What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Only Some Explanations Or Theories Allowed

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
113,302
Reaction score
48,045
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
1.In a recent thread about economic theory, in which it was shown that government economists, while totally wrong, continue to proclaim the same policies. One of our pals, DustyInfinity, noted the oddity:

I'm surprised so many of the esteemed left economists are declared collectivists… It is beyond me why failed philosophy would be held in high esteem. For some reason, they can't let it go, they can't learn from mistakesThe Economy Fallacy

2. What is glaring, is that their errors are rarely pointed out, and, when they come up with further nonsense, most folks just nod and stroke their chin without questioning. Many on our side, the reasonable side, don’t offer possible explanations because they would be ridiculed out of hand. Yet the other side has no problem most absurd and ludicrous….as is the case of the economists.

Is there an explanation for the continued advancing of incorrect ideas and policies?

Yup….there is if individuals weren’t afraid to voice them.


3. And not just in economics. The most fundamental question for science is ‘what was before the universe’? Dennis Prager, writing about theology, notes: “In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] …accurately depicts human beings as the last creation.”




4. A large and powerful contingent of scientists, in advancing atheistic neo-Marxism, frequently admit that they will never give religion, the Bible, the credit it deserves. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”

5. There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?



Would it be out of context to have him say “Heaven forbid, we credit a Creator!!”???



And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."

Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."





The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science as long as religion is pushed out of the discussion. Only views that obviate religion, and advance Marxism, are acceptable.
 

fncceo

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
32,342
Reaction score
20,277
Points
1,915
Do you believe that science and faith are mutually exclusive?

On what evidence do you make that claim?
 

bluzman61

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
36,405
Reaction score
41,798
Points
2,915
Location
Valparaiso, Indiana USA
1.In a recent thread about economic theory, in which it was shown that government economists, while totally wrong, continue to proclaim the same policies. One of our pals, DustyInfinity, noted the oddity:

I'm surprised so many of the esteemed left economists are declared collectivists… It is beyond me why failed philosophy would be held in high esteem. For some reason, they can't let it go, they can't learn from mistakesThe Economy Fallacy

2. What is glaring, is that their errors are rarely pointed out, and, when they come up with further nonsense, most folks just nod and stroke their chin without questioning. Many on our side, the reasonable side, don’t offer possible explanations because they would be ridiculed out of hand. Yet the other side has no problem most absurd and ludicrous….as is the case of the economists.

Is there an explanation for the continued advancing of incorrect ideas and policies?

Yup….there is if individuals weren’t afraid to voice them.


3. And not just in economics. The most fundamental question for science is ‘what was before the universe’? Dennis Prager, writing about theology, notes: “In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] …accurately depicts human beings as the last creation.”




4. A large and powerful contingent of scientists, in advancing atheistic neo-Marxism, frequently admit that they will never give religion, the Bible, the credit it deserves. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”

5. There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?



Would it be out of context to have him say “Heaven forbid, we credit a Creator!!”???



And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."

Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."





The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science as long as religion is pushed out of the discussion. Only views that obviate religion, and advance Marxism, are acceptable.
Wonderful post. Thank you, PC.
 

denmark

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2018
Messages
1,063
Reaction score
287
Points
130
1.In a recent thread about economic theory, in which it was shown that government economists, while totally wrong, continue to proclaim the same policies. One of our pals, DustyInfinity, noted the oddity:

I'm surprised so many of the esteemed left economists are declared collectivists… It is beyond me why failed philosophy would be held in high esteem. For some reason, they can't let it go, they can't learn from mistakesThe Economy Fallacy

2. What is glaring, is that their errors are rarely pointed out, and, when they come up with further nonsense, most folks just nod and stroke their chin without questioning. Many on our side, the reasonable side, don’t offer possible explanations because they would be ridiculed out of hand. Yet the other side has no problem most absurd and ludicrous….as is the case of the economists.

Is there an explanation for the continued advancing of incorrect ideas and policies?

Yup….there is if individuals weren’t afraid to voice them.


