Thread 18007753

Why is it so difficult for Anti semitic White Nationalists to accept that Judaism wouldnt have been widespread or may even have died out as niche cult without CHRISTIANITY?


Source- Grok AI

>>18007753 (OP)
>Why is it so difficult for Anti semitic White Nationalists to accept that Judaism wouldnt have been widespread or may even have died out as niche cult without CHRISTIANITY?
I don't know what you mean. Anti-Christianity sentiments seem quite common from actual White Nationalist, especially on this website. It turns out if you are unironically racist you prioritize blood and soil over religion. If you are not actually racist when push comes to shove, religion might be the priority.

If you don't even believe in evolution, there's a gigantic stumbling block in your way preventing the adoption of real racism. Christians aren't really white nationalist to begin with. The most White Nationalist Christians are essentially schizophrenic which allows them to house contradictory ideologies in their minds through mental gymnastics.

>>18007772
Evolution is not true.

>>18007772
>I don't know what you mean. Anti-Christianity sentiments seem quite common from actual White Nationalist, especially on this website.

every white nationalist chud/woman i have seen in US wears a cross therefore is an Christian. Like most alt right party leaders in US

>3 posts
>1 IP

>>18007775
Yes, it is. We directly observe it.

>>18007797
>we directly observe it
How so? Are we currently observing monkeys turn into africans?

>>18007797
You mean men evolving into women?

>>18007810
Evolution is the change in allele frequency of a population over time. We directly observe this. Evolution is not "monkeys turning into Africans" or dogs shape-shifting into cats or whatever dogshit moronic trash your double digit IQ thinks it is.
Evolution is mutations happening such thing neutral and positive mutations will spread across sub-populations of a larger population such that over time accumulated mutations can cause a descendant sub population to look entirely different from its ancestral population. This is directly observed.

>>18007817
>Evolution is the change in allele frequency of a population over time
Equivocation fallacy. When we speak of evolution we are speaking of the historical claim that man is a descendent of bacteria. Evolution is not true.

>>18007824
No, it is not an equivocation. Men descending from back is a result of the change in allele frequency that I just described. It's a proved fact of reality and evolution is true.

>>18007829
Men descending from bacteria* i.e. humans coming from single celled ancestors. This is true and a proved fact of reality.

>>18007817
So all the talk that humans evolved from bacteria is all bullshit?
Could you provide more examples of your theory? Does that explain racial differences?

>>18007829
>evolution is true
Can god exist and evolution also be true?

>>18007829
>No, it is not an equivocation.
Yes, it is because you are deliberately using a different definition of evolution than your opponent, as well as conflating these two different definitions. Laws of logic are objective, so your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Your argument is fallacious and therefore invalid.
>Men descending from back is a result of the change in allele frequency
That's an assumption which has been refuted by a number of biologists, and it is obviously distinct from the claim that "allele frequency changes in a population over time". You only believe this because you reject the existence of God.
>It's a proved fact of reality and evolution is true.
No, it isn't. Evolution has not been observed. Evolution is not true.

>>18007834
>So all the talk that humans evolved from bacteria is all bullshit?
No, it is not bullshit. That is a result of the change in allele frequency over a very long time.
>>18007839
Yes. But not the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim god. That god has been disproved.

>>18007845
How is it possible to prove or disprove things?

>>18007844
>Yes, it is because you are deliberately using a different definition of evolution than your opponent
No, it isn't, and I am using the definition of evolution.
Universal common descent is NOT an assumption and it has NOT been refuted by any biologist. You listeningtk discovery instute losers lying about the field is not an accurate description of the field.
It is NOT distinct from the change in allele frequency. It is the change in alleles that cause single cell eukaryotes to evolve into all the plans and animals you see.
No, I know this is an objective fact because we directly observe it. It has nothing to do with God
Evolution has been directly observed and is a proved fact of reality.

