Tag Archives: Religion

Reaction to Rational Relationship

Originally Posted HERE.


What exactly is Religion?



In biochemistryligase (from the Latin verb ligāre — “to bind” or “to glue together”) is an enzyme that can catalyze the joining of two large molecules by forming a new chemical bond, usually with accompanying hydrolysis of a small chemical group dependent to one of the larger molecules or the enzyme catalyzing the linking together of two compounds, e.g., enzymes that catalyze joining of C-O, C-S, C-N, etc. -wikipedia

Humans, at first glance, appear to not be directly attached to the earth, but upon closer inspection we realize that is true only if their is a single moment in time.  With the added dimension of time we realize that everything we need, desire, and aspire to is in association with the earth and the phenomena that occupy it.  The element carbon is, in a manner of speaking, the philosopher stone.  All life that we know of is carbon based and carbon is forged in the heart of the sun with the triple-alpha process.   Image

 The question then becomes, how are we in relationship with the earth and the phenomena in it?  When a person is a genuine philosopher and they analyze how they are in relationship with the earth and the phenomena on the earth.  This philosophy is their soul, and a philosopher is a soul perfector.  If the philosophy is rational it has a praxis which informs the behavior of the Philosopher, a rational person will walk their talk and they won’t conceal their philosophy, they can be proved wrong with their philosophy and in such a case they will amend their philosophy and their behavior.  

Praxis is the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill is enacted, embodied, or realised. “Praxis” may also refer to the act of engaging, applying, exercising, realizing, or practicing ideas. This has been a recurrent topic in the field of philosophy, discussed in the writings of PlatoAristotleSt. AugustineImmanuel KantSøren KierkegaardKarl MarxMartin Heidegger,Hannah ArendtPaulo FreireLudwig von Mises, and many others. It has meaning in the political, educational, and spiritual realms.  -wikipedia

So, I tried to do a kind of semantic clarification in which praxis—if not on the thither side of this divide—was perhaps somehow between the theoretical and the practical as they are generally understood, and particularly as they are understood in modern philosophy. Praxis as the manner in which we are engaged in the world and with others has its own insight or understanding prior to any explicit formulation of that understanding…Of course, it must be understood that praxis, as I understand it, is always entwined with communication.
 —Calvin O. Schrag[1

Just as Technology is the application of Science, so to Praxis is the application of Philsophy.  Now when a person chooses to adopt another’s philosophy that is how religion happens.  At that point a group soul is created in which the people in the Egregore think alike and are in relationship with the world and the phenomena in the world in more or less the same way.  

Egregore (also egregor) is an occult concept representing a “thoughtform” or “collective group mind”, an autonomous psychic entity made up of, and influencing, the thoughts of a group of people. The symbiotic relationship between an egregore and its group has been compared to the more recent, non-occult concepts of thecorporation (as a legal entity) and the meme.


The problem with religion, as it is thought of, is not a fault of its own but a fault of it’s practitioners.  All structures of authority attract psychopaths, because they want to wield that power and abuse it.  Once in a position of authority they try to expand and increase that authority, anybody that doesn’t recognize that authority is a threat to that authority, even if they are smarter and correct.  The biggest prejudice in the world is towards intelligence, because the philosopher king marginalizes and threatens everybody’s authority especially the authority of the corrupt, who are the most hyper-vigilant in protecting their tenuous authority.  They can’t take criticism.  


Jesus was a Satanic figure to more people than he originally was a Messianic figure to.  

Mark 3: 

21 When his family[b] heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”

22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.”

He threatened the authority of the corrupt religious leaders of the time.  He wanted a revolution of religion, a reformation of Judaism.  He didn’t speak like the religious leaders of the time…

Matthew 7:

28When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29because he taught as one who had AUTHORITY, and not as their teachers of the law.

That word “Authority” had a lot of significance to the Romans, because they used it differently, a person that spoke with authority was a philosopher king, and by demonstrating sapiential authority they showed that they were in the highest echelon of the Roman caste system.  You can prove this to yourself if you watch the Spirit of Roman Law by Okko Behrands.  or if you read my blog tracing the origins of western philosophy. (https://thoughtuncommon.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/the-origin-of-the-western-philosophical-system/comment-page-1/)

If you need further proof you can read this little piece I did to explain how people thought back then.  (https://thoughtuncommon.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/cedante-arme-togae/)


Auctoritas is a Latin word and is the origin of English “authority.” While historically its use in English was restricted to discussions of the political history of Rome, the beginning of phenomenological philosophy in the 20th century expanded the use of the word.

In ancient RomeAuctoritas referred to the general level of prestige a person had in Roman society, and, as a consequence, his clout, influence, and ability to rally support around his will. Auctoritas was not merely political, however; it had a numinous content and symbolized the mysterious “power of command” of heroic Roman figures.

Ask yourself this, What if religion wasn’t dogmatic?  What if Religion had Ad Hoc like science?  Why can’t Religion evolve?



X men 3 deconstructed for Fidem Turbare.



