The mask *always* slips

Recently, someone using the screenname 'justgin1978', and whom I understand to be a woman, and who calls herself(?) an 'agnostic', had inserted herself into a discussion (such as it was) that I had tried to have with a LiveJournal "friend", Jordan Bassior (who is an 'atheist' and who declines to understand what atheism means), on his Live Journal blog.

Here is the most recent response (in this case, I think "shot" is the word to use) by 'justgin1978' at me --

How's it working? It's working fine.

The only problem here is talking to you and I've been patient with you long enough.

Why don't you go join one of those theology debate websites? You'd fit right in with those goddamned hypocrites. You think you're never wrong; you think you have all knowledge, but you don't have love.

So, let's back up, and duplicate my interaction with 'justgin1978', which starts with my reaction to a claim made by Jordan Bassior about himself --

"... I am also an agnostic, in that I do not acknowledge proofs of any gods, since no valid proofs have been offered."

The truth is that you will not even examine the evidence for God.

Hell, you're so afraid of encountering even God's shadow that you *refused* to examine with me what, exactly, "an establishment of religion" means.

Now, 'justgin1978' made a response directly to my post. And, due to the way conversations (such as they are) on LiveJournal are presented, this is where it can immediately get confusing to try to follow the conversation, especially the more others add their own comments. Due to the nature of how LiveJournal presents the comments and responses to a thread, and due to my desire to present the responses 'justgin1978' and I made to one another as near as possible to the posts to which they are a response, the following is not in strict chronological order --

'justgin1978' post #1, response to the above --

We all have blind spots. We are all biased in some way and to some degree. There are things we are afraid might be true if we dare to look more closely. As someone who now considers herself an uncomfortable agnostic, that thought comforts me and terrifies me at the same time. I recall a saying that goes something like this: Man's capacity to be deceived by others is eclipsed only by his capacity to deceive himself.

Ouch.

Thoughts?

My response #1 to 'justgin1978' post #1 --

"There are things we are afraid might be true if we dare to look more closely."

I can't say that this is true of *every* person, but it certainly works as general rule of thumb.

"Man's capacity to be deceived by others is eclipsed only by his capacity to deceive himself."

Indeed.

Here is one way that I already know, and that you and Jordan himself may know, that his atheism is a self deception --

Jordan is forever making moral assertions and arguments; a great deal of what he says is meaningless without the moral premises on which he is standing.

Now, though it is true that most of the moral premises on which he is standing come from Biblical religion, it is also true that that fact doesn't mean that either Judaism or Christianity is true. However, the fact of where he is standing *ought* to motivate him to put his atheism to critical rational evaluation.

Furthermore, and here's the thing: if atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then there *are* no true moral premises. If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then Jordan isn't standing even on quicksand when he makes the moral assertions and arguments he makes; he's standing on nothing. If atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then Jordan's moral assertions and arguments -- including the assumption (and implicit assertion) that men *ought* to be rational -- have exactly as much force, and are exactly as binding on his readers, as the opposite assertions by Moslems.

'justgin1978' post #2, response to the above --

Hi!

First, please don't use my post to make potshots at Jordan. He's one of the kindest and most thoughtful atheists I know.

Second, I realize you are passionate, but your profane language doesn't help make your point, even though you have good points to make! I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't have to be bleeped out every other word during any one of his sermons, lol. I know of 2 people who are devout about not cussing, ever. Yet they do not treat people well. Both of them are "Christians", yet they neglect "the weightier matters of the law." It would be better for them to let a bad word or two slip ever so often and pay much more attention to loving thy neighbor. So I don't hold your words against you so much, but they are an unnecessary distraction that does not compliment your belief.

I agree with your thoughts about moral premises. If there is no true ultimate authority to whom we answer, then what does it ultimately matter?

My response #1 to 'justgin1978' post #2 --

"First, please don't use my post to make potshots at Jordan. He's one of the kindest and most thoughtful atheists I know."

I did no such thing.

