Free Market Forever

I love Capitalism. Stop being Slaves and Take Ownership of Your Life.

Posts Tagged Jews

Is it a sin for jews to buy/rent/hire/acquire palestinians concubines/sex workers/sugar babies?

Dec 24

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | No Comments

Discover guaranteed proven new safe way you'll love and save money. 

YOU can EASILY Get girls/guys you want if you understand

Why rich smart males do not want to get married and why do unattractive people want everybody to get married?

or you can grab

Gene Pool Survival Guide with How to Learn Math e-Book for Maximum Saving

Written by world's #1 life guru. Also a mensa member that won international math competitions. There are ways to get what you want effectively. The most effective ways are almost always politically incorrect yet done by every winners. Math and common sense can see through important obviously true laws of life that most people will simply deny.

Knows the truth. The truth will, besides getting you laid and rich, set you free.

The bible prohibits jews from selling their daughters as prostitutes.

There is nothing in the bible that prohibit jews from hiring prostitute. Also nowadays, daughters tend to sell themselves anyway.

The palestines have grown numerous in number due to their high birth rate. Left uncheck they may ally with your enemies against you, if not already.

You can kill them all. But it’s politically incorrect since holocaust or something.

You can kill all their newborn sons. But that would be inefficient. Chicken farmers also kill 90% of all newborn male chicks. They know full well that it won’t dent the population a bit.

But their women keep giving birth to future suicide bombers. Why not hire those women to give birth to future bankers, doctors, lawyers, and scientists instead?

Can’t be through marriage because polygamy is illegal in Israel. But women don’t care. Last time I check women prefer bankers, doctors, lawyers, and scientists.

Actual arrangements are secondary. Exclusivity is not important for beautiful women. You can check http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/764/does-marriage-terms-tend-to-kick-out-more-desirable-mates-males-out-of-mating-ma/765#765

Of course there is an issue whether palestinian girls are hot enough for jews or not. Well, maybe top 20% percentiles would do. Males aren’t that picky. The prettier the girls, the less religious they are.

10 Girls for Every 1 Guy

Another issue is the full blood vs mixed. Still half of 100 is still 50. Full of 2 to 3 is still only 2 to 3.

That should send a message to all palestinians and all other males in the world that unless they too excel in science or business, all their seeds will be spilled on the ground. Literally.

So the last compunction should be, is it sinful?

Note:

This post is a joke as most posts in this website. It contains some exaggerations that’s essentially true.

The reality is I was sick of violent and wonder whether economic competition can replace false politics and war.

Both sides kill each other and lie to justify it. If I just said that plainly, then people would get defensive saying that’s it’s the other side that’s total asshole. So I made jokes about it instead. I do not think those who are so eager to kill or justify killing of other humans deserve so much respect that we shouldn’t joke about them. I guess things ended up even more offensive. But hei, people are killing each other. So what if we made fun of them.

The question it self is pretty serious though. Is it a sin to hire sugar babies?

Why killing, bombing, suicide bombing, mass murders, slavery, or even genocide is okay yet normal consensual financially responsible transaction is not?

There is nothing in the bible that prohibits that. Solomon has tons of concubines. It’s consensual. Paternity tests can determine fatherhood far more accurately and humanely than stoning potentially adulterous women. Contemporary marriage terms are so different than ancient marriage terms it’s essentially a different deal. No body get married in biblical sense nowadays anyway.

Incoming search terms:

  • poligamy in syiah

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Does God love jews more than other people?

Nov 18

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | No Comments

Do you love your wife or hordes of new girlfriends?

Your wife has a special covenant with you. However, girlfriends serve you well anyway with less string attached.

Also, nowadays, who care about complicated convenants. Everyone sort of just do it.

I think it looks pretty obvious to everyone else that Israel’s God must have been having other relationships.

I mean, where was God during Titus’s siege, islamic invasions, inquisitions, genocides, recessions, and Hezbollah rocket rains?

Well looks like God is busy wooing others.

Many (2 billions) said He even had a Son outside wedlock. He ended up rising another horde (1.5 billions) to fight of the rumor.

I understand that Israel still think that she is special and all. I’ve seen it all the time. Well, He got to start somewhere. I bet He’s been planning all these from the beginning though.

Every time God seems to be away Israel keeps blaming herself that may be she didn’t ‘t serve God right, or this or that. God may have encouraged that kind of thinking obviously.

However, maybe she should stop and think for a while. Maybe it’s not really her. It’s just Him.

God will be God after all.

Next time God is back really late, I can assure you He’s not coming back from hard work, war, or anything life threatening. He will  simply have a lot of explaining to do.

That’s all I am sayin. And ugh, just in case, bring a lawyer.

Incoming search terms:

  • does Gods love Jews more than others?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is Christianity Avodah Zara?

Nov 15

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | No Comments

I think the answer depends a lot of what you mean by christianity, what they actually believe, what trinity is, and what avodah zarah is. For the first 3 I can explain as much as I can. For the 4th I want to learn from jews.

I think christians and trinitarian beliefs come in many flavor. Some jews may consider some flavor idolatry. Some don’t. So consider this answer as a question of which one is which.

Trinity itself is hard to understand. One way to describe it is to think of your self as a programmer, a husband, and a father (and an employer, and a business partner, and a politician, and an honest truth seeking guy). So you’re a 3 (or more) distinct being but still just you. Is programmer the same with husband? No. Is father the same with programmer no. But all is you.

I still do not understand why christians pick number 3. Why not just go the way to of the jews having so many different names for the same God. But that’s one way to see it. That view is called Sabellianism. Christians officials consider that heresy. Jews are probably more comfortable with this (do you?) and christians may have claimed sabellianism as heresy to deliberately distance themselves from jews.

It’s interesting that sabellianism, as well as many non trinitarianism used to be majority among christians.

> Tertullian seems to suggest that the majority of believers at that
> time favoured the Sabellian view of the oneness of God.[15] Epiphanius
> (Haeres 62) about 375 notes that the adherents of Sabellius were still
> to be found in great numbers, both in Mesopotamia and at Rome.[16] The
> first general council at Constantinople in 381 in canon VII and the
> third general council at Constantinople in 680 in canon XCV declared
> the baptism of Sabellius to be invalid, which indicates that
> Sabellianism was still extant.[16]

Christian priests that come up with Sabellianism are amateur and hence not right enough, heretic, deserve to die, yada yada. You got the point.

Another way to think of trinity is to think that you’re samurai at day, ninja at night, and who know what else. I think christians also have a latin term for it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchianism][1] . That too is heretical because they aren’t popular enough.

