A question for science? Is Liberalism a religion?

[Father Heathen]

What a goofy non sequitur.

 

[Nakosis]

One set of foundation premises of Liberalism is connected to revisionist history. This is where the past is judged by the standard of the present, and where those living in the present, are somehow responsible for the past, based solely on sex or skin color.

The question for science is, does any physics we know of support this transcendence of time or is this a metaphysical claim like is common in religion? If so should separation of church and state apply?

In terms of reverse engineering this claim, to make it work, it would work is we had an eternal soul, where the essence of who we are could transcend time and space. We could be reborn in different bodies, with the same soul and same conscious awareness, again and again. This would support the liberal claim. Does any science support this?

If you look at revisionist history, it assumes the eternal soul of today was living in the past, and since it transcends time, it also had access to the future. Even though it had the capacity to see the future, it nevertheless made a decision to do evil in the past, in spite of the modern standards it could see. Therefore it is guilty in the present, of the past, since time to the eternal reincarnated soul is relative and not sequential. To the eternal soul, it hops like an internet search, instead of like reading a book in time, from start to finish. Is the human brain capable to stepping out of time while being conscious in different bodies in many different times, simultaneously? This would make the past and present relative.

In more practical terms of examples, white people of the present are said to be responsible for the past days of slavery that was controlled by white people. Since they have the eternal soul, they should have been aware of the future ,and never have done this in the past. They need to feel guilty because of their eternal souls and its ability to time hop, while consciously making poor choices in the past, while knowing the future. How does science and physics weigh in in terms of time hoping based on skin color? Does skin pigment generate quantum affects? And does the eternal soul have to stay with the same skin color or sex for these quantum affects to work over time?

In reincarnation within Eastern Religions, Karma is in affect, so the eternal soul, would reincarnate into a different form, to balance its previous choices of good and evil. In this case, the blacks of today would have been the whites of the past to balance this out with the current hardships. Which of the two reincarnations is supported by science; the liberal eternal soul that never changes or learns, or the Eastern balanced eternal soul that improves with time?

Sorry, this mostly seems like fictional idealism in order to create some kind of harmony or balance in the universe.

Foremost, science doesn't deal with supernatural idealism. There is simply nothing there for science to measure, test, validate or verify. You are free to assume whatever supernatural connections you can dream up since nothing can be falsified. May make an entertaining science fiction story though.

Honestly it's a mistake to assume the validity of anything that can't be verified. Even if supported by some religious idealism like kharma. While nobody can prove you are wrong, anybody can say however there's no rational reason to believe such claims.

As you come to learn more about science, you learn the limits of what can be used by the scientific methods to investigate. Supernatural claims or theories that contain a supernatural component isn't one of them.

 

[QuestioningMind]

One set of foundation premises of Liberalism is connected to revisionist history. This is where the past is judged by the standard of the present, and where those living in the present, are somehow responsible for the past, based solely on sex or skin color.

The question for science is, does any physics we know of support this transcendence of time or is this a metaphysical claim like is common in religion? If so should separation of church and state apply?

In terms of reverse engineering this claim, to make it work, it would work is we had an eternal soul, where the essence of who we are could transcend time and space. We could be reborn in different bodies, with the same soul and same conscious awareness, again and again. This would support the liberal claim. Does any science support this?

If you look at revisionist history, it assumes the eternal soul of today was living in the past, and since it transcends time, it also had access to the future. Even though it had the capacity to see the future, it nevertheless made a decision to do evil in the past, in spite of the modern standards it could see. Therefore it is guilty in the present, of the past, since time to the eternal reincarnated soul is relative and not sequential. To the eternal soul, it hops like an internet search, instead of like reading a book in time, from start to finish. Is the human brain capable to stepping out of time while being conscious in different bodies in many different times, simultaneously? This would make the past and present relative.

In more practical terms of examples, white people of the present are said to be responsible for the past days of slavery that was controlled by white people. Since they have the eternal soul, they should have been aware of the future ,and never have done this in the past. They need to feel guilty because of their eternal souls and its ability to time hop, while consciously making poor choices in the past, while knowing the future. How does science and physics weigh in in terms of time hoping based on skin color? Does skin pigment generate quantum affects? And does the eternal soul have to stay with the same skin color or sex for these quantum affects to work over time?

In reincarnation within Eastern Religions, Karma is in affect, so the eternal soul, would reincarnate into a different form, to balance its previous choices of good and evil. In this case, the blacks of today would have been the whites of the past to balance this out with the current hardships. Which of the two reincarnations is supported by science; the liberal eternal soul that never changes or learns, or the Eastern balanced eternal soul that improves with time?

One set of foundation premises of Liberalism is connected to revisionist history. This is where the past is judged by the standard of the present, and where those living in the present, are somehow responsible for the past, based solely on sex or skin color.

What a silly claim. Been a liberal all my life and have known liberals all my life and neither I or any other liberal I know supports to such a moronic position.

