The Ethical Principles Of Neomasculinity

Ethics is a distinct branch of philosophy. It proposes to address the questions that trouble all of us as we go about our lives: what is the best life, and how can it be lived? What is wisdom? What is virtue? What is the best way to find happiness and fulfillment in life?

The discussions that Roosh and I have had on these matters have illuminated us both, and perhaps left us more perplexed than ever. Every question prompts a hundred answers, and every answer branches off into a labyrinth of yet more interconnected lines of inquiry.

Is there any way to make sense of this chaos of conflicting and complementary principles? I have tried to narrow our list of ethical candidates down to those which seem to have had the most longevity in the life of man. Durability in history counts for much. The river of ideas consigns some to the shoreline, and others to the main current.

We claim here no original system—since there is nothing new except arrangement—but instead wish to extract the best of the existing systems. The originality lies here not in the ideas themselves, but in the packaging, exposition, and presentation of those ideas to a new generation as an antidote to the ills of the present age.

ethics3

We believe the inclusion of a principle on our list here is supported by a careful study of the world’s major religions and philosophical systems. And yet we wish to prune the tree’s branches, while trying to avoid doing violence to the tree itself. The specialist will find this list to be woefully short and deficient, and the casual reader will find it to be tiresomely long. Yet every journey must begin with some steps forward.

In this spirit, and with these preliminary cautions in mind, we hazard the following list of neomasculine ethical principles:

1. Virtue is to be found in the balanced operation of the bodily faculties, governed by rational thought.

2. Starting a family is a positive good if it serves as a net benefit to man, rather than a burden. For as Francis Bacon says, “Wives are young men’s mistresses, companions for middle age, and old men’s nurses.” Healthy societies are grounded on a stable family unit; and the decay of the latter invites the collapse of the former.

ethics2

3. Change is the essence of the operation of the universe: things grow, mature, decay, and die. We must make use of the limited time we have here.

4. A soul exists in every man, and is man’s intangible essence of character. Soul does not exist without the body; their mutual health must be a primary concern. Both body and soul must be cultivated and nurtured as part of our program of development.

5. The gaining of wisdom does not consist only in reading books about wisdom; it lies in the training of the body and mind as a harmonious unit towards virtuous goals. It also lies in the pursuit of direct experience with hardships. Struggle is the mother of wisdom. Struggle brings the lessons of wisdom to fruition. The pursuit of wisdom is a continual process that lasts a lifetime, and will end only in death.

6. The pursuit of solitude for its own sake is to be avoided. Man is a social animal, and must avoid the timid extreme of retreating into a protected enclave. Wisdom consists not in avoiding the responsibilities and challenges of the world, but in confronting and overcoming them.

7. A man should treat his brother has he himself should wish to be treated. A man must cultivate the bonds of fraternal affection with his fellows. The modern ethic of individualism and selfishness is socially destructive, and must give way to a more communitarian ethic. No man is an island unto himself; he is part of a group and must consider the good of his fellows along with that of himself.

8. The good man will accept as part of life all of the vicissitudes of fate: loss, failure, defeat, pain, and even death. He accepts all this, yet strives to transcend the pain of his earthly existence by aspiring to higher spiritual truths. Endurance of hardship must be a cornerstone of our belief system.

ethics4

9. We cannot know all things in Nature. There is hidden wisdom in our earthly suffering that we must try to turn to our advantage.

10. We should examine our consciences regularly to see if we are advancing our ideals, and living up to them.

11. We must cultivate our spiritual side. Philosophy without some form of spirituality is a dark and empty thing.

12. Knowledge of the world comes from two sources: from the senses, and from divine illumination (i.e., an intuitive perception of the Divine Essence). Training in bodily health will improve our sense perceptions, and our knowledge of the physical world. Training in spiritual exercises (contemplative or meditative thought) will advance our spiritual development.

13. All of life, and all of physical reality, is the dynamic movement of matter. Creation and destruction are around us constantly. We are an essential part of this process. The universe, and apparently we ourselves, are likely to live through numerous cycles of birth, destruction, and rebirth. We find, for example, this idea in the Hindu concept of the atman (individual soul) being re-absorbed into the world soul (brahman) on death; and the poet Virgil, in his Fourth Eclogue, prophesized that history would repeat itself continuously.

14. Social morality must be based on moral codes that have stood the test of time. Moral codes, whether they come from religion or philosophy, are essential to social cohesion. Moral codes keep the baser instincts of man in check, and codify biologic and social principles that have proven valid for thousands of years of history.

ethics6

15. We reject fatalism and the idea that things are preordained. Every man must make his own choices, and live by those choices. Free will is an essential part of our philosophy. Positive action, rather than passivity born of fatalism, is our preference. Man’s actions, or inactions, can be decisive in historical events. The individual personality is a determining factor in history. Men make and shape history, more than unseen, nameless forces.

16. The definition of “goodness” for man lies in this: the cooperation with Nature, rather than the vain pursuit of sensual pleasure. We must, therefore, avoid a surfeit of vice. At the same time, we should also avoid the danger of slipping into asceticism, or a withdrawal from the vigorous responsibilities of life.

We encourage readers to make their own modifications and adjustments to these naturally flexible principles, while keeping faith with their general spirit. Our purpose is to arrive at those principles that have stood the test of time, and that complement the principles of neomasculinity as described in our earlier articles.

Read More:  Importance Of Cultivating A Killer Instinct

141 thoughts on “The Ethical Principles Of Neomasculinity”

  1. I agree with most posted here, but I have some issues.

    4. A soul exists in every man, and is man’s intangible essence of character.

    As an atheist, you lost me here. On item #1 you wrote, “governed by rational thought.” OK, let’s start with rational thought. Is there any compelling evidence AT ALL that souls exist? Any at all? No. The concept of the soul was developed by the Ancient Greeks. It’s based on wishful thinking, wanting to believe the mind lives on after death, when all evidence suggests the mind is firmly associated with the brain and does not live on after death. Or perhaps by “soul” do you actually mean “mind?”

    Free will is an essential part of our philosophy.

    Free will is the biggest joke ever. Debating the concept could fill several articles in themselves, but the evidence is strongest for determinism. Determinism is not fatalism. The choices you make are based on things that happened to you outside of your control, and based on prior experiences, mental hard-wiring, etc. There’s really no way to escape determinism. BBC has a good discussion here if you want to know why I reject the concept of free will: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00z5y9z

    16. The definition of “goodness” for man lies in this: the cooperation with Nature, rather than the vain pursuit of sensual pleasure.

    Sounds kinda like an Appeal to Nature fallacy. Is murder not natural? Are sensual pleasures not part of cooperation with Nature? Isn’t knocking up lots of women both in cooperation with Nature, and also a vain pursuit of sensual pleasure? Perhaps I’m misunderstanding.

    1. As the article states, things change. Maybe when you are on your deathbed, you will think more spiritually? Maybe, maybe not. I can’t say.

    2. You: ” . . .when all evidence suggests the mind is firmly associated with the brain. . .”
      Q.C.: “Soul does not exist without the body . . .”
      He does not appear to be talking about any religious concept of soul, but of the “essence” of a man, which no one has ever been able to adequately define, but which we all know when we see it. Rational thought based on empirical observation does not demand that an explanation must be provided for everything, only that one exists.
      Without the ability to observe, but say “damned if I know what’s going on,” rational knowledge would not advance at all.
      Addendum: With regards to determinism, please note that there is such a thing as a fully bounded infinity. Free will does not imply the freedom to do anything one wills. To cast it in such terms is to pose a false dichotomy.
      On a more fundamental level, describe the observed results of the double slit experiment in deterministic terms and win a prize.

      1. He does not appear to be talking about any religious concept of soul, but of the “essence” of a man

        If that’s true then fine, which is why I asked to clarify if he actually meant “mind.” Soul has a meaning which is ambiguous and can imply metaphysics.

        Rational thought based on empirical observation does not demand that an explanation must be provided for everything, only that one exists. Without the ability to observe, but say “damned if I know what’s going on,” rational knowledge would not advance at all.

        Um, ok. Obviously, we don’t have explanations for everything and never will. Souls might exist, just as Big Foot and Reptilians might exist too. Without evidence there isn’t enough weight to exalt them into “principles.” I’m not sure what your point is here.

        Free will does not imply the freedom to do anything one wills. To cast it in such terms is to pose a false dichotomy.

        Nor did I claim that it does. Straw man. Actually research determinism and free will before trying to defend either.

        On a more fundamental level, describe the observed results of the double slit experiment in deterministic terms and win a prize.

        Determinism says human decision-making is a function of the laws of physics. It is not a theory of physics, and is thus irrelevant to the double slit experiment. (Do you even know what determinism is?) In determinism the “will” is the physics of the universe. Your brain chemistry, your hormones, where you were raised, etc. Go back, further and further and further, there’s always something that came before that affects the way you think and decide. If you’re familiar with Christian apologia, then you should know about the Argument from First Cause. That is essentially the kind of argument that determinism is. You’re not “free,” as any decision you make is based on something that came before, back further and further, all the way to the Big Bang. You made a decision and you believe you could have chosen different, but could you really have? Brain experiments show the unconscious mind decides seconds before a person believes they’ve consciously made a decision. Sorry, the evidence does not support free will.

        1. Um, ok. Obviously, we don’t have explanations for everything and never will. Souls might exist, just as Big Foot and Reptilians might exist too. Without evidence there isn’t enough weight to exalt them into “principles.” I’m not sure what your point is here.

          sometimes it’s less interesting to consider if something exists, but how the word came into existence, namely soul.
          you may have heard of phenomenology which is basically a technique that observes an object and then changes it’s properties until it is no longer recognized as that object.
          it is, of course, subjective, but imagine the following: a living person next to you, full of life. in the next moment, lifeless, stiff. wouldn’t it be a natural naive reaction of the mind to assume that “something” has left that body and call that thing “soul”?
          in that sense, i propose, it does exist. it does exist, because if it didn’t, there wouldn’t be a word for it. but it’s not a great mystical thing. it’s simply an outdated concept of the understanding of the human body. or, even more precisely, it is an observation.
          and that is, i believe, what kfg meant. you can observe certain phenomena and give them a name. even if you cannot explain them. and what is an explanation but an understanding in terms of a predictable pattern?

        2. “Brain experiments show the unconscious mind decides seconds before a person believes they’ve consciously made a decision.”
          I first read Mark Twain’s excellent dialectic disproof of free will more than 50 years ago and am familiar with the recent experiments in brain signalling.
          I am also familiar with Aristotle’s dialectic proof that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones, and know that I can demonstrate it empirically.
          However, I also know about Galileo.

        3. meh. does it matter? if free will cannot be defined well enough to be proven, what’s the point of discussing it? as long as we are fine with the way we live, all is okay.
          there’s always that stupid fear that accepting determinism will limit your own future choices. it won’t. life won’t change just because you assign a different label. a sad man doesn’t become happy if someone calls him happy. a straight man doesn’t become gay if someone calls him gay or even if he accepts that he might be.
          it’s just a word. what matters is the experience.
          on the other hand, there is an intersting twist to it. accepting and contemplating free will as a concept will quite possibly make you see more alternatives in your future situations, thus it is smart to believe in. but that may as well be rather an error of a deterministic misinterpretation: i can’t fight this feeling.

        4. ” . . . a technique that observes an object and then changes it’s properties until it is no longer recognized as that object.”
          And interesting things happen when you use that technique in order to derive a definition of “man.”

        5. This is true. Nothing changes by calling it something else. There are just people who are uncomfortable with the idea that they are not fully in control of their own actions, that biology, chemistry, and physics dictates their choices (i.e. unconscious processes and external coercion outside of your control). But that’s the weight of the evidence.
          Sam Harris gives a great criticism of Free Will here. I don’t subscribe to everything he says, but his arguments sum up what a great deal of philosophers have been saying for years now.

        6. Ever read his book The Moral Landscape? Stirred up controversy to sell a book by redefining terms to have circular definitions that sounded controversial and interesting, but really didn’t amount to anything. For example, he likes to use the word ‘science’ to refer to philosophy and has personally said there is no distinction in his mind between science and philosophy. Thus, his book’s claim that science can determine human values becomes the claim that philosophy can determine human values, which is not enlightening whatsoever, but it certainly sells books.

        7. From my understanding in the realm of psychology and its neuroscience, when these scientists discuss the lack of free will, they are describing the lack of conscious free will. (Someone above mentioned this with regards to the fmri study that found the person as an entity made the choice prior to their conscious mind was informed of the choice.) The idea is that as an entity you have free will and agency, but you the ‘conscious mind’ does not. I tend to agree with Haven that people are uncomfortable with the idea that they are not in full control of their own actions. However, my personal experience with the military made it much easier for me to accept that idea, as there were many days that I would consciously remember putting gear on and the next thing I remember is taking it off at the end of the day. This body of mine operated as it was trained to without the conscious mind getting in the way. Those experiences make the premise easier to accept, but I’m not convinced that it really changes anything.

        8. I never wrote any diaries, but I did start writing fictionalized non-fiction about my experiences. (read: Personal experiences formed into the frame of a short story or flash-fiction with one of those South Park styled CYA disclaimers: “none of this is real”) I haven’t published any of it at this point, but it is on the agenda.
          However, I did run into a few sources you might like to check out that described similar experiences to what I described above. I once saw a documentary about BUD/S and how the SEAL recruits would be so sleep deprived that they’d be quite literally asleep while running around carrying PT logs and whatever else.
          A more academic approach might be some of the books put out by Ret. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. He’s got two books “On Combat” and “On Killing” that do a pretty good job at describing some of the strange experiences military and law enforcement personnel face. For example, you’ll ask a cop after a shootout how many rounds he’s fired and he’d tell you he shot once, because that’s all he heard, despite the fact that when you check his magazine, it is completely empty. In high stress situations the brain seems to turn off unnecessary ‘systems’ in order to focus on survival.
          Grossman’s website: http://www.killology.com/bio.htm

      2. there is a great experiment that suggest the possibility of a deterministic explanation of the double slit experiment.
        see this:

    3. The concept of the soul is far older than the ancient Greeks. As long as man has existed, so has the concept of the soul. And I do not think the author meant absolute free will, just as you did not really mean ‘determinism’. I would venture to say that all reasonable people have a compatibilist view of free will. As for knocking up lots of women, while it is a perfectly natural thing to want to do, humans are not like animals, in that only one parent is needed to care for the offspring which mature very quickly. In this sense, irresponsible sex is not in cooperation with nature, and thus is a vain pursuit of pleasure. Seeing as how the sex urge is so strong, I don’t think we would even have a concept of moderation if we did not have at least some degree of free will.

      1. humans are not like animals

        Humans ARE animals. Humans behave based on incentive, environment, culture, genetics, hormones, etc. This is the “will” in determinism. You don’t have will, it’s the law of physics’ will. All animals respond to incentive. Evolution favors only those who reproduce. It cares nothing about morality. Guess who’s genes will be better preserved for posterity, the guy below or the chaste monk?
        http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/jay-williams-34-children-own-reality-series-pulled-1201513493/

      2. the appeal to nature is really not that good an argument. if you were able to explain why irresponsible sex will lead a man into unhappiness, i will sign that thing, but appealing to nature is too abstract to mean anything. evolution doesn’t work through conserving the good, but by favoring the better random aberrations. my point is: if evolution shaped me in a way that enables me to have a thought that is fundamentally novel, but also surpasses in success all that has been here before, would that not be a natural process?

        1. While i see your point, and it is true that evolution works by favoring the better aberrations, mere generation of offspring counts for little if the wellbeing of offspring is assured. In modern times, we have things like welfare to ensure no one starves to death, but the the psychological issues that many children not born in a stable family suffer from still exist. They are usually the ones that suffer from poor decisions the most; this is why morals were brought into the equation. Besides, evolution is by no means the ultimate arbiter of human actions, or their morality.
          As for evolution shaping you in a way that you behaved novelly, but better, I agree that would be a natural process.

        2. aren’t you ignoring the concept of hypergamy there? a smart man – at least before the advent of DNA – could have a hundred children raised by other fathers. also, the happiness of the parent is not necessarily dependent on the happiness of the child. a parent could choose to fuck a hundred women and give them children while only taking care of one primally. why would a man not choose to do that? and i don’t accept “because if everyone did that…” as an answer.
          i didn’t try to imply evolution was the arbiter. i was trying to imply that evolution doesn’t care whether something was “natural” the first time it occurred. the only thing that matters is whether it was sustained.

        3. A smart man could certainly do that – the point of the the article was that just because you do things, doesn’t necessarily mean you should. Ethics don’t pair well with an egocentric view of the world. 99.9 percent of the articles on this site condemn women for their selfishness and solipsism; we certainly want to avoid being the same way. Please don’t think I was trying to straw man you, i just feel that evolution has taken on buzzword status.

        4. that’s true. in fact, roosh’s article serves proof for the misconception a lot of people have about evolution. evolution is merely something that describes the change of heritable traits over successive generations.
          maybe it would be wise to stop condemning them for their selfishness – because in the end, people always choose what’s best for them – and embrace your own. if you have friends you love and enjoy being around, that’s worth more than a hundred women. but you don’t simply choose men as your brothers just because they have a penis. that would be like fucking a girl just because she is a girl. you choose to love those that share your values. and that choice is very selfish. if man wasn’t selfish, why would he bother to self-improve anyway and not simply serve women? heh?

    4. I am sure that there is no evidence that could compel you, but the soul is the software and the brain is the hardware. It is completely cogent and as a matter of human experience more intuitive than to say that brain and soul are one and the same.
      .
      No atheist can believe in free will. At best it is probabilistic action, which has been observed in non-humans.
      .
      I don’t completely agree with the OP but he seems to posit that there is a “flow” to things and that if you go with the flow that is natural while going against it is not. Murder certainly is not “natural” in this sense. Knocking up vast numbers of chicks may or may not be, but that would be a more focused discussion.

    5. I see another schism, this one with atheists. I went through my own personal struggle concerning this subject a long time ago, am now perfectly comfortable and am not going to complain or explain, like a wise man advised years ago. If you’re looking for a burning bush you won’t find it. A Paul on the road to Damascus moment is unlikely to happen in your life. If you’re walking on a nature trail and suddenly a bear charges, saying God please help me isn’t going to work. If you’re totally grounded in what you consider logic and science you will naturally disdain anything remotely spiritual. I sometimes think that I was misplaced as a Caucasian earthling. Once you get into the circle of life, the yin and yang it all slowly but surely begins to make sense. This fragile, dangerous but often beautiful earthly realm is only a sliver of the universe. There is no beginning or end. Hell even some very logical physicists posit space and time where the past, present and future live. I find atheism to be not only depressing but pardon the pun, a spiritual dead end.

