Ten Commandments of Racial Suicide

[SteveB]

Science is limited by man's level of consciousness. It can explain many of the laws of nature through mathematical equations, but it cannot explain why they exist. There are some forces we can measure and some we can't. For example, Newtonian physics can measure and explain the laws of gravity, yet can't explain where it came from or why it exists. Science tells us that two large objects attract to each other, but exactly how this force is generated is a mystery. Another is the force of life. We know it exists because it is in every living form, yet it cannot be measured or explained. Why is a dead body dead and living body alive? They are both made up of the same chemical composition.

Until man's level of consciousness is raised to a level to begin to contemplate that forces may exist outside of his sensory perception, then science will never be able to answer all of the questions of the universe. Science is limited to only explain what can be observed through our senses or those of of our tools.Edited by: SteveB

 

[White_Savage]

Interesting post J.B.


"The issue of the spiritual world entering the real world on an occasional basis is scientifically untenable. We consider our universe a closed system. The laws of thermodynamics insist upon it. To believe otherwise would invalidate most of the scientific principles which have proved out in every other case. It is not IMPOSSIBLE that the spiritual world enters into our world, and effects it in some manner, but it is highly unprobable."

Well, by definition all phenomena are part of the "real world"-in that sense, there can be no supernatural-if it occurs, it is natural. But supernatural is a convenient term to refer to phenomena that are not explained by our current understanding of the laws of nature.

At this point, it's worth remembering what a scientific theory is. It is the model which fits the available data and/or makes predictions BEST. This is obviously an extremely useful concept, as it has allowed man to gain greatly in power and knowledge, but we must not ignore one fact, the fact that EVERY scientific model is eventually demonstrated to be inadequate and replaced with a better one, seemingly ad infinitum.

For instance, Newtonian physics are in the strictest sense, false. We know that the Newtonian model does NOT describe the motions of objects with 100% accuracy, and in fact falls apart when trying to describe the very small (atoms) or the very big (the effects of celestial bodies on space time). We continue to use Newtonian physics because they are immensely simpler than newer models and more than "accurate enough" for almost all phenomena we work with on a practical basis.

And there ARE phenomena which fall outside of even the latest models. For instance, black holes are now known to exist. Within a black hole is a region of space whose phenomena who cannot be described by our physics-IOW, they are outside of our laws of nature as we currently comprehend them.


"Unfortunately for those that would back such a case for a spiritual world the evidence is extremely thin. One would expect that such an overwhelming force would be easy to detect. Surely a million people die on this planet every year, billions have lived before us, with such spiritual force available why is it only possible to "sense" it in unusual times in odd locations among less then perfect conditions. Why is movement of spirits into the real world fairly easy but we have to "die" in order to pass into the spiritual world?

It is much easier to assign the whole matter to wishful thinking, hallucination, coincidence, or fraud. Which science does, perhaps unfairly."

Paranormal phenomena such as ghosts, near-death-experience, re-incarnation, etc, do not lend themselves to controlled laboratory studies. There IS a certain amount of non-physical evidence for these things such as you mention, such as photographs that cannot shown to be hoaxes or known camera malfunctions, unusual energy readings, accurate descriptions of historical "past lives" from people who would seemingly have no way to know these things, etc. But the bulk of the evidence is ancedotal. However, once again, when you get rid of the obvious charlatans, you are still left with thousands of reports from reliable witnesses with no rational motivation to lie and who are often in fact rather hostile to belief in the phenomenon described. This sort of evidence is considered worthwhile in many scientific endeavors, indeed, eye witness accounts of this quality, number, and consistency would be suffecient to sentence a man to death in a capital case many times over.

"This discussion has not considered the case of a detailed afterlife complete with a paradise, ruling God or gods, various spirits and souls, a whole alternate universe. That creates many more difficulties. How do you transfer there? Does a spiritual "you" exist that is released at death or a few other times (which also makes the case for the spiritual world being part of the real world)? Why the mystery between worlds? What's the big deal? All these are unanswerable questions, for now. Perhaps someday we may know more."