3. And not just in economics. The most fundamental question for science is ‘what was before the universe’? Dennis Prager, writing about theology, notes: “In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] …accurately depicts human beings as the last creation.”




4. A large and powerful contingent of scientists, in advancing atheistic neo-Marxism, frequently admit that they will never give religion, the Bible, the credit it deserves. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”

5. There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?



Would it be out of context to have him say “Heaven forbid, we credit a Creator!!”???



And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."

Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."





The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science as long as religion is pushed out of the discussion. Only views that obviate religion, and advance Marxism, are acceptable.
You are political, but science is not your strength.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
113,302
Reaction score
48,045
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
113,302
Reaction score
48,045
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
1.In a recent thread about economic theory, in which it was shown that government economists, while totally wrong, continue to proclaim the same policies. One of our pals, DustyInfinity, noted the oddity:

I'm surprised so many of the esteemed left economists are declared collectivists… It is beyond me why failed philosophy would be held in high esteem. For some reason, they can't let it go, they can't learn from mistakesThe Economy Fallacy

2. What is glaring, is that their errors are rarely pointed out, and, when they come up with further nonsense, most folks just nod and stroke their chin without questioning. Many on our side, the reasonable side, don’t offer possible explanations because they would be ridiculed out of hand. Yet the other side has no problem most absurd and ludicrous….as is the case of the economists.

Is there an explanation for the continued advancing of incorrect ideas and policies?

Yup….there is if individuals weren’t afraid to voice them.


3. And not just in economics. The most fundamental question for science is ‘what was before the universe’? Dennis Prager, writing about theology, notes: “In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] …accurately depicts human beings as the last creation.”




4. A large and powerful contingent of scientists, in advancing atheistic neo-Marxism, frequently admit that they will never give religion, the Bible, the credit it deserves. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”

5. There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?



Would it be out of context to have him say “Heaven forbid, we credit a Creator!!”???



And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."

Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."





The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science as long as religion is pushed out of the discussion. Only views that obviate religion, and advance Marxism, are acceptable.
You are political, but science is not your strength.



Was there anything in the post that you can dispute, refute, claim is incorrect?


No?


Excellent.
 

midcan5

liberal / progressive
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
12,578
Reaction score
3,260
Points
260
Location
Philly, PA
I wonder sometimes if PoliticalChic is a real person or a paid troll? She beats the same dog over and over again to the point where the poor dog gives in. Same negative review of the same stuff as if caught in a loop. Economics changes PC and it has changed lots. Beating a dead dog is a waste, it died long ago. Today things are different and for the interested reader who seriously want to learn and understand America today see the books linked below.

Start with this one and move on and learn:


And move on to deeper thought:


Next check into reality today and the whys.




Galbraith is a great read for the reader with a soul and a heart.

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." John Kenneth Galbraith

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." John Maynard Keynes
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
113,302
Reaction score
48,045
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
I wonder sometimes if PoliticalChic is a real person or a paid troll? She beats the same dog over and over again to the point where the poor dog gives in. Same negative review of the same stuff as if caught in a loop. Economics changes PC and it has changed lots. Beating a dead dog is a waste, it died long ago. Today things are different and for the interested reader who seriously want to learn and understand America today see the books linked below.

Start with this one and move on and learn:


And move on to deeper thought:


Next check into reality today and the whys.




Galbraith is a great read for the reader with a soul and a heart.

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." John Kenneth Galbraith

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." John Maynard Keynes


Perhaps you would do me the honor of reading this well constructed thesis on the errors of economics before you comment.



It includes this:

“The Godfather of the neo-Keynesians, Paul Samuelson, was the lead critic of the supposed follies of Reaganomics. He wrote in a 1980 Newsweek column that to slay the inflation monster would take "five to ten years of austerity," with unemployment of 8% or 9% and real output of "barely 1 or 2 percent." Reaganomics was routinely ridiculed in the media, especially in the 1982 recession. That was the year MIT economist Lester Thurow famously said, "The engines of economic growth have shut down here and across the globe, and they are likely to stay that way for years to come."

