How do you know murder is wrong?

[Brant Gaede]

On 4/4/2017 at 1:50 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

I can't structure my mind.  I have been placed under the most advanced neuro scanning equipment on the planet and there is no sign of a mind in my body.  From which I conclude that I don't have an immaterial Mind.  Nor do I have an immortal or immaterial soul.  I assume my brain, to a limited degree, can structure itself, which is to say change in response to its environment.  

I am cursed (or blessed)  with an almost totally mathematical outlook.  I was brought up Jewish,  but my true religion is non-equilibrium thermodynamics. Everywhere I go, and everything I do leads me to comprehend the entropy increasing. 

If you could understand what I mean when I say "structure my mind," what would that understanding be?

--Brant

since you can't, it means adding knowledge and tossing out facts or "facts" that don't fit what one thinks is (objective) and usable truth and integrating data across and through sundry subjects--that is, "structure" is a metaphor for knowledge and is not brain cells

your case has nothing to do with "government benefit checks" and all to do with brain physiology

as a society we keep you locked up until we need to unleash the Kraken

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, moralist said:

According to the state sponsored religion of secular liberal socialism, the answer would be yes...

...because both the religion of secular liberal socialism and the religion of Islamic fascism are enemies of Judeo Christian values.

Greg

Freedom of religion means worship. Muslims can pray all day but they can't make (fascist) hay--even the planning is/should be illegal.

--Brant

you need not battle Islam ideologically, just crush any fascist, initiate force manifestations and maybe Muslims will thus get educated about the practicality of rights' violations and WTF rights are all about!

you see: the Muslim religion is essentially a fascist enterprise--and it's Achilles Heel--go for that and let the head rot

[moralist]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

you need not battle Islam ideologically...

Well, personally I can't do anything about the religion of Islam except not to be one.

Just as I can't do anything about the secular political religion of liberal socialism except not to be one.

But I can create an environment of American Judeo Christian values within my personal sphere of influence...

...and that's all that matters, because that's all I can do.

 

Greg 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 hours ago, moralist said:

England had a state religion. America does not... and the Founding Fathers wanted to make certain none was never established.

Greg,

This is not quite accurate. We discussed this somewhere on OL several years ago.

The Constitution of the United States of America says that Congress will not pass any law establishing a religion nor pass any law prohibiting the free expression of one. It might seem like nitpicking, but there is a world of difference between saying that and saying America has no state religion or the Founding Fathers wanted to prohibit state religion altogether. Note that this condition applies to the federal government only, not state or local governments.

God is mentioned in almost all state constitutions. See here: God in the State Constitutions. And in some states, you cannot hold public office (state government) if you deny the existence of God. See here: Unelectable Atheists: U.S. States That Prohibit Godless Americans From Holding Public Office (note: after bopping around on the Internet, I get the impression there is a lot more than in that article).

In fact, some state constitutions established Christianity as their state religion. I don't recall off the top of my head how many--we went pretty deep in the previous OL discussion (I really should look that up  ), but there are a few.

This gets muddied because there has been a concerted effort by lots of folks to deny, misrepresent and/or suppress this knowledge. (Also, people love to make shit up and call it law.  ) In other words, if you are a scholar, you know about it with no problem. If you are an average person looking online or, maybe, in a library, you can't find anything anywhere except sternly worded sanctimonious statements about religious freedom FULL STOP (and please turn off your brain) without doing some intense digging.

(To be fair, reading certain brands of Christian material is just as bad going the other way.)

If you want to see a hoot of an example, see here: The Original State Constitutions--and this is a religious site at that, one called "wordservice.org". The site opens thus:

Quote

In reading these original state constitutions the modern reader may be under the misconception that they somehow "established " Christianity as the official religion of the state. (blah blah blah)

Does that seem clear enough? The author is saying beware because there is misleading language in some of these state constitutions. So let's take a peek. If you click on South Carolina, you go here: The Constitution Of South Carolina 1778. This link gives selected passages from the SC Constitution and commentary from the World Service folks.

