The Religion vs. Darwinism debate is false.

[Paul Parnitzke]

Originally Posted by UKatheist

nearly three years to reply to snipershot,
doing a bit of time ?
not long enough for kiddie fiddling
taking pictures in a playground perhaps?

Time does tell, does it not?
You must have me confused with someone else.
KAS perhaps?
See:
https://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=3233
and:
http://www.charlottesvilletimes.com/...ed-strom-case/

Or perhaps you were just thinking about someone else that should have been doing
"a bit of time" and for their actual own degenerate and "actual kiddie fiddling" here?:
http://whitebiocentrism.com/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=1770

[Paul Parnitzke]

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

perhaps you should start your own thread ... you're off-topic anyway ...

This is the "Religion vs. Darwinism" thread is it not?
Who is "off-topic anyway"?
Not me.
Why?
Because the Religion vs. Darwinism debate is false.
It is false because some religions, like Cosmotheism for just one example,
are not opposed to Darwin or to evolution but actually embraces evolution.

[Paul Parnitzke]

Originally Posted by snipershot

Better late than never?

If its any consolation paul, we all struggle with knowledge the same way. We are built too much the same for it to be any different.

But thanks for saying that the truth is important. That IS important.

Not late. Just "on time" from my own perspective.
The best form of real knowledge is actual experience and of which takes time.
In that we are all the same.
See:
https://www.splcenter.org/sites/defa...015hp_scan.pdf
and:
https://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=3239
and:
https://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?...40#post2165540
and:
https://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=3024
and:
https://willwilliamssplcpartnerandsn...artner-snitch/
and:
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t943200-12/

Yes, the truth is important.
Saying it is one thing.
Being it and walking it is another.
Walking one's talk is what IS MOST IMPORTANT.
See:
https://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=3169
and:
https://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=3120

Why?

It means having actual Personal Integrity,
ie. having actual intellectual honesty and
actual moral courage all in about equal measure.

Most do not develop this one key requirement to be able
to acquire any real or any whole truths of reality within.

For example, lying by omission, is really just as worse as is lying by commission, but,
it is actually far worse for its subterfuge and for its lying hypocrisy.
This article below is a case in point:

"Internet “Movement” Forums
by National Alliance staff
28 May, 2016

NATIONAL ALLIANCE MEMBERS SHOULD be aware that many popular “pro-White” Internet forums and discussion groups are riddled with dissension, false drama, anonymous rumors, probable infiltrators, and defeatism.
Most of them are best avoided.

One anonymous keyboard warrior on one of these forums recently accused National Alliance Chairman Williams of “worming his way” into his leadership role, and mocked the idea of sacrifice for the cause, saying:

WN [White nationalist] activists need to lower their expectations of absolute sacrifice if they’re going to get more than the “elite cadre” of 100 White men out of 700 million Whites to take part, which is their present batting average.

That “nattering nabob of negativism” typifies the average anonymous “WN activist” on the Internet, with his defeatist mathematics and hollow talk about absolute sacrifice. Fred Streed, whose “Cosmotheist Dialogue” was featured prominently in the March 2015 National Alliance BULLETIN, responded to this anti-Alliance critic with a reply worth sharing:

"I spent eleven fairly happy years on the [West Virginia National Office] staff, running the ditch digging department. I liked doing it, I was pretty good at it, and no one else would do it. That huge body of work Dr. Pierce left behind — his essays and radio programs — would be a lot thinner if I had not taken on that work. Hard to get much writing done when you also have to work on several vehicles, construct new buildings with wiring and plumbing, figure out a computer network, maintain roads, plow snow, and a zillion other little things: All things he was trying to do himself before I showed up.

[You have] accused Will Williams of “worming his way into the NA chairmanship.” The truth is a bit different. The National Alliance had been looted until there was almost nothing left. The bank accounts evaporated years ago. Resistance Records was just a memory. National Vanguard Books had the stock sold off without replacing it. Under Dr. Pierce we had well-equipped shops including a nice wood shop equipped with table saws, radial arm saws, a planer, jointer, all the hand tools. The metal shop had a lathe, Bridgeport milling machine, heavy duty wire feed MIG welder, thousands of dollars worth of micrometers, calipers, dial indicators, a lathe, and mill tooling. It’s all gone. Sold off. The property has been logged, any merchantable timber is gone. So exactly what did Williams have to “worm his way” into? He has used his own money, his retirement savings for Christ’s sake, to try to get the Alliance going again. When he took over there was practically no membership. He has managed to turn that around and has made some impressive headway on it. All financed by him.

