patrick.net

richwicks says

there were no "death camps", they were simply slave labor camps

I don't know enough to say for sure about camps in the east, like Poland, but from living in Munich I know that Dachau was not a death camp in the sense that large numbers were not murdered outright there.

I do have a Polish Catholic relative who was an official in his town and sent to Dachau by the Germans. He became very ill in the camp and was released a few days before he died, so that they would not have to count his death in the camp.

Dachau was torn down after the war, but because so many people wanted to see it, they reconstructed some barracks there. From visiting twice, I know that a lot of people seem disappointed when they find out that Dachau was not a place where people were deliberately killed, only a place where political prisoners were kept in such harsh conditions that many of them died.

richwicks says

You're doing an argument for ignorance. You don't know therefore - god. I'm just saying I don't know therefore, I don't know but I don't make an assumption that it's been explained by some primitive society that thought the Earth was flat. I just don't know.

I'm saying if there's a code, there's probably a coder. That's the experience so far.

I understand abiogenesis vs. evolution. The problem is that neo-spontaneous generation from warm wet soups (or warm wet vents) is being pushed as the default when there is no evidence whatsoever for it.

Undoctored says

Complex functional structures can never arise from random mutation of genetic codes + survival of the fittest no matter how long the time frame.

I don't see why not.

You can use mutation and selection to end up with quite complex structures in computer simulations, and you can clearly select for different traits in domestic animals.

Patrick says

Undoctored says

Complex functional structures can never arise from random mutation of genetic codes + survival of the fittest no matter how long the time frame.

I don't see why not.

You can use mutation and selection to end up with quite complex structures in computer simulations, and you can clearly select for different traits in domestic animals.

If life can arise spontaneously from non life, it should be even easier to reanimate the dead, like Frankenstein or The Trible revived by Khan Noonien Singh‘s blood in the new Star Trek. But alas, that, like modern origin myths promoted by “science” falsely so called, is all science fiction. Humans have become so “smart” that they have convinced themselves their Creator doesn’t exist which means of course they are not accountable to Him. How convenient!

PeopleUnited says

If life can arise spontaneously from non life, it should be even easier to reanimate the dead

That doesn't seem to follow. Maybe life can arise from non-life, but the dead are rapidly decaying from the moment of death.

Life is like a bubble. When the bubble is popped, it's gone. It can't be unpopped.

Conversations with God - Book 1 by Neal Donald Walsch is a book that would give you (in my opinion) a good articulated response better than word salad.

Patrick says

Life is like a bubble. When the bubble is popped, it's gone. It can't be unpopped.

From that perspective life is pretty fragile, and takes the perfect conditions to even happen. You know perfection is one of God’s characteristics.

And the same God that created life, created the decay of the dead to recycle the body. But, then again, decay is a consequence of sin. Prior to sin the world God created was free from death and decay. What we know as the natural world is not natural at all, it is a byproduct of the corruption of sin.

But back to my point a freshly dead body has all the ingredients needed for life. So why would it not be a simple thing to reanimate the dead? You may well live to see the day that the dead rise. Not like the walking dead but more like the mouse in the Green Mile. Think it can’t happen? It already has, and Revelation says it will again. Both the 2 witnesses and the antichrist will rise from death.

richwicks says

You end up with the same problem though asking how the universe started - how did god start?

This.

Fact is not a single person can prove Jesus existed as a person or there's a god at all. Many/most have been fooled into thinking covid is dangerous. 160 years ago we had spears on the ends of muskets to stab people with. These were the people that gave us our history.

Again, feel free to believe, but if I'm being blunt, don't be obtuse. The evidence is blatantly clear in the last fucking 20 years that humans aren't tracking their shit/history properly. Somehow 2k years ago they got it right? My mind is still boggled why this is still a conversation. Have your religion, but just understand like anything humans do, it's to extract money from you. In some cases to fuck your children. Maybe I'm a pessimist, but this is the reality I've witnessed my whole life being someone raised Catholic. It's a fucking con. They also have more money than the biggest corps on the planet if you factor in real estate.