I do hope that God don’t really send us to heaven and hell based on this because I am pretty sure the majority of christians (or anyone) do not understand it. In fact, I bet Jesus’ disciples (which are mostly fishermen) and even Jesus himself would be quite confused when we asked these to Him. Yet religious leaders will have strong intensive to declare that you go to heaven or hell based on whether you believe his particular niche of religious doctrine or not.

Many things that christians consider heretic are well, christians too. These are all from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

The being of Christ can be said to have dominated theological discussions and councils of the church until the 7th century, and resulted in the Nicene and Constantinopolitan creeds, the Ephesine Formula of 431, the Christological statement of the Epistola Dogmatica of Leo I to Flavianus, and the condemnation of Monothelism in the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681). From these councils, the following christological doctrines were condemned as heresies: Ebionism, Docetism, Basilidianism, Alogism or Artemonism, Patripassianism, Sabellianism, Arianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Monophysitism, and Monothelitism.

The origins are from christian bible that.

As opposed to the Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John has been seen as aimed at emphasizing Jesus’ divinity, presenting Jesus as the Logos, pre-existent and divine, from its first words, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”[John 1:1][39] John also portrays Jesus as the creator of the universe, such that “without him was not any thing made that was made.”[John 1:3] Some render John 1:1 as “the Word was a god”, “the word was godlike”, “the word was divine”, denying that the doctrine of the Trinity is supported by the verse.

The Gospel of John ends with Thomas’ apparent confession of faith to Jesus, “My Lord and my God!”[John 20:28][23] There is no significant tendency among modern scholars to deny that John 1:1 and John 20:28 identify Jesus with God.[40]

Other passages of John’s Gospel interpreted in this sense include, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”,[8:58] “I and the Father are one.”,[10:30] “….the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”,[10:38][41] and “….he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”[John 5:18] John is also seen to identify Jesus as the Lord whom Isaiah saw,[John 12:34-45][Isa 6:1-10] while other texts[Heb 1:1-12] are also understood as referring to Jesus as God.[42][43][44]

The jewish bible (tanach said:)

13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the Ancient of days, and he was brought near before Him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt3407.htm
The majority of christians that I know believe that Jesus is God and only those that believe that goes to heaven. The rest will be eternally tormented in some lake of fire for got that wrong.

In fact, most christians believe that as the defining line of christianity. Those christians would argue that judaizers, mormon, jehovah witness, budhists, deists, jews and arians as non christians and would all get roasted crispy in boiling high temperature God’s frying pan.

So I have to be careful here. I am a very liberal christian and half agnosis (not to mention chinese). I do not know whether Jesus is God or not. I do not know for sure whether his father is God or not. In fact, to my surprise, not even Jesus’ disciples that met him knew.

This come as a big surprise to me. Look at here for more discussion http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/A335 . So even Jesus’ disciples, that learn directly from him, when asked by Jesus HIMSELF, all give different answers.

I do not exclude the possibility. I suppose, somebody who make the heaven and the earth wouldn’t have problem becoming human once in a while. It’s like a programmer making World of Warcraft and actually play the game and create an avatar for him self.

I asked in christianity forum and got tons of downvote

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4573/if-believing-that-jesus-is-god-is-that-important-why-jesus-doesnt-say-it-more

Here christians say that after Jesus is death and supposedly risen, all the disciples knew (who the player behind the toon). Well, not really

After Jesus is death and risen, the answer to Jesus’ question, “Who do you think I am?” still differs a lot among his followers.

Christianity evolve. What I mean by evolve is that christianity comes in so many different flavors and each flavors have different evolutionary and reproductive advantage. In other word, not only christianity change, christianity changes like living forms evolve.

First we need to examine typical target market of Christianity at the time.

  1. Jews. Yap. All early Jesus’ followers are jews. Perhaps there is one or 2 samaritan women. All apostles are jewish. Peter, Paul, Jacobus, are all jews.
  2. Theophobes. These are the greek that fear jewish God but do not want to convert fully to judaism. They love pork and appreciate their foreskin, to be short. Also they don’t like stoning their wife. Yada yada. You got the point.
  3. The rest… Obviously this 3rd category will outnumber the other 2 because there are simply more people in #3 than in the #1

Here are some of the branch of early christianity. The differences between them are not clear cut.

  1. Judaizer. http://www.quora.com/Was-Jesus-the-head-of-a-Jewish-sect-and-if-so-what-differentiated-his-beliefs-from-those-of-the-Jews-at-the-time This people believe that all christians should follow all jewish laws. The main difference between these people and Jews are they believe Jesus is the Mesiah. It’s like Rabbi Akiva believing that Bar Kotba is a jewish messiah. It’s like Isaiah believing that king Cyrus is a messiah. In fact, this what confuse me about how important messiah is for jews given that they seem to have plenty of claimants. Messiah means anointed. Anointed means having your head poured over by food. Looks like anyone can claim that title by melting a butter on his own head if we want to be liberal about it.
  2. Gnosis/gnostics. Most notable are Marcion. These people believe that God of old testament is evil God for commanding, well, what they perceive as evil. You know, genocide, stoning, and stuff are kind of politically incorrect for some people somehow. They also believed that material world is evil and God is guilty of creating this material world. Gnosis is nevertheless significant. Early christian canon are made by Marcion! That shapes a lot of christianity. A lot of christianity revolve around giving up what’s in this world for something in heaven. Marcion is latter declared heretic, but still his influence of christianity is big. We don’t know exactly what Gnosis believed because church actively burn their books and commit genocide against their followers. I guess we shouldn’t condemn any custom till we learn the benefit.
  3. Arian. Arians believe that Jesus is some form of super creation. Jesus is a creature created or begoted by God or something like that. Jesus is not God, according to them. Jesus is like God. It’s the difference between Homo Ousion (equal to God) or Homoi Ousion (similar to God). Jesus once claimed that he is very old that he’s been around even before Abraham. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/iam.htm . Maybe He believed in reincarnation?
  4. Astanasius. Astanasius believe in the trinity we’re all familiar with. Then catholic church pick up more and more pagan tradition into their doctrines. The gods, become saints, etc.

So what happen to those groups.

