It's time for the leaders of the catholics, muslims, christians, jews, hindus, buddhists and the rest to advise their followers that no amount of carnal scriptural documentation no matter how ornately embossed, gilded or scented can lay claim to knowlege only an eternal mind could intuit. Only god or someone as intelligent as god could understand god's plan...but men in the bible claim to know it...so it must be god's plan...so you know god's plan...so your god or smarter than god... pffft.
Herod knew the 3 kings. He knew they were bringing wealth to Jesus...and it must've been a whole lot of wealth to make him uneasy enough to murder all those infants...
So we know Jesus had alot of money. He also had myrrh...with which it's easy to see he might have healed a few people along the way. Heck, he even had frankinsense...who wouldn't follow a goodsmelling rich guy around? And catholics, like the rest, hang onto the tradition that eternal nostrils hear prayers.
Yeah. We're all much happier in a time when hundreds of millions of innocents die for being inconvenient, rather than a time when a few rogue nutcases lynched or burned a few people for being guilty.
@mytruepower2 It doesn't matter whether one person or a billion people are killed. If Cain hadn't killed Abel, theoretically there would be twice as many people alive today, because in killing abel, Cain effectively killed all Abel's decendants. so in killing one... countless billions are prevented from living, doomed to oblivion. Murder is sickening. Murder in the name of god is accompanied by the stench of self-righteous injustice.
Yes, murder is sickening, but the thousands or billions of people who might have arisen from the murdered man don't count as separate murders, and even if they did, that factor would exist for every murder, so the original issue that hundreds of millions of killings is worse than two or three dozen remains.
Should we have either? No. This is a comparison between different ages. Secular age v. religious age. Religious age; less murder. End of story.
@mytruepower2 There is no difference between the ages, secular or religious.. People will believe the things they're taught, and they have been taught many thousands of religions over the years. Each can only take their faith as far as the egos of the authors dictate to the scribes. In EVERY case, the words of men are elevated to bear eternal truth. It is the eternal which creates the temporal, and us as carnal. What gives us the gall to define eternal words to worship?
@mytruepower2 if one murder precludes the possibility for billions of expressions of humanity, That's even worse than billions of murders, because at least the murdered had a chance to take part in life. Those who would have been part of humanity are ignored because we ASSUME since they're denied carnal life they don't have eternal life. How do we know those so clearly planned for life genetically but precluded, aren't forever denied carnal manifestation? they might not be too happy bout it.
@ReligionlessFAITH my point is, there's enough information in the human genome to provide the templates for 1000000000000000000000000000 unique individuals. If someone with wisdom were to calculate roughly how many of those unique people will never get a chance to find out who they are, I'm sure the answer will reveal how ignorant and careless we are towards our own species by limiting the number of vessels available for carnal manifestation.
I can't help but notice as I've been reading your replies that you have outlined several contradictions within your own approach.
I'll begin by pointing out how, in one post, you claim to have drawn no lines, yet you spend the entirety of four more posts doing just that; making definite claims, and once again refusing to answer challenges to them, or indeed, provide any positive evidence for anything that you said.
@mytruepower2 It's kinda hard to answer your generalization. But if you can formulate a specific thought, I'll answer it with whatever proof is needed. If there is no proof, and I cite my personal opinion, I ALWAYS label it as carnal conjecture, unlike the authors of religions who invariably place carnally invented words in the mouths of carnally invented gods. Do I have proof that scriptures are created by people? Most certainly...Matthew Mark, Luke, and John....MEN.
@mytruepower2 You are totally berift of rational thought if you can show me ONCE where I say the word of God is carnal. I say God itself is a carnal construct, so any words you choose to attribute to it are therefore also carnal constructs. As far as our perfect eternal indefinably omniscient Creator goes..I can honestly say, I've never heard it speak, although I have FAITH our perfect Creator can speak to us simulatneously, and needs no messengers, but doesn't...for a reason.
@mytruepower2 I never said my claim is not carnal... my claim is my claim and is carnal...The eternal Creator is eternal, I am not. You may be, I can't be sure if you're God or not.. but you claim you know the word of god.. because you read it in a book.. therefore you MUST be at least as intelligent as god.. so maybe you are god.. Are you God? hard to say...are there gentlemen with white coats near you?
When you say that there is no difference between the secular and religious ages, this is not only a line, but you are contradicting several of your own previous points.
When you claim that the human mind is motivated primarily by ego, this is a line, and a rather presumptious one at that, as you now claim to understand not only the universe, history, the human race and perfection, but the workings of the inner mind as well.
@mytruepower2 Religion and secularism have been around longer than writing. There has been no age in recorded history where religion has not been present in human culture. Secular ideas have lived side by side with religious notions THE ENTIRE TIME. There is no secular age, or religious age. There are secular people and superstitious people throughout the ages. And when a deity fails to make it rain despite the peoples' devotion, new deities are invented by the superstitious.
And now you are making bombastic and unsupported claims about all of human history, but deny that any other human being has the right to make such claims. Contradiction.
@mytruepower2 The human mind is motivated by stimulae. The mind reacts both on the unconcious and concious levels by the instinct to survive. The drive to survive even beyond the lifespan of an individual life is common among all life forms. The ego is the self-image. It can range from humble to arrogant. An arrogant ego allows one to believe one can know god's eternal plan. A humble ego allows one to admit that one must be as intelligent as god to know god's plan.
The drive to survive is not common among all life forms, or suicide would not exist, and again, making such a claim without evidence to support it, nor reasoning behind it, while calling all who disagree with your conclusions names. Yet, you disagree with many millions of people on these very issues. Contradiction.
@mytruepower2 you childish nitpicker. Sure... there are people created who lose the drive to survive, and I suppose stillborns may never have had it... but in otherwise healthy conditions the vast majority of life is driven by this instinct which has has billions of years to evolve. U knew exactly what I meant but you just gotta argue for the sake of arguement. I could care less if you have what it takes to show your eternal being who it is. I was not created to justify you.
@mytruepower2 you know damn well science is built on axioms for which there are no proofs.. and the foundations are assumptions made just so logic systems can retain rationality. there are trends, and in normally healthy life forms, the instinct to survive can be observed. this trend IS universal among all life forms despite occasional variance. It is not the trend which should be questioned, it is the variance for which usually a rational reason can be found.. suicide(insanity)
You still have yet to answer my challenge that calling anything "indefinable" neccesarily defines it, and is therefore philosophically dishonest on the most basic level, and in addition, while claiming God to be indefinable and people to be perfect, you have made several moral determinations about murder.
Based on what?
Without having recourse to God's nature to define morality, and without admitting that human beings have flaws...
@mytruepower2 philosophically, when we say something is indefinable... this is not a definition. it is a categorization WITHOUT definition allowing an unknown to remain unknown and without definition. A perfect creator creates perfectly despite a carnal unwillingness to admit eternal perfection. A humble ego can rationalize that carnally perceived imperfections are eternal perfections. An arrogant ego can't rationalize this because it think's finite nature can define perfection.
To define something is to acknowledge restrictions in its nature; boundaries and contours which can be used to categorize it. You claim that these things can be separated from one another, but in fact, no categorization can take place without at least a rudimentary definition being established. Contradiction.
You cannot establish a grounding for morality which is based on anything more than your own, unreliable whims.
Unless you acknowledge the nature of God as the source of morality, you cannot claim that anything "wrong" has been done, by infringing on that nature.
Unless you acknowledge human beings as imperfect, you cannot claim that they are -capable- of doing wrong.
Your most basic premises are clearly irrational. For your own sake, give this some thought.
@mytruepower2 IF you believe in a perfect omniscient Creator, there is only one rational way to understand reality: EVERYTHING is as the Creator creates it to be. An arrogant ego allows one to think there are imperfections in the eternal plan, a humble ego realizes that a perfectly created carnal mind can mistake eternal perfection for carnally perceived imperfection. Treating others the way I want to be treated is all the morality I need... try it sometime.
@ReligionlessFAITH -Hang on a minute,everything that humans do is within the natural order,from the mundane to mass murder.If it is outside this natural order then it may not exist,therefor it falls into the realm of perception.For any moral destinction to exist it requires co-oberated thought and agreement,otherwise again it is merely a perception of an action.
@sped1407 not sure what you're saying. My point is that our finite carnal condition of limited perception and intellect yields moral codes which differ among societies, and among individuals. However, a perfect, onmiscient Creator has no restrictions on perception or intellect, and therefore, everything it creates is perfection. So why would it morrally judge the perfections it creates? It wouldn't, because its creations are created perfectly to be and do what they are.
@ReligionlessFAITH In simple terms,if something is, it is,if something is'nt,it is'nt,although for this notion to hold water,I myself must exist.For me to exist requires co-oberation between two parties in the form of difference!You not understanding my entry is a classic example of this.A perfect creator,has creative licence to create imperfection as well as perfection.Then this depends on his perception of what he has created to decide which is perfect and which is'nt.
@sped1407 you're mistaken. If a perfect creator creates imperfection, it is no longer a perfect creator because it creates imperfectly. sorry. We can't evaluate omniscient perfection, therefore to us the perfections spawning from perfect omniscience may appear perfect or imperfect. while a perfect creator has license to create imperfectly, the moment it does so it loses perfection.
@ReligionlessFAITH I'm abit confused,you appear to be evaluating this perfect creator who can not be evaluated?If we are not able to evaluate his creative skills how can we turn around and say,he cant produce something that is imperfect in his perception.Maybe you are confusing perfection with validitity from an intellectual point of view.For you to claim tha't,"I am mistaken" indicates to me, that you have evaluated this being successfully??this would be impressive : )
@sped1407 Of course I do.. just like the authors of religions did, except I don't place my evaluations in the mouth of the creator, I openly admit my evaluations are made by my finite condition, and, my evaluation preserves the notions of perfection, omniscience, and omnipotence alluded to, but then denied in traditional religious paradigms. Simply put, i have faith the Creator knows what it creates before it's created, unlike the god of fluff defined in religions who must judge.