As I've pointed out before, the "spirit world" if we are to call it that, does not from the ancedotal evidence seem to resemble the model of any particular organized religion. It seems more in line with many traditions that are considered Occultic and are usually supressed by those organized religous bodies who seek to maintain a monopoly over the business of interpolating with the spirit world.

"One thing is for sure, we are located on a small planet orbiting around a mid-sized star, in a middling galaxy among millions of other galaxies that have millions of stars in them. It is ridiculous to think that all that universe was placed there merely to provide a decorative backdrop for our night sky. How we fit into all of that is a question worth considering and discussing."

Hey, you just hit on one of my favorite subjects. Whether we have an innate destiny or not, I believe our spirits cry out for us to make the last and infinite frontier our purpose. Especially those of us who belong to Earth's greatest race of explorers. Of course, first we have to avoid extinction and keep conditions on this planet from imploding, but what can I say, I'm an incurable optimist.

 

[White_Savage]

"One thing is for sure, we are located on a small planet orbiting around a mid-sized star, in a middling galaxy among millions of other galaxies that have millions of stars in them. It is ridiculous to think that all that universe was placed there merely to provide a decorative backdrop for our night sky. How we fit into all of that is a question worth considering and discussing.

Given the enormity of the universe, it should surprise us more were we not to exist, than to exist. People are astounded by the universe around them and ask why? Why are we here? Why the universe? I say, why not? Given the number of stars, planets, and galaxies, should it surprise us that at least ONE planet in the multitudes of multitudes of planets has life?

The odds of winning the lottery are astronomical, but someone somewhere hits the jackpot every week."

It is popular, especially by those searching for little green men, to speculate about the odds of life on other planets. Such reasoning is usually along the lines of Carl Sagan's "If only one in a million stars has an Earth-like planet, and if only on one in a million of those planet lifes arises, and if only one in a million of those planets produces a technical civilization, there must be a billion technichal civilizations." But such reasoning is a little hazy to say the least because it simply makes a bunch of assumptions about the statistical odds, rather than doing anything to figure out what they actually are.

I will now quote freely from the writings of polymath Marshall T. Savage. (no, I am not making that surname up! Spooky, eh?

) The following method of arriving at a realistic probability of life arising by chance is not merely a wild idea by Savage, nor is Savage a creation science or other fringe type with an ideological axe to grind. The science is accepted as sound. Isaac Asimov I believe crunched the numbers in the same way and made the same conclusion.

[Let us presume that all that is required for the evolution of life is the formation of a single self-replicating DNA chain. (A great deal more than just this chemical accident is of course required to produce single celled organisms, then a complete biosphere, and finally intelligent beings. But for the sake of argument, let's set the chain causality in motion that will eventually evolve you and me out of the mud.) As it turns out, the minimum chain length for self-replicating DNA is around 600 nucleotides. (Nucleotides are the building blocks of DNA, consisting of the base pairs of adenine-thymine or guanine-cytosine that form the rungs and the phosphates which form the backbone of the ladder in the double helix.) Six hundred links is an exceedingly short DNA chain. Consider that a very simple virus contains 170,000 links and a bacterium seven million; Your own DNA chain is six billion links long.

How likely is it that the primordial soup, given enough time, will cook up a strand of "Genesis DNA"? To calculate the odds of such an even occuring at random, we need to turn to "information theory". This is an arcane branch of statistics developed to aid the design of computers and telecommunications networks. Essentially, information-theory reduces the nebulous concept of "information" to exact mathematical quantities relating to message content and length. According to to information theory, a message with meaning can be interpreted as a level of probability. In other words, how likely is it that the message will be generated at random? This probability is dependent on the number of bits required to encode the message. The number of bits is then the exponent (base 2) of the number of random trials it would take to generate that message. In plain English, this means that generating even a relatively short message by trial and error takes an enormous number of tries.

