Scott Mayers

It was to the 'Great American' who just happened to comment to you, not you. But the content is equally applicable for anyone religious and at least entertaining for the non-religious.

Note that it is the extreme 'conservatives' within the 'liberal' side who controls what gets stereotyped. I am liberal but do not get noticed for being white and non-affliliated with any cult, religion, or culture. The Right has its extreme that IS usually (but not ONLY) 'White' supremacists. So be aware that the very same thinking occurs on both sides but the dominant groups default to the 'conservative' side; the X-supremacists on the Left are more varied and they take over the normal 'democratic' position of independent individuals. Since the plural groups exist more on the Left (for not being 'dominant'), and are collectively 'dominant' in power there. They would refrain from being considered 'Supremacists' but are in meaning. BUT, the conservatives on the Right who are extreme would not want to reduce the power of cultural law making. As such, THEY control how the Left reacts most specifically. I don't know the solution other than to change all constitutions to an American First Amendment type of decree BUT with clearer and stricter attention to assert that no CULTURE nor RELIGION can be specifically able to alter laws to enhance favor for SPECIFIC favor nor disfavor. I thought the original amendment in the U.S. was good but clearly they have also enabled religion, as a 'cult(ure)' to IMPOSE 'God' at least in general, ...a form of usurping the original intent to EXCLUDE them. But given most people are religious in general, they simply agree to lock out the non-theist. For example, the U.S. introduced, "In God we Trust", a clear violation of the original non-theistic intent of the law. Here in Canada, they cleverly hide religion as a function under 'culture'. But the same arrogant religious people (ALL the dominant ones) have co-opted this too and WHY we get the supremacists ruling us. Canada would need to rid the royalty's presence at the very least. We would need the opening religious conserving statements and favoritism to the catholics (Anglican and French/Roman) as well as to any perpetuous protections for any "nations" or "discrete" people based upon its racist identity.

If gun owners are themselves rightous to assert absolute autonomy for defining themselves as 'law abiding', then let us 'law abiding' citizens also have a right to wear explosive vests too! We should also let us 'law abiding' citizens have our own nuclear bombs too! If deterency is presumed to make for 'peace', then given we are all born 'innocent', if we all had guns and explosive vests an nuclear bombs provided to each of us, we'd BE "law abiding" and thus have a very peaceful world!

