Loading...

Tuesday, 14 June 2016

Astral Projection In A Nutshell


A friend on Youtube created a great response to astral projection, a guy called 'Koi' thinks its real because its an experience, Chocolate Hat says otherwise in an entertaining and informative video.  He also shouted me out, so give him a cigar, or failing this a thumbs up would be very fair. 


    


In my experience the way we can create things that seem real via belief and visualisation is what astral projection is, in a nutshell we are creating a state of mind that allows visual states that can be akin to daydreams or far more vivid.  It's explainable, not that everyone wants to accept that you are the dreamer of the experience and not experiencing of a wider reality. 

Sunday, 12 June 2016

Brexit, a common Brextake?





The Common Problem About The European Union And It's Governance.  


If a man says to you that the nation in which you live is a dictatorship while not proving the claim, would you accept it based on argument and selected arguments?  I should make clear, I have no love lost for me and the European Union, I have swung between sides of this debate since we have a mixed bag of positive and negative issues that give value to both the 'In' or 'Out' opinions.  And, I have swung from neutrality to the Out or Leave side of the argument.  The trouble is the collection of propagandists on both sides who don't see how those of us willing to be sceptical can see though their deceptive political views.  I could reference the 'In' camp's claims, but tedious stats would be a side note, and the scaremongering will only enrage the sensitive among you.

The point I am annoyed by is the claim about European democracy being far from democratic, which isn't totally wrong, yet is somewhat false.  I will clarify, the concern is not a black and white one as you will no doubt understand, it is when The Brexit 'Movie' claims that the European Union is or has turned into a dictatorship.  Now, as a left-libertarian I am concerned on two fold, my libertarian politics respond to the concern of an overly complex and massively funded central government with layers of regulation that limits trades, and my inner lefty who seeks to encourage real progression in society and an end to poverty.  My political entity finds a dictatorial governmental power structure to be against good socialist ideas and the values of a free society.  So if we are dictated to then as a left libertarian I see in it the failure of our politician to safeguard a European society from governmental tyranny.

Now, I ask you on what evidence did I base my previous thoughts?
Was it on the solid fact of the EU's dictation to member nations or the reaction to the claim?  I only ask because we live in an age of reactionary views, and to be told what the enemy does and thinks is another matter from what they truly are.  So, I may be very concerned if I do no research if I let Boris and Nigel tell me what they want to say, for whichever reasons they have chosen for themselves, in truth or bias.  Or when facing the claims, I do research, look at all the data to find out what's what.  This is why a vote on whether we want to be in or out of the European Union needs real discussion.

The obvious facts on how the European Union works, how the bureaucracy work to limit the power of one nation over another, and how commissioners are just put on the gravy train should be serious topics discussed in detail, and in the mainstream news media. 
This is not to say the facts are covered up, nor that the media is just barking common thoughts while trying to act mildly impartial, however, there are very easy answers to some of the Brexit questions.

The claim I hear over and over is we are dictated to by the European commissioners, that these unelected men get onto the gravy train of European politics and simply enjoy the perks of the job while waving through laws from French and German bureaucracy.  However, if you listen to Nigel Farage on this point, when he often claims such things, you may fail to use a search engine on your browser to check and double check the facts.  Are you accepting limited information and slanted facts that make a great mountain of a small knoll?

How are European Commissioners appointed is explained on the Wikipedia page [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commissioner] that gives us an impartial view, and a strong point is that they must be qualified to get the role, the commission president is merely a figurehead, and then green-lighted by the elected members of the European Parliament.  These commissioners are dominated by the national governments firstly, then the European government, the commissioners and the EU parliament, filter out the under-qualified and inexperienced candidates.  It isn't a matter of sending a friend to get rich in an easy desk job, that kind of system is ruled out by the screening process.  So the nearest thing to the gravy train is educated and experienced persons get a job that pays well, although they must spend most of the year far from family, invested in politics and diplomacy, trying to broker ever greater cooperation between nations that are often trying to get a deal that would be unfair to the other member nations.  The result when we have protested against a bill that comes to the Parliament is a rejection that forces rewrites to ensure that the majority can agree to vote yes.