But you don't need to read hardly anything. You will see an amazing example of NewSpeak right at the top:

Quote

South Carolina's original constitution probably came the closest to what the founders of the nation understood to be the establishment of religion, even using the word established in it's [sic] constitution.  However it still fell short of that because this was the religion of the people and their state.

Say what?!!

Can you run that by me again, Charlie?

Let's see what the actual constitution said (you can read the full text of the SC Constitution on that same site here). In Article XXXVIII, it says:

Quote

The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State.

How in hell (excuse the reference  ) is that vague?

But there it is.

The truth is that, according to the founding charter, the Congress of the federal government cannot establish a state religion through law, but, apparently, the other branches (judiciary and executive) are not so restricted. And neither are the governments of the different states, many of which made wide and differing use of their local right.

When people say the US was not founded as a Christian nation, if they are referring only to the federal government, they are correct. If they are referring to the states individually, they are predominantly incorrect. At least, that's how it is on paper and in history, no matter how many times this gets misrepresented in the culture.

The US seems to be doing OK, though, bumping and grinding along for centuries in a kind of half-assed cognitively imprecise manner and relying more on case law than on charter documents.  

Michael

[moralist]

Michael, I apologize. I was wrong when I said America has no state religion. The secular political religion of liberal socialism IS the state religion.

It is taught in all of the government schools and universities. It is continually evangelized by the media. The nation is positively saturated with it. Using the latest election results as an indicator, that religion is subscribed by by over half the nation.

"Separation of church and state" my ass!

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Greg,

You might get a kick out of this from Rush Limbaugh yesterday:

Leftists Recognize No Authority Other Than Themselves

He's been analyzing an article dated March 27, 2017 from Frontpage Magazine, The Civil War Is Here: The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule by Daniel Greenfield (my bold):

Quote

Today’s left has no allegiance to the system. And that is the point. The left does not accept the system. Even when they win, they are about destroying the system. When they lose, they ignore it and dare you to stop them. The left accepts no law other than law dictated by it’s ideology. He said, do not think of liberalism as activism. Do not think of it as protest. Do not think of liberalism as politics or civil disobedience. It’s none of those things. It is treason, according to Mr. Greenfield, it is treason.

Now, I love analogies as a way of explaining something. I can imagine that right now you’re saying, “Treason? Rush, you gotta be real careful. You…” I’m quoting Mr. Greenfield for you here, but I still want to try to try to explain this by analogizing the left in America. There is a group that they are very close to. And if I just said so, it would shock you. I’m going to try to explain it after saying so. The way the left behaves today — in virtually everything that they do — do you realize how close it is to radical Islam?

You know, minus the terrorism. Let’s look at the similarities. For the kind of Islamists we’re talking about, the Sharia Islamists, there is no authority but Islam. To the left, there is no authority but themselves. They respect and recognize no other authority. They don’t recognize the authority of elections. They don’t recognize the authority of public opinion. They don’t recognize the authority of the Constitution, even though they all swear an oath. Why do you think we require everybody in government to swear an oath to the Constitution?

‘Cause that’s glue, folks. That’s the glue that keeps everything together. The reason all of these oaths of office and oaths of naturalization require pledging fidelity to the Constitution is that that is supposed to be the compact that unites all of us. Winning or losing, we are united as Americans, defined by our Constitution. Swearing the oath announces the understandings based on which we become “we, the people.” If you have a huge movement in the country that’s not just rejecting but actively undermining the Constitution, then it becomes a real question.

And once that group becomes big enough — a majority of the population — then it becomes questionable whether we even have a “we, the people” anymore. And this behavior is very, very close to Sharia Islam. There is no authority but Islam. It’s a core tenet: The ruler must be obeyed as long as he complies and enforces Sharia. And if the ruler abandons Sharia, they assassinate him like in the case of Anwar Sadat or Mubarak. Now, they don’t do assassinations here, but if the left’s leader abandons them, you know what happens to them.