      1. I am actually sympathetic to the plight of the modern Christian. Unlike Islam, I think modern Christianity is mostly benign. I’m not worried about “spiritual dead ends.” I don’t need any kind of self-help. I’m more interested in truth, no matter what it is.
        As an atheist, I think the theology behind Christianity is false, but much of the teachings are based in common sense and wisdom, as the ancients understood human nature quite well. Leftist ideology has some wacky beliefs that have been disproved, but they’re sticking around anyway because, as Upton Sinclair once said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Leftism relies on lies to sustain itself, which is why myself (and many atheists) so harshly criticize feminism. I am not your enemy, nor am I the only atheist here.
        There may end up being a philosophical schism in the manosphere, as you suggest. Many use their religion to justify their RedPill beliefs, but I don’t think this is going to change many opinions. I think the RedPill can be justified via Biology and Evolutionary Psychology. I think scientific evidence is going to take the manosphere a lot further than leaning on old religious arguments, many of which aren’t taken very seriously anymore.
        We agree on a lot of the same points, only how we get to the same answer is different.

        1. “Leftism relies on lies to sustain itself, which is why myself (and many atheists) so harshly criticize feminism. I am not your enemy, nor am I the only atheist here.”
          Please explain. Also, in the interest of fairness, there are plenty of lies on the right side of the spectrum, too. Climate change denial, denial of evolution, the big bang…
          I’m not a “leftist”, but I am certainly not sympathetic to the conservative leadership in this country (the US). They would rather wait until everything goes to hell and resolve the situation with war or martial law than fight their inner demons right now and save many lives in the process.
          I’m not saying war should never happen, but if you can see the potential for conflict up the road ahead, the prudent thing to do would be to take action now to avoid it.
          I see a lot of denial and posturing, not much substance, on the right. Seriously, be careful who you vote for. Just because you identify with the right does not mean you have to vote along those lines if there are bigger things at play.
          I will be voting for a Democrat in the next election, despite not sharing an identity with them. The Republicans are just too incompetent in this Brave New World of ours.

        2. Maybe if disaffected Right voters voted for a 3rd party (any would do) perhaps the Republican numbskulls would look at the lost votes and realize they need to change their approach and take a hardline stand, instead of trying to be a wishy washy Democrat clone. Voting Democrat as a protest merely gives the reactionary Republicans the idea that the way to win is to act more like the left. On the other hand, I might be giving Republicans too much credit in their ability to make these deductions.

        3. Please explain.

          Valid request. I’m not Right-wing, nor am I Left-wing–and I’m just not saying that. I think the whole idea that all politics can be plotted onto a 2-dimensional line is pretty silly. Our political options are more than just Left or Right, Coke or Diet Coke.
          The Right certainly have lots of issues, and the religious right in particular is a constant source of embarrassment for Republicans. That said, the power of the Religious Right is weak outside of the South. Liberals drastically overestimate their power.
          For example, most atheists get hung up about the 10 Commandments on courthouses in highly religious regions, and I agree that it’s a violation of the Constitution, but is that really all we have to complain about? Think about it. It’s really not much. They’re not burning witches at the stake in the town square. Their power is a tiny fraction of what it was hundreds of years ago.
          The average Christian is pretty benign, as I’ve said. They’re correct about traditional gender roles, which is the source of my sympathy. They come to that conclusion through Jesus, I come to that conclusion through Evolutionary Psychology. Two paths to the same conclusion.

    6. I think the free will argument made is along Nietzschean psychology lines. It doesn’t matter if free will exists or not, it’s how the belief in the idea affects your life. People who believe in free will generally have a more optimistic attitude towards life and therefore generally can endure more than people who are deterministic. I think the belief in free will is certainly in line with neomasculinity in general. One who feels in control of himself can overcome much.

      1. Nobody can honestly say that they know a god does or doesn’t exist, and anyone who says they know is full of it. There’s simply no compelling evidence that we can verify. Thus we’re ALL agnostic. What it comes down to is belief. You either believe (theist) or you don’t believe (atheist). Atheists simply look at the lack of evidence, and the poor arguments for a deity, and can’t help but disbelieve. I’m an atheist, but if I’m not then no one is.

        1. I find it interesting to see how you attribute the “poor” arguments to those that disagree with you.
          At this point i think it takes more faith NOT to believe than otherwise.
          The atheist is the one who tends to make the pedestrian arugment, with an invariable appeal to emotion, in order to (mis)characterize all people of faith as primitive.
          The true agnostic does NOT inject any bias into his or her remarks. They believe equally that there is no compelling evidence to believe or disbelieve in God.
          “There’s simply no compelling evidence that we can verify. Thus we’re ALL agnostic”
          Agnosticism and atheism are not the same thing. If you don’t have the undeniable evidence to disprove the existence of God, don’t speak as if you do. That would imply a belief, and it would prove once again that most of the subscribers of atheism are indeed subscribing to a religion, albeit a secular one.

        2. The atheist is the one who tends to make the pedestrian arugment, with an invariable appeal to emotion, in order to (mis)characterize all people of faith as primitive.

          I never claimed you were primitive. Watch the ad hominems.

          Agnosticism and atheism are not the same thing. If you don’t have the undeniable evidence to disprove the existence of God, don’t speak as if you do.

          Agnostic: Greek for “no knowledge.”
          Gnostic: Greek for “knowledge.”
          Atheist: Disbelief in a god.
          Theist: Belief in a god.
          There’s a difference between “knowing” and “believing.” They mean two completely different things.

          That would imply a belief, and it would prove once again that most of the subscribers of atheism are indeed subscribing to a religion, albeit a secular one.

          Atheism simply means “disbelief in a god or gods.” It means nothing else. Atheists come in many shapes and sizes, but an atheist is simply someone who doesn’t believe. They could be a liberal or a conservative, or whatever. It doesn’t matter. There are certainly people trying to push a secular religion, Leftists, but I am not a Leftist. Leftists and atheists aren’t the same thing.
          I assume you’re a Christian, am I right? Do you believe in the god of Islam? Do you believe in Krishna and the gods of Hinduism? I assume not. You are an atheist when it comes to those religions. The difference between me and you is that I simply believe in one less god than you do. So you know what it’s like to be an atheist towards other religions.

        3. “I never claimed you were primitive. Watch the ad hominems.”
          I never said you did. I said THE (speaking generally) atheist.
          “Agnostic: Greek for “no knowledge.”
          Gnostic: Greek for “knowledge.”
          Atheist: Disbelief in a god.
          Theist: Belief in a god.
          There’s a difference between “knowing” and “believing.” They mean two completely different things.”
          That doesn’t answer my question.
          Google the definition for agnostic: “a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God”
          Google the definition for atheist: “a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.”
          An agnostic would say that he or she doesn’t know if God exists because in essence you can’t know the unknowable, bu they wouldn’t then go as far as to say that this means they disbelieve in God, because they don’t know enough to know if he does or doesn’t.
          “Atheism simply means “disbelief in a god or gods.” It means nothing else. Atheists come in many shapes and sizes, but an atheist is simply someone who doesn’t believe. They could be a liberal or a conservative, or whatever. It doesn’t matter. There are certainly people trying to push a secular religion, Leftists, but I am not a Leftist. Leftists and atheists aren’t the same thing.”
          You don’t understand. You can claim atheism is this or that, but examples of what you quoted from me abound. Your remarks justify them. You don’t believe in God and i really don’t care if you don’t but you then go on to say that God doesn’t exist because there is no evidence he exists, as if this was naturally axiomatic. An absolute like that requires proof in order to justify the atheist’s perspective that their philosophy is rooted entirely in logic and reason. If you can’t supply undeniable proof, then it’s not a maxim at all but in fact a dogmatic religious statement. Do you see now?
          And yes, i’m well aware of so called conservative atheists like S. E. Cupp for instance. I question the legitimacy of that phenomena but that is a debate for another time.
          “I assume you’re a Christian, am I right? Do you believe in the god of Islam? Do you believe in Krishna and the gods of Hinduism? I assume not. You are an atheist when it comes to those religions. The difference between me and you is that I simply believe in one less god than you do. So you know what it’s like to be an atheist towards other religions.”
          Yes i am a Christian and yes I do believe that mohammad existed. Do i believe he had a divine origin? No. I believe that allah is real, however i would refer to him as satan. I have studied the hindu reg veda, shintoism, taoism, the canon of the 3 baskets of buddhism, confucianism, pre/post Christianity teachings, even satanism, and more i can’t think of back when i was an atheist. I found evidences (however marginal) of certain people who did exist in history corresponding to their respective faith/philosophy, i just didn’t intellectually consider them to be worthy of being apotheosized.
          i studies them all as a means of understanding how to oppose them. A rational tactical mind seeks to understand its enemy in order to understand its strength and weaknesses. I would even go so far as to call myself a former antitheist, since i genuinely believed that all people of all faiths were inferior and deserved to be annihilated.
          Later on however, i started to open my mind to the possibility of the supernatural, and theorized that any supernatural element described in most of these religions (excluding certain philosophies) may in fact be real, just not beneficial as these people believed. My epiphany will likely be of no interest to you, so i will refrain from mentioning it.
          Your assumption therefore, that i “don’t” believe in the existence of the gods of other religions therefore falls flat, because i do believe that any supernatural element of those religions may in fact be real, i just don’t believe that they are indicative of the one true faith or that they were representative of what the typical Christian would consider THE “God’ per se.
          A Christian is not someone who believes there is only one god, a Christian believes there is only one TRUE God.
          A person can make anything a “god” if he worships it enough.
          If we are going on the strict interpretation of the word however, we as Christians believe that the God of Abraham is the only true God. All the other ones are not gods, but possibly demons or the devil himself. This is why i’m not a polytheist, because i’m not saying there is more than one God, since i consider the other ones to be pretenders.
          My last remarks are of course dogmatic, but on a matter related to faith they would by necessity have to be, since i cannot prove them through logic and reason even if i present them as such.
          Logically speaking there’s no point in arguing this last point of mine. We can just agree to disagree on it. I just wanted to correct your assumption that i don’t “believe” in the supernatural elements of other faiths.

    7. If you don’t mind, i would like to respond to your issues.
      1: The absence of traditional evidence confirming the existing of a soul is by no means an indication that it does not exist, anymore than the lack of visual observation of microorganisms during the dark ages denied their existence.
      The best the purely rational mind can do is believe that maybe it does, and maybe it doesn’t exist, since no undeniable evidence exists either way.
      Faith and science can find mutual grounds but only when they respect each other’s space and strength. Faith itself is not supposed to make “sense” in the traditional understanding of the word, otherwise it wouldn’t be faith anymore, it would be logic. Believing something because it has been proven to you is hardly something a deity would be impressed with.
      2: I believe that determinism in and of itself, is only a partial understanding of the ultimate epistemological knowledge a human being can possibly obtain within his lifetime.
      Given my studies on the matter i believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that determinism and the concept of free will are bound together by a concomitant effect.
      That is to say, they (along with cause and effect) make up a triumvirate of reality that leads to a consequential result that theoretical satisfies (or nearly satisfies) all possible contingencies.
      Free will * cause and effect = consequential actions that affect free will, with the cycle repeating in perpetuity, since the CA’s in question will invariably affect FW to the point that one may consider them “destined” as a result.
      For example:
      Free will: I choose to take a later train to work instead of an earlier one since i always end up losing more sleep by catching the earlier one.
      Cause and effect: This causes me to arrive at work later, which therefore penalizes me at work.
      Consequential action: this is held against me in the form of disciplinary measure, which may lead to my termination.
      The average mind may take that as a sign of “destiny” or the belief that getting fired was because of forces beyond his control…
      “why did the train end up late today of all days! I got fired because of that one point! It’s my destiny to fail!”
      …when in fact it was not (the conventional understanding of) destiny at all, it was the choices you made multiplied by the consequences resulting from a cause and effect chain of events you initiated in your actions. Since the person is at least twice disconnected from the “murphy’s law” effect taking place here, the person may incorrectly believe that the end result was the fault of the stars (as an example) instead of within themselves.
      The person may however correctly state that it was their “destiny” to fail if they realize that they themselves set the events in motion that led to that so called destiny taking place. They would be a self fulfilling prophecy in that regard.
      Humans very rarely plan for circumstances twice or more removed from their default awareness, and very rarely learn when the information is twice or more removed from their perceptible range. In layman’s terms we don’t tend to think (much less plan) for events too far into the future, and we don’t learn enough from the history we share with other humans to actually benefit from it.
      This is why my belief is that free will is only one part of reality, cause and effect and consequence are the other two. These three combined explain how free will and determinism are 2 parts to a perfect equilateral triangle, albeit with slight modifications to the conventional understanding of both.
      3: Murder and extravagant sensual pursuits are only “natural” in nature when one does not take into account that the concept of either is (generally speaking) inapplicable to the animal kingdom, since murder implies a motive and that implies a higher intelligence that we do not normally correspond to animals. The correct term is to state that animals “kill” each other, since doing so removes any sort of propensity for higher thought we normally associate with a higher organism like Man.
      Sensual pursuits is for the most part the same, given that animals do not pursue pleasure for the sake of pleasure’s sake, but specifically for the act of procreation. To an animal, the pleasure that comes with having sex is not the driving force behind the instinctual motivation to reproduce, but rather a byproduct of it.
      If i understand Quintus correctly, he is simply stating that we should emulate the natural qualities that the animal kingdom exhibits
      Protection, strength, responsibility, etc.
      In doing so we given these concepts added (and evolved) meaning, since to an animal they are simply a means to and end but to a Man they are fundamental properties of responsibility and maturity.

      1. 1. This is an old religious argument. Dawkins pretty much destroyed it with the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument. You can’t disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster either. Do unicorns exist until we can prove otherwise? No. If there’s no evidence we conclude unicorns probably do not exist, but since it’s an unknown we can never say for certain. BUT… that’s an extraordinarily weak argument to build principles upon. Should we add unicorns to our principles as well? Principles based on the Flying Spaghetti Monster? There’s just as much evidence for those as for souls.

        Free will: I choose to take a later train to work instead of an earlier one since i always end up losing more sleep by catching the earlier one.

        2. That wasn’t a “free” decision. There are many external coercions here. Why do you need sleep? Because your body is wired up to require it. Perhaps you cannot concentrate if you don’t get sleep, again something not within your control. Perhaps you’re an insomniac and suffer from a sleeping disorder? Why are you taking a train and not some other form of transportation? See where I’m going with this? There is a WILL, but it’s not yours and you’re not free. The “Will” is that of our unconscious processes, our genetics, our hormones, our culture, the Laws of Physics, etc. You’ve never made a single “choice” in your entire life that wasn’t put in your lap by an infinitely long list of things not in your control. Learn about determinism, because I’m tired of trying to explaining it for the Nth time. This is not my first comment on the subject.
        3. Murder, manslaughter, whatever. I think you’re missing my point. Claiming that something is good because it’s natural is an Appeal to Nature fallacy.

        given that animals do not pursue pleasure for the sake of pleasure’s sake, but specifically for the act of procreation.

        Where is your evidence that various animals don’t experience pleasure during sex? I’m surprised that you can state this so conclusively, since we both know it’s something you can not speak authoritatively on. What it boils down to is religious folk want so desperately to believe we’re not animals, but we absolutely are.

        1. “1. This is an old religious argument. Dawkins pretty much destroyed it with the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument. You can’t disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster either. Do unicorns exist until we can prove otherwise? No. If there’s no evidence we conclude unicorns probably do not exist, but since it’s an unknown we can never say for certain. BUT… that’s an extraordinarily weak argument to build principles upon. Should we add unicorns to our principles as well? Principles based on the Flying Spaghetti Monster? There’s just as much evidence for those as for souls.
          Free will: I choose to take a later train to work instead of an earlier one since i always end up losing more sleep by catching the earlier one.”
          Dawkins didn’t destroy anything, that is your take on it. He offered a theory (i’m assuming you are referring to his take in “TGSOE”) on it, but it’s no more factual than your average atheist speculation on faith.
          You are injecting a red herring in order to remove yourself from answering me. No one here is arguing for the existence of unicorns, what those on my faith argue is that there is more beyond the perceptible range of humans to arrogantly proclaim that there is nothing beyond the perceptible range of humans.
          Just as it is with our justice system, the burden of proof for disproving something lies on you, since atheists are the ones attempting to deny the existence of God. We however are content with merely choosing to believe God exists. Point nullfied.
          “That wasn’t a “free” decision. There are many external coercions here. Why do you need sleep? Because your body is wired up to require it. Perhaps you cannot concentrate if you don’t get sleep, again something not within your control. Perhaps you’re an insomniac and suffer from a sleeping disorder? Why are you taking a train and not some other form of transportation? See where I’m going with this? There is a WILL, but it’s not yours and you’re not free. The “Will” is that of our unconscious processes, our genetics, our hormones, our culture, the Laws of Physics, etc. You’ve never made a single “choice” in your entire life that wasn’t put in your lap by an infinitely long list of things not in your control. Learn about determinism, because I’m tired of trying to explaining it for the Nth time. This is not my first comment on the subject.”
          That is all your choice to believe, and the cause and effect of it is that i choose to disagree. The consequence of it all is that we will continue to discuss this further. The moment you offered your remark on here it became your “destiny” to engage me in higher discourse 🙂
          You should also reference my remark on determinism, in which i stated that modification would have to be made to it in order for it to be compliant with my theory on it.
          “3. Murder, manslaughter, whatever. I think you’re missing my point. Claiming that something is good because it’s natural is an Appeal to Nature fallacy.
          given that animals do not pursue pleasure for the sake of pleasure’s sake, but specifically for the act of procreation.
          Where is your evidence that various animals don’t experience pleasure during sex? I’m surprised that you can state this so conclusively, since we both know it’s something you can not speak authoritatively on. What it boils down to is religious folk want so desperately to believe we’re not animals, but we absolutely are.”
          And claiming a belief to the contrary is merely an ipse dixit remark that provides no substantiation other than the fact of disagreement.
          Furthermore, you fundamentally misunderstood my remark about animals and pleasure. Nowhere did i state or otherwise imply that animals do not experience pleasure during procreation. Please reread my remark there. I said that they pursue coitus for the purpose of recreation, the pleasure that comes with it is a byproduct of that endeavor.

        2. You are injecting a red herring in order to remove yourself from answering me. No one here is arguing for the existence of unicorns, what those on my faith argue is that there is more beyond the perceptible range of humans to arrogantly proclaim that there is nothing beyond the perceptible range of humans.

