occur.
We do not experience volcanoes or pyramids except in respect of continuous changing.
Only in continuous changing of such pyramidal forms as under lays us does our civilization endure.
Our lot seems to be one of continuous upheaval and subduction, passion and seduction, war and peace.
Yet, in such lot, we may find and experience passion, art, companionship, adventure, and meaningulness.
BLACK HOLES:
As any system or subsystem of holographically related parts and patterns collapses beyond appreciability of its own or other inhabitants, it will no longer support any functional basis for expression, either of Will, or of illusion of physicality to Will.
As any system comes no longer to support apprehension of, or by, any form of Will, such system will collapse towards a “black hole.”
BEGINNING OF TIME:
Respecting humanity’s common holography, our beginning of time has to do with a beginning of time as apprehended for our common, anthropic-happenstance of assigned holography.
Our beginning of time does not have to do with any common beginning of time for all possible holographies.
Nor, apart from very dim speculation, may we, in our present capacities of Will and our present limitations of models, comprehend what “time” may mean (or not mean) for any Superior Being with capacity to engage beyond the holography that defines and delimits humanity, or, indeed, whether a “meta-time” may have been running, indefinitely, before what seems to have been the “Big Bang” for our universe.
ANTHROPIC HAPPENSTANCES:
If there may be One Holism, it would seem to be appreciable from perhaps an infinite variety of holographic systems, subsystems, and cross-systems of perspective. If there is one universe, it seems there may be infinite holographic representations and perspectives of it.
How each system or pattern of holography may potentially be measured or apprehended would seem to depend upon how (and whether) each inhabiting observer, in essential (or metaphysical) form, just happened (anthropically) to be sympathetically or synchronously sensitive to it.
So long as a Being does not in any way happen to be sensitive to the apprehension of a particular pattern or holography, such Being will simply lack capacity to sense or to comprehend such holography (or “dark” matter or energy?).
Such insensitivity need not prohibit other or superior Beings from happening to have capacity to sense or comprehend across holographies.
Such insensitivity need not prohibit One Superior Being from happening to have capacity to sense or comprehend across all holographies.
Surely, such A Superior Being would have supernatural powers and capacities beyond the holographic dimensions that define or delimit humanity.
So long as we are limited to our holography, we cannot comprehend any such Superior Being respecting its cross-holographic powers.
Rather, we can only relate “physically” to such Being as if it were restricted to our holography.
That is, we could never “physically” prove that such Being were not just another man (or woman).
SPIRITUAL INTUITION:
Of any Superior Being, we may, at most, glimmer non-measurable, non-replicable, non-physical (i.e., “spiritual,” metaphysical, supernatural) “intuition” about its cross-holographic superiority. By definition, such non-replicable, non-measurable intuition would be a concern for faith and moral choice, not empirical testing. By definition, such intuition would be irrelevant to science, but vitally relevant to moral and civilized choice making.
Although some, such as those who profess atheism, claim to have neither faith nor intuition, yet, insofar as they do engage in moral choices and debates, they seem only to deceive themselves, with semantic shell games.
I care not whether vaunted "atheists" call their basis for morality or choice-making “rationalized judgment,” “God,” or some other name or label. Mainly, I just care that they respect a basis.
Of course, agreeing to a common name for such basis can be a helpful step towards facilitating our coming to reason (or rationalize) together, to try to divine, figuratively inspire, moderate, and pursue our common goals and interests.
BLACK HOLES:
As any system or subsystem of holographically related parts and patterns collapses beyond appreciability of its own or other inhabitants, it will no longer support any functional basis for expression, either of Will, or of illusion of physicality to Will.
As any system comes no longer to support apprehension of, or by, any form of Will, such system will collapse towards a “black hole.”
BEGINNING OF TIME:
Respecting humanity’s common holography, our beginning of time has to do with a beginning of time as apprehended for our common, anthropic-happenstance of assigned holography.
Our beginning of time does not have to do with any common beginning of time for all possible holographies.
Nor, apart from very dim speculation, may we, in our present capacities of Will and our present limitations of models, comprehend what “time” may mean (or not mean) for any Superior Being with capacity to engage beyond the holography that defines and delimits humanity, or, indeed, whether a “meta-time” may have been running, indefinitely, before what seems to have been the “Big Bang” for our universe.