  1. Paul is a pharisee jews. In fact, there was a time when Paul got arrested by jews in the temple. Paul quickly noted that half of the Sanhedrin was saducees. Paul simply said that he got arrested because he believed in life after death and the pharisee is on his side. It’s in book of acts. Some said that Jesus himself is a pharisee in a sense that He seems to believe in life after death.
    After a while, Christianity spread and tons of theophobes (God fearers) and gentiles are converted.
  2. Judaizers demand that they too got circumcision. Christianity naturally splits here. Paul and Peter is of the opinion that requiring circumcision would hurt sales and decided against it. Okay, not their exact word. Just go here for more info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem
  3. The judaizers have their own scriptures, written in hebrew and presumably earlier than the greek gospels that become christians’ scriptures. Some said that the gospel of Matthew is written in hebrew and latter translated to greek. That explains why gospel of Matthew often talked about kingdom of heaven while other gospels talk about kingdom of God. Jews have a tradition of avoiding saying God. I asked this in quora.com. http://www.quora.com/Why-did-Matthew-write-kingdom-of-heaven-while-other-gospels-wrote-kingdom-of-God. You can read more about jewish gospels there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews. Jewish gospels are not popular. Not only jews are few, they tend to get killed a lot. Also some christians church may have actively burn those alternative gospels like Umar burning most different copies of Quran.
  4. In the beginning, christianity is prosecuted. Calling a jewish rabbi “Son of God” is an affront to the other claimant of that title, namely the emperor of rome. Jews and christians were not enemies at that time. Not exactly on the same team either. Jews are in trouble with roman authority even more and christians want to distance themselves from the jews. It’s more like those supporting same sex marriage want to alienate themselves from those supporting pedophilia or plural marriage I guess.
  5. Now here is the most important catch. Arian vs Astanasius. Christianity is popular among the poor. Because most humans are poor, christianity is very popular. Soon there were enough christians to topple the empire. It did happen. During the next emperor selection, an emperor wannabe, Constantine, don christian symbols and won. Constantine is friendly toward christians.
    Constantine want to unite the empire with a single doctrine. He is a secular ruler. He doesn’t know what christianity is. So he called the most prominent “christian” bishops to discuss the issue in Nicea. In Nicea, christian bishops vote 300something against 2 that Jesus is God.
  6. This obviously lead to another important question. How in the earth the Arians are so grossly under represented. They aren’t few. Constantine himself is baptized by an Arian. His son is an Arian. There were enough Arians to defeat and conquer rome latter. So I asked this question on quora.com. Well, check this out http://www.quora.com/Why-were-Arians-underrepresented-at-the-First-Council-of-Nicaea Basically, most “christians” do not even think the issue was important. Most Arians live in the western part of roman empire. So they don’t bother coming to Nicea. Also most of them think that difference between homo ousion and homoi ousion is a greek thing. It’s philosophical issue rather than a practical issue. They do not think it’s important. Also see http://www.quora.com/How-was-the-representation-of-bishops-at-the-Council-of-Nicea-determined
  7. Arian doctrines don’t die at Nicea. After all, there are plenty of arians. After more power struggle that involve killing, exiling, murder, voting and who knows what, trinitarians win. Christians presume that God must have properly guide the killing, exiling, murder, voting and whatever that somehow the right doctrines pop out. It’s another important doctrine in christianity called inerrancy. Not only the scripture is perfect, without a single spelling/grammar error, that somehow all the differing doctrines are transmitted perfectly or something like that.

So christianity today is effectively a very helenized version of judaism that can trace most of it’s doctrine to whatever political stance used to prevail in democratic countries.

I think to be fair to christians, I should also point out that modern judaism is also a very helenized version of ancient judaism. Today, jews practice democracy and monogamy. Ancient jews practice monarchy, polygamy, and stoning. Ancient jews are more like islam I guess.

Also God or not, Jesus is at least a very influential rabbi, far far more influential than Rabam or Rashii, with only 3 years of practice. We got to credit him for that. Christianity is a branch of judaism as much as atheism, agnostic, and even islam, is a branch of christianity.

It makes me wonder that if somehow christianity is succesful in china, will all 1.2 billions of chinese have a right of return to Israel? Well, obviously not. However, that seems to explain the division between one religion to another. Political interests, which is often very understandable, rather than actual differences. Most chinese would think that all of you are the same. Even when catholics and protestants and jews and muslims are killing each other over their differences, I tend to see it as similarity rather than differences.

So again, the answer depends a lot on what you count as “christians.” My answer is more on history of what christians actually believe and secular atheistic explanation of why.

Another interesting aspect is claims by Gnostics that Jesus himself is spirit. That his disciples see footsteps without body, etc. That sometimes they can touch him and sometimes not. All right, that would looks like God to me, if it were true.

Curiously, while there are plenty of historical evidence for Jesus’ followers, there are few for Jesus himself. Peter is till on good terms with jews. James the just is killed by Sanhedrin but the leader of the Sanhedrin is fired because of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just/

Also it also depends on how Avodah Zarah (idolatry) is interpreted. If we see it as Christians worshiping a man as God, then it looks like it’s idolatry. To see it as God could not possibly take a human form seems like an entirely different game. What about if Jesus is really God or one of his say avatars/toons? Perhaps Jesus is like a puppet. God want to interact with us, and mind control some material being like flood, hurricane, or man.

The idea that God is immaterial that christians believe and jews believe even more strongly seems to come from, surprise:

Socrates and Plato held that (God is) the One, the single self-existent nature, the monadic, the real Being, the good: and all this variety of names points immediately to mind. God therefore is mind, a separate species, that is to say what is purely immaterial and unconnected with anything passible.
(Plutarch, quoted in Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 14:16, translated by E.H. Gifford (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1903), 812.)

http://www.mormonvoice.com/index.php/nature-of-god/

I wonder if there is any jewish commentary that claim that God has no body before Plato? That would be a way to see where the idea of bodiless God truly originated.

I guess that would explain why gnostics, a branch of greek and judaism mixed up how material world is evil, etc. Perhaps even monotheism itself is borrowed from Persian’s Zoroaster. Who knows. I came here to figure that out.

Ancient judaism didn’t ‘t seem to have problem recognizing that God is anthropomorphic. Every single guy that claimed to have seen God claimed that God has a form from Jacob to Ezekiel. Even israelites are said to listen to God’s voice in some mountain. That means at least God has a voice. Either with boomboxes or vocal chord, He must have been able to create vibration in the air recognizable as voice and that requires some control of material world. Doesn’t seems to be that difficult for God to me. Somehow the jews seems to think it’s such a big deal.

It is possible that jews that deliberately distanced themselves from christians for various political reasons.  So things that are not necessarily unjewish, like our father in heaven prayer, becomes sin because the christians are doing it. while christians try to move themselves closer to jews. Hence the whole religion keep changing in some form of goose chase pattern.