They’re immediately forgotten, destroyed, cast aside, and ruined. But here, let me try it a different way. If Islamists are in the role of Democrats in my analogy, Americans assume the role of the GOP. We proclaim that our commitment to tolerance means that we have to make room at the table even for Islamists and people we disagree with. Notwithstanding that they deny our right to govern ourselves under our own principles. In other words, you’ve heard people say, “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” That’s because in a “we, the people” situation we have to tolerate those who disagree with us. We have to tolerate those. We’re not supposed to cave in to them, but if there is a mutual respect for authority.

Of course, Sharia Islam is never gonna accept the U.S. Constitution. The American left doesn’t, either, when it goes against them. Maybe if you look at the Islamist analogy, it could be somewhat easier to understand the American left. It’s not that Islamists have no respect for authority. It’s that they believe there is no authority outside them. They clearly granted Obama all the authority in the world, and they were gonna grant Hillary all the authority in the world. But that’s within their system.

But they’re never gonna grant George W. Bush the authority.

They’re never gonna acknowledge the authority of Donald J. Trump.

They’re never, ever going to do that.

You know, I think the Sharia Islam analogy works just fine for the left (closer to the edge than the middle).

It certainly worked like that with Communism, didn't it?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating a theocracy.

I'm just in identify correctly before evaluating mode.

I see no advantage to ignoring reality and replacing it with an evaluation of some desired outcome.

I hold people have to identify something correctly to be able to evaluate it correctly. Otherwise, whatever they evaluate will not be reality.

Michael

[anthony]

23 hours ago, moralist said:

That's my basic point. There is absolutely NO moral comparison between Christianity today and islam today...

... and yet secular leftists constantly bring it up because they're LIARS..

The reason Europe (with the possible exception of brexiting UK) is crumbling in the face of the Islamic invasion is because it was founded on degenerate secular liberal socialist values. So the majority of Europeans are morally weak and have nothing in their secular libertine government dependent culture with which to resist the immigrant hoards... just as the immigrant hoards are offered nothing better with which to assimilate.

In America today... the secular liberal democrats are the Islamic fascists ALLIES. Because the secular religion of leftist socialism is as morally degenerate as Islam. This makes them both antithetical to Judeo Christian values. So there is a reason the Constitution is mocked by secular leftists. It does not belong to their government worshipping political religion.

The US Constitution was made only for decent people who govern themselves in accord with Judeo Christian values.

It doesn't work for indecent people.

So as people degenerate into immoral unproductive government parasites, it has to be violated in order to govern those who fail to govern themselves and who have rendered themselves undeserving of a decent government.

 

Progressivism is a secular leftist political religion with government as its god. It is one of the fastest growing and most dynamic religions on Earth.

Both secular leftism and Islam are ENEMIES of American values and American culture.

 

Greg

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10091/muslims-liberals-leftists

It's not as if sensible, rational Muslims want to be befriended by the Left either...(With 'friends' like these, who needs enemies?)

[moralist]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10091/muslims-liberals-leftists

It's not as if sensible and rational Muslims want to be befriended by the Left either...(With friends like those who needs enemies?)

Those impotent Muslim voices of reason are pitifully too few and just too damned weak.

A parallel just struck me... 

Just as radical Islamic fascists have hijacked Islam... radical secular leftists have hijacked liberalism.

The only thing between Western civilization and the Islamic fascists is Judeo Christian values. Abandon those for libertine secularism and there is only European surrender...

...and the Islamic fascists KNOW this. It's their ace in the hole. They KNOW they're stronger than secular libertines because with those useful idiots as their allies they enable the Islamists to be stronger.

 

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

12 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

If you could understand what I mean when I say "structure my mind," what would that understanding be?