I'm 'liberal' but agree in part. The vast majority of people on the Left are still from discrete cultures OTHER THAN the caucation 'majority' who are themselves just as biased in their thinking. Racism and Sexism are always defined as belonging to all others but those accusing. The majority everywhere prefers some right to pass on inheritance to their loved one's which includes their ideals they hope to pass on regarding things most especially surrounding their ethnicity and/or religion. As such, when we do well, we pass on FAVOR to our own children and whichever pool of dominant 'culture' we personally place on a pedestal. This 'nepotism' is the beginning of what BECOMES the biases we do not normally reflect of ourselves. We also oppositely believe in NOT passing on inheritance of DEBT. Instead, this gets passed on to the general population. These two 'heritage' factors set the stage. When you succeed, you would prefer to pass on your gains to your loved ones' while preventing the passings-on of those things and behaviors not desired (collectively, our 'debts'). So the next generations who have better parental success will repeat the pattern. Eventually, a pool of concentration of wealth will tend to favor some races/sexes over others until some large imbalance of representation exists. The same but opposite effect occurs to those who fail. Their children DEFAULT to inherit an ABSENCE of power which then in direct opposition to the wealthy, will eventually concentrate those races or sexes in common to a DEFICIT that will eventually explode if there exists no means for them to get ahead in the same way. As such, those with the strongest 'pride' in their own who excludes things like intermarriage, will become 'racist' and 'sexist' but with an apparent absense of DIRECT abuse towards outsiders because they don't NEED to. On the other end, the impoverished masses who get LEFT OUT will push back but being already on the losing end, they will tend to be NOTICED more for their behaviors given they are going to be inevitably less friendly. Since we live in a relatively richer country, it is hard to notice how our nepotism contributes to racism/sexism (systemically) and why I think you may not notice it as existing. To obvious poorer communities who will favor those parties that lean 'left', they will appear to be making a fuss where none exist but often ignore the problem as due to 'poverty' and not necessarily race. As such, they too contribute to being racist and sexist where they suddenly get attention and interpret their condition as having an INTENTIONAL (non-systemic) cause. Both contribute but only those at the top have the power to change things IN PEACE. But they want to 'conserve' their right to KEEP what they have with the continuing 'right' to distinctly pass on beneficial inheritance onto their OWN kinds. Some will reflect on their own contributing causes but still do not want to lose their right to pass on their OWN cultures. As such, they will tend to be 'apogetic' for a whole race/sex UNWARRANTED but are doing this so that they do not feel compelled to literally give UP their own inherited power. By extending their own 'wealth' class to the dominant race they have, they conserve their power while the poorer OF their race are the ones' who will take the weight of debt when they get denied the same reparations or government aides that get 'inherited' to all others of the minority of the poor. Thus, you get the angry backlash of those whites who also happen to be poor regardless of what they do. Those with the ACTUAL hate there will get the notice of the Left even if they are non-representative of the whole. So the real reason is about haves and have-nots, and how we today still believe that we should have the independent right to pass on our beneficial inheritance to those of our choosing while the poor are forced to inherit both their LACK of wealth PLUS any burdens of the 'debts' that even rich people contribute for NOT requiring to pass on those debts. Note that in most times, "inheritance" was assumed to include debts. So if your brother, say, caused a debt, you as his brother might 'inherit' that debt. While unfair, it actually respected the meaning of 'inheritance' fairly by MEANING. Today, we grant the rich an accellerating power where weallth generate multiple powers of wealth. We also permitted means of hiding or passing on debts by the wealth through corporate laws that permit them to never lose anything but their present investment. This 'limits their liability' to the investment. To me, the solution requires creating more limits to corporate protections as well as preventing independent rights of one to pass on benefits to those they personally favor through inheritance. We also need to expose how religion gets used as some virtuous 'right' that enables one to excuse why they have some sovereign right to KEEP their power to selective inheritance. Our "Multiculturalism (TM)" is used this way. While it is a "leftist" ideal, the dominance of the 'conservative' GROUPS, defined in terms of one's ethnicity or heritage, dominates and rules equally on the "right" by default of coinciding rights of inheritance. These clearcut groupings frame the smallest minority as some GROUP and their associated cultures leaving out the independent individuals of all racial backgrounds who don't conform to some steretype. So you get the 'white (and male)' racists on the right, but most of the others hidden within the 'mosaic' groupings dominating the 'left'. We need to clearly separate both 'culture' as well as religion in govnernment, abolish rights of personal inheritance beyond sentimentals, provide social supports for those suffering most, and cap wealth. [I doubt this will occur and it may be impossible given our normal evolutionary instincts to conserve.]

? If you only knew what my own physics theory is, you wouldn't be asking me this! Haven't you also not noticed that I asserted above that we derive from absolutely nothing?

For most of world history, the atheist was treated as 'criminal' regardless of the fact that the 'gods' you claim to believe assert us as having 'free choice'. So the atheist was condemned and speaking openly about it was a death sentence. So duh.....would an atheist in power risk asserting it? No. In fact, it is most likely that given most of the world who relies on deception to 'capitalize' upon other's stupidity, ....even if MOST of the world's power were sincerely 'athiest', they would both pretend NOT to be AND discourage others from admitting it because most the most politically effective means of control requires demanding FAITH of the sheeple they are controlling. I mean, certainly if you think being religious makes you somehow wiser, could you not notice that the most evil thing one could do would be to pretend to be religious but promote all others of just the opposite? So before you condemn the atheist, maybe you should reflect on what you are advising: that the honest atheist should either get with the program and PRETEND (like you) to be devoutly religious or risk death and suffering! We are all born 'atheist' and your own pretentious assertions about religion should require you ask why you need other humans to teach you anything 'religious'? You should also require to disprove all other religious beliefs. Isn't it odd to you that if you are born in the U.S. you are more likely to be Christian but if you were born in India, you'd more likely be Hindu, for instance? If there were a God, would it be religious? That is, do you expect it to be 'faithful' to something beyond itself given it already IS and KNOWS all? If it 'created' us, what did it require to make us? If it didn't 'create' us from NOTHING, what was it that it 'created' us from? If you are sincere, you are absurdly irrational. If not, you are being deceptive. Challenge: prove that what you just read has substantial existence in MEANING! That is, do the thoughts you interpret from these words as you interpret them, themselves have a real existence?