The economy would soon take flight for more than 80 consecutive months.

Then the Reagan critics declared what they once thought couldn't work was actually a textbook Keynesian expansion fueled by budget deficits of $200 billion a year, or about 4%-5% of GDP.

Robert Reich, now at the University of California, Berkeley, explained that "The recession of 1981-82 was so severe that the bounce back has been vigorous." Paul Krugman wrote in 2004 that the Reagan boom was really nothing special because: "You see, rapid growth is normal when an economy is bouncing back from a deep slump."
www.wsj.com

Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics
In The Wall Street Journal, Stephen Moore says Ronald Reagan's economic program worked, but Barack Obama's policies have not.
www.wsj.com
www.wsj.com

Wanna see that again?

"You see, rapid growth is normal when an economy is bouncing back from a deep slump."



And this: Under Obama…..“Yes, this is the slowest U.S. recovery since WWII” Yes, this is the slowest U.S. recovery since WWII




Admit, Middy, what really bothers you is any revelation about the evil of Marx and Marxism, to which you subscribe.



Now.....the rest of today's thesis?

Get the antacids ready.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
113,302
Reaction score
48,045
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
6. Here’s a pretty good rule for the considering mysteries and unexplained phenomena: Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. Sherlock Holmes.

In the OP we find that ‘science’ is more than willing to advance total nonsense. And, worse: lies. You were sold the Darwinian theory of the diversity of life as elegant, persuasive, and proven.

The first two adjectives are correct…..the last is the sort of bald-faced lie for which we need an explanation. There is, in fact, a large and known body of evidence that disproves Darwin’s theory. It is simply not allowed to be taught.



I often ask in these thread for the explanation for the need for lies. No answer is forthcoming from government school inductees.

But it should be obvious: the overwhelming influence in our society of the embrace of collectivism, the superior omniscience and beneficence of government, and the desire to dominate the lives of free citizens. It is known as Marxism.



And even deeper from the cognizance of most is the force behind Marxism.
 

Bush92

GHBush1992
Joined
May 23, 2014
Messages
34,794
Reaction score
10,608
Points
1,400
1.In a recent thread about economic theory, in which it was shown that government economists, while totally wrong, continue to proclaim the same policies. One of our pals, DustyInfinity, noted the oddity:

I'm surprised so many of the esteemed left economists are declared collectivists… It is beyond me why failed philosophy would be held in high esteem. For some reason, they can't let it go, they can't learn from mistakesThe Economy Fallacy

2. What is glaring, is that their errors are rarely pointed out, and, when they come up with further nonsense, most folks just nod and stroke their chin without questioning. Many on our side, the reasonable side, don’t offer possible explanations because they would be ridiculed out of hand. Yet the other side has no problem most absurd and ludicrous….as is the case of the economists.

Is there an explanation for the continued advancing of incorrect ideas and policies?

Yup….there is if individuals weren’t afraid to voice them.


3. And not just in economics. The most fundamental question for science is ‘what was before the universe’? Dennis Prager, writing about theology, notes: “In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] …accurately depicts human beings as the last creation.”




4. A large and powerful contingent of scientists, in advancing atheistic neo-Marxism, frequently admit that they will never give religion, the Bible, the credit it deserves. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”

5. There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?



Would it be out of context to have him say “Heaven forbid, we credit a Creator!!”???



And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."

Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."





The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science as long as religion is pushed out of the discussion. Only views that obviate religion, and advance Marxism, are acceptable.
Science and medicine are a product of man. Man is a product of God.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
113,302
Reaction score
48,045
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
1.In a recent thread about economic theory, in which it was shown that government economists, while totally wrong, continue to proclaim the same policies. One of our pals, DustyInfinity, noted the oddity:

I'm surprised so many of the esteemed left economists are declared collectivists… It is beyond me why failed philosophy would be held in high esteem. For some reason, they can't let it go, they can't learn from mistakesThe Economy Fallacy

2. What is glaring, is that their errors are rarely pointed out, and, when they come up with further nonsense, most folks just nod and stroke their chin without questioning. Many on our side, the reasonable side, don’t offer possible explanations because they would be ridiculed out of hand. Yet the other side has no problem most absurd and ludicrous….as is the case of the economists.