          It’s not a red herring, you just don’t understand my point. I’ll try to break it down for you.
          1. There is no evidence for souls.
          2. There is no evidence for unicorns.
          3. Thus, why are we building principles based on souls but not unicorns?
          This isn’t a red herring, it’s an argument by Reductio ad absurdum. If we don’t need evidence for souls, then why do we need evidence for unicorns, or even reptilians? I could just as easily argue that Obama is a reptilian, and you can’t prove he isn’t. There’s as much evidence that Obama is a reptilian as there is that souls exist. Zero. It’s not a red herring, I’m paraphrasing your argument to help you understand why it’s ridiculous.
          The fact is, there is no compelling evidence for unicorns, reptilians, nor souls. Claiming souls should be held to a different standard of proof is a special pleading fallacy.

          That is all your choice to believe, and the cause and effect of it is that i choose to disagree.

          Determinism has the strongest evidence to support it. It’s not above debate, however. The arguments for free will are weaker. If you choose to side with the weaker of the two, then that is your choice, or is it? Perhaps something external is coercing that response, such as your religion? Determinism strikes again! 😉

          The moment you offered your remark on here it became your “destiny” to engage me in higher discourse 🙂

          I responded because I could do no other. If I could I would have.

          And claiming a belief to the contrary is merely an ipse dixit remark that provides no substantiation other than the fact of disagreement.

          I think it’s pretty clear that we’re animals since we share the same attributes, such as organs, DNA, form of procreation, etc. I think the evidence that humans are animals is well established and accepted by the scientific community. It is not “ipse dixit,” as you claim. What counter-evidence do you have that we are NOT animals?
          Please note there’s a difference between skepticism and pseudo-skepticism–the latter of which is when something is held to an unrealistically high standard of proof, even while other things aren’t. An example of pseudo-skepticism would be denying that humans are animals, despite the large amount of evidence to the contrary, and then requiring little to no evidence when it comes to the existence of souls.
          I really don’t care about whether or not animals feel pleasure. I’m sure it’s something that could be proved or disproved with a brain scan. It’s not a topic I care about deeply debating because it’s beside my original point. My point was that his principle is an Appeal to Nature fallacy, and I stand behind it.

        3. “It’s not a red herring, you just don’t understand the point. Here, I’ll try to break it down for you.
          1. There is no evidence for souls.
          2. There is no evidence for unicorns.
          3. Thus, why are we building principles based on souls but not unicorns?
          This isn’t a red herring, it’s an argument by Reductio ad absurdum. If we don’t need evidence for souls, then why do we need evidence for unicorns or reptilians? Obama is a reptilian, and you can’t prove he isn’t so let’s add this as a principle of neo-masculinity as well, right?”
          Yes it is a red herring, because no one was talking about unicorns until you brought it up in your elaborative remarks to me. The google definition of a red herring is: “something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting.
          “the book is fast-paced, exciting, and full of red herrings”
          You may disagree that your remark about unicorns is misleading but you can’t disagree that it is at least distracting, since we have gone from discussing the existence of God to now discussing the possibility of unicorns.
          What you are now using vox nihili is an attempt to dismiss my remark as absurd by using nothing more substantial than a red herring absurd example of unicorns. You are bringing up mentions that bear no direct relevance to the argument to prevent you from actually addressing the points of contention being made by me. This is a typical atheist type waltz around an intelligent person of faith’s points of contention 🙂
          “Your argument is that we should accept the existence of souls as a principle, but not unicorns or reptilians? Please clarify. The fact is, there is no compelling evidence for ANY of the above. Claiming souls are different is a special pleading fallacy.””
          Of course there is evidence for the existence of God. If there was none only zealots would believe. There are examples in the medical community where people have recovered from seemingly mortal wounds or conditions which has ended up baffling scientists. There has been as yet no definitive explanation for that, merely theories. While i will not say that they are all due to divine involvement, you can’t for your part prove they weren’t from divine involvement either.
          Incidentally, would it surprise you to know there is such a thing as Christian scientists who reconcile both faith and reason? I am just such an example but i am by no means the only one. Do you need a famous example?
          On a tangential note, didn’t the scientific community believe that the Coelacanth was extinct until its recent discovery made the scientific community change its collective mind? Do you really believe something like this is exclusive to the domain of extinct fish? Do you believe ipse dixit that “every animal that is considered extinct must therefore be extinct?” I’m curious.
          “Determinism has the strongest evidence to support it. It’s not above debate, however. The arguments for free will are weaker. If you choose to side with the weaker of the two, then that is your choice, or is it? Perhaps something external is coercing that response, such as your religion? ;)”
          Perhaps if you read with greater understanding you would have noticed i am not in fact rejecting determinism, but rather rejecting your immutable perception of it 😉
          “I responded because I could do no other.”
          So you believe you were compelled to respond? Is your atheism therefore a belief that forces you to respond to beliefs to the contrary? Interesting. 🙂
          “I think it’s pretty clear that we’re animals since we share the same attributes, such as organs, DNA, form of procreation, etc. The question is, what evidence is there that we are NOT animals?”
          Sigh. You still aren’t reading with understanding. Now you are using the straw man to mischaracterize my argument to say i was disagreeing that Man biologically is part of the animal kingdom. Tsk.
          “Please note there’s a difference between skepticism and pseudo-skepticism–the latter of which is when something is held to an unrealistically high standard of proof, even when other things aren’t. An example of pseudo-skepticism would be denying that humans are animals, despite the large amount of evidence to the contrary, and then requiring little to no evidence when it comes to the existence of souls. In other words: cherry picking. ;)”
          Your mention of pseudoskepticism doesn’t prove i am engaging in it, it merely proves that you believe i am. Big difference. Since i was in no way denying that humans are biologically a part of the animal kingdom, i will take this as yet another red herring injection from you and solipsist rejection of actually addressing what i have to say.
          As i said earlier, since its people like you out to prove that God doesn’t exist, the burden of proof lies on you to actually do so. Just as it is in a court of law, the burden of proof lies on the accuser.
          The reason i am holding you to a higher standard than those on my side is because your side presumes to represent logic and reason, therefore in regards to the scientific method more is intellectually expected of you than the ease and convenience of simple belief normally found with people of faith.
          You have appointed yourselves the arbiters of logic and reason, and therefore you must prove logically and reasonably why there is no God, using the scientific method. You would be expected to do no less for proposing a new scientific theory as an actual fact, so this is not something that is unreasonable or illogical on my part to expect.
          If however you can’t actually disprove God, yet still persist in your opinions that He doesn’t exist, then you actually aren’t abiding by logic and reason, you are merely engaging in simple BELIEF of your own to state that God doesn’t exist. A true scientific mind does not allow bias of any sort to mar his trial and error based efforts to prove or disprove something using the scientific method.
          This would mean you have more in common with people of faith than not, ironically enough 😉
          People of faith aren’t out to prove to you that God exists (those would be muslims actually lol) they just want to be left alone to believe. Your side however tends to get in our faces and demand we prove the existence of God, which expects us to prove logically what we have come to believe spiritually.
          The problem with this is that faith is not supposed to operate as logic…if faith could be proven it wouldn’t be faith anymore, it would be logic. God would hardly be impressed with someone that believes in him because he or she was logically shown the proof that God exists.
          To summarize: we don’t care if you believe in God, just don’t try and pass off your beliefs as fact to those that do, since you can’t prove them as factual.
          It might surprise you to know i am a former atheist, which is why i understand your position far more effectively than you do mine.
          “I really don’t care about whether or not animals feel pleasure. My point was that it was an Appeal to Nature fallacy, and I stand behind it.”
          Your point is to stroke your own ego by using terms that your bias is ill capable of applying objectively. A solipsist (if not sciolist) interpretation of my remarks (and Quintus’) makes you no more qualified to refute them than Dawkins himself. Indeed, nothing you have said thus far actually has.

        4. Jesus. That post was ridiculously long and hard to follow. I’m only replying to the highlights.

          Yes it is a red herring, because no one was talking about unicorns until you brought it up

          Sorry, it’s not a red herring. I paraphrased with unicorns because, like souls, there’s no evidence for their existence. However, you have a religious bias that makes you want to believe in souls, so I substituted “souls” with “unicorns” so you could understand how ridiculous your argument sounds to someone without your bias. Red herrings completely change the subject, but I never left the subject. My point is that “souls” do not get a free ride in the logic department.

          Of course there is evidence for the existence of God. … There are examples in the medical community where people have recovered from seemingly mortal wounds or conditions…

          When something is unexplained that is not EVIDENCE of God. You do understand that, right? The unknown is simply the unknown and nothing more. Shoehorning your god into things that we don’t know, when in fact there could be an alternate explanation, is intellectually deceitful.

          As i said earlier, since its people like you out to prove that God doesn’t exist, the burden of proof lies on you to actually do so.

          Wrong, it’s impossible to disprove metaphysical claims. No one will ever disprove your god nor any god/gods for that matter. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The claim is that your God exists. The skeptic doubts the claim.
          Daniel: God exists.
          Haven: There’s no compelling evidence that God exists.
          According to you, the burden of proof is on me. So let’s substitute the unicorn into your logic and see if it holds.
          Daniel: unicorns exist.
          Haven: There’s no compelling evidence that unicorns exist.
          By your logic, gods and unicorns exist until proven otherwise. Wrong. That’s not how it actually works. The burden of proof is on YOU.

          If however you can’t actually disprove God, yet still persist in your opinions that He doesn’t exist, then you actually aren’t abiding by logic and reason, you are merely engaging in simple BELIEF of your own to state that God doesn’t exist.

          As I explained elsewhere, it’s impossible to disprove metaphysical claims. I never said a deity absolutely doesn’t exist, I said I don’t believe one exists because there’s no compelling evidence. It is perfectly reasonable to doubt the existence of something when there’s no evidence.

          To summarize: we don’t care if you believe in God, just don’t try and pass off your beliefs as fact to those that do, since you can’t prove them as factual.

          Strawman. When did I ever claim my beliefs were facts? There’s no evidence for your god or any gods, despite millennia of fervent searching. Thus, doubting is perfectly rational. Do you believe in everything for which there is no evidence, or just your god, souls, etc?

          Your point is to stroke your own ego

          Ad hominem fallacy. Instead of showing that his principle wasn’t an Appeal to Nature fallacy, you resorted to a personal attack. I’ll assume that indicates capitulation.

        5. “Jesus. That post was ridiculously long and hard to follow. I’m only replying to the highlights”
          Why was it hard to follow? I presented it all quite logically. Meh.
          “Sorry, it’s not a red herring. I paraphrased with unicorns because, like souls, there’s no evidence for their existence. However, you have a religious bias that makes you want to believe in souls, so I substituted “souls” with “unicorns” so you could understand how ridiculous your argument sounds to someone without your bias. Red herrings completely change the subject, but I never left the subject. My point is that “souls” do not get a free ride in the logic department.”
          Sigh. you don’t believe it’s a red herring even though i supplied you with a google definition to demonstrate that you were at least “distracting” from the debate with a meaningless contribution.
          Your definition of red herring is only an absolute definition in your own mind. A red herring is ANYTHING that can mislead or otherwise distract from the debate, such as the case now.
          But just to bring an end to this pointless exchange, i don’t believe in unicorns HOWEVER this does not by logical necessity mean they don’t exist. I will not be so arrogant as to state that something does not exist or has never existed because my mind has not beheld it through perception or research. Only the solipsist believes in the absolutes that come with a mind that only recognizes their bias for or against something as undeniable fact.
          (Dis)Belief in God is nowhere near a natural absolute like with thinking that 2+2=4 and can’t equal anything else. You would do well to consider that.
          “When something is unexplained that is not EVIDENCE of God. You do understand that, right? The unknown is simply the unknown and nothing more. Shoehorning your god into things that we don’t know, when in fact there could be an alternate explanation, is intellectually deceitful.”
          The absence of evidence for something is not an evidence in itself that it does not exist. Can’t you see? Your remark isn’t evidence that you are right, that is your INTERPRETATION of a lack of evidence. We are well into the realm of philosophy here, and any true philosopher recognizes that the unknowns are NOT something you can label for or against as easily as you just did here. To state emphatically that something “is not” as you just did is not philosophy, it’s dogma.
          The only intellectual deceit is in point blank dismissing the mere POSSIBILITY of divine intervention simply because your secular solipsist motivation compels you to do so. Nice try.
          “Wrong, it’s impossible to disprove metaphysical claims. No one will ever disprove your god nor any god/gods for that matter. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The claim is that your God exists. The skeptic doubts the claim.
          Daniel: God exists.
          Haven: There’s no compelling evidence that God exists.
          According to you, the burden of proof is on me. So let’s substitute the unicorn into your logic and see if it holds.
          Daniel: unicorns exist.
          Haven: There’s no compelling evidence that unicorns exist.”
          No, you are wrong for thinking i’m wrong. I showed you why earlier. Since you want to claim reason and logic as part of your intellectual domain, and since we exist in a republican society that recognizes that we are all innocent until proven guilty, YOU must therefore prove WHY the belief in God is wrong using the scientific method that logic and reason consist of. If you can’t, then your belief that God DOESN’T exist is just that, a (solipsist) belief, and not an evidence for a factual position against a belief in God, and you should just therefore agree to disagree. The best you can claim is that he “probably does, probably doesn’t exist” as the typical agnostic does, which would mean you would have to stop calling yourself an atheist as a result.
          Your mention (again) of unicorns is (again) your red herring attempt to refuse acknowledging the intellectual inadequacy of your fundamental argument.
          “As I explained elsewhere, it’s impossible to disprove metaphysical claims. I never said a deity absolutely doesn’t exist, I said I don’t believe one exists because there’s no compelling evidence. It is perfectly reasonable to doubt the existence of something when there’s no evidence.”
          Then i ask you to self adhere to logic and appoint yourself a label more befitting to this statement aka agnostic. Or at least stop speaking as if you had one foot in both philosophies in order to push a bias for the one you actually subscribe to.
          “Strawman. When did I ever claim my beliefs were facts? There’s no evidence for your god or any gods, despite millennia of fervent searching. Thus, doubting is perfectly rational. Do you believe in everything for which there is no evidence, or just your god, souls, etc?”
          By debating on me and my requests that you NOT try to deny the existence of God through his manifestations as a possibility. You did it earlier in this remark, when you completely dismissed the mere possibility of divine intervention in medical mysteries.
          You can’t play both sides of the fence friend. You either believe that “it’s impossible to disprove metaphysical claims” or you do, such as you attempted to do with my medical mystery reference.
          So which is it? If you are taking a true agnostic remark, i will apologize for thinking you were passing off your words as facts. You will however have to admit that the medical mystery remark i mentioned at least allows for the possibility of divine intervention, before i do so.
          “Ad hominem fallacy. Instead of showing that his principle wasn’t an Appeal to Nature fallacy, you resorted to a personal attack. I’ll assume that indicates capitulation.”
          I would hardly call my mention of you wanting to “stroke your own ego” a personal attack, anymore than your mention in the beginning of how my previous response to you was “ridiculously long/hard to follow” lol.
          As far as your NF remark, i kindly refer you to the historical works of Arnold Toynbee and JD Unwin to show you that when society does what is (morally) natural. it functions far better and far more efficiently than when it does not.

        6. For the sake of time, I’m going to boil down your argument to its core. I believe I can sum up your argument pretty quickly. Let me know if this is accurate:
          Your claim: “Atheists say there is no God, but they lack sufficient evidence to prove there is no God. Therefore, atheism is a religion like Christianity.”
          Is this an accurate description of your opinion? As an atheist, I’ve heard this argument many times before. I think it tries to misconstrue what skepticism actually is. Here’s why it’s wrong:
          1. Your argument is a straw man. You keep asserting that I claim a god doesn’t exist as a “fact,” when I’ve never made any sort of statement and have been very clear on my stance. An atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in a god, not someone who claims to have proof that a god doesn’t exist. You keep attacking a straw man.
          2. If there’s no evidence for something, that doesn’t mean it’s 50/50 whether it’s true. For example, if someone claims Obama is a reptilian, but they lack the evidence to support this statement, that doesn’t mean it’s a 50/50 chance whether or not Obama is a reptilian. “God” doesn’t get a free ride in the logic department. Thus, the faith required by theists, and the “faith” required by atheists, is not even close to the same amount of faith.
          Since we can never be absolutely sure of anything, we must assign weights to claims. A complete lack of evidence, especially after searching for evidence, is sufficient to produce doubt. Without evidence, doubting is perfectly rational. However, I still accept there’s a small chance that Obama could be a reptilian, or a god exists, however unlikely both may be.
          3. Due to the amazing amount of effort and brain power that’s been put into finding proof for a god, and how spectacular the failure has been, this only reinforces reason to doubt. We’re talking millennia of searching and arguing, and nothing but empty hands from theists. This only reinforces the atheist position, giving it more weight.
          4. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The claim is that a god exists. The skeptic doubts the claim. In the court of law, the prosecution makes the claim (i.e. the defendant committed a crime). The defense plays the role of the skeptic, and the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Thus, the burden of proof is on YOU. Using your logic, unicorns exist until proven otherwise, and Obama is a reptilian until proven otherwise.
          5. The problem with your argument is that it actually doesn’t help your case. Let’s say you’re right and that SMALL probability that a god exists is actually true. (Remember, it’s not 50/50.) That doesn’t mean it’s YOUR god, the Christian god. It could very well be the god of Islam, of Hinduism, it could be Zeus, or a completely different god with a completely different nature unimagined by humans. It’s one thing to claim a god (or gods) exist, it’s a completely different level of faith to claim my God exists.
          Thus, when it comes to relying on “faith,” you and I are not even close to being in the same boat.