To get back to the point, the commission is made up of experts who have an area to focus upon, they are no so many politicians, nor representatives.  They are civil servants who try to draft bills for the parliament that are designed to get agreement from the various members of the European Union.  Even though they work with the various Parliamentary members, including those who work in the think tanks that help set up policy ideas, and what is or may be desired by national governments.  It could be compared to herding cats.  A series of independent and uncooperative members who all want a special deal, such as the deals that Mr. Cameron has hungered for in negotiations over the last few years.

A quick clarification, the UK Government put forward experienced and skilled persons to be commissioners, the Commissioner president filters out the unsuitable for the civil servant role or roles required, the EU Parliament agrees or does not upon the commission set up, and these civil servants work as diplomats to try to get agreement upon policies that get through the Parliament and are voted up by your representatives.

So, please tell me why this is a dictatorship.

I advise that any of you in doubt see the details of this area of European politics, this factor may not change your or my mind on immigration, proper spending, fair regulation and taxation, but it should be a matter of the facts above political rhetoric.

To add another thought, The Brexit Movie also had images of the top civil servants in the EU, showing people these photos and asking the public if they had a clue who they were.  It goes without saying, they didn't have a clue.  And because these 'presidents' are called such, they conflate the civil servants with rulers, in the American sense of the term 'president'. 

Now, ask yourself, do you know who David Cameron's top advisers are?

Do you know the name of the top think tanks in the UK?

Who are the top four or five civil servants in the United Kingdom?

And would you know who the top civil servants are if I had pictures?

and lastly, if you know all of the answers to these questions above then ask yourself how many of the well over 60 million citizens of Great Britain actually know those answers, or even know their local politicians? 

I doubt most people know enough to say much about the European Government, yet millions are very passionate and driven by poor arguments from walking jokes like Boris Johnson.  You may as well be swayed by George Osborne and David Cameron's pleading to remain at all costs, or the anarchist who won't vote and will never get what he or she wants.

My point is not for the in or out arguments, my point is for a sceptical discussion, not a half-baked series of arguments from both sides touting celebrities to try to woo you to their side, or should I say scare you into committing to Brexit or Bremain.

As I say, I'm saying out, this is most because I'm probably biased with my politics, as we all are, and yet I am willing to hear all sides, are you should be too.  And, dare I say it, our duty is to the facts and the will of the people, so I will support whatever people decide upon with me in the referendum. 




The Brexit Movie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYqzcqDtL3k








Saturday, 11 June 2016

Evading The Point

 I've stated much on this group in the past, and I want to make a single point in this short blog, 'You Gain Nothing By An Evasion'.

You don't need to be an expert on this topic, this point is very simple, when we question the worst parts of Falun Gong, what they do, what they believe, the response is to presume that we, the critics, must agree with Chinese oppression of FG and other groups.

Lets this set in. . .  They think because you find the claims to be harmful, just are some cult characteristics that you accept the idea that the Chinese Communists are justified in killing them.

What is a disgusting thing to say.

We critics disagree on the pseudoscience and anti-medical science views of Falun Gong and it's founder Master Li, and so we must think beatings, torture, and other crimes against humanity, all of that is good?

It's a horrid thing to state, but a truly strange thing to believe. 

How could anyone who thinks this be intellectually honest?

If you think that not loving Israel's attacks on Palestinians means you are pro-holocaust then you need to get back to earth, have a think, rather than parroting the propaganda.

Just make this clear, the enemy of my enemy isn't my friend, and in this case thinks it's perfectly acceptable to lie, presuming you are either with them totally or the enemy.






I talk about this group in some detail in a few videos, here is my latest video on this group.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlIKk0haR18








Patreon, donations, etc.


  At what point is a thing you do a scam, and not a fair system for fund raising?

It is an odd thing that donations are seen as scams by a kind of default by some, yet others don't care if you lie for every penny you have, I don't think the point is the money as much as the why.  Why are you paid, what services are offered, do you do as you say you will, such as with Anita Sarkeesian who gets kickstarted with a load of cash, and what is even more sickening than getting load of money for a cheap series is she doesn't even do what she said she will do.  I call that a scam, a con trick, and she is doing it again.

In my case, I don't want or need much, just enough money to make my blogs and youtube vlogs a secondary employment, or maybe first, not that I need great sums to get that, once I get that I can then focus on this work far more.  Editing material, researching groups, writing scripts, thinking up new and interesting ideas.

