@flexbrat the internet highway also speeds nonsense. look at all the misinformation and conspiracy theories on the net. anyway, even so your argument fails because religious people use the internet to evangelize. all most atheists on the internet are doing is preaching to the choir. you need to rein in the ones making you look bad.
@infernalone666 "I wonder if the fox news idiots are even aware christmas is a hijacked holiday?" it never ceased to amuse me to hear people say stuff like this, when they themselves probably haven't a clue about the veracity of the "pagan origins of Christmas" claims in the first place. and I have no love of fox news, believe me!
The bizarre Metamagical Beliefs of Imaginary friends i,e GODS, demons,angels spirits etc are creations of the BRAIN. When they are accepted as reality this is sign of schizophrenia
ALL religious faith are based in Deluded Concepts as are disorders like schizophrenia.
Belief in God in this 21st Century is sign of a Schizoaffective disorder iow Brain malfunction. People of FAITH ought to be called People of ZombieSchizophrenia
Trauma to the brain causes spirituality.GodFaith is ZombieGodSyndrome
This is Dom (Domzdream). I can see you started to have a discussion on this page. I'm so glad! Listen my friend. This guy (XSC3), down below is a bit of a catholic fanatic. Could you please teach this poor dope some actual history and show him where his gee-zuss came from and who he actually is. It IS a challenge. The guy doesnt listen. But what christian ever does? I'll keep reading this page. Especially with a guy of your knowledge on my side. good luck, hehehe.
@Domzdream if you think calpurnipiso makes a good argument, you're welcome to him. I consider him about as coherent and honest as David Icke. but I bet he'll tell you a lot of things you want to hear, if all you're after is bashing of religion. I hope you are happy together. ;)
The man is a bit excessive, but his info is spot on. And based on actual history. Not interpretated like yours is. I really feel sorry for people like you because your logic is scrambled by biblical bias. But I know what you think, and how you think. because I was there, in the catholic cult, just like you currently are. Always justifying, snipping this and excusing that.
On simple logic, you couldnt answer any of my questions. You dont question. You simply follow. Like a sheep er...
@Domzdream "a bit excessive"? lol. if his info is so "spot on" I challenge you to send it to any history professors at any of the top universities. let him try to debate any of the classicists, Roman historians, biblical scholars or other experts on late antiquity, art history, etc. he'll get the same level of respect as the Time Cube Guy, because that's all he is, I'm afraid. If it's "bible bias" why do the non-Christian experts agree with me, and not you guys?
@Domzdream you call Catholicism a "cult" but you want to join this guy's fantasy land of conspiracy theories and made-up nonsense? well, I guess that's your right. have fun. ;P
-er...lamb of god. Calpurnpiso is a far better biblical scholar than you ever will be, because unlike him, he uses actual evidence to support his claim. All you have, my fuzzy little friend, is the frikking (edited over and over, copy of a copy) b-a-a-a-ble.
You're still left with a small pickle. Maybe not so small. You still have the burden of proof to show us all that your god actually exists, and that all the other gods are incorrect. We're still waiting.
@Domzdream if you think calpurnipiso is a "bible scholar," then you're welcome to him. May I recommend Kent Hovind as your scientist, Jack Thompson as your lawyer and Bernie Madoff as your financial consultant. I don't have to prove God exists, I merely have to show that you're misreading the bible, which I've successfully done. calpurnipiso's theories are not accepted by any modern experts I know of. he bears the burden of proof. more name calling won't remove that burden of proof.
@Domzdream the "actual evidence" he uses is what? conspiracy theories, ad hominems against actual experts, and bogus word association/substitution games straight out of the Jordan Maxwell playbook. but, go ahead, latch onto his loony ideas. let it become your safety blanket, keeping those pesky facts and people with contradicting opinions away from you. go follow him, he needs the attention.
@Domzdream modern scholarship is quite against the fundy protestant agenda when it comes to interpreting the bible. people like Ehrman used to even be part of their camp, so he's no ally to their cause (nor is he Catholic). he's written books against the existence of God and he certainly denies that the bible is inerrant or inspired. yet even he doesn't support what you guys are saying. face it, you're misreading the bible, and you have no clue what you're talking about.
@Domzdream you object to my religion (at least from your poor understanding of it). fine. it's a free country, man. you don't have to agree with me. but while you're entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts. but, I can't force you to not live in ignorance, so go ahead, read everything this calpurnipiso guy wrote. compare it to what the primary sources say, and compare it to what the modern scholars say. after awhile you'll see he's full of it.
@Domzdream you accuse me of bias, but ask yourself why you're so ready to believe what he's shelling out. it's because it's comforting to you. you're angry at religion for your upbringing, and now you're seeking to half-heartedly dismantle the faith of others, but more likely to strengthen and justify your own rejection of it. my take is that you were never Catholic, you were fundamentalist. so it's no wonder you got off on the wrong foot. am I that far off?
No. I'm not angry at the upbringing it force upon me. Im fine with that. Im angry that it makes people so deluded. Like you. You clearly are a bright lad. But you seem to think that knowing the bible will make your faith any more credible. I showed you so many logical errors within your own religion. It's laughable. Simple, basic of the basic logic. Like I said, as soon as you base reality of a thing on faith, your belief fails. Faith by def isnt knowledge.
@Domzdream we speak of "delusion" here but look at your friend calpurnipiso. that, my friend, is delusion, not what I'm saying. I didn't say that knowing the bible means you will accept the bible. But I am saying that you've accepted (then rejected) a strawman of the bible. the thing is, I too reject that image of the bible. that's the fundamentalist image of the bible and God, not mine. If I thought that's what it was, I might be an atheist too (or at the very least a non-Christian)
@Domzdream when we speak of faith, we don't mean blind faith. so again, you're attacking a strawman of our beliefs. again, you may be thinking more of the fundamentalist image of faith, not the Catholic image (which was around a long time before their group ever existed). I showed you the logical errors in your worldview, did you change it or admit them? no.
Faith by definition is something you believe in that has no basis of evidence. You believe in shit that is based on faith, not knowledge. That's silly. And even if you DO believe in the bible better than I, it matters not. It's all still crap and easily refutable. And refuted! Puerile and simply filled with errors.
You showed me logical errors? HAHA! That's laughable. When? You speak of logic yet you're the one believing in cherubims, angels, and demons. Oh, riiight. Its metaphors-
@Domzdream I didn't say spiritual beings were all metahpors. Faith, as we have always defined it, is not "blind faith" (what you're describing) but trust based on prior knowledge and evidence. is philosophical knowledge not knowledge? even evidence is subject to interpretation. I didn't say that my knowledge must be infallible. are you sure of what you believe? you're sure of your interpretation being correct? then why by hypocritical?
Philosophy isnt knowledge. Knoweldge can be used in philosophy, but I can make my pencil become a god with clever use of words and philosophy. And I can use knoweldge to prove my philosophical standpoint. By using evidence (knowledge). We have no knowledge of ANY!! deiety. Therefore we have no knwoeldge of its existence. If we DID have evidence, we'd have only one religion. Also, it would nt be called a faith, now would it? You logic as always is puerile.
Oh, and bullshit to your evidence being subject to interpretation. A black hole is balck hole. It isnt a toaster. It isnt anything else. It's a fucking blackhole. Why would you want to unnecessarily complicate a thing that's been already defined by its nature.
@Domzdream yet the fundamentalist understanding is far more easily refuted, which was why it's understandable that you were trying to caricature my belief into theirs. the existence of spiritual beings is independent from your personal distaste of what's written in the bible. I find many atheists to be unlikable and write disgraceful things. that doesn't mean they are wrong simply because they behave in a distasteful fashion.
@XSC3 -metaphors. (facepalmSLAP). Since you're on this crusade to prove to me (and millions of other christians) that what they're reading and iterpreting is wrong, like I said, why not write your own version fo the bible since you're so keen on doing so. This is what you find comforting, and I get that, because you have been brianwashed by your cult. But how arrogant are you to tell everyone else that they're wrong and you're right. Wow. You hold the key to the real info, right? pfff-haha.
@Domzdream "But how arrogant are you to tell everyone else that they're wrong and you're right. Wow. You hold the key to the real info, right? pfff-haha."
Pure hypocrisy. I don't think it's wrong to inform someone of their error. You told me I'm wrong, and you're right, then said it was wrong to do so. So there's your own hypocrisy.
@Domzdream it's not my fault if millions of professed Christians are wrong. you yourself admit that millions of professed Christians don't understand the bible. so why would you get mad at me for agreeing with you, but asserting that millions more do in fact understand it? I don't need to write my own version of the bible. I understand this one just fine, something you won't accept. you don't understand it but feel free to chastise me for disagreeing with you on what it means.
@Domzdream in your thinking, all the Christians in the world are wrong. I'm only saying a few million of them are. So who is the arrogant one here? You think everyone who believes in a God is wrong, and you're telling us so. Then you say I'm arrogant and wrong to tell people they're wrong about their interpretation of the Bible. Who is the hypocrite, now?
They ALL are wrong. That's the thing. Something which you seem to struggle with. That yours is somehow the right one. Um. Obviously. Every different relgion thinks their's is the right one, otehrwise they'd be in another religion, duh-durpy derp!
NOt just that. You're totally assertign your version of catholicism is the correct one, and the other catholics are wrong. Again...hubris much?
@Domzdream would it be arrogant hubris for a science professor to point out to a layman that they didn't understand science? I don't "hold the key." Education holds the key. it's available to you as it is to me (though it helps if you're motivated to learn it by things like exams, deadlines, peer review, etc). but if you won't bother trying, I guess not.
We dont need to understand the intricacies of science to not know that up goes up and down goes down. And that gravity's a bitch if you jump off a cliff and not fly.
Somehow, 'god heps those who help themselves' is so fitting in this context.
Actually why not pray to god for him to telepathically teleport all the answers to your brain. Why not. He helps you apparently so many times any way, like in sports. Why not exams? Why not pray for him to telepathically show me he's real? There!
No. Facts are comforting to me. I dont agree with everything Cal says. I think he's extremely vociferous. And quite rude in saying things like christians need mental help. But I have looked into the stuff he says and it checks out correctly. He's not lying when he says he uses facts.
Just because my version of catholicism was different to yours doesnt mean it's the wrong way of perceiving my EX-faith. See, we're back into the dilema of saying Im right, you're wrong. Its all subjectivity
@Domzdream I've yet to hear anything from Calpurnipiso that I agree with. Maybe he says somewhere that Rome existed and it was full of Romans. If he said that, I agree with it, and there's one true thing he said. ;) But he's clearly about as reliable as any conspiracy nutter on the internet. I just find it amusing that you'd uphold him as some kind of expert.
@Domzdream the "Facts" he uses are from his own imagination and debunked fringe writers. In that sense he's about as useful a source as Jack Chick, Alex Chiu, or Kent Hovind. "My version" of Catholicism is the official one. If you were a Catholic who actually believed like a protestant fundamentalist, how am I to blame for that? So your childhood faith has nothing to do with what I'm saying. so why use it against me? because apparently you were unaware of the difference.
Offcial one? haha. So you say. It doesnt matter if the original superman comic book was read versus a printed one. They're all based on a mythical character.
I've actually researched where your religion comes from. But hey, if dwelling in 'The Matrix' makes you happy, then have at it Hoss.
@Domzdream which of his "facts" do you think is correct, if you disagree with him that Christians are literally insane, which of his claims do you think is actually true?
The information he cites as fact is either from a non-credible source, or else he twists that information to a conclusion at odds with the actual evidence (not to mention logic). Go ahead, show me what you think he got right.