'justgin1978' response to the above --

"Ok. What I meant is if you have something to say to Jordan, say it to him directly and leave him out of our conversation, please.

My response to the above -- keep in mind that, chronologically, this response followed many (perhaps most or even all) the exchanges duplicated below --

"say it to him directly."

And how's that working for you?

"and leave him out of our conversation"

Our conversation? As I recall, *I* commented -- based upon long experience and many interactions with him -- upon a claim Jordan made about himself, and *you* joined in the conversation, such as it was and will be, between the two of us.

And that was all it took for 'justgin1978' to let slip the mask, as seen in the quoted response at the top of this post. *My* patience with *her* (as shown below); Jordan's misrepresentations of some things I had said in the thread; his sneering, chest-pounding responses to some things I had said in the thread; and his disinclination to engage some of the things *she* had said ... well, none of that matters!

My question to her, "And how's that working for you?" is a reference to her quite lengthy back-and-forth with Jordan, much of it before I was even aware of her first response to me, and some of it, from his direction, being of the character she falsely attributes to my responses to her.


My response #2 to 'justgin1978' post #2 --

"Second, I realize you are passionate, but your profane language doesn't help make your point, even though you have good points to make! I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't have to be bleeped out every other word during any one of his sermons ..."

I'm not passionate -- I have a very low opinion of passion.

As for my profanity, I'm not Miss Grundy: I'm not going to use an archaic word for 'shit' when I mean 'shit'

As for Jesus' profanity, well, he does use a word that continues to be translated as 'dung'; which is to say, in his time and place, and at the very least, he said 'shit'.

Sometime -- if you dare (as I'll explain) -- check out Ezekiel 23, and especially verse 20. This is presented as the word of Jehovah (YHWH), with whom the New Testament identifies Christ. If my calling 'bullshit' on Jordan's claim about his reasoning about God mildly offends you, then understanding what that verse says, stripping away the Bowdlerism which is these days generally applied to it, might cause your head to explode.

My response #3 to 'justgin1978' post #2 --

"I agree with your thoughts about moral premises. If there is no true ultimate authority to whom we answer, then what does it ultimately matter?"

This is actually a different thing from what I was saying. Not that what you've said here is false, but it goes in a different direction than I was going, and I believe it is a less complete understanding than what I had in mind.

"If there is no true ultimate authority to whom we answer ... "

The situation can be put that way, it's certainly not false to do so. But another way to put it, which I believe is a more complete way to put it, is that when a person denies the reality of God, he's also denying the reality of moral standards -- *not* because God decreed "This is moral" and "That is immoral", such that if there is no one to make and enforce the decrees they don't exist, but rather because God *is* the moral standard.

God is the "ultimate authority" about morality not because he's the strongest being (*) and thus able to force other beings to accept his decrees as objective (as people like to say) truth, but because he is Being Itself, he is Truth Itself, and he is Love Itself (**).

Ayn Rand thought she had disposed of God with her dictum, "Existence exists". But all she was doing was talking about the truth that God is Being Itself in de-personalized language.


(*) as though he were just one more being among beings

(**) and Love is where true morality is grounded

My response #2 to 'justgin1978' post #1 --

"As someone who now considers herself an uncomfortable agnostic ... "

Think about this, will you?

Agnosticism about God is *really* the assertion that we cannot know anything about anything. This is because the question of whether God is is what I call the First Question. By this, I mean that all other questions one may ask about reality, and thus all other answers one may give to those questions, depend upon the answer one gives to the First Question.

But, when one ascribes to agnosticism, one's "answer" to the First Question falls somewhere between "I can't answer that question" and "That is a meaningless question". Thus, when one ascribes to agnosticism, one's "answer" to *any* question about the reality in which we find ourselves, which reality *includes* ourselves, falls somewhere between "I can't answer that question" and "That is a meaningless question".

Agnosticism about God -- carefully cultivated ignorance about God -- turns out to be ignorance about everything.