A while ago I said I didn't want to do the whole patreon thing, I felt it wasn't the best thing at the time, what with so many YouTubers and bloggers using money making methods then becoming attention whores.  So I went off the idea for months, but then thought I'd turn my Patreon account back to being a creator account.  Within a week, I got two patrons, and it may only be ten pounds per month at this time, but if it gets up to a hundred per week then I can focus on this much more.

Okay, understand that I'm not going to get into drama battles with big YouTubers, I don't want that, I'm not going to hunt views all the time, but I will accept topics of interest from my friends.  Most people who know me on youtube, facebook, and elsewhere, will know that I'm willing to engage new topics, I don't see the point in being too mainstream, why should I do a video about what everyone is bitching about today?  So ask, and if it's interesting or a worthy cause then I will probably look into something, and do a blog or a video on the topic.

So this isn't a sellout, I am not pretty enough to go mainstream, and I really hate acting like a parrot for whatever Youtubers are ranting about this week.  So accepting friendly donations, but I'm staying the way I am.





my patreon


 Feel free to donate if you feel like you can afford it and like my work here and on youtube. 

Allah is Ba'al?

[Some of this may be slightly off, you may have better translations than a google translated web article or a wiki article, but even so the claim that Allah is Baal is easy to doubt.]  

 


I have come across many people who dismiss the idea that Allah is just a term for god, the most recent example was from a Christian youtube commenter, he claims that Allah was 'Baal-lah', or Baal, an ancient god noted in the bible. The problem is that you don't confirm this as factually the case with an argument stating what you reckon, and besides the origin of the term Allah seems to come directly from the Aramaic term for god, 'Alaha', meaning that it was the probable term used at the time of Jesus, for god. It takes almost no research to find this information, and almost none to discover that Maltese Catholics still used the Arabic term for god in their worship, not that the root of the Arabic gods is so simple as getting the concept only from the Abrahamic traditions, although there is not direct link to Baal and other gods noted in the Torah(Old Testament). Interestingly, the term 'Al-ilah' is the direct ancestral term for 'Allah', and acts as the middle phase from the Aramaic term 'Alaha', and it simply means 'the god', as opposed to merrily one of many gods, whereas, 'Baal' is a title that refers to a deity within the Levant, the term 'Ba'al' simple means 'Lord', representing fertility and storms, and as a Phoenician deity, it is understandable that Israeli cultural supremacists, the ancient Hebrews, would write a biased history founded on their religious dogmas.

Before anyone presumes that Islam came from another religious of legend, you really should study the pre-Islamic history of the region, not least that of Christians of Arabia, not least king Abraha, who controlled large areas of Arabia in the sixth century, such Characters cemented Judeo-Christian myths in the region, often alongside the practices of other cultures, such as Persian traditions. Most of this is a click away on any number of educational sites, the average person has a vast and powerful resource at their fingertips, yet fail to search beyond what they reckon the case to be, and typically from a position of ignorance. With the history of the Arabic faiths, we find many similarities to their neighbouring cultures, and some of those seeped through into Islamic culture, mostly the Judeo-Christian myths, with cultural inflexions of the Arabian People. The later followers of Muhammad seem to have collated the Qur'an and Hadiths with the bias of Judeo-Christian ideals, and possibly during the time after Muhammad's death, they may have engineered a belief that fitted their understanding of the restored one true religion, as they may have seen it. In the time shortly after the time of Muhammad, it was seen that the teachings of the prophet we largely being ignored or forgotten, what was written was in some cases contradictory, new translations, often into languages that could offer ever greater interpretations, the religious authorities, as a result, standardised the Qur'an, taking care to destroy rival Qur'ans. If this is historically correct, then how do we know we have the true Qur'an before us, the best you can do is lie, as most Muslims do, and claim that it was written perfectly, and the Caliphate of the time, only restored the true Qur'an to its rightful place, and destroyed translated works, since translation changes god's word it must be forbidden, or at least not truly the Qur'an, and not truly God's word.

Muslim authorities have disagreed over the details ever since the first page was written, or so it seems, so although Muhammad died in 632CE, most Muslims agree that Uthman compiled the manuscript of the Qur'an, during the third caliphate, over a decade later, meaning the word of god was not perfectly preserved in it's perfect written form with no room for error, after the death of Muhammad. For continued confusion, look at the Hadiths, a selection of actions and sayings of Muhammad, collected in an even more sketchy fashion, and out of many tens of thousands of sayings and stories attributed to Muhammad a very few were incorporated into the Hadiths, over two centuries later, and experts agree that many sayings are rewrites of pre-existing idea within the middle-east, including some the lord's prayer. We cannot be sure that the Qur'an is truly what Muhammad believed, and the Hadiths is plagued by things that you cannot know are historically correct, and the radical claims make the books of Islam seem like poorly thought out fiction.