I personally dont think you people are insane, like Cal does. I think his arguments are eccentric. But his info is what's gold to me. I have seen it. Now you could say, well it's been debunked. Well, I can say the same thing about the 'holy' bible. EVERY version of the bible has been debunked many times. And where contradictions have been handed to you silly theists on a silver fucking platter, becuase you dopes are too proud and lazy to find the truth yourselves. I used to be in the -
@Domzdream his "info" is "gold"? it's foolishness. he's repeating conspiracy theories which the majority of experts in every related field don't take seriously. communion is magic mushrooms and orgasms? get real. Jesus is a penis? sorry, never happened. Calpurnipiso is the one who is "insane," by believing and promoting this nonense, or he's one dedicated troll. so I'm not just dismissing him for his weird attitude, it's the content of what he's saying that is ridiculous.
The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
@Domzdream see, that's a strawman right there. I don't believe in a "Jewish zombie" "who was his own father" "symbolically eat his flesh" and "telepathically tell him you accept him as your master" to "remove an evil force from my soul" "that is present in humanity" "because of a rib-woman" "talking snake" "magical tree." so no, you're quite mistaken.
You'er not. And I know you like to think you are, but you're not. You're strange schism from Catholicism, but now I know you truely are somehting else. I mean, it's obvious to me sinceyou're not a follower of the bible. You're a follower of your personal interpretation of the bible, which doesnt make you a true christian. Well done. You've just begun a whole new schizm of catholicism. And that's how religions form. You're a living proof of that.
@Domzdream if I said "oh, so you'd rather believe that we're all slime that randomly poofed out of nowhere, turned into monkeys and now wander aimlessly through a pointless life so we can be immoral" you'd (I'm sure) rightly point out "that's not what I believe." and further "that's not what anyone believes." it would be a caricature, a strawman. so jokes aside, you're quite mistaken. back to you "bob."
You can keep repeating this 'strawman' word which you've grown to be so fond of, but it really doesnt apply to me at all. And I've addressed this again and again. We didnt poof out of nowhere. That's stupid! We can trace the origins back to the big bang. But before that, we dont know and we may never know. We can definitely trace the origins of life and the mind. Where it evolved from. And all this was done through science. Not prayer. Prayer did fuck-all, and does fuck-all.
@Domzdream if you won't deal with the actual issues, and resort to strawmen, why should anyone take you seriously? that's the kind of immaturity I'd expect from a calpurnipiso. surely you know better. but maybe not... ?
Are you concerned with actual facts and evidence, or simply asserting your position (based on blind faith) over against others? I think that's a question it's time to ask yourself here.
Wanting something to be true, doesnt make it real. Keep learninf that and you might actually grow intellectually without bias of religion. Without the constraints of religion.
Answer me this riddle, and dont avoid the question. Does faith trump knowledge? I think we both know the answer to this. But, answer anyway.
@Domzdream did you have sex and get high at Mass when you were a kid? If not, then you already know Calpurnipiso is an ignoramus or worse. the only thing "debunked" is the fundamentalist interpretation of the bible, which is something you're promoting, despite the claim that you were once Catholic. I disagree with that interp just as much as you do, as does any educated Catholic. so there are no "excuses" here only projection on your part, sadly.
it doesnt matter what interpretation you choose as the truth. The fact is, they're ALL wrong.
By the way, Cal ir right. Just because you find what he says offensive doesnt mean that it's incorrect. And sure, it might have been debunked by biasd christian scholars. But that's what you'd expect from a theist. It's obviously going to be biasd. Just as if a muzzy debunked their faith. Prove them wrong also by the way. And the Buddhists. And the Greeks and Romans.
@Domzdream "it doesnt matter what interpretation you choose as the truth. The fact is, they're ALL wrong."
Considering the fact that you don't know most of these interpretations (judging by your comments) you'll pardon me if I'm not impressed with your confidence on the issue. you also seem unwilling to accept that you've misrepresented or misunderstood them, which is rather worrying to your position.
@Domzdream. I never said that Calpurnipiso was wrong simply because he was offensive. I just wondered aloud if you wanted to associate yourself with someone who behaves like that. Rather, he's wrong because his ideas are wrong, and his ideas are wrong because his facts are wrong, and his method of interpretation is fallacious. so even if he was the nicest, most personable person in the world, the point is what he's teaching is garbage.
He's wrong?? hahaha! After showing cultists lke yourself actual evidence that's current in museums today, and in ancient ruins. Illustrations. Symbols, etc. All point to the evidence where your silly religion comes from. (even though your particular Catholicism isnt the true one).
The evidence eradicates your religion instantly. You might not see it as fact, but the answeres are there wether you choose to recognise them or not. Remain in ignorance, I dont care.
@Domzdream whether Muslims, Buddhists or Greeks and Romans are correct in their personal claims about their religious beliefs really has no bearing on the proper methods of biblical interpretation and whether specific claims in or about the bible are accurate or not. Stick to the topic. you disbelieve all religions, I get it. that's your faith. but we're talking about whether you are misrepresenting certain historical facts.
Yes, they're correct within their arena of belief. Exactly. But it doesnt make them right within the arena of reality. And neither does yours, regardless of how expert you are within your arena of belief. Or in what language.
I can discuss the crediblity of fairies brilliantly. It still doesnt make them true. I'd still have to prove their existence to you. No matter how many texts state their existence.
@Domzdream for example, if I said "Muslims worship a cosmic jell-o monster" that would be incorrect, and I'm sure you would know that instantly. If I said "the Muslims worshiped a pre-Islamic meccan moon deity called a-lah" would you be able to dismiss that claim as quickly? How would you be able to find out if what I said there had merit or not? that's the point. it doesn't matter if you believe in Islam or not. neither of us do. but we can still be accurate about the subject.
How the heck do you know if it's not a jello monster?? Do you somehow telepathically know this? Wow.
Oh, I see. It's not glorious enough. Oh, ok. It has to be regal in order for it to be more plausible. Come on! Grow up already. You're a grown ass man who believes in invisible deieties that require faith in order for them to be real. Wanting somehting to be true doesnt make it real.
@Domzdream if you and I are debating a Muslim on what a specific passage of the Quran says, and that Muslim knows Arabic, then he has an advantage. we would have to either learn arabic to debate him on that higher level or at least consult recognized arabic scholars and quranic authorities to see if he's making a good case. in the same way if I quote a certain hadith against a Muslim, if I'm unaware that no Muslim considers that hadith to be reliable, I'm making a fool out of myself.
Oh, bullshit! I can still win a bet against the greatest of mathematicians, and I SUCK!!! at maths. I'm a maths retard, quite literally. Let me show you.
I say 2=2+4
He says 2+2= 3
I win.
No astro physics required here. It's simple logic. Same applies to religions. Ultimately you're wasting your own time arguing over a superman graphic novel and who's knows it better, as if this lends any credence to their belief.
@Domzdream I'm "lazy"? you don't know me pall. You don't know how much time and money I've invested in learning this stuff, studying ancient documents, the latest scholarship, learning ancient language, etc. and not the "easy way" of looking stuff up at home, but being tested, forced to defend arguments before peers, etc. lazy? hell no. "proud"? well I can be "proud" of the fact that I don't believe what I believe purely for emotional or political reasons unlike some people on here...
I applaud you for learning all that. But ultimately you 're still learning biasd theology which has been debunked, and varified that christianity is a compilation from many other religions. It's like me saying- ah, but I've been studying Tolkien all my life, so therfore since I've been studying for so long, this makes me more plausible than you.
Wanting something to be true doesnt make it real.
But well done on the scholarship anyway. You should feel proud.
@Domzdream how am I learning "biased theology"? I've studied the bible under atheists and Jews (yes, an Orthodox Jewish expert on the New Testament). I don't read only Catholic works, I've primarily studied secular and protestant works regarding the bible in my education and career, actually. "biased"? everything is biased, but I've certainly not limited myself to stuff I agree with, far from it. can you say the same?
I have read enough bible to have (at a very early age as Ive mentioned before), to know where the contradictions are. Where the inaccuracies lay. Where shit that this supposed god says makes absolutely no sense and clashes with his other teachings. Put ll that together, and you start to redirect unintentionally to different views. And that's what (and most of the other atheists) have done. I went through a long process of my apostacy. It didnt happen over night.
@Domzdream studying the bible is not equivalent to studying tolkien as if they were both the same genre. but if you had been studying tolkien all your life and I had just heard of him last week, I would trust that your knowledge of him would be greater than mine, though that wouldn't mean you would be incapable of making mistakes about him.
If Tolkien was introduced amongst the people back in those days, you'd be a Tolkenite. Just as much as Hindus are based in India and Buddhists are based in Asia.
The Balrog would be just as plausible to you as the Demon of the bible. It's the same fucking thing really.
I cant believe a grown up like you actually believes in angels and devils, hahaha. It's so puerile, no offence.
@Domzdream I'm saying that once you get a certain level of basic knowledge from years of study in an academic environment on a topic you can much more easily spot basic fallacies and mistakes that an amateur would miss. for example if somebody says the KJV is the Majority Text, or says that Jesus was made into a God at Nicea, I immediately know that the person hasn't a clue what they're talking about, as those are very well covered areas that only an amateur would goof up that badly.
@Domzdream just like if somebody said "evolution says we came from monkeys" you can immediately know that this person (unless it's clear they're speaking facetiously), doesn't understand basic evolutionary theory, an amateur mistake a professional in the field would simply not make.
Well yes, but evolution unlike the bible can actually be tested in the lab. We can varify these things. There are (sorry creationists who are reading this) bacteria that actually evolve in a petri dish. And that's why we have the medicines that combat flus today, thanks to evolutionary principles. Science as always bitch-slaps religion's face.
@Domzdream my atheist professor studied the old testament far longer than both of us combined, and it's not "plausible" to him at all (I believe he admitted God might possibly exist, but he was 100% sure it could not be the God of the bible, even in that case, but that's his personal belief, the point is he knows the OT very well, though he's in a field with thousands of other scholars).
@Domzdream my point in mentioning my own education is to show you why I hold my position. I don't "believe" what I do about the bible (and I'm talking just facts here, even, not whether supernatural claims are "real") because I was raised that way, or because somebody with a collar or letters after their name told me so.
@Domzdream I don't believe it because some poll indicated it was the majority position. I do so based on my study. and when I see that my view is shared by a lot of people who know even more about the topic than I do, I feel confident that I'm on the right track, no matter how many amateurs dispute it. if they knew even the amount I know, they would probably feel differently, and that's again, religious beliefs aside.
@Domzdream if you're going to argue that other people are "reading the bible wrong" then it's incumbent upon you to know something about how to read the bible and how other people read the bible. that implies that you know how to read it in the first place, which means you need to know something about the bible beyond what you (personally, from your statements) have shown. of course the bible can still be false. my OT prof is an atheist. but he'd destroy you in a debate on it.
Well, pass this onto him. I challenge him to a debate. He'd kick my ass in knowledge if the bible. I doubt he'd do any better than you in demonstrating logic. That's why people like William Lane Craige, who are brilliant arguers, are still left wit hthe burden of proof. Proof through clever use of words isnt proof.
But hey, tell your prof to bring it. I'll slap him with some logic too. And Im a basic lamen.
@Domzdream now I'm not a hebrew scholar, so you and I are on a bit more equal footing when it comes to the OT though I've I'm sure done more study under academic conditions on it than you have. but when it comes to the NT I know I've got far better training in that field and a little bit of greek (compared to the I'm guessing "none" that you have). if you had a masters in science, I'm sure you'd be in a better position to judge mainstream science than someone with a lesser education
@Domzdream so education is not something to sneeze at. Again, it doesn't matter what I "want." Do you think I only read scholars that affirm "what I want"? I accept their findings based on the strength of their evidence (and yes, in places, based on the authority that they've earned, regardless of what I personally believe). that's the same with anything. at least I'm being consistent. I do not do as you have accused me, which is to dismiss or avoid evidence based on blind faith.
@Domzdream oh, so you read the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek? I stand corrected then, here I thought you were basing your readings on english translations your mother gave you when you were a kid. My bad. I didn't realize you had a phd in the Bible.
Well that's like arguing with muzzies who insist on you reading their scriptures only in arabic. As if it lends any more credence to their faith.