        7. “Is this an accurate description of your opinion? As an atheist, I’ve heard this argument many times before. I think it tries to misconstrue what skepticism actually is. Here’s why it’s wrong:”
          It’s close enough.
          “1. Your argument is a straw man. You keep asserting that I claim a god doesn’t exist as a “fact,” when I’ve never made any sort of statement and have been very clear on my stance. An atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in a god, not someone who claims to have proof that a god doesn’t exist. You keep attacking a straw man.”
          It wasn’t a straw man because you’ve made it pretty clear you don’t believe that there is evidence to support the belief that God exists, despite the fact that you lack the proof to scientifically deny any evidences i referenced or any possibility for evidence. That is a DEFINITIVE statement, one which indicates an atheist perspective and not an agnostic one. You’re just trying to confuse the issue here, or maybe you don’t understand your perspective well enough to self critique it objectively. You can’t in one breath claim an agnostic approach (what if, maybe, etc) and then claim in another breath that there is no evidence that God exists. It’s either/or. You either believe that God doesn’t exist (an absolute) or you believe there’s a possibility he does/doesn’t exist (non absolute) What you are doing is jumping from one perspective to another when it suits you.
          “2. If there’s no evidence for something, that doesn’t mean it’s 50/50 whether it’s true. For example, if someone claims Obama is a reptilian, but they lack the evidence to support this statement, that doesn’t mean it’s a 50/50 chance whether or not Obama is a reptilian. “God” doesn’t get a free ride in the logic department. Thus, the faith required by theists, and the “faith” required by atheists, is not even close to the same amount of faith.”
          I never broke it down into that ratio. I never said 50/50, i simply said it was possible. You simply can’t logically deny the possibility of something existing if you lack the scientific proof to justify the belief that it doesn’t exist. If you try, you end up expressing a viewpoint rooted in belief, one which coincides with a traditionally religious one in that both are not rooted in logic, but merely subjective perspective.
          “Since we can never be absolutely sure of anything, we must assign weights to claims. A complete lack of evidence, especially after searching for evidence, is sufficient to produce doubt. Without evidence, doubting is perfectly rational. However, I still accept there’s a small chance that Obama could be a reptilian, or a god exists, however unlikely both may be.”
          Doubting is fine, but you have to be careful NOT to engage in absolutism, because it confuses those you address and makes it seem as though you are intellectually confident enough to express a definitive opinion on a subject when you lack the sufficient evidence to declare that it doesn’t exist. The danger in doing so of course, is that you put yourself at risk for being interpreted as a secular solipsist, or someone who believes that God doesn’t exist because they lack the critical thinking to accept the possibility of any view to the contrary. With that being said, are you stating that you are an atheist or an agnostic? I would like a proclamation of your (non)beliefs, if you don’t mind.
          Incidentally, you might benefit from a read of a philosophical doctrine of Jainism, called Anekantavada. It’s the belief that there is no universal truth and that we all share pieces of it among ourselves because of our differing perspectives. From my research i’ve come to think of it as one of the most agnostic friendly pseudoreligions out there, in that it’s the religion of accepting other viewpoints as possible, including non religions. Since you seem to be a fan of determinism (as Spinoza was) and since you don’t seem to believe in a supernatural God (as the Jainists traditionally don’t) you would probably appreciate what it represents.
          “3. Due to the amazing amount of effort and brain power that’s been put into finding proof for a god, and how spectacular the failure has been, this only reinforces reason to doubt. We’re talking millennia of searching and arguing, and nothing but empty hands from theists. This only reinforces the atheist position, giving it more weight.”
          As i said to you before, at this point it takes more belief to believe God doesn’t exist than to believe he does. You see it as “empty hands” because you only consider evidence to be legitimate if it can be presented in a laboratory. Just because something can’t be proven in the lab doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Once again, if faith could be proven it wouldn’t be faith anymore, it would be logic. You can’t definitively speak on something you don’t know about. An unknown unknown is not something a critical thinker would take a definitive position on, which has been my issue with you from the beginning, moreso because you jump from the definitive to the theoretical (agnostic) when it suits you.
          “4. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The claim is that a god exists. The skeptic doubts the claim. In the court of law, the prosecution makes the claim (i.e. the defendant committed a crime). The defense plays the role of the skeptic, and the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Thus, the burden of proof is on YOU. Using your logic, unicorns exist until proven otherwise, and Obama is a reptilian until proven otherwise.”
          We are going to have to agree to disagree here, since you can’t seem to understand that the accuser has no true right to demand proof from the accused. That is not how our system of law works. The way you just presented it seems to be a non sequitur, in that you stated how a defendant is innocent until proven guilty and yet you believe the burden is on faith (the defendant) to prove God exists to the prosecutor (atheism).
          Perhaps the issue here is that you forget that the prosecution doesn’t just make the claim, he or she is ALSO burdened with actually proving it before the peers of the defendant. Again, if you think that God doesn’t exist, intellectually speaking the burden is on YOU to prove as such through the scientific method, since people of faith don’t care if you do or don’t.
          “5. The problem with your argument is that it actually doesn’t help your case. Let’s say you’re right and that SMALL probability that a god exists is actually true. (Remember, it’s not 50/50.) That doesn’t mean it’s YOUR god, the Christian god. It could very well be the god of Islam, of Hinduism, it could be Zeus, or a completely different god with a completely different nature unimagined by humans. It’s one thing to claim a god (or gods) exist, it’s a completely different level of faith to claim my God exists.
          Thus, when it comes to relying on “faith,” you and I are not even close to being in the same boat.”
          Ahh, now you’re exhibiting some critical thought. Yes you are correct, i can’t undeniably prove the God i believe in is the one true God, but therein lies the point: i’m actually not trying to prove my God IS God, i’m just showing you that the POSSIBILITY that God exists does exist, since you can’t logically disprove an unknown.
          As Socrates once said, the only wisdom is knowing that we know nothing.
          I believe that God exists, but i can’t prove Him to you, because that would require a logical (scientific) approach.
          Conversely you think God doesn’t exist, but you can’t prove He doesn’t because science can’t disprove a metaphysical unknown.
          Since i am the believer here, i don’t expect you to understand my religious perspective but as a former atheist, i do expect you to at least (and intellectually speaking) ALLOW for the possibility that God exists, since you can’t undeniably prove He doesn’t. A scientific approach by very definition requires more work and effort to prove/disprove something than simple belief, so again, the burden of proof is on you to state through the scientific method that God absolutely doesn’t exist. There is evidence that God exists even if you don’t consider it as traditional evidence, and since you can’t undeniably dispute it, the best you can do is take the agnostic approach (maybe) as you seemed to be doing just here. My earlier mention of medical miracles was just the beginning of my evidences, indeed, you can look up PSR B1509-58 aka the Hand of God for yet more evidence that God exists.
          https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/64/PSR_B1509-58_full.jpg/1024px-PSR_B1509-58_full.jpg
          I’m sure you see it as no more than a collection of gases, i however see it as more proof (however deniable) that God does indeed exist.
          If after all this you now state definitively that you are an agnostic, then we can just leave it at that. The only other recourse is that we agree to disagree or simply engage in further intellectual fencing.

        8. You either believe that God doesn’t exist (an absolute) or you believe there’s a possibility he does/doesn’t exist (non absolute)

          False dichotomy. Despite posting the definition of an atheist elsewhere (“a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods”) you fail to comprehend it. We’ve already established that nothing can be known absolutely, so we rely on the weight of evidence, so your argument that disbelief is an absolute is a false dilemma. There are NO absolutes, even for the claim that Obama is a reptilian.
          However, that is a pretty piss poor argument that Obama is a reptilian. You’re basically arguing, “I believe Obama is a reptilian and you can’t disprove it, so why don’t you just admit you’re an agnostic on the subject and admit Obama could be a reptilian?” It’s a non-argument.
          Let’s compare two things you wrote:

          You either believe that God doesn’t exist (an absolute) … i don’t believe in unicorns HOWEVER this does not by logical necessity mean they don’t exist. … What you are doing is jumping from one perspective to another when it suits you.

          Hypocrite. Using your logic from the first quote: You either believe that unicorns don’t exist (an absolute) or you believe there’s a possibility unicorns does/doesn’t exist (non absolute). You can’t have it both ways. YOU are the one who’s jumping around and changing his argument. Stop projecting your dishonest tactics onto me.

          You simply can’t logically deny the possibility of something existing if you lack the scientific proof to justify the belief that it doesn’t exist.

          Straw man. I never denied the possibility, I simply stated the probability is small based on the lack of evidence. I’ve written this over and over and over ad nauseum, but you keep trying to straw man me. Nothing is absolutely certain, but that does nothing for your god or any god.

          We are going to have to agree to disagree here…

          We aren’t “disagreeing” because it isn’t up for debate. You are just flat out wrong. You simply don’t understand how burden of proof works. You rely on fallacious arguments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

          i’m just showing you that the POSSIBILITY that God exists does exist, since you can’t logically disprove an unknown.

          And neither can you disprove the existence of unicorns. What’s your point? Still trying to straw man?

          i do expect you to at least (and intellectually speaking) ALLOW for the possibility that God exists

          Straw man, again.

          There is evidence that God exists even if you don’t consider it as traditional evidence

          Fact: Ignorance is not evidence of a deity, no matter how bad you want it to be.

          If after all this you now state definitively that you are an agnostic

          From your own definition of an agnostic: “a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God”
          I don’t believe in a god because there is no evidence. Therefore, I am an atheist, not an agnostic. I accept the possibility one (or many gods) may exist, including Zeus and Oden, but without evidence doubt is rational. Not sure how many times I have no write this for you to understand it. A couple million more times?

        9. “False dichotomy. Despite posting the definition of an atheist ”
          elsewhere (“a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods”) you fail to comprehend it. We’ve already established that nothing can be known absolutely, so we rely on the weight of evidence, so your argument that disbelief is an absolute is a false dilemma. There are NO absolutes, even for the claim that Obama is a reptilian.”
          Here we have another red herring remark, or an ad absurdo argument if you prefer. I’m not going to argue semantics with you, i’ve already pointed out how you leapfrog from one philosophy to another, by making agnostic claims while self describing yourself as an atheist, invariably.
          Fine, since you want to go that route, you must by consequential effect cease disagreement with me over my remark that there is evidence to support the existence of God, since doing so would qualify as a relevant absolute aka “no, there is no God because there is no evidence for God” as you mentioned earlier. Since i am not making a declaration that there is a God that can be proven through logic, the best you can do is agree to disagree. Disagreeing with my remark about the existence of God is taking an absolute stance against it, which means you are going beyond philosophy into dogmatism here in trying to disprove it with remarks of your own, despite the lack of scientific evidence to support it.
          Disbelief is one thing, but when you take it a step further to say that there is no God “because of it” you are offering an absolute. I keep having to repeat this to you. Choose your words more carefully if you don’t want to give that impression from now on.
          “However, that is a pretty piss poor argument that Obama is a reptilian. You’re basically arguing, “I believe Obama is a reptilian and you can’t disprove it, so why don’t you just admit you’re an agnostic on the subject and admit Obama could be a reptilian?” It’s a non-argument.”
          Ad absurdo argument. Let’s stick to debating on the merits of the issue instead of debating on your imaginative near approximation of it…if you can.
          “Let’s compare two things you wrote:
          Hypocrite. Using your logic from the first quote: You either believe that unicorns don’t exist (an absolute) or you believe there’s a possibility unicorns does/doesn’t exist (non absolute). You can’t have it both ways. YOU are the one who’s jumping around and changing his argument. Stop projecting your dishonest tactics onto me.”
          LMAO. How am i a “hypocrite” for refusing to declare a logical absolute on unicorns? I even told you that just because I don’t BELIEVE unicorns exist it DOESN’T mean they don’t, which you would probably have come to realize had you actually quoted me correctly 🙂
          I noticed something else. You seem to equate believe with think. Therein lies the fundamental flaw in your argument here. Had i said “i don’t think they exist” that would imply a logical assertion and one which i would have to back up with some facts to support it. I used the word BELIEVE to imply a perspective that exists independent of scientific justification, or to put it another way:
          Think implies logic, whereas believe implies faith.
          This is why religious people tend to use “believe” to illustrate that they have faith in God, whereas non religious tend to use “think” in order to give it added rational emphasis against the belief in God.
          Google defines the word believe as: “accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of”
          Whereas it defines the word think as “direct one’s mind toward someone or something; use one’s mind actively to form connected ideas.”
          While the terms themselves are used copiously and are interchangeable depending on the contextual perspective of the person using them, the root definitions of these words offer divergent perspectives that only someone who is versed in their etymological distinctions will appreciate, and will therefore use appropriately.
          Dude, i even gave you a clue that i wasn’t declaring a logical absolute when i said “this doesn’t mean by logical necessity that they don’t exist.” lol
          Good try though. You get a B- for effort.
          “Straw man. I never denied the possibility, I simply stated the probability is small based on the lack of evidence. I’ve written this over and over and over ad nauseum, but you keep trying to straw man me. Nothing is absolutely certain, but that does nothing for your god or any god.
          We are going to have to agree to disagree here…
          We aren’t “disagreeing” because it isn’t up for debate. You are just flat out wrong. You simply don’t understand how burden of proof works. You rely on fallacious arguments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…”
          And as I keep telling you again and again, it’s not a straw man. You’re using that term inappropriately. Yes you did state that there is small evidence but then you went on to declare that God doesn’t exist (paraphrased) aka you offered an absolute as a logical extension of your beliefs that there is little evidence to believe in God. A strawman by very definition means i’m misinterpreting your argument to suit me, when in fact this is what you declared and this is why you continue to disagree with my disagreement (quoted by you previously) with your solipsist belief that God doesn’t exist simply for lack of available evidence.
          LOL. Spoken like a true secular solipsist, or one who disagrees to agree to disagree. Bravo!
          https://carm.org/what-is-solipsism-and-is-it-true
          “And neither can you disprove the existence of unicorns. What’s your point? Still trying to straw man?”
          You are egregiously incorrect to THINK that i was, especially given that i was using the word BELIEVE and NOT THINK. Lol amateur.
          “Straw man, again”
          Red herring statement.
          “Fact: Ignorance is not evidence of a deity, no matter how bad you want it to be.”
          Fact: there are no absolute facts in regards to a philosophical intangible. You would understand this were it not for your secular solipsism 🙂
          “I don’t believe in a god because there is no evidence. Therefore, I am an atheist, not an agnostic. I accept the possibility one (or many gods) may exist, including Zeus and Oden, but without evidence doubt is rational. Not sure how many times I have no write this for you to understand it. A couple million more times?”
          Solipsist statement. One which asserts as a fact (there is no evidence) in regard to a metaphysical intangible (God) despite the fact that you cannot justify that remark using a scientific standard and especially against my evidence to the contrary. This therefore qualifies it as BELIEF, which is also evident in your use of the word “believe.”
          Logically speaking, your use of the word there implies a faith in your absolute, despite the lack of scientific justification to support it. It therefore makes it an ipse dixit remark aka a religious belief, as well a solipsist one, since you refuse to entertain even the slightest possibility that there IS evidence. Maybe that’s why you didn’t use the word “think” because subconsciously at least, you were not comfortable enough to use the word “think” to make a logical absolute over a metaphysical intangible. Interesting.
          Also, i noticed the non sequitur here:
          “I don’t believe in a god because there is no evidence”
          ” I accept the possibility one (or many gods) may exist,”
          How do you intellectually reconcile this? If there is no evidence for god or gods, why then do you now accept the possibility that one or many gods exist, even hypothetically?
          Your argument sir, is a comedy of errors and a tragedy of understanding.

        10. I’m not going to argue semantics with you … Think implies logic, whereas believe implies faith…Google defines the word believe as… Whereas it defines the word think as… You’re using that term inappropriately… While the terms themselves…

          Please. Your entire screed relies COMPLETELY on semantics because you have absolutely nothing else. You are Mr. Semantics who worships at the Church of Semantics. I don’t blame you because you’ve got absolutely nothing else. You’ve yet to provide a single shred of evidence for your god, or any god for that matter. You’re entire strategy is shoe-horning your god into what is honestly nothing more than human ignorance. Your arguments are ones of desperation.

          i’ve already pointed out how you leapfrog from one philosophy to another, by making agnostic claims while self describing yourself as an atheist, invariably.

          You are absolutely obsessed with semantics.
          1. I don’t know for certain whether a god exists.
          2. I don’t believe in a god because there’s no evidence
          Mr. Semantics, the meaning of KNOW and BELIEVE is not the same, thus the statements do not contradict. You can beat this subject to death all you want with your misinterpretation of semantics. You clearly don’t understand that knowledge and belief are two separate things. Atheists don’t claim to have absolute knowledge, at least not the ones I know, although this is the heart of your Straw Man argument.

          God is taking an absolute stance against it, which means you are going beyond philosophy into dogmatism here in trying to disprove it with remarks of your own, despite the lack of scientific evidence to support it.

          And believing that unicorns don’t exist is an absolute stance. Where is your proof that unicorns don’t exist? You better state you’re a “unicorn agnostic,” hypocrite.

          Disbelief is one thing, but when you take it a step further to say that there is no God “because of it” you are offering an absolute.

          Straw man. I’ve made my argument clear, and this isn’t it. You like to put words into my mouth because you have no other options. It’s an act of desperation on your part. Really lame, although I cannot say I’m surprised.

          Ad absurdo argument. Let’s stick to debating on the merits of the issue instead of debating on your imaginative near approximation of it…if you can.

          There is the EXACT same amount of evidence for a god as there is for Obama being a reptillian or for unicorns. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Thus the analogy is logically valid. It’s a type of argument called Reductio ad absurdum, but since you can’t grasp basic logic, I wouldn’t expect you to understand.

          How am i a “hypocrite” for refusing to declare a logical absolute on unicorns?

          Let’s look at two statements you made.
          1. “You either believe that God doesn’t exist (an absolute) or you believe there’s a possibility he does/doesn’t exist (non absolute)”
          2. i don’t believe in unicorns HOWEVER this does not by logical necessity mean they don’t exist.
          According to your bizarre “logic” in #1, the first part of #2 is an absolute statement. In other words, the structure of arguments #1 and #2 contradict each other. It’s a special pleading fallacy. I never spoke in absolutes.

          “Fact: Ignorance is not evidence of a deity, no matter how bad you want it to be.”
          Fact: there are no absolute facts in regards to a philosophical intangible. You would understand this were it not for your secular solipsism 🙂

          Oh really, then why were you trying to argue that people who “magically” recovered were healed by your god? Keep moving the goal posts like a good Christian.

          “I don’t believe in a god because there is no evidence”
          ” I accept the possibility one (or many gods) may exist,”
          How do you intellectually reconcile this?

          Belief and disbelief does not imply absolute knowledge. We’ve already established nothing can be known for certain. Rather, weights of confidence have to be assigned to claims. Belief does not imply absolute knowledge, kid, because absolute knowledge is impossible. However, I’m sure you’re going to desperately try to turn this into another lame semantical argument. Fire up dictionary.com, Mr. Semantics.

          Your argument sir, is a comedy of errors and a tragedy of understanding.

          Sorry, I have trouble understanding because I studied actual logic, not Christian pseudo-logic.