Is there an explanation for the continued advancing of incorrect ideas and policies?

Yup….there is if individuals weren’t afraid to voice them.


3. And not just in economics. The most fundamental question for science is ‘what was before the universe’? Dennis Prager, writing about theology, notes: “In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] …accurately depicts human beings as the last creation.”




4. A large and powerful contingent of scientists, in advancing atheistic neo-Marxism, frequently admit that they will never give religion, the Bible, the credit it deserves. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”

5. There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?



Would it be out of context to have him say “Heaven forbid, we credit a Creator!!”???



And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."

Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."





The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science as long as religion is pushed out of the discussion. Only views that obviate religion, and advance Marxism, are acceptable.
Science and medicine are a product of man. Man is a product of God.


Thank you but the point of today's thesis is not God, but a very different entity that has covered the culture with a seemingly indelible slant, and, as pointed out earlier with respect to both economics and science, it is a political cast.




There is an old joke that sums it up succinctly:

Every liberal gets up in the morning saying "The answer is bigger government. Now....what is your question."


Government has replaced unalienable rights and this is because man has been convinced that he can replace God.


This is Marxism.
 

Bush92

GHBush1992
Joined
May 23, 2014
Messages
34,794
Reaction score
10,608
Points
1,400
1.In a recent thread about economic theory, in which it was shown that government economists, while totally wrong, continue to proclaim the same policies. One of our pals, DustyInfinity, noted the oddity:

I'm surprised so many of the esteemed left economists are declared collectivists… It is beyond me why failed philosophy would be held in high esteem. For some reason, they can't let it go, they can't learn from mistakesThe Economy Fallacy

2. What is glaring, is that their errors are rarely pointed out, and, when they come up with further nonsense, most folks just nod and stroke their chin without questioning. Many on our side, the reasonable side, don’t offer possible explanations because they would be ridiculed out of hand. Yet the other side has no problem most absurd and ludicrous….as is the case of the economists.

Is there an explanation for the continued advancing of incorrect ideas and policies?

Yup….there is if individuals weren’t afraid to voice them.


3. And not just in economics. The most fundamental question for science is ‘what was before the universe’? Dennis Prager, writing about theology, notes: “In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] …accurately depicts human beings as the last creation.”




4. A large and powerful contingent of scientists, in advancing atheistic neo-Marxism, frequently admit that they will never give religion, the Bible, the credit it deserves. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”

5. There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?



Would it be out of context to have him say “Heaven forbid, we credit a Creator!!”???



And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."

Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."





The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science as long as religion is pushed out of the discussion. Only views that obviate religion, and advance Marxism, are acceptable.
Science and medicine are a product of man. Man is a product of God.


Thank you but the point of today's thesis is not God, but a very different entity that has covered the culture with a seemingly indelible slant, and, as pointed out earlier with respect to both economics and science, it is a political cast.




There is an old joke that sums it up succinctly:

Every liberal gets up in the morning saying "The answer is bigger government. Now....what is your question."


Government has replaced unalienable rights and this is because man has been convinced that he can replace God.


This is Marxism.
Exactly. Marx called religion the "opiate if the masses." The one thing that stands in the way of the establishment of any Marxist state is the belief that man is fallable and can never make a perfect utopia on earth. The claim of Marx was that after the creation of the communist state it would be a utopia. The perfect state of bliss can only be found in Heaven, not on this earth.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
113,302
Reaction score
48,045
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
1.In a recent thread about economic theory, in which it was shown that government economists, while totally wrong, continue to proclaim the same policies. One of our pals, DustyInfinity, noted the oddity:

I'm surprised so many of the esteemed left economists are declared collectivists… It is beyond me why failed philosophy would be held in high esteem. For some reason, they can't let it go, they can't learn from mistakesThe Economy Fallacy

2. What is glaring, is that their errors are rarely pointed out, and, when they come up with further nonsense, most folks just nod and stroke their chin without questioning. Many on our side, the reasonable side, don’t offer possible explanations because they would be ridiculed out of hand. Yet the other side has no problem most absurd and ludicrous….as is the case of the economists.