I can learn the bible in fucking Eskimo language. It'll still be the same mythology. I have a phd in logic, no history here is required.
It must really frustrate the theist to have the inability to prove us all disbelievers of the christian faith, wrong. Same goes for all otehr religions.
@Domzdream "muzzies.... As if it lends any more credence to their faith." it's a perfectly reasonable argument that we should study their texts in their original languages to get at the best understanding. it doesn't mean we have to buy their argument that it can ONLY be understood in Arabic (and Muslims do not actually make that claim, by and large, only that the arabic is the actual word of God).
@Domzdream for instance, is it better to insist that one english translation of Plato is the best way to study Plato's actual words, even against a Plato scholar who has studied the original language (and you haven't), or to agree that it's possible subtelties may be lost in the translation process which limits our ability to understand plato by relying solely on a translation?
Plato can say what he wants within philosophical boundaries. It's when it comes to plausibility of a thing, his philosophy crumbles. If he was stating cleverly that lightning was bolts of anger thrown by Zeus, I'd disagree with him. And I'd be right, given my knwoedge and evidence at my side. Regardless wether he told this to me in greek or Lithuanian. The message is the same. NO phd required. You seem to be equating plausibility with a man's personal credentials.
@Domzdream translations have errors in them. just look at the many arguments that fundy atheists and fundy Christians make, for example, based on issues that only exist in a specific translation (like the King James Version). I haven't read the Quran in Arabic, so if I want to argue with a Muslim over something in the arabic, I either need to learn it myself, or I need to rely upon arabic scholars for those issues. it's quite simple.
Sure. Within the confines of the context, yes. But within application to actual reality, it all crumbles. Especially when clashing against all the other religions and their own dogma and beliefs.
Translation DO have errors. How the heck you know if yours isnt the error one? You dont. And I keep saying this. That's why the christian god of the bible stated that the bible must be taken as gospel, word for word. If not. death by stoning would follow. Becasue humans are susceptible to errors. And if you start subjectively interpreting the bible how you see fit, then you start changing the original scriptures. And that's how you end up with schisms. And I've told you before, you are -
@Domzdream translations are never perfect, but what does that prove? I didn't say we couldn't make better translations (and indeed we must as language evolves). likewise I didn't say it was impossible to misread the Bible (clearly you've demonstrated this). but the Bible is not our only source of knowledge on God. God does not expect us to know his will merely by reading a book. Again, I reject the fundmentalist interpretation of bible including the fundamentalist definition of bible
@Domzdream we have the Church, a living, breathing institution founded by Christ (the God made flesh), so no, we're not reliant upon an old book for our understanding of religion and God. and no, the alternative is NOT mere subjective reinterpretation of the scriptures (eisegesis). the protestant principle failed, that's all what you said proves. but I don't accept the protestant principle (that my private interpretation of scripture trumps all).
@XSC3 -are a living blueprint of the catholic schism. You're just like any other religious follower. Trying to establish his belief system as the right one, and arrogantly struiking off all the others as lesser. And they they in turn the same towards you.
Again, back to logic. If this god is aware of all these inaccuracies. Then he's either sadistic fucker. Or he's a moron. He could reveal himself to all as the true god. But no. He sits in his sky-park and observes without interest or care.
@Domzdream "are a living blueprint of the catholic schism. You're just like any other religious follower. Trying to establish his belief system as the right one, and arrogantly struiking off all the others as lesser. And they they in turn the same towards you."
Then you point back to yourself with this statement. Here you are telling me, and in fact the majority of humanity that has ever lived (and still today) that we're wrong and only your view is correct. hypocrisy?
@Domzdream the alternative is what... a God who doesn't create and so we don't exist, or a God that controls everything (Calvinist God), meaning God either creates evil itself, or else forces good (and then is merely a cosmic dictator pulling the strings of countless puppet slaves). the Christian God enters his creation and suffers with it to help show us the way. You missed that, apparently.
I don't consider myself superior to you, but I do pity your confusion.
In the end, all you have is a book telling you that this brand of god exists. A book of a paranormal thing isnt proof. I can easily write a credible thesis on why goblins can exist, therefore they do exist. But that's not proof. All you'd be proving is your mental ability to write well, and possibly philosophise brilliantly. But that's it. All the other religions say the same thing about their god(s). Prove them all wrong. You cant. You never will. Philosophy isnt proof, dude.
@Domzdream that's a protestant talking. My faith is not based "on a book." Catholicism doesn't rely on a book (that it created), but rather the shared tradition and experience of a faith that predates that "book." again, the Catholic faith is not "blind faith" and philosophy cannot be broken down into accepting paranormal claims despite evidence or in spite of evidence. everything you believe is based in some form of philosophy, and requires some level of faith to accept.
@Domzdream "All the other religions say the same thing about their god(s). Prove them all wrong. You cant. You never will. Philosophy isnt proof, dude."
False. religions do not all say the same things about their God(s). if I can't disprove all religions, how can you claim to? as for philosophy not being proof, I beg to differ. the very foundation of science is rooted in philosophy. without philosophy we can never have knowledge of anything, really. think about it. so you go too far.
@Domzdream if a Christian can read the New Testament in Greek, but you are stuck with an English translation, he has an advantage over you, just as a creationist who has a high school level of knowledge of biology is going to be at a disadvantage compared to a professional biological scientist. unfortunately education is not democratic. but you can still make use of knowledge and authorities to make a coherent argument in many cases.
All the correct info on the net is there, including many examples Calpurnpiso has provided for you, if you care to watch his videos.
Regardless of language. facts are facts. One doesnt need a phd in order to be able to comprehend facts. Again, why would a god want his most imoprtant message in the entire universe, to be subject for personal interpretation, left in the hands of goat herders and campfire story tellers. Worse, onto paper which can and was -
-subject to ruin and erosion. You'd think the almighty would put it onto indestructible material, like Marvel's adamantium. A metal which is only handed down by the gods alone. Nah, he'll ask kindly people to dictate to scribes onto erosive paper. Not very god-like. Also, with errors, contradictions, logical falacies and fumbled proffecies. Either this god is incompetent, or he doesnt exist and this was simply writtten by bored story tellers, over- embellishing.
@Domzdream if you were arguing with someone over whether live existed on the moon, you are both equal in the sense that neither of you has been to the moon. but both of you have access (even though you are not experts) to the research of knowledgeable authorities that could help answer that question. those authorities MIGHT be lying and covering up something (though you have no reason to suspect it), though you can only operate with what you have, not what you don't have.
@Domzdream if a fundy atheist refuses to understand the difference between what the Bible says in its original language, vs. a particular translation says, then that's their problem. they're using ignorance as a shield. I might be "unable" to convince them that they're inadequate to the argument, but it's quite clear they would be, just as if you or I would be if we were debating Richard Dawkins on macroevolution.
Yyyyup. However macro evolution has a plethora of outside affirmation that it works. Thus why it's know as fact. Your religion has thousands of oppositions. But within it's own aren, it has merit, sure. So does superman in DC comics. But not in Marvel comics.
@Domzdream I have debated with many muslims. the issue is not the language per se, it's whether an issue you have with the text stems from a particular translation (since every translation is the interpretation of some translator, they've made a choice between various words to come up with what you have in front of you based on a variety of criteria).
Regardless, they're still left with the lack of evidence to prove to you that their god is real and yours is non existent. You're demanding the proof of evidence just as much as I am demnading that same evidence from you.
Don't tell me WHY your god exists. SHOW me. Show me objectively. Not subjectively.
@Domzdream translation matters a huge amount. if a text says "virgins" that makes a big difference than if it said "raisins," wouldn't you agree? you don't have to "believe in" or agree with any claims it is making, in order to understand what a text is actually claiming, which is the point here. I don't agree with Muslims, but I seek to understand what their actual beliefs are and what their texts are actually claiming.
Any person of 5 knows that they're not refering to ' raisins' when gods are in a context of discussion. One can easily detect where one is going wrong with translation.
What-? You need a priest to or a phd maestro to explain to you your bible?? I''m dissapointed.
Also, this demostrates your god's incompetence. This reminds me of movies where a deviant boss gives his clever plan to his goons who are fuck-tards. And they always fuck it up for him. This is synonymous with your god.
@Domzdream I might as well say to you then "well, no matter what you say, you're still an atheist, and I'm not."
That's not the point. the point is to not misrepresent a position (strawman). so far I've found you doing that against my position, which is why I even bothered to respond to you this long, instead of just saying "oh, well we disagree, no point then"
I watch this brill show caleld TheMagicSandwichShow, on youtube. There's this guy called Hamza, who's a spokes person for muslims. You should check him out on youtube. Also, Jack (the christian) argues his points on that show if you're interested. It's quite entertaining.
I watch this brill show caleld TheMagicSandwichShow, on youtube. There's this guy called Hamza, who's a spokes person for muslims. You should check him out on youtube. Also, Jack (the christian) argues his points on that show if you're interested. It's quite entertaining.
@Domzdream the "contradictions" are created by twisting the texts like a fundy protestant would. that's the problem. it's not that I don't "see" your objections. I do. it's just that you insist that your interpretation of the bible, as an uneducated layman, is the only correct one, and you can't fathom that anyone could disagree unless they are a brainwashed zombie. in that respect you're not far off from calpurnipiso (minus the foaming at the mouth act). I'm not the cultist
Well actually, you've just successfully described yourself there in a nutshell. You're so pent up on your interpretation being the true one, because a bunch of high brow scholars say it is so, therefore it simply must be so. At least in your mind.
Look, it's all hogwash. I know spiderman is a story. Regardless of wether Stan Lee himself reads me his Spiderman books. I know it's still kaka.
@Domzdream I'm glad they apologized for the poll. I didn't say I believed facts simply because "some high brow scholars said so." I'm saying all else being equal (unless you can substantiate your belief that there's a conspiracy amongst scholars to suppress the truth) it's far more likely that the expert community is right and the lone amateur skeptic is wrong. and when I do my own research (as a layman like you) I find that the experts seem to have a solid case, much better
@Domzdream that the experts have a much better case than the conspiracy theorists. if somebody wants to say, for example, that the scientists of the world have gotten together to suppress the truth of creationism, it's my job to show evidence of that conspiracy, not presume it and then demand that scientists disprove creationist science (though they've done that anyway, I'd say).
@Domzdream we don't need to be world class scientists to follow the evidence trail to seeing that spiderman is a fictional story and was always meant to be read as such. nobody is saying that a story's popularity makes it true, or because somebody you admire told it. however if somebody were to claim that Stan Lee and Steve Ditko did NOT create Spider-man but somebody else did and they stole the idea and suppressed the truth, they'd need to make that case with evidence.
And jesus' story is on basis of heresay. No outside observation or varification. Not even in the Romans' history of jesus' death. You'd think that a person who was in direct threat to Rome and its religion would be documented. A man who called out zombies. No such data. And Romans documented pretty much everything.
@Domzdream in other words, simply because it's possible to doubt a theory, does not force the proponent of that theory to defend it. yes, the null hypothesis would put the burden of proof on say, scientists, or historians to make their case. they already have done so on issues like evolution or the historicity of Jesus. then the burden falls to the doubters of those fields to counter claim. and those who claim a conspiracy exists to suppress the truth, must make their case first.
@Domzdream for example, you started with the belief that the government regulates all our knowledge. first off this is self refuting, because that implies you also believe the government wants you to read anti-government claims including conspiracy theories that paint the government in a negative light (the most negative light possible), or else is shows the government is not all powerful in this ability (refuting the premise).
All Im saying is that whatever the gov says, I take it with a pinch of salt, and I dont necessarily believe what they say. But I still do listen. But I'll never be one of those people who simply nod at whatever a politician says. Anyone who trusts a politician is a fool.