        11. “Please. Your entire screed relies COMPLETELY on semantics because you have absolutely nothing else. You are Mr. Semantics who worships at the Church of Semantics. I don’t blame you because you’ve got absolutely nothing else. You’ve yet to provide a single shred of evidence for your god, or any god for that matter. You’re entire strategy is shoe-horning your god into what is honestly nothing more than human ignorance. Your arguments are ones of desperation.”
          LOL. What a wonderful example of polemics in motion. Do i take it you are resorting to the last ditch effort of a desperate mind? It would certainly seem so 🙂
          “Keep arguing semantics. I don’t know whether a god exists, but because there’s no evidence I don’t believe. You can beat this subject to death all you want. You clearly don’t understand the difference between knowledge and belief. Atheists don’t claim to have absolute knowledge, although this is the heart of your Straw Man argument.”
          You can choose to not believe all you like, just as you can choose to believe what you will of me. Neither solipsist perception makes an iota of difference to me. I have already explained to you what my motivations are regarding you. Believe what you want, just don’t be arrogant and declare it a fact, because i will call bs on it.
          “And believing that unicorns don’t exist is an absolute stance. Where is your proof that unicorns don’t exist? You better be a “unicorn agnostic,” hypocrite.”
          Again, i refer you to the meaning of the word “believe” to describe it as nothing more than a subjective perception of my surety rather than a logical absolute. Point nullified.
          “Straw man. I’ve made my argument clear, and this isn’t it. You like to put words into my mouth because you have no other options. Again, an act of desperation.”
          Lol. We agree to disagree here, since your solipsism sees straw men where none are actually found:)
          “There is the EXACT same amount of evidence for a god as there is for Obama being a reptillian or for unicorns. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Thus the analogy is logically valid. It’s a type of argument called Reductio ad absurdum, but since you can’t grasp basic logic, I wouldn’t expect you to understand.”
          Of course i don’t “understand.” How can i understand solipsism? I understand what it means but not what it intends. You believe there is no evidence for God, because your secular solopsism tells you so. Dismissing a metaphysical as “absurd” because you can’t understand it makes as much sense as scientists dismissing dark matter theories because it can’t be as yet proven to exist using the scientific standard. Point nullified, regardless of your SS.
          “Let’s look at two statements you made.
          1. “You either believe that God doesn’t exist (an absolute) or you believe there’s a possibility he does/doesn’t exist (non absolute)”
          2. i don’t believe in unicorns HOWEVER this does not by logical necessity mean they don’t exist.
          According to your bizarre logic, #2 is an absolute statement. In other words, the structure of arguments 1 and 2 contradict each other. It’s a special pleading fallacy.”
          It’s not a LOGICAL absolute, which is what i keep telling you. Since i used the word “BELIEVE” i intended it to be more a sign of subjective surety rather than rock solid logical declaration. Nice try Assimov lol
          “Oh really, then why were you trying to argue that people who “magically” recovered were healed by your god? Keep moving the goal posts like a good Christian.”
          LOL! I never expressed that as a fact, but merely as a possibility. Quote me where i said this was a fact and you will have more of an argument to make 😀
          Are you familiar with Subjunctive possibility by the way? I doubt it, but i won’t make an assumption to that effect 😀
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive_possibility
          “Belief and disbelief does not imply absolute knowledge. We’ve already established nothing can be known for certain. Rather, weights of confidence have to be assigned to claims. Belief does not imply absolute knowledge, kid. However, I’m sure you’re going to desperately try to turn this into another lame semantical argument. Fire up dictionary.com, Mr. Semantics.”
          Then you should NOT therefore declare a (non logical) absolute in regards to God not existing (through your use of the word believe) or at the very least you shouldn’t try to use it to justify the solipsist belief that there is no evidence, since you haven’t proven that there is no evidence. You only end up expressing a non sequitur that you still as yet haven’t rectified. Your argument would make more sense had you said “i don’t believe in a God because there is little evidence” rather than using the word “NO” in regards to the possibility of there being some evidence.
          Of course that would mean that you’d have to concede that there IS evidence for the existence of God, thereby justifying my remarks to you. This would also make you agnostic in nature. Given that your obstinance is a byproduct of your solipsist belief, i understand perfectly why you would refrain from doing either of course 🙂
          “Sorry, I have trouble understanding because I studied actual logic, notChristian pseudo-logic.”
          Resorting to condescending polemics does your argument no favors. It’s the last resort of a desperate solipsist mind struggling to come to terms with it’=s own intellectual mortality.
          Feel free to respond with more solipsist sciolist sophistry, i look forward to calling out more of your bs.
          Oh and i’m still waiting for you to admit you took my animals/pleasure remarks out of context 😀

        12. I like how you completely ignored the fact I called you out on your semantical arguments. We both know arguing semantics is your one and only strategy in this debate.

          Dismissing a metaphysical as “absurd” because you can’t understand it makes as much sense as scientists dismissing dark matter theories because it can’t be as yet proven to exist using the scientific standard. Point nullified, regardless of your SS.

          Any principle built around something that cannot be verified is absurd. May as well build principles around Zeus, Banshees, lephrachans, or anything else the human mind can invent. Unlike your god, there’s actually evidence for “dark matter” because we can measure it’s influence in distant galaxies. Dark matter is a theory based on observable evidence. That doesn’t mean it exists, something is happening in distant galaxies, we just don’t know what. It’s not the same as your metaphysical arguments, which have zero evidence to support them.
          “LOL” all you want, and deny your fallacies all you want, it doesn’t cover up the obvious logical ass whipping you’ve received.

          Then you should NOT therefore declare a (non logical) absolute in regards to God not existing

          I never did, Mr. Semantics. These are words you’ve put in my mouth. Keep beating that straw man.

          or at the very least you shouldn’t try to use it to justify the solipsist belief that there is no evidence, since you haven’t proven that there is no evidence. … Your argument would make more sense had you said “i don’t believe in a God because there is little evidence” rather than using the word “NO” in regards to the possibility of there being some evidence.

          If you’ve got evidence for a god then present this evidence. The world is dying to see it, not just me. If you don’t have any evidence, then shut the fuck up and spare me the Ad Hoc Rescue.

          Your argument sir, is a comedy of errors and a tragedy of understanding. … Resorting to condescending polemics does your argument no favors.

          Right, you can dish it out, but you can’t take it. You sound like a feminist.

        13. “I like how you completely ignored the fact I called you out on your semantical arguments. We both know arguing semantics is your one and only strategy in this debate.”
          If you want to get technical junior, i used the semantics charge first and you spinning it back to me doesn’t prove the charge anymore than you’ve managed to prove anything else here, except of course for the proclivity of atheists to argue for the sake of arguing when their solipsism is exposed.
          “Building principles around unproven metaphysics is absurd. May as well build principles around Zeus, Banshees, lephrachans, or anything else the human mind can invent. Unlike your god, there’s actually evidence for “dark matter” because we can measure it’s influence in space. We don’t know what it is for sure, but we know something is going on. That’s not the same as a metaphysical argument.”
          I wasn’t building any principles, i kept offering the disclaimer that my views on God where specifically noted were NOT bound by logic, but rather by the parameters of faith. Meaning i wasn’t using them to prove God exists, but rather to show you the possibility that He does. Since you as the atheist are bound by logic (or so i thought) you had to prove to me he doesn’t exist, since you are fond of making absolutes to that effect given your “no evidence” remarks. To date, you have been unsuccessful in this endeavor.
          There is also evidence for God, but you refuse to acknowledge it because it requires an objective nature, one that is not rooted in solipsism.
          “”LOL” all you want, and deny your fallacies all you want, it doesn’t cover up the obvious logical ass whipping you’ve received.”
          You’re a winner in your own mind, friend. The solipsist does not see anything beyond his own figurative nose, so again i agree to disagree with your solipsism 😀
          ” I never did, Mr. Semantics. These are words you’ve put in my mouth.”
          Sigh, You actually did, but why should facts be a concern to you?
          “If you’ve got evidence for a god then present this evidence. The world is dying to see it, not just me. If you don’t have any evidence then shut the fuck up and spare me the Ad Hoc Rescue.”
          I did, i linked to a pulsar colloquially referred to the “Hand of God” which you conveniently ignored 🙂 Trust me when i say there’s more, but the fact that you ignored this makes me think that you’d just ignore that too. Having to curse doesn’t help your argument either. Tsk. How unfortunate that you had to resort to crass epithets because of your intellectual inadequacy to properly defend your argument. Pathos on you dear boy.
          “Right, you can dish it out, but you can’t take it. You sound like a feminist.”
          Lol. Who cursed at who again? With the F word? Histrionics is a staple of the left, and so is atheism.
          The fact that i keep calling you out on your nonsense means i can “take it” otherwise i would stop. Can’t you even get this right?
          lol!

        14. If you want to get technical junior, i used the semantics charge first and you spinning it back to me doesn’t prove the charge anymore than you’ve managed to prove anything else here

          Actually, anyone who reads your last several posts can clearly see your obsession with semantics. You try to twist the meanings of words in your favor, while completely ignoring the rationale behind my arguments. A typical Christian tactic because they have no real arguments.

          I wasn’t building any principles..

          You referenced when I wrote building neomasculinity principles on souls was “absurd.”

          Since you as the atheist are bound by logic (or so i thought) you had to prove to me he doesn’t exist, since you are fond of making absolutes to that effect given your “no evidence” remarks.

          I’m not a “Strong Atheist,” and never claimed to be. Your problem is that instead of trying to understand the rationale of my position, you want so desperately to correct my choice of words. You rely so much on semantical arguments. You “hear” but don’t listen.
          You think “belief” implies “absolute knowledge,” which is laughable. Your lame strategy is to twist the meanings of words in your favor, a predictable choice when you have the burden of proof but lack evidence. As the skeptic, I don’t have to prove do you god does not exist. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. This isn’t up for debate, and never will be. That skeptics have the burden of proof is classic Christian pseudo-logic. Under your silly pseudo-logic, unicorns and everything else imaginable exists until disproved.

          Sigh, You actually did

          Only in your mind. You’re too busy trying to tell me what my words mean (semantics) rather than understand my position, which I’ve stated ad nauseum.

          I did, i linked to a pulsar colloquially referred to the “Hand of God” which you conveniently ignored 🙂

          A pulsar that looks kind of like a hand… and that is evidence of God? You’ve got to be kidding. Omg, hahaha. I don’t think we have the same standards of “evidence.” Poor thing. At this point I’m thinking you’re just a troll with A LOT of extra time on your hands. Bravo, Mr. Troll, bravo.

          Trust me when i say there’s more, but the fact that you ignored this makes me think that you’d just ignore that too.

          Ah yes, ask a Christian for evidence and get a convenient excuse. THAT has never happened before. 😉 We both know you don’t want to share your “evidence” because I’ll rip it apart in no time.

          Who cursed at who again? With the F word?

          Oh dear, I’m clearly the first person to write “fuck” on ROK.

        15. “Actually, anyone who reads your last several posts can clearly see your obsession with semantics. You try to twist the meanings of words in your favor, while completely ignoring the rationale behind my arguments. A typical Christian tactic because they have no real arguments.”
          Anyone who thinks they’ve exhibited rationale while using the F word in his arguments is clearly delusional aka solipsist in nature. Your atheism myopia is showing.
          “You referenced when I wrote building neomasculinity principles on souls was “absurd.””
          This sentence is barely intelligible. Could you translate it into english, please?
          “I’m not a “Strong Atheist,” and never claimed to be. Your problem is that instead of trying to understand the rationale of my position, you want so desperately to correct my choice of words. You rely so much on semantical arguments. You “hear” but don’t listen.”
          There is no rationale behind a position that presumes to state as factual a belief in no evidence for a metaphysical intangible whatsoever. It is a sign of a delusional solipsist mind, your meaningless polemics notwithstanding.
          “You think “belief” implies “absolute knowledge,” which is laughable. Your lame strategy is to twist the meanings of words in your favor, a predictable choice when you have the burden of proof but lack evidence. As the skeptic, I don’t have to prove do you god does not exist. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. This isn’t up for debate, and never will be. That skeptics have the burden of proof is classic Christian pseudo-logic. Under your silly pseudo-logic, unicorns and everything else imaginable exists until disproved.”
          Who is making a claim that God absolutely exists? We simply BELIEVE he does. People like you tend to think and believe he doesn’t, ergo the burden of proof is on YOU to show otherwise. You attacked Quintus’ remark because in your mind he tried to pass of faith as legitimate, and that is unacceptable to you. You ignore points that don’t support your feckless position because it would shatter the foundations of this solipsist reality you’ve created for yourself. You still don’t get that trying to disprove God makes the burden fall on you as it would in a court of law if God Himself was on trial. You can keep claiming victory and keep claiming to have a superior mind, but that is no more than intellectual narcissism on your part and no more than an extension of your solipsism. You are a winner in your own mind. You debated someone of faith who made the superior argument and your ego can’t handle it. Pathetic.
          “Only in your mind. You’re too busy trying to tell me what my words mean (semantics) rather than understand my position, which I’ve stated ad nauseum.”
          What you stated is belief that you are right and i am wrong irrespective of the fact that all evidence proves the contrary. What you have been constantly posting here as of 2 responses ago is just stercoraceous expectoration, and i don’t expect you to do anything else at this point since you have finally exhausted what little intellectual fuel you had to defend your position.
          “A pulsar that looks kind of like a hand… and that is evidence of God? You’ve got to be kidding. Omg, hahaha. I don’t think we have the same standards of “evidence.” Poor thing. At this point I’m thinking you’re just a troll with A LOT of extra time on your hands. Bravo, Mr. Troll, bravo.”
          Ahh yes. You are now the arbiter of what is defined as “evidence” i see. Lol. Typical.
          Google the definition of the word evidence. One of the listings is:
          “be or show evidence of.”
          So you are saying my pulsar submission is not evidence to show or be evident of God’s existence because….you disagree with it? Using nothing more than condescenscion? LMAO! Ahh yes how wonderfully convincing of you! You’ve certainly proven me wrong using logic haven’t you? lolol
          For the record, i did mention i had more but as expected, when you finally chose to address this you simply responded with a cavalier dismissal.
          I should also mention that there are more people of faith here than you think…so if you are going to attack a writer using secular solipsism expect myself or others to debunk your nonsense summarily. This would make you the troll in that regard. Someone with a red pill would not argue like a brat when their favorite toy is taken away. From the very beginning you have been petulant and condescending, and now you graduated to bellicose, obstinate and of course solipsist. Congrats. You certainly made the case for atheism….for how religiously devoted its followers are 🙂
          “Ah yes, ask a Christian for evidence and get a convenient excuse. THAT has never happened before. 😉 We both know you don’t want to share your “evidence” because I’ll rip it apart in no time.”
          I just shared it with the pulsar, so your point there is of course pointless bs. Your track record already establishes you as an arrogant prick who self appoints himself as the arbiter of evidence, so what’s the point in submitting more proof? You will just blow it off as you did with the pulsar, and as you did before with my medical miracle remark, because of your solipsism.
          “Oh dear, I’m clearly the first person to write “fuck” on ROK.”
          No you’re not, you’re just another blue piller who resorts to pejorative when the inadequacy of his position is exposed. Go back to the Freedom from religious freedom page, most of those in attendance here are people of faith and most of those are people way smarter than arrogant atheist pricks like yourself 🙂

        16. Anyone who thinks they’ve exhibited rationale while using the F word in his arguments is clearly delusional aka solipsist in nature.

          Yes, because all my arguments are negated because I used the word “fuck.” Boo hoo!

          There is no rationale behind a position that presumes to state as factual a belief in no evidence for a metaphysical intangible whatsoever.

          There is no evidence. If there were we wouldn’t be having this debate. Instead, you post a picture of a distant pulsar that looks vaguely like a hand. What you fail to realize is that there are at least 100 billion observable stars in the universe. Sooner or later you’re going to find something that looks like something on Earth. Using your logic, I’m going to argue that the universe was created by a race of Moth People, and the Butterfly nebula is evidence of this. Or perhaps it was the Crab People from the Crab nebula? LMAO!

          People like you tend to think and believe he doesn’t, ergo the burden of proof is on YOU to show otherwise.

          When you doubt you’re actually not making a claim. Making a claim is a prerequisite for the burden of proof.

          You still don’t get that trying to disprove God makes the burden fall on you

          Keep beating that Straw man. I’ve never tried to disprove a god because it’s not possible. I’ve stated this MANY times, however you ignore that point because without it you’d have no argument. Along with Mr. Semantics you are Mr. Straw Man.

          You can keep claiming victory and keep claiming to have a superior mind, but that is no more than intellectual narcissism on your part. You are a winner in your own mind. You debated someone … who made the superior argument and your ego can’t handle it. Pathetic.

          Projection, much?

          What you stated is belief that you are right and i am wrong irrespective of the fact that all evidence proves the contrary.

          You didn’t provide evidence, just a picture of a random star that looks vaguely like something on Earth, as if GOD was the only plausible explanation. Fail. More on this later…

          Ahh yes. You are now the arbiter of what is defined as “evidence” i see.

          Yes, I am. We all are. Have you not accepted my evidence that Earth was seeded by Moth People. Look! How can you deny my evidence?
          http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2014/2-imagehubblec.jpg
          ^ Reductio ad absurdum. If you still can’t figure out why I don’t accept your “evidence” from this, then you’re a lost cause.

          Someone with a red pill would not argue like a brat when their favorite toy is taken away

          You’re talking about yourself again.

          You certainly made the case for atheism….for how religiously devoted its followers are 🙂

          Using your logic, you don’t believe in unicorns, thus you’re a member of the a-unicornist religion.

          Your track record already establishes you as an arrogant prick who self appoints himself as the arbiter of evidence, so what’s the point in submitting more proof?

          You didn’t provide evidence. I’m amazed by how you think the only explanation for that exploded star is GOD. What’s basically going on in your mind is exactly what goes on in the mind of people who look at random ink blots. You’re looking at something random and seeing what you want to see. It looks more like a snail head to me. Snail people? I initially didn’t reply to your picture because, honestly, it wasn’t worth replying to.
          http://residencyforartistsonhiatus.org/tinyMCEImages/5c269674bb9035b0c4bfaef1aae05b80.jpg
          ^ More evidence for Crab People?