…My impression, from a couple of phone conversations with him, is that his goal is to get the National Alliance breathing on its own once again, and then hopefully turn it over to some superior young buck. He deserves some credit and respect."

What the NA Chairman above failed to mention is that was before he was found guilty of battery of a female NA employee and he had lost well over half his NA membership due to his censorship of critics of his many unwise hiring decisions and his clownish behaviors both on-line and off and for example in his also actually being arrested twice in one week for one example.

To confirm this just contact the Greenbrier County Prosecuting Attorney,
Patrick Via, at (304)-647-6616.
(And see all of the above links.)

"It’s gratifying to see a stalwart like Fred Streed, arguably Dr. Pierce’s closest associate during his last 11 years, and a man who knows a great deal about “absolute sacrifice” for our cause, coming to the defense of Chairman Williams when he is attacked. It’s best if our members do not react and engage with anonymous naysayers on Internet discussion boards, but Mr. Streed knows how to deal with them due to his informed — and unique — real world experience... Internet “Movement” Forums"--Will Williams-- on the quite dis-honestly edited and censored SF Forums.

Again, see all of the links above proving that Fred Streed was and is just lying and a foul-
mouthed and a hypocritical and "PS" old flunky for his old "friend" WW and thus Fred has
no actual credibility.
See:
https://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=3171
and:
https://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=3024

All of those that are being such lying hypocrites all have thereby squandered their own
"Gift of Life".
See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS7TqP6cRJ4
All of those just like that or that do lack any actual personal integrity always do detract from rather than exemplify the values, goals, and true purpose in life of Dr. Pierce's own Cosmotheism.
See:
https://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=3107
and:
https://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=...postcount=2910

[dan123]

Originally Posted by Paul Parnitzke

Time does tell, does it not?
You must have me confused with someone else.
KAS perhaps?

No he doesn't.

Originally Posted by UKatheist

nearly three years to reply to snipershot,
doing a bit of time ?
not long enough for kiddie fiddling
taking pictures in a playground perhaps?

Below is your response....

Originally Posted by Paul Parnitzke

Do you speak for all of the Live Leak Forum members?
No.
You do realize that don't you and let the readers decide what is "copy paste spam"
and what is "interesting political discourse" that is routinely censored by the all of
the mass media and you can just let the readers here just "think" for themselves
as well or don't you?

What "I think" is that the whole truth and the actual facts, and regardless of source,
all should be allowed to be known and shared on the internet without censorship by any
bigot or any tyrant or biased "opinion" of any other. That is what "freedom of speech"
all really means and stands for otherwise this "right" is just moot/mute, pun intended.

...to this....

Originally Posted by snipershot

You do realise that we at LL are not interested in copy paste spam. What do YOU think.

Just click on the right arrow after the name to see the time and date of the original posts for the chronology.

[Sportster]

"The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide."
Charles Darwin

[Paul Parnitzke]

Originally Posted by dan123

No he doesn't.

Yes "he" does and "he" is "confused".
See links below:
http://forums.liveleak.com/showpost....&postcount=231
and:
http://whitebiocentrism.com/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=1770

Originally Posted by dan123

Below is your response....


...to this....

Just click on the right arrow after the name to see the time and date of the original posts for the chronology.

And your actual point is what exactly?
That you are just "full of BS" or what?
Apparently so.

Is there some "rule" as to when someone should respond to any post?
Nope.
Do you have anything that's really relevant regarding the topic of this thread?
Apparently not.

[Paul Parnitzke]

Originally Posted by Sportster

"The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide."
Charles Darwin

Again, the "Religion vs Darwinism" debate is just a false one.
Why?
Because the idea that "everything just arose through chance alone" is patently absurd.

