Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

How the official science ignorantly eliminates God from the definition of "morality", thus causing deaths of people, demolition of cities, destruction of nature, etc.

Skip to first unread message


Jul 5, 2011, 10:19:39 PM7/5/11
If we, people, "give a life" to any new thing, then we always require
this thing is displaying some level of "obedience" towards us. For
example, when we build a new car, we require from it to be "obedient"
towards orders of its driver. A new computer must be obedient to its
user and programmer. Etc., etc. In turn, if something refuses to be
"obedient" - as this sometimes is the case with e.g. prototypes of
badly designed military airplanes of new types, the outcome is always
a catastrophe which causes a lot of evil, while in the consequences of
which this "disobedient" product must be destroyed while its chance to
"receive a life" must be taken away from it. If we thoroughly consider
the above regularity, then it turns out that this "requirement of
obedience" towards own "creator" is a kind of universal "law of
nature". In fact it spreads its validity onto everything that receives
a "life" from a creator. And so, for example we already have films of
the type "Terminator" - which reveal the vastness of evil that
"disobedient robots" can bring to the humanity. From rich countries we
already know consequences of immoral actions of undisciplined children
which typically are symbols of the lack of "obedience" towards their
parents - for more details see item #J2.4 from the web page named
"morals.htm". Etc., etc. So if this requirement of "obedience" towards
a given "creator" is the manifestation of action of some universal
"law of nature", then, of course, this law must let itself to be known
to people much earlier, and thus it received some well-known name
already a long time ago. So if we search under what name we all know
this universal law, then it turns out that in present times this name
spells "morality". This is why the so-called "totaliztic science",
which researches our reality from the philosophical approach called "a
priori", defines "morality", amongst others, in the following manner:
"morality is the level of 'obedience' with which an inferior
'intellect' fulfils commands and requirements of an intellect superior
for it that gave to it some form of a new life". Because in the
"physical world" there is a whole hierarchy of various "inferior
intellects" which receive from someone a new form of life, the
"totaliztic science" distinguishes a number of different "moralities".
For example every robot that received the so-called "artificial
intelligence" is to display a "morality of the robot". Every son is to
manifest towards his parents a "morality of the son", while every
daughter - a "morality of the daughter". Wives after getting married
receive a new kind of life from their husbands - thus they display to
them later "moralities of wives". In turn every living person also
displays towards God the unique for this person primary
"morality" (this one is defined as the "obedience" of that person
towards commandments and requirements of God). The web page named
"morals.htm" presents views of the new "totaliztic science" on all
such most vital categories of morality.

B1. Two basic models of our universe, i.e. (1) the model of the
"atheistic orthodox science" to-date (i.e. the universe occurred by an
accident and is ruled by accidents) and (2) the model of the new
"totaliztic science" (i.e. that the universe was created on purpose
and is ruled by superiorly intelligent God):

Motto: "Without learning the truth there is NO progress."

From the everyday life we know, that if we want to learn thoroughly
about something, then we must "look at it" from at least two different
"directions" or from two so-called "approaches". This is because
looking from just a single direction (approach) we see "at the most" a
half of this something. For example, looking at some building just
from the front, we still do NOT know what is on the back of it. On the
other hand, our official science (frequently called also the
"atheistic orthodox science") on everything that surrounds us looks
just from a single and always the same approach, by philosophers
called "a posteriori" means "from effects to causes". This means, that
such a science learns "at the most" a half of truth on that something.
In order to learn also that "still missing second half of truth",
people would need to officially acknowledge also completely different
science, which would be "competitive" towards that "atheistic orthodox
science" to-date, and which would look at everything from a completely
opposite approach by philosophers called "a priori" means "from the
cause to effects" or "from God understood as the most primary 'cause'
of everything, to the surrounding reality that represents 'effects' of
actions of that God". In fact, since 1985 exists already just such a
new science which is researching the reality from that opposite "a
priori" approach. It is called the "totaliztic science" and it really
is "competitive" towards official science to-date, i.e. "competitive"
towards that science which we learn in schools and on universities and
which some call "atheistic orthodox science". (Notice that the world
"competitive" is written here in "quotes" because in fact both these
sciences mutually complement each other and both are in service of
humanity - although, as so far, the new "totaliztic science" was
forced to act almost in "conspiracy" because representatives of that
old "atheistic orthodox science" which so-far held the absolute
"monopole for knowledge" persecute it viciously, sabotage it, fight
out, criticise and "close its mouths" on all possible ways available
to them, i.e. they do with it exactly what is known from e.g.
economics that holders of "monopoles" always do to their
"competition".) The philosophical and scientific foundations of this
new "totaliztic science" are described in items #F1 to #F3 of a
separate web page named "god_exists.htm". These foundations are based
on the so-far ignored by the official science the "theory of
everything" called the "Concept of Dipolar Gravity". This is because
that theory has proven formally that "God does exist" - and thus it
undermined the truth of so-called "Occam's razor" which provides
philosophical foundations for the old "atheistic orthodox science" to-