Catholics and Jews could sell their assets (the churches) and give every follower $500k tomorrow. That's not hyperbolic. They own some of the most treasured real estate on the planet in the perfect locations. Religion is a business. It's okay to admit it.

richwicks says

The computer chip you're using right now is a result of analogues to genetic mutations and survival of the fittest.

Analogues, schmanalogues. All computer chips are the result of intelligent design, regardless of whether Monte Carlo methods are employed in the design process.

Undoctored says

intelligent design

What is intelligent design?

A: Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific set of beliefs based on the notion that life on earth is so complex that it cannot be explained by the scientific theory of evolution and therefore must have been designed by a supernatural entity.

https://www.aclu.org/other/frequently-asked-questions-about-intelligent-design#:~:text=Q%3A%20What%20is%20intelligent%20design,designed%20by%20a%20supernatural%20entity.

PeopleUnited says

But back to my point a freshly dead body has all the ingredients needed for life. So why would it not be a simple thing to reanimate the dead?

Is Death Real? New Experiments Raise Important Questions On What It Means To Die

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a42216404/is-death-revesible/

ElYorsh says

Conversations with God - Book 1 by Neal Donald Walsch is a book that would give you (in my opinion) a good articulated response better than word salad.

I will have a look - tired of word salads

PeopleUnited says

The gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus.

First Question: For those who lived were before Christ what is their fate ?

Second Question: If "God" as you state existed before "time", than what are we to make of either ?

Third Question: The dead shall rise again - now if someone has been cremated, the ashes scattered - the Catholic Church talks in terms of the "Spiritual" Body.

Which are you talking about ? Physical or Spiritual and if the soul departs the body upon death, why is there a need to recreate it ?

https://www.tulipcremation.com/articles/tulip-expert-guides/cremation/catholic-cremation-beliefs.html

DD214,

Questions for you:

1. Does the Universe, at some point 'end?' If it does, isn't there something on the other side?

2. Scientifically, can matter be created out of nothing?

3. The third of the ten commandments reads: “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”
- Exodus 20:7 Do YOU ever use the name of Jesus Christ in vain? If you do, why is that? Could it be that you know in your heart who he really is?

I've known Jews, Muslims, professed atheists, etc. use the name of Jesus Christ in vain. Why do you think that is?

Why do people, who have been exposed to the truth in Christ, really reject Him? Here's what the Bible says about such people:

"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

AND THIS IS THE CONDEMNATION, THAT LIGHT IS COME INTO THE WORLD, AND MEN LOVED DARKNESS RATHER THAN LIGHT, BECAUSE THEIR DEEDS WERE EVIL."

FOR EVERY ONE THAT DOETH EVIL HATETH LIGHT, NEITHER COMETH TO THE LIGHT, LEST HIS DEEDS SHOULD BE REPROVED.

But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." - Gospel of John 3:17-21

In other words, people do not reject Jesus Christ for philosophical or scientific reasons. They reject Him because they refuse to allow Him to be Lord of Lords and King of Kings over their life. They prefer their rebellion and find ways in order to justify, to themselves, their rejection of Him.

Long time ago watched a show in KQED, sounds like fictitious character "Jesus" was a sequel of "Julius Caesar" to control the population. From the political point of view most of the general population are dumb and stupid often need to control them with "god" a proved effective drug.

DD214 says

Undoctored says

intelligent design

What is intelligent design?

[quoting ACLU (?!) ]

“… pseudoscientific set of beliefs …”

I said computer chips are made by intelligent design. You doubt this?

Let’s face it, the universe and how it was created is a mystery. If there is an answer our minds are possibly incapable of understanding it.

However this world and its inhabitants came to be, the complexity, variety, and interdependence of life is too great to be explained by descent with purposeless modification over generations and generations from a common primitive ancestor.

DD214 says

What was God doing before he started creating ?

Where was God, if there was nothing before he started creating ?