Islam is false, you do not prove this by assertions, you confirm it by refuting the unrealistic views, regardless of which older beliefs it borrows from because those older faiths are false too. Feel free to disagree.

Meccan Meteorite Worship

Meccan Meteorite Worship

If you think a meteorite is a gift from god, then please consider how we are showered in them, mostly dust burning up in our atmosphere, many small, less large ones, and rarely very large fragments, seemingly planned as if we are gifted with meteorites by pure chance. No gods nor destiny need apply.

Gila left a comment on YouTube, under a video that noted the probable meteorite that is held as from Allah by Muslims, the rest of us seem to note the obvious fact that these impacts are common, although for about one and a half billion Muslims this stone is believed to be most holy. Gila made some interesting points that will be quoted below, I should initially note the details of the stone itself, the Black Stone is the eastern cornerstone of the Kaaba, was worshipped by pre-Islamic civilisation of the Mecca, and pilgrims from around the region, and claims are made that it dates back to the time of Adam and Eve. It is said by Muslim traditions that Muhammad placed the stone in the wall of the Kaaba, although since that time has been broken and is now cemented into a silver frame, it appears as fragments of black rock, smoothed by the touch by billions of pilgrims for over centuries. However, these accounts are based on myths, which were based on pre-existing myths, and we are not let sure if the Black Stone is indeed a meteorite, even though it's dark colouration is unlike stones of the region, not that this makes it conclusive.

Gila: “I think that the meteorite was worshipped, not just because it fell from the sky.”
As previously stated, we do not know that it did indeed fall from the sky, it is a probable meteorite, meaning it is a strong probability that has not been confirmed.
Gila: “But that the earliest iron implements were made from meteorites, enabling a quantum leap in the technology of the time.”
This is partly true, many early humans used meteorites, however, much of this usage was due to the requirement to use whatever was available for later use, a shard of tektite can be as good as flint, an iron and nickel meteorite may be easy enough to craft, yet this doesn't equal much at all. The result of having more resource options simply means that more was used in trial and error, and even a metaphorical quantum leap is an exaggeration, although it may have been a factor in locations where resources of this kind were less of a rarity, the effect seems negligible.
Gila: “The worship of that particular stone was an expression of thanks and acknowledgement to the universe for this possibility of advance in everything from farm implements to weapons.”

There seems to be no evidence for this claim, and since in the region of Mecca such rocks are so rare, indeed this is one of the reasons many Muslim insist that the Kaaba is divine in its origin, even though with a few tests we could see just how rare such a probable meteorite may be. The pre-Islamic Meccans were not actually animists nor pantheists, there seems to be no evidence of meteorite tools, I should state that the claims made about meteorites and quantum leaps in technology are a kind of new age meme, and are exaggerated claims at best.
Gila: “Later the legend of Abraham visiting the area (supposedly to visit his later mistress Ketura and her children) was wishful thinking. A desire to tie the Koran to the earlier supposed revelations and make a continuity of myths”.

Here I cannot fault Gila's opinion, the Muslim claims are as unsupported as many such wishful and historical claims that are not backed by evidence, ironically Gila cannot seem to understand that her poorly supported claims are no better. Gila and a great many new agers seek to make ancient myths fit with modern new age gibberish, the trouble is they spin history, just like most religions, making their nonsense fit, refuting Islamic claims with reason, only to assert new age without any evidence at all.

Such comments are easily debunked with very little brain power, we need only question what we think we know, noting our bad reasoning, and cutting down our biases. New Age is wrong, demonstrably false, you can make things fit, but your last refuge once your errors are exposed are the gaps in our knowledge, and every other religion is claiming that same god of the gaps because they have nowhere left to go.

Misconception

Misconception


Often I have discussed Atheism with internet Christians, and the misconceptions I will note, I selected a comment, for this response I have removed filler, as well as cheap insults. The content discussed was in regards to Islam, specifically the refutation of Islam and it's foundations, the audio placed on YouTube, edited from god is not great, by Christopher Hitchens, and many people added their points in the comments, often without reading the book or listening to the audiobook. It's worth noting, many pathetic tirades are common to internet comments, those with strong beliefs have a series of claims that are based more on bad philosophy than the facts, personally I value what is truly more than what is accepted on faith.