"There are things we are afraid might be true if we dare to look more closely. As someone who now considers herself an uncomfortable agnostic, that thought comforts me and terrifies me at the same time."

Mind you, this next statement is a general statement about people in general; if it's not true about you, well then it's not true about you. It seems to me that the "comfort" you derive from "There are things we are afraid might be true if we dare to look more closely" might also be put this way, "Since lots of other people, perhaps even most people, have ideas or propositions they are afraid to look at too closely for fear of them being true, the fact that *I* do not examine very closely the proposition that 'God is' isn't such a big deal; I mean, look at all those other people!"

But, no person's reconciliation/union with God, which is what salvation is, has anything to do with what anyone else does. And no person's ultimate separation fomr God, which is what damnation is, has anything to do with what anyone else does. God is Life (that's not *all* he is, but that is what he is), God is Life Itself -- when a person rejects God, whether actively as in Jordan's case or passively as in your case, what he is rejecting is his own life, his own existence, and his own being.

'justgin1978' post #3, response to the above --

"Mind you, this next statement is a general statement about people in general; if it's not true about you, well then it's not true about you. It seems to me that the "comfort" you derive from "There are things we are afraid might be true if we dare to look more closely" might also be put this way, "Since lots of other people, perhaps even most people, have ideas or propositions they are afraid to look at too closely for fear of them being true, the fact that *I* do not examine very closely the proposition that 'God is' isn't such a big deal; I mean, look at all those other people! "

No, it's not true of me at all. Thank you for not just assuming it was. What I meant is I am unhappily stuck in agnosticism because I see no other way out, honestly, to truly believe in God, no matter how much I want to believe, and I do. (I'm sure I exceeded the comma limit in that last sentence. So sorry officers!)

If it's true there is no God, then there is no reason for being, other than selfish pursuits which will all rot. All we are doing individually is distracting ourselves while the clock ticks down and that last day comes when we are no more. If there is no ultimate authority then ultimately nothing we do really matters. If the sum total of all my actions either add to or subtract to future generations, what difference does that make to me? I'll be dead anyway. Maybe I might feel differently if I had children. But even if I did, they too will be dead one day.

Not believing in God causes me pain. I once believed, and even though I had so many questions, I was at peace. For a time.

It also terrifies me that IF there is a God to whom I will answer, I know I will have to answer to so much. I hate my sisters, with good reason. I'm judgemental as HELL. I'm not perfect.

My response #1 to 'justgin1978' post #3 --

"What I meant is I am unhappily stuck in agnosticism because I see no other way out, honestly, to truly believe in God, no matter how much I want to believe, and I do."

I'm the very last person who would "answer" your dilemma by saying, "Well, then, just choose to believe".

"... If the sum total of all my actions either add to or subtract to future generations, what difference does that make to me? I'll be dead anyway. Maybe I might feel differently if I had children. But even if I did, they too will be dead one day."

Even if we were not, after all, "immortal souls", our lives can still matter if God is and remembers us. Frodo is not an "immortal soul", but his life (and suffering) isn't absolutely meaningless, because you and countless other "immortal souls" remember him.

Future generations may remember one, or they may not. But, if atheism is the truth about the nature of reality, then in the end, "not" will prevail; in the end, *everything* dies; in the end, nothing at all matters.

"It also terrifies me that IF there is a God to whom I will answer, I know I will have to answer to so much."

It's not so much that you will have so much to answer for to God, and that as you lack an answer he will reject you, as that in rejecting God now, you are rejecting living directly in his presence, unmediated by the physical world.

Imagine that you continue you life on its present trajectory, and then you eventually die. And, imagine that God is, and that you find yourself -- vastly aware of your moral imperfection, yet not repentant of it -- standing before him in judgment. And imagine that all this judgment amounts to is your admission that you had violated morality, not a repudiation of the violations, but merely acknowledgement of them. And imagine that having ackowledged, but not repudiated, your violations of morality, you are "in".