Each one amongst both above sciences forms its own model of our
universe that is unique for it. For example, the model of the official
human science to-date is based on the so-called "theory of big bang"
and "expanding universe". In turn the model of the new "totaliztic
science" is based on the everlasting existence of always moving liquid
called the "counter-matter" which displays attributes of a "liquid
computer" and in which with the elapse of time evolved a self-aware
program that us people call God, and that later created from this
counter-matter the entire separate physical world and man. But in
order to NOT stretch the patience of the reader, I am NOT going to
describe here these models nor prove why the model of the "atheistic
orthodox science" to-date is erroneous while the model of the new
"totaliztic science" is correct. I only inform here, that about the
"Big Bang" or about the "Occam's razor" that form foundations of that
old model of the official science one can read in internet - because
there is in there a huge number of publications on these subjects. In
turn about the "intelligent counter-matter" and about the "model of
the universe" that result from the existence of it, most
comprehensively one can learn from the volume 1 of my newest monograph
[1/5] - which is disseminated in internet free of charge, and which is
a kind of "official textbook" for the "totaliztic science".

Both above mutually "competitive" sciences, and also justifications
why only one model of the universe that they created is the correct
one, are already presented on a number of totaliztic web pages - for
example see item #C1 of the web page named "telekinetics.htm", item
#A2.6 of the web page named "totalizm.htm", items #F1 to #F3 of the
web page named "god_exists.htm", item #A4 of the web page named
"god_proof.htm", item #C5 of the web page named "bible.htm", item #B1
of the web page named "tornado.htm", item #J2 of the web page named
"pajak_jan_uk.htm", item #A2 of the web page named "healing.htm",
subsection H10 from volume 4 of monograph [1/5], and descriptions from
several further web pages and publications of totalizm. So there is no
need to again elaborate these here.

B2. How the old "atheistic orthodox science" to-date defines
"morality" in the universe that come to existence by an accident and
is ruled by accidents:

In the "Oxford English Dictionary" (1 volume, Oxford University Press,
Oxford OK2 6DP, UK, 2007, ISBN 978-0-19-920687-2) - which is
considered to be one amongst most authoritative dictionaries in the
world, on page 1835, under the word "morality" is provided the
following definition of "morality": "the doctrine or branch of
knowledge that deals with right and wrong conduct and with duty and
responsibilities; moral philosophy; ethics; moral principles or
rules". The publishing of the above definition in that authoritative
dictionary means, that it is a kind of "standard" for the old
"atheistic orthodox science" to-date. Although some academic textbook
or some lecturers may add or take away various less significant words
from the above definition, generally this definition is a full
representation of what "morality" is considered to be by the old
"atheistic orthodox science" to-date.

The most vital attribute of the above definition of morality is that
according to it "morality" is "an idea introduced by people". This
means, that according to it supposedly: (a) "morality" does NOT
originate from anything else than people (e.g. "morality" does NOT
originate from God nor from "laws of nature"), (b) "morality" does NOT
have independent from people "standards of morally correct
behaviours", (c) do NOT exist any "phenomena of nature" that would
indicate or confirm which behaviours of people are morally correct and
which are immoral, and (d) no-one independently from people "guards
morality" nor makes sure that people actually behave morally, e.g.
through serving to them "rewards" for "moral behaviour" and
"punishments" for "immorality". In other words, because according to
this definition supposedly "people invented morality", this definition
contains also a suggestion, that as time elapses, people (e.g.
"politicians") will be able to "invent also for themselves" a
completely different "morality". For example, instead of becoming
increasingly perfect through fighting out their vices and temptations,
in that "new morality" - which people can "invent" for themselves and
introduce to life in the future, they simply are to "sanction" these
vices and temptations and announce that following them is already
"moral" (instead of previous being "immoral"). This seems to happen
already now. For example, already now countries exist which banned
parents from disciplining their children (and even makes this
disciplining punishable) - as this is explained in item #B5.1 from the
web page named "will.htm" while is commented in sub-item #J2.4 from
the web page named "morals.htm". Furthermore, there are coutries which
introduced also the law regarding "civil unions" in which it is
allowed that homosexuals can "marry" each other - in spite that e.g.
the Bible quite clearly bans practicing homosexuality (for examples of
this bans from the Bible see item #B5 on the web page named
"seismograph.htm" or item #B2.1 on the web page named
"mozajski_uk.htm"). In turn e.g. internet has public orums which
persuade people to marital unfaithfulness - in spite that this
unfaithfulness is banned by 7th God's commandment. The above persuades
to undertake serious analyses, whether the definition of "morality"
which is disseminated by the old "atheistic orthodox science" to-date
is actually correct, or is rather highly wrong and misleading for


B5. How the new "totaliztic science" defines "morality" in the
universe intentionally created and intelligently ruled by superior