Did they think to take pictures of their vacation in paradise? And why did they come or get sent back here? I think that we should rightfully be skeptical of mere claims of those who cannot be ruled out as merely reflecting mental illness or intentional deception meant to manipulat others.

Thats okay. We are ALL disordered due to Original Sin. Some are overeaters, drunkards, gluttons, anger issues . . . whatever. Many folks have a variety of sexual disorders too. Your son only has to do something that is very simple, but very unpopular: He must admit to himself that he has a problem, and practice abstinence. Much like the alcoholic who is in denial for years, then finally admits to himself that he has a problem and seeks support to stay clean, the homosexual also must finally admit to himself that he has a problem and seek support to stay clean. Its really no different. We are all sinners who need a savior. Your sons only real problem is that the world is telling him that his sin is not a sin, and he might be believing them. The original 'sin' is a precursor to the meaning of 'sin' as some evil refers to the 'shun'-ing of the Tree of Wisdom. It did not connote something necessarily bad but a promise that they will not like to learn what the gods knew. The tree symbolizes the secrets of Nature (or for the religious, God), which came from meaning the part of nature that is DEFINES 'good'). The word, Eve, means "All that follows" and so evil means "that which 'fell' " ["fell" describes the sun as it falls in every evening and how it 'follows' each day.] So.... 'sin' is what defines 'evil (that which fell) from paradise. That this happens to be interpreted as something bad is only about how no one could interpret God (the 'good' source of Nature) as defined the 'bad' reality of our inevitable DEATH. Jesus, 'salvation' was about permitting deserving people an eternal life in Heaven ("heaven" is originally from what 'follows' above Adam, the word for that which is below.) [And where the Greeks "atom" also comes from as meaning the most elemental earch.] Now you no doubt think that the above is 'crap', right? But when you get more mature and curious to grow up, try to take time to notice that it demonstrates what the ORIGINAL authors of Genesis were using the story to explain: that when young, we are naive and unable to handle discovering the actual truths regarding God, Nature, or ideal 'goodness' because it is an illusion for children being cared for by those matured loving adults not wanting to scare them but who are themselves cursed as adults to KNOW that Nature is actually more 'cruel' than good and that we are all going to die necessarily. And, ....that there is no fairygodfathers anymore than there is a God! So, You only have to do something that is very simple, but very unpopular: YOU must admit to yourself that you have a problem, and practice abstaining from religious beliefs. Much like the junky who needs to first admit he even has an addiction,the religious extremist must first recognize their religious immature beliefs are extreme before they have a reason to want to stop being extreme. This goes witout saying. Then you can take a bite of that fruit ....learn the actual truth about what is or is not real, and the irrational child may then BECOME a rational adult. Its really no different. We all shun hearing that we are all going to suffer and die and so we need some myths to make children not become too fearful from having to grow up. Your very real problem is that you are no longer a 'child' but still believe that playng pretend and shunning intelligence IS a sound and appropriate decision. The 'we all sin' point is moot if you think that you are the wiser for shunning wisdom and leave the cradle of your childhood playpen (Eden.) Its' time to learn to wipe your own ass. Note that if you want to argue againt homosexuality, you can't use your selfish religious authoritarianism to dictate how others should behave. I ALSO happen to disagree to those assuming gender is something one is born while still believing people should not be shunned for their choice to be in a consenting relationship. But you are not seeking rational arguments but proselytizing like a cult recruiter serving his leader in absolute blind faith.

Thank you for your immature anti-intellectual response. If you don't like to argue your point of view but prefer only to insult, that is what Twitter is designed for, ....emoting ones feelings unqualified. What you don't seem to notice is that you require tying a real name to your opinion or it is doubtful you are sincere. But you'd make a good Nazi. They preferred simple statements and actions without requiring intellectualizing it. They prefer such means of deception too.