Avodah zarah means idolatry. I guess it depends a lot on what christians actually believe and what counts as idolatry and whether it is possible that Jesus is indeed God/Son of God or not and in what sense. I am explaining the various beliefs of various christians because I myself is very confused about chirstianity. Perhaps after my explanation, jews can help answer the question? I think I am pretty objective and accurate in my answer. For example, are there claims among jewish commentary that God doesn’t have a body before Plato? Because that seems to be where the idea originates.

Christians’ trinity is a very complex concept that most Christians are not even aware off. Thinking that Jesus is a mere God pretending to be human (like ninja) is heresy. Trinity has a bunch of different branches each calling each other heretics. Looks like both christians and jews borrow from Plato the idea of invisible omnipotent God that we are familiar with. Are there original similar jewish idea before Plato?

Perhaps Jesus is like Sephirot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephirot Well I guess I have to ask real christians. I am an agnostic. If Jesus is like Sephirot, is that idolatry? Kaballah also said that Torah, God, and Israel is one. Perhaps it’s in that sense too. http://www.kabbalahmadeeasy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19:-israel-the-torah-and-god-are-all-one&catid=13:beginners-course&Itemid=26 is that idolatry too?

There are many branch of trinity each mean slightly differently and we’re supposed to believe the right thing or go to hell. I guess it’s perfect exam. – When a muslim ask me to explain trinity I simply explain that secularly. Different christian sects have different favorite numbers, after rumbles, the winners are the one betting on 3. That sum it all.

Incoming search terms:

  • christianity avodah zarah
  • is christianity avodah zarah
  • latin term for burning of a heretic
  • mesopotamia free market
  • term for burning of a heretic
  • who do you think the nations represent from avodah zarah? pagans or christians

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why Marriage is like Concentration Camp?

Nov 5

Posted by admin in Featured | No Comments

In mid 20th century there was these highly industrious smart, productive, ancient and wise people called the jews.

They’re endangered species now. These people underestimated their government’s hatred against them.

The same way today, there are capitalists. Most of those underestimate others’ hatred over them.

The jews underestimated Nazis’ hatred toward them. They think they won’t get screwed. “We are useful to them. Why would they kill us?” They said to themselves. They failed to realize that:

1. The mediocre hate the smart. That’s why Nazis hated jews.

2. The lazy hate the diligent.

3. The unproductive hate the productive.

4. The less competitive hate those who out compete them. The less competitive always want to prevent those better than them from reaching their full potential.

The same way most people fail to realize that:

1. Mediocre men do not want women to only pick the rich. That’s why they prohibit prostitution.

2. Singles do not want people with mates to keep getting mates. That’s why they prohibit group marriage, polyandry and polygamy.

3. Ugly women do not want women to be judged by their beauty. That’s why they prohibit porn.

4. The less competitive hate those who out compete them or have potential to do so. The less competitive always want to prevent those better than them from achieving their full potential.

All these are half obvious already. Yet most people don’t know.

The fascists justified killing jews by claiming that the jews are inferior anyway. If it were true, why not just let the market decide? Not a rhetorical question. Inferiority is a very vague concept. In a very reasonable sense, the truth is actually the opposite.

The fascists also justify prohibition of prostitution by claiming that prostitution is such a bad deal no women could possibly want that anyway. If it were true, why not let the market decide? Not a rhetorical question. Bad deal is a very vague concept. In a very reasonable sense, the truth is actually the opposite.

So the Nazis pulled out a trick.  “Work will set you free,” said bigots. “Just register your arms and wear star of David band for ease of identification,” said the Nazi.

All those seem pretty innocent.

Yet something was suspicious. What business government has in identifying who were jewish and who were not? They should have asked.

The same way, religious bigots and feminazis are pulling tricks. “Get married first before having sex,” said religious bigots. “Women are not sex objects and should not be judged solely by their beauty,” said ugly feminazis.

All those seem pretty innocent.

Yet something is suspicious. What business does government have in regulating marriage?

What business does ugly women have in controlling how we think? When men think of women as sex object, we usually mean the pretty right? So why the ugly care?

But many jews didn’t see that the Nazi wanted their extermination. What else could they have wanted? By registering their guns they are easy to disarm. By wearing stars they are easy to identify. And by being in concentration camp they are easy to exterminate.

The same way many of us do not see that those wanting us to get married want nothing but our extermination and suffering. What else do they want?

By getting married government has power to define what marriage mean. Government can ration mates in equal share for everyone by allowing people to only pick singles.

By getting married judges have justification to prosecute the rich with hefty alimony. The justification, as ridiculous as it sound, is that you agreed to that indirectly when you get married.

By getting married people make it easy for government to screw them.

Little did the jews know that hatred against them would matter far more in concentration camp than outside.

Outside concentration camp, hatred against jews matter much less. The jews can still fight, flee, or run.

Inside concentration camp, they’re toasted. Literally.

The same way, little people know, that hatred of those who are not competitive are far less influential outside marriage than inside marriage.

Outside marriage, you decide terms of your mating.

You can change partners, and hence providing intensive for the other side to behave fairly toward you. You can decide your own contract. You can share a more desirable partner, or be shared. It’s up to you.

Women typically can aim at far richer males outside marriage. Richer smart men can aim at more women outside marriage. It’s happening anyway thanks to higher and fairer income disparity globalization bring here.

Inside marriage, the will of all those bigots matters. A girl will have harder time aiming for the rich inside marriage. Rich males are afraid of having to pay big alimony and will not marry unless the women are smoking hot if at all. All those alimony laws are destructive only to the rich. Think about it.

Fascists ensure that rich men that still get married are pretty much screwed, hence ensuring that only the poor are available to marrying women.

Hence, the result

Read more about Beatty Chadwick here.

Check more here for more horror stories.

If you are a beautiful woman, getting laid by rich smart males willing to support you in exchange of sex or reproductive service is very easy. The richer the male, the more he wants you. Finding a male that are willing to risk going through those horrors for nothing is obviously difficult. The richer the male, the less likely he wants marriage.

Notice that genocide pictures I showed you above is quite typical. Most concentration camps’ Nazis to jews relationship does end up badly, for the jews. The experience are different. Some get burned, others get shot, another get gassed etc.

Notice that Beatty Chadwick’s case is quite typical. Most marriage does end up badly, for the productive. Experience varies. Some go to jail, others paid huge lifetime alimony, etc.

Perhaps the jews think that outside concentration camp, fascists can still kill them anyway. True.

But it’s much harder to kill them outside than inside.