@Domzdream if you want to claim that the government regulates all knowledge, you must demonstrate this, rather than merely accepting it on blind faith (which is your right, but in terms of having a debate based on evidence, I can't accept your premise of blind faith except on blind faith myself). the express desire of many in the government TO regulate various types of knowledge seems to indicate this is not a power they already possess (or ever will completely possess, logically)
Well simply put. A lot of stuff was held back after the 9/11 attack for example. There's a lot of evidence to support that. And yes, they say oh it's been refuted. But er...no it hasnt. I dont take sides becasue you never will really know the ultimate truth of what actually happened. But I like to hear both sides. It's blind faith to follow whatever they say. It's not blind faith if you question. I constantly question. maybe that's why you're still religious and Im not.
@Domzdream one can fairly criticize the government for how it handled 9/11. what you can't do is show that the various claims made by conspiracy theorists are true. the "controlled demolitions" theory fails physics. the "unpiloted aircraft" fails facts. the "hijackers are still alive" nonsense similarly fails. the "news agencies were in on it" fails common sense, the "insurance policy" and "gold vault" stuff has serious problems, etc.
@Domzdream so in the end, while we may argue there are "holes" or "gaps" in the "official story" (say, surrounding 9/11) there are far bigger holes in the various conspiracy theorist alternative claims about 9/11... and most of them are so debilitating that all else being equal, we should accept the "official story" as being more plausible. that's the thing. unless the conspiracy theory fits all available evidence BETTER than competing theories, there's no reason to give it credence.
I personally have heard a lot of compelling evidence to make me doubt in the current story presented to us viewers. Im well aware of occam's razor. But again, I'm considering all optons. Not one regulated by govmnt.
May I ask, why do you put so much faith in the govmnt?
@Domzdream if you reject religion based on conspiracy theories, then I'm sorry, but you would be a fool. I've investigated the various conspiracy theories against religion (mine and others) as well and found that they fail the evidence and common sense test as well. so why should I believe in them? It sounds to me like you rejected Catholicism because you were more of a fundamentalist Protestant.
No. I reject religion based on logic and the bible. You can completely walk over me regarding conspiracy theories (that are based on this planet and this reality). But when it comes to biblical stuff, including ANY religions out there, I have shown you many instances where stuff that you worship is based on mutations of many other belief systems. Even on common logic grounds, religion fails.
Faith in a thing will never trump knowledge. You still have the burden of proof. I dont.
@Domzdream I also like to hear both sides. the stuff you've been saying to me is not new to me. I've read (and refuted it) years ago. so it's not that I'm unwilling to entertain alternative theories, it's that I've already examined them and found them wanting in the facts and logic department. I beg these folks to provide me with anything new that might substantiate their arguments, but rarely can they bring anything to bear that will do that.
@Domzdream I've done quite a bit of research on the 9/11 stuff. I'd be happy to compare notes some time on that if you'd like. at best I can say that the us government bungled the investigation at points and that it was a very embarrassing thing that happened because our security was not up to snuff, and that later, various interests took advantage of the situation for their own benefit. but the idea that it was an "inside job" or "false flag operation" is patently false, ridiculous.
@Domzdream listen, every conspiracy theorist makes the excuses you do. it's the OTHER people who don't believe in your conspiracy theory, who are the sheeple. I get it. I've been told by every conspiracy believer I've ever talked to that I'm part of the problem. but if the facts don't support their claims (and they don't) and they fail the logic test, then no amount of insults and insinuations that I'm a brainwashed zombie for not believing their contrived arguments will work.
So you'd rather believe in a god(s) which solely rely on their existence via faith not knoweldge, thus the reason why it's called a faith in the first place. A faith which is based supposedly on another dimension and existence altogether.
BUt conspiracies which are earth borne, you have a problem with.
Hmmm. Me spotteth a faulty reasoning here-eth, me thinketh. Just slightly.
@Domzdream on the contrary. God doesn't existed based on faith apart from knowledge. again, you're presuming the (False) definition of faith as blind faith. truth is truth, so God's existence is not dependent upon people acknowledging it, just as gravity is true regardless of any human being acknowledging it.
@Domzdream even by your own standards, you should not believe in conspiracy theories (the majority of them, anyway), as they purport to make factual, testable claims. those theories fail to provide the most plausible explanation of the evidence (ie: they've been debunked in favor of far better theories... for example, it's a much better theory that fits all the evidence that the WTC were brought down by crashed planes and the resulting damage, than by controlled demolitions).
@Domzdream the existence of God is a philosophical question, not a scientific one (otherwise you're left with a simple question mark.. a "god of the gaps" theology).
if I said that God is a 5 foot six green man living at the center of the earth, that claim could (potentially) be tested scientifically. it could be debunked using earthly means of investigation (though it would be difficult).
@Domzdream it's true there are some conspiracy theories where the true believers in the theory will say something to the effect of "we know it's true, because there's no evidence for it, hence the cover-up was perfect" (so lack of evidence to them is proof of the conspiracy). but first of all, that's a self refuting claim (how then do THEY know about it?), second, there are other ways to disprove the claim than relying upon their statement as an absolute (continued..)
@Domzdream (continued)... that is, there may be evidence to the contrary. for example if somebody wants to claim that the 9/11 hijackers were seen alive on Sept 12, 2001, they need to substantiate that claim. when one shows that (for example) a report of such a person being alive was based on a case of mistaken identity, that claim can be refuted, damaging their case.
@Domzdream I'm not saying conspiracies can't happen (obviously they can), nor that they never have (obviously, they have). I'm speaking in general of the many unproven conspiracy theories popular online (which range from holocaust denial, aids denial, anti-vaccination, space aliens, 9/11 inside job, all the way to dead celebrities still being alive and yes, even christ myther conspiracy theories as promoted by people like calpurnipiso).
Cal actually hates conspiracies. In fact if I told him I'm into a few conspiracy theories, he'd call me stupid. But That's his way, and Im fine with that. I'd rather keep my ear to theground and consider other theories. other than what's regulated by the gov. I always question, therefore I keep learning and growing.
@Domzdream if you say so. I'm saying he certainly loves HIS conspiracy theory. I don't mind being called crazy or stupid by people who have no room to talk in that area. doesn't bother me much. I do study the claims made by various conspiracy theorists (including calpurnipiso). I find those claims wanting (including his). usually they can't handle this and react emotionally against me in response (ad hominem).
@Domzdream if you think calpurnipiso makes a "Good argument" you should investigate where his claims ultimately come from... Francesco Carotta (Jesus mythicism attached to caesar) and John Allegro (the sex and drugs cult claims). both have been utterly debunked. the idea that "government regulates" everything is pretty stupid. by that logic, the conspiracy theories are also government regulated, including calpurnipiso's channel.
Facebook is a basic communication tool. Lots of criminals have been caught by advertising them selves and what they've done.
Trust me. You may not know it, but even your desktop computer could have been hacked into by whomever chooses to observe you. And you have no knwoledge of that. They could have done the same thing to me. Probably did. But I have nothing dodgy to hide, so I'm pretty safe.
@Domzdream ironically though, in accepting certain conspiracy theories uncritically, you'd only be "growing into" nutball territory. after you got down chastizing me (because I'm Catholic) for being "in a cult" and brainwashed, I find that sort of thing ironic. I mean, that's a bit like saying you've cast off the pseudoscience of Islam in order to become a Scientologist.
I've cast off all mind control cults as stupid ideology. You clearly are an intelligent person. But you still are subject to religious control and bias. But I'm glad to see you're one of the better ones. And that's why we can have a normal, intelligent conversation, regardless of wether we agree or disagree.
I personally see and know (I know it sounds arrogant but..) that your god is your sub concience. When you pray, you pray to yourself. You motivate yourself by praying to this god-
-god to help you get a job, or succeed in sports or whatever. And suddenly when shit comes true, you thank god. But you should be thanking yourself. Because you'er the one who made it happen. Not god. And that's why prayer has never healed and amputee, or regrown a leg. Or cured aids. Or anything like that. One of the indicators of this is listening to all sorts of christians and every single one of them has their own version of a deiety. Because they're all different individuals.
@Domzdream the conspiracys you say he "hates" have just as much (many have more) evidence than his particular ones do. for all the books he cites in support of his theory, the other conspiracy theories out there can cite 10 more. the amount of claims of course doesn't make for a compelling case. what does that is the quality of that research that actually accounts for all the facts best. the best theory that covers all the evidence, wins (until a better theory comes along).
Until a better one comes along/ In the end you're stuck with all these different theories of an event. But which one ios the right one, you'll never really know, will you? And just becasue they are the most popular ones, doesnt at all mean they are true. That's why I dont live my life on the basis of these theories or current news stories. But I listen to them all, and not become biasd at all. Sometimes it's ok to say 'I dont know', but Im aware of this and that.
@Domzdream so if someone were to propose a theory that a cruise missile hit the pentagon, okay, this accounts for some of the evidence. but if the theory that a commercial airliner hit it fits more of the evidence and fits it better than the missile, then the plane theory wins. conspiracy theories may account for some evidence, but do a poorer job than other types of theories usually, which is why they are usually rejected by researchers no matter how popular they are in some circles
Please dont get me wrong on this. I'm not a conspiracy theorist at all. I dont live my life on the basis of theoriews like Alex Jones does. I listen to other theories besides the regulated governmental ones. I personally think you're naive if you take what's presented to you by the government. Most of the stories are regulated and approved by the gov.
@Domzdream the essence of the consipracy theory is that some people got together and conspired to commit a crime. usually it's about "those in authority" or "those in power" lying to us about some otherwise widely known fact. it's within our power to verify the validity of such a claim in the vast majority of cases, so it's not merely an issue of someone's "faith" that it happened or another that it didn't. (again I'm using the term as you would, "blind faith")
The conspiracy theorists have provided damn good evidence for their claims. At least in my opinion. I've been listening to Alex Jones a lot lately and most of the stuff he's been saying is now actually happeing right now. All those paranoid moments are now becoming a reality. I also used to laugh at him. But I take it all back now. It's mostly true.
@Domzdream this "damn good evidence" as you call it, is nothing of the kind. second, real evidence easily refutes it. one can even see the basic mistakes that these amateurs made in order to come to their faulty conclusions. a person who can't read hieroglyphics, uses his imagination to project medieval Christian ideas onto Luxor Temple, for example. a 20th century linguist imagines a poor drawing of a tree as a mushroom which reminds him of a penis.
I nominate calpurnpiso as a guest on the TYT show. does anyone second the nomination?
XSC3 4 weeks ago
just shows religion is bullshit
fallbread 4 weeks ago
religions are just fckd the internet highway sppeds real truth and reality every second now atheism on the rise for sure ! an about time !
flexbrat 1 month ago
@flexbrat the internet highway also speeds nonsense. look at all the misinformation and conspiracy theories on the net. anyway, even so your argument fails because religious people use the internet to evangelize. all most atheists on the internet are doing is preaching to the choir. you need to rein in the ones making you look bad.
XSC3 4 weeks ago
I wonder if the fox news idiots are even aware christmas is a hijacked holiday?
infernalone666 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@infernalone666 "I wonder if the fox news idiots are even aware christmas is a hijacked holiday?" it never ceased to amuse me to hear people say stuff like this, when they themselves probably haven't a clue about the veracity of the "pagan origins of Christmas" claims in the first place. and I have no love of fox news, believe me!
XSC3 1 month ago
The bizarre Metamagical Beliefs of Imaginary friends i,e GODS, demons,angels spirits etc are creations of the BRAIN. When they are accepted as reality this is sign of schizophrenia
ALL religious faith are based in Deluded Concepts as are disorders like schizophrenia.
Belief in God in this 21st Century is sign of a Schizoaffective disorder iow Brain malfunction. People of FAITH ought to be called People of ZombieSchizophrenia
Trauma to the brain causes spirituality.GodFaith is ZombieGodSyndrome
calpurnpiso 1 month ago 8
@calpurnpiso
HI, Cal.
This is Dom (Domzdream). I can see you started to have a discussion on this page. I'm so glad! Listen my friend. This guy (XSC3), down below is a bit of a catholic fanatic. Could you please teach this poor dope some actual history and show him where his gee-zuss came from and who he actually is. It IS a challenge. The guy doesnt listen. But what christian ever does? I'll keep reading this page. Especially with a guy of your knowledge on my side. good luck, hehehe.