          It is a sign of a delusional solipsist mind… your ego can’t handle it. Pathetic… since you have finally exhausted what little intellectual fuel you had… that is no more than intellectual narcissism on your part… arrogant prick… you’re just another blue piller… and most of those are people way smarter than arrogant atheist pricks like yourself 🙂

          It’s funny how you’ve been taunting me for quite a while now, but when I return the favor you immediately try to claim victimhood, like a feminist. Ready to swipe your Victim Card yet, crybaby?
          Btw, I’m still waiting on the evidence for your god… any day now…

        17. “Yes, because all my arguments are negated because I used the word “fuck.” Boo hoo!”
          Yawn…you’re boring me now. Kindergarten logic is so uninspiring.
          “There is no evidence. If there were we wouldn’t be having this debate. Instead, you post a picture of a distant pulsar that looks vaguely like a hand. What you fail to realize is that there are at least 100 billion observable stars in the universe. Sooner or later you’re going to find something that looks like something on Earth. Using your logic, I’m going to argue that the universe was created by a race of Moth People, and the Butterfly nebula is evidence of this. Or perhaps it was the Crab People from the Crab nebula? LMAO!”
          Yes of course, “sooner or later something will come along” to prove me right. What a wonderful way to dismiss a metaphysical argument that you don’t support. Convenient too.
          What about medical miracles? Do you know for sure that they weren’t from divine origin? What about Jesus Himself? Is he just a myth as well?
          “When you doubt you’re actually not making a claim. Making a claim is a prerequisite for the burden of proof.”
          It is when you use it to question Quintus’ remarks on spirituality, and then use it to attack someone coming to the defense of his argument 🙂
          “Keep beating that Straw man. I’ve never tried to disprove a god because it’s not possible. I’ve stated this MANY times, however you ignore that point because without it you’d have no argument. Along with Mr. Semantics you are Mr. Straw Man.”
          Really? You haven’t tried to disprove God exists? Then why do you attempt to disprove the evidence that he exists? We both know why don’t we? If you can remove all support in the possibility of a divine Creator by denying/disputing the evidence to support the belief in one, then you can conveniently claim that there is “no” evidence for the creator in the first place. It’s a second hand denial of God even if it’s not direct. Stealth antitheism by any other name is still antitheism. You’re not an actual atheist you’re worse than that: an atheist militant aka an antitheist.
          For the record, constantly parroting that i am using a straw man against you when in fact i’m not, actually makes you the person using the straw man, since you are intentionally mischaracterizing my remarks. Ironic, isn’t it? 🙂
          “Projection, much?”
          From you? Absolutely!
          “You didn’t provide evidence, just a picture of a random star that looks vaguely like something on Earth, as if GOD was the only plausible explanation. Fail. More on this later…”
          I actually did, and i even provided the definition of what the word “evidence” is. Just because it doesn’t meet your solipsist secular standards DOES NOT disqualify it as evidence. You don’t get to choose the mic i use to debate you with.
          “Yes, I am. We all are. Have you not accepted my evidence that Earth was seeded by Moth People. Look! How can you deny my evidence?”
          Ad absurdum remark. By the way, someone’s keeping an eye on you 😉 
          “^ Reductio ad absurdum. If you still can’t figure out why I don’t accept your “evidence” from this, then you’re a lost cause.”
          A denial of evidence does not by itself qualify as undeniable proof that the evidence is wrong. Ad absurdum.
          “You’re talking about yourself again.”
          Who is projecting again? lol
          “Using your logic, you don’t believe in unicorns, thus you’re a member of the a-unicornist religion.”
          I also said that there’s still a possibility they may exist or may have existed, which means i didn’t give you a logical absolute lol
          “You didn’t provide evidence. I’m amazed by how you think the only explanation for that exploded star is GOD. What’s basically going on in your mind is exactly what goes on in the mind of people who look at random ink blots. You’re looking at something random and seeing what you want to see. It looks more like a snail head to me. Snail people? I initially didn’t reply to your picture because, honestly, it wasn’t worth replying to.”
          Yes i did. You don’t get to define what “evidence” is, especially when i defined for you through google what evidence CAN BE.
          I was wondering when you would bring up rorschach blots. And now you are using a straw Man against me. Do you even bother to debate honestly? Didn’t i already say that you would see it as no more than a collection of gases ?Doesn’t that already indicate that i am WELL aware of the HOW this pulsar came about….what i am trying to show you is the metaphysical WHY….if you possessed any sort of legitimate intellect, your answers would demonstrate the difference and you wouldn’t be resorting to blatant condescension and petulance in your remarks to me. You sir are a pedestrian on the thinking expressway of life, much as you believe or think otherwise.
          “^ More evidence for Crab People?”
          Ad absurdum.
          “It’s funny how you’ve been taunting me for quite a while now, but when I return the favor you immediately try to claim victimhood, like a feminist. Ready to swipe your Victim Card yet, crybaby?”
          Taunting you? I was treating you with respect from the very beginning of this exchange while you were being condescending or completely dismissive. The hypocrisy in these words are obvious, as well as the solipsism you demonstrate in actually believing them.
          “Btw, I’m still waiting on the evidence for your god… any day now…”
          I showed you evidence…i’m still waiting for you to prove there is “no” evidence especially considering that you haven’t actually invalidated anything i said, even if you think you did 🙂

        18. Once again I think it would be beneficial to distill your core arguments in order to get to the point. After sifting through all the garbage, what you keep repeating in different variations is essentially this: “You have not disprove my claims.”
          My reply to this is simple: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” is the Appeal to Ignorance fallacy. Asserting that the skeptic must disprove a claim is a Burden of proof fallacy.
          By the way, “ad absurdum” is not a logical fallacy. Reductio ad absurdum is a type of rational argument. You’re clearly in over your head, aren’t you?
          P.S. Nice facebook posts on the Illuminati. It only confirms to me that you’re not a rational thinker, and probably mentally ill.
          The whole screed is hilariously absurd. Here’s a clip of what you wrote…

          The Illuminati knew full well that the “greys” were demanites (demon/human offspring) however the US military chain of command took them for the real deal (partly because there were already a few Illuminati operatives within the military) and the Illuminati’s agents supposedly bartered an agreement where they would function as a liason between the aliens and the US military…striking a deal with the “aliens” where they would keep from invading the earth provided that the military gave them unfettered access to livestock, materials, and of course, human beings.
          These operatives, in order to better carry out their specified duties, were to hold positions of power within all branches of goverment and military, and would hold a loyalty only to the Illuminati and to the fabricated agenda of keeping a celestial detente between the grey’s, the humans, and the Illuminus ordem.
          Most of McCarthy’s communists were very likely Illuminati operatives.

          WOW. Nice conspiracy theory. I don’t think you’re in any position to lecture anyone on logic and reasoning. Seek mental help for your sake and ours. Please.

        19. “Once again I think it would be beneficial to distill your core arguments in order to get to the point. After sifting through all the garbage, what you keep repeating in different variations is essentially this: “You have not disprove my claims.”
          My reply to this is simple: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” is the Appeal to Ignorance fallacy. Asserting that the skeptic must disprove a claim is a Burden of proof fallacy.”
          Back for more eh? happy to oblige.
          My response to this drivel is that again, if you are going to disprove a metaphysical intangible ostensibly through a logical perspective, you are required to provide undeniable evidence to support the absolute in question otherwise you are resorting to nothing more novel than atheist solipsism. We have reached an impasse here in that your obstinate nature can’t seem to understand this simple fact.
          “By the way, “ad absurdum” is not a logical fallacy. Reductio ad absurdum is a type of rational argument. You’re clearly in over your head, aren’t you?”
          Lol not a fan of the dictionary are you?
          “http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad+absurdum”
          “P.S. Nice facebook posts on the Illuminati. It only confirms to me that you’re not a rational thinker, and probably mentally ill. WOW. Nice conspiracy theory. I don’t think you’re in any position to lecture anyone on logic and reasoning. Seek mental help for your sake and ours. Please.”
          Oh look who decided to character assassinate in order to try and improve his pedestrian standing lol.
          What’s next? Are you going to call me a homophobe/racist? You’re pathetic. Typical blue pill alinskyite tactic.

        20. If you are going to disprove a metaphysical intangible ostensibly through a logical perspective, you are required to provide undeniable evidence to support the absolute in question otherwise you are resorting to nothing more novel than atheist solipsism.

          Strawman. Never tried to disprove it, nor claimed I could (for the umpteenth time). Keep beating that straw man, kid. Like all religious cults, you build your arguments on the Appeal to Ignorance and Burden of Proof fallacies. Keep shoehorning your god into the ever receding hole of human ignorance.

          Oh look who decided to character assassinate…

          Wrong, I simply quoted you. I thought you’d at least be man enough to own up to your own thoughts, but I guess not.

          The Illuminati knew full well that the “greys” were demanites (demon/human offspring) however the US military chain of command took them for the real deal (partly because there were already a few Illuminati operatives within the military) and the Illuminati’s agents supposedly bartered an agreement where they would function as a liason between the aliens and the US military…striking a deal with the “aliens” where they would keep from invading the earth provided that the military gave them unfettered access to livestock, materials, and of course, human beings.
          These operatives, in order to better carry out their specified duties, were to hold positions of power within all branches of goverment and military, and would hold a loyalty only to the Illuminati and to the fabricated agenda of keeping a celestial detente between the grey’s, the humans, and the Illuminus ordem.
          Most of McCarthy’s communists were very likely Illuminati operatives.

          I mean seriously, kid, you think aliens are human/demon hybrids who have a deal with the US gov to abduct cattle…. and YOU want to say I write “drivel?” LMAO. You’re an amateur. You barely even practice pseudo-logic. You couldn’t recognize actual logic if it hit you in the face. Seek treatment for your mental health.

        21. “Strawman. Never tried to disprove it. Like all religious nuts, you build your arguments on the sandy foundation of Appeal to ignorance and Burden of Proof fallacies. Keep shoehorning your god into an every the ever receding hold of human ignorance. Your god keeps getting smaller, and smaller, and smaller…”
          Yes you did. You can’t claim in one breath that “im not trying to disprove God” and in another state “there is no evidence for God” because you are either contradicting yourself through ignorance or you are simply jumping back and forth between atheism and agnosticism when it suits you. I tend to lean towards the latter.
          Your remarks here are the true strawman, because you attempt to mischaracterize my statements as undeniable evidence in me trying to prove God to you when the ONLY thing i have been trying to prove to you is that evidence for God DOES INDEED EXIST.
          You refuse to concede that latter point because it would sabotage your pedestrian effort to invalidate God secondhand through the belief that there is no “evidence” for God. Your elitism and concomitant arrogance are on full display here. Typical atheist banality.
          “I simply quoted your own words. Did you not write them? Be an actual man and own up to them. I mean seriously, kid, you think aliens are human/demon hybrids who are Communists. You want to talk about “drivel?” LMAO. Here, I’ll quote it again so you can confirm YOU wrote it.”
          When you are honest enough to understand how this red herring doesn’t invalidate my remarks you will have more of a grasp on actual logic than you think you do. Injecting an unrelated remark (my Illuminati posts on FB) doesn’t support your position in the least nor does it invalidate the remarks i used to oppose it. Indeed, it is a saul alinsky method of trying to invalidate the strength of an opponent’s character through ridicule. If your head wasn’t shoved so firmly up your own solispsist ass you would be able to understand this.
          For the record, i’m a writer in my off time and if you noticed i NEVER used the word FACT in my opening remark about them to indicate that mine was anything more than the sum of my research, and it was up to the reader to take as they wish. By the way did you find yourself agreeing with any of it? Like the FACT that Murrow was a communist? No of course not, just the larger part that you pathetically inject into our disagreement here in order to try and paint me as a ‘lunatic” in order to bolster your argument.
          Your latter polemics only serve to showcase how little red pill perspective you actually have. I treated you with respect from the very beginning but you have done nothing but be condescending and hostile. You are the worst kind of solipsist scum i’ve encountered on here as of late, and not coincidentally you exhibit left wing mannerisms while you troll here. I suggest you move on to a MGTOW atheist site, because so long as you are here not only will you encounter articles supporting faith (as a majority standard) but also people of faith and reason like myself that will use that reason and faith to call you out on your bullshit.

        22. You can’t claim in one breath that “im not trying to disprove God” and in another state “there is no evidence for God”

          Here’s an analogy, since the word “God” tends to eradicate any trace of logical thinking in your brain: “I’m not trying to disprove unicorns because it cannot be done. However, there is no evidence for unicorns.” This statement is not a contradiction, it’s a logical observation. Seriously, is there something wrong with your brain?

          you attempt to mischaracterize my statements as undeniable evidence … when the ONLY thing i have been trying to prove to you is that evidence for God DOES INDEED EXIST.

          So you’re claiming to have deniable evidence? LOL! Your point?
          ev·i·dence (noun) 1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
          And an exploded star is *evidence* for your god? Sorry, it’s not. There’s nothing there that indicates your god was responsible for the (extremely) vague hand shape. Sorry, there are other (more plausible) explanations, such as the fact the human brain tries to find familiarity in visual randomness (ex. ink plot tests).

          When you are honest enough to understand how this red herring doesn’t invalidate my remarks

          A red herring is used to distract from a rational argument. First, you never provided a rational argument. Second, I replied to what you wrote by calling them out as fallacies. Thus, not a red herring. I thought you’d be man enough to own up to your own writings on the Illuminati, aliens, demons, U.S. gov, etc, but I guess not.
          However, there is a point to all of that, and it’s to prove you don’t honestly give one shit about logic nor reason. You’re just a troll. You pretend to be a beacon of intellect, yet espouse some of the biggest unsubstantiated piles of bullshit imaginable. You’re a hypocrite. At least admit you wrote what I posted.

          Your latter polemics only serve to showcase how little red pill perspective you actually have.

          Red Pill philosophy is based on Evolutionary Psychology, not Christianity. Sorry!

          I suggest you move on to a MGTOW atheist site

          I have a girl and no desire to go MGTOW, thanks. Roosh is a PUA who travels the world fucking random young tarts. That isn’t exactly something endorsed by Jesus. So ever thought that maybe YOU are on the wrong site?

          so long as you are here not only will you encounter articles supporting faith (as a majority standard) but also people of faith and reason like myself that will use that reason and faith to call you out on your bullshit.

          You haven’t called me out on shit, kid. Let me remind you that YOU initiated this little debate, not me. I don’t have a problem with people of faith. However, most are not arrogant, self-righteous dickheads like yourself. I’m not going anywhere. If you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen.
          Also, apparently anyone with a web browser is a proponent of “reason” these days, including religious nut jobs who think “grey” aliens are human/demon offspring working for the Illuminati. LMAO!
          Still waiting on verifiable evidence for you god… any day now…

        23. “Here’s an analogy, since the word “God” tends to eradicate any trace of logical thinking in your brain: “I’m not trying to disprove unicorns because it cannot be done. However, there is no evidence for unicorns.” This statement is not a contradiction, it’s a logical observation. Seriously, is there something wrong with your brain?”
          Here’s an idea: try talking to someone with respect instead of resorting to condescension just because they disagree with you on a metaphysical intangible.
          You might also try and refrain from injecting a knee jerk red herring into every God related remark. You keep going around in circles, hamster.
          “So you’re claiming to have deniable evidence? LOL! Your point?
          ev·i·dence (noun) 1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.”
          Of course it’s deniable! We are debating over a metaphysical intangible after all! Don’t you get it? I can’t deny that my proof can be disputed on logical grounds just as you can’t deny that it exists AND YET you do so anyway! That’s what i’ve been trying to tell you from the get go but you are too pig headed to realize it!
          Oh and by the way, evidence is also defined as “be or show evidence of.”
          A term having more than one definition does not therefore invalidate a specific definition if the context is appropriate:)
          “And an exploded star is *evidence* for your god? Sorry, it’s not. There’s nothing there that indicates your god was responsible for the (extremely) vague hand shape. Sorry, there are other (more plausible) explanations, such as the fact the human brain tries to find familiarity in randomness (ex. ink plot tests).”
          Haha if i really felt you would give me any intellectual consideration i would submit more evidence, but you will just dismiss it as condescendingly as you did here. Your remark about ink plots (ahem BLOTS) is just your solipsist way of dismissing anything that doesn’t conform to your narrow interpretation of the world.
          “A red herring is used to distract from a rational argument. First, you never provided a rational argument. Second, I replied to what you wrote by calling them out as fallacies. Thus, not a red herring. I thought you’d be man enough to own up to your own writings on the Illuminati, aliens, demons, U.S. gov, etc, but I guess not.”
          That is your solipsist belief and you are welcome to it. My remarks from the beginning are an example of your prevarication here in regards to you stating that i did not provide a rational argument. Calling them out as “fallacies” does not mean you proved them as such. You apparently lack enough of an objective nature to consider anything more than your view as fact.
          Bringing up my post about the Illuminati on FB doesn’t make your case any stronger. You’re just taking the typical left wing approach to sabotaging what a person says by attacking what that person believes. It’s the desperate action of a mind too timid in its own belief to defend it properly. In a war of philosophies, you ended up firing blanks, which is why you haven’t gotten any likes to anything you’ve said thus far.
          “However, there is a point to all of that, and it’s to prove you don’t honestly give a shit about logic nor reason. You pretend to be a beacon of intellect, yet espouse some of the biggest unsubstantiated piles of bullshit imaginable. You’re a hypocrite. At least admit you wrote what I posted.”
          Lol and i should take this condemnation seriously from an arrogant sciolist prick who thinks he can invalidate evidence through his words alone? Dream on junior. I have more knowledge in my left asscheek than you do in your whole damn brain. You are an example of the typical militancy of the average intolerant atheist and your solipsist remarks prove that in spades. Having to curse (as you did before with the F word) doesn’t prove you employ logic, it only proves you are fond of creating your own realities to support your ipse dixit remarks. 😀
          “Red Pill philosophy is based on the science of Evolutionary Psychology, not Christianity. Sorry!”
          Lol is that so? Prove it 😀
          “I have a girl and no desire to go MGTOW, thanks. Roosh is a PUA who travels the world fucking random young tarts. That isn’t exactly something endorsed by Jesus. Ever thought that maybe YOU are on the wrong website?”
          Not at all, but maybe you should consider that this site isn’t atheist enough for you, given the numerous positive examples of faith, such as:
          THE RED PILL WISDOM OF THE BIBLE

          The Anti-Feminism Wisdom Of The Bible


          Shimshon’s Tale Sets An Example For Masculinity

          Shimshon’s Tale Sets An Example For Masculinity


          Why Studying World Religions For Masculine Advice Is No Blasphemy

          Why Studying World Religions For Masculine Advice Is No Blasphemy


          Why Is Modern Christianity So Wimpy?

          Why Is Modern Christianity So Wimpy?


