Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 04:43 | #

  https://www.revilo-oliver.com/news/2012/06/afterthoughts-on-afterlife

If God exists, GW, you are fucked .  He’s not the only one.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 10:33 | #

If G-d exists and he’s Jewish, Al, we’re all bound for the byre.

Posted by Thorn on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 13:57 | #

@ 2

Even if God exists, I don’t think you have much to worry about, GW.

We’re all sinners but the sin will be judged by the intent.

Your atheism is due to your lack of faith genes; ergo, I think it’s a sure bet God will not hold that against you ... particularly WRT the 1st and 2nd Commandments.

Your fight against white genocide demonstrates more than enough penance for the atonement of all your other sins.

Someday it may be a real possibility you’ll be granted sainthood!

(Just kidding with that last sentence, GW. I was just having a little fun there.)

Peace out.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 15:20 | #

Not even my dear old mum thought I was a saint.  And God would never had the guts to disagree with you.

Posted by Thorn on Mon, 22 Nov 2021 15:57 | #

@4

HAHA!!

Posted by Simon on Thu, 25 Nov 2021 10:58 | #

I’m curious why a white man would want to worship a Judean, especially if he is 2000 years of foreign(in every conceivable way)  dust. AFAIK not even the Judeans worship themselves, though that is obviously a moot point.
The other thing I find curious from my serial lurking here is that white Americans think they have some connection, other than pigmentation, with Europeans. This is demonstrably not the case. Americans of any ethnicity have far more in common with each other than us. Ebonics aside, poke any American in a sensitive spot and they coagulate like epoxy resin together and agree on whatever strange interpretation of history it is they are constantly exposed to in their self-conglatuatory echo chamber of fiction. I was trying to think of a relatively benign example, the closest I can get is that they definitely won the war of 1812….. despite all the evidence.
Before you accuse me of being anti-septic, they are not the worst. The English importing a foreign and inferior language (sad to say even our august and otherwise respectable Gastarbeiter occasionally stoops to American cant) and culture are wiping out whatever was worth saving.

Posted by Thorn on Thu, 25 Nov 2021 13:24 | #

@6

Know this, Simon, your comment serves to put your own mindset / worldview on display for the outside world to see. It reflects your own opinion; your own perception of reality—which in your case is a very skewed distorted one.

For starters, I suggest you read up on population genetics. That may help you understand the genetic connection between Americans of European descent and Europeans.

Posted by Simon on Fri, 26 Nov 2021 00:33 | #

@7
Given the main point of my piece, just how much weight would you expect me to give on your opinion?
For a man who can’t grasp the meaning of atheist, despite many attempts here over the years to disabuse him of his “skewed” view, I think you rather give my piece weight than detract from it. You are closer socially, intellectually and culturally to the American ethnic group you disdain the most than to us, even if my ancestors did see you off at Rotherhithe.
Talking of opinions - ‘It reflects your own opinion’.....just whose opinion would you expect me to reflect? Yours? Don’t be fatuous.
I’ve seen you ridiculed on nearly every thread going back years.. I have no heart to pull this, nor future comment, apart any further.
Adieu.

Posted by Thorn on Fri, 26 Nov 2021 13:29 | #

Simon, I don’t give a flying fig about what you think or your opinion.

Nor do I care what you think of mine.

I’ve already concluded your opinion has about as much weight as the sperg who dominated this website for years.

Are you and the sperg one in the same?

Posted by Simon on Tue, 30 Nov 2021 08:43 | #

I must in all fairness make an apology to our cousins. Despite the excellent advice from Benjamin Jowett; “never apologise, never explain”, in this case I think I ought.
I have spent years reading through the comments sections of the likes of The Occidental, Morgoth, Horus, M R et al, with an increasing feeling of frustration and alienation that the chubby lads with the “Jesus Loves Guns ‘N Roses” T-shirts and loud, nasal Ebonics are getting even more louder and obnoxious. It’s always the same reaction; disagree with them, however dispassionately, and they blow a loud raspberry and raise the middle finger to signify their dominance and superior acumen. Except, of course, if you are the daddy figure they are desperately seeking approval from, then they simper like a little girl. One wouldn’t normally mind, why would one care about the afflicted, but they are drowning civilised discourse by volume.

Anyway, the point of all this was that I’d gained an entirely negative view of U.S commentary and contemporary thought, being as I was, only exposed to this kind of commentator. You may be sure I was aware of a voice in the back of my head telling me that there must be more to the story, but in decades of interaction, that was the predominant, perhaps only, experience.
It’s a delicious irony against myself that shortly after giving vent to these frustrations in this thread that I happen by chance on the totally opposite impression via this article:
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2021/11/28/2063856/-No-good-emperors-Why-do-we-insist-on-reading-history-backwards
Not only is the article itself well written and thought out, but the comments section is like nothing I’ve ever seen out of the U.S., and many contributions wouldn’t be out of place on sites such as these. They are far from perfect and I disagree profoundly with many, but it’s the kind of disagreement that would be met fairly and square on, only to profit, not detract from, the subject. Unfortunately in total contrast with the above list for reasons stated.