The Once and Future King is an Arthurian fantasy novel written by T. H. White. It was first published in 1958 and is mostly a composite of earlier works written between 1938 and 1941. The central theme is an exploration of human nature regarding power and justice, as the boy Arthur becomes king and attempts to quell the prevalent “might makes right” attitude with his idea of chivalry. But in the end, even chivalry comes undone since its justice is maintained by force.

The title comes from the inscription that, according to Le Morte d’Arthur, was said by “many men” to be written uponKing Arthur‘s tomb: the internally rhymed hexameter Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam, rexque futurus – “Here lies Arthur, king once, and king to be”.[1]



Destroying those Destroying the World.

Destroying those Destroying the World.

There is an old story about an ancient society that carved it’s mysteries into two pillars a pillar of wood so that if god destroyed the world by flood the pillar would float, and a pillar of marble so that if god destroyed the world by fire the pillar would not burn.

Expressions of Contempt



I am trying to explain to people what I do and how I make predictions based on my psychological models.  Because people are acquisitively mimetic, they copy behaviors that they see being rewarded.  People copy whatever behavior they think of as winning behavior when they want to win.  So when one person succeeds in a certain behavior people emulate that behavior and that creates social patterns.  When society rewards these patterns it increases the frequency in which we see the pattern repeated and it also increases the intensity of that pattern.

The Psychologists Nalini Ambady and Robert Rosenthal developed this concept of thin slicing in their treatment of married couples.  What they found as they interviewed couples and then went back over the tape is that there were two expressions that repeatedly signaled the near demise of the relationship, disgust and contempt.  Depending on the frequency and intensity of these expressions the relationship could be determined to be very close to ending.

So I observe in conversation, on the media, in human behavior these patterns and I make predictions based on them.  So what does this mean for the near future?  Society is about to get a divorce?  No, much much worse.  The first thing I noticed when I saw Richard Dawkins for the first time was the frequency with which he would flash this feral micro expression of disgust.  And then I observed the Fundamentalist Drift of Science as the Dawkinites conflated themselves with science, I call them the cheerleaders of science.  And then I noticed the increased hostility of the conversations in the narrative and dialogue on the internet.  If you observe the body of evidence I have put together on this blog (http://atheistfallacies.wordpress.com/) you can see that I am not making these claims lightly.  I have spent a long time doing social experiments on these people to find out exactly where their heads are at.

Most people aren’t smart enough to detect Richard Dawkins subtle subterfuges in his rhetoric.  What he propounds as a philosophy is not a philosophy at all and he is not a philosopher, he is a revolutionary propagandist.  He has conflated the hatred of God (misotheism) with atheism and atheism with science.  What he is trying to do and succeeding at is making science into a machine to attack religion.  He is creating an environment where children can be exposed to the casual ridicule and hatred of religiosity, so that they start to think not only is it normal it is also good.  And then he wants to build a bridge for them into the scientific fields and into upper academia, where they will put their prejudices to work, harassing religious people and preventing them from going into certain fields.  What he is doing is so dangerous and insidious and deliberate.

This conceit that Atheists have that atheism is new, no it isn’t.  Socrates was accused of being an atheist.  So ask yourself why have you never heard of that one Atheist culture that was so successful?  Because Atheism is unviable as a form of government.  There are certain things science can’t do, and when you try to change what science can do you change what science is.  Dawkins is building a testament to his own ego.  He wants to be worshiped.  He sees himself as a kind of Moses of Science taking his people out of a heathen land.

When Karl Marx wrote his theories on Communism, he thought it was science, they even called it that.

“Scientific socialism is the term used by Friedrich Engels[1] to describe the social-political-economic theory first pioneered byKarl Marx. The purported reason why this socialism is “scientific socialism” (as opposed to “utopian socialism“) is because its theories are held to an empirical standard, observations are essential to its development, and these can result in changes and/or falsification of elements of the theory.”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism

And when the Germany adopted it, and Stalin adopted it, and Lenin adopted it, they all thought they were doing science and they couldn’t fail.  Pure atheist societies are arrogant, heartless, and violent.  You can’t use atheism or science or evolution for making an assertion that man should have inalienable rights.  They are amoral systems.  Dawkins puts religion on trial for all of the crimes that have been committed in the name of religion for thousands of years, Dawkinites assume that atheism is something new.  What they are forgetting or ignoring is that while religion has created horrors and atrocities, IT HAS BEEN AROUND AND SUCCESSFUL MORE OR LESS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, while atheism has never been successful, ever, for any prolonged period of time.

Atheism is moral and philosophical anarchy, it isn’t a belief system, it is the absence of the presence of the belief that god exists.  It isn’t big enough of an idea to make any assertion, you can’t build a law code on it, or a government on it.  Atheists might be found that have morality but atheism itself is amoral, and atheists don’t have to come to any agreement on what behavior is and is not acceptable, after all, it is survival of the fittest right?  If you survive or succeed you are the fittest.  Evolution works!

But yeah, things are bad and they are going to get worse… this I promise.