Motto: "People stubbornly ignore morality enforced by God, God
restlessly illustrates to people that NO-ONE is allowed to ignore

The new "totaliztic science" recommends to use the following
definition of "morality": 'morality is the "level of obedience" with
which a given "intellect" fulfils commandments and requirements
imposed onto humans by God, which commandments and requirements are
unambiguously expressed by God with the aid of various "standards of
morality" (such as the Bible, the human organ called "conscience",
etc.) and with the aid of numerous 'indicators of morally correct
behaviours' (such as the "moral field", "moral energy", "moral laws",
etc.), and which actual fulfilment by people is judged by God and
"rewarded" or "punished" with an iron consequence - while manners of
fulfilment of these commandments and requirements are revealed to us
by two modern philosophies called the "philosophy of totalizm" and the
"philosophy of parasitism" - which taken together teach people truly
"moral" principles of leading their lives'.

Of course, the above definition - as every human finding, can also be
expressed with the use of various other words or sentences. A part of
these sentences perhaps can improve it even more and allow to express
with it the essence of "morality" even better. Furthermore, this
definition is too long for us to be able to remember it in its
entirety and repeat it for the everyday use. Therefore, for our own
use, or for discussing it with other people, one can benefit from
simplified versions of that definition, e.g. from the one stated here
in the introduction to this post, or the one discussed in item #A1 of
the separate web page named "totalizm.htm". Such a simplified version
of the above complete definition reflect the essence of it already in
e.g. the following formulation "in the world ruled by God, morality
should be understand as the strictness with which someone fulfils
God's commandments in the everyday life" (or in the formulation
presented in the introduction to this post). But the addition to such
simplified versions of this definition should be our understanding
that in order to "persuade" to people the obedience of "morality", God
created and gave to people various standards and indicators of moral
behaviours (e.g. conscience, Bible, moral field, etc.), and also that
God consistently uses "rewards" and severe "punishments" to reinforce
moral behaviours in people - only that in order to not break our "free
will" this reinforcing He carries out highly "discretely" and with the
fulfilment of so-called "canon of ambiguity" (described, amongst
others, in item #C4.1 of the web page "morals.htm").

The above definition is immensely important. After all, it informs
quite clearly that "morality" is formulated by God and that God makes
sure that people obey it pedantically (and do NOT ignore it). On the
other hand, the error of a too-light, unserious, and misleading
treatment of "morality" by the official human science to-date, which
the science still failed to repair, causes that the humanity currently
is in the situation of a "war with God" about "morality". In turn, how
"wars with God" typically finish, this is described in item #G2 on the
web page named "prophecies.htm". Therefore, in present times, our
civilisation pays for ignoring the enforcement of morality with
immense suffering and deaths of numerous people punished for being
immoral, and also pays with the devastation of nature, cities, and
social lives, which were treated too lightly by decision makers that
believed in the impunity of their immoral actions. Thus, in the vital
interest of every person lies now to repeat this definition of
morality to his or her close ones, and thus to gradually restore moral
behaviours to our civilisation. In turn, the restoration of morality
has the potential to return harmony, peace, and prosperity to the

The correctness of the above definition of "morality" is confirmed by
a number of various facts and phenomena. Each one amongst these facts
and phenomena contradicts also the correctness of the to-date
definition of "morality" (i.e. the one from item B2 above) -
disseminated by the official human science. Therefore, the entire
"part #C" of the web page named "morals.htm" is devoted to the
presentation of the most vital examples from the large body of
evidence which documents that the definition provided here is
absolutely correct, and documents that God really enforces moral
behaviours of people.

* * *

This post represents adaptation of items #B1 to #B5 from the
totaliztic web page named "morals.htm" (updated on 25 June 2011, or
later). Thus, reading the above descriptions would be even more
effective from that web page "morals.htm" than from this post, as on
the web page are working all (green) links to other related web pages
with additional explanations, it is printed in colour, it is supported
with illustrations, the content of it is updated regularly, etc. The
latest update of the web page "morals.htm" can be viewed, amongst
others, at addresses: or alias: (which
always links to the most important amongst current updates)
Notice that every above web site contains all totaliztic web pages,
including pages "text_1_5.htm" with free copies of monograph [1/5]
which is an "official textbook" of the "totaliztic science". But I
would recommend to download this [1/5] from the address where this monograph is updated the
most frequently.

Each new topic that I am researching with "a priori" approach of the
new "totaliztic science", including this one, is repeated on all
mirror blogs of totalizm still in existence (the above topic is
repeated in there as the post number #202E). In past there were 5 such
blogs. At the moment only two blogs of totalizm still remain undeleted
by adversaries of the new "totaliztic science" and the moral
philosophy of totalizm. These can be viewed at following internet
addresses: or alias:
It is also worth to have look in there at related posts, e.g. at posts
number #201E, #200E, #195E, #171E and #151E - which also discuss
incompetence and errors of the old official science in solving the
most burning problems of our present civilisation.

With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak

0 new messages