Is there an explanation for the continued advancing of incorrect ideas and policies?

Yup….there is if individuals weren’t afraid to voice them.


3. And not just in economics. The most fundamental question for science is ‘what was before the universe’? Dennis Prager, writing about theology, notes: “In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] …accurately depicts human beings as the last creation.”




4. A large and powerful contingent of scientists, in advancing atheistic neo-Marxism, frequently admit that they will never give religion, the Bible, the credit it deserves. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”

5. There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?



Would it be out of context to have him say “Heaven forbid, we credit a Creator!!”???



And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."

Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."





The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science as long as religion is pushed out of the discussion. Only views that obviate religion, and advance Marxism, are acceptable.
Science and medicine are a product of man. Man is a product of God.


Thank you but the point of today's thesis is not God, but a very different entity that has covered the culture with a seemingly indelible slant, and, as pointed out earlier with respect to both economics and science, it is a political cast.




There is an old joke that sums it up succinctly:

Every liberal gets up in the morning saying "The answer is bigger government. Now....what is your question."


Government has replaced unalienable rights and this is because man has been convinced that he can replace God.


This is Marxism.
Exactly. Marx called religion the "opiate if the masses." The one thing that stands in the way of the establishment of any Marxist state is the belief that man is fallable and can never make a perfect utopia on earth. The claim of Marx was that after the creation of the communist state it would be a utopia. The perfect state of bliss can only be found in Heaven, not on this earth.



I think you will find more than interesting some of the things I found out about Karl Marx.

Stay tuned.
 

Bush92

GHBush1992
Joined
May 23, 2014
Messages
34,794
Reaction score
10,608
Points
1,400
1.In a recent thread about economic theory, in which it was shown that government economists, while totally wrong, continue to proclaim the same policies. One of our pals, DustyInfinity, noted the oddity:

I'm surprised so many of the esteemed left economists are declared collectivists… It is beyond me why failed philosophy would be held in high esteem. For some reason, they can't let it go, they can't learn from mistakesThe Economy Fallacy

2. What is glaring, is that their errors are rarely pointed out, and, when they come up with further nonsense, most folks just nod and stroke their chin without questioning. Many on our side, the reasonable side, don’t offer possible explanations because they would be ridiculed out of hand. Yet the other side has no problem most absurd and ludicrous….as is the case of the economists.

Is there an explanation for the continued advancing of incorrect ideas and policies?

Yup….there is if individuals weren’t afraid to voice them.


3. And not just in economics. The most fundamental question for science is ‘what was before the universe’? Dennis Prager, writing about theology, notes: “In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] …accurately depicts human beings as the last creation.”




4. A large and powerful contingent of scientists, in advancing atheistic neo-Marxism, frequently admit that they will never give religion, the Bible, the credit it deserves. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”

5. There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?



Would it be out of context to have him say “Heaven forbid, we credit a Creator!!”???



And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."

Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."





The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science as long as religion is pushed out of the discussion. Only views that obviate religion, and advance Marxism, are acceptable.
Science and medicine are a product of man. Man is a product of God.


Thank you but the point of today's thesis is not God, but a very different entity that has covered the culture with a seemingly indelible slant, and, as pointed out earlier with respect to both economics and science, it is a political cast.




There is an old joke that sums it up succinctly:

Every liberal gets up in the morning saying "The answer is bigger government. Now....what is your question."


Government has replaced unalienable rights and this is because man has been convinced that he can replace God.


This is Marxism.
Exactly. Marx called religion the "opiate if the masses." The one thing that stands in the way of the establishment of any Marxist state is the belief that man is fallable and can never make a perfect utopia on earth. The claim of Marx was that after the creation of the communist state it would be a utopia. The perfect state of bliss can only be found in Heaven, not on this earth.