As more and more are outside, fascism will starve and get weaker.

The same way many think that outside marriage, fascists can still control their life anyway. True.

Fascists can still prohibit prostitution. Fascist can still declare that cohabiting partners are married, hence effectively instituting forced marriage. Fascist can still prohibit prostitution. But fascists will have much harder time running your life outside marriage.

As more and more babies are born outside marriage, fascism will starve and get weaker.

A lot of hatred was there in the design of concentration camp. They got gas chambers, they got chains, they got guards with guns. Concentration camps were there to kill jews. Shouldn’t jews be suspicious?

The same way, a lot of hatred is there in the design of marital laws. They got life time alimony proportional to men’s income. They got judges ordering males to support kids that are not biologically his. Marriage laws are there to bankrupt rich smart males. Shouldn’t all rich males be suspicious?

Trust your government?

Remember genocide. Remember Beatty Chadwick.

Never again! we let fascists influencing who should stay in the gene pool. Yes in both cases (I am tired of writing the same thing twice), many will deny that.

Do not trust your government. The same government that claim to define what’s best for your kids are the same one that would send those same kids to ovens and roast them slowly. Just ask any holocaust survivor or Beatty Chadwick.

Never forget. Government sucks. Free market is awesome. Free market forever.

Incoming search terms:

  • afghan eyes
  • freemarket forever prostitution genocide
  • marriages in concentration camps
  • ugly women benefit feminism
  • uglywomen

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Can we Predict Religious Doctrines?

Oct 12

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | No Comments

“Atheistic theories of religion” don’t predict the features of religion you claim. Those theories have been designed so that they fit with what has been observed about religion in the past. A prediction would be a claim about a new religion that hasn’t yet been observed. An acceptable substitute for a prediction would be a retrodiction, eg. predicting what will be discovered about a religion from the past whose details haven’t yet been uncovered. I don’t know any examples of either non-trivial prediction or retrodiction in this area. Maybe you know some.

That’s a very valid point. Well, let’s take this one. Predicting all religions are difficult. However predicting what would the popular religion be or what the popular religious interpretation would be will be easy.

In a country where freedom of religion is highly valued, the religions that are popular will be the liberal and moderate. In a country where power decide what you can believe, the popular religions will be the one that serve the interest of thugs and those less competitive.

Most religious people says that we shouldn’t have free sex.

Atheistic theories like evolutionary psychology predict that the real reason is because they want to control us. After all, free sex means free to choose. A lot won’t get chosen if people are free.

We also predict that mates will be rationed somewhat proportional to political power.

One man one vote soon leads to one man one vote. The very thing that directly compete with marriage will be the one prohibited most.

Got so far?

Now, I do not need to know what jews or persians or moabites or chinese or mongols or whatever worship. I don’t need to know the name of their god.

I would predict that in monarch, polygamy will be okay and in democracy it will not be okay. Also I would predict that in monarch norms against sex outside marriage will be stronger because those in power would want to be the pimp of all women and hence doesn’t want people to get laid without their permission.

Tada…. Correct.

Ancient jews practice polygamy. Ancient greek, as well as virtually all modern democratic countries prohibit it.

See. Simple. The religion may be totally different or the same. One may argue that christianity is a “continuation” of judaism. it doesn’t matter.

It doesn’t matter what God or what religion a country is.

Turkey, for example, is filled with muslim. Is polygamy legal there? Simple. Is turkey democratic? Yes. Polygamy legal? No.

Ancient judaism is root of christianity. Is polygamy legal there? Simple. Is ancient jews democratic? No. Polygamy legal? Yes.

We don’t need the scripture or the pray or anything. We can just look at political structure and predict the norm. Then whatever religion are common on those norm will simply match the norm.

Maybe you call me cheating. After all those are all known religion. Here’s the thing. I don’t know those. Someone else know. Yet I can predict.

Here is another one. Humans’ max out profit. Religious interpretation will max out profit for religious interpreter.

In other word, we would predict that humans will kill each other over a doctrine if that doctrines greatly affect well being of religious leaders.

Again I am using religions we all know. But still you can interpolate it to religious “I” don’t know yet and it’ll still be correct.

Ancient jews and israel are hostile to each other over where should Yahweh worshipper worship Yahweh. Is it in Jerusalem or in Samaria. Easy. The location where you worship Yahweh is the location where you got to come and be indoctrinated by the owner of the location. Quite obviously the judah kings want people to worship in jerusalem and israel king want people to worship in samaria.

Christians and Arians kill each other whether Jesus is God or not. That’s fit the data again. What people belief will decide who becomes the main bishop in rome. It decides who ended up becoming leaders.

Then look how Islam fight among Sunni and Syiah. I do need to read quran to predict that somehow the doctrines will affect who people think should be their leader.

What else? Religion always pro status quo. You can verify that to history.

Ah ya, liberal and atheists tend to be ally. They both undermine influence of religious leaders. So religous people would tend to see atheists as evil. After all they are under mind spell of religious leaders. Again it won’t matter what’s the religion is. When a religion influence politic, I bet that’s what will happen.

What else?

Hmm… This is my favorite. Why Christians are not careful in making sure that they do not wear wools and cotons? The bible said so?

Guess what. The truth is the bible doesn’t matter.

It doesn’t matter if God told people not to wear wools and cotons 1000 times, christians won’t think it’s important. It doesn’t matter that nowhere God ever say that you shouldn’t have sex outside marriage. That’s what christians will always said.

After all politically correctness stem from the interest of those who are in power. People obviously want to interpret their religion in ways that are politically correct.

Again, people’s interest, instead of scripture, correctly predict what people will believe as religious.

Recently my budhist friend told me that Budha said polygamy is sin. I was laughing.

Recently a muslim in TV told people that ALL religions prohibit usury. Gee. I wonder how he could predict that ALL religion prohibit usury? The truth is it doesn’t. However, he does have some point. All popular religion that are APPROVED by those who are in power will be most likely politically incorrect.

We would predict that all such religions will also prohibit porn, anti free sex, anti drugs. Somehow their God doesn’t know that cigarettes are more dangerous than ecstasy.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Finding God

Oct 1

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | No Comments

I am a christian agnostic. Used to be the former but going more and more to the latter.

When I was young, people told me that I have to believe that Jesus is God lest I go to hell.

As time goes by, I started having more and more doubt. Well, long story. Very long.

So I turn to two other alternatives “theories”.

1. Atheism that this whole thing is just made up by men. This seems to again and again correctly predict religious doctrines accurately. This seems to be what I am leaning on.
2. Judaism.