--Brant

since you can't, it means adding knowledge and tossing out facts or "facts" that don't fit what one thinks is (objective) and usable truth and integrating data across and through sundry subjects--that is, "structure" is a metaphor for knowledge and is not brain cells

your case has nothing to do with "government benefit checks" and all to do with brain physiology

as a society we keep you locked up until we need to unleash the Kraken

I can only take the literal meaning of the words.  I don't have a mind to restructure.  However the information content of my brains changes because of input (learning new stuff, having new experiences)  and output  ( forgetting stuff I once knew).  I have no idea of what "mind" is supposed to be.  We can't detect it physically in -anyone-.    It has never been seen by the most advanced scanning devices.   The only thing we have are flesh and blood people claiming that have an immaterial thing in their bodies that determines what they know and how they act.  Given the lack of empirical evidence and the fact that no immaterial thinking entity has ever been detected in the body of any living human,  one could very well be skeptical of the notion of mind,  or soul, or spirit.

[moralist]

25 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

 I don't have a mind to restructure.

Government education nurtures mental illness... and this fool is actually proud of it.

Greg

[anthony]

4 hours ago, moralist said:

Those impotent Muslim voices of reason are pitifully too few and just too damned weak.

A parallel just struck me... 

Just as radical Islamic fascists have hijacked Islam... radical secular leftists have hijacked liberalism.

 

 

Greg

You'd be surprised. Not that few. Without searching for reform-type Muslims particularly, I've come across several/many speak out in articles and YouTube. Women especially. Anyhow, if one can only assume 1% of global Muslims they'd total 15 million. A small country. I reckon what's also happening is that (guess who?) - yep, the hard Leftists, and Trojan horse organisations like MB and CAIR in America, manage to drown out or discredit the lone voices. Fascisti seem to find each other unfailingly.

[anthony]

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I can only take the literal meaning of the words.  I don't have a mind to restructure.  However the information content of my brains changes because of input (learning new stuff, having new experiences)  and output  ( forgetting stuff I once knew).  I have no idea of what "mind" is supposed to be.  We can't detect it physically in -anyone-.    It has never been seen by the most advanced scanning devices.   The only thing we have are flesh and blood people claiming that have an immaterial thing in their bodies that determines what they know and how they act.  Given the lack of empirical evidence and the fact that no immaterial thinking entity has ever been detected in the body of any living human,  one could very well be skeptical of the notion of mind,  or soul, or spirit.

Ah, it's simply an experience with one's mind, an "inductive" one, if you will. You've not done so bad here with self-insight, all you need is the confidence to keep doing the same. (And forget about friggin empirical evidence!)

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Ah, it's simply an experience with one's mind, an "inductive" one, if you will. You've not done so bad here with self-insight, all you need is the confidence to keep doing the same. (And forget about friggin empirical evidence!)

Or a delusion....  And I never discount empirical evidence......ever.  I run on facts and logic. 

[jts]

5 hours ago, moralist said:

 

Just as radical Islamic fascists have hijacked Islam... 

 

They didn't hijack Islam. Islam was violent from the start. Muhammad, founder of Islam, was a terrorist and a mass murderer.

 

[moralist]

5 minutes ago, jts said:

They didn't hijack Islam. Islam was violent from the start. Muhammad, founder of Islam, was a terrorist and a mass murderer.

 

Good point, Jerry.

I was thinking of the "bad" Muslims who don't follow the religion to the letter of its evil "law", but they are a minority. Islam needs a reformation like Christianity had. There are still too few Muslims willing to to do it.

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/27/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

This is NOT "a few Islamic fascists".

 

Greg

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here we go again, shooting ourselves in the foot with bigotry.

It's hard to win a war when the people on your own side insist on spin rather than reality.

Sharia is not compatible with the Western way of life and political principles. So it should not be allowed legal legitimacy within Western democracies and republics. However, if people wish to worship Islam, that is their choice--according to the very same way of life and political principles.

The right way is to insist on our way of life and political principles regardless of religion. Instead, people want to obliterate an entire religion as priority. Total collectivism...

That's just plain wrong.

We must promote freedom and reason by example and intransigence against subversion where we live, not wage a friggin' religious war.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here we go again, shooting ourselves in the foot with bigotry.

It's hard to win a war when the people on your own side insist on spin rather than reality.

Sharia is not compatible with the Western way of life and political principles. So it should not be allowed legal legitimacy within Western democracies and republics. However, if people wish to worship Islam, that is their choice--according to the very same way of life and political principles.