I think you will find more than interesting some of the things I found out about Karl Marx.

Stay tuned.
I shall. He was the oldest son of a Rabbi and in the Rabbinical tradition he too was supposed to be a Rabbi.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
113,302
Reaction score
48,045
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
1.In a recent thread about economic theory, in which it was shown that government economists, while totally wrong, continue to proclaim the same policies. One of our pals, DustyInfinity, noted the oddity:

I'm surprised so many of the esteemed left economists are declared collectivists… It is beyond me why failed philosophy would be held in high esteem. For some reason, they can't let it go, they can't learn from mistakesThe Economy Fallacy

2. What is glaring, is that their errors are rarely pointed out, and, when they come up with further nonsense, most folks just nod and stroke their chin without questioning. Many on our side, the reasonable side, don’t offer possible explanations because they would be ridiculed out of hand. Yet the other side has no problem most absurd and ludicrous….as is the case of the economists.

Is there an explanation for the continued advancing of incorrect ideas and policies?

Yup….there is if individuals weren’t afraid to voice them.


3. And not just in economics. The most fundamental question for science is ‘what was before the universe’? Dennis Prager, writing about theology, notes: “In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] …accurately depicts human beings as the last creation.”




4. A large and powerful contingent of scientists, in advancing atheistic neo-Marxism, frequently admit that they will never give religion, the Bible, the credit it deserves. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”

5. There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?



Would it be out of context to have him say “Heaven forbid, we credit a Creator!!”???



And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."

Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."





The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science as long as religion is pushed out of the discussion. Only views that obviate religion, and advance Marxism, are acceptable.
Science and medicine are a product of man. Man is a product of God.


Thank you but the point of today's thesis is not God, but a very different entity that has covered the culture with a seemingly indelible slant, and, as pointed out earlier with respect to both economics and science, it is a political cast.




There is an old joke that sums it up succinctly:

Every liberal gets up in the morning saying "The answer is bigger government. Now....what is your question."


Government has replaced unalienable rights and this is because man has been convinced that he can replace God.


This is Marxism.
Exactly. Marx called religion the "opiate if the masses." The one thing that stands in the way of the establishment of any Marxist state is the belief that man is fallable and can never make a perfect utopia on earth. The claim of Marx was that after the creation of the communist state it would be a utopia. The perfect state of bliss can only be found in Heaven, not on this earth.



I think you will find more than interesting some of the things I found out about Karl Marx.

Stay tuned.
I shall. He was the oldest son of a Rabbi and in the Rabbinical tradition he too was supposed to be a Rabbi.

But never Jewish.

Karl Marx came from a family that was very Jewish, rabbinic scholars on both sides. But, to prosper in Germany, his father converted the family to Protestantism when Karl was only six years old.

“Karl Marx was born on May 5, 1818, in the German city of Trier. His family was Jewish but later converted to Protestantism in 1824 in order to avoid anti-semitic laws and persecution. For this reason among others, Marx rejected religion early on in his youth and made it absolutely clear that he was an atheist.”
Religion as Opium of the People

His economic theories revolved around Jews, money and how the two had corrupted the world. Nothing could have worked better for Karl Marx than a tract in science that would obviate any need to premise God as an explanation for the biodiversity of our world.
 

Bush92

GHBush1992
Joined
May 23, 2014
Messages
34,794
Reaction score
10,608
Points
1,400
1.In a recent thread about economic theory, in which it was shown that government economists, while totally wrong, continue to proclaim the same policies. One of our pals, DustyInfinity, noted the oddity:

I'm surprised so many of the esteemed left economists are declared collectivists… It is beyond me why failed philosophy would be held in high esteem. For some reason, they can't let it go, they can't learn from mistakesThe Economy Fallacy

2. What is glaring, is that their errors are rarely pointed out, and, when they come up with further nonsense, most folks just nod and stroke their chin without questioning. Many on our side, the reasonable side, don’t offer possible explanations because they would be ridiculed out of hand. Yet the other side has no problem most absurd and ludicrous….as is the case of the economists.