I see religions mainly as theories because I have little political interests on what people believe. I want to know.

Judaism tend to have problems too, like Christianity. Just like many people claim that christianity is fulled with religious filter that interpret facts and scriptures to fit their own agenda, we have such claims against judaism too. Many of the claims, true or not, are quite reasonable.

Many atheists claim that judaism is originally henotheist rather than monotheistic. I don’t think it’s fair to hear from atheists on what jews actually believe. That’s why I asked here.

As for making a point, well…

If anything, I am more interested to do the other way around, namely explaining what jews actually believes to christians and atheists’ friends. At the least to my friends. After all, jews are very smart and whatever their beliefs, whether it’s true or not, must be “reasonable”. Even if it’s wrong, it should be something that people can reasonably understand that a reasonable people may believe something like that.

Kind of strange to only have one beliefs and then believe it’s true based on faith. Shouldn’t people have more different theories before picking the one that make sense?

So I like to see the jewish’ side of the story for what seems to be a very apparent contradictions. I’ll ask around in quora for a while then. If no answer is there, I know I got a reasonably difficult question.

Again thank you very much for giving me the second chance. I’ll be far more careful.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why we let the rich get richer?

Aug 31

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | No Comments

I think you should read all the other answers first. Like Eric. This is for the cynical:

It’s the cynical answer. I know. The more ethical answer is because it’s “fair”. However, for how “fairness” somehow becomes reality requires a little “process”. Fairness, is not just moral. It’s practical, and profitable. It took times for us to realize it, but we finally did.

The basic idea of is that under capitalism, people get rich through productivity. So it doesn’t matter how they get rich, they are benefiting everyone else.

The problem with that idea is, while seems fair and noble, is not actually how things work.

In ancient time, emperors are rich and unproductive and the people “let them” even more than people let the rich get rich now.

Why?

Emperors are strong. Some people know enough politics and enough business skills to lead. If some peasants would protest, emperors would kill them along with their families.

People are selfish. They do not max out their profit based on their income like in sunday school economy class. People maximize their profit based on their power.

Here is an easy way to see this. Deep inside, all species, including humans, just want to pass on their genes to the next. If we want to see how much power some men have, just look at the number of wives they have. Emperors have a lot. Capitalists do not. Capitalists, while rich, are not powerful, and hence don’t get “what they want” as much as emperors.

So issue is not merit. The issue is power. However, merit and power has a positive causality. To get power, you need people to agree. For people to agree you need to benefit them. That’s in a sense merit.

If we really do not like disparity of success, shouldn’t we complaint about disparity of power instead?

In fact, how power often override productively earned wealth is the very reason why people complain why the rich get richer. Complaining against the rich pays because the rich are weak and who knows we can rob them. Complaining against the powerful doesn’t.

So the question then become obvious. If the rich are weak anyway, why the mass, which are stronger, let them be rich? That seems to be the heart of the question. Forget about right and wrong. It’s not real. We’re selfish. Why do the mass let the rich be rich? Why not tax the rich to death and grab the money?

Actually they did. Ask jews, armenian, borgueis in China and tax payers in US.

But then the world stop doing that.

Let’s examine first how the world become the way it is.

300 years ago, a wise sage, Adam Smith, wrote wealth of nations. Now the best and brightest among us have choice. They can still make money productively or they can be dictators. Before the latter is the only choice. Before the only way to get truly rich is to be king. As the former start becoming lucrative, that’s what many smart people do.

Things don’t go as well as planned. Money is not equal with power. Well money is a form of power. There are far greater power than money. Namely political power.

Armenians and jews learn this the hard way. They earned money productively, cause resentment, and get killed.

However, the word seems to have a karma like behavior (though i still don’t think it’s as perfect as Buddha think it is).

Imagine the world where the productive get slaughtered. Would you bother being productive? Any society that fail to embrace free market are riddled with corruption, and political strife. Everyone is worst off.

We’re not dumb. We always come up with ways to move our self to equilibrium that’s “better”. What works in some is then tried in others. Through experience free market tend to produce good results. So the rest of the world follow and do it.

So the question of why we allow the rich to get richer is because it is toward our best interest to do so. Should we not, the best and brightest among us will become corrupt and dictators we will all pay the price.

Some may think that we shouldn’t because disparity of wealth is “bad”. Well, just look at emperors. Just look at disparity of wealth and power in socialist countries. Disparities always exist. Do we want that to happen because somebody is more productive or do we want that to happen because somebody has more gun?

Here is another way to look at it.

The smart can:
1. Be dictators
2. Be corrupt
3. Be productive

The mass can:
1. Support free market
2. Support socialism

For thousands of years we’re on 1,2 strategy. It’s natural then that we evolve into 3,2. It’s more lucrative.

Before, even though I am rich productively, I will still be affraid of being sent to some concentration camp by the powerful. Knowing that I try to be powerful, which is not very productive. It’s to the best interest of society then to guarantee my right to live and spend money as I please. As that get taken care of, I start becoming productive.

You see how the process works? You see how both businessmen and the mob benefited?

Now recently something even more interesting happen. It’s called globalization.

The best and brightest among us has the 4th option. They can live. They can move their factories to China to avoid minimum wage oppression, for example.

This put countries to be more like business. Each countries can only charge so much out of their productive members. Too much, and like customers they shop around.

Imagine the world before globalization.

I produced a light bulb. Someone else make better light bulbs. So I pay thugs to kill him. Now I sell more light bulbs. I generated more revenue and profit. If the extra money is bigger than the thugs’ cost, of course I do that.

In fact, that’s what happened in third world countries for years. Rather than spending resources productively, they spend resources bribing politicians to give them favors and quite often literally send thugs. Disparity of wealth happen anyway. Politicians get richer and richer.

It’s only natural. In a sense, it’s not too unfair. If the people are ignorance and resort to force, it’s natural that someone that’s not ignorance, namely the corrupt politicians, collect the money instead.

Political influence on biz created some form of niche that politicians simply fill, like businessmen.

Now under globalization, if I send thugs to beat up competing stores, I will still have to compete with chinese. No win solution. It doesn’t pay to pay thugs anymore.

Now those who used to be thugs and corrupt politicians obviously do not like globalization. That’s why they keep fighting for a while, become terrorists or something. But again, karma will work again. People are fed up with them. They’re getting killed. And good system, like free trades flourish again.

So the answer of why we let the rich, rich, is because they/someone else will be rich anyway even if we don’t let them. It’s just that they’ll be rich through ways not favorable to us.