Words, like those you're reading now, contain meaning-at least that's the intent. In theory, the same message content could be generated randomly (perhaps it would make more sense if it was). Using information-theory, we can find out what the odds are of a given message being generated by chance.

Let's use a very simple message, one I'm sure we're all familiar with from our earliest attempts to decode these alphabetic hieroglyphics: "See spot run." This minimal message contains just thirteen elements: ten letters, two spaces, and a punctuation mark. Written English requires only about 50 symbols to convey any message: 26 letters, 10 figures, 13 punctuation marks, and blank spaces. The first position in our message has one chance in fifty of being an "S". The odds of generating a particular message one symbol long are 50 to 1. The second position has the same odds, so the chances of a message two symbols long turning up as "Se" are 50 times 50, or 50 to the 2nd. It is very easy to calculate the odds of any message being generated at random: The number of possible symbols is the base, and the base number is raised one exponential power equal to the number of symbols in the message. The odds of generating "See Spot run." at random are 50 to the 13th. To create this rudimentary message by accident would require six hundred billion trillion trials. If a computer were programmed to generate a 13 character string at random, and created 10 million new strings every second, it would take the computer two billion years to come up with "See Spot run."

Information theory shows why generating a 600 nucleotide chain through random chemistry is-to put it mildly-unlikely. The genetic alphabet is much shorter, containing only four symbols: A-G, G-A, C-T, T-C; But this doesn't help matters very much. The same rules of chance apply. The odds of generating a particular string of nucleotides 600 base pairs long are 4 to the 600th, or 10 to the 360th to one. If these are the odds against the bob-tail nag, you'd better bet on the bay.

To generate a string of Genesis DNA would take 10 to the 360 chemical reactions. This is a completely ridiculous number. Writing such a number is an exercise in futility; it requires hundreds of zeroes. Describing it in words is just about as hopeless; A million billion trillion quadrillion quintilliion sextillion septillion octillion nonillion decillion doesn't even tuch it. The only way to describe it is as ten nonillion nonillion googol googol googol. You can't even talk about such numbers without sounding like your brain has been fused into molten goo. If you persist in thinking about them it certainly will be.

Surely, there must be numbers of equal magnitude available to rescue us from such overwhelming odds. After all, DNA is just a large molecule. So we must be dealing with atomic numbers, and they are always mind boggling-right?

When life arose, the Earth's oceans were, as Carl Sagan suggests, one giant bowl of primordial soup. The number of chemical reactions going on in that stew must have been incredible. Over billions of years, any possible combination of DNA could have been cooked up-couldn't it? Well, let's take a look; the bottom line is always in the numbers.

The oceans of the early Earth contained, at most, 10 to the 44 carbon atoms. This sets the upper limit on the possible number of nucleic acid molecules at 10 to the 43. (Assuming that every atom of carbon in the ocean was locked up in a nucleic acid chain molecule-an unlikely state of affairs.) The oceans would therefore contain no more than about 10 to the 42 nucleotide chains, with an average length of ten base pairs. If all these nucleotides interacted with each other 100 times per second for ten billion years, they would undergo 3 X 10 to the 61 reactions. That would still leave them woefully short of the sample needed to generate a strand of Genesis DNA. To get a self-replicating strand of DNA out of the global ocean, even it was thick with a broth of nucleotides, would take ten billion googol googol googol years. Makes your eyes spin counter-clockwise doesn't it?

But there are billions of stars in the galaxy and billions of galaxies in the universe. Over time, the right combination would come up somewhere-wouldn't it? Assume every star in every galaxy has in the entire universe has an Earth-like planet in orbit around it, and assume every one of those planets is endowed with a global ocean thick with organic gumbo. This would give us 40,000 billion billion oceanic cauldrons in which to brew up the elixir of life. Now we're getting somewhere-aren't we? In such a universe, where conditions for the creation of life are absolutely ideal, it would still take a hundred quadrillion nonillion nonillion googol googol years for the magic strand to appear. Sheesh!]