So, cousins (apart from the Jesus freaks o c) please accept my humble and sincere apologies for tarring you all with the same brush. Mea Culpa.

Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 02 Dec 2021 02:10 | #

Jowett’s students enjoyed a Balliolite - authored satirical snippet of bad verse at BJ’s vast erudition :

” My name is Jowett ,
  I’m Master of this College ,
  And if I do not know it,
  It’s not considered Knowledge.”

Posted by Simon on Thu, 02 Dec 2021 11:53 | #

@ 11,
sic transit gloria mundi.

Posted by Thorn on Thu, 02 Dec 2021 16:12 | #

GW
The question is: Did the material universe create itself within a space of infinite nothingness?? If so, what created the infinite nothingness in which matter emerged? From whence did it come from??

That leaves us with a more fundamental question: Is it more rational to believe something supernatural created the universe or did it happen all on its own. Of course, I believe it is the former.

Here’s a good little article (with plenty of citations) on the subject:

Hawking Says Universe Created Itself
BY BRIAN THOMAS, PH.D. *  |

Stephen Hawking, leading cosmologist and recently retired Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, has co-authored a new book, The Grand Design. In it, he claims that the universe did not need God to create it. This conclusion goes against the writings of another famed Lucasian Professor who is credited with discovering the very law Hawking uses as his “proof”—Sir Isaac Newton.

The Telegraph quoted from The Grand Design:

Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.1

What would compel a person to ascribe the power of creation to just gravity? Perhaps it stems from the idea that gravity has an equal amount of “negative” energy to perfectly balance all other “positive” energies.2 Recent investigations into gravity—one of which questioned its very existence—left plenty of room for doubt about claims that depend on an accurate conception of this particular natural force.3

But even if “gravity” did provide such balance, it could hardly suffice as an adequate cause for the whole universe. Pointing out qualities of already-existing energies is no more an explanation for their origin than pointing out how the energy-of-motion in a rolling ball will be exactly matched by the energy-of-resistance from friction. Neither quantity answers where the ball came from and who or what pushed it.

On the other hand, for his hypothesis Hawking may have relied on the common cosmological concept that gravity supposedly can pull matter together from fine dust into nuggets, clumps, large conglomerates, nebulae, planetesimals, planets, stars, galaxies, galactic clusters, and superclusters. The physics, however, shows that gravity alone cannot do this.4 This is why the shockwaves of “nearby supernovae” or giant collisions are routinely invoked to jump-start star formation from dust clouds, where the gravity is too weak to overcome repulsive forces of hot gas particles.5

Extraordinary information also characterizes this vast universe. The three-dimensional placement of heavenly bodies in space and the particular—and peculiarly life-enabling—universal parameters, such as the speed of light and electromagnetic strength, are some examples of fine-tuned information.6 Also, there is the mountain of information in living systems to explain.

Since concerns over gravity and energy do not address the more obvious question of information—a massless yet ubiquitous fundamental entity—then statements about gravity or energy alone form insufficient grounds to reject a supernatural origin for the universe.

In addition, any assertion that a thing can make itself is self-contradictory. This is because in every case where something has actually been made, that which caused it existed prior to it. For example, an oak tree may have found its immediate cause in the planting action of a pre-existing squirrel and by the acorn production of a pre-existing oak tree. So, for the universe to have made itself, it would have had to exist prior to its existence—a contradiction of the undeniable first principle of causality.7

A classic argument for the existence of God holds that since something exists (say, the universe), and since something cannot make itself (without violating the first principle of causality), then a cause outside that thing must exist (God).8 In essence, Hawking has attempted to refute this reasoning by simply denying the second premise!

Did the oak tree come from an acorn? No, Hawking would say—it was just the result of “spontaneous creation” and there it is. Such reasoning makes no sense. Hawking’s illustrious predecessor, Sir Isaac Newton, formed a more reasonable and accurate assessment of the universe’s origins: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.“9

https://www.icr.org/article/hawking-says-universe-created-itself

Posted by Manc on Thu, 02 Dec 2021 17:34 | #

The state of the nation in less than 1min and 30 seconds Part 3….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNrTCcEwQGU

I suppose it was inevitable that the diversity would be increased for season 3, after all… but making the main black character a cannibal ? that’s not very woke is it ?

Posted by Thorn on Thu, 23 Dec 2021 13:28 | #

NASA To Launch Telescope Stronger Than Hubble That Can See Back In Time
BY: STEPHEN C. MEYER
DECEMBER 22, 2021

During the winter holidays, Jews celebrate a miraculous, unquenchable light and Christians celebrate the incarnation of God revealed by the light of a star. It’s fitting, therefore, that on December 22 NASA will launch a new satellite capable of seeing the first starlight from just after the Big Bang—a light, and an event, that tell us about the creation of the universe and, in their own ways, reveal God to the world.