@sped1407 I have shared with you my faith in a perfect omniscient Creator, whos eternal will, word, and plan can't be translated by temporal carnal vocabularies. and that definition of this Creator is how man creates Gods. If this is beyond your understanding, I can't help you. I've shared my opinion that our eternal beings can learn from our temporal lives, but that an omniscient creator already knows who we are, and need not judge its own creations if indeed it is perfect. So?
@ReligionlessFAITH Well actually you can help me and maybe others who stumble upon your entries.Ofcourse this depends on your will to communicate your opinions to a broader audience.I understand the essence of your message,but it does become somewhat lost amongst your apparent attempt to bombard your audience with alot of fluffy" verbal aces".Personally if had my way,I would prefer the term "developer"over "creator".
@sped1407 What is your apprehension towards the word creator? The word has specific meaning which emphasizes the initiation of a new, previously non-existent existence. words like developer seem to imply a mere modification or development of an already existent form of existence. Thereby I think creator is more appropriate. But.. it's not you I build my faith for... I don;'t think with your mind, my faith is my own.. you'll have to build yours.
@sped1407 I never said a perfect creator can't create imperfection. I said a perfect creator who creates imperfection loses its perfection and becomes imperfect. But i must ask you seriously... would you want an imperfect Creator.. other than the fact it would allow you to blame your own perceived imperfections on your creator? My faith in a carnally indefinable perfect omniscience precludes my faith in prophets, or popes and any paradigm they present which would deny this perfection
@ReligionlessFAITH Well I dont know ,maybe I would still blame the perfect creator for the presence of my perfections,because he created them perfectly.This is assuming I have some sought of self recognition.Maybe a creator of imperfection can still be perfect?Maybe he has immunity to his imperfect creations?Maybe this creator just creates! without quality control??
@sped1407 If you are to build a paradigm for an indefinable creator... you will eventually stumble across the question of the intelligence. You will agree the creator's intelligence could range from zero intelligence, to infinite intelligence (omniscience). Now... everything between zero and infinity can be defined ergo, these do not permit preservation of indefinability, so you are left with 2 choices. I made my choice... now it's your turn.
@sped1407 So.. it all boils down to ... I'm not perfect, youre not perfect... there's imperfection everywhere.. however, there's only 1 you. 1/1=100%=perfection. This formula holds true for each individual form of existence known. So...how can say, a murderer be perfect? That makes no sense to us. But a perfect creator may have created the murderer to perfectly reflect the capacity of the murderer's eternal being to use its autonomy righteously...thus, even a murderer selfjustifies
@ReligionlessFAITH why are you not perfect?how do you know that you are not perfect?how do you know there is only one me?why must 100%=perfection?how can you quantify imperfection if you dont know what is perfect?why would this creator, create a murderer to reflect an eternal being and not reflect it himself?Why does this creator remain outside(not obvious/unseen)of the realm he created?is it a requirement this creator recieves recognition,if so why?
@sped1407 Sweet... you are already asking the question you need to ask yourself... not me. The act of asking such questions ,,, if yourself... is the act of seeking the creator, and that will enable you to build faith.
@sped1407 I am not confusing perfection with validity. I just point out that a perfect omniscient Creator knows what it creates. The gods of religions create without knowing and must wait to see what their creations do before they judge them, ergo they are neither perfect, nor omniscient. If indeed such gods are omniscient, and know before they create something that it will be tormented eternally in hell, then that's a saddistic god. No mercy there...
@sped1407 I hope these few posts have cleared up some of your confusion. In regards to your inquiry about the success of my evaluation, I must remind you that success depends on evaluation of all the information we can recover in a lifetime, and, as I am still alive, I have not yet fully assimilated my allotment, therefore I fear I can never fully answer. However, to me, it makes a whole lot more sense to build faith in the Creator than faith in the words of unchallengable authors.
@ReligionlessFAITH Why do you need faith in this perfect creator?is this a requirement of this creator.If this creator, created the murderer, to commit murder is this murderer exempt from the requirement of faith as he was preprogrammed to commit murder by the perfect creator and would'nt all other things this murderer does have been preprogramed also?
@mytruepower2 as a matter of fact... the catholic relgion sets all kinds of borders...as do all religions, and each have their own borders, some overlapping, some out in left field. The borders are limitations placed on a creator they claim to have limitless quantities of knowledge, power, wisdom. grace, glory, mercy, wrath, and whatever other attribute the religion applies. I can't follow the logic in this. What gives religion the right to limit the Creator? ARROGANT EGO FTW
@mytruepower2 The multi-contradictory theme of indefinable eternal matters, indefinable omniscience and perfection etc being defined by carnal words has been displayed by mankind in every religion I've encountered. It is a universal theme and it's how gods are created. It's how a few men have placed their own inspirations in the mouths of the gods and then into the minds of many people who are invariably milked for their wealth. Right down the line! ...I have no faith in religion
@mytruepower2 what I say is heartfelt and hard to verbosly express. The indefinable perfection, omniscience, and power I place my faith in has no boundaries I am qualified to place on it, nor do I believe our finite vocabularies have the words that would be required to begin such an eternal endeavour...Therefore, it adequately suffices me to build my faith and place my trust in the perfection which is our indefinable Creator for it is our Creator who creates us, not our religions.
I hope you realize that the Tridentine Mass was seen as disgusting and progressive in the 16th century as the current Roman Mass is now. You can't say that the Church is destroying 2,000 years of Tradition if it drastically changes every couple hundred years.
If you really wanted to see what a Mass was like in the early Church, go to an Eastern Church and experience the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom which literally has not changed in over 1700 years. Check out my video response "Consecration.."
That's untrue. The Tridentine Mass had been a mainstay of the church for another thousand years prior to the council of Trent. It was just called something different.
Also, since the church never abrogated the Tridentine Mass, you're right that I can't say they're squashing tradition. Certain priests and bishops may oppose it, but the church does not.
These Vatican II "popes" including the present one, have not done one thing to bring back the true Traditional Roman Catholic Mass. They are anti-popes and are all guilty of heresy.
@mrwestern33 Didn't the egyptians have pharohs to link men with god? How far has religion really advanced if we keep doing the same thing, but instead of pharohs, we call them popes? Here's the real problem.... the bible, is heresy! so is the qran, the talmud, and all other ego pretend human can define god scripture crapola.
The Phaoroh didn't link men with God. The Phaoroh (and for that matter, Caesar,) wanted to be worshipped AS a god. Furthermore, their motive in doing so was clear; they wanted to control people's hearts. It's the same reason why the communists forbid the practice of religion. If you have a soul, there's a part of you that the communists can't control, and don't own, and they couldn't tolerate that.
The only groups that seem not to behave this way are Christians.
@mytruepower2 the pharoh being revered as the manifestation of horus in life and osiris in death is no different as revering the pope or billy graham as catholics and other christians do. Even priests and ministers are trained to be conduits or links to "god" But they just link to a speculative paradigm defining an indefinable creator...the ego allows them to believe carnality can define omniscience.
Look, we already know you've removed your intellect by being emotionally-obsessed with the outcome of these discussions. You really don't need to make yourself look worse than that. The only one it's hurting is you.
@mytruepower2 Silly...ok let's run the world your way...but it'll be a pretty quite place. There can be no sincere discussion of any subject if the participants ignore the emotions urging them to speak what they feel. You'd rather this forum be titled the mytruepower2 show, and you'd like to script the dialogue yourself, unfortunately for you, they let people express their emotions here. I'm sad for you...that's my emotion, cause you let your ego steer your intellect.
Sorry, but this is just another demonstration of how an incomplete understanding of the human mind can lead to all sorts of mistakes.
The ego doesn't steer anything. It's not a motivating force. The emotions and the intellect are, because one provides information on how one feels, and the other information about the outside world. When that information is absorbed, a decision is made using the will.
@mytruepower2 - you said: The ego doesn't steer anything - The ego is your sense of self, which is expressed variably and uniquely by each individual. The ego is what determines how we react, the choices we make, the things we think and do. The sense of self (ego) is what determines our will, and our reactions. When the sense of self (ego) allows us to believe we have the capacity to understand matters eternal, rationality is lost. The desire to understand is remains.>>>>
@ReligionlessFAITH when we deflate the ego, we humble our sense of self (ego), and admit that we can't think eternal thoughts with finite temporal minds. This humbleness reduces our sense of conceited arrogance and allows us to recognize that carnally invented words cannnot begin to define an omniscient eternal creator.
Now, when I make a statement based -only- on how I feel, that statement therefore has no basis in the reality outside of myself. It might still be accurate, but it won't be -because- of my feelings.
Yes. I would rather people discuss things rationally, instead of tossing unreasonable, emotional outbursts back and forth at one another. I don't think it would be any more quiet than a greek philosophical forum.
But in the end, it doesn't matter what I would rather have.
What matters is this; do your statements convey the truth, and can you prove that they do?
You simply cannot grasp just how damaging it is to an argument to be unable to say "yes" to these questions, and if all you have to say is "well, I've been sharing my irrational emotions with people," you can't provide proof of anything.
@mytruepower2 When it comes to my faith in an perfect, indefinable,. omniscient eternal creator, I rationalize it based on observable constants and trends in our reality. I haven't proposed anything improbable or irrational...not least of which is the fact that defining such a creator is beyond our ability. I have only revealed the unbroken web of creator/creation associations which allows us to become aware of the prime axiom, and build a rational paradigm for existence.
@mytruepower2 I have emotions. But I don't let my ego use my emotions to elevate my self-perception to unlimited eternal intelligence. In the past, I participated in pretending to understand the omniscience presented scripturally. Catholics, protestants, jews, or whatever just fool themselves into a faith in carnal words, and forget to have faith in omniscience. The ego allows this emotional detatchment with reality and instead of a self-authored faith they accept a scripted cult
@ReasonableAtheist Your still confusing catholicism for Christianity. Were you Catholic? I bet you were. You've advanced from a perversion of what the church is to a perversion of what science is.
