I'm very big on religious freedom, but the depths of emotional exploitation, deceit and manipulation of this entire program should be criminal. We recognize other kinds of con jobs and convict for it, this crew should be too.

Religious freedom should start getting cut off when you preach the necessity of giving the speaker your money in exchange for what they will do for you. Giving to a charity that will go on to help others is one thing, it's another to pay money to get someone to promise you their 'blessing', prayers, or even financial rewards that will metaphysically be manifest in return.

You don't need religion of any kind to spread compassion and unity. We can teach that to people without all of the metaphysical juju, and without burying the good messages in a minefield of misogyny and xenophobia.

Also how about we learn to do good things for the sake of goodness, which is it's own reward, instead of the threat of eternal punishment.

ugh...watching that was painful.
reminds me of my time running a metaphysical shop with my girlfriend at the time.

she had got it in her head that she wanted to take the shop in a new direction which was in the form of similar "miracle" cures such as this.

the arguments we had were epic!

i just didnt see a need nor a reason.we already had massage therapy,aroma therapy and reiki.we made our own lotions and soaps and had a massive line of candles.why would she want to delve into supplements? that were unproven and possibly dangerous?

well,i lost that argument and after a few months i understood her reasoning=money.
good lord our customers would spend a fortune on these supplements,which made all kinds of claims (all with zippo research to back those claims up),and all unregulated.

and our customers SWORE that these bullshit remedies worked and that they felt better,more energetic and clear-minded.placebo effect on steroids.

of course my girlfriend would never actually admit that profit was her motive.that would go against her own professed morality,but that is what it was:greed.

that was the beginning of the end for our relationship.i was sincerely attempting to help people and her behavior was a disillusionment that my moral compass just could not assimilate.

i am a man of faith,and every aspect of my life is directed by that faith,from politics to personal interactions,and i had lost faith in her.

i find it reprehensible and disgusting to profit off of people when they are the most fragile and vulnerable,and i refuse to engage in that form of vile practice.

*promote the grifting!

Hahaha... seriously, what kind of passive aggressive bullshit is that? "Ignoring the theoretical underpinnings of socialism, because I've decided that that's waffling, I say Jesus was a socialist." Next time, maybe just write TL;DR and make a farting noise while rolling your eyes.

You can't dismiss the actual meaning of the word Socialist as 'semantics', if you're talking about whether or not something is socialist. That doesn't help the discussion.

In order to use socialism as you appear to be doing, you would have to first:
- ignore the history of socialism and its political development,
- ignore the entire body of academic work, current and past, on socialism, and
- ignore how the word socialism "IS used now, like it or not" in actual socialist or semi-socialist countries

By doing that you end up at your definition of the word, yes. But you had to take a pretty long detour to get to that point

Marx's quote on religion is pretty straightforward - it can be, as you say, open to interpretation, but it's generally agreed that he didn't say that your Jesus was a stand-up socialist. He is more commonly taken to mean that religion is a false response to the real suffering of the oppressed; religion provides a fiction of suffering and a fiction of redemption/happiness, that will never translate into real change. It makes the oppressed feel like they are bettering their lives, while actually keeping them passive and preventing them from changing anything.

The slightly larger context of the quote is this: "Das religiöse Elend ist in einem der Ausdruck des wirklichen Elendes und in einem die Protestation gegen das wirkliche Elend. Die Religion ist der Seufzer der bedrängten Kreatur, das Gemüth einer herzlosen Welt, wie sie der Geist geistloser Zustände ist. Sie ist das Opium des Volks."

I don't know how to make that more plain, but I can try. Religious suffering is on one hand a response to real suffering (wirkliche Elend, by which one would mean a materialistically determined actual lack of freedom, resources, physical wellbeing, etc), but it is also a false reaction against that real suffering. Real oppression creates suffering to which there could be a real respones, but religion instead substitutes in false suffering and false responses - it tries to tackle real suffering with metaphysical solutions. He goes on to say:

"Die Aufhebung der Religion als des illusorischen Glücks des Volkes ist die Forderung seines wirklichen Glücks."