          (these last three in this past week alone:)
          Not to mention the very article you and i are writing our comment son lolol bwahahaha!! 😀
          Oh and if you knew as much about faith as you think you do, you’d know that Jesus congregated with the tax collectors, uncircumcised and other people considered unsavory at the time by the religious hypocrites.
          Nice try junior 😀
          “You haven’t called me out on jack shit, kid. Let me remind you that YOU initiated this little debate, not me. I don’t have a problem with people of faith. However, most are not arrogant, self-righteous dickheads like yourself. I’m not going anywhere. If you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen.”
          Lol well of COURSE i initiated it…DUH. How else does one call out another if he doesn’t initiate it through a challenge? BwahahahhaHAHAH!!
          bla bla bla…you repeat everything back to me like a typical hamster brained parrot personality. I call you arrogant and you call me arrogant. I say you lack reason and you say i lack reason. Yawn….even for an atheist you really are a bore.
          “Also, I love how you claim to use “reason.” Apparently anyone with a web browser is a proponent of “reason” these days, including religious nut jobs who think “grey” aliens are human/demon offspring working for the Illuminati. LMAO!
          YAWN…attacking my view on God because i believe in the Illuminati. Epic fail junior. Again, your lack of “likes” demonstrates that no one is buying into your bullshit but you 😀
          You should really take red pill lessons from the cool atheists here. They don’t across as pompous pricks like you do and they respect the view of the prevailing religious majority here. You might try to take the same humble approach and not consider people of faith who *gasp* dare to disagree with your solipsist views as stupid, idiots, etc. You only succeed in showing how much of a damn militant atheist theophobe you truly are.
          “Still waiting on verifiable evidence for you god… any day now…”
          Still waiting on you to undeniably prove what i supplied so far isn’t evidence
          :p

    8. Not long along ago there wasn’t any proof that electricity exist or that the earth were flat. When all we really know is that we don’t know much, it makes no sense to go science on us. You don’t know, I don’t know, nobody knows. So stop acting as if you know.

      1. When all we really know is that we don’t know much, it makes no sense to go science on us.

        The classic “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” argument is an Appeal to Ignorance fallacy.

        So stop acting as if you know.

        I never claimed to know, so Strawman fallacy. Human ignorance is not evidence for any god, nor any religion, etc. Skepticism is the rational reaction when confronted by a total lack of verifiable evidence.

  2. There’s a great book on virtues by Joseph Pieper. The Seven Virtues that everybody talks about actually come from the Ancient Greeks. Most have to do with planning your life and personal responsibility. And interesting take would be say, stealing:
    According to most religions, stealing is wrong because they say so. But according to Greek Philosophy, it’s wrong because if you’ve reached a point in your life where you HAVE to steal, it means that you haven’t planned your life and have ended up in a mess. That’s the part that’s shameful. And lying: If you have to lie about something, it means that you’re afraid or intimidated. And that’s why lying is bad. You can lie if it’s to protect your rights, or stop someone from bothering you. But to lie because you feel insecure of are afraid is shameful.

    1. superb freelance work opportuníty for you. work for three to eight hrs a day and start earnìng in the range of 5-12 thousand dollars monthly, get paycheck at the end of every week… vísít website listed on my profíle page

  3. I like the Golden Rule, which you included, however it is so plastic as to be applicable to any world view, even utterly evil ones. Socialism can be fashioned to conform to the Golden Rule. Why yes, I would in fact love it if my fellow man provided me with a consequence free life and free material items, thank you very much!

    1. It is a good rule to give to someone taking their first step out of the solipsism of a child. To anyone with a more advanced moral sense its limitations as a doctrinal element are obvious.
      After all, what if I am a masochist?

    2. that rule is as much as you learn at school, i imagine to remember. it is seriously flawed and really can be an instrument of evil, even if not intended.
      consider this: you want to be caressed, thus you assume your child wants to be caressed. however much the child says it doesn’t want it, you can’t be convinced. after all, it’s what you would want.
      makes for some seriously fucked up parent ship.
      the categorical imperative would not even work in an actually egalitarian society. even if everybody was equal, they would not all be in identical states all the time.
      in my opinion, it’s too simplistic to be of any value.

    3. I would counter the “Golden Rule”
      7. A man should treat his brother has he himself should wish to be treated. A man must cultivate the bonds of fraternal affection with his fellows. The modern ethic of individualism and selfishness is socially destructive, and must give way to a more communitarian ethic. No man is an island unto himself; he is part of a group and must consider the good of his fellows along with that of himself.
      A man should treat others as they wish to be treated- unless doing so would conflict with any other principle of neomasculinity. I think this addresses Tom Arrow’s concern as well. I would also expand it to “others” including women. Do we not already say to treat a woman as they (in their inner being) truly wish to be treated? An alpha male leads- women follow. An alpha male guides- women conform. An alpha male is the king of his entire castle- women are feminine and submissive in the home-maker role.
      Alphas are given due respect by other alphas, betas are protected when the insanity of the feminist movement ends by strong traditional family roles. Everyone is thus treated as they deserve.

  4. In the latter part of the 20th century, airline pilots won major victories against corporations determined to massively cut their pay and working conditions. They won not on improving the system, but rather withholding their skills that make a very delicate system run smoothly, AKA withhold of enthusiasm.

    1. Oh yeah. Women see the man’s enthusiam as an OK to the plan she has in her own head. Man is just a tool to get what she wants. By not showing that you’re openly going with her manipulations, you can get what you want (pussy) and string her along. She gets caught by her own game.

  5. #7 sounds like a variation of the golden rule but focusing on dudes which I agree. It would be cool if fraternal organizations would make a comeback. Someplace where men could talk about these topics. Not just a glorified saloon

  6. Thought you guys might appreciate this…
    Study: Fatherless Childhood May Injure Brain Development
    By James Tillman
    WASHINGTON, DC, October 28, 2009 — Recent animal research backs previous sociological research by indicating that children raised by single mothers may experience reduced brain development, leading to an increase in aggressive behavior, according to an article in the Wall Street Journal.
    The findings come from research on degus, which are small rodents related to guinea pigs. Degu parents usually raise their pups together. When deprived of their father, however, degu pups exhibited developmental changes in the amygdala, the part of the brain related to emotional responses and to fear, and in the orbitofrontal cortex, or OFC, the brain’s decision-making center.
    According to Anna Katharina Braun, director of the Institute of Biology at the Otto von Guericke University in Magdeburg, the balance between these two parts of the brain is critical to normal emotional and cognitive functioning: if the OFC isn’t active, the amygdala “goes crazy, like a horse without a rider.”
    Thus, an analysis of the degus’ behavior indicated that the fatherless animals showed more impulsive behavior, and engaged in more play-fighting or aggressive behavior with their siblings than did the pups raised by both parents.
    In the study, published in the journal Neuroscience, half the degus were raised by two parents while the other half were raised by a single mother after the father was removed from the cage one day after the birth of his offspring.
    In two-parent families, Dr. Braun and her colleagues found that degu mothers and fathers cared for their pups in similar ways, including sleeping next to or crouching over them, licking and grooming them, and playing with them.
    In single-parent families, on the other hand, the frequency of the mother’s interaction with her pups did not change greatly, which meant that those pups experienced significantly less touching and interaction than those with two parents.
    Researchers then looked at the neurons – the cells in the body that process and transmit information – of pups at day 21, when they were weaned from their mothers, and at day 90, which is considered adulthood for the species.
    Neuron functioning is related to the number and length of neurons’ dendrites – branch-like protrusions from neurons related the handling of information. Dendritic spines (twig-like protrusions from a neuron’s dendrites) also help the neuron receive messages from other neurons.
    The researchers found that at 21 days, fatherless animals had less dense dendritic spines than did animals raised by both parents. Although the density of the spines was the same by day 90, the length of some types of dendrites was significantly shorter in some parts of the brain, even in adulthood, in fatherless animals.
    “It just shows that parents are leaving footprints on the brain of their kids,” says Dr. Braun.
    The wiring between certain brain regions in the degus is very similar to that in humans. “So on that level,” says Dr. Braun, “we can assume that what happens in the animal’s brain when it’s raised in an impoverished environment … should be very similar to what happens in our children’s brain.”
    Other researchers have found similar results in different animals. Xia Zhang of the University of Ottawa and his colleagues in China have found that voles separated from their fathers exhibited more anxious behavior and were less social than those who were not separated. Their study was published in July in the journal Behavioral Processes.
    Such neurological research backs a host of sociological studies that have tracked the negative developmental effects of single-parent households.
    For instance, a 2004 study in the Journal of Research on Adolescence indicated that growing up without a father was associated with higher odds of incarceration later in life, even after controlling for other factors. Those who grew up in households without ever experiencing the presence of a father tended to have the highest odds of incarceration.
    Similarly, a 2006 study in the Journal of Divorce and Remarriage indicated that adolescents living in single-parent families were more likely to report depressive tendencies and use of illegal drugs when compared to those living in families with two biological parents.
    Approximately 25% of the children living in the US live with only one parent, according to a 2008 press release by the United States Census Bureau.

    1. that makes sense. i grew up with next to no male influence and i am definitely more anxious than most men i meet who grew up with their fathers. i am also quite a loner most of the time. aggression, jay, ever since i started muay thai, i have loved it.
      makes me wonder if parts of these changes can be reasonably counter-acted.

      1. You might try therapy, with someone you can trust. I hear it works for some people.

    2. I believe this. Wait till all the lezzies start getting married and having boys. Boys raised exclusively by women that is not going to end well. There are stories by guys who were raised by lesbians and they had lots of issues but of course this was suppressed by the MSM who want to continue the narrative that same sex couples are nothing but sweetness and light.

      1. My God, that’s a horrifying thought. There seems to be no end to the insanity.
        Gotta get me some FU money, then it time to GTFO

  7. I’ve been thinking about a philosophy of how to live the good life, or eudaimonia, so to speak for a while now (before Roosh released his rumblings of neomasculinity). I released the preliminary document last week, and I call it “True Glory.” I believe this concept fits in well with several points listed here and could be a codification for purpose that we’ve been discussing. I’ve received some positive feedback so far.
    Would be interested in your feedback, Quintus:
    http://masculineepic.blogspot.com/2015/06/what-is-true-glory.html
    It is perhaps a bit individualistic, but it puts individualism into a broader perspective to ensure that it doesn’t devolve into solipsism. I think my idea of True Glory could be part of the individual purpose of neomasculinity, which can be combined with some other aspects of social order.

    1. Aristotle covered a lot of this ground already though, hasn’t he? Individualism in a healthy sense such that society and the individual both benefit (hence, Eudaimonia)?

  8. The ethical and spiritual principles of masculinity were established long ago, haven’t changed, and don’t require restructuring by Team Roosh. However, that doesn’t really advance the interests of persons desiring to ‘invent’ them again so they can pretend they re-created masculinity, or the manosphere, or whatever, and then go on World Tours to blabber about it constantly, for a fee.
    But, by all means, go right ahead and be the 478, 932, 721, 445th guy to re-invent the ethics of masculinity. You can call it Neomasculinity or Mondomasculinity or New Warrior Masculinity or a zillion other things that your predecessors already ran through before.
    I’m sure you boys will be different though because unlike all those other guys seeking self promotion, converts, and money, you are Special and Different. And much much smarter.

    1. come on, don’t be an ass. it’s great fun to make up rules and concepts. and he also wrote that men should adapt them to their own needs.
      if man wasn’t granted permission to take ownership of his product, what motivation would he be left with to play around and share his knowledge?

      1. Do what you say or I’m an ass?
        Is that part of the emerging ethos and manifesto of Neomasculinity?
        :O)
        That should make for a very didactic World Tour.
        I notice that y’all are pretty free on the internet cussing me out. I also notice none of you do it in person. Ever.
        I guess that’s part of Neomasculinity too!

        1. hey man, i’m not “y’all”. i just sympathize with the invention of labels. that’s not to say that neomasculinity is the great new thing. it’s simply roosh’s thing.

    2. You’re carping, and missing the point.
      I said at the beginning of the article that I made no claims to originality of ideas here. The originality here lies in the delivery, the packaging, the ability to reach an audience, and the intensity of the presentation.
      Each new generation needs to be brought into contact with the cultural inheritance of its forebearers. Our elders have failed in their duty to pass on this culture, so it is for us to do it. We write because it is necessary to write. We advocate because it is necessary to advocate.
      Sometimes new names serve a useful purpose when they cause people to take a second look.

      1. You’re rationalizing and avoiding responsibility. ‘Our elders’ messed everything up so now Me ‘n Roosh and the World Tour and gonna bleh bleh blah, advocate because it’s necessary to advocate for advocacy.
        Your elders were better than you, and not all of them failed you. But by all means play I’m Butthurt and it’s all somebody else’s fault. I’m sure that’s a solid foundation for your re-packaged Neomasculinity egofest.

  9. i disagree with 7.
    firstly, you cannot treat everybody like you want to be treated because not everybody is equal and what you give is not necessarily what you want to get. each person has their own qualities. i noticed you write “his brother”, but i still want to use the example of a male-female relationship. the categorical imperative in a sexual relationship is the most obviously flawed, but it’s also flawed in everyday life.
    secondly, not everybody is or wants to be your brother. you do write “fellows”, but i want to point out that you first have to carefully choose whom to accept as a brother. if your own convictions lead you away from people towards solitude, you should be man enough to listen to yourself. i have done it and i assure you that there is enough time in solitude to contemplate a way back. it also gives you a chance to free yourself from conditioning that you will find hard to shake off when you are burdened with responsibilities you may not care to have.
    thirdly, people are different. some people need solitude more than others. some people are psychopaths – and i don’t mean that in a bad way – and just don’t give a fuck. others can’t even go to bed alone, i have seen that, too. get to know yourself and accept that you may really not care if it is so. i personally have felt guilty for not really caring about most people for a long time. like with a family, only be part of a group if it enriches you, not if it is a burden. but do challenge yourself indeed, don’t be just content with being a loner.
    fourthly, without individualism, you wouldn’t have the power to destroy bridges towards destructive groups of people. selfishness is a word that has a foul taste attached to it nowadays, but you have to distinguish between selfishness and self-obsession. selfishness merely means to choose for your life what you want, not what others want. if you want to help somebody, great. that’s not unselfish. altruism is merely a tool to control people into submission. use that on your girls, but not on man.

    1. Interesting, but perhaps the definition of brother is your brother as part of the tribe? I agree with you about selfishness….

      1. yes, that will have been true and is true for tribes – because you have no choice. but we live in a globalized world with all kinds of men. to accept every man in your country as a brother is to betray yourself of any kind of standards and become a slave of what most people think a man should be like.
        take rok. i feel very at home here, but there’s still plenty of room for disagreement. i like discussions and that’s something i share with many of you guys and which i love about this place. but that doesn’t mean i would lay my hand into the fire for somebody just because he is frequenting this site.
        for me, a man is a man and can be friends with other men precisely when he isn’t dependent on it. not needy. and all that solidarity-crap, aka together against women or sjws, makes men weak. let’s not forget that we are all in competition over women, for instance. yes, we share our insights with each other, but ultimately, i would not expect another man to forgo pleasure so that i could have some. such a thing would be like poison to a friendship as i would value it.

  10. nice article, beautifully written. The most important aspect is for men to never do “hoes before bros”.

  11. I have found that it is vastly more important to work out and understand meta-ethics before prescriptive ethics. Failure to do this could end you in the naked utilitarian camp, which was discussed previously here at ROK in the Bentham article.
    And once you see the options in the meta-ethical realm, you will be surprised. Because the foundation of all ethics can be either God/Nature’s God, or man.
    And man’s godless ethics is nothing but a delusion, anchored in the shifting winds, tethered to a rudderless ship. Without a supreme lawgiver and His revelations, ethics and morality do not exist, except as personal opinions of fallible ignorant men.

  12. It is good to see philosophy discussed. The left has killed philosophy.
    Leftist thought has become, “It’s not fair. Here is my data !” or ” I should have more free shit. Here is my story of oppression”
    As a young man, I gravitated toward the left as that is where I thought free thought and philosophy resided.
    But I do not think there is any free thought left for the left.

    1. Agree, it has become a politically correct quagmire. Difficult or troubling truths must not be touched, but that is where the real wisdom is.

  13. So causality is thrown out the window then? In this world, is the destiny of man controlled by the transcendental? Logic is a virtue, but I see the correlation between small things and big things, and I’ve experienced it too. Don’t tell me you haven’t. It’s more than just action and reaction. I’m not arguing for or against beliefs, but just think of it this way. There is some source for all the causality, there is an idea.

    1. As Aristotle believed, there is a “prime mover” if we go back far enough. Something set in motion all the particles. Call it whatever you believe in: the Big Bang, or God. Take your pick.

      1. God is the Big Bang, isn’t it? It’s all the creator. What do you think of the nature of God? Benevolence, malediction? Or perhaps there is no alignment because believing in such a spectrum is a human construct at best, and that there are overlapping regions of reality (physical, astral, ideal) with the higher beings exist in a realm of ideals?
        One reality that was barely mentioned on this site is how much life is truly defined through misery and struggle alone. Nothing else. Humans can’t stand peace and happiness to be honest, it is the paradox of being human, to secretly desire conflict and strain above everything else on the inside, and try to band together to survive on the outside fighting against the very thing which they want to be brought down upon them. People don’t like it when I bring up this subject haha, but as you can see, it is true. That is what they desire most because without such struggles what would their existence be worth? Hardly their weight in sand. Thus is to be human.

      2. What’s your response to the objection that there does not exist indisputable evidence for such a prime mover?

  14. Valuable article. Sounds like commandments of “Men Renaissance” but not in a wrong way. Everything looks pretty smooth and well-rounded on paper but in realistically how many men will follow there principles? How many will be lost to the blue-pill propaganda and how much wont be able to swallow red truth? There should be created a nation only from red pill man and woman, otherwise neo-masculine man always will be minority.

    1. I live my life imperfectly, yet strive to be better. It helps to discuss what better means with our peers.

      1. Good job that you understand value of “strive to be a better version of yourself” instead of “just being yourself”. I’m writing about a broader perspective and while it’s good to discuss with peers about problems, i recommend not just blindly follow anything that comes through this site but actually take some contemplation and think about reasoning behind these rules.

  15. There are 16 principles listed here. I would propose a 17th principle as a post script that every man should follow and it comes from former NYC Mayor, Ed Koch: “If you agree with 80% of the things I say, vote for me. If you agree with 100% of the things I say, go see a psychologist.” I love my wife and children more than anyone, or anything else in this world, and we can’t agree 100% of the time, why would I agree with 100% of the author’s principles? That being said, I think it’s an excellent list.

  16. again I strongly disagree with the term ‘neo’ masculinity. It is evocative of ‘neo’ conservatism and other ‘neo’ terms that bear no true relation to their subject matter.
    In other words quintus, I respect you, but you don’t need to suck Roosh’s dick on this one.

  17. Some of these principles are contradictory. You can’t claim that there is a soul and at the same time that all reality is matter in motion.
    .
    Enjoy life and embrace the idea that happiness is not a zero sum game.