>>18007783
I am skeptical that it is easy to get accurate numbers on White Nationalists and their religious beliefs. For example, what you are labeling White Nationalist may include a lot of people who don't have the will to do anything actually racist like expelling every single person of a particular ethnicity from their country regardless of whether they came legally or illegally.

I would guess there are very, very few American Christians, even ones who espouse "White Nationalist" sentiments that would be willing to expell a Mexican who isn't a criminal who they personally know. They will tell you things like, "That one in particular can stay. He's a good boy who dindu nuffin and works hard. What would Jesus want?". They aren't really White Nationalist.

Since I don't really have any numbers or scientific data to work with, let's entertain your idea that there are a lot of White Nationalist Christians without trying to define White Nationalist too rigidly. I think it's because lower class people are on the "schizophrenia spectrum" and anyone who is on this spectrum freely believes in contradictory ideologies and will use mental gymnastics to avoid facing the most obvious problems. Every Christian partakes in an activity which is fundamentally stupid because religion requires critical thinking to be banned from confronting it, so in order to be religious you have to either be stupid all around or you have to wall off a section of your mind which is reserved for stupidity.

The "Schizophrenia spectrum" is something like this:
1. Religious or Superstitious
2. Schizotypal
3. Schizophrenia

>>18007845
>doesnt answer the racial question
Gtfo unless you can explain why african-americans love talking on speaker phone in the grocery store
Bonus points if you can explain why so many indo-european women vote more left than their male counterparts living in the same societys

>>18007859
I think a reasonable answer to your original question, if we assume the premise, is that cognitive dissonance and religiosity is widespread among the lower classes, but if you will entertain me for a moment I might suggest that "real White Nationalism" is not a lower class ideology because it is elitist and naturally calls for accepting scientific concepts like evolution, genetics, brain morphology, crime statistics and measures of intelligence.

>>18007854
>No, it isn't, and I am using the definition of evolution
It is an equivocation fallacy, facts don't care about your feelings. Cope. There is no "the definition" of any word, words are not objective absolutes that are fixed in reality, their meaning is determined ultimately by the common use of the culture, proximately by the intended use of the individual. You do not get to tell us how we are using the word and your emotions do not make it less fallacious to do so.
>Universal common descent is NOT an assumption and it has NOT been refuted by any biologist
You can't prove universal common descent because you weren't there. It has the character of an assumption because it has not been and cannot be proved with the senses. You can look into creation scientists' work if you have any interest in the truth, but it's obvious you are emotionally attached to this dogma of secularism.
>It is NOT distinct from the change in allele frequency
It is true by definition that they are distinct because the statements contain different propositions. "Man descended from bacteria" and "allele frequency changes within a population" are non-identical claims, i.e. it is possible to affirm the former without any knowledge of DNA at all, and possible to affirm the latter without denying biblical creation.
>I know this is an objective fact because we directly observe it
It's clear you "know" this because your feelings tell you to. Evolution is not true.

>>18007869
No, it is not am equivocation as it is the definition of the mechanism. You're a low IQ loser who's asserting that change in alleles is not sufficient to explain the large differences in phenotype, but phenotypes are determined by alleles and thus the change in allele is the change in phenotype. There is no equivocation here.
The definition of biologicial evolution is the change in alleles. "Bacteria to man" is a form of change in alleles. There is no equivocation.
We can and have proved universal common descent. You do not need to be there to prove what happened. This is an extremely low IQ argument.
"Man descended from bacteria" is a form of "change in alleles of the population over time". So there is no equivocation or contradiction.
We directly observe evolution. It's a directly observed and proved fact of reality. Evolution is true. No amount of you denying it will change it.

it really makes you think when you realize that 85% of "wignats" are actually shitskins and self-hating Jews

>>18007869
Adam and Eve have also been mathematically disproved.