@Notanatheistanymore no... I've taken a step back from what religion is, and demonstrated the means for science to accept cause as the means by which the universe came to be, through observation and interpolated reasoning, that's all. I was forced to catholicism, like almost everyone is forced to accept the perversion of reality which is religion. My perversions whatever they may be, are purely my own now...but religion is not among them. What's your perversions?
@Notanatheistanymore I dont confuse nothin...catholics... as do all other christians... believe in satan... therefore they are all satanists.. end of story.
Well, it's not the first time, but I guess you couldn't be expected to understand that satanists are people who practice satanism, or to look up the word "satanism" in a dictionary, much less climb over the mountain of arrogance that prevents you from accepting anyone's definition of these basic words, when it refutes your point.
Satanism is the worship of Satan; not the belief in him.
@mytruepower2 The first step in worshipping satan, or anything, is showing your reverence by acknowledging its existence. People who believe satan exists have already worshipped this fictional concept just by believing it. Ergo, ALL religionists are SATANISTS, whether they know it or not. Satan does not cause altar boys to be molested by perverted priests, but the priests love to blame it on satan otherwise they'd have to take full responsibility for their perversions.
The first step to building a rocket is to draw up the design specs. According to your "logic," an architect can visit the moon several times, orbit it, collect moon rocks, say hello to any aliens who might or might not live there, lose a friend or two in the vacuum of space, and return home to his family just by drawing one line on a piece of paper. Fail.
@mytruepower2 wtf are your on? I haven't drawn any lines, I just ask questions and share the truth with others. The cameljockeys who wrote the bible and qran drew lines..and you're the one following their template to faildom.
@ReasonableAtheist That's strawman dummy number 5. Reading atheists "scientists" doesn't prove atheism. It does prove they have mental blocks when interpreting data. See if you can force youself to read "Science and the Bible" by Henry Morris. Any body can understand the circular reasoning used by SOME scientists, if they want to.
@Notanatheistanymore Therein lies the problem believers have in understanding the situation. Nonbelievers have nothing to prove. They / we dont believe in god and thats it!!!!. Theists believe in god. They have not a shred of evidence to support their belief. They are unable to prove what they claim and they expect us to prove their story as untrue. Soory but the burden is yours !!!!
@allanhill1 This is the very heart of the issue. We can observe that everything we know of has its cause, and the lack of observing an instance of spontaneous existence combined: proves our reality to be a vast web of cause/effect or creator/creation phenomena, which allows us to think our reality too, may have been caused to exist, or created. Just like infinity, the creator can be proven as indefinable...and religious gods are all defined, ergo we have proven them untrue.
Merry Christmas. The three priests and the former teacher are charged with raping boys. The administrator is the first Roman Catholic church official cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua charged in the U.S. for his administrative actions. Less than a decade ago, he was involved in a case which held 63 priests guilty of rapes. Brennan is charged with raping a 14-year-old boy from a suburban parish. Pastor to Rape Victim: "He Should Have Killed You. At Least You'd Have Died A Virgin."
You're still doing this. Look at your most recent posts. They are the same tired nonsense!
Merry Christmas, you boob. Or are you one of those sects that disallows dancing, enjoyment and alcohol? duh You people are not intelligent. And by "you people" I mean religious people.
"create means to spawn from nothing, and since things don't spawn from nothing, you couldn't have been created, Therefore you don't exist. "
Hey girls......still having fun debating the non existent magin man in the sky? Ask the snake...he will tell you the truth...or so I have heard. The bible is true.... I know this because the bible says the bible is true..so there !!!! I am buiding and ark. I will take at least two of every free thinking sensible person on board. Cant take the believers...their bibles will weigh us down like they do in day to day life.So check your idiot religion at the door if you want to come for the ride
These photos are horrible truly horrible, who would ever become a Catholic under the Novus Ordo? No wonder the Novus Ordo is dying, it is even worse than that done during the reformation!!!!!!!!!!!! Hail the Tridentine Mass
ya its time for the real catholic church to show its true colours,,, with 4.5 billion dollars in lawsuits for the abuse of kids,,, and for war crimes against humanity,,, its time to shut this religious institution down,,, but the united states supreme court has ask the vatican for documentation regarding the churches involement for the killing of 750,000 people in croatia so as to steal that countries gold in 1945,, soon,,soon,, united nations military police will invade that vatican
It is so entertaining debating with christians. Lol. They always display complete lack of knowledge about the world and then revert to to quoting bible passages. The most evil and wicked tome ever to exist and fictional to boot. The easy way out. Lol
@ReligionlessFaith you've never seen a case of evolution in your life. Everything runs down and decays in a closed system. This is the second law of thermodynamics in action. This is real science. Your car breaks down, your body wears out, moving matter slows down, the sun is burning out. It could not have been here for billions of years. All parts of the system had to co-exsist in the beginning because they're dependent on each other.
@Notanatheistanymore you are kidding right? We are part of nature and evolution, and the things we do to affect nature are themselves part of nature. As my livelihood is in horticulture, I have witnessed the evolution of many thousands of new species, and I've personally contributed to the diversification of expressed genomes in a few of the millions of new species from which we select those we use for food. Any time a species goes extinct or a new one is created, we see evolution unfold.
You've been very chatty this week. Fortunately, I'll be able to keep this brief. I won't even be correcting every single mistake you made. Instead, I'll just go for the jugular again.
Usually, whenever someone tries to defend rampant ambiguity and foolishness, they will eventually wind up challenging either truth, logic or the accessability of said things, especially when confronted with the truth themselves.
@mytruepower2 Abiguity? That only happens where there's doubt, There's no doubt that christians MUST accept the existence of satan as truth. Theres no ambiguity about it at all, These are satanists, like muslims and jews who worship an unknowing and sadistic creator. There's nothing ambiguous about the way such deities are created, the fact that people create gods is heavily documented. Going for my juggular can't extinguish truth, that's the function of religions.
However, you've taken it a step further, actually challenging the very rules on which all of civil discussion is based, because you've not only persistently refused to define your terms before using them and denied the real definitions of several words, but have actually insisted that I've broken some "rule" by not using every single definition of an English word when I speak.
@mytruepower2 i'm not sure if it's a cognitive problem you have, or if you're just getting kicks trolling for dialogue... you aren't one of them lonely trolls are you? I'm almost hoping it's the former, because sometimes that can be fixed. You can play the fool and pretend you don't understand the contextual uses of my words, by supplanting your own meanings for the meanings intended...and there is the deceipt you speak of...your own manufacture.
Fortunately, your replies have been self-refuting again, but just to be charitable, I'll point out why this week before moving into my attack.
Ambiguity, as I speak of it, is unclearness in the definitions of the terms one uses. If you fail to define your terms before making a claim, you are being ambiguous. As for logic, had you made a logical statement, or responded logically to any of mine, I would be more inclined to discuss it with you.
Can you imagine what kind of world it would be if nobody could ever use a word unless every culturally-accepted definition was meant at once? We'd never be able to use words like, for example, love, hate or tree, which have far too many meanings to be useful.
If I have to start making up new words in order to express these fundamentally-basic and traditionally-understood and defined concepts that I'm talking about, I will...
but sooner or later, you need to face the fact that the only reason you're denying these definitions is out of stubborness to avoid seeing my point, and the only reason you're not defining your own terms is out of stubborness to avoid making a point.
You see, points aren't self-refuting, so if you ever made one, you would be opening yourself up to being refuted.
Every single thing you said to me this last week is provably false, and I don't expect that to change anytime soon.
@mytruepower2 I haven't said anything about you...except that your understanding of axiomatic logic systems appears to need upgrading. I refuse to define an indefinable Creator, that would be illogical... defining the indefinable is what religions do, all of them. I have nothing against you personally, but there's something you should know: tradition does not equal truth.
And now this nonsense about motive. I wasn't going to say it, because I thought it might be too mean-spirited, not to mention irrelivent to a discussion about God, but you basically admitted that you had no logical motive for being here in your flurry of posts last week.
No offense, but I don't need to hear your life story to realize that you're here out of emotional investment, and not from anything logical. I figured that out long ago.
@mytruepower2 Damn straight my being here is emotional...It's an overwhelming sense of pity, disappointment, and sadness I have for people who allow their egos to cause them to believe they can intuit the creator's will, and with this narcissistic philosophy, construct rationality where there is none, as all religionists do. My input may help some to overcome their ego long enough to see the truth about all religions, and perhaps they will build faith in an indefinable creator.
@ReligionlessFAITH omniscience, is the ultimate ambiguity for a carnal mind, hence the great diversity of definitions offered by religions, all of them human interpretation of the intent of said omniscience. The omniscient creator is perfect, and I have faith in that perfection. Once we define it, omniscience becomes finite, while in reality it is infinite and eternal. The bible is finite...so is the qran... these offer me finite man-made gods created of carnal irrationality
Well, I guess that's all there is to say then. You're here for emotional purposes, which is the reason why you've construction an intellectually-unjustifiable position, and cling to it in the teeth of legitimate, rational thought.
I just was just waiting for you to admit what we all already knew. I'm not exactly happy, but for now, that's good enough.
@mytruepower2 you reveal your true motive by revealing that you think of mean spirited things to say to me. I, along with many others in this forum have witnessed your mean-spiritedness on many occasions now, and it's good to see that subconciously at least, you know it yourself. I do hope this forum is the extent of your mean spiritedness...lest you have caused others to suffer your meaness more directly. It is a common reaction of the ego when confronted by truth.
Ok, everybody. Take a break from the bs, it's getting deep. Find some high ground, take off the boots and let your feet air out. Speaking of "high ground", did you know that many people, pilots, hikers, and soldiers have seen Noah's ark on Mt. Ararat over the years when the snow is receded. There are pictures and books on it. A fun Google topic. And, that happens to be where the Bible said it landed. One thing for sure, nobody carried it up there!