According to the physicists etc. there was nothing so how did God come out of nothing ?

Whatever He wants, He's God.

Who said there was nothing? And how would any physicist know since they weren't there?

Either God is all powerful, capable of anything, or He's not God. God has no limitations when it comes to space or time. These are His constructs, but He does not have to subject Himself to them in any way.

DD214 says

No - it is not absurd. Thinking the universe, humans etc. were created in 6 days as we know them (24 hours) is absurd.

How do you know what length of time a "day" represented? And again, if God can't create the world in six days, He's not God.

DD214 says

but is that the case.

Of course not. The same as you attempting to limit Him to human standards for what He can do. If you want to know who God is, read the book He made for you.
href="/post/1378027?start=1#comment-1909077">WookieMan says

There's not a single iota of evidence to state otherwise.

The walls of Jerusalem fell outward. There's your iota. Lots more if you do your research.

WookieMan says

richwicks says

You end up with the same problem though asking how the universe started - how did god start?

This.

If God has a beginning, He's not God.

DD214 says

First Question: For those who lived were before Christ what is their fate ?

Jesus tells a parable of a rich man who upon dying goes to hell, and a poor man who goes to Heaven. Jesus sacrifice is the even that restored the broken relationship, before His death, even during His life, this had not been accomplished yet. In the Old Testament it says Abraham believed, and it was accounted to him as righteousness. Again, is God constrained by time, or does Jesus sacrifice reach from the first man to the last in it's power to redeem?

DD214 says

Which are you talking about ? Physical or Spiritual and if the soul departs the body upon death, why is there a need to recreate it ?

To what purpose do they rise? I believe the context is judgement. In that case why would it be anything other than the soul, which is eternal.

RayAmerica says

The third of the ten commandments reads

The Bible clearly states the commandments where not created to save man, but to point out his need for salvation. If your salvation hinges on what you do, you are going to hell, we all are. It is only through grace by the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ that anyone can be saved.

@DD214

Is any physicist’s account of how the world came to be not a word salad? If not, please provide one such account and explain why it is not a word salad in contrast to “Thousands of years ago, there was a void. Then, God, who has always existed, called the world into being where there once was only that void.”

Undoctored says

However this world and its inhabitants came to be, the complexity, variety, and interdependence of life is too great to be explained by descent with purposeless modification over generations and generations from a common primitive ancestor.

No, this is the anthropic principle. You must know what that is, so I'm not going to explain it.

Interdependence of life is inevitable. And it's not purposeless modification, organisms adapt to their environment to give them advantage within that environment. The reason I have white pale skin is I'm descended from Poles and Irish ancestors. They didn't get much sun, so to make up for the lack of vitamin D, my skin is adapted to produce as much as possible, when it can. I have an evolutionary advantage over dark skinned people in the north - not much of one now that we know what vitamins are though..

Evolution is a fact. Origin of life? We may never know. It may have been a very unlikely set of circumstances to create it. This might be the only planet in the entire universe with life on it. I don't just hope we don't fuck it up.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." - John 1:1-5

"He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." - John 1:10-14

The above establishes Christ as God, the Creator, the Word that was manifested in the 'flesh,' was rejected by the world even though He created the world and to those that 'believe on his name,' he gives them the 'power to become sons of God.'

What does atheism offer?

RayAmerica says

The above establishes Christ as God, the Creator, the Word that was manifested in the 'flesh,' was rejected by the world even though He created the world and to those that 'believe on his name,' he gives them the 'power to become sons of God.'

It just claims it, it doesn't offer it. It's just a claim.

RayAmerica says

What does atheism offer?

Who said it offered anything?

RayAmerica says

the Word was God.

This is the closest I come to believing. I think that the line between real and imaginary is not as distinct as most people think it is.

For example, when you imagine something, you have given it some limited kind of existence even if only in your brain.

Reality is just arrangements of things, forms. So reality is information, like words, and like the forms in your brain.