I just reviewed the linked YouTube video "Why You Should Be a Nationalist" and commented there in defiance of their claim. Historically, "Nationalism" used to refer to one's Nationality, their ETHNIC ancestral relationships as a 'people', not merely the country. The "National" in "National Socialisn" asserts that a particular extention of family and tribe should DEFINE the constitution of their country, as a SINGLE "nation". Todays perverted meaning of 'Nation' to mean country is ONLY a coinciding reference to one's people within a country as sharing their 'nationality'. To the Germans, they were the 'aboroginals' who demanded respect of them as having the 'FIRST NATION', a people that no longer identified the makeup of their country preWorldWartimes. The point the video made regarding supporting "family, community (tribe), and nation" is the actual part that the Nazis were demanding they should re-constitutionalize as a SOCIETY (the 'Social" in National Socialism). The generic term 'fasci' comes from the bundle of straws OF THE SAME KIND that has weakness only as independent straws. This is a univeral TRIBALIST position meant to entice those of a shared PARTICULAR culture to embrace so as to STRENTHEN their STRAIN because they believed one's intrinsic genetic inheritance is in sync with their ancestors ideal 'culture' being fostered. The term, "National", thus, only coincideds with a boundary IF that coutnry is PURE in one SINGE type of 'cultural' identity within those borders. However, "nation" is the PEOPLE of a given ethnicity regardless of borders except if proposed to constitutionalize their Social platform to FAVOR the given Nationality. An example of a "Nation" is a tribe of people like the Cree (Nation) aboriginals who are not confined to a specific country's border but to their ancestral family. If a country like Canada becomes specifically made up of Cree Nationalists, and the country gets redefined to require Society repect them with priority, their people BECOME the country's legitimate 'Social' identity based upon their specific Nation, ...them being Cree, for this example. Countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia are thus National Socialist examples given they constitute the society based upon a genetic ancestral association along with some presumed 'culture'. For Israel, the cultural link is being Jewish, the genetic tribe they coincidingly believe in is being purely Semitic, a purity of race defining their fasci.

You would be surprised what I know about science. I know a number of things like the big bang and evolution are purely speculation and unproven. Science does not claim to have all the answers and never did make such a claim. When it comes to the origin of the universe, there is absolutely no evidence or proof that God did not create it ten or fifteen thousand years ago, with an apparent age built it. Many of the greatest scientists in history believed in God. They could see the evidence of God's creation all around them and just accepted it. How does the Big Bang theory relate? I agree to the perceptive that it was a type of 'explolion', but am a bit confused at you not recognizing that there are other non-Big-Bang theories proposed. But even given these different PHYSICS theories, how does the religious idea relate uniquely as an alternative to them all? "Religion" [From Re-legion "speak of legacy"] which denotes ideas passed down by distinct ancestral history and what is believed to have happened BEYONE LIFE or 'other' worlds, times, or spaces. emphasizes "culture", art, or lifestyles" that are mostly arbrary and contingent factors, Religion though is cultural (social)"science", considered as a form of art(ificial) concept versus science as referring to physical reality. ....or....what "science fiction" is to "science fact"; You can permit rellgion to fantasize about origins without a need to observe any common facts or proof. That is, religion can philosphize about reality but it can't speak for it without having some shareability to anyone arbtrarily and that doesn't begin with our particular senses we share in common.

You are too much of an imbecile to even engage any further. I only speak with intelligent adults. Hey, that snake is a feature of that Tree of Wisdom you were told you can't eat from even though God could have opted simply not to plant it or chop it down! Our French Patriot here is unabashedly 'naked' without apology. But ask him what is French for "I am christianized good as any King." Then ask yourself who might you refer to the man who dared to tell the Emperor of Rome this. That is, what would you name this traiterous commie who insults his superior?