That is, imagine that no one *really* "goes to Hell", as people put it. Do you really imagine that you will, or could, be happy "going to Heaven", as people put it, without repudiation of your immorality, without *loving* God?

If a person has not rejected his immoralities, then for that person "being in Heaven" would be like being lost out in the middle of the Sahara ... and the sun never sets! It's *not* that God is torturing the person, it's that his very presence is torture to that person; much like merely being forced to be in the presence of a person one hates is torturous, even if both ignore the other.

Far from being a place of deliberate torture, "being in Hell" is a mercy. It's still a horrible state of being, but not nearly as horrible as "being in Heaven" would be for the persons who do not love God.

The reason Hell is torture for its inmates is because, even there, God is: God is Being Itself ... *everything* that is has being by virtue of sharing in the Being of God. The only "peace" that those who reject God *can* have is the "peace" of not-being. The other side of this is that unless God withdraws Being from them, that is, he utterly destroys them, then God himself experiences all the horribleness of "being in Hell".

Hell is a mercy toward its inmates and a torture to God -- that is how much God loves you even before you love him, even if you never love him. Our lives, right now, are a torture to God; he created us because he loves us, he endures the torture of our existence because he loves us ... and he will, reluctantly, "send" some of us "to Hell" because he loves them and will not force them to be directly in his presence when their hatred toward him makes that an even worse torture than being "in Hell".

'justgin1978' post #4, response to the above --

Yeah, weiI I did in fact try to "just believe" and it didn't work. I don't pretend very well.

I wouldn't say that I am rejecting God outright. That's not how it happened. I held on tooth and toenail to my dwindling faith. For years. I tried with all my might to not let go. But I did. Not happily either. It's not as though I have embraced incontrovertible evidence and then calmly decided to reject it. If that were so, I wouldn't be in pain now. It's true I was once so much more sure. But I had to ask questions, didn't I? Is that so bad though? Perhaps this desert I've found myself wandering around in may lead to a much more stable place than the one from which I started out years ago. A more mature belief based on, yes, logic and reason. I can only hope. For now my hope lies in the knowledge that I don't know all things. I need help connecting the dots, but I'm not about to rush to do that. I want to be careful, after all the bottom line is finding the truth, whatever truth really is.

And I understand all the arguments about why God sends people to hell. I used to make these arguments myself.

So, having digested all the above, let's look again at 'justgin1978's' parting shot at me --

How's it working? It's working fine.

The only problem here is talking to you and I've been patient with you long enough.

Why don't you go join one of those theology debate websites? You'd fit right in with those goddamned hypocrites. You think you're never wrong; you think you have all knowledge, but you don't have love.

Really?

By the way, the above exchange is a good illustration of *why* I never try to justify myself -- go on the defensive -- when people make the various false accusations so many of them like to make about me.

Look at her accusations. Not a single one of them has anything at all to do with *anything* I said. Rather, they are statements about *her* mental state.

When she accuses "you think you're never wrong; you think you have all knowledge", what she *means* is that it "offends" her that I speak as a man; I don't play the post-modernist (and academic ... and womanly, when you get down to it) game of making unfounded assertions, pretending that I haven't made any assertions, and then "going postal" when those assertions are criticized.

When she accuses "you don't have love", what she *means* is that as I am "brutally logical", I do not leave any space for her to cling to "yes-and-no simultaneously".

When she accuses "Why don't you go join one of those theology debate websites? You'd fit right in with those goddamned hypocrites", what she *means* is that she hates God, but also fears to admit it to herself. What she means is that I have spooked her with God's shadow.

Refusing to get it

Here is Jordan Bassior, once again making moral arguments about current events ... and once again refusing to grasp the fact that if the God-denial he asserts is the truth about the nature of reality is indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then his whole argument-and-complaint is just so much farting in the wind.

DarwinDefender of the day

In responding to someone on his LiveJournal blog, Jordan said, and I responded:

Jordan: I sense a huge double standard here.