 

[PruePhillip]

Liberalism is not a religion.
You would think that that would be fairly obvious, but I guess some people prefer being ignorant.
Huh.

Marxism is a form of religion. It has it holy trinity of Marx, Engels and Lenin.
It has its holy texts
It has ready made explanations of how we got here, why we are here and
where we are all going.
It has its hell and heaven too.

 

[PruePhillip]

One set of foundation premises of Liberalism is connected to revisionist history. This is where the past is judged by the standard of the present, and where those living in the present, are somehow responsible for the past, based solely on sex or skin color.

What a silly claim. Been a liberal all my life and have known liberals all my life and neither I or any other liberal I know supports to such a moronic position.

Part of this "silly claim" I support. Yes, people of the past ARE being
judged by the standards of today. The past is sexist, racist, homophobic,
etc.. And tomorrow we will judge the past for being anti-pederast and
anti-polygamist.
Not all the past, and not all races. Only white men, and "right wing."
Muslims had slavery, including a few million European slaves, but
that doesn't count. And US Democrats were behind slavery, the
segregation laws and the KKK, but that doesn't count either.

 

[youknowme]

Marxism is a form of religion. It has it holy trinity of Marx, Engels and Lenin.
It has its holy texts
It has ready made explanations of how we got here, why we are here and
where we are all going.
It has its hell and heaven too.

Bazooka Joe-ism is also a religion.

 

[youknowme]

Part of this "silly claim" I support. Yes, people of the past ARE being
judged by the standards of today. The past is sexist, racist, homophobic,
etc.. And tomorrow we will judge the past for being anti-pederast and
anti-polygamist.
Not all the past, and not all races. Only white men, and "right wing."
Muslims had slavery, including a few million European slaves, but
that doesn't count. And US Democrats were behind slavery, the
segregation laws and the KKK, but that doesn't count either.

And if I said the term "New Deal", would you know why?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Part of this "silly claim" I support. Yes, people of the past ARE being
judged by the standards of today. The past is sexist, racist, homophobic,
etc.. And tomorrow we will judge the past for being anti-pederast and
anti-polygamist.
Not all the past, and not all races. Only white men, and "right wing."
Muslims had slavery, including a few million European slaves, but
that doesn't count. And US Democrats were behind slavery, the
segregation laws and the KKK, but that doesn't count either.

...those living in the present, are somehow responsible for the past, based solely on sex or skin color.

Who claims that people in the present are somehow responsible for acts committed in the past? Who says that ONLY white men practiced slavery? And yes, most of today's Southern Republicans were Democrats, back before the Democratic party came out strongly against segregation. Who do you imagine is denying this?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Bazooka Joe-ism is also a religion.

I can vouch for that. *Grin*

 

[wellwisher]

The question was not about philosophy, political opinion or circling the wagons. It was about using science to determine if there is a scientific basis, that justifies blaming the present for the past, or judging the past in term of the present, and then forcing this on everyone. If not, then this approach is similar to a religion in the sense it makes claims that cannot be supported by science; only opinion based on faith.

I like religion. I do not judge those who practice any religion. However the separation of church and state prohibits any religion from controlling the state. I asking this question to see if some parts of left wing politics is a religion. If it quacks, it is a duck; science inference.

For example, if you look at the quota system, it attempts to make up for the discrimination of the past by altering the present, to balance this out. This is a nice utopian vision; paradise. I can respect that.

However, those who live in the present, who expect to benefit from such laws, were not part of that past. This is a con artist trick, unless you assume there is a type of reincarnation, where the spirits of the past, transmigrate, and can now live in the same skin and sex of people in the present. If this was true, then it makes perfect sense. But without this assumption, it creates injustice. It blames someone who was not there, to pay someone who was not there. How can you punish someone for something they never did, or give a fine to someone who never was violated?

I asked if there is any science that can prove, transmigration of consciousness, through time, so the guilty parties and the recipients of restitution meet once again in the future, so they can all set is right. Nobody answered in terms of proven science, therefore this is not supported by science. This forum topic; science and religion, has no problem using the science standard on established religions. But a dual standard is used for closet religions.

Quotas were an example of a closet religion infiltrating the state. One is free to practice this religion, and practice the quotas among the faithful in a voluntary way. Left wing white men, who have the faith, can step down and let left wing women and blacks and minorities step up. Your faith in transmigration will make it all work out. But this religion, because it is based on unproven science, cannot force its dogma on those with other religions, or a line is crossed. It is unconstitutional to use the state to force everyone to obey a religion. Only the faithful are under its laws, not everyone.

 

[youknowme]

The question was not about philosophy, political opinion or circling the wagons. It was about using science to determine if there is a scientific basis, that justifies blaming the present for the past, or judging the past in term of the present, and then forcing this on everyone. If not, then this approach is similar to a religion in the sense it makes claims that cannot be supported by science; only opinion based on faith.

I like religion. I do not judge those who practice any religion. However the separation of church and state prohibits any religion from controlling the state. I asking this question to see if some parts of left wing politics is a religion. If it quacks, it is a duck; science inference.

