Strength of Reality

1. Milieu Control. This involves the control of information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.
2. Mystical Manipulation. The manipulation of experiences that appears spontaneous but is, in fact, planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority, spiritual advancement, or some exceptional talent or insight that sets the leader and/or group apart from humanity, and that allows reinterpretation of historical events, scripture, and other experiences.
3. Demand for Purity. The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection. The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.
4. Confession. Sins, as defined by the group, are to be confessed either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group. There is no confidentiality; members’ “sins,” “attitudes,” and “faults” are discussed and exploited by the leaders.
5. Sacred Science. The group’s doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or for all humanity, is likewise above criticism.
6. Loading the Language. The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating clichés, which serve to alter members’ thought processes to conform to the group’s way of thinking.
7. Doctrine over person. Member’s personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group.
8. Dispensing of existence. The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious and they must be converted to the group’s ideology. If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the members. Thus, the outside world loses all credibility. In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also.^[1]

One of the most ridiculous arguments I’ve ever heard against skeptics is that “science isn’t humble, but arrogant for demanding evidence for the Judeo/Christian God’s existence”. Because, according to them, it’s like saying “God, prove yourself TO ME”. These same people are the ones who believe in God’s existence with no way of verifying it, but rather they use a self confirmation bias. They seek only things that confirm their preconceptions and disregard all evidence that goes against it. They rely heavily on ambiguous evidence and pseudo-history.

They proclaim and selectively pick their mythology to be true but totally disregard other forms of mythology. They mistake correlating events with causation. They make unjustifiable claims about the universe based on their limited and subjective experience that they heavily rely on. This means that they think highly of those personal and unfalsifiable experiences. The problem with their statement towards skeptics is that they are under the impression that we demand evidence because we’re “arrogant”. The reality, however, is quite the opposite. We don’t demand evidence because we’re “not humble”. We demand evidence because WE DON’T KNOW.

I see nothing arrogant about honestly not knowing whether something exists. IN FACT, admitting that you don’t know something is by far more humbling than arrogantly presuming and proclaiming the existence of God. 

In addition, I think the topic of arrogance and humbleness is not only a distraction and a clever way to distort the character and intentions of skeptics who are trying to find out what is and what isn’t true, so that believers can appear to have the upper hand in the argument, but it’s a topic that is FUCKING IRRELEVANT.

All observation requires interpretation. Even something as seemingly simple as seeing an object in front of you requires a great deal of interpretation to determine what it is, what properties it exhibits, how far away it is, and so forth. To dismiss absolutely everything we know because it is interpretation would be ludicrous. 

The sort of interpretation to which creationists object is how all the evidence fits together. They do not deny the evidence (not most of it, anyway); they deny that it is evidence for evolution. 

However, a fact gets to be considered evidence for a theory if it fits that theory and does not fit or is not covered by competing theories. (Ideally, the theory should predict the fact before the fact is known, but that is not essential for the fact to be evidence.).

In one month I plan on rejoining:

 

The difference between an hourly income and passive income is that with an hourly income, you get paid based on the amount of time you have invested in working. With passive income, you get paid based off of the value you offer. Which isn’t dependent on “hard work” or “time” necessarily, although it may be a component of that value, but not always necessary.