@Notanatheistanymore The bible also has the lord ordering people to bake bread made from human poo. But then,because he's a loving god,changes his mind and tells them to make it with cow poo instead. And this makes sense to you?!
@ReligionlessFAITH it's in Ezekial, I'm not sure which verse. Not having had benefit of a religious background,I must admit finding christianity and it's followers great entertainment. Hairshirts,self flagulation,eating lepers scabs,and the holy of holies Jesus Holy Foreskin (google it,all ye who doubt)all great entertainment.
@dianalee84 Is anybody not surprised at what creationists or believers feel is the truth. Just start with genesis and itis just absolutely midboggling the idiot stuff they believe. It is so difficult for free thinking un brainwashed people to understand just what makes them buy into this shit.
@allenhill1 Atheism is a religion and the worse kind. Psa 14:1 The FOOL hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
@allenhill1 FAIRYTALES FOR GROWNUPS. Mathematically there would be about 200+/- people per square foot if man had been around that long. The would have burnt out long time ago. The fossil record shows distinct kinds, not infinite stages for each kind. In Texas there is an ancient man's foot print made on a dinosaur print. Read Henry M. Morris.
@CarefulKaren You know what can be proved?that christians worshipped bits of dead people(relics) cut little boys testicles off for pleasure until recently(castrati)had 18 foreskins,all belonging to Jesus(google 'holy prepuce')ate poo and scabs for Jesus(spiritual movement)whipped themselves and wore hairshirts,burned huge numbers of innocent people,and its leaders spent lifetimes calculating how many angels fit on a pinhead. Crazy stuff superstitious people do,huh?!
@allenhill1 WHICH "MISSING LINK" MADE A MONKEY OUT OF YOU? Lucy (a 3' tall chimpanzee), Heidelburg Man (built from a human jawbone), Nebraska Man (built from the tooth of an extinct pig), Piltdown Man (built from the jaw of a modern ape), Neanderthal Man (proven to be a man with arthritis), Cro-Magnon Man (equal in physique and brain capacity as modern man, so what's the difference?).
@mytruepower2 The church is His body. 1Cor 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
@RepentOFstatueKISSIN Of course catholicism is christian. It is a religion who hails jesus christ as the savior sonofgod. Its stupid just like all other religions but its still christian. Its teachings may be wicked because of the bible but it is either worse or better than others but it isstill mythology in all cases
All religions have another agenda other than spreading the good word. They play on the ignorance and fears of gullible people for their advantage. Fortunately,although slowly, people are waking up to this fact and rejecting false gods and religions.
The Jesuits had secretly prepared World War II, and Hitler's war machine was built and financed by the Vatican to conquer the world for Roman Catholicism, Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were to be the defenders of the faith. They were set up to win and conquer the world, and set up a millennium for the pope. Behind the scenes, the Jesuits controlled the Gestapo. All this is fully documented in THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE JESUITS, published by Chick Pub.
the church is made of all born-again believers. The Catholic "church" is not Christ's church but a few in it may be born-again inspite of what it teaches. It is the evilest organisation ever. Google Avro Manhatten. It is described id'd unmistakably in Revelation 17
If someone told you that your computer self-exisisted without anyone ever designing it, I hope you would say they were nuts.
How long would it take for a jet fighter to form itself by chance, say in the ground, without a designer? A million years? A billion years? A million billion years? It'll NEVER happen. Man is designed infinitely more complicated, yet you want me to believe it was by chance? Are you crazy?
@AtheistREFUTED I believe you are insane. Nobody ever said man happened by chance. Life didnt happen by chance. The beginning of life may have we cannot be sure. once it did begin in a very primitive minute state it evolved into all the life forms we have today. It happened over billions of years natually No magic man in the sky
I see you gentlemen are still butting heads. Have fun. Its all part of the process of evolution. The world was not created for us. Maybe it had no beginning (eternal). Whatever we are part of the world. Its like two fleas arguing about the dog on which they live. It does not exist for them. Lol.
@allanhill1 That's right.. maybe it had no beginning. In that case, we have to accept infinite regress, infinite time, and we're still no closer to finding out why it's here or why we're here. If there is no purpose...then what does it matter to you or me if I see a purpose and you dont ... nadda. If however, there is a purpose, I'd like to know. We don't see infinite amounts of anything. There's no evidence for spontaneous existence, loads of evidence for cause with purpose within reality..
I'd like to believe that. It makes so much sense. It feels satisfying. But then again, we observe the universe ONLY thru this lens which may have a built-in function (doxa, perceived reality) that makes us believe this outcome in order to feel safe, correct, or whole? This lens- this brain- it may soak up the unrelated bits of information, and like a working base 8 calculator in a base 10 world, it spits out an answer that we think we understand. So I keep on keepin on
@ReasonableAtheist it's not a matter of feeling safe or whole...Any religion can do that for its believers. It's about bringing people out of their religious trance long enough to recognize the philosophy and logic by which their god's have been created by humans. To try to get them to see we all get here by birth and we all leave by death, so we probably have a common creator... the diverse definitions of god we've built don't reflect a common creator, all they reflect is imperfect paradigm.
It's all broken, but I think the "broken-ness" may be in our minds instead of in our choices. You cant even get ME to jump on your bandwagon. And I've got an EXTREMELY OPEN MIND when compared to the religious nazis of the world. Look at Muslims- SHEESH. Look at the MEGAchurches - EWWW. On your drive to work, count all the religious expense- the brick, mortar, cemetery, signage and so forth. UGH talk about entrenched... It would take more than what you got...
@ReasonableAtheist George Carlin said ~"they're wondering why their prayers never get answered, they're asking for this, they're asking for that, they pray for prosperity, health, eternal life, happiness, the rent money, and the love of their lives,... but THEY DO MOST OF THIS PRAYING ON HIS DAY OFF... (the look on his face here as he curtsey's... jus hilarious) ...Bah, church is just a competition to see who's got the best clothes...alright... you win already." RIP George (catholic childhood)
@ReligionlessFAITH I got what everyone has: reality to observe. I'm just one individual wondering why science hasn't picked up on this. Could it be the censors of knowledge have been too afraid to let this out because a creator kinda backs religion at first? Have they failed to carry the paradigm to its final product: religious gods = manmade gods? I can see how it might cause a bit of chaos but I bet a society based on reality would be worth it. Headline: Possible Creator Found! Gods extinct.
Atheists are usually not the type to force anything on you. We actually just react to nonsense claims. Always ask yourself "why do I believe what I believe?". Atheists don't have to.
@allanhill1 I believe what I believe because my belief is founded on observations of nature(reality). I can't find evidence for spontaneous existence anywhere in nature. Denial of observation is not how science works. Atheists deny reality and replace it with ... nothing. Nature doesn't force us to believe that cause is the reason for effect, we can embrace this reality, or we can deny it. I deny philosphies which ignore reality and resort to magically delicious unsupported speculation.
@ReligionlessFAITH In truth, I am more atheistic than you, even though my personal belief based on my own observations (which I don't force on anyone), is that spontaneous existence is improbable, likely impossible: in light of it's absence in nature. I found in my observations so far, a creator/creation (cause/effect) phenomenon universally present among all things. This is a truth. To me, it appears self-evident, from my own data. I welcome anyone to verify the data, and add to it.
@ReligionlessFAITH My feeble mind can't help contemplate the origin of existence. It tells me to use my observations to try to understand. I see our reality as a web of cause/effect intstances in a fluid environment governed by what we think of as time as well as the other forces we observe.. There is space between these instances(existences) and space inside them, even if they're solid, or even if they're thought etc. This is what I have to work with. Your reality may be different. dunno
@ReligionlessFAITH I believe reality is much the same for most of us through impressions of communication..and because I don't want to be lonely. I think I stumbled on the reason why science can't prove that religious gods don't exist. Science needs a truth to investigate, probe, experiment and confirm or deny, even though sometimes we get lucky and knowledge falls into our laps by accident or deflection from a misdirected or unrelated investigation.
@ReligionlessFAITH I haven't said I've found proof of the existence of god. I found a truth...that all things are linked in a web of creator/creation association. Science can use this truth by axiom to build a paradigm when observations infer an improvable conclusion. So, armed with the axiom of creation we can interpolate a cause for our reality. We build a paradigm, a model to represent the nature of a creator of this reality. We find we have no technology to observe this creator. indefinable.
@ReligionlessFAITH My skepticism of religion and my faith in science paid off. I can accept an indefinable creator,..It gives science the upper hand. Without the premise of the truth of a creator of reality, science can't evaluate ANY speculation about a creator/god. Now all gods can be held up against the paradigm of an indefinable creator to test for validity.The bickering stops. Those who would define the indefinable creator as any less or any more must now bring evidence.
@ReligionlessFAITH I'd say, my atheistic desire to prove theist speculation as fantasy in an effort to curb religion's devastating effect on humanity is pretty clear by now... what have you done?
But your faith that a creator exists makes us nervous of you. Are you saying "Creator" or just the "First thing that moved" or something like that? Because, to me, I dont see anything other than a questionmark.
@ReasonableAtheist In our attempt to understand the origin of existence we encounter 2 possibilities. That our origin follows a universal self-evident trend of causality, or that it doesn't. We can stick with what we see happening as each instance of existence is created (caused) and build a paradigm based on what we see or we can abandon observation of reality, for a paradigm based on what we don't see. The former is built on observation and fact, the latter is built on speculation. Nobrainer
Sure, it seems reasonable but when you compare it to the complex universe, I'm just not sure I can buy it. I get your points, and they seem fairly reasonable after I've given it some thought (and allowed you to stop yelling AXIOM at us ;-0) I'm just not sure I can trust observations and allow them to guide me to that conclusion. I will say, it's a good attempt and I think it's at least a good, working thought experiment. I'm just not sure it'll jive with reality.