Domzdream 1 month ago
@Domzdream if you think calpurnipiso makes a good argument, you're welcome to him. I consider him about as coherent and honest as David Icke. but I bet he'll tell you a lot of things you want to hear, if all you're after is bashing of religion. I hope you are happy together. ;)
XSC3 1 month ago
@XSC3
The man is a bit excessive, but his info is spot on. And based on actual history. Not interpretated like yours is. I really feel sorry for people like you because your logic is scrambled by biblical bias. But I know what you think, and how you think. because I was there, in the catholic cult, just like you currently are. Always justifying, snipping this and excusing that.
On simple logic, you couldnt answer any of my questions. You dont question. You simply follow. Like a sheep er...
Domzdream 1 month ago
@Domzdream "a bit excessive"? lol. if his info is so "spot on" I challenge you to send it to any history professors at any of the top universities. let him try to debate any of the classicists, Roman historians, biblical scholars or other experts on late antiquity, art history, etc. he'll get the same level of respect as the Time Cube Guy, because that's all he is, I'm afraid. If it's "bible bias" why do the non-Christian experts agree with me, and not you guys?
XSC3 1 month ago
@Domzdream you call Catholicism a "cult" but you want to join this guy's fantasy land of conspiracy theories and made-up nonsense? well, I guess that's your right. have fun. ;P
XSC3 1 month ago
@XSC3
-er...lamb of god. Calpurnpiso is a far better biblical scholar than you ever will be, because unlike him, he uses actual evidence to support his claim. All you have, my fuzzy little friend, is the frikking (edited over and over, copy of a copy) b-a-a-a-ble.
You're still left with a small pickle. Maybe not so small. You still have the burden of proof to show us all that your god actually exists, and that all the other gods are incorrect. We're still waiting.
Domzdream 1 month ago
@Domzdream if you think calpurnipiso is a "bible scholar," then you're welcome to him. May I recommend Kent Hovind as your scientist, Jack Thompson as your lawyer and Bernie Madoff as your financial consultant. I don't have to prove God exists, I merely have to show that you're misreading the bible, which I've successfully done. calpurnipiso's theories are not accepted by any modern experts I know of. he bears the burden of proof. more name calling won't remove that burden of proof.
XSC3 1 month ago
@Domzdream the "actual evidence" he uses is what? conspiracy theories, ad hominems against actual experts, and bogus word association/substitution games straight out of the Jordan Maxwell playbook. but, go ahead, latch onto his loony ideas. let it become your safety blanket, keeping those pesky facts and people with contradicting opinions away from you. go follow him, he needs the attention.
XSC3 1 month ago
@Domzdream modern scholarship is quite against the fundy protestant agenda when it comes to interpreting the bible. people like Ehrman used to even be part of their camp, so he's no ally to their cause (nor is he Catholic). he's written books against the existence of God and he certainly denies that the bible is inerrant or inspired. yet even he doesn't support what you guys are saying. face it, you're misreading the bible, and you have no clue what you're talking about.
XSC3 1 month ago
@Domzdream you object to my religion (at least from your poor understanding of it). fine. it's a free country, man. you don't have to agree with me. but while you're entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts. but, I can't force you to not live in ignorance, so go ahead, read everything this calpurnipiso guy wrote. compare it to what the primary sources say, and compare it to what the modern scholars say. after awhile you'll see he's full of it.
XSC3 1 month ago
@Domzdream you accuse me of bias, but ask yourself why you're so ready to believe what he's shelling out. it's because it's comforting to you. you're angry at religion for your upbringing, and now you're seeking to half-heartedly dismantle the faith of others, but more likely to strengthen and justify your own rejection of it. my take is that you were never Catholic, you were fundamentalist. so it's no wonder you got off on the wrong foot. am I that far off?
XSC3 1 month ago
@XSC3
No. I'm not angry at the upbringing it force upon me. Im fine with that. Im angry that it makes people so deluded. Like you. You clearly are a bright lad. But you seem to think that knowing the bible will make your faith any more credible. I showed you so many logical errors within your own religion. It's laughable. Simple, basic of the basic logic. Like I said, as soon as you base reality of a thing on faith, your belief fails. Faith by def isnt knowledge.
You FAIL by default!
Domzdream 1 month ago
@Domzdream we speak of "delusion" here but look at your friend calpurnipiso. that, my friend, is delusion, not what I'm saying. I didn't say that knowing the bible means you will accept the bible. But I am saying that you've accepted (then rejected) a strawman of the bible. the thing is, I too reject that image of the bible. that's the fundamentalist image of the bible and God, not mine. If I thought that's what it was, I might be an atheist too (or at the very least a non-Christian)
XSC3 4 weeks ago
@Domzdream when we speak of faith, we don't mean blind faith. so again, you're attacking a strawman of our beliefs. again, you may be thinking more of the fundamentalist image of faith, not the Catholic image (which was around a long time before their group ever existed). I showed you the logical errors in your worldview, did you change it or admit them? no.
XSC3 4 weeks ago
@XSC3
Faith by definition is something you believe in that has no basis of evidence. You believe in shit that is based on faith, not knowledge. That's silly. And even if you DO believe in the bible better than I, it matters not. It's all still crap and easily refutable. And refuted! Puerile and simply filled with errors.
You showed me logical errors? HAHA! That's laughable. When? You speak of logic yet you're the one believing in cherubims, angels, and demons. Oh, riiight. Its metaphors-
Domzdream 4 weeks ago
@Domzdream I didn't say spiritual beings were all metahpors. Faith, as we have always defined it, is not "blind faith" (what you're describing) but trust based on prior knowledge and evidence. is philosophical knowledge not knowledge? even evidence is subject to interpretation. I didn't say that my knowledge must be infallible. are you sure of what you believe? you're sure of your interpretation being correct? then why by hypocritical?
XSC3 3 weeks ago
@XSC3
Philosophy isnt knowledge. Knoweldge can be used in philosophy, but I can make my pencil become a god with clever use of words and philosophy. And I can use knoweldge to prove my philosophical standpoint. By using evidence (knowledge). We have no knowledge of ANY!! deiety. Therefore we have no knwoeldge of its existence. If we DID have evidence, we'd have only one religion. Also, it would nt be called a faith, now would it? You logic as always is puerile.
Domzdream 3 weeks ago
@XSC3
Oh, and bullshit to your evidence being subject to interpretation. A black hole is balck hole. It isnt a toaster. It isnt anything else. It's a fucking blackhole. Why would you want to unnecessarily complicate a thing that's been already defined by its nature.
2+2=4 Where's the subjectivity?
4+4=8
Love
Anger
jealousy
Where's the subjectivity??
Domzdream 3 weeks ago
@Domzdream yet the fundamentalist understanding is far more easily refuted, which was why it's understandable that you were trying to caricature my belief into theirs. the existence of spiritual beings is independent from your personal distaste of what's written in the bible. I find many atheists to be unlikable and write disgraceful things. that doesn't mean they are wrong simply because they behave in a distasteful fashion.
XSC3 3 weeks ago
@XSC3 -metaphors. (facepalmSLAP). Since you're on this crusade to prove to me (and millions of other christians) that what they're reading and iterpreting is wrong, like I said, why not write your own version fo the bible since you're so keen on doing so. This is what you find comforting, and I get that, because you have been brianwashed by your cult. But how arrogant are you to tell everyone else that they're wrong and you're right. Wow. You hold the key to the real info, right? pfff-haha.
Domzdream 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
XSC3 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Domzdream "But how arrogant are you to tell everyone else that they're wrong and you're right. Wow. You hold the key to the real info, right? pfff-haha."
Pure hypocrisy. I don't think it's wrong to inform someone of their error. You told me I'm wrong, and you're right, then said it was wrong to do so. So there's your own hypocrisy.
XSC3 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Domzdream it's not my fault if millions of professed Christians are wrong. you yourself admit that millions of professed Christians don't understand the bible. so why would you get mad at me for agreeing with you, but asserting that millions more do in fact understand it? I don't need to write my own version of the bible. I understand this one just fine, something you won't accept. you don't understand it but feel free to chastise me for disagreeing with you on what it means.
XSC3 3 weeks ago
@Domzdream in your thinking, all the Christians in the world are wrong. I'm only saying a few million of them are. So who is the arrogant one here? You think everyone who believes in a God is wrong, and you're telling us so. Then you say I'm arrogant and wrong to tell people they're wrong about their interpretation of the Bible. Who is the hypocrite, now?
XSC3 3 weeks ago
@XSC3
They ALL are wrong. That's the thing. Something which you seem to struggle with. That yours is somehow the right one. Um. Obviously. Every different relgion thinks their's is the right one, otehrwise they'd be in another religion, duh-durpy derp!
NOt just that. You're totally assertign your version of catholicism is the correct one, and the other catholics are wrong. Again...hubris much?
Domzdream 3 weeks ago
@Domzdream would it be arrogant hubris for a science professor to point out to a layman that they didn't understand science? I don't "hold the key." Education holds the key. it's available to you as it is to me (though it helps if you're motivated to learn it by things like exams, deadlines, peer review, etc). but if you won't bother trying, I guess not.
XSC3 3 weeks ago
@XSC3
We dont need to understand the intricacies of science to not know that up goes up and down goes down. And that gravity's a bitch if you jump off a cliff and not fly.
Somehow, 'god heps those who help themselves' is so fitting in this context.
Actually why not pray to god for him to telepathically teleport all the answers to your brain. Why not. He helps you apparently so many times any way, like in sports. Why not exams? Why not pray for him to telepathically show me he's real? There!
Domzdream 3 weeks ago
@Domzdream faith, for us, is trust informed by knowledge and reason. we don't preach blind faith (and reject it the same as you).
XSC3 4 weeks ago
@XSC3
No. Facts are comforting to me. I dont agree with everything Cal says. I think he's extremely vociferous. And quite rude in saying things like christians need mental help. But I have looked into the stuff he says and it checks out correctly. He's not lying when he says he uses facts.
Just because my version of catholicism was different to yours doesnt mean it's the wrong way of perceiving my EX-faith. See, we're back into the dilema of saying Im right, you're wrong. Its all subjectivity
Domzdream 4 weeks ago
@Domzdream I've yet to hear anything from Calpurnipiso that I agree with. Maybe he says somewhere that Rome existed and it was full of Romans. If he said that, I agree with it, and there's one true thing he said. ;) But he's clearly about as reliable as any conspiracy nutter on the internet. I just find it amusing that you'd uphold him as some kind of expert.
XSC3 3 weeks ago
@Domzdream the "Facts" he uses are from his own imagination and debunked fringe writers. In that sense he's about as useful a source as Jack Chick, Alex Chiu, or Kent Hovind. "My version" of Catholicism is the official one. If you were a Catholic who actually believed like a protestant fundamentalist, how am I to blame for that? So your childhood faith has nothing to do with what I'm saying. so why use it against me? because apparently you were unaware of the difference.
XSC3 3 weeks ago
@XSC3
Offcial one? haha. So you say. It doesnt matter if the original superman comic book was read versus a printed one. They're all based on a mythical character.
I've actually researched where your religion comes from. But hey, if dwelling in 'The Matrix' makes you happy, then have at it Hoss.
Domzdream 3 weeks ago
@Domzdream which of his "facts" do you think is correct, if you disagree with him that Christians are literally insane, which of his claims do you think is actually true?
The information he cites as fact is either from a non-credible source, or else he twists that information to a conclusion at odds with the actual evidence (not to mention logic). Go ahead, show me what you think he got right.