This, too, seems pretty straightforward to me, but you might see 4 or 5 different things there. Religion teaches the people an illusory form of happiness, which doesn't actually change or even challenge the conditions of suffering, and must therefore be tossed out, for the people to ever achieve real happiness.

A fundamental difference here is that religious goodness is internally, individually, and fundamentally motivated. 'Good' is 'Good', and you as a Christian individual should choose to do Good. A goal of Marxism is to abolish that kind of fundamentalism and replace it with continuous criticism; creating a society that always questions, together, what good is, through the lens of dialectical materialism.

You might recognize this line of thinking* from what modern Europeans call the autonomous left wing, or what Marx and Trotsky called the Permanent Revolution, which Wikipedia helpfully comments on as "Marx outlines his proposal that the proletariat 'make the revolution permanent'. In essence, it consists of the working class maintaining a militant and independent approach to politics both before, during and after the 'struggle' which will bring the 'petty-bourgeois democrats' to power." Which sounds great, except it can also lead to purges, paranoia, and informant societies.

My entire point is that socialism and Christianity are entirely different beasts. One is a rich, layered mythology with an extremely deep academic and political history, but no modern critical or explanatory components.** The other is an academic theory of economics and politics, with all the tools of discourse of modern academia in its toolbelt, and a completely different critical and analytical goal.

TL;DR? Well, Jesus (in a lenient interpretation) taught that we should help the weak. Marx explained that the people should organize to eradicate the conditions that force weakness onto the people. Jesus
taught that greed would keep a man from heaven, Marx explained that religion, nationalism, tribalism and commodity fetishism blinded the people to its common materialist interests. Jesus taught that the meek will be rewarded for their meekness, and while on earth we should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's; Marx explained that meekness as a virtue is a way of preventing actual revolutionary change, and that dividing the world into the spiritual and the materialistic helped keep the people sedate and passive, which plays right into the hands of the Caesars.

*I'm just kidding, I know you don't recognize any of this


**There probably are modern scholars of Christianity who adapt and adopt some of the tools of modern academic discourse; I know too little about academic Christianity.

For which one? Certainly not the gay ones. Maybe you mean Jesus. I can totally see how a guy with metaphysical superpowers needs the help of a intolerant adulteress. Or maybe you mean her 4th husband and their holy bond of 3-times-divorced-marriage.

Mushrooms are a DEEPLY SPIRITUAL substance and when consumed in the PROPER ENVIRONMENT can do wonders for the evolution of the brain physically, as well as the mind, body, and soul metaphysically. They aid in functions of thought, how we perceive the world around us, and provide a deeper level of understanding then we are accustomed to. These realizations can be overwhelming, but when these realizations are accompanied with friends who keep you safe, a trusted guide, and a comfortable environment, the effects are harmonious and enlightening.

P.S. bad trips are just lessons for you to learn. a lot of it has to do with how we perceive control. a realistic measurement of psilocybin mushrooms for beginners would be more like 1.5-3.5Gs.
I personally consume 3.5g but I'm experienced, and again the potency must be understood... Safe journeys ~ Guidenlight

I don't understand this desire to try and "one up" scientific thought, as if the concept of a demiurge were religion's alone. It's not for man to decide what is truth and what is not, it is for us to discover only that which we may mechanically use, whether through ystem theories, mathematic constructs, or physically engineered structures.

Science may be harmonious but only if it is honest and seeks only that which is not fueled by attachment to being. Any reward, whether in heaven or on earth is a materialistic concept which separates us from the body of human experience. Rather than naturally progress within our own capabilities, we obsess over grand concepts of our narcissistic, non transitory being and the entity of of a God. Meanwhile, our minds suffer at the leaps and bounds that imagination inflicts upon our honest beings. Behavior modification for the sake of a concept you would seek to elevate over the hard earned work of the scientific process.

Again, I don't understand why you pounce on these sudden epiphany driven straws lying amidst a rigorously disciplined field as the sciences. You have straws with no tangible truth, only the ability to prove that, yes, you are a pattern detecting being. I can find a 1000 faces of a 1000 gods in a spackled piece of drywall, don't mean any one of them is real or if any were, that it's the god that I've put a name to.