  18. This is all great. Every time I did “the right thing” I ended up being fucked.

    1. It only works when, no, IF everyone else is doing the “right” thing, whatever that is.

  19. Neomasculinity? Retro fitting a classic, you cry in scoffing disbelief? Verily, verily, this project is ambitious, bold, a bit mad, and probably doomed to frustration–thus, manly at its core. For those who want to criticize Roosh and Quintus Curtius for “neo-ing” the timeless, here are words to ponder from Southern literary critic and poet Allen Tate (also one of the contributors to the majestically homespun Southern Agrarian manifesto _I’ll Take My Stand_). In this passage, Tate is speaking of the man of letters (RIP), but the same applies to those who dare pick up his heavy quill: “[H]e must recreate for his age the image of man, and he must propagate standards by which other men may test that image, and distinguish the false from the true” (_Essays of Four Decades_). Apart from the refreshing use of the male pronoun, think about this. The image of man does not change; there is a standard by which all other models are to be fashioned and tested. However, the manner by which these designs and tests are subject to the exigencies of the exigent.
    Truth (capital “T,” y’all) is timeless, yet the general is made known only through the particular–or some Aristotelian/Thomistic quip like that. An analogy (for those who still have a mustard seed or two in box): the One not bound by time/space came to us as One who submitted to the particulars of time/space. Hint? The Incarnation (*bows head*). Most of us will not, sadly, put forth the time and effort to learn the languages and seek out the dusty tomes of wisdom. Most of us, sadly, need wisdom distilled and pre-packaged. Thus, let us hearken back to a more venerable understanding of the term “rhetoric”: Donald Bryant states that rhetoric serves “the function of adjusting ideas to people and of people to ideas” (stolen from Edward P.J. Corbett’s _Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student_). The letters remain the same; the font may change, but are we going to quibble about serif versus sans serif?
    As a (mercurial) Catholic, I am sure that, at some point, I will disagree with a particular understanding/wording of one, or more, of the principles put forth. I do not think, though, that I will disagree with the principles themselves. I trust, too, that those who approach in good faith (not necessarily of the supernatural variety) will find a mansion with many different rooms.

  20. “15. We reject fatalism and the idea that things are preordained. Every man must make his own choices, and live by those choices. Free will is an essential part of our philosophy. Positive action, rather than passivity born of fatalism, is our preference. Man’s actions, or inactions, can be decisive in historical events. The individual personality is a determining factor in history. Men make and shape history, more than unseen, nameless forces.”
    As a rationalizing species, we love to think the illusion of freewill and freethinking is actually real.

  21. If you want to talk about morality you also have to talk about protecting our Western women. Look at what the Muslims are doing to them in Europe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hh5QfXGDx0
    Want women to respect you? Stand up to the people who actually are raping them. Can’t be a good man if you aren’t proud of your own people and have a real sense of who you are. Part of that is protecting your people.

    1. Bitches will stab you in the back as soon as you turn it towards them and you think they need protecting??
      Wow.

    1. Actually it’s progressivism (driven mainly by females) that led to all that shit anyway.
      And do you want women to ‘respect you’?
      Actually not in your terms of saving/protecting i.e. pedestalizing. You’re new here aren’t you?
      These brutalized women were likely putting themselves in the company of these animals for their own “I’m not racist” tingles. There are a lot of people on earth who are more worthy of sympathy than Swedish women and their rampant and idiotic progressive thought. Reap what you sow. Sorry. I believe in equality and part of that is women taking responsibility for their own stupidity.

      1. I’m new here, that’s true. But I also know the stories behind the women in those videos and they were all innocent, just wrong place at the wrong time of day.
        As for saving women, why not? If someone attacks my sister I’d like for someone watching it to stop the attacker.
        Also, just because women have on average been very liberal doesn’t mean men should just give up on them. You just have to realize that women are very easily manipulated by the media because most are more sympathetic / sensitive. We just have to realize how women are and work around it.

        1. Yeah sure. Of course the women had zero culpability according to the media. That’s a given.
          There have been cases of women stomped nearly to death by groups of Af-Ams here in the US. They blamed society and not the criminals, even with a permanently disfigured face.
          You’re putting all the onus on men and that is what a lot of us in the manosphere no longer do. Women can lead the charge in Sweden to kick Muslims out. Only women would be listened to anyway. If women don’t want to be brutalized by Muslims, they need to take steps. Not just wait to be saved by males after decades of insulting and attacking males.
          This is a women’s issue, imo. They should handle it. Certainly, they are capable of handling it as I believe in equality.

        2. Who cares who caused this or if feminists whine about men. You and I both know an army of women is not going to go into bad neighborhoods, grab these guys, put them on a plane, and send them back to where they belong.
          Honestly the way a lot of guys here talk sounds so defeatist and apolitical it almost makes me think you want to be treated like women. I bet some of you even think you’d have a better life if you were a woman. Don’t you guys like being guys? Part of being masculine is standing up to crazed religious fanatics who would gladly rape your little sister.

        3. “Who cares who caused it?”
          And with that you just gave progressives more free license to come up with another round of insane beliefs in service to whatever tingle they can manufacture. They know that no matter how insane or irresponsible they get, the white boys will come in and save them when it starts to get real, not to mention that white boys are bankrolling all of their insanity all along the way.
          No one is defeatist here. You are the defeated one. No matter how unfair or unrewarding the situation, guys like you will always answer the ‘Man Up’ call. That’s defeat.

        4. I’m not talking about saving extreme left fanatics, just people in the middle who don’t know any better. There’s a lot of people out there who only vote progressive because that’s what their t.v. told them to do. They’re just brainwashed, we should start waking them up, not throwing out the gold with the chafe.

    2. Stand up for your family, gf, children, etc….sure. But nobody owes “their country” anything. It’s all special interest, there’s no such thing as patriotism.
      We’ve seen what women do during the good times, when men lay down their lives to protect them anyway. Like melmoth said, this was all brought on them with their liberal votes.

      1. “this was all brought on them with their liberal votes.”
        Our women are being raped and nobody here seems to even care. How many of you have a mother? You want this to happen to her? It will happen in America and every other Western country if we don’t stand up against it.

  22. You missed out a crucial point defining virtue.
    It also consists in emotional self-regulation. Knowing and mastering his own emotions is core.

  23. You missed out a crucial point defining virtue.
    Emotional self-regulation. Knowing and mastering your emotions is at the core of virtue.

  24. I have to say, you seem to erring towards socialism with this list, which actually laid the trap we now find ourselves in.

  25. this is a great start, but a few things i would modify would be that solitude can be beneficial if done right, and individualism (albeit healthy and not enclosing or atomistic) is the natural good in terms of political philosophy, especially for men. on a side note, it troubles me the amount of hatred towards ROK and neomasculinity coming from MGTOW people like stardusk and barby, they should be allies, instead they label us as “tradcons” and seem to just want to bury their heads in the sand.

  26. Ethics is a branch of philosophy, and yet this article about the so-called ethical principles of ‘neomasculinity’ contains empirical claims, polemics, metaphysics, and even epistemology.
    I enjoy ROK as social commentary and even as a cult follower, but is ‘neomasculinity’ prepared for serious academic questions? Apparently not.

  27. I’m in two minds about this. Its something we should be thinking about, and maybe looking to distill and codify for the sake clarity and guidance, but there’s a danger to making things dogmatic or doctrinal, i.e. making masculinity into any set of inflexible values. Inflexibility or dogmatism will break the venture before its begun, and probably for the better rather the worse.
    As some have said before there already is a relatively agree upon content to what it is to be masculine, and typically this content is understood in terms of ‘virtues’. Sometimes this takes the form of ‘a man would do this’ or that, and typically this sense masculine virtue is tied to a clear aesthetics of masculinity, one which takes into account both what is good, and fair and honest etc, but also what is considered to be noble.
    Its notable that those who have sought to destroy masculinity – to literally take it apart one component at a time have often done on this basis – think of for example ‘boys don’t cry’ (by which it is meant they should cry to show their feelings, their soft feminine side’. So in this case we would be looking at whether that latter has any value – I would suggest that men crying is by and large a character trait to avoid. It’s not just that it looks weak, but also that it destroys the underlying virtue, which is arguably ‘fortitude’ – refusing to be broken when you’re down, getting up to fight again etc. Having said that making the link between ‘not crying’ and some notion of fortitude (a value that will almost certainly assist you in life, and help you as well to assist others) doesn’t mean to say that the implied ossified commandment of traditional masculinity ‘boys don’t cry’ was in any way sufficient. There may be occasions where the repression of feeling, sentiment etc genuinely was destructive or fettering of one’s true self.
    Thus in the above example the thing to ‘rescue’ and recapitulate is the virtue of ‘fortitude’ and resilience, understood as something that is expected of men, and as a component of masculinity. Women too can choose to borrow such virtues, and call them masculine or feminine as they choose, but observation in the past and present pretty much demonstrates that they very rarely do, and simply wish when they get exercised about the issue, to deprive it as a form of nobility available to men as a matter of course.
    I haven’t really read much Aristotle, but its my intention to read up on Aristotle’s virtue ethics at some point. I’ve read a little in relation to MacIntyre, who has sought to bring aristotelian ‘virtue’ back into the fold. In an age of relativism, deconstruction of gender roles and the like a cogent philosopher like macintyre might be a useful ‘ally’ in reconstituting an ethics that has a strong masculine component.
    And on the subject of Greek philosophy I’d point out that some of ROKs best articles that have touched on ethics have been those on stoicism. The virtue of stoicism is I think twofold in the context we find outselves in. Firstly its a very practical and pragmatic way of managing oneself, particularly by managing one’s expectations, and secondly being able to master stoical virtue is a good way of managing feelings and expectations about women, and more broadly sexual desire.
    The first virtue then in this sense would be one which required the specific virtue of continence of mind and body. In world which is out to seduce or addict us to every temptation under the sun I could think of worse starting points

  28. #5. Reminds me of something I read in one of j.krishnamurtis books . ” to free oneself from this society – the society of violence , wealth , of position , of success -requires patience , inquiry, discovery , not the reading of books , the chasing after teachers , psychologist and all the of it ” .

  29. ‘History repeats itself’ true and life is too short to learn virtue, mores and guidelines from scratch or get a crash course in the nature of women, recoup and then get it right. Civilizations repeat themselves rising and crumbling like ant hills, rising and falling to the same pattern, but unlike the ant hills, man’s civilization looks to the astral and spiritual planes.
    Ant colonies thrust for life manifests in their drive to surrepititiously establish colonies, none better or worse than the previous and all succumbing to the wash of natural forces, much like man’s. The ant’s instinct to build towering mounds coursing with intricate commuter infrastructure and tunnels, wide arteries branching with smaller vessels resembles a typical road map of any large metropolitan city only with traffic flow patterns seemingly more perfected. And this accomplished by the ant species being given over without arguement to their instinct alone and without the use of computers to calculate traffic patterns and regulate stoplights. Of course the ants have built in antennae for onboard communication between all members of the colony, something we have just receintly reached continuity with as far as the technology required.
    Man’s penchant to build towering civilizations comes not from virtue or dogma or mores but from the physical elements comprising our earthly existence. The raw elements within the field of our life force result in an instinct to build, to mimic the surrounding life forms. A struggling lone trio of humans surviving in the wilderness can have perhaps more virtue than an entire traffic jam of bickering commuter ant wage slaves in the world’s largest city.
    We as men have the power to rebel, to jump the fence and take our DNA chain beyond Earth’s trappings, a rise and fall cycle no doubt but a higher ‘mound’ or ascent than the previous rise and fall cycles. With time our DNA matures along with our souls and we jump higher. The elements and forces we’ve shit tested to no end. Our women also get better at their game as their DNA is ours and is acclimating as well. We must keep our women under control and aft all the more lest our rise be inverted and we come slamming back to Earth all the harder.
    The day grows nearer when we will finally break the surly bonds of the great bitch mother Earth.

  30. There is nothing wrong with solitude in the pursuit of something great in the Long run.

  31. Only 107 comments? How disappointing.
    This is one of the finest articles in recent ROK history. It proves you can sometimes say a lot more with a lot less. The remarks contained therein are practically undeniable.
    I thoroughly enjoyed reading this list Quintus. You seem to be a classical theosophist of the highest order and one which i always enjoy reading from on occasion, along with Roosh, albeit for different reasons.
    i would even venture to state that there may be a kernel of faith within your verisimilitude, although i won’t dare to make that presumption.
    I would however like to mention that, ethics as mankind generally has come to define it, is only the basic template for an ensuing sociological perspective the individual is taught to understand as a child and the society positions itself to represent as a whole.
    Morality is something far more advanced, when one considers that ethics offers a set of guidelines that recommend a course of action or behavior within yourself and your fellow Man, while morality is a set of guidelines recommended by a deity higher than yourself and your countrymen, thereby making it subject to a far higher (and temporally inviolable due to a dogmatic belief structure) standard.
    My purpose here is to not proselytize as to which religion’s “morality standard” is therefore superior, but merely to emphasize that adhering to a true morality standard raises one from simply being ethical to being a truly moral person, since the former can change with the progressive nature of time (if you will pardon the pun) whereas the latter generally does not thanks to a sacrosanct regard to the fundamental tenets within the particular religion in question.
    This is demonstrated superbly within our current societal structure, where the militancy involved in fundamental anti-theism has joined forces with the elitist, capricious nature of academic pseudo-science in order to properly weaponize secular ethics. They do so in order to use it as a philosophical ballista against the immutable moralities most commonly associated with organized religion, specifically (and especially) within those found in the JudeoChristian one.
    But i digress…
    As to your list itself, it amazes me to find correlations from each of your points to a fundamental tenet of faith, the one in which i represent especially.
    I will list them by order for your perusal, as well as any other interested parties. The atheist of course, is free to disagree.
    “1. Virtue is to be found in the balanced operation of the bodily faculties, governed by rational thought.”
    Biblical approximation:
    “2Pe 1:5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
    2Pe 1:6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
    2Pe 1:7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
    2Pe 1:8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
    “2: Starting a family is a positive good if it serves as a net benefit to man, rather than a burden. ”
    Biblical approximation:
    “1Ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”
    “3. Change is the essence of the operation of the universe: things grow, mature, decay, and die.”
    Biblical approximation:
    “Ecc 3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
    Ecc 3:2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted”
    And…
    “2Co 4:16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.
    2Co 4:17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;
    2Co 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.”
    “4: A soul exists in every man, and is man’s intangible essence of character.”
    Biblical approximation:
    “Mat 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?”
    “5: The gaining of wisdom does not consist only in reading books about wisdom; it lies in the training of the body and mind as a harmonious unit towards virtuous goals.”
    Biblical approximation:
    “2Pe 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
    2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
    2Pe 1:5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
    2Pe 1:6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
    2Pe 1:7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
    2Pe 1:8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
    2Pe 1:9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
    2Pe 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
    2Pe 1:11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”
    And…
    “Jas 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?”
    Jas 2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
    Jas 2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
    Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”
    “6: The pursuit of solitude for its own sake is to be avoided.”
    Biblical approximation:
    “Pro 18:1 Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh and intermeddleth with all wisdom.”
    “7: A man should treat his brother has he himself should wish to be treated.”
    Biblical approximation:
    “Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”
    “8: “The good man will accept as part of life all of the vicissitudes of fate: loss, failure, defeat, pain, and even death.”
    Biblical approximation:
    “Mat 6:25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?”
    and…
    “Mat 6:34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”
    “9: We cannot know all things in Nature.”
    Biblical approximation:
    “Deu 31:6 Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the LORD thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee”
    and…
    “Rom 5:3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
    Rom 5:4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
    Rom 5:5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.”
    “10: We should examine our consciences regularly to see if we are advancing our ideals, and living up to them.”
    Biblical approximation:
    “Pro 4:5 Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth.
    Pro 4:6 Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee.
    Pro 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.”
    “11: We must cultivate our spiritual side.”
    Biblical approximation:
    “Pro 20:27 The spirit of man is the candle of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly.”
    “12: Knowledge of the world comes from two sources: from the senses, and from divine illumination (i.e., an intuitive perception of the Divine Essence).”
    Biblical approximation:
    “Pro 1:5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:
    Pro 1:6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.
    Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”
    “13: All of life, and all of physical reality, is the dynamic movement of matter.”
    Biblical approximation:
    “Ecc 3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
    Ecc 3:2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
    Ecc 3:3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
    Ecc 3:4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
    Ecc 3:5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
    Ecc 3:6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
    Ecc 3:7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
    Ecc 3:8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.”
    “14: Social morality must be based on moral codes that have stood the test of time.”
    Biblical approximation:
    “Psa 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one
    of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.”
    “15: We reject fatalism and the idea that things are preordained.”
    Biblical approximation:
    “Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but
    will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear
    it.”
    “16: The definition of “goodness” for man lies in this: the cooperation with Nature, rather than the vain pursuit of sensual pleasure.”
    Biblical approximation:
    “Jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.”
    And
    “Rom 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good”

  32. I think endurance of hardship and struggle are completely underestimated, especially in western culture. People need to struggle and suffer to survive, it’s how nature intends it. If you live in luxury and excess exclusively you just really can’t appreciate the little things and will take everything for granted. As a result you will be unhappy. Plus, when you suffer and overcome hardship with another person(s) your bond with them will be exponentially stronger. Ex. Men who go through war together. So every once in a while put yourself through some trying shit, test yourself physically and mentally, so you really can appreciate the luxuries we have here in 1st world countries.

  33. I must agree with much of this article, even if some of it might be painful to accept. Man is constantly a work in progress. Good to see your writings QC

  34. A good article. I would just make one point regarding asceticism. It comes from a Greek word, meaning “exercise” or “training.” There is no spiritual life without asceticism, and in fact asceticism is precisely the training which makes virtue – the habit of doing the good and beautiful thing – possible. You aren’t going to develop virtue or spirituality without training. A man trains himself to forego certain pleasures, to delay gratification, to quiet his mind and meditate rather than do the easy thing of watching tv or finding some other distraction.
    I know you probably had in mind some kind of imbalanced hatred of the body and material goods, but I thought it worth pointing out, that this is not what asceticism is. Asceticism is the normal kind of training that any man seriously pursuing virtue or spirituality *must* employ, if he wants to attain to those goals… like lifting weights and eating right is the discipline and exercise necessary to attain and maintain an healthy body.

  35. I have a simpler definition of morality. Let what benefits you and your progeny be general morality. Let what you are inclined to do naturally be specific morality. Morality is then the intersection of the two, as it fulfills your evolutionary ‘duty’ to pass on your genes by whatever strategy is most natural to you. Add in game theory, where people find some way of retaliating at you if you try to screw them over, and you have a situation of full morality.

  36. I swear ReturnOfKings is absolute trash. “The pursuit of solitude should be greatly avoided”? Independence is a masculine trait and should be in pursuit from a man. Men aren’t “social creatures”, they strive to hunt independently and with confidence. In the animal kingdom, a lion doesn’t go after other lions to socialize, he doesn’t need to socialize and he hunts alone. This site is a bunch of garbage, neomasculinity is the true “masculinity”, ReturnsOfKings are just absolute garbage. Does this site even know what they’re talking about?

Comments are closed.