NASA’s new James Webb Space Telescope will be carried into space this week from French Guiana on the back of an Ariane 5 rocket. The $10 billion, 21-foot telescope features a massive umbrella-like sun shield. It also boasts 15 times the range of motion and six times the light-gathering capability of the Hubble Space Telescope—NASA’s next best instrument for peering deep into space and far back in time.

From the first astronomical investigations about the early history of the universe, light, and other forms of radiant energy, have yielded the most important clues about cosmic origins. During the 1920s, astronomers discovered that the wavelengths of light coming from distant galaxies were stretched out, or “red-shifted,” as if the galaxies were moving away from us. Just as sound coming from a train whistle drops in pitch as the result of the sound waves being stretched out as the train recedes, light coming from a distant galaxy changes color (becomes more red) as light waves are elongated as galaxies move away from Earth.

Soon after the discovery of the red shift, Belgian priest-physicist Georges Lemaître and Caltech astronomer Edwin Hubble showed that galaxies farther away from Earth were receding faster than those close at hand. That suggested a spherical expansion of the universe in all directions of space like a balloon inflating from a singular explosive beginning—from a “Big Bang.”

Then in 1965, physicists discovered a different kind of light they thought provided further evidence of the Big Bang. While working at Bell Laboratories in New Jersey, physicists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson inadvertently discovered an extremely low-energy radiation on their highly sensitive, large antennas. This radiant energy, now known as the Cosmic Background Radiation, is postulated to be a remnant of the earliest moments after the Big Bang when the universe was immensely hot and densely compacted.

The light that NASA’s new telescope seeks to detect comes, not from those very earliest moments after the beginning, but from the first stars and galaxies that formed an estimated several hundred thousand years later. Detecting that light will nevertheless provide further confirmation of an expanding universe.

Since the new telescope can detect infrared light—invisible light with extremely long wave-lengths—it can establish whether the most distant galaxies exhibit the amount of red shift that astronomers expect given the Big Bang. As space plasma physicist and long-time NASA contractor Rob Sheldon has explained, “The light coming from these ancient, extremely distant galaxies, should be ‘ultra red-shifted’ into the infra-red range that the Webb telescope is designed to detect.”

This additional evidence of an expanding universe would further deepen the mystery associated with the Big Bang and add weight to a growing science-based “God hypothesis.” If the physical universe of matter, energy, space, and time had a beginning—as observational astronomy and theoretical physics increasingly suggest—it becomes extremely difficult to conceive of any physical or materialistic cause for the origin of the universe. After all, it was matter and energy that first came into existence at the Big Bang. Before that, no matter or energy—no physics—would have yet existed that could have caused the universe to begin.

Instead, whatever caused the universe to originate must not have been material and must exist beyond space and time. It must further have been capable of initiating a great change of state, from nothing to everything that exists. Such considerations have led other scientists—former Massachusetts Institute of Technology physicist Gerald Schroeder and the late Caltech astrophysicist Allan Sandage, for example—to posit an external creator as the best explanation for the origin of the universe as revealed by modern cosmology.

Oddly, the detection of light from extremely old and distant galaxies could also further corroborate the specifically biblical account of the origin of the universe. After all, the first words of the Bible not only affirm a “beginning,” but also that the first light came soon thereafter.

As Tulane University cosmologist Frank Tipler has noted, “Genesis tells us that there was a beginning and that after the beginning, light was the first created thing—exactly what modern astrophysics confirms.” Arno Penzias has similarly noted, “The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the first five books of Moses. . . .and the Bible as a whole.”

In our secular age, skeptics find the miracles of the Hannukah and Christmas stories hard to believe. But mounting scientific evidence for the first miracle—the creation of the universe itself—might now render these familiar stories a bit more credible. At least, it would for those with eyes to see the light.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/12/22/nasa-to-launch-telescope-stronger-than-hubble-that-can-see-back-in-time/

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 23 Dec 2021 14:32 | #

Light is a wave made of electricity and magnetism.  It transfers energy, that is to say, it is how energy moves under electro-magnetic impulse.  Energy, then, is prior, or light-energy would not exist.  Of course, one could then say, well God made energy cuz that’s, like, science.  But then, one could say absolutely anything.

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 28 Dec 2021 04:10 | #

  Post Hubble Bubble, there is ((( Toil and Trouble)))  . Light moves in mysterious ways its wonders to perform .  Meyer is the Jew to believe.

Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 29 Dec 2021 06:05 | #

Here’s the Jewish path the Anglo Saxons took to perdition :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXIbjGYY0cc

Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 30 Dec 2021 06:55 | #

The parallel logic of the Daily Mail. 

Today I laughed even louder than usual when the DM declared that Ghislaine Maxwell ” worshipped Jeffrey Epstein like he was Zeus.”

“When Bad Things Happen To Good People “, as Rabbi Kushner advised us in a shekel - generating 1981 screed for Christian simpletons, it is everybody’s fault except Yahweh’s.