ANTHROPIC HAPPENSTANCES:
If there may be One Holism, it would seem to be appreciable from perhaps an infinite variety of holographic systems, subsystems, and cross-systems of perspective. If there is one universe, it seems there may be infinite holographic representations and perspectives of it.
How each system or pattern of holography may potentially be measured or apprehended would seem to depend upon how (and whether) each inhabiting observer, in essential (or metaphysical) form, just happened (anthropically) to be sympathetically or synchronously sensitive to it.
So long as a Being does not in any way happen to be sensitive to the apprehension of a particular pattern or holography, such Being will simply lack capacity to sense or to comprehend such holography (or “dark” matter or energy?).
Such insensitivity need not prohibit other or superior Beings from happening to have capacity to sense or comprehend across holographies.
Such insensitivity need not prohibit One Superior Being from happening to have capacity to sense or comprehend across all holographies.
Surely, such A Superior Being would have supernatural powers and capacities beyond the holographic dimensions that define or delimit humanity.
So long as we are limited to our holography, we cannot comprehend any such Superior Being respecting its cross-holographic powers.
Rather, we can only relate “physically” to such Being as if it were restricted to our holography.
That is, we could never “physically” prove that such Being were not just another man (or woman).
SPIRITUAL INTUITION:
Of any Superior Being, we may, at most, glimmer non-measurable, non-replicable, non-physical (i.e., “spiritual,” metaphysical, supernatural) “intuition” about its cross-holographic superiority. By definition, such non-replicable, non-measurable intuition would be a concern for faith and moral choice, not empirical testing. By definition, such intuition would be irrelevant to science, but vitally relevant to moral and civilized choice making.
Although some, such as those who profess atheism, claim to have neither faith nor intuition, yet, insofar as they do engage in moral choices and debates, they seem only to deceive themselves, with semantic shell games.
I care not whether vaunted "atheists" call their basis for morality or choice-making “rationalized judgment,” “God,” or some other name or label. Mainly, I just care that they respect a basis.
Of course, agreeing to a common name for such basis can be a helpful step towards facilitating our coming to reason (or rationalize) together, to try to divine, figuratively inspire, moderate, and pursue our common goals and interests.
.
Absolute Moral Imperative by which to escape moral irresolution: Pursue empathy for the ongoing Source of the good!
4 comments:
COUNTER STRATEGIES FOR PRESERVING CIVILIZATION BASED ON HUMAN FREEDOM AND DIGNITY:
I am not ready to give up on human freedom, dignity, and privacy.
Rather, I see our main problems as relating to:
(1) How to limit necessary constraints on privacy and individualism;
(2) How to redistribute power and wealth more democratically, to undermine centralization of elitist, abusive control, without unduly undermining individual initiative.
SHORT TERM STRATEGIES:
(1) Orderly retreat of privacy rights;
(2) Wresting of *ultimate control* of Federal Reserve away from private interests;
(3) Devising of a *fundamentally new economic tool*, based on progressively proportionate forgiveness of debts and interest owed to banks and to the Federal Reserve, for periodically readjusting and redistributing income and/or wealth in respect of Gini index parameters; and
(4) Orderly reassessing of *checks and balances* for using such tools.
*Where reasonable, day to day decisions by the Federal Reserve should be left to private stakeholders. However, Government must retain controlling stake and, when necessary, appropriate ultimate power, progressively and/or proportionately, to reset controlling interest rates and to proportionately lessen accrued obligations. The balance to preserve in a healthy economy and state: Managing investors should have fair financial incentives; citizens should not be turned proportionately into slaves; workers should usually be able to buy the products they make.
*Problem: Devising *checks and balances* sufficient to enforce and preserve basic decency is the hard part. Presently, increasing governmental regulation usually just translates into increasing sweetheart deal-making with lobbyists for those being regulated. As part of *checks and balances*, revolving doors need to be closed, regulatory houses need to be more frequently flushed clean, and nets for new talent need to be thrown wide. Ivy leaguers and members of secret and elite clubs should be banished, at least periodically and frequently. Ordinary State’s colleges need to better educate their professoriate and students to the gross and grand scale of abuses of interconnected elitists. Unless the current system is fundamentally changed, more regulation will only aggravate the headlong enslavement of the proletariat to indebtedness owed to greedy puppetmasters.
Presently, we are not being manipulated towards international socialism, but towards an illusion of international socialism. In reality, most of us are allowing ourselves to be led to sell ourselves ever faster and deeper into debt-slavery.
It may already be too late to recover, without great pain and anguish.