So, at long last, those are the real odds on life arising folks. Now before any of you say it, I realize that a probability is just that, not a certain predictor. But having a close approximation of the odds of life arising by sheer chance it at least another data point one can consider when you ponder our place in the universe and the possibility of some force in addition to and beyond our own minds.




Edited by: White_Savage

 

[White_Savage]

" It is a fate worse than death, in my opinion, if death brings not non-existence, but an afterlife in which we still do not have any of the answers of our existence."

WS,
You know, I occasionally give the illusion of a being a sophisticated person. But really, my savage moniker must be an accurate description-the "purpose" questions people ask are just beyond me-they just don't compute

My "purpose" in life is to obtain as much happieness and prosperity for my myself, my family, and my people as possible, to do as great a things as I am capable of doing, etc. My interest in the spiritual side of life is all about the possibility of attaining some help in this life and the possibility that my death may not be the end of all these things. Questions of "purpose" beyond this just don't register somehow.

It is worth pointing out that Celts and Germans both believed in forms of reincarnation as well as some kinds of more blissful abodes for the dead. There are indications it was believed you were "born" into the Other World by dying here and eventually re-entered here (After a period of rest, contemplation?) ad infinitum. Unlike the pessimistic Buddhist view, the Aryans, ever ones to love the world after all, seems to have taken a positive view of this cycle.

"It is easy for us to discuss the spiritual aspects of life, the theoretical and physiological aspects of it, inured as we are from the reality of the tremendous death and destruction that occur daily on this planet. Everyone knows that millions of children die every year, its a given on a planet of 6,000,000,000 people. Add to that the nature of existence for the 'lower' life forms, where every day one is eligible to be eaten by another, or even just the millions of animals slaughtered every year just to feed humankind. If there is a 'spiritual' world, and beings who can influence existence on this planet, why all the death? Why all the suffering?

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus"

This line of argument is based on several notions that don't nessecarily have any bearing on the existence of a spirit world or after-life, and which are not nessecarily true.

You point out that life involves suffering and struggle. This is no doubt true. But this assumes that death, pain, and struggle is all bad or unnessecary, that there is one omnipotent spiritual power that rules the physical universe without dispute (God in the conventional Judeo-Christian sense), and that said being has a moral onus to act to stop all event that cause suffering to limited beings like us.

It is not clear at all to me that all suffering and struggle is bad, or that it is possible for good to exist without it. If you were in perfect unbroken bliss for eternity with no experience of something else, would it have meaning to you? If you never struggled with anything (with the attendant possibility of failure, and thus suffering), would victory have any meaning? I mean, this is a sports forum. The worthwile sports IMO, especially combat sports require intense effort, pain, and risk-and that's just when you win! Yet these are things we do and watch, for FUN no less. In the evolutionary sense, it is clear that all the power, beauty, grace, and intelligence in nature-the flight of birds, the stripes of the tiger, the swiftness of the deer, our own ability to manipulate tools and our enviroments-all come from the winnowing processs of death and struggle. When bad things happen I have my "All the Gods are bastards" moments. But, because I do not believe A. in a univeral monarch who is omnipotent and/or "all good" from my limited human perspective or B. That we originated in a suffering free Eden and death and pain only entered the world through evil, the existence of suffering doesn't give me any philosophical fits. Indeed, the fact that life exists at all and continues to exist in a universe supremely hostile to life, that life seems to defy the law of decay and entropy through it's exponential growth and apparent ever-increasing complexity, fill me with something resembling religious awe, even though this process does indeed contain it's measure of death, pain, and randomness for living creatures.