What created bosons? What created first? What created hydrogen? What created the universal constants? What created a system where we see stuff as color, but that color is the rejected wavelengths having nothing to do with the original object- in other words, a green leaf is not green, it's everything BUT green. That's nonsense.
@ReasonableAtheist a photon is a boson. When an electron makes a jump from an orbital of higher energization to one of lower, a boson is caused to exist. I am unfamiliar with the other elementary bosons, but i'm sure they too have their cause. If first exists in a timeless reality, it wouldn't be expected to have a cause. A proton and a neutron combine to cause a hydrogen ion. If an electron is captured, it creates the hydrogen atom. Nature causes universal constants....
@ReasonableAtheist :) same for me. not just unknown, but very likely unknowable...the cause for existence may have expended itself in causing this reality... like the salmon spawn, then die. We don't have the technology to bring the event back, or prove it beyond paradigm yet. Maybe some day we will. All kinda people keep tellin me god is jesus, or god is allah or god is this or that, or god is an invisible friend in the clouds...Bah! They may be gods, but they're not first cause, nor divine.
@ReligionlessFAITH What really baffles me, is: most religions start with a perfect, omniscience theme, then embellish it, define it, and sell the god they create as truth. I understand exactly how they get away with it. the mainstream scientific community overlooks countless creations and creators (reality) and dismisses this constant "because we've never seen spontaneous existence". It's there, it's workable, what's the harm in building a model? and a new paradigm : religios terminus
@ReasonableAtheist Really makes you wonder that the worlds most brilliant minds still haven't learned not to put reactors near important aquafers, or seismic zones. Virtually all of them are in bad places. They just CAN'T be so STUPID!¿ It almost looks like the work of bizzaro! 104 reactors in N America 11 on the great lakes, 5 within 100 miles of me! if bizzaro wins this one, I'm a goner. We must remember to thank the politicalization of education which causes people to behave like it's ok.
@ReligionlessFAITH please can we put all the reactors on fresh H20 reservoirs? Let's not agree where to put the waste, too. Accidents NEVER happen except Thorp, 3 mile island, Chernobyl, Sellafield, VT Yankee, Fukushima, SL-1, K-19, K-27, K-431, Kyshtym, Windscale, radiotherapy ax's in Costa Rica,Thailnd, Zaragoza, Morocco, Goiania, Mex City,Mayapuri... oh the Mihama explosion. And nobody attacks reactors except 6 times Al Tuwaitha Osirak Bushehr Iraq in 1991 Dimona and also Syria.
Cold weather yet? Or just no snow? Last year or so my mom picked me up from Syracuse airport and we drove up thru Pulaski where they had 11 feet of snow. I wish we had a huge mountain to catch the snow- it would make the best skiing ever. Also, too bad Buffalo has no major mountains!!
@ReasonableAtheist rain today,, been dipping to frost at night. The Allegany mountains are bout an hour from buffalo...nice snowmobile trails...some nice ski hills too. Not like out west i guess.
So you used to say "god" and now you've backed off and now you say "creator" and you basically accept being called an agnostic or atheist even. I dont get you bro
And I'm not "dude" as you've been calling me, bro. I'm a lady-dude. Address me as such.
@ReasonableAtheist Whoa.. please accept my apology for assessing your gender based on my impression of your dialogue. I haven't met many lady-dudes and the ladies I've met generally don't tread on the topics we're discussing. My bad.
I was wondering when someone would call me on using the word god...but if you follow the dialogue, I do so when I discuss my own speculations about the creator. It indicates my acknowledgement that the creator i'm defining is manmade, not a proven entity.
I believe everyone has the right to observe document and assimilate information from reality. In turn we have the obligation to be skeptical enough to test any theories or truths we encounter with scientific method using the best available logic systems and most acute reasoning, to build testable paradigms where self-evidence fails truth. The axiom of creation used by theists is not the axiom of creation derived scientifically. get me?
@ReligionlessFAITH I believe many groups - be they motivated by greed, charity, politics, or religion - REQUIRE us to cease observing and assimilating, and replace the only first-hand account we have the chance to make, with interpretations of someone else's speculations presented as truth: This is not reality, it is a pseudo-reality some people gladly accept. It is a violation of their right and denies them precious time they could spend learning from reality. get me now?
The tittle of this video is intersting.. "The time for the Real catholic church to come forward.
That imply that up until now catholics have beeing following the "fake" ( for lack of a better term) catholic church.
badpanda84 2 weeks ago
It's time for the leaders of the catholics, muslims, christians, jews, hindus, buddhists and the rest to advise their followers that no amount of carnal scriptural documentation no matter how ornately embossed, gilded or scented can lay claim to knowlege only an eternal mind could intuit. Only god or someone as intelligent as god could understand god's plan...but men in the bible claim to know it...so it must be god's plan...so you know god's plan...so your god or smarter than god... pffft.
ReligionlessFAITH 2 weeks ago
Herod knew the 3 kings. He knew they were bringing wealth to Jesus...and it must've been a whole lot of wealth to make him uneasy enough to murder all those infants...
So we know Jesus had alot of money. He also had myrrh...with which it's easy to see he might have healed a few people along the way. Heck, he even had frankinsense...who wouldn't follow a goodsmelling rich guy around? And catholics, like the rest, hang onto the tradition that eternal nostrils hear prayers.
ReligionlessFAITH 2 weeks ago
".It's time for the real catholic church to please come forward. Where did 2000 years of tradition go? "
Hopefully buried forever in the history book -- seriously no one want to go back to a time when hertics were burnt at the stake
badpanda84 3 weeks ago
@badpanda84
Yeah. We're all much happier in a time when hundreds of millions of innocents die for being inconvenient, rather than a time when a few rogue nutcases lynched or burned a few people for being guilty.
Riiiight.
mytruepower2 3 weeks ago
@mytruepower2 It doesn't matter whether one person or a billion people are killed. If Cain hadn't killed Abel, theoretically there would be twice as many people alive today, because in killing abel, Cain effectively killed all Abel's decendants. so in killing one... countless billions are prevented from living, doomed to oblivion. Murder is sickening. Murder in the name of god is accompanied by the stench of self-righteous injustice.
ReligionlessFAITH 2 weeks ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
Yes, murder is sickening, but the thousands or billions of people who might have arisen from the murdered man don't count as separate murders, and even if they did, that factor would exist for every murder, so the original issue that hundreds of millions of killings is worse than two or three dozen remains.
Should we have either? No. This is a comparison between different ages. Secular age v. religious age. Religious age; less murder. End of story.
mytruepower2 2 weeks ago
@mytruepower2 There is no difference between the ages, secular or religious.. People will believe the things they're taught, and they have been taught many thousands of religions over the years. Each can only take their faith as far as the egos of the authors dictate to the scribes. In EVERY case, the words of men are elevated to bear eternal truth. It is the eternal which creates the temporal, and us as carnal. What gives us the gall to define eternal words to worship?
ReligionlessFAITH 1 week ago
@mytruepower2 if one murder precludes the possibility for billions of expressions of humanity, That's even worse than billions of murders, because at least the murdered had a chance to take part in life. Those who would have been part of humanity are ignored because we ASSUME since they're denied carnal life they don't have eternal life. How do we know those so clearly planned for life genetically but precluded, aren't forever denied carnal manifestation? they might not be too happy bout it.
ReligionlessFAITH 1 week ago
@ReligionlessFAITH my point is, there's enough information in the human genome to provide the templates for 1000000000000000000000000000 unique individuals. If someone with wisdom were to calculate roughly how many of those unique people will never get a chance to find out who they are, I'm sure the answer will reveal how ignorant and careless we are towards our own species by limiting the number of vessels available for carnal manifestation.
ReligionlessFAITH 1 week ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
I can't help but notice as I've been reading your replies that you have outlined several contradictions within your own approach.
I'll begin by pointing out how, in one post, you claim to have drawn no lines, yet you spend the entirety of four more posts doing just that; making definite claims, and once again refusing to answer challenges to them, or indeed, provide any positive evidence for anything that you said.
mytruepower2 1 week ago
@mytruepower2 It's kinda hard to answer your generalization. But if you can formulate a specific thought, I'll answer it with whatever proof is needed. If there is no proof, and I cite my personal opinion, I ALWAYS label it as carnal conjecture, unlike the authors of religions who invariably place carnally invented words in the mouths of carnally invented gods. Do I have proof that scriptures are created by people? Most certainly...Matthew Mark, Luke, and John....MEN.
ReligionlessFAITH 1 week ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
Yet again, you make the claim that the word of God is carnal, but that your claim is not. Contradiction.
You wanted a specific example of the self-contradictions in your belief system, and this is it.
mytruepower2 17 hours ago
@mytruepower2 You are totally berift of rational thought if you can show me ONCE where I say the word of God is carnal. I say God itself is a carnal construct, so any words you choose to attribute to it are therefore also carnal constructs. As far as our perfect eternal indefinably omniscient Creator goes..I can honestly say, I've never heard it speak, although I have FAITH our perfect Creator can speak to us simulatneously, and needs no messengers, but doesn't...for a reason.
ReligionlessFAITH 16 hours ago
@mytruepower2 I never said my claim is not carnal... my claim is my claim and is carnal...The eternal Creator is eternal, I am not. You may be, I can't be sure if you're God or not.. but you claim you know the word of god.. because you read it in a book.. therefore you MUST be at least as intelligent as god.. so maybe you are god.. Are you God? hard to say...are there gentlemen with white coats near you?
ReligionlessFAITH 16 hours ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
When you say that there is no difference between the secular and religious ages, this is not only a line, but you are contradicting several of your own previous points.