Now for a lesson in system analysis: determining whether the pattern you've detected within a metaphysical concept is congruent with reality as we know it, or have you detected a false positive. Also known as the proof between a Christian God and every other concept of the concept of God, through all its faces back to its ultimate being: Infinity. The Infinity could be ANYTHING.

i ran a metaphysical shop for a few years with my ex-girlfriend and this is what the majority of our customers acted like.

this had me laughing so hard i think i peed a little.

this man has it spot on in regards to switching one dogma for another and these people are fucking oblivious to that fact.

just as a fundamentalist is constrained by his own dogmatic absolutist thinking,these people are just as imprisoned by their own lack of imagination,rigid thinking and an over abundance of incuriosity.

the seeker..no matter what flavor..be you religious,agnostic,atheist or spiritual..will always push the bounderies and always ask questions.

we know that we dont know and that is why we seek.
we ask the hard questions and do not rely on others to give us the answers.

these kind of people always had me giggling.usually white and over-privileged but i rarely found a seeker in any of them.they always wanted you to hold their hand and tell them what to do.

and they didnt take bad news well,because they all watched "the secret" and we all know...just like joel olsteen and his bullshit "prosperity gospel" that god/universe wants you to be rich and happy.

bad things happen to other people...not them.
bunch of incurious dipshits.

*promote

I think it's mostly about adrenaline & dopamine highs . It's the same reason some people still manage to "enjoy" rollercoasters or skydiving and the like despite basically being frightened shitless by them.

All depends where your threshold for fear lies. Up to a point your physiology rewards you for what it interprets as taking a worthwhile risk, past that point it punishes you with an unpleasant response. e.g. you might get a good feeling from driving fairly fast, but if you push too far that good feeling turns to blood chilling terror.

The key is that everyone is tuned differently, some people get stressed out walking to the shops, others have to jump off buildings to get any sort of buzz. And naturally further to that we all interpret the level of risk differently in different situations. There appears to be quite the split between how people react to intense physical and cerebral stimuli.

Personally I don't really like being shit up by films like in the above, but then when I feel the back end sliding on a motorbike or drop a light aircraft into a stall I usually end up giggling like a little girl. (within reason)

As I understand it It's an evolutionary thing, we need some people who thrive on risk and go exploring and others to stay alive and raise the kids & naturally all of this is taken wildly out of context by our modern life styles. End result: some people watch scary films to feel alive and others have to race powerboats.

I'm sure there are other more emotional/metaphysical reasons too like our inherent fascinations with mortality, cruelty, paranormal etc. (and anything else we don't relate to in everyday life). But the fear "high" is definitely a big factor I think.

@eric3579
totally agree my man.
in the realm where i reside they are like roaches.

i used to run a metaphysical shop with my ex girlfriend years ago and there was a constant influx of charlatans and con artists trying to find a way to exploit and manipulate our customers.didnt help that my ex girlfriend almost ALWAYS bought that bullshit from the get-go.

i used to just play dumb to see how far they would dig themselves into a nice and tidy corner and then publicly humiliate them.

no matter how you slice it,this form of manipulation is bullying and preying on the emotionally weak and i despise anyone who practices this form of exploitation.

Chomsky has a poor understanding of economics with reference to things like economic calculation, for example. He does not see/understand the mechanisms of a free market that would make anarchism possible and thus keep it from turning into chaos. Maybe from a metaphysical perspective, as in karma, we get what [government] we deserve, but we should nonetheless strive to overcome our bad karma, and do good deeds such as getting rid of the need to impose on others through the state apparatus.

That's not what I was saying at all though perhaps I explained poorly.

So imagine you are in a 0 gravity environment. You have 2 balls (lol) one has a mass of 1 kg the other a mass of 100kg. You throw both equally hard. What happens?