Is there an explanation for the continued advancing of incorrect ideas and policies?

Yup….there is if individuals weren’t afraid to voice them.


3. And not just in economics. The most fundamental question for science is ‘what was before the universe’? Dennis Prager, writing about theology, notes: “In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] …accurately depicts human beings as the last creation.”




4. A large and powerful contingent of scientists, in advancing atheistic neo-Marxism, frequently admit that they will never give religion, the Bible, the credit it deserves. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”

5. There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?



Would it be out of context to have him say “Heaven forbid, we credit a Creator!!”???



And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."

Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."





The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science as long as religion is pushed out of the discussion. Only views that obviate religion, and advance Marxism, are acceptable.
Science and medicine are a product of man. Man is a product of God.


Thank you but the point of today's thesis is not God, but a very different entity that has covered the culture with a seemingly indelible slant, and, as pointed out earlier with respect to both economics and science, it is a political cast.




There is an old joke that sums it up succinctly:

Every liberal gets up in the morning saying "The answer is bigger government. Now....what is your question."


Government has replaced unalienable rights and this is because man has been convinced that he can replace God.


This is Marxism.
Exactly. Marx called religion the "opiate if the masses." The one thing that stands in the way of the establishment of any Marxist state is the belief that man is fallable and can never make a perfect utopia on earth. The claim of Marx was that after the creation of the communist state it would be a utopia. The perfect state of bliss can only be found in Heaven, not on this earth.



I think you will find more than interesting some of the things I found out about Karl Marx.

Stay tuned.
I shall. He was the oldest son of a Rabbi and in the Rabbinical tradition he too was supposed to be a Rabbi.

But never Jewish.

Karl Marx came from a family that was very Jewish, rabbinic scholars on both sides. But, to prosper in Germany, his father converted the family to Protestantism when Karl was only six years old.

“Karl Marx was born on May 5, 1818, in the German city of Trier. His family was Jewish but later converted to Protestantism in 1824 in order to avoid anti-semitic laws and persecution. For this reason among others, Marx rejected religion early on in his youth and made it absolutely clear that he was an atheist.”
Religion as Opium of the People

His economic theories revolved around Jews, money and how the two had corrupted the world. Nothing could have worked better for Karl Marx than a tract in science that would obviate any need to premise God as an explanation for the biodiversity of our world.
But was it a true conversion or just prima facia for economic reasons? Cosimo DeMedici the Florentine Renaissance banker was Jewish, but through murder and political assassination had a member of the family become Pope. That certainly was not an act of faith.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
113,302
Reaction score
48,045
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
7. What makes Marxism so attractive to many people?

One way of defining the power behind Marxism is that it empowers individuals do whatever they wish, without regard to their own rectitude, the effect on their fellow citizens, or the future of the nation. And that ‘power’ is behind all sorts of programs designed to do the very opposite of benefiting mankind and society: efforts to erase the nuclear family, end marriage, or human life (abortion).

That’s pretty powerful: no responsibilities. The great and wonderful Oz…..er, government, will take care of you. One of many promises that cannot be fulfilled.



First thing that must be jettisoned is the ideas that run counter to the above, and that would be traditional religion in favor of a new religion, Militant Secularism.



And there could be no better human spokesperson for this movement than Karl Marx. He accepted the real power behind communism, Marxism.

“He began life in a God-fearing family. It is documented that he was once a Christian. But a drastic change at some point in his life led Karl Marx to a deep personal rebellion against God and all Christian values. Eventually, he became a Satan worshipper who regularly participated in occult practices and habits….e. Marx's own statements expose him as a hater of God, and therefore, a hater of God 's creatures- those who have suffered under Marxism and communism.”
Richard Wurmbrand, “Marx and Satan.”