When you claim that the human mind is motivated primarily by ego, this is a line, and a rather presumptious one at that, as you now claim to understand not only the universe, history, the human race and perfection, but the workings of the inner mind as well.
mytruepower2 1 week ago
@mytruepower2 Religion and secularism have been around longer than writing. There has been no age in recorded history where religion has not been present in human culture. Secular ideas have lived side by side with religious notions THE ENTIRE TIME. There is no secular age, or religious age. There are secular people and superstitious people throughout the ages. And when a deity fails to make it rain despite the peoples' devotion, new deities are invented by the superstitious.
ReligionlessFAITH 1 week ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
And now you are making bombastic and unsupported claims about all of human history, but deny that any other human being has the right to make such claims. Contradiction.
mytruepower2 17 hours ago
@mytruepower2 bombastic?... if truth is bombastic...then so be it.
ReligionlessFAITH 16 hours ago
@mytruepower2 The human mind is motivated by stimulae. The mind reacts both on the unconcious and concious levels by the instinct to survive. The drive to survive even beyond the lifespan of an individual life is common among all life forms. The ego is the self-image. It can range from humble to arrogant. An arrogant ego allows one to believe one can know god's eternal plan. A humble ego allows one to admit that one must be as intelligent as god to know god's plan.
ReligionlessFAITH 1 week ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
The drive to survive is not common among all life forms, or suicide would not exist, and again, making such a claim without evidence to support it, nor reasoning behind it, while calling all who disagree with your conclusions names. Yet, you disagree with many millions of people on these very issues. Contradiction.
mytruepower2 17 hours ago
@mytruepower2 you childish nitpicker. Sure... there are people created who lose the drive to survive, and I suppose stillborns may never have had it... but in otherwise healthy conditions the vast majority of life is driven by this instinct which has has billions of years to evolve. U knew exactly what I meant but you just gotta argue for the sake of arguement. I could care less if you have what it takes to show your eternal being who it is. I was not created to justify you.
ReligionlessFAITH 16 hours ago
@mytruepower2 you know damn well science is built on axioms for which there are no proofs.. and the foundations are assumptions made just so logic systems can retain rationality. there are trends, and in normally healthy life forms, the instinct to survive can be observed. this trend IS universal among all life forms despite occasional variance. It is not the trend which should be questioned, it is the variance for which usually a rational reason can be found.. suicide(insanity)
ReligionlessFAITH 16 hours ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
You still have yet to answer my challenge that calling anything "indefinable" neccesarily defines it, and is therefore philosophically dishonest on the most basic level, and in addition, while claiming God to be indefinable and people to be perfect, you have made several moral determinations about murder.
Based on what?
Without having recourse to God's nature to define morality, and without admitting that human beings have flaws...
mytruepower2 1 week ago
@mytruepower2 philosophically, when we say something is indefinable... this is not a definition. it is a categorization WITHOUT definition allowing an unknown to remain unknown and without definition. A perfect creator creates perfectly despite a carnal unwillingness to admit eternal perfection. A humble ego can rationalize that carnally perceived imperfections are eternal perfections. An arrogant ego can't rationalize this because it think's finite nature can define perfection.
ReligionlessFAITH 1 week ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
To define something is to acknowledge restrictions in its nature; boundaries and contours which can be used to categorize it. You claim that these things can be separated from one another, but in fact, no categorization can take place without at least a rudimentary definition being established. Contradiction.
mytruepower2 17 hours ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
You cannot establish a grounding for morality which is based on anything more than your own, unreliable whims.
Unless you acknowledge the nature of God as the source of morality, you cannot claim that anything "wrong" has been done, by infringing on that nature.
Unless you acknowledge human beings as imperfect, you cannot claim that they are -capable- of doing wrong.
Your most basic premises are clearly irrational. For your own sake, give this some thought.
mytruepower2 1 week ago
@mytruepower2 IF you believe in a perfect omniscient Creator, there is only one rational way to understand reality: EVERYTHING is as the Creator creates it to be. An arrogant ego allows one to think there are imperfections in the eternal plan, a humble ego realizes that a perfectly created carnal mind can mistake eternal perfection for carnally perceived imperfection. Treating others the way I want to be treated is all the morality I need... try it sometime.
ReligionlessFAITH 1 week ago
@ReligionlessFAITH -Hang on a minute,everything that humans do is within the natural order,from the mundane to mass murder.If it is outside this natural order then it may not exist,therefor it falls into the realm of perception.For any moral destinction to exist it requires co-oberated thought and agreement,otherwise again it is merely a perception of an action.
sped1407 2 days ago
@sped1407 not sure what you're saying. My point is that our finite carnal condition of limited perception and intellect yields moral codes which differ among societies, and among individuals. However, a perfect, onmiscient Creator has no restrictions on perception or intellect, and therefore, everything it creates is perfection. So why would it morrally judge the perfections it creates? It wouldn't, because its creations are created perfectly to be and do what they are.
ReligionlessFAITH 1 day ago
@ReligionlessFAITH In simple terms,if something is, it is,if something is'nt,it is'nt,although for this notion to hold water,I myself must exist.For me to exist requires co-oberation between two parties in the form of difference!You not understanding my entry is a classic example of this.A perfect creator,has creative licence to create imperfection as well as perfection.Then this depends on his perception of what he has created to decide which is perfect and which is'nt.
sped1407 1 day ago
@sped1407 you're mistaken. If a perfect creator creates imperfection, it is no longer a perfect creator because it creates imperfectly. sorry. We can't evaluate omniscient perfection, therefore to us the perfections spawning from perfect omniscience may appear perfect or imperfect. while a perfect creator has license to create imperfectly, the moment it does so it loses perfection.
ReligionlessFAITH 1 day ago
@ReligionlessFAITH I'm abit confused,you appear to be evaluating this perfect creator who can not be evaluated?If we are not able to evaluate his creative skills how can we turn around and say,he cant produce something that is imperfect in his perception.Maybe you are confusing perfection with validitity from an intellectual point of view.For you to claim tha't,"I am mistaken" indicates to me, that you have evaluated this being successfully??this would be impressive : )
sped1407 14 hours ago
@sped1407 Of course I do.. just like the authors of religions did, except I don't place my evaluations in the mouth of the creator, I openly admit my evaluations are made by my finite condition, and, my evaluation preserves the notions of perfection, omniscience, and omnipotence alluded to, but then denied in traditional religious paradigms. Simply put, i have faith the Creator knows what it creates before it's created, unlike the god of fluff defined in religions who must judge.
ReligionlessFAITH 13 hours ago
@sped1407 I have shared with you my faith in a perfect omniscient Creator, whos eternal will, word, and plan can't be translated by temporal carnal vocabularies. and that definition of this Creator is how man creates Gods. If this is beyond your understanding, I can't help you. I've shared my opinion that our eternal beings can learn from our temporal lives, but that an omniscient creator already knows who we are, and need not judge its own creations if indeed it is perfect. So?
ReligionlessFAITH 13 hours ago
@ReligionlessFAITH Well actually you can help me and maybe others who stumble upon your entries.Ofcourse this depends on your will to communicate your opinions to a broader audience.I understand the essence of your message,but it does become somewhat lost amongst your apparent attempt to bombard your audience with alot of fluffy" verbal aces".Personally if had my way,I would prefer the term "developer"over "creator".
sped1407 1 hour ago
@sped1407 What is your apprehension towards the word creator? The word has specific meaning which emphasizes the initiation of a new, previously non-existent existence. words like developer seem to imply a mere modification or development of an already existent form of existence. Thereby I think creator is more appropriate. But.. it's not you I build my faith for... I don;'t think with your mind, my faith is my own.. you'll have to build yours.
ReligionlessFAITH 25 minutes ago
@sped1407 I never said a perfect creator can't create imperfection. I said a perfect creator who creates imperfection loses its perfection and becomes imperfect. But i must ask you seriously... would you want an imperfect Creator.. other than the fact it would allow you to blame your own perceived imperfections on your creator? My faith in a carnally indefinable perfect omniscience precludes my faith in prophets, or popes and any paradigm they present which would deny this perfection
ReligionlessFAITH 13 hours ago
@ReligionlessFAITH Well I dont know ,maybe I would still blame the perfect creator for the presence of my perfections,because he created them perfectly.This is assuming I have some sought of self recognition.Maybe a creator of imperfection can still be perfect?Maybe he has immunity to his imperfect creations?Maybe this creator just creates! without quality control??
sped1407 1 hour ago
@sped1407 If you are to build a paradigm for an indefinable creator... you will eventually stumble across the question of the intelligence. You will agree the creator's intelligence could range from zero intelligence, to infinite intelligence (omniscience). Now... everything between zero and infinity can be defined ergo, these do not permit preservation of indefinability, so you are left with 2 choices. I made my choice... now it's your turn.
ReligionlessFAITH 17 minutes ago
@sped1407 So.. it all boils down to ... I'm not perfect, youre not perfect... there's imperfection everywhere.. however, there's only 1 you. 1/1=100%=perfection. This formula holds true for each individual form of existence known. So...how can say, a murderer be perfect? That makes no sense to us. But a perfect creator may have created the murderer to perfectly reflect the capacity of the murderer's eternal being to use its autonomy righteously...thus, even a murderer selfjustifies
ReligionlessFAITH 12 hours ago
@ReligionlessFAITH why are you not perfect?how do you know that you are not perfect?how do you know there is only one me?why must 100%=perfection?how can you quantify imperfection if you dont know what is perfect?why would this creator, create a murderer to reflect an eternal being and not reflect it himself?Why does this creator remain outside(not obvious/unseen)of the realm he created?is it a requirement this creator recieves recognition,if so why?
sped1407 1 hour ago
@sped1407 Sweet... you are already asking the question you need to ask yourself... not me. The act of asking such questions ,,, if yourself... is the act of seeking the creator, and that will enable you to build faith.