When you perceive something, the external form is reflected into your brain. The form is copied like a remote web page is copied into your browser's cache.
When you imagine something, the form is created in your brain, and may be reflected externally if you do the work to implement it. You can imagine and then build a house.
Things move between imagination and reality.

Self is an idea, the idea that we have a distinct separation from the rest of the world. "This is me. That is not me." This is also an image in your brain.

Love is inclusion in the idea of self. You are what you love.

Recursion is central to all this, but my brain is not big enough to really understand how. I think that consciousness arises from recursive perception, the perception of perception itself. When you point a video camera at a TV and it spins down the rabbit hole, I think some kind of consciousness may be created in that instant.

I think it was evolutionarily useful for animals to perceive "self" among the other things in the world. You can literally de-brain a cockroach and it will still scurry away from light. The photoreceptors drive the legs without any model of self. But once you have a model of self included in perception, then it can consider potential scenarios relevant to survival.

None of this is to say that there cannot be a "great programmer" in the sky. Maybe there is and we all exist in the RAM of the great computer.

Sorry this is not more coherent. I can't quite see it all clearly of course. Maybe if I have another cup of coffee.

I'll just leave this here:

Bicameral mentality is a hypothesis in psychology and neuroscience which argues that the human mind once operated in a state in which cognitive functions were divided between one part of the brain which appears to be "speaking", and a second part which listens and obeys—a bicameral mind, and that the evolutionary breakdown of this division gave rise to consciousness in humans. The term was coined by Julian Jaynes, who presented the idea in his 1976 book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind,wherein he made the case that a bicameral mentality was the normal and ubiquitous state of the human mind as recently as 3,000 years ago, near the end of the Mediterranean bronze age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameral_mentality

https://www.julianjaynes.org/resources/books/ooc/en/

In other words - the "Voice of God" could have been or continues to be nothing more than an artifact of archaic consciousness.

NuttBoxer says

How do you know what length of time a "day" represented? And again, if God can't create the world in six days, He's not God.

There are an awful lot of people running around at this very moment who take that to mean a day just like we know it right now. That is pretty scary in and of itself, but then again there are still people who believe the Earth is flat.

DD214 says

There are an awful lot of people running around at this very moment who take that to mean a day just like we know it right now. That is pretty scary in and of itself, but then again there are still people who believe the Earth is flat.

There are people who want fines and jail time for misgendering somebody, and to do so is "Hate Speech", which they believe is Evil leading to potential Genocide.

They also believe men give birth and can somehow menstruate despite not having a uterine wall to shed.

That's much more scary than somebody who believes in the Beginning of Time itself, a Divinity created a part of the universe in a literal day.

AmericanKulak says

There are people who want fines and jail time for misgendering somebody, and to do so is "Hate Speech".

They also believe men give birth and can somehow menstruate despite not having a uterine wall to shed.

That's much more scary than somebody who believes in the Beginning of Time itself, a Divinity created a part of the universe in a literal day.

Let's try and leave current politics and the two party system out of this but a very nice deflection attempt - very nice.

Now if you want to go into details about the same people who think all of this creation etc. was done in 6 twenty-four hour days and on the 7th "god" rested, I am all ears.

DD214 says

Let's try and leave current politics and the two party system out of this

No.

It's important to point out that some of the most vociferous critics of Theism are also the biggest advocates that Men who believe they are Women can Menstruate or even give birth.

Patrick says

Sorry this is not more coherent. I can't quite see it all clearly of course. Maybe if I have another cup of coffee.

Why not get some weed? It's not a bad drug if used only occasionally.

A deflection is a defection is a deflection and a meme is a meme is a meme but nice try,

AmericanKulak - Can you do something more than a cartoon meme ? Something with some substance

When all else fails - make it political

Question: which political party did "God" create first and why ?

Who is this "God" favoring in 2024 ? I might want to make a bet if I can get some inside scoop. Maybe I can beat the spread

AmericanKulak says

They also believe men give birth and can somehow menstruate despite not having a uterine wall to shed.