"And to my friend White Savage, and the view that man is happier when he believes in something rather than nothing, I leave this quote:

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw"

A witty rejoinder, but let's consider it. Drunkeness is false happieness-in fact most drunks are profoundly unhappy. Drunkneness also makes the individual and the society less fit-no society has ever based it's success upon drunkeness (Except possibly the Irish

). This does not compare to spirituality. Sprituality seems to improve people's quality of life in real life. In terms of fitness, atheistic societies never arose and destroyed religious ones, despite the many real abuses and short-comings of religion through the centuries. Why is that? After all, atheism is not a complex philosophy requiring centuries of development- all that is required to be an atheist is the common sense notion that what most people observe with their sensory data most of the time is all there is. Yet millions of people for thousands of years-people like our ancestors in the Northland, who lived much "closer to the bone" and had alot less time for impracticalities than we do-have had religion. Each and every tribe of man over eons evolved specialists who absolutely believe they communicated with a spirit world and could manipulate it to an extent for the tribe's benefit. If this is such a completely false and irrational belief, the question remains-why were those who devoted considerable time and resources to these "occult" practices not destroyed by someone who did not?

 

[Southern Knight]

The spirited discussion on this topic here (and it IS entertaining, to be sure) underscores one of my biggest contentions with the concept of religion -- it distracts otherwise productive people from doing anything of value.

Think: this thread has gotten more play than any other topic on this board over the past week; it has produced the longest, most detailed, and carefully argued posts. And it's about ghosts and spirits. That's it.

Instead of wasting our efforts debating the number of fairies that can dance on the head of a pin, we should direct our energies into real action to engender REAL change in a society that we all agree is completely screwed up. (We can all agree on that point, can't we?).

Obviously, there are some people who feel more comfortable and secure in this world if they have the "security blanket" of a supreme being looking out for them. Fine, that is their right. There are other people who will hedge their bets and say "If there is a god, I don't want to anger him," so they'll profess a belief in god in the off-chance that such exists. That's fine, too.

In my opinion, it's a fatal error to focus your efforts preparing for an "afterlife" that does not exist. Our people face extinction on this planet, right here and right now. That is an immediate peril, one that is tangible and identifiable, and one that can be remedied with swift action right here on earth.

True Christians don't really give a damn about this world because, in their childish minds, this world is just a bus stop on the way to eternal paradise and everlasting life. Have you ever noticed that religious doctrine sounds crazy when it's stated in plain terms?

And here's another blow to the Judeo-X-tians:

Did you know that the ancient Hebrews had no concept of an afterlife until they encountered the Zoroastrians? That's right, the christian concept of heaven was stolen and appropriated from the followers of Zoroaster (feel free to Google him).

Finally, while you christians are bickering about you religion, Jews (who, by and large, have no delusions about a "spiritul afterlife") focus their energies on securing their place in this world, which necessarily involves eradicating White people from the face of the earth. No belief in any god will help us in this battle unless and until christians grow up and start taking adult actions that don't involve a "Bible-Stories-For-Children" view of the world.

 

[White Shogun]

Well, thanks Southern Knight! You let the air out of my balloon! I was working out this long reply, with explanations of abiogenisis, biochemistry, and memes, and you have to go and point out that we're wasting time!

So, instead I'll just post some links. These authors have said it way better than I, and actually know what they're talking about.

Argument from incredulity

Probability of abiogenisis

Origin of the first cells

DNA as language (hint: its not)

All about memes

And thats all I have to say about that!

Edited by: White Shogun

 

[White_Savage]

SK:
Every post of yours is based on the assumption that that all non-atheists are weaklings, idiots, and also Christians. Thank, you, I must check the "none of the above" box.

Caeser noted that the Gauls were extordinarily brave in battle because they believed in transmigration of the souls. Today, when we face the Islamics, we face a group whose technical and strategic powers are pitiful compared to our own. The only advantage the Jihadist has is that he is fighting for something besides an SUV and a home in the 'burbs. And it seems to me a not inconsiderable advantage.

"In my opinion, it's a fatal error to focus your efforts preparing for an "afterlife" that does not exist. Our people face extinction on this planet, right here and right now. That is an immediate peril, one that is tangible and identifiable, and one that can be remedied with swift action right here on earth.