ReligionlessFAITH 15 minutes ago
@sped1407 I am not confusing perfection with validity. I just point out that a perfect omniscient Creator knows what it creates. The gods of religions create without knowing and must wait to see what their creations do before they judge them, ergo they are neither perfect, nor omniscient. If indeed such gods are omniscient, and know before they create something that it will be tormented eternally in hell, then that's a saddistic god. No mercy there...
I'll build faith in perfection
ReligionlessFAITH 12 hours ago
@sped1407 I hope these few posts have cleared up some of your confusion. In regards to your inquiry about the success of my evaluation, I must remind you that success depends on evaluation of all the information we can recover in a lifetime, and, as I am still alive, I have not yet fully assimilated my allotment, therefore I fear I can never fully answer. However, to me, it makes a whole lot more sense to build faith in the Creator than faith in the words of unchallengable authors.
ReligionlessFAITH 12 hours ago
@ReligionlessFAITH Why do you need faith in this perfect creator?is this a requirement of this creator.If this creator, created the murderer, to commit murder is this murderer exempt from the requirement of faith as he was preprogrammed to commit murder by the perfect creator and would'nt all other things this murderer does have been preprogramed also?
sped1407 1 hour ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
And now you are setting borders on what's rational and irrational without any reference to legitimate methods of rational thought. Contradiction.
mytruepower2 17 hours ago
@mytruepower2 I don't set any border... you intuit borders that are not present.
ReligionlessFAITH 13 hours ago
@mytruepower2 as a matter of fact... the catholic relgion sets all kinds of borders...as do all religions, and each have their own borders, some overlapping, some out in left field. The borders are limitations placed on a creator they claim to have limitless quantities of knowledge, power, wisdom. grace, glory, mercy, wrath, and whatever other attribute the religion applies. I can't follow the logic in this. What gives religion the right to limit the Creator? ARROGANT EGO FTW
ReligionlessFAITH 12 hours ago
@mytruepower2 The multi-contradictory theme of indefinable eternal matters, indefinable omniscience and perfection etc being defined by carnal words has been displayed by mankind in every religion I've encountered. It is a universal theme and it's how gods are created. It's how a few men have placed their own inspirations in the mouths of the gods and then into the minds of many people who are invariably milked for their wealth. Right down the line! ...I have no faith in religion
ReligionlessFAITH 11 hours ago
@mytruepower2 what I say is heartfelt and hard to verbosly express. The indefinable perfection, omniscience, and power I place my faith in has no boundaries I am qualified to place on it, nor do I believe our finite vocabularies have the words that would be required to begin such an eternal endeavour...Therefore, it adequately suffices me to build my faith and place my trust in the perfection which is our indefinable Creator for it is our Creator who creates us, not our religions.
ReligionlessFAITH 11 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mytruepower2 "rather than a time when a few rogue nutcases lynched or burned a few people for being guilty."
Right if by guilty you mean ciritizing the cathoilc church -- or even disagreeing with there teaching.
Basically its a how the catholic church maintained power -- do what we say or you will be branded a hertic and burnt
badpanda84 2 weeks ago
I hope you realize that the Tridentine Mass was seen as disgusting and progressive in the 16th century as the current Roman Mass is now. You can't say that the Church is destroying 2,000 years of Tradition if it drastically changes every couple hundred years.
If you really wanted to see what a Mass was like in the early Church, go to an Eastern Church and experience the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom which literally has not changed in over 1700 years. Check out my video response "Consecration.."
julianhayda 1 month ago
@julianhayda
That's untrue. The Tridentine Mass had been a mainstay of the church for another thousand years prior to the council of Trent. It was just called something different.
Also, since the church never abrogated the Tridentine Mass, you're right that I can't say they're squashing tradition. Certain priests and bishops may oppose it, but the church does not.
mytruepower2 3 weeks ago
These Vatican II "popes" including the present one, have not done one thing to bring back the true Traditional Roman Catholic Mass. They are anti-popes and are all guilty of heresy.
mrwestern33 1 month ago
@mrwestern33 Didn't the egyptians have pharohs to link men with god? How far has religion really advanced if we keep doing the same thing, but instead of pharohs, we call them popes? Here's the real problem.... the bible, is heresy! so is the qran, the talmud, and all other ego pretend human can define god scripture crapola.
ReligionlessFAITH 1 month ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
The Phaoroh didn't link men with God. The Phaoroh (and for that matter, Caesar,) wanted to be worshipped AS a god. Furthermore, their motive in doing so was clear; they wanted to control people's hearts. It's the same reason why the communists forbid the practice of religion. If you have a soul, there's a part of you that the communists can't control, and don't own, and they couldn't tolerate that.
The only groups that seem not to behave this way are Christians.
mytruepower2 3 weeks ago
@mytruepower2 the pharoh being revered as the manifestation of horus in life and osiris in death is no different as revering the pope or billy graham as catholics and other christians do. Even priests and ministers are trained to be conduits or links to "god" But they just link to a speculative paradigm defining an indefinable creator...the ego allows them to believe carnality can define omniscience.
ReligionlessFAITH 3 weeks ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
Look, we already know you've removed your intellect by being emotionally-obsessed with the outcome of these discussions. You really don't need to make yourself look worse than that. The only one it's hurting is you.
mytruepower2 3 weeks ago
@mytruepower2 Silly...ok let's run the world your way...but it'll be a pretty quite place. There can be no sincere discussion of any subject if the participants ignore the emotions urging them to speak what they feel. You'd rather this forum be titled the mytruepower2 show, and you'd like to script the dialogue yourself, unfortunately for you, they let people express their emotions here. I'm sad for you...that's my emotion, cause you let your ego steer your intellect.
ReligionlessFAITH 2 weeks ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
Sorry, but this is just another demonstration of how an incomplete understanding of the human mind can lead to all sorts of mistakes.
The ego doesn't steer anything. It's not a motivating force. The emotions and the intellect are, because one provides information on how one feels, and the other information about the outside world. When that information is absorbed, a decision is made using the will.
mytruepower2 2 weeks ago
@mytruepower2 - you said: The ego doesn't steer anything - The ego is your sense of self, which is expressed variably and uniquely by each individual. The ego is what determines how we react, the choices we make, the things we think and do. The sense of self (ego) is what determines our will, and our reactions. When the sense of self (ego) allows us to believe we have the capacity to understand matters eternal, rationality is lost. The desire to understand is remains.>>>>
ReligionlessFAITH 1 week ago
@ReligionlessFAITH when we deflate the ego, we humble our sense of self (ego), and admit that we can't think eternal thoughts with finite temporal minds. This humbleness reduces our sense of conceited arrogance and allows us to recognize that carnally invented words cannnot begin to define an omniscient eternal creator.
ReligionlessFAITH 1 week ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
Now, when I make a statement based -only- on how I feel, that statement therefore has no basis in the reality outside of myself. It might still be accurate, but it won't be -because- of my feelings.
Yes. I would rather people discuss things rationally, instead of tossing unreasonable, emotional outbursts back and forth at one another. I don't think it would be any more quiet than a greek philosophical forum.
mytruepower2 2 weeks ago
@mytruepower2 then stop being emotional and stop bursting out at people lol
ReligionlessFAITH 1 week ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
But in the end, it doesn't matter what I would rather have.
What matters is this; do your statements convey the truth, and can you prove that they do?
You simply cannot grasp just how damaging it is to an argument to be unable to say "yes" to these questions, and if all you have to say is "well, I've been sharing my irrational emotions with people," you can't provide proof of anything.
mytruepower2 2 weeks ago
@mytruepower2 When it comes to my faith in an perfect, indefinable,. omniscient eternal creator, I rationalize it based on observable constants and trends in our reality. I haven't proposed anything improbable or irrational...not least of which is the fact that defining such a creator is beyond our ability. I have only revealed the unbroken web of creator/creation associations which allows us to become aware of the prime axiom, and build a rational paradigm for existence.
ReligionlessFAITH 1 week ago
@mytruepower2 I have emotions. But I don't let my ego use my emotions to elevate my self-perception to unlimited eternal intelligence. In the past, I participated in pretending to understand the omniscience presented scripturally. Catholics, protestants, jews, or whatever just fool themselves into a faith in carnal words, and forget to have faith in omniscience. The ego allows this emotional detatchment with reality and instead of a self-authored faith they accept a scripted cult
ReligionlessFAITH 2 weeks ago
@ReasonableAtheist Your still confusing catholicism for Christianity. Were you Catholic? I bet you were. You've advanced from a perversion of what the church is to a perversion of what science is.
Notanatheistanymore 1 month ago
@Notanatheistanymore no... I've taken a step back from what religion is, and demonstrated the means for science to accept cause as the means by which the universe came to be, through observation and interpolated reasoning, that's all. I was forced to catholicism, like almost everyone is forced to accept the perversion of reality which is religion. My perversions whatever they may be, are purely my own now...but religion is not among them. What's your perversions?
ReligionlessFAITH 1 month ago
@Notanatheistanymore I dont confuse nothin...catholics... as do all other christians... believe in satan... therefore they are all satanists.. end of story.
ReligionlessFAITH 3 weeks ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
Well, it's not the first time, but I guess you couldn't be expected to understand that satanists are people who practice satanism, or to look up the word "satanism" in a dictionary, much less climb over the mountain of arrogance that prevents you from accepting anyone's definition of these basic words, when it refutes your point.
Satanism is the worship of Satan; not the belief in him.
mytruepower2 3 weeks ago
@mytruepower2 The first step in worshipping satan, or anything, is showing your reverence by acknowledging its existence. People who believe satan exists have already worshipped this fictional concept just by believing it. Ergo, ALL religionists are SATANISTS, whether they know it or not. Satan does not cause altar boys to be molested by perverted priests, but the priests love to blame it on satan otherwise they'd have to take full responsibility for their perversions.