"So were some of the worst evil tyrants in history"? Given there is no god, all of us are 'athiests' at birth. We don't have any default beliefs about "God" any more than a cow we eat does. But then our parents' pass on stories about what they WANT their children to believe, with others in our society adding to it in our 'positive' accolades like, "you too, can be anything if you just believe," and you gain an emotional connection to those beliefs. Thus, many like you, become religious when they grow up still playing 'pretend' like Adam and Eve in the garden before they are exposed to the secret about God's wizardry in an apple. [Obviously you haven't yet left your childhood naivete and refuse to eat of the Tree of Wisdom, am I right? You believe it is 'evil'!, yes?] So you come along and assert some invisible magical being exists that appears so real to you as though you don't notice how obviously naked you really are. [Hmmm, reminds of an equally very old tale you might have heard: "The Emperor's New Clothes". ] I come along and dare to tell you that the the only thing I see of your invisible 'God' you wear so proudly, is nothing but your naked self. But you won't know this until after you bite into the fruit of wisdom in order to advance beyond your playpen. The secrets about reality, like the powers of the gods, are unfortunately based on nothing! THAT is the lesson of the 'gods' secrets. We are cursed to discover that there are no dieties but for what we create in our heads about them and there will be no paradise in heaven for us to go to after our deaths. DEATH is final! Until then, you are too naive not to notice how all 'tyrants', like all people, are atheists by default. The myths of religion is representative of the Garden of Eden's children. The despots are spoiled in playing pretend for being so privileged. So given there are no gods, ALL reality is born out of 'nothingness'. Nevertheless, the tyrants will be the ones to demand belief in their own power either as a 'god' themselves, or as being 'annointed' his right-hand man by God. The choice of most tyrants is to some form of religion, not athiesm. Why would they want those they rule over to have a weak capacity to BELIEVE in them most significantly? How could they actually rule so absolutely without some faith?]

Although already mentioned, if your magical being, "God", can create from nothing, I think your own logic is amiss. The correct logic is based upon the following argument: (1)Assume absolutely nothing. (2)Then one thing exists. (3)The prior statements. (1)and (2) are 'contradictory' but where only an Abolute nothing exists, it necessarily follows. The alternative is to have Absolutely Everything. So... (4) Assume Absolutely Everything. (5) Then Absolute Nothing is included as ONE of these truths. This requires interpreting worlds like a monitor in which every pixel in every possilble resolution define distinct worlds. Most 'images' are nonsensical and so lack meaning. But for those worlds that happen to FIT a consistent pattern, these are worlds that act as 'consistent' and like our as one of them. Contradiction-free versions perist and define what 'evolution' is on a logical and physical level. Note that it is alright for Absolutely Nothing itself to BE 'contradictory' afterthefact looking back because at its origin, if an origin does exist, then it has no LAW (nor lawgiver) to ABIDE by, in the same way you would interpret your 'god' as having.... minus any complex human-centric imposition upon it as a function of Nature.

Hmmm. And how does your 'God' manage to do it? If your God creates, does it use factors that already also happens to exist appart from itself? Or does it 'create' from nothing? Which is it?

Literally, Abolultely Nothing!! It is a logical and mathematical construct of which our Universe is only one of a contunuous infinity of possibilities. Ordered universes that happen to have strict patterns become worlds that are manifest into what we perceive as something more 'special' than it is.