I think (think) what is meant by this is that biological women who are calling themselves "men" can menstruate and do have a uterine wall, but they aren't "women", they're "men" - because they say so.

AmericanKulak says

It's important to point out that some of the most vociferous critics of Theism are also the biggest advocates that Men who believe they are Women can Menstruate or even give birth.

The "left" are using different definitions than you and I do - they have recently redefined what a "man" and "woman" is. Now it's just in the mind, according to them.

I won't deny the looniness of this, but the WHO just redefined what a "pandemic" is. It's just nonsense of course. It's important though, because people in the future that go through a "pandemic" will not understand what the black plague REALLY was, or what smallpox outbreaks REALLY were.

This is coming from the top down, not from the bottom up. It's not like a bunch of lefties just all spontaneously decided that some guy with two onions and a sausage could be a "woman" just because they declared they were. This comes from our media and our "elected" politicians.

People who repeat this tripe, well, now you have an easy time of recognizing who an NPC is - they are just followers and mindless repeaters, but this is not limited to just "the left". Somebody who states "well, the Earth was created 6,000 years ago and Noah's Ark was really really real!" are in the same boat. If Creationists spent any time thinking about it, they'd realize Noah's Ark doesn't make any sense nor does the Garden of Eden - but it's a pointless effort to try to convince them of this. They are just hopelessly controlled, at least in that one aspect.

I used to think Creationists didn't exist, and they were just fucking with me, that ended when I moved to Indiana and found real ones. They're not bad people, but it was quite a shock to me to find ENGINEERS that actually truly believed this stuff. Now I'm finding out the craziness of "the left" here in silly con valley. Both "sides" can be equally, um, "wrong".

DD214 says

A deflection is a defection is a deflection and a meme is a meme is a meme but nice try,

AmericanKulak - Can you do something more than a cartoon meme ? Something with some substance

When all else fails - make it political

Question: which political party did "God" create first and why ?

Who is this "God" favoring in 2024 ? I might want to make a bet if I can get some inside scoop. Maybe I can beat the spread

Sorry, I'm not doing that.

It very much is philosophical as much as political. The meme is simply a succinct way of presenting a double standard.

It's a valid observation that many of the "I fucking love science" and "Where's the Physical Proof of a Deity?" will turn right around and insist that men can menstruate if they feel they are women without any objective, quantifiable proof of menstruation, such as the organs required for menstruation to occur.

Those who insist on Physical Proof for some claims, should not be able to dodge Physical Proof for their claims.

richwicks says

This is coming from the top down, not from the bottom up. It's not like a bunch of lefties just all spontaneously decided that some guy with two onions and a sausage could be a "woman" just because they declared they were. This comes from our media and our "elected" politicians.

It doesn't come from the Media, it comes from PostModernity, from Marcuse to Foucault. In college, Radical Professors taught Marcuse and Foucault and Bell but not any counter-narratives to compare and contrast. That is why the Media changed radically when in did, around 2010-2014.

I succinctly remember in the 2000s there were MSM programs about Dr. Money and David Reimer and the "great mistakes" of the 60s-70s radicals. The reason it changed is because the first generation of brainwashed graduates went to work for the Media.

And yes, I'm going to use another handy meme as a more succinct explanation for what I think happened:

Here is a bit from "Horizons", an MSM documentary series, this 2000s-era episode on Dr. Money's Fraud and the story of David Reimer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yoYmCvhlkU

An an article from the 2004 LA Times, note the lack of tendentious pro-Trans/pro-GenderFluidity argument.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-may-13-me-reimer13-story.html

What changed? A new generation, trained to spout Post Modernist Myths without question or contrast, entered the workforce. The RINOs promised that once Millies paid taxes or got mugged, all that radical indoctrination would go bye-bye. It didn't happen, precisely because A) There were always radicals in universities but they were a minority but Pollyannas didn't realize how dominant Radical Professors became AND their intimidation, and later grovelling obedience, from the Administration B) A critical mass of graduates supported each other and quickly entered the workforce in Media, HR, PR to maintain their narrative.