True Christians don't really give a damn about this world because, in their childish minds, this world is just a bus stop on the way to eternal paradise and everlasting life. Have you ever noticed that religious doctrine sounds crazy when it's stated in plain terms?"

That's right SK, ALL spiritual belief follows the world denying model of Christianity, and is otherwise identical to the worst possible version of Christian dogma. Ignore all evidence to the contrary.

"Finally, while you christians are bickering about you religion, Jews (who, by and large, have no delusions about a "spiritul afterlife") focus their energies on securing their place in this world, which necessarily involves eradicating White people from the face of the earth."

While Jews are openly drifting away from traditional Judaism, Jews have been notorious occultists for centuries and continue to be, especially among the elite-they're a rather intelligent race, think they'd adopt an absolutely worthless strategy?

On the flip side, Hitler was also apparently interested in the occult. Hitler also avoided assasination by freakish "chance" any number of times. *shrug* Just thought I'd point that out.

 

[White Shogun]

Caeser noted that the Gauls were extordinarily brave in battle because they believed in transmigration of the souls. Today, when we face the Islamics, we face a group whose technical and strategic powers are pitiful compared to our own. The only advantage the Jihadist has is that he is fighting for something besides an SUV and a home in the 'burbs. And it seems to me a not inconsiderable advantage.

And therein lies the answer to your question as to why atheism as a philosophy has not eradicated the belief in an afterlife. The meme of immortality is a strong one, and isn't easily negated despite evidence to the contrary. PEOPLE WANT TO BELIEVE THAT THEY DO NOT DIE. All religions are a collection of ideas for explaining the unexplainable, (an area which shrinks daily, by the way,) and a means for validating the human desire for continuous existence. Just because humans as a species are consciously aware of this desire does not make life after death true.

 

[White_Savage]

Shogun:
The objections to the statistical calculations say that the flaw is in using modern complex life forms as a model and assuming sequential trials.

But the calculations I posted involved a DNA chain shorter and simpler than that of the simplest modern life forms, and involved simultaneous trials in every ocean of Earth like planets circling every star in the universe!-many more simultaneous trials than are actually possible. So while the "seven days in 4004 B.C" theory may be out of the running for various reasons, my Anti-entropy force may still be in contention.

 

[White Shogun]

I guess thats why there are so many different religions, and well, non-religion, too, because I find the odds of abiogenisis no less surmountable than the odds of finding an eternal divine being who created this tiny planet in the middle of no where.

Whats to say "Life" itself is not the anti-entropy force you're describing? It certainly provides enough impetus on its own to force entities into killing each other for food, sex, and fun.

 

[JD074]

The spirited discussion on this topic here (and it IS entertaining, to be sure) underscores one of my biggest contentions with the concept of religion -- it distracts otherwise productive people from doing anything of value.

You could make the same point about other discussions: politics (for the most part,) sports, etc.

Instead of wasting our efforts debating the number of fairies that can dance on the head of a pin, we should direct our energies into real action to engender REAL change in a society that we all agree is completely screwed up. (We can all agree on that point, can't we?).

We can definitely all agree that our society sucks and action is most important, and that we need a lot more of it. But if all of this debate and discussion is a waste of time, then we should only talk about grassroots activism, political strategy, how to run for office in our local areas, how to strengthen our communities, help our fellow whites in various practical ways, etc, etc, etc.

That might not be as fun though.

 

[JD074]

Today, when we face the Islamics, we face a group whose technical and strategic powers are pitiful compared to our own. The only advantage the Jihadist has is that he is fighting for something besides an SUV and a home in the 'burbs. And it seems to me a not inconsiderable advantage.

Great point. It's a huge advantage. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, as evidenced by several posts about the topic. We need something to fight for, we need to be as fanatical, relentless, unfair, and self-interested as others. Our passion could be religion, nation, race, or something else. It doesn't have to be religion (although it seems to be working for the Muslims in their takeover of Europe.) The problem, as I've stated before, is that we are far more hindered in this area than any other race on the planet.