Vox Day argues dubious science (creationism) on religious grounds, and he argues dubious sociology (Blacks and Hispanics less able to form and participate in civil society than Whites) based on outdated theories of eugenics. He does not, please note, argue for theocracy or for Nazi-like racial wars. ...

Ilíon: "Vox Day argues dubious science (creationism) on religious grounds, ..."

Actually, that part isn't true. The truth is this: "Vox Day argues *against* dubious science (evolutionism) on rational-and-scientific grounds, ..."


Jordan: I get that you're a crank where biology is concerned. I've made an extensive study of paleontology and am very aware of the interconnecting webwork of evidence that supports the age of the Earth and the reality of evolution. Stop trying to muddy the issue -- you're only making your own side look crazier.


Ilíon: And I get it that there are things that you just *will not* think about.

Do you really imagine that it bothers me that someone like that calls me a "crank"?

And come to think of it, the second part of Jordan's statement ("... and he argues dubious sociology (Blacks and Hispanics less able to form and participate in civil society than Whites) based on outdated theories of eugenics") isn't *quite* true, either.

What is it about DarwinDefenders that they *will not* admit that there are valid rational and scientific criticisms to be leveled against what Jordan calls "evolution"? What is it about DarwinDefenders that when they encounter a criticism of Darwinism something causes their DarLogic Module to short out such that all they can then bleat is "Religion! Danger! Religion! Danger!"

The Establishment Clause - what is it really, what does it really mean?

This post is essentially a duplicate of a post I made on Jordan's LiveJournal blog. The context is my objection to misunderstanding of and/or misrepresentaion of the Establishment Clause in particular, and the US Constitution in general (starting here)

Mind you, the issue Jordan raises is very important. But, the reason this is even happening is because we -- we all as a society -- do not understand the US Constitution ... and most of us don't even care to understand it.

Our Republic is dying because government at all levels are violating their proper bounds. Government at all levels are violating their proper bounds because far too many of us *want* them to do so, thinking to gain some advantage over our fellows. Government at all levels are violating their proper bounds because far too many of us who think ourselves 'conservative' just don't give a damn to understand what those proper bounds are -- we're content to believe the falsehoods (and active lies) we were taught in leftist-controled public-indoctrination centers, rather than to do the hard work of thinking and understanding, much less resisting statism.

Our Republic is dying of suicide.

Yesterday, I had asked Jordan:

What does "an establishment of religion" actually mean? What does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" actually mean?

These words do not mean what leftism and secularism have told you they mean.

The US Constitution does not establish a secular unitary State -- that was Revolutionary France (and that turned out so well, didn't it?) Rather, the US Constitution establishes a non-sectarian federal state. Surely you understand the distinction I have drawn?

What does "an establishment of religion" actually mean?

Someone suggested: "An establishment of religion" is like saying, "an establishment of drinking". ie: a bar. "An establishment of religion" is, well, a religion. ie: Methodist.

Not even close.

To establish a religion is make some particular sect an organ of the state. Theoretically, a state might have multiple established religions, but in practice they tend to have but one. In Great Britain, the established religion is the Church of England/Wales/Scotland; in the Soviet Union, the established religion was atheism (as is still true in N.Korea, China, Cuba, etc).

The specifics that follow from any particular establishment of a religion depend upon the state, and the society it rules, and the socially-accepted theory of statecraft within that society … and nature of the religion itself.

At a general minimum, establishment almost always will involves using the violent power of the state to compel the state’s subjects to financially support the sect, generally whether or not those subjects are members of the favored sect. Often, the officials/bureaucrats of the sect are directly on the state payroll.