One ball travels away from you at 100x less the velocity of the other. This is intertia, it is an effect of mass not gravity. Gravity is an additional force but it's absence would not change the fact that a big heavy space suit requires a significant force to move at a usefully velocity in the 1st place.

It was perhaps misleading to use the example of a fulcrum (lever) but in this context it's quite illustrative. If it was 0 gravity you could apply a tiny force to a massive object and just wait however long it takes to get it where you want (like an infinitely long lever). When gravity becomes a factor duration becomes more and more of a concern (like the fulcrum of the lever gets shorter and shorter).

Concequence: the lower the gravity the easier (less work/deltaV) it is to move an object. However a massive object still requires a proportional large force to move in a useful way (in this case fast enough to overcome 0.16g for long enough to get upright).

I'm not saying gravity has no effect (quite the opposite) I'm saying big heavy thing requires big heavy force to shift even in reduced gravity environments.


As for bases on the moon, mars, stargates, ueo's, void whales, phobos being hollow (phobos is some crazy shit), hexagon on Saturn etc. Etc. I'm not outright dismissive, but to treat it as anything but food for thought/entertainment is a little worrying to say the least. What do you have to go on there other than the testimony of other people who claim to have been involved or whatever?

There's no hard data avaliable to the likes of you and I on such things. Many of these ideas cannot be entirely refuted, but nor can they be confirmed either. That puts us squarely in the realm of superstition and religion.

I'm a part time discordian/khaos magus/git wizard so I do have more time than most for superstition and flights of fantasy but I steer well clear of treating any of that kind of think as objective fact.

The realms of materialism and idealism should stay entirely separate except when they converge and compliment each other e.g. If I can imagine a black swan and then go out and find one (after performing the necessary experiments to disprove any other possible explanations for why it might seem black) then I can tell others that black swans are definitely a real thing. The same cannot be said for say the flying spaghetti monster or the chocolate tea pot orbiting the sun even though believing in such things makes my life more interesting under certain circumstances (and such liberated thought processes can eventually lead to as yet undiscovered ideas which may indeed prove to be "true" or helpful).

"Given all theories of the universe are absurd, it is better to speak in the language of one which Is patently absurd so as to mortify the metaphysical man." -Alaistair Crowley

Translation: if your going to indulge stuff like this don't take it or yourself too seriously or you will go mental!

Praise be to pope Bob!
23

Agnosticism is the belief that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown. Wikipedia

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10] Wikipedia

It is only since the rise of New Atheism that we have the opinion that Agnosticism is not a separate belief from Theism/Atheism. As far as Agnostic Atheism/Theism, those are still considered a sub-division of Agnosticism, not Atheism or Theism respectively.

As far as myself, I would say I lean toward Agnostic Theism, simply because I hope that there is a greater design to the Universe other than random chance.

What is the interest of another in your own life but a string of anecdotes and experiences, emotions or shared actions and interests? Pretentious reckoning of what another person is thinking or feeling, another meaningless tool in the bag of tricks of someone who is more likely to concern themselves with their own ego's health and vitality than that of his fellow man. Not being a theist yourself, and having I am guessing in the realm of personal experiences with any very little direct knowledge, you like many atheists satisfy your own minds delight in wagging a finger in the faces of anything remotely resembling the meta-gnostic or metaphysical, cordoning yourself in the limitless expanse of your own perceptions and experiences.

Atheists have plenty of hang-ups brother, as evidenced in some of the most virulent spit-popping imaginable.

@JiggaJonson

i dont mean to intrude on you and @blankfist passive aggressive slapfest but are you implying that ones metaphysical beliefs disqualifies them from having an opinion in regards to forms of government?

what if that persons beliefs were more in line with mainstream religious theology?
like say:christianity,judaism,muslim.

what about american indians?
would THEY be disqualified as well?
were you aware that their theology is strongly based on shamanistic practices?

or is it just those who hold a belief so far removed from your understanding as to be relegated to the stupid/crazy pile?
and therefore disqualified from holding an opinion on...well..anything.

the point you make is really no point at all but rather just a passive aggressive swipe at @blankfist.

and you wonder why he is not engaging with you.