XSC3 3 weeks ago
@XSC3
I personally dont think you people are insane, like Cal does. I think his arguments are eccentric. But his info is what's gold to me. I have seen it. Now you could say, well it's been debunked. Well, I can say the same thing about the 'holy' bible. EVERY version of the bible has been debunked many times. And where contradictions have been handed to you silly theists on a silver fucking platter, becuase you dopes are too proud and lazy to find the truth yourselves. I used to be in the -
Domzdream 3 weeks ago
@Domzdream his "info" is "gold"? it's foolishness. he's repeating conspiracy theories which the majority of experts in every related field don't take seriously. communion is magic mushrooms and orgasms? get real. Jesus is a penis? sorry, never happened. Calpurnipiso is the one who is "insane," by believing and promoting this nonense, or he's one dedicated troll. so I'm not just dismissing him for his weird attitude, it's the content of what he's saying that is ridiculous.
XSC3 3 weeks ago
@XSC3
So, you're rather believe this?
The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
Riiiiiight. Have at it bob.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream see, that's a strawman right there. I don't believe in a "Jewish zombie" "who was his own father" "symbolically eat his flesh" and "telepathically tell him you accept him as your master" to "remove an evil force from my soul" "that is present in humanity" "because of a rib-woman" "talking snake" "magical tree." so no, you're quite mistaken.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
Wow. You're not a Catholic then,....Bob.
You'er not. And I know you like to think you are, but you're not. You're strange schism from Catholicism, but now I know you truely are somehting else. I mean, it's obvious to me sinceyou're not a follower of the bible. You're a follower of your personal interpretation of the bible, which doesnt make you a true christian. Well done. You've just begun a whole new schizm of catholicism. And that's how religions form. You're a living proof of that.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream if I said "oh, so you'd rather believe that we're all slime that randomly poofed out of nowhere, turned into monkeys and now wander aimlessly through a pointless life so we can be immoral" you'd (I'm sure) rightly point out "that's not what I believe." and further "that's not what anyone believes." it would be a caricature, a strawman. so jokes aside, you're quite mistaken. back to you "bob."
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
You can keep repeating this 'strawman' word which you've grown to be so fond of, but it really doesnt apply to me at all. And I've addressed this again and again. We didnt poof out of nowhere. That's stupid! We can trace the origins back to the big bang. But before that, we dont know and we may never know. We can definitely trace the origins of life and the mind. Where it evolved from. And all this was done through science. Not prayer. Prayer did fuck-all, and does fuck-all.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream if you won't deal with the actual issues, and resort to strawmen, why should anyone take you seriously? that's the kind of immaturity I'd expect from a calpurnipiso. surely you know better. but maybe not... ?
Are you concerned with actual facts and evidence, or simply asserting your position (based on blind faith) over against others? I think that's a question it's time to ask yourself here.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
My facts are based on evidence. Duh!
You 'evidence' is based on faith.
Wanting something to be true, doesnt make it real. Keep learninf that and you might actually grow intellectually without bias of religion. Without the constraints of religion.
Answer me this riddle, and dont avoid the question. Does faith trump knowledge? I think we both know the answer to this. But, answer anyway.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream did you have sex and get high at Mass when you were a kid? If not, then you already know Calpurnipiso is an ignoramus or worse. the only thing "debunked" is the fundamentalist interpretation of the bible, which is something you're promoting, despite the claim that you were once Catholic. I disagree with that interp just as much as you do, as does any educated Catholic. so there are no "excuses" here only projection on your part, sadly.
XSC3 3 weeks ago
@XSC3
it doesnt matter what interpretation you choose as the truth. The fact is, they're ALL wrong.
By the way, Cal ir right. Just because you find what he says offensive doesnt mean that it's incorrect. And sure, it might have been debunked by biasd christian scholars. But that's what you'd expect from a theist. It's obviously going to be biasd. Just as if a muzzy debunked their faith. Prove them wrong also by the way. And the Buddhists. And the Greeks and Romans.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream "it doesnt matter what interpretation you choose as the truth. The fact is, they're ALL wrong."
Considering the fact that you don't know most of these interpretations (judging by your comments) you'll pardon me if I'm not impressed with your confidence on the issue. you also seem unwilling to accept that you've misrepresented or misunderstood them, which is rather worrying to your position.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream. I never said that Calpurnipiso was wrong simply because he was offensive. I just wondered aloud if you wanted to associate yourself with someone who behaves like that. Rather, he's wrong because his ideas are wrong, and his ideas are wrong because his facts are wrong, and his method of interpretation is fallacious. so even if he was the nicest, most personable person in the world, the point is what he's teaching is garbage.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
He's wrong?? hahaha! After showing cultists lke yourself actual evidence that's current in museums today, and in ancient ruins. Illustrations. Symbols, etc. All point to the evidence where your silly religion comes from. (even though your particular Catholicism isnt the true one).
The evidence eradicates your religion instantly. You might not see it as fact, but the answeres are there wether you choose to recognise them or not. Remain in ignorance, I dont care.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream whether Muslims, Buddhists or Greeks and Romans are correct in their personal claims about their religious beliefs really has no bearing on the proper methods of biblical interpretation and whether specific claims in or about the bible are accurate or not. Stick to the topic. you disbelieve all religions, I get it. that's your faith. but we're talking about whether you are misrepresenting certain historical facts.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
Yes, they're correct within their arena of belief. Exactly. But it doesnt make them right within the arena of reality. And neither does yours, regardless of how expert you are within your arena of belief. Or in what language.
I can discuss the crediblity of fairies brilliantly. It still doesnt make them true. I'd still have to prove their existence to you. No matter how many texts state their existence.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream for example, if I said "Muslims worship a cosmic jell-o monster" that would be incorrect, and I'm sure you would know that instantly. If I said "the Muslims worshiped a pre-Islamic meccan moon deity called a-lah" would you be able to dismiss that claim as quickly? How would you be able to find out if what I said there had merit or not? that's the point. it doesn't matter if you believe in Islam or not. neither of us do. but we can still be accurate about the subject.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
How the heck do you know if it's not a jello monster?? Do you somehow telepathically know this? Wow.
Oh, I see. It's not glorious enough. Oh, ok. It has to be regal in order for it to be more plausible. Come on! Grow up already. You're a grown ass man who believes in invisible deieties that require faith in order for them to be real. Wanting somehting to be true doesnt make it real.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream if you and I are debating a Muslim on what a specific passage of the Quran says, and that Muslim knows Arabic, then he has an advantage. we would have to either learn arabic to debate him on that higher level or at least consult recognized arabic scholars and quranic authorities to see if he's making a good case. in the same way if I quote a certain hadith against a Muslim, if I'm unaware that no Muslim considers that hadith to be reliable, I'm making a fool out of myself.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
Oh, bullshit! I can still win a bet against the greatest of mathematicians, and I SUCK!!! at maths. I'm a maths retard, quite literally. Let me show you.
I say 2=2+4
He says 2+2= 3
I win.
No astro physics required here. It's simple logic. Same applies to religions. Ultimately you're wasting your own time arguing over a superman graphic novel and who's knows it better, as if this lends any credence to their belief.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream I'm "lazy"? you don't know me pall. You don't know how much time and money I've invested in learning this stuff, studying ancient documents, the latest scholarship, learning ancient language, etc. and not the "easy way" of looking stuff up at home, but being tested, forced to defend arguments before peers, etc. lazy? hell no. "proud"? well I can be "proud" of the fact that I don't believe what I believe purely for emotional or political reasons unlike some people on here...
XSC3 3 weeks ago
@XSC3
I applaud you for learning all that. But ultimately you 're still learning biasd theology which has been debunked, and varified that christianity is a compilation from many other religions. It's like me saying- ah, but I've been studying Tolkien all my life, so therfore since I've been studying for so long, this makes me more plausible than you.
Wanting something to be true doesnt make it real.
But well done on the scholarship anyway. You should feel proud.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream how am I learning "biased theology"? I've studied the bible under atheists and Jews (yes, an Orthodox Jewish expert on the New Testament). I don't read only Catholic works, I've primarily studied secular and protestant works regarding the bible in my education and career, actually. "biased"? everything is biased, but I've certainly not limited myself to stuff I agree with, far from it. can you say the same?
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
I can.
I have read enough bible to have (at a very early age as Ive mentioned before), to know where the contradictions are. Where the inaccuracies lay. Where shit that this supposed god says makes absolutely no sense and clashes with his other teachings. Put ll that together, and you start to redirect unintentionally to different views. And that's what (and most of the other atheists) have done. I went through a long process of my apostacy. It didnt happen over night.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream studying the bible is not equivalent to studying tolkien as if they were both the same genre. but if you had been studying tolkien all your life and I had just heard of him last week, I would trust that your knowledge of him would be greater than mine, though that wouldn't mean you would be incapable of making mistakes about him.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
If Tolkien was introduced amongst the people back in those days, you'd be a Tolkenite. Just as much as Hindus are based in India and Buddhists are based in Asia.
The Balrog would be just as plausible to you as the Demon of the bible. It's the same fucking thing really.
I cant believe a grown up like you actually believes in angels and devils, hahaha. It's so puerile, no offence.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream I'm saying that once you get a certain level of basic knowledge from years of study in an academic environment on a topic you can much more easily spot basic fallacies and mistakes that an amateur would miss. for example if somebody says the KJV is the Majority Text, or says that Jesus was made into a God at Nicea, I immediately know that the person hasn't a clue what they're talking about, as those are very well covered areas that only an amateur would goof up that badly.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream just like if somebody said "evolution says we came from monkeys" you can immediately know that this person (unless it's clear they're speaking facetiously), doesn't understand basic evolutionary theory, an amateur mistake a professional in the field would simply not make.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
Well yes, but evolution unlike the bible can actually be tested in the lab. We can varify these things. There are (sorry creationists who are reading this) bacteria that actually evolve in a petri dish. And that's why we have the medicines that combat flus today, thanks to evolutionary principles. Science as always bitch-slaps religion's face.
(slap!)
(slap!)
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream my atheist professor studied the old testament far longer than both of us combined, and it's not "plausible" to him at all (I believe he admitted God might possibly exist, but he was 100% sure it could not be the God of the bible, even in that case, but that's his personal belief, the point is he knows the OT very well, though he's in a field with thousands of other scholars).
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
Er. Yeah. ANd I'll bet that if he was muslim, he'd favour the koran and be just as certain of that claim.
(there are many professors who just know tha their god is the true god, and we're back to square one).
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream my point in mentioning my own education is to show you why I hold my position. I don't "believe" what I do about the bible (and I'm talking just facts here, even, not whether supernatural claims are "real") because I was raised that way, or because somebody with a collar or letters after their name told me so.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
Wrong again bob. You'd never be a christian if you were born in Iran. Or Pakistan. It's generally about the demographics. Statistics say so.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream I don't believe it because some poll indicated it was the majority position. I do so based on my study. and when I see that my view is shared by a lot of people who know even more about the topic than I do, I feel confident that I'm on the right track, no matter how many amateurs dispute it. if they knew even the amount I know, they would probably feel differently, and that's again, religious beliefs aside.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
Fair enough.
Peronally I think you're steering the worng way, but I can respect why you believe what you believe.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream if you're going to argue that other people are "reading the bible wrong" then it's incumbent upon you to know something about how to read the bible and how other people read the bible. that implies that you know how to read it in the first place, which means you need to know something about the bible beyond what you (personally, from your statements) have shown. of course the bible can still be false. my OT prof is an atheist. but he'd destroy you in a debate on it.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
Well, pass this onto him. I challenge him to a debate. He'd kick my ass in knowledge if the bible. I doubt he'd do any better than you in demonstrating logic. That's why people like William Lane Craige, who are brilliant arguers, are still left wit hthe burden of proof. Proof through clever use of words isnt proof.
But hey, tell your prof to bring it. I'll slap him with some logic too. And Im a basic lamen.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream now I'm not a hebrew scholar, so you and I are on a bit more equal footing when it comes to the OT though I've I'm sure done more study under academic conditions on it than you have. but when it comes to the NT I know I've got far better training in that field and a little bit of greek (compared to the I'm guessing "none" that you have). if you had a masters in science, I'm sure you'd be in a better position to judge mainstream science than someone with a lesser education
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
See you were doing fine until you threw science into the discussion fo mythology.