Hei what about another option. I can lie. I can trick people that the government is fair and then screw the productive. Or I can trick the people that free market doesn’t work. Again, this gets difficult due to proliferation of internet. Truth prefails over falsehood thanks to abundant information.

Now, perhaps, just perhaps. The people still want to be a socialist. Well some socialism could work. Libertarian would argue it’s wrong, but I am a cynic. I care only about profits, not right and wrong.

As we see in Denmark it sort of work. However, that’s because people in Denmark is smarter. It takes skill to rob from the rich and give to ones’ self. Also it can only go so far because if they charge too much, the productive can always go somewhere else.

Most countries are not that smart. They do not know political science. Hell, they believe in religions. They do not understand that humans maximize profit. They think people are moral. They do not see that humans’ interests create morality. They think it’s God.

If I were a businessmen in that country, I would just bribe the religious leaders. Why bother being nice to the people if the people will blindly obey whatever nonsense the religious leaders spit out rather than seeing by themselves what’s good for them and whether they’re getting what they want.

This is of course what religious leaders want. That’s why, in countries like Indonesia we have pogroms against those who think differently. That’s why we have censorship that keep people in the dark. And that’s why Indonesians are not as rich as the rest of the world.

In a sense, that’s like karma too. The more ignorant the people, the poorer they will be. The more they tolerate or accept terrorism, the more terrorists will there be, raising biz costs.

After evolution and experience, the most lucrative system even for the poor is capitalism. Due to information age, everybody knows that. That’s why capitalism prefail everywhere. That’s why we let the rich getting richer. Because it’s most profitable for us, and because now we know it. Because human race has tried everything else and doesn’t perform as well as this.

Incoming search terms:

  • real harem
  • asian harem
  • pregnant harem

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why anti semites accuse jews of positive terms?

Aug 27

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | No Comments

This is actually pretty comical. Here, in Asia, if we hate someone, we call them idiots even though those who we hate, like politicians, are actually very smart.

Thanks to anti semitism, many asians think that the Jews invented democracy and that they’re responsible for the French Revolution. Well, the Greek (named Solon) did it and the French revised it.

Many claim that Jews are responsible for the free market, individual freedom, the decline of marriage, and porn.

Again anti-semites give jews too much credit for our improvement of standard of living.

Adam Smith, a Brit, created the free market fad, and the rest just followed. Marriage is naturally in decline because people are tired from incorporating their competitors’ interest into their marital contract and choose better more efficient government free alternative.

Moreover, some of the best porn, zenra, hentai, SOD, illusion, and bukakke, are proud cultural heritage of the japs, not jews. There are jews that make porn like Jerry Springer. But he concentrates too much on jokes rather than what porn should be and hence don’t appeal to the mainstream.

Then Anti-semites claim that the Jews control the media, rule the world, and are rich and smart.

Hell, even if the world is unfair, wouldn’t you rather befriend the rich rather than the poor? If those claims were true, it should make even more people want to befriend jews, if not already.

Incoming search terms:

  • adam smith anti semite

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is this Hate or Love?

Jun 1

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | No Comments

Differentiating which one hate you and which one love you is essential for gene pool survival. Let’s try a few sample.

Nazi killed Jews out of love or hatred for the Jews?
Terrorists commit suicide bombing toward hedonist tourists out of love or hatred for the tourists?
Muslim mobs stone those who have sex outside of marriage out of love or hatred for the adulterers?
Religious fundamentalists send people to jail for watching porn or hiring prostitute out of love or hatred for prostitutes and their customers?
Feminist prevent women from being consensually trafficked to mate with rich males out of love or hatred toward the trafficked women?
Government prevent kids from watching porn out of love or hatred for the kids?
Government regulate marriage out of love or hatred for those who prefer different arrangements?
Government prohibit ecstasy, which is far saver than cigarette and alcohol, out of love or hatred for users?

The answer is pretty complex. Quite often we help others not out of love, but simply because our interest coincide with them. Quite often we hurt others out of hatred, but simply because our interests are the opposite of them. However, that, in a sense, are hatred.

For example, we punish thieves not out of pure hate. We simply think that the guy will serve as samples of those who screw us. However, we can count that as hatred too and well, we hate thieves right? In a sense, all of our natures, are simply branch of our main desire namely greed. Others are just names on various ways we achieve that one goal.

US government shot an Airplanes full of civilians because there are terrorists there. Obviously this is not hatred. But is it? Imagine if their own family is in the airplane, would they go the extra mile? It’s simply lack of love because they don’t care enough. So hatred and love is relative too. The shooting happen because the decision makers love more people that could have died than the one in the airplanes. Which is very understandable.

The same way we can argue that terrorists do not hate us, they simply love their own gene pool survival and respect so much they prefer to kill us. Well, that depends on how we define hate and love then, which is getting too complex without math.

Knowing whether people love you or hate you, and how much they do, is essential. Underestimating hatred can be catastrophic.

Written in front of concentration camp is a writing “Arbeit macht frei”. Jews didn’t realize that the Nazi hated them so much. They think the Nazi are some body that can be worked out. So they surrendered their gun. They comply with the laws. And they’re death as predicted by anyone that understand true human nature of getting in each others’ way.

People of Baghdad surrendered to Mongol. They didn’t realize how much hatred, or intensive to hurt, Mongol’s have against those who do not surrender early.

Again whether hatred is justified or not will be a different issue. Usually those masked heavily as love are the one least justified.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

False Reasoning, Good Reasoning, and Bayesian Inference

Mar 20

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | No Comments

Say A->B. Say we knows A. Then we can conclude B.

The other way around doesn’t work as well. A->B, we knows B, it doesn’t logically imply A. While it’s not a perfect reasoning, it’s still a good reasoning. It’s the kind of reasoning scientific theory is used. It’s the gold standard to test all theories. The question is how good?

Let’s compute P(A|B). Read that as probability of A, given that B is known.

What is that?

Well, it’s simple. Imagine if we throw a dart 1 million times to a Venn diagram whose area is proportional to the probability that something may be true. Let’s compute the number of darts that fall on B. Then let’s compute the probability that the darts fall on B and A. That is, the probability that the darts are in area of BOTH A and B. That is the probability that A is true, given B is true. That is, the probability that our darts fall in A area given that we know the darts are in B area.
Hence, P(A|B) is P(A^B)/P(B).

If A implies B, that means every darts that fall in A area will fall in B area. That means A is contained in B. Hence, P(A^B) is just P(A).

Hence, we got P(A|B)=P(A)/P(B).