The comment begins, “Christ is the Word of the Living God. God is Good”, I would call that tame for the youtube, well until the usual claim comes up, “Bloodthirsty atheists can't see this because their eyes are blinded because they hate truth but love with all their heart lies”. The funniest thing about such claims, at least to me, is they are fighting the straw-man, what atheists must be to doubt the Christian faith, he may as well claim we worship Satan and eat babies, well, in for a penny, in for a pound. Many a devout Christian may well think Atheists worship Lucifer, or even because we have no moral guide in god, that we may eat babies if we wish, and if you're willing to make things up, you may as well go all out and tell some really amusing lines. And, in the knowledge, they will antagonise those who oppose you.

To show his poor contact with reality, Erik says, “Ironically enough the power of God claims once a man loves lies, he has sacrificed himself to Satan, the father of lies. For as Satan will use the fool aka atheist at his every whim will then turn and devour that which was faithful to him.” The best work of Christians isn't when they repeat hollow rhetoric, Such statements work on many, affecting those who are vulnerable to such beliefs, yet with most non-believers, you may as well be telling us about our lack of Jedi practice and meditation causes us to fall to the dark side of the force. Repeating over and over the word of the bible is as meaningless as repeating Harry Potter, going over bible verses like the Christian fictional hero, Bible-man, is ineffective except on those within that culture of belief, to us non-Christian it's as compelling as stories about Narnia, and I have let to find evidence against The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe that makes it's absolutely sure that it is impossible. Most things are improbable, even in a vast universe, and we don't get to absolutes as much as the point at much an idea is so improbable that it in effect impossible, making the biblical god with all its miracles as probable as Narnia.

My response was short and clear, “Bloodthirst isn't the point, if there was any, the point is religions often push their politics on everyone, secularists demand that we don't give any group a superior position, to best avoid a limitation of choice.” The thing that the devout don't often understand is that non-believers do not the religious claims about them, we are not out to smash freedom of religion, we are out to ensure that secular values protect the rights of all people regardless of background, including religious creed. However, some people want to utterly destroy religion, even if most atheists see that religion is already practising self-destruction, and at worst no special treatment should be given, no privilege.

These Bloodthirsty Atheists don't seem to exist to any great degree, even angry atheists are often making a point because they are affected by religious influence in a society, some are repressed in a fundamentalist region or town, maybe a local politician is getting the Christian vote by condemning non-Christians, doubters, secularist, and homosexuality, with such decisive politics in the mainstream in the United States, and elsewhere, it's little wonder that many people are antagonised. In highly religious communities it isn't always easy to be the outsider, and with fundamentalists calling atheists the fools for Satan, some people are bound to express their anger on the internet. Much like the disrespect towards many communities, religion says it knows what's best, if you're not following the rules then you have nothing worth saying, this is a major attitude problem, “If you're not with us, you must be against us.” is the belief of many churches, whereas most doubters and religious moderates can get on happily in society, even when they disagree.

We shared our thoughts over a series of comments, and in essence, the Christian judged Islam as false using the same logic that refutes Christianity, different specifics with the same reasoning to counter the poorly supported claims of the religion. Claims made about the lack of evidence and history for Islam, and no acceptance of the large gaps in Christian history, the lack of evidence for Christ's existence says as much as the fact we know little of Muhammad. Much of what we claim to know of Muhammad is from the Quran and others books after the time, just as we know of Jesus is from the Bible and the second-hand histories after the time, it is easy enough to say Muhammad is at least a historical Character, and Jesus may as well be largely fabricated. It's worth noting that the majority of historian consider it probable that the man, Jesus, existed, even though a fair number of people think that he may have been created by a few people, or utterly fabricated, others say there must have been some foundation for the stories. It may well be, the earliest stories could be based on the man, the passing through various cultures added to the legend, and, as is evident, the myths of others became weaved into the tapestry.

Erik stated, “I respect the argument that religious people can be pushy as tyrants in the radical Islamic belief, they(Muslims or radical Muslims) say do or die.”, I don't know what was being addressed, I didn't raise that point, pointing out bad beliefs doesn't make other ones good by default. I'm not sure of her meant Muslims in general or the militant forces within Islam, it seemed like a side step from Christian issues on to that of Islam, and the bandwagon that paints Muslims with the brush, rather than explaining what you truly mean, such as the difference between Wahhabi-Sunni Muslims and moderate groups such as the Pacifistic version of Islam as expressed by the Sufi.