Science is and can be demosntrated over and over, and can never fail.
All religions can be and are refuted. Quite easily.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream so education is not something to sneeze at. Again, it doesn't matter what I "want." Do you think I only read scholars that affirm "what I want"? I accept their findings based on the strength of their evidence (and yes, in places, based on the authority that they've earned, regardless of what I personally believe). that's the same with anything. at least I'm being consistent. I do not do as you have accused me, which is to dismiss or avoid evidence based on blind faith.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
Muzzies are just as consistent as you. Prove them wrong also.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream oh, so you read the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek? I stand corrected then, here I thought you were basing your readings on english translations your mother gave you when you were a kid. My bad. I didn't realize you had a phd in the Bible.
oh wait...
XSC3 3 weeks ago
@XSC3
Well that's like arguing with muzzies who insist on you reading their scriptures only in arabic. As if it lends any more credence to their faith.
I can learn the bible in fucking Eskimo language. It'll still be the same mythology. I have a phd in logic, no history here is required.
It must really frustrate the theist to have the inability to prove us all disbelievers of the christian faith, wrong. Same goes for all otehr religions.
Try arguing with a muzzy, they'll be just as -
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream "muzzies.... As if it lends any more credence to their faith." it's a perfectly reasonable argument that we should study their texts in their original languages to get at the best understanding. it doesn't mean we have to buy their argument that it can ONLY be understood in Arabic (and Muslims do not actually make that claim, by and large, only that the arabic is the actual word of God).
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
Fine. Then you'd better pick up Ancient Hebrew. Start now! Quick.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream for instance, is it better to insist that one english translation of Plato is the best way to study Plato's actual words, even against a Plato scholar who has studied the original language (and you haven't), or to agree that it's possible subtelties may be lost in the translation process which limits our ability to understand plato by relying solely on a translation?
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
Plato can say what he wants within philosophical boundaries. It's when it comes to plausibility of a thing, his philosophy crumbles. If he was stating cleverly that lightning was bolts of anger thrown by Zeus, I'd disagree with him. And I'd be right, given my knwoedge and evidence at my side. Regardless wether he told this to me in greek or Lithuanian. The message is the same. NO phd required. You seem to be equating plausibility with a man's personal credentials.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream translations have errors in them. just look at the many arguments that fundy atheists and fundy Christians make, for example, based on issues that only exist in a specific translation (like the King James Version). I haven't read the Quran in Arabic, so if I want to argue with a Muslim over something in the arabic, I either need to learn it myself, or I need to rely upon arabic scholars for those issues. it's quite simple.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
Sure. Within the confines of the context, yes. But within application to actual reality, it all crumbles. Especially when clashing against all the other religions and their own dogma and beliefs.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
Translation DO have errors. How the heck you know if yours isnt the error one? You dont. And I keep saying this. That's why the christian god of the bible stated that the bible must be taken as gospel, word for word. If not. death by stoning would follow. Becasue humans are susceptible to errors. And if you start subjectively interpreting the bible how you see fit, then you start changing the original scriptures. And that's how you end up with schisms. And I've told you before, you are -
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Domzdream translations are never perfect, but what does that prove? I didn't say we couldn't make better translations (and indeed we must as language evolves). likewise I didn't say it was impossible to misread the Bible (clearly you've demonstrated this). but the Bible is not our only source of knowledge on God. God does not expect us to know his will merely by reading a book. Again, I reject the fundmentalist interpretation of bible including the fundamentalist definition of bible
XSC3 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Domzdream we have the Church, a living, breathing institution founded by Christ (the God made flesh), so no, we're not reliant upon an old book for our understanding of religion and God. and no, the alternative is NOT mere subjective reinterpretation of the scriptures (eisegesis). the protestant principle failed, that's all what you said proves. but I don't accept the protestant principle (that my private interpretation of scripture trumps all).
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3 -are a living blueprint of the catholic schism. You're just like any other religious follower. Trying to establish his belief system as the right one, and arrogantly struiking off all the others as lesser. And they they in turn the same towards you.
Again, back to logic. If this god is aware of all these inaccuracies. Then he's either sadistic fucker. Or he's a moron. He could reveal himself to all as the true god. But no. He sits in his sky-park and observes without interest or care.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Domzdream "are a living blueprint of the catholic schism. You're just like any other religious follower. Trying to establish his belief system as the right one, and arrogantly struiking off all the others as lesser. And they they in turn the same towards you."
Then you point back to yourself with this statement. Here you are telling me, and in fact the majority of humanity that has ever lived (and still today) that we're wrong and only your view is correct. hypocrisy?
XSC3 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Domzdream the alternative is what... a God who doesn't create and so we don't exist, or a God that controls everything (Calvinist God), meaning God either creates evil itself, or else forces good (and then is merely a cosmic dictator pulling the strings of countless puppet slaves). the Christian God enters his creation and suffers with it to help show us the way. You missed that, apparently.
I don't consider myself superior to you, but I do pity your confusion.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
In the end, all you have is a book telling you that this brand of god exists. A book of a paranormal thing isnt proof. I can easily write a credible thesis on why goblins can exist, therefore they do exist. But that's not proof. All you'd be proving is your mental ability to write well, and possibly philosophise brilliantly. But that's it. All the other religions say the same thing about their god(s). Prove them all wrong. You cant. You never will. Philosophy isnt proof, dude.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Domzdream that's a protestant talking. My faith is not based "on a book." Catholicism doesn't rely on a book (that it created), but rather the shared tradition and experience of a faith that predates that "book." again, the Catholic faith is not "blind faith" and philosophy cannot be broken down into accepting paranormal claims despite evidence or in spite of evidence. everything you believe is based in some form of philosophy, and requires some level of faith to accept.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Domzdream "All the other religions say the same thing about their god(s). Prove them all wrong. You cant. You never will. Philosophy isnt proof, dude."
False. religions do not all say the same things about their God(s). if I can't disprove all religions, how can you claim to? as for philosophy not being proof, I beg to differ. the very foundation of science is rooted in philosophy. without philosophy we can never have knowledge of anything, really. think about it. so you go too far.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream if a Christian can read the New Testament in Greek, but you are stuck with an English translation, he has an advantage over you, just as a creationist who has a high school level of knowledge of biology is going to be at a disadvantage compared to a professional biological scientist. unfortunately education is not democratic. but you can still make use of knowledge and authorities to make a coherent argument in many cases.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
Again I demostrate easily.
All the correct info on the net is there, including many examples Calpurnpiso has provided for you, if you care to watch his videos.
Regardless of language. facts are facts. One doesnt need a phd in order to be able to comprehend facts. Again, why would a god want his most imoprtant message in the entire universe, to be subject for personal interpretation, left in the hands of goat herders and campfire story tellers. Worse, onto paper which can and was -
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
-subject to ruin and erosion. You'd think the almighty would put it onto indestructible material, like Marvel's adamantium. A metal which is only handed down by the gods alone. Nah, he'll ask kindly people to dictate to scribes onto erosive paper. Not very god-like. Also, with errors, contradictions, logical falacies and fumbled proffecies. Either this god is incompetent, or he doesnt exist and this was simply writtten by bored story tellers, over- embellishing.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream if you were arguing with someone over whether live existed on the moon, you are both equal in the sense that neither of you has been to the moon. but both of you have access (even though you are not experts) to the research of knowledgeable authorities that could help answer that question. those authorities MIGHT be lying and covering up something (though you have no reason to suspect it), though you can only operate with what you have, not what you don't have.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3 You're right. And I do listen to both sides' theories and respect them. I am kinda torn between the two regarding the moon.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream if a fundy atheist refuses to understand the difference between what the Bible says in its original language, vs. a particular translation says, then that's their problem. they're using ignorance as a shield. I might be "unable" to convince them that they're inadequate to the argument, but it's quite clear they would be, just as if you or I would be if we were debating Richard Dawkins on macroevolution.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
Yyyyup. However macro evolution has a plethora of outside affirmation that it works. Thus why it's know as fact. Your religion has thousands of oppositions. But within it's own aren, it has merit, sure. So does superman in DC comics. But not in Marvel comics.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream I have debated with many muslims. the issue is not the language per se, it's whether an issue you have with the text stems from a particular translation (since every translation is the interpretation of some translator, they've made a choice between various words to come up with what you have in front of you based on a variety of criteria).
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
Regardless, they're still left with the lack of evidence to prove to you that their god is real and yours is non existent. You're demanding the proof of evidence just as much as I am demnading that same evidence from you.
Don't tell me WHY your god exists. SHOW me. Show me objectively. Not subjectively.
You cant. And neither can the muslims.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream translation matters a huge amount. if a text says "virgins" that makes a big difference than if it said "raisins," wouldn't you agree? you don't have to "believe in" or agree with any claims it is making, in order to understand what a text is actually claiming, which is the point here. I don't agree with Muslims, but I seek to understand what their actual beliefs are and what their texts are actually claiming.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
Any person of 5 knows that they're not refering to ' raisins' when gods are in a context of discussion. One can easily detect where one is going wrong with translation.
What-? You need a priest to or a phd maestro to explain to you your bible?? I''m dissapointed.
Also, this demostrates your god's incompetence. This reminds me of movies where a deviant boss gives his clever plan to his goons who are fuck-tards. And they always fuck it up for him. This is synonymous with your god.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream I might as well say to you then "well, no matter what you say, you're still an atheist, and I'm not."
That's not the point. the point is to not misrepresent a position (strawman). so far I've found you doing that against my position, which is why I even bothered to respond to you this long, instead of just saying "oh, well we disagree, no point then"
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
Well, I find this discussion quite interesting. Laborious, but interesting.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
-as eloquent as you. If not more.
I watch this brill show caleld TheMagicSandwichShow, on youtube. There's this guy called Hamza, who's a spokes person for muslims. You should check him out on youtube. Also, Jack (the christian) argues his points on that show if you're interested. It's quite entertaining.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XSC3
-as eloquent as you. If not more.
I watch this brill show caleld TheMagicSandwichShow, on youtube. There's this guy called Hamza, who's a spokes person for muslims. You should check him out on youtube. Also, Jack (the christian) argues his points on that show if you're interested. It's quite entertaining.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
I can read tghe bible in Zulu. It matters not. It's the content that's considered.
I can tell you 'scratch your balls' in English.
Or I can say- 'hrwen nlfndisfsdfhnl' (this means scratch your balls in Alien language).
The meaning is the same.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream the "contradictions" are created by twisting the texts like a fundy protestant would. that's the problem. it's not that I don't "see" your objections. I do. it's just that you insist that your interpretation of the bible, as an uneducated layman, is the only correct one, and you can't fathom that anyone could disagree unless they are a brainwashed zombie. in that respect you're not far off from calpurnipiso (minus the foaming at the mouth act). I'm not the cultist
XSC3 3 weeks ago
@XSC3
Well actually, you've just successfully described yourself there in a nutshell. You're so pent up on your interpretation being the true one, because a bunch of high brow scholars say it is so, therefore it simply must be so. At least in your mind.
Look, it's all hogwash. I know spiderman is a story. Regardless of wether Stan Lee himself reads me his Spiderman books. I know it's still kaka.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream I'm glad they apologized for the poll. I didn't say I believed facts simply because "some high brow scholars said so." I'm saying all else being equal (unless you can substantiate your belief that there's a conspiracy amongst scholars to suppress the truth) it's far more likely that the expert community is right and the lone amateur skeptic is wrong. and when I do my own research (as a layman like you) I find that the experts seem to have a solid case, much better
XSC3 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream that the experts have a much better case than the conspiracy theorists. if somebody wants to say, for example, that the scientists of the world have gotten together to suppress the truth of creationism, it's my job to show evidence of that conspiracy, not presume it and then demand that scientists disprove creationist science (though they've done that anyway, I'd say).