As an example of the Radical Takeover (rather than the "Don't exaggerate, it's just an odd radical or two in a social science department" narrative which is falsely believed to this day), Clinton mysteriously pardoned terrorist bomber Susan Rosenberg, Radicals at CUNY's John Jay College fell over themselves to give her a job, which they had planned and prepared for in advance of her release, and successfully defended her job offer for 4 semesters against other Academics and public pressure critical of her appointment. She later ended up running "Thousand Currents", a far left organization, and helped set up BLM: "We're trained Marxists" - Patrice Cullors, perhaps referring to Rosenberg's assistance and expertise.

It's interesting how so many Media/Academic Boomers blushingly retreated from 70s Radicalism in the 1990s, only to re-embrace it again in the 2010s.

AmericanKulak says

It doesn't come from the Media, it comes from PostModernity, from Marcuse to Foucault. In college, Radical Professors taught Marcuse and Foucault and Bell but not any counter-narratives to compare and contrast. That is why the Media changed radically when in did, around 2010-2014.

NO! This was not when the break happened, it happened earlier.

I saw the last dying gasps of the media, and it happened in early 2000, the early "naughts".

This is when our media moved from having any pretense of being informative, to being full on propaganda. I largely ignored it, because the Internet was replacing it anyhow, what I didn't realize though is that although I already had dumped television and newspapers as an information source, I was something like a decade ahead of most people.

AmericanKulak says

I succinctly remember in the 2000s there were MSM programs about Dr. Money and David Reimer and the "great mistakes" of the 60s-70s radicals. The reason it changed is because the first generation of brainwashed graduates went to work for the Media.

It was bullshit back then too, you just don't realize it, yet.

Perhaps it's been bullshit all my life. Maybe it's even before the naughts. I became an adult in the 1990's and that's when I really started to pay attention. I can readily accept that all the "news" I got before then was bullshit, and not mistakes but I know, for certain, our "news" became pure bullshit by 2001.

We're finding out just now that the CIA and FBI had a hand in murdering John Kennedy. Consider that. Where were the "investigative journalists"? Maybe they don't exist and have never existed. The people who actually did work to research it were either dismissed as crazy, or murdered - like Dorothy Kilgallen was.

I'm telling you our "news" media turned to shit before you realize, it happened earlier than you think. It probably happened before I think. I can only say for certainty I became absolutely aware of it 20 years ago.

richwicks says

I saw the last dying gasps of the media, and it happened in early 2000, the early "naughts".

This is when our media moved from having any pretense of being informative, to being full on propaganda. I largely ignored it, because the Internet was replacing it anyhow, what I didn't realize though is that although I already had dumped television and newspapers as an information source, I was something like a decade ahead of most people.

We disagree on this one, and we've debated this many times.
richwicks says

It was bullshit back then too, you just don't realize it, yet.

Perhaps it's been bullshit all my life. Maybe it's even before the naughts. I became an adult in the 1990's and that's when I really started to pay attention. I can readily accept that all the "news" I got before then was bullshit, and not mistakes but I know, for certain, our "news" became pure bullshit by 2001.

There's always been bullshit and big gov bias. But back in the 90s there were MSM hosted debates between JFK Assassination Researchers and "It was all Oswald" types. "JFK" was released in Movie Theatres, which definitely takes the Conspiracy viewpoint.

The absolute clampdown on anything threatening to PostModernism and Neoliberal Fascism began in the 2010s. The 80s and 90s were full of everything from MRA's to NeoNazis to UFOs Concealed By Government to Everything Else making arguments on Talk Shows, both TV and Radio. The 2000s was the transition period but it was still Mainstream to assert Men couldn't become Women --- and to oppose the Iraq War.