The Problem with many Christians is they learn debate tricks from the same sources, the churches, and ignorant communities that push an agenda, fleshing the belief out by agreeing with each other, although, sometimes they gets sketchy in a discussion and want to find something to agree upon, or a sidestep the lack of evidence that plagues all religions. Ignoring Christian problems by finding a more dangerous or aggressive ideology cures nothing, pointing out Muslim extremes doesn't cancel out Christian ones, they seem to think we'll forgive and forget the troubles of Christian politics, past and present, and will we accept the lesser of two evils. Evil in this context simply means harm done in the name of ideology, I only note this because a common trick is word games, such as responses like “And where does evil come from.”, so any claim of truth, love, or anything is said to be god's property, and the estate of evil is attributed to Lucifer.

An obvious point about Muslims, outside of the middle east and third world, they are, on average, far from the type of person to threaten you with death, well not more than most other communities, whereas, in the middle-east, including various capitalist democracies, we cannot fully judge a people group by the general view of the worst extremists, since where the freedom to think beyond the Imam or Mullah exists the people flock away from pure devotion. I think many Christians make a fair point about radical Islam, sadly, as long as nations like Saudi Arabia fund Sunni extremism, and the Iranian Government support Shia extremists, we have a mighty problem, and out of such extremes danger will emanate, using hard-line ideology to gain influence backfires, and creates groups like Islamic State. Think about how some American preachers have, by extension, supported the execution of homosexuals in Uganda, you see the tip of the iceberg, where pseudoscience and fanatical preaching pushes such agendas, if not in the western world, then such ideological views filter into less educated and liberal nations, empowering religious extremism, and laws that limit freedoms, and in this case lead to government mandated murder of those who don't follow the same lifestyle as the majority of the population. A preacher in the United States can say things that the US government will not pass into law, knowing this and rallying the church, the preacher can spread hate speech, and post this brand of extremism online as just an opinion, this can easily be picked up by a person in almost anywhere on the planet, from there this 'Science' can be passed off as official. And, if preacher should have an unaccredited doctorate, from a Christian college or diploma mill, then such a quack may be referred to as a doctor before audiences of ignorant fundamentalists or on a professional website.

A common error, the claim of how free and open Christianity is, they ignore the long social changes took and the philosophical development of our society, we're no longer treated badly for questioning the opinions of the church, yet, this is a moderation, not a fundamental view of the Christian faith. Another comment states, “Christianity and Judaism aren't pushy, and anyone who quotes the Holy Bible to testify otherwise is indeed misreading the book.”, this is ignorant of our shared history, how the moderation of religious power isn't due to the faith, as much as the cultural scenery in which religion can operate. Trying to get a modern Christians to agree on which laws and traditions of the old testament that should be used now is a battle they aren't prepared for, it isn't a clear series of ideas that works without interpretation, so how can a person twist Jesus's coming into changing a divine law, since he is said to claim to not break the law, most Christian values are based on modern morality, which is by definition moving beyond the bible. If we reject the old laws it becomes unclear, if you take it as non-literal then where is the line drawn, and if you cast off the bits that are no longer okay, you're believing in something that isn't biblical, even if inspired by aspects of it. Once you reach a wider philosophical view, you're almost ready to drop the Christianity altogether, accepting the books of old were inspired, not scripted by the creator of the universe, not the perfect word of god, nor a clear and factual history. Most Christians play a balancing act with ideas of what is moral, mostly based on background, most Christian don't know the bible well, so many accept what they think they know, and what a minister selects for a sermon.

The fact is many Christians are pushy, otherwise, there would be no debate over abortion, stem cell research, intelligent design, women's rights, LGBT rights, what politicians believe (or do not), and much more. It's not as bad as Islam in the middle east and third world, and who would expect the first world comforts to create a Christian State army as a mirror to Islam State, we have comforts and laws that have kept fanatics in line, so religion has become moderate and realistic where extremism isn't tolerated.