At the more expansive extreme, establishment of a religion may involve active suppression of, or persecution of, and/or mass-murder of, the state’s subjects who do not at least pretend to subscribe to the sect. So, for instance, in Tudor England, Protestants and Catholics alternately suppressed and persecuted one another via state violence, and later the established Church of England suppressed all other sects via state violence. And so, for example, in *all* secularist/atheistic states, from Revolutionary France through existing Communist states, state atheism suppresses, persecutes, and mass-murders all other sects via state violence (with a special focus of Judeo-Christianity, for those sects are the only real opposition to The State As God) - for the nature of State Atheism demands this persecution and mass-murder. And so, for example, in *all* Islamic states, non-Moslems will be, and ultimately must be, actively persecuted - for the nature of Islam demands it.

What does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" actually mean?

1) Within the federal government as defined by the US Constitution, only Congress has the power and authority to make laws - the supreme court does not have, nor does any other court have, this authority; and, in fact, all federal courts, including the supreme court, are creatures of Congress (*).

2) At the time the US Constitution was written and ratified, several of the States had established religions (for example, Congregationalism in Massachusetts).

So, what "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" actually means is that Congress - the US federal government - shall make no laws whatsoever touching upon *any* ‘establishment of religion’. Thus, Congress shall neither:
a) establish a religion;
b) disestablish a religion.


(*) That bit in high-school civics class about the federal government being composed of “three co-equal branches of government” is bunk, deliberate bunk at that, and on multiple levels.



Edit 2014/08/24:
Starting here is an example of something I'm always talking about; namely that most people who think themselves conservative aren't, for they implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) accept the false premises of the leftists. And thus, they cannot really stand up to the leftists when they start demanding yat another pinch of incense.

In this case, 'Jordan' would rather maintain the leftist-and-atheist misinterpretation of the First Amendment -- for that misinterpretation and misapplication empowers atheists to use the federal government to harrass and silence Christians and/or compel them to violate their consciences -- than he wants to work to perserve his own liberty .... and his own life.

The Folly of 'Gun Control.'

Jordan179: The Folly of "Gun Control."

related: Vox Day: Mailvox: the utility of rhetoric -- "... Does anyone think that his perfectly rational, perfectly correct argument about the false sense of security provided by gun-free zones will have any effect whatsoever on the minds of women (*) who are posturing (**) about how hard they are crying and how they are "hugging them close today"?

Of course not. The dialectic cannot reach the rhetorically-minded. Yes, it is logical nonsense to say "if you do not homeschool your children, they will die", just as it is nonsense to say "because one crazy individual shot 27 people, we must forcibly seize 300 million privately owned firearms that prevent government tyranny." And yet, these logically nonsensical rhetorical arguments that shamelessly play upon the emotions of individuals are the only ones that the majority - the majority - of the electorate find credible and convincing. And so they must be made."

(*) Of course, these days, far too many 'individuals of XY-ness' are not really men, but are rather merely women-who-happen-to-have-dicks. Yet, since they're not *really* women, but rather not-quite-men trying to be women, they tend to combine not the best traits of men with the best traits of women, but the worst traits of men with the worst traits of women.

(**) It is always a mistake, frequently ultimately deadly to your polity and to your liberty, to give woman a direct public voice in the running of one's polity. This applies whether the polity in question is a church (as witness the Anglicans/Episcopalians) or a civic society and the government ruling that society (as increasingly witness America since ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution).


DonReynolds: (in a comment to) Mailvox: the utility of rhetoric -- "I am already tired of hearing the Leftwing shout down anyone who wants to comment on this mass murder of children, claiming they are politicizing the tragedy. Of course, the little kids were still laying in their own blood when Barack Obama, as President, got on national media to politicize the event. He and others had already announced this was the moment when we needed to take effective action to prevent such events in the future by doing way from the guns. Lemmie see, they are NOT politicizing the tragedy by using it as a renewed call for more gun control? Listen, anytime the President of the United States gets on national media to shed a few croc tears, it is ALREADY POLITICIZED. What follows is the usual kabuki theater, complete with the predictable posturing and painted faces.

Is anyone saying they would be happier if the killer had only used a compound bow or a Bowie knife? Or how about a claw hammer or a tomahawk?"

Republic or Empire?

Jordan179 (on LiveJournal): Class and Politics in America