Even in fiction: You'd NEVER get a show like the X-Files approved today, not just because the lead protagonists are White, but for the topic matter of a Deep State colluding against the Public Interest. And certainly not Silence of the Lambs. "IT DEPICTS WONDERFUL TRANSPERSONS AS INSANE SERIAL KILLERS! HATE SPEECH! JODIE FOSTER IS A BIGOT FOR EVEN THINKING OF ACTING IN THIS GENOCIDAL HIT PIECE!!";

The only surprising thing about this Era is that Hollywood and the BBC haven't incinerated the original copies of "Blazing Saddles" and "Benny Hill"

Woke Media has already called for Dude looks like a Lady and other songs to be removed from circulation.

Here's Forbes Magazine, 2021:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danabrownlee/2021/04/19/why-white-people-should-stop-using-the-term-wokeimmediately/?sh=771c739d7779

This is the kind of sentiment you'd only see in "Maoist International Movement/Rally Against Imperialism" fliers in previous eras, never in a mainstream publication.

The Culture War is real. And Politics is downstream from Culture. Once the Culture is 100% Authoritarian Left-Neoliberal, forgot any hopes of politics, since most/all the voters will be for Authoritarian Neoliberal/Leftism.

DD214 says

According to the physicists etc. there was nothing so how did God come out of nothing ?

[ links to physicists grappling with the something-from-nothing question ]

So as of today I have yet to get anything but a variety of wonderful word salads for an answer from clergy of any church or denomination.

Anyone on here have something better than word salad for an answer ?

Again I ask, how is what the physicists are saying about what came before the current universe any less of a word salad than what the clerics are saying came before the account in Genesis?

Here’s from the CNET article linked in the OP:

"Nothing was around before the Big, Big Bang," Hawking said.

He explained that Einstein's Theory of Relativity insists space and time form a continuum curved by the matter and energy in it.

For Hawking, therefore, the beginning of the universe is best described by a Euclidean approach.

"Ordinary real time is replaced by imaginary time," he said. Honestly, that happens to me all the time. I imagine time has gone by at a certain pace, only to discover I've been imagining things.

For Hawking, however, imaginary time "behaves like a fourth direction of space." He and Euclid believe imaginary time is a "four-dimensional curved surface like the surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions."

Six-dimensional, then?

The universe, insisted Hawking, has no boundaries. Yes, it's like true love.

What kind of dressing would you like with that?

And how is this any better than saying, as the clerics do, “God always was and always will be”?

AmericanKulak says

There's always been bullshit and big gov bias. But back in the 90s there were MSM hosted debates between JFK Assassination Researchers and "It was all Oswald" types. "JFK" was released in Movie Theatres, which definitely takes the Conspiracy viewpoint.

A fictional one. Sure it opened up the can of worms, but it was fantasized and this was for "artistic reasons" - bullshit, it was just more disinformation.

AmericanKulak says

The absolute clampdown on anything threatening to PostModernism and Neoliberal Fascism began in the 2010s. The 80s and 90s were full of everything from MRA's to NeoNazis to UFOs Concealed By Government to Everything Else making arguments on Talk Shows, both TV and Radio.

This is a propaganda technique known widely as "kookification". What is done is to associate a real, serious, research movement with wacky crazy bullshit. That's what Judy Wood's job is with 9/11.

AmericanKulak says

Even in fiction: You'd NEVER get a show like the X-Files approved today

Although I had an interest in the X-Files as a CHILD, it's another example of kookification.

AmericanKulak says

The only surprising thing about this Era is that Hollywood and the BBC haven't incinerated the original copies of "Blazing Saddles" and "Benny Hill"

Well, the digital age has made it impossible to wipe this out. I know people with 100TB raided (equivalent) drives that just keep the data to share it, they will never use it.

AmericanKulak says

The Culture War is real. And Politics is downstream from Culture.

Culture is created by media. Just divorce yourself from it. I did, 30 years ago.

When I watch a film today, I see it as propaganda - and I used to be a huge film buff, but it's nearly all propaganda.

I noticed that I gravitated (without my awareness) away from that. Go watch The City of Lost Children for example, it's just a weird film. I can't see a political message, but there is with Top Gun...