Now, in preparation for the usual scoffing and ridicule, let’s remember that Leftist economists and Leftist scientists have no qualms about posing explanations that have no evidence or bearing in human experience.
But a belief in an evil power, whether one imagines it as a genetic component of the human race or call it Satan……explains a preponderance of events and behaviors for which there is no other motive.

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Sherlock Holmes.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
113,302
Reaction score
48,045
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
8. Following a Satanic religion, you can call it Militant Secularism, or Marxism, certainly makes living a lot less restrictive.

Alexis de Tocqueville, writing “Democracy in America” in the 1830’s, described “an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.” As he predicted, this power is “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle,” and it “works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their testaments, divides their inheritances.” It is entirely proper to ask, as he asked, whether it can “relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and of the effort associated with living.”





9. Now, compare that to all those difficult requirement inherent in following the Judeo-Christian faith. First out of the chute there are those binding ‘Ten Commandments.’

Religion required a belief in something outside of and higher than oneself. The efforts behind the French and Russian Revolutions, behind Marxism, are a belief that man himself can be God.

And the clearest example of the use of god-like power is death….the ability to indiscriminately kill other human beings. Marx had loved the words of Mephistopheles in Faust: "Everything in existence is worth being destroyed."




Here, one of the USMB posters who exemplifies this lack of humanity:

When I pointed out that his antecedents, the communists, slaughtered 100 million men, women and children.....he sneered at the deaths this way:

"Sure it wasn't 100 billion?"
FDR Admiration Society





“…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, or vice versa?” Ben Shapiro
 

denmark

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2018
Messages
1,063
Reaction score
287
Points
130
1.In a recent thread about economic theory, in which it was shown that government economists, while totally wrong, continue to proclaim the same policies. One of our pals, DustyInfinity, noted the oddity:

I'm surprised so many of the esteemed left economists are declared collectivists… It is beyond me why failed philosophy would be held in high esteem. For some reason, they can't let it go, they can't learn from mistakesThe Economy Fallacy

2. What is glaring, is that their errors are rarely pointed out, and, when they come up with further nonsense, most folks just nod and stroke their chin without questioning. Many on our side, the reasonable side, don’t offer possible explanations because they would be ridiculed out of hand. Yet the other side has no problem most absurd and ludicrous….as is the case of the economists.

Is there an explanation for the continued advancing of incorrect ideas and policies?

Yup….there is if individuals weren’t afraid to voice them.


3. And not just in economics. The most fundamental question for science is ‘what was before the universe’? Dennis Prager, writing about theology, notes: “In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in just one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] …accurately depicts human beings as the last creation.”




4. A large and powerful contingent of scientists, in advancing atheistic neo-Marxism, frequently admit that they will never give religion, the Bible, the credit it deserves. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”

5. There is prominent scientist, Lawrence Krauss, "... an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist...known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, ...and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture. He is also the author of several bestselling books, includingThe Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing."
Lawrence M. Krauss - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can any come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?



Would it be out of context to have him say “Heaven forbid, we credit a Creator!!”???



And, from reviews of Krauss' book, " A Universe From Nothing,"...

"....at the end of the book he has given up trying to explain his hypothesis. Throughout the book he admits that Something can come from Nothing only if there is Something inherent in the Nothingness.

...Krauss claims that "in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing" This is yet again another fabrication,....

Krauss mixes opinion with pseudo-science to fool his cult that the universe popped into existence from nowhere with no cause (the epitome pseudo-science, anti-science and religious belief)."

Of course, the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."





The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science as long as religion is pushed out of the discussion. Only views that obviate religion, and advance Marxism, are acceptable.
You are political, but science is not your strength.



Was there anything in the post that you can dispute, refute, claim is incorrect?


No?


Excellent.
First of all, science and politics are two different fields; the former is objective and the latter is not, as you demonstrate.

“Something from nothing” is a bit confusing, especially to thos who know little physics. In common/simple terms, its use of “nothing” is a misnomer, but it’s a different matter in quantum mechanics.

In quantum field theory, the quantum vacuum state is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. Generally, it contains no physical particles.
However, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves that pop into and out of existence.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$295.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top