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream we don't need to be world class scientists to follow the evidence trail to seeing that spiderman is a fictional story and was always meant to be read as such. nobody is saying that a story's popularity makes it true, or because somebody you admire told it. however if somebody were to claim that Stan Lee and Steve Ditko did NOT create Spider-man but somebody else did and they stole the idea and suppressed the truth, they'd need to make that case with evidence.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
You've just described the bible.
And jesus' story is on basis of heresay. No outside observation or varification. Not even in the Romans' history of jesus' death. You'd think that a person who was in direct threat to Rome and its religion would be documented. A man who called out zombies. No such data. And Romans documented pretty much everything.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream in other words, simply because it's possible to doubt a theory, does not force the proponent of that theory to defend it. yes, the null hypothesis would put the burden of proof on say, scientists, or historians to make their case. they already have done so on issues like evolution or the historicity of Jesus. then the burden falls to the doubters of those fields to counter claim. and those who claim a conspiracy exists to suppress the truth, must make their case first.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream for example, you started with the belief that the government regulates all our knowledge. first off this is self refuting, because that implies you also believe the government wants you to read anti-government claims including conspiracy theories that paint the government in a negative light (the most negative light possible), or else is shows the government is not all powerful in this ability (refuting the premise).
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
All Im saying is that whatever the gov says, I take it with a pinch of salt, and I dont necessarily believe what they say. But I still do listen. But I'll never be one of those people who simply nod at whatever a politician says. Anyone who trusts a politician is a fool.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream if you want to claim that the government regulates all knowledge, you must demonstrate this, rather than merely accepting it on blind faith (which is your right, but in terms of having a debate based on evidence, I can't accept your premise of blind faith except on blind faith myself). the express desire of many in the government TO regulate various types of knowledge seems to indicate this is not a power they already possess (or ever will completely possess, logically)
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
Well simply put. A lot of stuff was held back after the 9/11 attack for example. There's a lot of evidence to support that. And yes, they say oh it's been refuted. But er...no it hasnt. I dont take sides becasue you never will really know the ultimate truth of what actually happened. But I like to hear both sides. It's blind faith to follow whatever they say. It's not blind faith if you question. I constantly question. maybe that's why you're still religious and Im not.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream one can fairly criticize the government for how it handled 9/11. what you can't do is show that the various claims made by conspiracy theorists are true. the "controlled demolitions" theory fails physics. the "unpiloted aircraft" fails facts. the "hijackers are still alive" nonsense similarly fails. the "news agencies were in on it" fails common sense, the "insurance policy" and "gold vault" stuff has serious problems, etc.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream so in the end, while we may argue there are "holes" or "gaps" in the "official story" (say, surrounding 9/11) there are far bigger holes in the various conspiracy theorist alternative claims about 9/11... and most of them are so debilitating that all else being equal, we should accept the "official story" as being more plausible. that's the thing. unless the conspiracy theory fits all available evidence BETTER than competing theories, there's no reason to give it credence.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
I personally have heard a lot of compelling evidence to make me doubt in the current story presented to us viewers. Im well aware of occam's razor. But again, I'm considering all optons. Not one regulated by govmnt.
May I ask, why do you put so much faith in the govmnt?
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream if you reject religion based on conspiracy theories, then I'm sorry, but you would be a fool. I've investigated the various conspiracy theories against religion (mine and others) as well and found that they fail the evidence and common sense test as well. so why should I believe in them? It sounds to me like you rejected Catholicism because you were more of a fundamentalist Protestant.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
No. I reject religion based on logic and the bible. You can completely walk over me regarding conspiracy theories (that are based on this planet and this reality). But when it comes to biblical stuff, including ANY religions out there, I have shown you many instances where stuff that you worship is based on mutations of many other belief systems. Even on common logic grounds, religion fails.
Faith in a thing will never trump knowledge. You still have the burden of proof. I dont.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream I also like to hear both sides. the stuff you've been saying to me is not new to me. I've read (and refuted it) years ago. so it's not that I'm unwilling to entertain alternative theories, it's that I've already examined them and found them wanting in the facts and logic department. I beg these folks to provide me with anything new that might substantiate their arguments, but rarely can they bring anything to bear that will do that.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream I've done quite a bit of research on the 9/11 stuff. I'd be happy to compare notes some time on that if you'd like. at best I can say that the us government bungled the investigation at points and that it was a very embarrassing thing that happened because our security was not up to snuff, and that later, various interests took advantage of the situation for their own benefit. but the idea that it was an "inside job" or "false flag operation" is patently false, ridiculous.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream listen, every conspiracy theorist makes the excuses you do. it's the OTHER people who don't believe in your conspiracy theory, who are the sheeple. I get it. I've been told by every conspiracy believer I've ever talked to that I'm part of the problem. but if the facts don't support their claims (and they don't) and they fail the logic test, then no amount of insults and insinuations that I'm a brainwashed zombie for not believing their contrived arguments will work.
XSC3 3 weeks ago
@XSC3
ah-ha.
So you'd rather believe in a god(s) which solely rely on their existence via faith not knoweldge, thus the reason why it's called a faith in the first place. A faith which is based supposedly on another dimension and existence altogether.
BUt conspiracies which are earth borne, you have a problem with.
Hmmm. Me spotteth a faulty reasoning here-eth, me thinketh. Just slightly.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream on the contrary. God doesn't existed based on faith apart from knowledge. again, you're presuming the (False) definition of faith as blind faith. truth is truth, so God's existence is not dependent upon people acknowledging it, just as gravity is true regardless of any human being acknowledging it.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream even by your own standards, you should not believe in conspiracy theories (the majority of them, anyway), as they purport to make factual, testable claims. those theories fail to provide the most plausible explanation of the evidence (ie: they've been debunked in favor of far better theories... for example, it's a much better theory that fits all the evidence that the WTC were brought down by crashed planes and the resulting damage, than by controlled demolitions).
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream the existence of God is a philosophical question, not a scientific one (otherwise you're left with a simple question mark.. a "god of the gaps" theology).
if I said that God is a 5 foot six green man living at the center of the earth, that claim could (potentially) be tested scientifically. it could be debunked using earthly means of investigation (though it would be difficult).
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream it's true there are some conspiracy theories where the true believers in the theory will say something to the effect of "we know it's true, because there's no evidence for it, hence the cover-up was perfect" (so lack of evidence to them is proof of the conspiracy). but first of all, that's a self refuting claim (how then do THEY know about it?), second, there are other ways to disprove the claim than relying upon their statement as an absolute (continued..)
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream (continued)... that is, there may be evidence to the contrary. for example if somebody wants to claim that the 9/11 hijackers were seen alive on Sept 12, 2001, they need to substantiate that claim. when one shows that (for example) a report of such a person being alive was based on a case of mistaken identity, that claim can be refuted, damaging their case.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream I'm not saying conspiracies can't happen (obviously they can), nor that they never have (obviously, they have). I'm speaking in general of the many unproven conspiracy theories popular online (which range from holocaust denial, aids denial, anti-vaccination, space aliens, 9/11 inside job, all the way to dead celebrities still being alive and yes, even christ myther conspiracy theories as promoted by people like calpurnipiso).
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
Cal actually hates conspiracies. In fact if I told him I'm into a few conspiracy theories, he'd call me stupid. But That's his way, and Im fine with that. I'd rather keep my ear to theground and consider other theories. other than what's regulated by the gov. I always question, therefore I keep learning and growing.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream if you say so. I'm saying he certainly loves HIS conspiracy theory. I don't mind being called crazy or stupid by people who have no room to talk in that area. doesn't bother me much. I do study the claims made by various conspiracy theorists (including calpurnipiso). I find those claims wanting (including his). usually they can't handle this and react emotionally against me in response (ad hominem).
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
He does get over emotional. I do get dissapointed when he rants like that. BUt I still do support his claims.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream if you think calpurnipiso makes a "Good argument" you should investigate where his claims ultimately come from... Francesco Carotta (Jesus mythicism attached to caesar) and John Allegro (the sex and drugs cult claims). both have been utterly debunked. the idea that "government regulates" everything is pretty stupid. by that logic, the conspiracy theories are also government regulated, including calpurnipiso's channel.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
Facebook is a basic communication tool. Lots of criminals have been caught by advertising them selves and what they've done.
Trust me. You may not know it, but even your desktop computer could have been hacked into by whomever chooses to observe you. And you have no knwoledge of that. They could have done the same thing to me. Probably did. But I have nothing dodgy to hide, so I'm pretty safe.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream ironically though, in accepting certain conspiracy theories uncritically, you'd only be "growing into" nutball territory. after you got down chastizing me (because I'm Catholic) for being "in a cult" and brainwashed, I find that sort of thing ironic. I mean, that's a bit like saying you've cast off the pseudoscience of Islam in order to become a Scientologist.
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
I've cast off all mind control cults as stupid ideology. You clearly are an intelligent person. But you still are subject to religious control and bias. But I'm glad to see you're one of the better ones. And that's why we can have a normal, intelligent conversation, regardless of wether we agree or disagree.
I personally see and know (I know it sounds arrogant but..) that your god is your sub concience. When you pray, you pray to yourself. You motivate yourself by praying to this god-
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
-god to help you get a job, or succeed in sports or whatever. And suddenly when shit comes true, you thank god. But you should be thanking yourself. Because you'er the one who made it happen. Not god. And that's why prayer has never healed and amputee, or regrown a leg. Or cured aids. Or anything like that. One of the indicators of this is listening to all sorts of christians and every single one of them has their own version of a deiety. Because they're all different individuals.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream the conspiracys you say he "hates" have just as much (many have more) evidence than his particular ones do. for all the books he cites in support of his theory, the other conspiracy theories out there can cite 10 more. the amount of claims of course doesn't make for a compelling case. what does that is the quality of that research that actually accounts for all the facts best. the best theory that covers all the evidence, wins (until a better theory comes along).
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
Until a better one comes along/ In the end you're stuck with all these different theories of an event. But which one ios the right one, you'll never really know, will you? And just becasue they are the most popular ones, doesnt at all mean they are true. That's why I dont live my life on the basis of these theories or current news stories. But I listen to them all, and not become biasd at all. Sometimes it's ok to say 'I dont know', but Im aware of this and that.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream so if someone were to propose a theory that a cruise missile hit the pentagon, okay, this accounts for some of the evidence. but if the theory that a commercial airliner hit it fits more of the evidence and fits it better than the missile, then the plane theory wins. conspiracy theories may account for some evidence, but do a poorer job than other types of theories usually, which is why they are usually rejected by researchers no matter how popular they are in some circles
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
Please dont get me wrong on this. I'm not a conspiracy theorist at all. I dont live my life on the basis of theoriews like Alex Jones does. I listen to other theories besides the regulated governmental ones. I personally think you're naive if you take what's presented to you by the government. Most of the stories are regulated and approved by the gov.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream the essence of the consipracy theory is that some people got together and conspired to commit a crime. usually it's about "those in authority" or "those in power" lying to us about some otherwise widely known fact. it's within our power to verify the validity of such a claim in the vast majority of cases, so it's not merely an issue of someone's "faith" that it happened or another that it didn't. (again I'm using the term as you would, "blind faith")
XSC3 2 weeks ago
@XSC3
The conspiracy theorists have provided damn good evidence for their claims. At least in my opinion. I've been listening to Alex Jones a lot lately and most of the stuff he's been saying is now actually happeing right now. All those paranoid moments are now becoming a reality. I also used to laugh at him. But I take it all back now. It's mostly true.
Domzdream 2 weeks ago
@Domzdream this "damn good evidence" as you call it, is nothing of the kind. second, real evidence easily refutes it. one can even see the basic mistakes that these amateurs made in order to come to their faulty conclusions. a person who can't read hieroglyphics, uses his imagination to project medieval Christian ideas onto Luxor Temple, for example. a 20th century linguist imagines a poor drawing of a tree as a mushroom which reminds him of a penis.
XSC3 2 weeks ago