The right way is to insist on our way of life and political principles regardless of religion. Instead, people want to obliterate an entire religion as priority. Total collectivism...

That's just plain wrong.

We must promote freedom and reason by example and intransigence against subversion where we live, not wage a friggin' religious war.

Michael

Shariah cannot be incorporated into the American legal system because it would violate the First Amendment.   Establishing Shariah as a state function would be establishing a religion which is constitutionally forbidden. 

[moralist]

There are Police no-go zones in Muslim populated areas of Europe where they have established Sharia law. And as those populations grow so will Sharia. This is exactly how Islam will assimilate Europe. This is possible because Europe has no moral culture like America has. It's just government dependent secular liberal socialism where the biggest issues are time off and getting benefits.

As much as secularists hate religion... the Judeo Christian values of Western civilization are the only thing preventing them from eventually being assimilated by Sharia.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

9 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I can only take the literal meaning of the words.  I don't have a mind to restructure.  However the information content of my brains changes because of input (learning new stuff, having new experiences)  and output  ( forgetting stuff I once knew).  I have no idea of what "mind" is supposed to be.  We can't detect it physically in -anyone-.    It has never been seen by the most advanced scanning devices.   The only thing we have are flesh and blood people claiming that have an immaterial thing in their bodies that determines what they know and how they act.  Given the lack of empirical evidence and the fact that no immaterial thinking entity has ever been detected in the body of any living human,  one could very well be skeptical of the notion of mind,  or soul, or spirit.

So when I say "metaphor" you don't know what I am talking about?

"Mind" has two components: conscious and unconscious. It is merely another term for consciousness--the use of. Do you deny you are conscious? Do you deny awareness?

--Brant

tired of cooking you on a spit--but not too tired

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

So when I say "metaphor" you don't know what I am talking about?

"Mind" has two components: conscious and unconscious. It is merely another term for consciousness--the use of. Do you deny you are conscious? Do you deny awareness?

--Brant

tired of cooking you on a spit--but not too tired

Not at all.  I see, I hear, I think and I feel.  That implies what you Normals call consciousness. 

[moralist]

7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Sharia is not compatible with the Western way of life and political principles.

But it is compatible with the secular liberal political correctness which nurtures and enables it.

Greg

[jts]

About radical Muslims vs moderate Muslims.

 

[anthony]

16 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Or a delusion....  And I never discount empirical evidence......ever.  I run on facts and logic. 

 

16 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Or a delusion....  And I never discount empirical evidence......ever.  I run on facts and logic. 

'Running on facts and logic', but without the motive to evaluate or conceptualize those facts, is why you haven't been able to establish any moral reason for murder to be wrong.

A "delusion" [of mind] could not have made your above statement ; your stance on "empirical evidence" was made originally by the act of a volitional consciousness of course. You could not have absorbed this (philosophical) stance out of thin air. You use your mind to negate the mind. But you haven't admitted to your fundamental self-contradiction before, and won't, I expect.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 hours ago, moralist said:

But it is compatible with the secular liberal political correctness which nurtures and enables it.

Greg,

Absolutely correct.

My point is that when this discussion comes up, we would be a lot better served to say we won't stand for sharia law in the US. Period. No discussion. Not gonna happen.

And if any leftie wishes to allow it, we will work overtime to get that person out of office and/or out of public influence. And we take no prisoners. We should inform them that we are a country based on our own system of individual rights and laws, and we will fight anyone and everyone--to the death if necessary--who wishes to overthrow or replace it.

This manner stays on point. It focuses on our principles and our strength, not their shortcomings, perceived or otherwise.

And based on that, if anyone wishes to submit to our way of life of valuing individual rights and our laws, they are welcome to be among us and follow their own bliss in their own manner. That includes worshipping whoever or whatever they wish.

This is a far better statement of principles--and even warning--than saying Muhammad was a pedophile, Islam is violent to the core, there's no such thing as a moderate Muslim, the Qu'ran says (fill in the blank), yada yada yada, all of which is a caricature and an anencephalous stereotype.

Michael