Beyond the Holy Word

[A bit of a random ramble]

 

Beyond the Holy Word




The bible supports the idea that heathens are evil, or foolish, and passages differ, the trouble with Christianity, as well as Judaism and Islam, is verse selection, the act of quote mining their own religious texts, and in many cases the group or sect they belong to sets a view that condemns or condones a group of people by a very bias selection process. So selecting passages can be used to support nearly any position, especially with some cunning interpretation, this is the sad case of what religion is, in its fundamentalist and moderate forms, an expression of bias that claims divine warrant.

Philosophising the bible means you pretty much place the new perspective, as a modern ideology, above that of the bible, every church is interpretation above pure biblical acceptance, because the contradictions mean that you cannot come to a view without an interpretation of the bible. Even if you try die-hard literalism, the various contradictions mean you cannot accept all things as equal, the first motion is to say one set of ideas are divine and secondly others were man-created, or only laws and traditions of the time, the line between what we should accept now and what we need not, is not set out in scripture, so even literalists admit this problem.

The trouble is that sects find excuses to picks a select various rules out of their books, some by bible study, some by modern tradition, others by claiming that Christ tells them what is right or wrong, this last one being more about conscience than anything divine, and based on a cultural background as the ethical foundation for what god may wish to you. Many read popular Christian books, as a result of modern apologists many think that a Christian belief is rational, depending on who's work they read, and the sect in question. Some are more honest and say that god is not testable, non-falsifiable, such reasoning isn't about confirming that their religion is true, as much as suggesting there's room for some kind of god, and Christianity fits the mould they have just created enough to suggest that their belief is possibility true. The modern Christianity we face is a reformed religion, even in cases of biblical literalism, this reformation hasn't fully taken place in regard to Islam, of which similar methods of interpretation are used, and, much like fundamentalist Christians, they claim not to be interpreting the holy works, even though there is no other way to take them perfectly literally, since texts that consist of great contradictions and imperfections.



Saying it again, if only for the hard of hearing.

This article addresses some confusion about critiques that question the Falun Gong/Falun Dafa movement and practices.  Please see the link to a video I've just made on this subject at the bottom of this article, note that this article isn't the script for the video, although they share common ground. 



When I have pointed out the thought reform characteristics of Falun Gong in the past I have found some resistance, is it any wonder that out of a vast movement of millions that some find reasons to protest a critic's sharp opinion.  I'll explain, in my responses, often I express the thought reform and other harmful cult traits, I feel the need to repeat myself to clarify the facts, out of a movement of millions the fringe practitioner in the west will not be like the devout of china. 
I state the obvious and because of the confusion of the responses I receive from the truly faithful. 


The average responses from the movement are to dismiss one claim and then claim victory for themselves, this often comes in the form of asserting non-truths to make their beliefs seem to be real, such as the insistence that a critic is working for the Chinese Communist Party.  The other form is a bit more honest, debating the sources.  When researching the thoughts and actions of religious movements we can be lead astray by the errors and biassed work of other critics, we may be able to stand on the shoulders of giants and yet find ourselves deceived.  It was the great Charles Darwin who stated that he stood on the shoulders of giants, referring to how the naturalism he came to understand was not purely his work, since it is the work of generations to understand how evolution works, indeed science has added a great deal to the theory.  In this way, we find that a creationist may stand on shoulders of giants, not that this means by any automation that they, nor you by extension, are factually correct in your opinions.  This is the great problem of sources, and from whence they emanate. 


Darwin stood on ideas and facts that were based in reality, and demonstrably so, creationists of the Christian or Muslim varieties simply do not.  What you base your claims upon being pivotal, it is vital that when you do a critique that you don't base your research on one source, or a series of very poor sources.  What kind of shoulders are you standing on if these giants are merely allowing you to stand tall in an illusion?  We, therefore, require the need to no just pick our comrades for the best source, nor should we accept the first few results from a google search. 

So what sources are there in regard to the movement, Falun Gong?
The most vocal is the group itself, secondly, we have some Chinese Communist sites that report on their concerns, this can be fear mongering.  The third kind of source is not one nor the other, this is the area of thought and reporting that is in part covered by anti-cult groups, and sometimes fundamentalist Christians who will call anything that isn't their own belief a cult.  In my videos, my primary sources are respectable and reasonable anti-cult groups, these are typically non-profit groups that share concerns over cult characteristics, and very often from former supporters and their families.  Not that this is considered fair by Falun Gong standards, they even insult the Chinese-Americans who fled China many years ago and end up with a son or daughter join Falun Gong, return to China, and may never be heard of again.  Possibly due to the Chinese government's oppression of the average Chinese person, and so, a Falun Gong protest in China can end up as a painful affair.  In this way we should condemn the Chinese Communists, the oppression is something that shows how bad that government can be, however, we shouldn't then ignore the harmful traits of Falun Gong.   