Because P(B) is less than 1, P(A|B) will be bigger and equal than P(A). How big?

Well it’s how unobvious P(B) is. A theory that can predict unobvious conclusion is then a good theory. A theory that can only predict
1. Obvious conclusion
2. Unprovable/unverifiable conclusion

is bad.

Now let’s take a look 2 religious claims:
A: God created Sun.
B: Sun exist.

Obviously if A is true, B is true. However, what about the other way around? Well, here B, sun exist, is obvious. Hence, the idea that God created Sun does not get a lot of boost from existence of Sun. Being able to imply that sun exist is, how can I say it, NOT impressive.

Now let’s take a look at another:
A: God spoke in Sinai to 3 million people (Cradle of Jews’ belief)
B: 3 million people listened God spoke to them.

Okay, this one is slightly more impressive. If 3 million people listened to a loud thunderous voice, then yea, we have something worth looking here. However, we don’t know whether B is true or not. We can’t verify it. I wasn’t there when God supposedly spoke at Sinai. Jews in their campaign of killing the Palestine have intensive to maintain that beliefs. Yes, P(A|B) is high. But P(B) is not high either. Hence, P(A) is not very good.

Now let’s take a look at another:
A: Gravity pulled rocks at 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration.
B: Rock did fall at 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration.

All right, here typical scientific theory is very reliable. When we drop rocks again and again and again and see that it ALWAYS fall at 9.8 m/s^2, we sort of know that A is a VERY good theory. Still it’s not perfect. It’s still a logical fallacy. Basically we conclude A from B rather than the other way around. But it’s still a very good reasoning.

Here, B is not obvious. It’s not something every body knows, at least not before the theory of gravity is born. People, for example, used to think that the speed is constant rather than the acceleration is constant. People tend to think that heavier objects should fall faster. However, this theory worth learning.

Let’s try again:
A: A prophet said that a fly wings will cure disease.
B: Fly wings don’t cure disease.

This one should pretty much kill the religion. If A->B, we can’t imply A from B. However if B is proven false then so is A. It doesn’t effectively kill the religion straight. There will be discussions on how false B is, etc. But a few stones like this then we’ll see how P(A) is very unlikely.

Let’s try again:
A: God will always notify a prophet from malicious intents of his adversaries.
B: A prophet died of poisoning.

That should be a big one. I guess, one morale of the story is that it’s far easier to destroy a claim than to strengthen it.

Let’s try again:
A: Paul the Octopus can correctly predict who wins world cup.
B: His prediction is correct.

This seems to be quite impressive. However, we need to know that Paul is just lucky and out of 2^8=256 animals, the expected value that one is like Paul is already quite close to 1.

Let’s try again:
A: Islamic countries are blessed by God.
B: Islamic countries are filled with oil.

That would have been impressive if we do not take into account that only countries with oil can afford to be ruled by theocracy. But it’s worth examining.

There are 2 main beliefs in the world. Scientific claims and Religious claims. Most scientific claims are disprovable and many are disproved. So we sort of know that the one that’s left will be hard to disprove. Most religious claims are simply hard to disprove. That’s why religions die slowly. However, some religious claims are disprovable. Often the embarrassing aspects of religions are well hidden under censorship.

Those censorship are often justified based on something not very obvious, like laws against “insulting” a religion that is somehow applied against honest inquiry rather than true mindless insult. However, due to internet and wiki leaks, it’s difficult to destroy all such information and discussions.

One (and the only one) I know how to see if we’re learning something worthwhile when it comes to getting closer to truth that I know of is how a theory EXPLAINS and PREDICT UNOBVIOUS facts.

The only “religion” that hold the world record of again and again, correctly predicting UNOBVIOUS facts are scientific methods. Everything else fall far lower.

Again and again, evolutionary psychology, game theory, political science, correctly predict humans behavior. By supposing that religion is a meme, evolutionary psychologist can correctly predict the kind of religious doctrines that are popular among the population.

However, truthfulness is not the only thing that matter when it comes to theory. Usefulness matters a lot to. If you’re seeing a rocket coming to your town. And you have to guess whether it’s a nuke or just a doodad, you would assume it’s a nuke, irrelevant of evidence and launch your counter missiles. As long as the cost of the counter missiles are far cheaper than the cost of guessing incorrectly then it’s obviously appropriate to presume it’s a nuke.

So how does that works when it comes to religion? After all religion claimed that you will go to heaven and hell based on what you believe.

For that, I cannot say much. However, there are a couple of things I can say for sure. For ALL aspects of life that’s disprovable/verifiable, scientific method will EVENTUALLY, give better results than any religions.

In other word, if you want to be rich, to get laid, to make your country rich, you will eventually be more successful if you use scientific atheistic method than if you count on religions. Keep in mind that I am saying EVENTUALLY here. Science maybe accurate but it’s new. Religions maybe wrong but it’s old. Even though the reasoning behind religion is false, if it’s too false, then those practicing it would have been so screwed. Hence, there are some truth behind all major religions.

The best way to see this is by looking at communism. Communism is wrong. Humans maximize their selfish interest. When those who are productive are not allowed to be richer than the best and brightest will be dictators and corrupt officials. So even though communism may make more sense than religions, capitalist countries are richer. Just 30 years ago religious fundamentalists are allies to capitalists.

However, after 30 years, things have changed. Our knowledge grows. Evidences that free market ubber alles are plenty. Science move forwards. Here atheist socialist countries like Denmark simply outperform religious Taliban by far.

I don’t think it’s a fair comparison though. Dubai, which is islamic, is also rich even without oil. So that worth examining. However, I would avoid anyone that uses terror to impose their will to turn any country into an islamic country. That people will turn the country into Taliban way more than Dubai. The day of religion is over and they’re just not realizing it. We shouldn’t be caught on their whirlpool of doom.

Nowadays, I would safely say that the main enemies of capitalism is no longer socialism. Hei, we want everybody to be rich too. Properity’s main enemy would be their once strongest ally, religious fundamentalists.

What about aspects of religions that are undisprovable? Things like their main selling points, like heaven or hell. Well, we don’t know. However, we can make pretty good guesses. If they’re wrong on area we can disprove or keep avoiding making disprovable claims, how do we guess that they’re right on things that are not disprovable?

Say one atheist is a good capitalist. Say another religious bigot is a fundamentalist terrorist. Say the atheist is wrong and God exist. What are the chance, that the terrorist will go to heaven and the capitalist will go to hell? Both has little probability because both are not supported by any worthy evidence. However, the other way around is more likely still.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,