I just have to stop you here. The "Torah" is the first five books. I am well versed in my history and strong skeptic against religion in ANY form of government position.. A 'god' would not be so powerless as to require human will power to make if feel adequate. The ONLY reason religion has even gotten as far as it has so far is due specifically for those who want to rule with a means to excuse their accountability to God's command and to entice the dumbing down of the average intelligence to encourage BLIND faith in PEOPLE, not God. If God is powerful, it doesn't need your arragant DICTATORIAL means to inform us of its exitence. Given you are anti-evolution, you lack even the respect of what "Nature" does that you oddly go against. Didn't your 'god' create nature? I was born of nature. If you were not a product of evolution, you are not a product of Nature and so should just go back to whatever alien planet you came from. Governments that permit religion are severely intolerant and dangerously unaccountable to the people for "democracies". Jerusalem (from "Je Ra Sol amen" [the last post of the fallen Egyptians meaning the "The end of the sun's rays" and was at "David" (the 'divide') between the 'Asher Ra El' [Assyrian people which where "Israel" comes from], and Judahs ("judges" given they were literalists of the original Egypt consevatives before the divide of "Saul" who is also the reference to the original "Sol" Intentional distinct spelling is political; most didn't even write and based their words on how the SOUNDED, not spelled.] You most certainly get your own propaganda through your religion and given most other COMPETING religions your news is the perfect reflection of "fake news" throughout history. All religions begin by utterly destroying any prior history that might competently point to them as being less genuine. Egypt was the original home but since the fall of that ASSYRIAN-related dynasty fell, Babylon took over the Middle East while those in Judah (not 'Israel') had the last remaining Egyptian temple. The 'ark of the covenant' was literally a ceremonial boat that held likely a broken obelisk of Akenaten's city moved to the 'desert', "Amarna". [That was the foreign Assyrian 'moses' who tried to impose his single religious 'culture' but got kicked out to the desert for a generation (40 years). [https://news.cnrs.fr/articles/the-lost-city-of-akhenaten] Notice the similarity to the temple of Jerusalem. The reason others didn't accept his attempt to unify others to a single culture relates to the fact that the general Egyptian society was relatively 'multicultural' and the 'temple' was originally a public place for ALL people. They were kind enough to at least just kick him out. That chase where god supposedly 'divided' that last dynasty is why "David" is a common reference for Palestine. I can go on. But even if you disagree, you have to repect that politics that utilizes religious laws are dangerous for all given anyone can make up a story that some magical being came to them and told them to do x, y, and z, arbitrarily. As for your own Rightwing Christianity, the renewed version that praises the rich and annihilates the sick and weak in direct opposition to the original communistic version that appealed to the poor, your leaders do not approve of anything referencing 'evolution' of which the Big Bang happens to differ from Steady State in regards to assuming physics at a prior time was (magically) different than today. It is NOT related directly to biological evolution or evolution of physical stages of development (using a universal physics). THAT evolution is thus still true about reality of which ANY physics theory would accept other than the religious extremes that WANT their religious mythical interpretation of reality of the past to be true. Rich and powerful 'lords' (originally a derogatory reference in which asserting the source of life (YWYH == ye oveh meaning 'the egg' or 'source') was argued to be the ONLY true owner of land and so did not approve of those who did settle. "Jew" means 'wander' and referred to the non-owners who had not settled, similar to the American Indians. Your PARICULAR religions thus EVOLVED memetically, a word referencing the social evolution of words like 'genes' (and why the name "meme" came about). But it 'devolved' in that it once begun as non-religious as those hated communist countries that tend to fall by first recreating religion through its leader-worship. In time, the real history gets distroyed OR mislinked to its origins and ta da.....we get EXTREME religions that have their realities misplaced in myth and other magical thinking. ....OR..... ...you are as clever as the most 'evil' (from Eve and el, meaning the "fallen one") athiest. I mean, if we were so disgracefully the most cunning deceivers, wouldn't it be most rationally evil for an atheist to CREATE religions? You should think about this one hard given such deception would more likely have such leaders PRETEND they were 'religious' to rule as your church leaders!! So if you are NOT just another wolf dressed up as a sheep, would you rather gamble in those politicians who ARE 'religious' but more incentivised to BE atheists? Are you not actually intentionally discrediting non-believers as a means to innoculate the masses into FAVORING the trickster's capacity to USE religion in politics? Would you PREFER that I hide my atheism and PRETEND to be religious like the rest of you? I assure you that such people exist!! And the ONLY rationale for Rightwing ideals of capitalism to be againt evolution is because pure capitalism IS a form of 'economic Darwinism' that proves just how natural evolution works when left free to act. So strong conservatives who sell religion are either the stupid members of the flock or are deceptive atheists conning others. Which is it?

As for those doubting evolutionary theory here, I can competently argue on this and can even show how the religious person woud also likely adopt it if they took care to reflect on some things about what they (you) know. So if you want, I can try to 'prove' that you doubters would agree to 'evolution'. But it might not necessarily defeat your religious view. Rather, it may make you less 'extreme' about it as a concern.

I like pointing out a lot of connections to etymology that acts as memetic proof that the Judeao-Christian-Muslim beliefs are rooted in Egyptian 'myth'. For example, "Moses" is actually a generic Egyptia term for 'leader', as name like "Ramses" [= 'Ra' + 'Moses' for "Leader of the light (of the sun)] or "Adam" derives from "Aten", the term that referenced 'solids'. and is generally covered under the meaning "earth"; that "adam" then meant Earth-kind of which it isn't surprising that the ancients would know meant, human kind and all other animals under our Earthly control. That "Eve" meant "all that follows" and why we get terms like "ever", "even", "(h)eaven", and many other related terms referencing infinite concepts. Thus, I can show how the original source of the Bible likely had non-religious rational meaning that got twisted in time (and wait for it, "evolved") to become religion. The Adam and Eve story was itself not meant to literally refer to particular people but was personified (cartooned) to help communicate and remember the generic shared secular 'science' of its day and NOT the irrational modern religious interpretation. At least demonstrating these even if being 'speculative' can help show that their religious interpretations CAN be 'natural' without requiring religion. The 'statistical' significance of the eymological roots is way more convincing and harder for the religious person to deny using their own preferred method of thinking.