So what are the traits that we have been warned about?
The Chinese state-run media claim that Falun Gong is a dangerous group because they aren't conformist as far as the communist view of society, some reports suggest they're a death cult, this is in part due to members who protested by setting themselves on fire.  The Falun Gong websites always claim they have a wonderful group, that they have the keys to personal growth and wellness, and other things you might expect.  Whereas, the anti-cult groups often refer to the worst cases, mostly because that is their mandate. 

Web sites such as Cult News[.com] and Cult Education[.com], will share reports from former members, broken families, those who've looked at the beliefs, and naturally such reports don't focus on those supporters who simply use the tai-chi styled practices.  It is that fringe follower who is most willing to discuss because they aren't a worshipper of the founder, 'Master' Li Hongzhi, and so they are shocked and react to the claims relating to the devout since the out shell of the group differs greatly from the inner core.

One can practice as a Roman Catholic and be an open homosexual, you don't need to accept every rule, just as with Falun Gong, one can be a practising person and not a devotee to the cult of Master Li Hongzhi.  I can see that many Christians are Christian in name alone, or by name and the most comforting traits of the faith, with Falun Gong, it is the same for moderates who lack blind devotion.  So it is little wonder that a person who reads their material and believes the practices are creating perfected health and personal growth will think a critic of a whole layer of the group they haven't really heard of is the trouble rotten core of the movement. 

Now, the cult traits most often expressed, they include the demands for devotion, thought reform [or brainwashing] methods, the donations by millions of supporters that fund the group and keep the 'Master' in finery, the deaths that relate to rejecting modern medicine and medical treatments in favour of spiritual methods, the deaths of members who set themselves on fire, the lies over China carrying out large genocides of their members.  The conspiracy theories about critics being communists paid for by the Chinese Communist Party, the radical claims of the leader, the claims to be greater than the Buddha and Jesus by Master Li, the pseudoscience, including Master Li's claim to great discoveries and new sciences.  A wide variety of ideas that barely touch the fringe supporters while impacting deeply millions of people, many of which are in China, but this is not exclusively the case.  Probably the most common and disturbing ones relate to how people act, friends and family don't get a personality from their loved ones, they end up preaching, even ignoring utterly the facts when confronted by them, presuming the great enemy, Communism, must have created the whole thing to make Master Li look bad.  Now, ask yourself, is it any wonder that we who oppose such irrationality would decide to criticise such a movement and the inner group, the cult of Li Hongzhi?

Those who repeat the Chinese Communist claims and those we repeat the Falun Gong claims may well stand on the shoulders of giants, yet it is we who value the quality of information over the quantity of claims who stand taller. 

Lastly, I want to remind you of a little-discussed problem, that former members of Falun Gong are hounded on the internet, if they dare start a blog or vlog then they face the devout who bark them off their Blogger and Youtube.  Imagine a person who was devout, trying to rehabilitate themselves through a video log, and they are spammed with insults and flagged for hate speech, this is yet another sickening aspect to beliefs and devotion.  So you're free to disagree, yet it is demanded that you remain silent, otherwise you must be an employee of the Chinese Communist Party, or perhaps a person who is spiritually unwell or negative.  Putting it plainly, with such opinions you can't really win, and where you use facts, they have endless excuses and evasions. 





My latest video on the Falun Gong cult.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlIKk0haR18


 Master Li, your own personal Jesus? or Buddha?  infact a guy who unified various existing ideas and made himself the centre of worshop.  Like many multi-millionaire religious cult leaders, he has something of a God complex, it's very L ron Hubbard! 

Sunday, 5 June 2016

Milo And His Roman Catholic Faith













who wants to bet that Milo-bots will comment before they watch it all, just as progressives will do much the same. 

Thursday, 2 June 2016

Hitchens Converted To Christianity? No.

The Faith of Christopher Hitchens...Really?



shared from a friend's youtubes.  and look up Hitchens' book, published after his death, his last notes, 'Mortality' is a fine book giving hitchens insights into his coming death, and not last what kind of creature he would be if he turned to god in the end.  look it up, but first look at a friends video.  thank you.