.
LONG TERM STRATEGIES:
(1) Genetic treatment of populace, to instill, inoculate, or implant “genes of altruism”;
(2) Computerized monitoring, subject to appropriate checks and balances.
See: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/responding_to_neoatheism.html:
From Agnostic Republican:
“If something is unobservable and un-testable we're dealing with a imaginative postulation.
ie. Dogma.
....
You're faith is Blind. Your logic a fallacy by wishful thinking.
....
There is no truth in Religion.”
****
Well!
Can anyone define a “non-trivial truth” that we can put to practical use for making a difference in guiding our daily lives?
Can anyone even show that, in truth, we would have been generally better off if, in hindsight, a particular choice had been made differently?
Can anyone demonstrate that a capacity for making choices has ever been evolved entirely from a source that itself was devoid of capacity for making choices?
Can anyone even demonstrate that any particular, moral choice was “truly” best, all things considered?
I doubt so.
Yet, even vaunted atheists have no choice but to make choices, either actively or by choosing to default.
So, in respect of what “true” basis do atheists (morally) judge, as they try to make their (best) choices? What secret beliefs, biases, and bases do they hold most dear to their hearts?
I think this: There is “truth value” (truthiness?) in religious traditions and figurative parables, insofar as they provide a common reference point for inspiring or availing folks to come together to make such parables relevant, alive, and “true” to help guide their current situations. Social sharing of a common faith reference has a true value that simply cannot very well be filled by science.
So, why are some scientists so jealous when folks decline to drink their moral guidance? What is the (faith) basis such scientists would offer by way of substitution, anyway?
If all ye faithful were called to come together to reason in the name of science, to seek in good faith to receive guidance thereby, to try truly to make the best of moral choices, how on earth would such a calling be different in significant aspect from a more traditional, faith based calling?
****
More from Agnostic Republican:
“However, Spinoza redefined God as the logical force that generates nature. This is a God of science, which is why Albert Einstein embraced this view. Thus, God is only a mere semantic.”
This seems to make some sense, although it seems more panentheistic (God in nature) than pantheistic (God as nature).
As a panentheist, I would agree that much strife about God is based only in semantics, but not that God is only semantic. However, that is just my faith.
****
From Johnny Appleseed:
“AR, you can keep the atheist, Nietzsche. He not only said "God is dead," he believed the essential motivating impulse in the human mind is an animal "will to power."”
Well, maybe the essential motivating impulse is more like “Will to Math.” After all, how much of what we take to be “physics” or “physical” is experienced by us as being measurable only because that is just the way our common holography has just happened (anthropically) to avail our definition?
Maybe we, our physics, and our common holography are just representative imagings of a source Will-To-Math.
A basis for enlightened empathy may be better derived or more commonly inspired in respect of a notion of evolution of forms of wilful choice making from a Source-Will than in respect of a notion of evolution of wilful choice making from Un-Will.
I am more comfortable in respect of a notion of Will having always been present than in respect of a notion of Will having evolved from nothingness.
****
Regarding Evolution:
Fans of “evolution” seem often to conflate “theory” with “notion.”
Whether somethingness “evolved” from nothingness is just notion.
That things and species change and mutate is fact.
Whether a primary agent for successful mutation is based on advantages to genetic replication as afforded by particular environmental niches is theory.
Whether “God” (or “Will to Math”) participates in guiding such process of change is based in faith.
In any event, change happens.
But intoning “evolution” as a “theory for explaining” how somethingness came from nothingness is overreaching.
********
Interesting comment posted by Johnny Appleseed, September 22, 2008, 04:39 PM, snipped from http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/responding_to_neoatheism.html:
....
"These membranes, with the right mix of chemicals, can allow nucleic acids in under some conditions and keep them trapped inside in others. That opens the possibility that one day, in the distant past, an RNA-like molecule wandered into a fatty acid and started replicating. That random event, through billions of evolutionary iterations, researchers believe, created life as we know it."