It is a good argument and of real value for a Creator that's purposeful and non-random.
"God" has many definitions but the one that makes the most sense is that "God" is just
the Cosmos as a unified Whole, itself, and that it is the Creator. Darwin himself had not
thought of that but he also didn't know what we do know now or about Cosmic Evolution.
See:
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchais...cs/splash.html
and:
http://www.westernspring.co.uk/god-a-work-in-progress/
and:
http://www.westernspring.co.uk/the-n...-new-religion/
See also:
By Max Musson
20th March 2013 at 8:36 am -
"One of the first lessons of instruction that I received regarding the Christian religion was that ‘God is not, as many imagine, some grand old man sitting on a cloud looking down over us, but that he is all-seeing, all-knowing, and most importantly, all around us and everywhere at once”. In other words that lesson, which I received at the tender age of five, was that the Christian God is ‘immanent’.

Definition of ‘Immanent’: Naturally part of something; existing throughout and within something; inherent; integral; intrinsic; indwelling; existing within and throughout the mind and the world; dwelling within and throughout all things, all time, etc.

Within Cosmotheism, ‘God’ and the ‘Cosmos’ are seen as one and the same, and as with enlightened Christianity, God is not regarded as that ‘grand old man’ sitting on a cloud, but as a ‘spirit’ that is immanent.

Where Cosmotheism differs from Christianity as a theology is that while Christians believe without a shred of verifiable evidence to support the assumption, that ‘God’ is a conscious entity, Cosmotheism asserts that just like the Cosmos, ‘God’ is an unconscious developing entity. Furthermore, where Christians believe that God has always been fully formed and complete and that the world in which we live is his creation, Cosmotheists recognise that when we search for ‘God’ and a meaning in life, what we always find is the physical universe and a Cosmos that is unconsciously evolving towards something, and we therefore deduce that together with the Cosmos (in that they are one and the same), ‘God’ is as yet incomplete and is similarly evolving towards a final and as yet undetermined absolute state.

Another fundamental difference between Christianity and Cosmotheism, is that while Christians adopt an ‘infantile’ attitude, seeking the comfort of a child that ‘God’, their father is looking over them and will always ‘make things better’, regardless of what goes wrong, Cosmotheists recognize that the Cosmos, and therefore by implication, ‘God’, acts immanently and only acts consciously through us and the consciousness that we have evolved.

When we seek comfort and hope therefore, we should not pray to some ‘grand old man’ sitting on a cloud, like a child writing to Father Christmas. Instead, we should as adults turn to those earthly manifestations of His as yet imperfect consciousness with whom we share the same evolutionary path, i.e. the people of our race and nation with whom we have communion, and take comfort in their warmth and inspiration."

And lastly, but not least, also see this:
http://whitebiocentrism.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6
And this:
http://forums.liveleak.com/showthrea...=53464&page=21
And this:
http://forums.liveleak.com/showthrea...=53464&page=22
And this:
http://forums.liveleak.com/showthrea...=53464&page=23
And:
http://forums.liveleak.com/showthrea...=53464&page=24

[Sportster]

Originally Posted by Paul Parnitzke

It is a good argument and of real value for a Creator that's purposeful and non-random.
"God" has many definitions but the one that makes the most sense is that "God" is just
the Cosmos as a unified Whole, itself, and that it is the Creator. Darwin himself had not
thought of that but he also didn't know what we do know now or about Cosmic Evolution.
See:
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchais...cs/splash.html

Sure he/they were aware. The arrow of time, the result of the second law of thermodynamics (i.e., entropy, which dictates the arrow of time) was discovered by Clausius in 1850 and later championed by Ludwig Boltzmann, in early as 1880's. In order for the universe, or for that matter, the space it consumes, to be considered God, one then has to subscribe to the notion that the universe created itself out of nothing.


http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...y-2-180961461/

[Paul Parnitzke]

Originally Posted by Sportster

Sure he/they were aware. The arrow of time, the result of the second law of thermodynamics (i.e., entropy, which dictates the arrow of time) was discovered by Clausius in 1850 and later championed by Ludwig Boltzmann, in early as 1880's. In order for the universe, or for that matter, the space it consumes, to be considered God, one then has to subscribe to the notion that the universe created itself out of nothing.


http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...y-2-180961461/

Indeed.
It both all did and it actually does and just as we do ourselves.
That "no thing" is "consciousness or spirit or mind-stuff", itself!

See:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/
From the above:
"This leads to the final consideration in favor of panpsychism to be considered here, which is a sort of methodological argument. Panpsychism enjoys a metaphysical advantage in that it avoids the difficulties of emergentism, which are greater than is generally thought. Not only is there a problem simply in accounting for the emergence of something so distinctive as consciousness from mere matter, it is surprisingly difficult to articulate a form of emergentism that does not threaten to make the emergent features causally impotent or epiphenomenal. This is not the place to discuss the difficulties of all the varieties of emergentism, but they seem serious."

and:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panentheism/
From the above:
"Gillett points out that panentheism lacks an explanation for a causal efficacy higher than the causal efficacy realized by microphysical causation (2003, 19). Generally, panentheists respond to these criticisms by affirming the inadequacy both scientifically and metaphysically of any type of reductionistic naturalism. Such a naturalism whether articulated in scientific categories or religious categories fails to recognize the emergence of levels of complexity in nature. The emergence of higher levels of organization that cannot be completely explained in terms of lower levels renders non-differentiated accounts of being inadequate. Panentheists often argue that the emergence of higher levels of order makes possible downward causation. Davies describes the difficulties in coming to a clear description of downward causation and concludes that the complexity of systems open to the environment makes room for downward causation but has not yet provided an explanation of how downward causation works (2006, 48). The concepts of entanglement and divine entanglement may offer new perspective on causation and especially the role of the divine in natural causation (Wegter–Mcnelly 2011)."

and:
http://whitebiocentrism.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=900
and:
http://whitebiocentrism.com/viewtopi...t=Darwin#p6151

and also do see these two philosophers with these related ideas as well:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/
and:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/johann-fichte/

[Paul Parnitzke]

Originally Posted by Sportster

Sure he/they were aware. The arrow of time, the result of the second law of thermodynamics (i.e., entropy, which dictates the arrow of time) was discovered by Clausius in 1850 and later championed by Ludwig Boltzmann, in early as 1880's. In order for the universe, or for that matter, the space it consumes, to be considered God, one then has to subscribe to the notion that the universe created itself out of nothing.


http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...y-2-180961461/

This is the best part of that article from the Smithsonian magazine linked above:

"In biology, small changes between generations by themselves are, for our intents and purposes, directionless and random. But Darwin's natural selection theory showed how they could eventually lead to irreversible change, providing an underlying explanation for how new species arise out of existing ones. Darwin called this phenomenon "descent with modification," and introduced the idea of natural selection to make it work.

Boltzmann recognized that this was a deep way to understand the proliferation of life on Earth, much like his explanation of entropy provided a deep understanding of irreversible processes in physics. But beyond irreversibility, he also recognized that life involves competition over available energy—or to put it an equivalent way, a battle to minimize entropy.

Living things are a bundle of traits. Some of those traits are adaptive, meaning they help an organism survive: enable it to find food, or avoid becoming food for something else. Other traits are disadvantageous, and some are neutral, being neither helpful nor harmful. Natural selection is the way evolution picks out the adaptive traits from the disadvantageous ones.

(Boltzmann even used Darwin's theory to argue that our skill at creating conceptions of how the world works helped humanity to survive and succeed. That meant the human mind — the subject of a lot of philosophical speculation — is an adaptive trait, according to Darwinian principles.)

Natural selection is a harsh view of life. But living things require food—chemicals from air, soil or from eating other organisms—and that means competition. Organisms that survive pass their adaptive traits on to their offspring, while harmful traits disappear. If enough of those traits build up over the generations, entirely new species can spring up. One of those species was ours: humans were born out of the processes of natural selection and adaptation, just like all other life.

Boltzmann used both theories to argue that life's struggle isn't over energy. Earth gets plenty of energy from the Sun, far more than life actually uses in the form of photosynthesis (and other organisms that eat plants and other photosynthesizers). Instead, life is a struggle to minimize entropy by capturing as much of the available energy as possible.

Boltzmann's insight connected Darwin's theory to fundamental physics, an astounding intellectual achievement. It showed how both evolution and entropy have influence beyond their original domains. Today we have evolutionary algorithms and entropy in information theory, and evolution is one criterion NASA uses in its search for life on other worlds.
See also:
https://beta.techcrunch.com/2018/03/...msday-prepper/

Darwin's and Boltzmann's twin revolutions live on. Perhaps you could even say they’ve co-evolved."

Excellent link and article "sportster".
Thanks!

Read more:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...QGJu7eV49Y6.99