For example, if you look at the quota system, it attempts to make up for the discrimination of the past by altering the present, to balance this out. This is a nice utopian vision; paradise. I can respect that.

However, those who live in the present, who expect to benefit from such laws, were not part of that past. This is a con artist trick, unless you assume there is a type of reincarnation, where the spirits of the past, transmigrate, and can now live in the same skin and sex of people in the present. If this was true, then it makes perfect sense. But without this assumption, it creates injustice. It blames some new who was not there to pay someone who was not there. How can you punish someone for something they never did or give a wage to someone who never worked?

I asked if there is any science that can prove, transmigration of consciousness, through time, so the guilty parties and the recipients of restitution meet once again in the future, so they can all set is right. Nobody answered in terms of proven science, therefore this is not supported by science. This topic of science venus religion, has no problem using this standard for established religions. But a dual standard is used for closet religions.

Quotas were an example of a closet religion infiltrating the state. One is free to practice this religion, and practice the quotas among the faithful in a voluntary way. Left wing white men, who have the faith, can step down and let left wing women and blacks and minorities step up. Your faith in transmigration will make it all work out. But this religion, because it is based on unproven science, cannot force its dogma on those with other religions, or a line is crossed. It is unconstitutional to use the state to force everyone to obey a religion. Only the faithful are under its laws, not everyone.

Everything you are saying is nonsense.

 

[PruePhillip]

And if I said the term "New Deal", would you know why?

I am not American but the New Deal speaks to me of Roosevelt's program.
The cynic side of me sees this deal as firstly dragging out the Great Depression
and secondly getting the "black vote" for the Democrats. This caused blacks to
forsake the Republican Party which ended slavery, and support a party which
gave them social welfare. The welfare slums of America have become like the
plantations of the past. And of course, the Republicans are blamed for that, just
as they are blamed for slavery, segregation and the KKK.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Marxism is a form of religion. It has it holy trinity of Marx, Engels and Lenin.
It has its holy texts
It has ready made explanations of how we got here, why we are here and
where we are all going.
It has its hell and heaven too.

I've never read a post which has a 1 to 1 "sentences to falsehoods" ratio. Well done!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Part of this "silly claim" I support. Yes, people of the past ARE being
judged by the standards of today. The past is sexist, racist, homophobic,
etc.. And tomorrow we will judge the past for being anti-pederast and
anti-polygamist.

Except none of these have anything to do with either liberalism or historical revisionism.

Not all the past, and not all races. Only white men, and "right wing."
Muslims had slavery, including a few million European slaves, but
that doesn't count.

I have never heard anyone say this, ever.

And US Democrats were behind slavery, the
segregation laws and the KKK, but that doesn't count either.

No, it's just irrelevant because the policies and values of a party given a certain name in the past are not the same as the policies and values of a party with a similar name in the present.

 

[Polymath257]

I've never read a post which has a 1 to 1 "sentences to falsehoods" ratio. Well done!

Oh, I have seen worse. I've seen single sentences with more than one falsehood in them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Liberalism is not a religion.
You would think that that would be fairly obvious, but I guess some people prefer being ignorant.
Huh.

You'd think it obvious atheism isn't a religion, but many insist it is.

 

[PruePhillip]

I've never read a post which has a 1 to 1 "sentences to falsehoods" ratio. Well done!

Which is the more holy book to a Communist, Das Kapital or the Communist Manifesto?

Shall the cultural Marxists ever call these Dead White Men?
I doubt it.
Certainly the Communist Trinity existed.
Who said that Lenin was the cruelest man he ever met?
It shows in his portrait.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Which is the more holy book to a Communist, Das Kapital or the Communist Manifesto?

Misleading question. Just because a book is seminal doesn't make it holy.

Shall the cultural Marxists ever call these Dead White Men?

Why not? It's a statement of fact.

Certainly the Communist Trinity existed.

But they weren't literal (or even metaphorical) Gods.

Who said that Lenin was the cruelest man he ever met?
It shows in his portrait.

This is just insane rambling. No matter how hard you try, Communism isn't a religion.

 

[Woberts]

Which is the more holy book to a Communist, Das Kapital or the Communist Manifesto?
View attachment 26866

Shall the cultural Marxists ever call these Dead White Men?
I doubt it.
Certainly the Communist Trinity existed.
Who said that Lenin was the cruelest man he ever met?
It shows in his portrait.
View attachment 26865

I can confirm that communism isn't a religion.
I'm a communist, and I'm atheist.

 

[tas8831]

This is just insane rambling. No matter how hard you try, Communism isn't a religion.

I have often wondered why conservative Christians and the like so frequently try to label things they disagree with "religions."
Evolution? Religion.
Environmentalism? Religion.
Communism? Religion.

I wonder if it might be because THEY so often engage in what amounts to religious fervor for things they are programmed to like -

Ronald Reagan?
Capitalism?
Fetuses?
Money?
White skin?