Math is a subset of Logic that uses numbers as its domain of inputs. I didn't see your proof 'mathematically' and while statistics is one part of 'math', logically, it is less certain than other areas. Statistics when used specifically for social-political-religious arguments is abused more often than not. I saw that some presume that the competing Steady State theory is somehow supporting of your view given you assert Holye as relevant. But the main reason for preferring the Big Bang is actually DUE to the fact that its theory is LESS harmful to religion POLITICALLY than the Steady State. In fact, I have my own Steady State based theory that not only has no need for gods but can definitively remove any such religious beings with stronger logical permanence than the Big Bang class theories. So you can't use Hoyle's quotes to defend your religious beliefs. All physical theories can be argued to justify religion in some way. Given this flaw in reasoning is in fact BASED necessarily on evolution, it is 'natural' for the human animal to BE religious because without GAMBLING that 'faith' implies, we would have died out for hesitating in natural survival conditions that would have enabled other animals to have overcome us and prevent us from evolving. The KIND of weaker thinking that gambling, faith, and general 'trust' require is "inductive"; Logic of non-statistical math and reasoning is 'deductive' and more certain but hard for us to determine with ease in nature. As such, the pure math (deduction), though superior is LACKING in our essential need for survival over that weaker form of reasoning. You thus lack grounds for your argument (as others I see here do). The hard math and sciences, including the foundational evolutionary theory that gives us genetics, are against, not for religion, regardless of prefered theory of science.

Do you recognize that your source of the Judeau-Christian-Muslim religions is from what is deemed 'myth' of the Egyptians? That is, your own majority would deem the ancient Egyptians as irrational 'nutcases', using today's terminology, yet not recognize that the whole source of the Jewish roots that is interpreted as shared among all of your historical religions came directly from those like Akenaten and Ramses dynasty? If you doubt the Egyptian roots that gave you your religion, should this not make you a relative 'atheist' of the most traitorous kind to your real 'superior' being?

Take a course on political philosophy maybe? Israel has a constitution that (1) defines itself as a particular ethnicity's domain with absolute priority., thus are 'fascist' and not merely a country defined by anyone who exists there, and (2) that the system is 'socially' defined democratic ONLY under that nationality with the added belief that they represent all the diaspera (thus, National Socialist). German Nazi party targetted the Jews for being in direct conflict of the same ideals. That is, Nazis were inspired to adopt the same extremes they perceived about Jewish isolationism (segregation) and purity of something 'genetic' given one can be Jewish while not be culturally defined as requiring the religion.