>>18007877
>No, it is not am equivocation as it is the definition of the mechanism
I accept your concession.
>You're a low IQ loser
You sound mad. Losing this argument must be very frustrating for you.
>who's asserting that change in alleles is not sufficient to explain the large differences in phenotype
I'm asserting that the historical claim that the origin of man is from descent from bacteria is not true.
>The definition of biologicial evolution is the change in alleles. "Bacteria to man" is a form of change in alleles. There is no equivocation.
There are multiple definitions of evolution, and you are conflating two of them. This is the equivocation fallacy. Secondly, the assumption that man came to exist by a long process of microevolution beginning with bacteria is not granted to you, nor does it in any way necessarily concluded from the basic premise of microevolution.
>"Man descended from bacteria" is a form of "change in alleles of the population over time"
I don't know what you think "a form of" means, can you please show me a logic textbook addressing the category of "a form of" or what it means for a proposition to be "a form of" a distinct proposition?
>We directly observe evolution
Nobody has ever observed evolution. Evolution is not true.

>>18007889
>Nobody has ever observed evolution. Evolution is not true.

nobody has ever observed continents drifting apart either yet everyone accepts existance of Pangea

>>18007894
That's because there's evidence of that, but there is no evidence of evolution.

>>18007889
>I accept your concession
I didn't concede
I'm not mad and I did not lose this argument. I'm clearly pointing out how you're wrong and you don't know what you're talking about.
Your assertion that evolution is not true js wrong. The historical claim of humans evolving from bacteria is a true claim about reality. It happened, buddy, and you disliking it doesn't stop it from being true.
There is no equivocation in my statements. Bacteria to man is a form of change in allele frequency. That's not an equivocation. Change in alleles over time brought a population of single cells to the human population ( and all other populations of plants and animals) and there is no equivocation here.
Evolution is a directly observed and proved fact of reality. Evolution has in fact been observed and is true.

>>18007896
There is more evidence of evolution than there is evidence of anything else in any field of science.
Adam and eve have also been objectively mathematically refuted, but you can't do math so you can't even understand it.

>>18007884
No. The Word of God cannot be disproved by human conjectures. The best they can do is confirm it, and when they contradict it, then they are wrong and must be revised or simply discarded.

For example, scientists believed that matter was in a hadronic gas state at the earliest phase of the universe, contrary to genesis, but recent findings have shown that matter was actually a quark soup, where matter existed as a near-perfect liquid, similar to the description of creation in Genesis thus confirming God's word.

>In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

>>18007907
>I'm not mad and I did not lose this argument.

>>18007839
God can only be observed indirectly, like through the monetary transfer between dupes and Televangelists.

>>18007924
The bible is not the word of God which is why it has been objectively mathematically disproved. You simply asserting that the Bible is inerrant does not mean it actually is, and you simply asserting that proven facts that disprove the Bible must be false does not mean anything.
The Bible has been objectively mathematically disproved and it is not the word of God.

>>18007928
I'm neither mad nor have I lost the argument. Sorry buddy

>>18007924
>No. The Word of God cannot be disproved by human conjectures.


Bible was written by Greeks who didnt even meet Jesus the rabbi in their lifetimes.

Also Bible states that Abraham lived to 175 years, in a time where they were no medical procedures and people died by age 40.

>>18007931
>God can only be observed indirectly, like through the monetary transfer between dupes and Televangelists
are you a time traveller from 1988?

>>18007948
Humans die due to external factors, such as wounds, exposure to diseases, harmful solar radiations, and carcinogenic substances, as well as internal factors, including harmful mutations arising from errors during mitosis or from short telomeres, which can lead to genomic instability and then to cancer or organ failure.

Abraham lived such a long life due to protecting him from harm, and blessing his genes with incredibly long telomeres as well as a very stable genome.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2892727/

>>18007989
Abraham lived such a long life due to God protecting him from harm*

>>18007783
the real answer is that you are probably just a sodomite that conflates any politics to the right of you with “white nationalist”