You are now on my turf. For one thing it would not be "RNA-like molecules" it would have to actual DNA, and not just nucleic acids. Real, enormous and functioning double-helix polymers of nucleic acids are required for life - and they must be present in advance. Not only would functioning polymeric DNA have to exist as a pre-condition for life, there would also have to exist - at the very same time - a complex enzyme, RNA polymerase, which copies the genetic information encoded within the DNA - transcribing that genetic information from tens of thousands of individual genes into tens of thousands of messenger RNAs. Those m-RNAs then exit the nucleus and attach to ribosomes for the purpose of constructing the various proteins of the body - including all of the enzymes necessary for life, including RNA polymerase it's self.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcription_(genetics)
In addition, in order to fulfill a pre-condition for life, there would also be a requirement - at the very same time - a complex enzyme, DNA polymerase, which copies the double-helix DNA into an exact duplicate for the purpose of mitosis - reproduction of the cell through cell division.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_replication
In addition, in order to fulfill a pre-condition for life, thousands of other enzymes would have to be present - at the very same time. There would also have to exist complex cell membranes with enzymatic receptors which influence genetic expression of the nucleus through a process known as signal transduction or the "second messenger" system. Signal transduction is necessary for life and it requires an incredible complex process involving many other enzymes which allow for communication between the cell membrane and the nucleus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_transduction
In addition there would have to be rhibosomes, Golgi bodies, endoplasmic reticulum with an extremely complex system of micro-tubules. All of these organelles function as nano-machines and they each require their own set of pre-existing enzymes.
In addition there would have to be a very large number of mitochondria in each cell - each one with an incredibly complex system of energy production called the Krebs cycle. The Krebs cycle produces energy from glucose, and it is an absolute requirement for cellular life, and it has to be present in advance - not as an afterthought. The Krebs cycle requires a large number of enzymes as well - all present in the mitochondria in advance as a pre-condition for life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondria
No, it requires much more than a simple liposome membrane without the complex signal transduction system; and it requires more than just RNA-like molecules. Life requires the full set of complex nano-machinery described above - all functioning simultaneously - but much, much more complex than what I've described in cursory fashion. What you've described is tantamount to tossing a few pistons and an engine block into a large centrifugal dryer, and not even including the valves, spark plugs, wires, timing belts, and the crankshaft; and then expecting a finely tuned engine to fall out at the end of the drying cycle - only more complex by thousands of orders of magnitude.
The statistical improbability of all this happening spontaneously - randomly - approaches zero as noted in a comment above. To believe this requires tremendous faith.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE:
Snippets from http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4287680.html?series=60:
"The first real AI would be something that we don't even understand," says Wright, "because we didn't program it. It will be more dissimilar in the way it thinks, than we are to a mouse."
….
There's no sense of alarm in Wright's voice when he describes this self-refining machine intelligence—no more than when he casually mentions the notion that, as technology progresses at an exponentially faster rate, towards the so-called singularity, any number of breakthroughs could, as he puts it, "cause the world to go extremely non-linear." When he provides, as classic examples, a computer AI taking over the world, or self-propagating nanobots turning everything into a grey goo, it's impossible to tell whether he's joking, or worried, or simply fascinated. But when he's asked whether that hyper-advanced AI would retain its knowledge of humanity, Wright says, "I would imagine that it can understand us. But the really scary part of this is that we don't know."
Comment by Dlanor, at http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/orwells_children.html:
This article hits a nerve: That being “a-religious” tends to be not the case, especially upon focusing not so much on the word “God,” but on what the word represents.
When educated Christians use the term “God,” context tends to implicate respect for empathy, civility, dignity, and freely choosing to come to serve such purposes as one may think “good” (often in the sense of WWGD).
When Theosophobes (blind to metaphor ) use the term, context tends to be burdened with: anti-religious disgust for any fundamental literalism that is at odds with empiricism; hatred for any force that impedes primitive hedonism; and full speed ahead, anarchic trashing of traditional family values.
When Islamofascists use the term, context tends to implicate fevered militancy against any force that impedes grossly intrusive social paranoia and regulation of all human physical and mental intercourse.
When Liberal Fascists use the term, context tends to implicate religiously fevered militancy against any force that impedes Big Brother Governance.
One may first consider whether civilization should foster empathy and freedom (Christianity), or gross hedonism (Theosophobia), or complete submission of mind and freedom to the security of social strait jackets (Islamofascism), or complete surrender of liberty to the security of Big Brother (Liberal Fascism).
Having made one’s choice, one may better find “God.” Regardless, renouncing fealty to all Source(s) of values is not an option. Sucking values out of a society will not yield a moral vacuum. Rather, the expected vacuum (or anarchy) will be filled quite promptly --- often with something few would want, had they vision.
Failing to establish one's connection with "God" tends to be not an option.
Choose well.
Post a Comment