I didn't learn this from anyone AGAINST the Jews but by those who were pointing out the irony of Hitler supposedly being 'absolute' about the eugenics they were excusing a 'genetic' inferiority as an excuse for the genocide. This is the first time I EVER heard that this was 'not' the case. But it is nevertheless irrelevant. Israel was the one complaining about the comments of the Russian. What is missing is context and the fact that Israel IS 'fascist' by definition, contrary to the religious wanting to overlook this fact. This is NOT a conspiracy theory but is being touted as such BY those attempting to DEFLECT others from daring to notice this corruption. We don't know if that minister was pointing out the association to the Zionists (their fasci) versus one merely being Jewish. Did the accusation of the minister assert "Nazi" or "National Socialist"? And if he asserted Ukraine's Zelinski as "Nazi", given that is only the German label for "National Socialism" (the extended belief that one's fasci is not confined to one's borders), then it is relatively reasonable to use such rhetorical comparison to the very contradiction of Israel's own belief in that extreme. Why should the Russian representative NOT defend the claims they assert of Zelinski's association if they sincerely believe it? That is, why should Israel or ANYONE expect the Russian represenstative to hide Putin's belief or be 'politically correct' by some standard of etiquette? Why should WE agree that some 'apology' is needed to Israel given they are in essence DENYING Zelinski's association of being Jewish as relating to Isreal's actual National Socialist constitution. "Fascism" is the belief that one should embrace one's 'cultural' association in a political way (not unlike our own country's insistence on this) and "National Socialism" adds that this goes beyond the mere borders of a particular country, as a "nationality' or our modern term for this, as "ethnicity". The fact is that Israel should NOT be the ones to speak on this OR they actually are arrogantly believing that they really DO have some belief that they are Superior by a religious standard that they EXPECT all others to respect, indirectly SUPPORTING the accusation. If Zelinski is NOT associated, he nor the rest of us should welcome Isreal's input on the matter. They are only fueling the flames and are just reflecting their own hatred. They seem to presume that their own fascism is somehow distinctively immune or exceptional given the Christian world accepts them as the Biblical 'Chosen people' of God (and thus 'superior' by Nature's standard). While the "Holocaust" is wrong and Russia's own behavior is apparently genocidal, ANYONE who aligns themselves to some tribalist belief who isolates themselves as 'distinct' apart from one's individual choice to SELECT one's own 'culture' apart from any genetic association is racist and if not overtly willing to do what Hitler did, will still believe in the same EFFECT of annihilating those they hate INDIRECTLY regardless. Making their enemies starve or suffer by overtly walling them in, occupying strategic grounds and assuring their economic failure may not be overty the same as the Holocaust, but they are worse in kind by how they are just better at hiding HOW they 'purge' the non-Jewish Palestinians from the territory they stole from them. And if YOU side with them in kind, I question your own logic or integrity. The Russians already told us they think that Zelinski is a 'fascist' prior to this comment. And so if they are lying, we already presumed it by our defence of the Ukraines. As such, this news is innappropriate PROPAGANDA against the Russians in a counter attempt to basically call Russia 'Nazis' in kind. Two wrongs don't make a right. If it is inappropriate for Russia to excuse the war against the Ukraines based upon an assumption of them being aligned to Zionist fascism, we can't pretend that Zionist fascism doesn't exist but at best show how Zelinski is not Zionist. The delusion by Isreal is worse given we KNOW their political ideal for Palestine; we are STILL in the dark regarding Russian motives. [My guess is that Russia isn't merly attempting to war with Ukraine personally but is trying to secure strategic locations and probably boldly pushing the world into war before they lose their only chance to gain ground if they waited. The effectiveness of the upcoming tech regarding 'deep fakes' is coming soon which will change how all of us could trust ANY news that is controlled by those who love censorship powers. The world is embracing a dangerous faith in 'wokeness' that contributes to fears everywhere. And the fact that Russia is targetted as though they are secretly 'masterminds' of computer tech to me is itself surprisingly 'counter-conspiratorial' and creating a justification for them to BECOME the feared conspirators the world has already been accusing them of. Once 'deep fakes' become viable, OUR OWN side WILL likely use it if we already haven't been. Note too that the Israelis are actually ahead on this and other computer and media related tech themselves and may relate to the fears of Zelinski's Jewish roots by Russia. ]

Thank you. I'm not an enemy of yours, just a critic of your particular arguments. This is not to assert it is 'true' that Hitler had some Jewish parent but that it should not be judged as irrational by the Russians in light of Israel's own political bias. It could be the case that the comment was merely insulting Zelenski as being akin to the National Socialism as defined. If he literally used, "Nazi", this would be rhetorically intended to draw out the negative interpretation of the hypocrisy of Jews to cry foul. And yet, Israel stupidly responded in defence of a false flag of their own design: to promote any association to the National socialism they themselves contributed to defining of the Germanic version that lead to the Holocaust. The logical political ideology is the same. Our Liberal governent also supports this (I..E. promoting distinct Nations within Nations that promote a rise in fascism). Their ideal "muliticulturalism' is more like Multi-National-Socialism. They don't disagree with fascism in essence for supporting flawed thinking regarding some belief in genetic associaton to culture. So Trudeau is being extreme in his own counter-support against behavior that he is contributing to entrenching literally here in our own country.