ReligionlessFAITH 2 weeks ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
The first step to building a rocket is to draw up the design specs. According to your "logic," an architect can visit the moon several times, orbit it, collect moon rocks, say hello to any aliens who might or might not live there, lose a friend or two in the vacuum of space, and return home to his family just by drawing one line on a piece of paper. Fail.
mytruepower2 2 weeks ago
@mytruepower2 wtf are your on? I haven't drawn any lines, I just ask questions and share the truth with others. The cameljockeys who wrote the bible and qran drew lines..and you're the one following their template to faildom.
ReligionlessFAITH 1 week ago
@ReasonableAtheist That's strawman dummy number 5. Reading atheists "scientists" doesn't prove atheism. It does prove they have mental blocks when interpreting data. See if you can force youself to read "Science and the Bible" by Henry Morris. Any body can understand the circular reasoning used by SOME scientists, if they want to.
Notanatheistanymore 1 month ago
@Notanatheistanymore Therein lies the problem believers have in understanding the situation. Nonbelievers have nothing to prove. They / we dont believe in god and thats it!!!!. Theists believe in god. They have not a shred of evidence to support their belief. They are unable to prove what they claim and they expect us to prove their story as untrue. Soory but the burden is yours !!!!
allanhill1 1 month ago
@allanhill1 This is the very heart of the issue. We can observe that everything we know of has its cause, and the lack of observing an instance of spontaneous existence combined: proves our reality to be a vast web of cause/effect or creator/creation phenomena, which allows us to think our reality too, may have been caused to exist, or created. Just like infinity, the creator can be proven as indefinable...and religious gods are all defined, ergo we have proven them untrue.
ReligionlessFAITH 1 month ago
Merry Christmas. The three priests and the former teacher are charged with raping boys. The administrator is the first Roman Catholic church official cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua charged in the U.S. for his administrative actions. Less than a decade ago, he was involved in a case which held 63 priests guilty of rapes. Brennan is charged with raping a 14-year-old boy from a suburban parish. Pastor to Rape Victim: "He Should Have Killed You. At Least You'd Have Died A Virgin."
ReasonableAtheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ReligionlessFAITH
You're still doing this. Look at your most recent posts. They are the same tired nonsense!
Merry Christmas, you boob. Or are you one of those sects that disallows dancing, enjoyment and alcohol? duh You people are not intelligent. And by "you people" I mean religious people.
"create means to spawn from nothing, and since things don't spawn from nothing, you couldn't have been created, Therefore you don't exist. "
You know this is stupid.
ReasonableAtheist 1 month ago
Hey girls......still having fun debating the non existent magin man in the sky? Ask the snake...he will tell you the truth...or so I have heard. The bible is true.... I know this because the bible says the bible is true..so there !!!! I am buiding and ark. I will take at least two of every free thinking sensible person on board. Cant take the believers...their bibles will weigh us down like they do in day to day life.So check your idiot religion at the door if you want to come for the ride
allanhill1 1 month ago
The True Mass
SuperGrumpy60 1 month ago
These photos are horrible truly horrible, who would ever become a Catholic under the Novus Ordo? No wonder the Novus Ordo is dying, it is even worse than that done during the reformation!!!!!!!!!!!! Hail the Tridentine Mass
rcarmes1941 1 month ago
ya its time for the real catholic church to show its true colours,,, with 4.5 billion dollars in lawsuits for the abuse of kids,,, and for war crimes against humanity,,, its time to shut this religious institution down,,, but the united states supreme court has ask the vatican for documentation regarding the churches involement for the killing of 750,000 people in croatia so as to steal that countries gold in 1945,, soon,,soon,, united nations military police will invade that vatican
MsChrisdom 1 month ago
It is so entertaining debating with christians. Lol. They always display complete lack of knowledge about the world and then revert to to quoting bible passages. The most evil and wicked tome ever to exist and fictional to boot. The easy way out. Lol
allanhill1 2 months ago
google "smokescreens" and read on-line some shocking stuff.
Notanatheistanymore 2 months ago
@ReligionlessFaith you've never seen a case of evolution in your life. Everything runs down and decays in a closed system. This is the second law of thermodynamics in action. This is real science. Your car breaks down, your body wears out, moving matter slows down, the sun is burning out. It could not have been here for billions of years. All parts of the system had to co-exsist in the beginning because they're dependent on each other.
Notanatheistanymore 2 months ago
@Notanatheistanymore you are kidding right? We are part of nature and evolution, and the things we do to affect nature are themselves part of nature. As my livelihood is in horticulture, I have witnessed the evolution of many thousands of new species, and I've personally contributed to the diversification of expressed genomes in a few of the millions of new species from which we select those we use for food. Any time a species goes extinct or a new one is created, we see evolution unfold.
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
You've been very chatty this week. Fortunately, I'll be able to keep this brief. I won't even be correcting every single mistake you made. Instead, I'll just go for the jugular again.
Usually, whenever someone tries to defend rampant ambiguity and foolishness, they will eventually wind up challenging either truth, logic or the accessability of said things, especially when confronted with the truth themselves.
mytruepower2 1 month ago
@mytruepower2 Abiguity? That only happens where there's doubt, There's no doubt that christians MUST accept the existence of satan as truth. Theres no ambiguity about it at all, These are satanists, like muslims and jews who worship an unknowing and sadistic creator. There's nothing ambiguous about the way such deities are created, the fact that people create gods is heavily documented. Going for my juggular can't extinguish truth, that's the function of religions.
ReligionlessFAITH 1 month ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
However, you've taken it a step further, actually challenging the very rules on which all of civil discussion is based, because you've not only persistently refused to define your terms before using them and denied the real definitions of several words, but have actually insisted that I've broken some "rule" by not using every single definition of an English word when I speak.
mytruepower2 1 month ago
@mytruepower2 i'm not sure if it's a cognitive problem you have, or if you're just getting kicks trolling for dialogue... you aren't one of them lonely trolls are you? I'm almost hoping it's the former, because sometimes that can be fixed. You can play the fool and pretend you don't understand the contextual uses of my words, by supplanting your own meanings for the meanings intended...and there is the deceipt you speak of...your own manufacture.
ReligionlessFAITH 1 month ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
Fortunately, your replies have been self-refuting again, but just to be charitable, I'll point out why this week before moving into my attack.
Ambiguity, as I speak of it, is unclearness in the definitions of the terms one uses. If you fail to define your terms before making a claim, you are being ambiguous. As for logic, had you made a logical statement, or responded logically to any of mine, I would be more inclined to discuss it with you.
mytruepower2 1 month ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
Can you imagine what kind of world it would be if nobody could ever use a word unless every culturally-accepted definition was meant at once? We'd never be able to use words like, for example, love, hate or tree, which have far too many meanings to be useful.
If I have to start making up new words in order to express these fundamentally-basic and traditionally-understood and defined concepts that I'm talking about, I will...
mytruepower2 1 month ago
@mytruepower2 oh please don't start typing in tongues.
ReligionlessFAITH 1 month ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
but sooner or later, you need to face the fact that the only reason you're denying these definitions is out of stubborness to avoid seeing my point, and the only reason you're not defining your own terms is out of stubborness to avoid making a point.
You see, points aren't self-refuting, so if you ever made one, you would be opening yourself up to being refuted.
Every single thing you said to me this last week is provably false, and I don't expect that to change anytime soon.
mytruepower2 1 month ago
@mytruepower2 I haven't said anything about you...except that your understanding of axiomatic logic systems appears to need upgrading. I refuse to define an indefinable Creator, that would be illogical... defining the indefinable is what religions do, all of them. I have nothing against you personally, but there's something you should know: tradition does not equal truth.
ReligionlessFAITH 1 month ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
And now this nonsense about motive. I wasn't going to say it, because I thought it might be too mean-spirited, not to mention irrelivent to a discussion about God, but you basically admitted that you had no logical motive for being here in your flurry of posts last week.
No offense, but I don't need to hear your life story to realize that you're here out of emotional investment, and not from anything logical. I figured that out long ago.
mytruepower2 1 month ago
@mytruepower2 Damn straight my being here is emotional...It's an overwhelming sense of pity, disappointment, and sadness I have for people who allow their egos to cause them to believe they can intuit the creator's will, and with this narcissistic philosophy, construct rationality where there is none, as all religionists do. My input may help some to overcome their ego long enough to see the truth about all religions, and perhaps they will build faith in an indefinable creator.
ReligionlessFAITH 1 month ago
@ReligionlessFAITH omniscience, is the ultimate ambiguity for a carnal mind, hence the great diversity of definitions offered by religions, all of them human interpretation of the intent of said omniscience. The omniscient creator is perfect, and I have faith in that perfection. Once we define it, omniscience becomes finite, while in reality it is infinite and eternal. The bible is finite...so is the qran... these offer me finite man-made gods created of carnal irrationality
ReligionlessFAITH 1 month ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
And incidentally, Merry Christmas, and a happy New Year.
mytruepower2 3 weeks ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
Well, I guess that's all there is to say then. You're here for emotional purposes, which is the reason why you've construction an intellectually-unjustifiable position, and cling to it in the teeth of legitimate, rational thought.
I just was just waiting for you to admit what we all already knew. I'm not exactly happy, but for now, that's good enough.
mytruepower2 3 weeks ago
@mytruepower2 you reveal your true motive by revealing that you think of mean spirited things to say to me. I, along with many others in this forum have witnessed your mean-spiritedness on many occasions now, and it's good to see that subconciously at least, you know it yourself. I do hope this forum is the extent of your mean spiritedness...lest you have caused others to suffer your meaness more directly. It is a common reaction of the ego when confronted by truth.
ReligionlessFAITH 1 month ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
"You're mean" is not a coherent defense of your position, however.
mytruepower2 3 weeks ago
@Notanatheistanymore
Put your money where your mouth is...
Take 60% of your antibiotics every time you get sick.
ReasonableAtheist 1 month ago
Ok, everybody. Take a break from the bs, it's getting deep. Find some high ground, take off the boots and let your feet air out. Speaking of "high ground", did you know that many people, pilots, hikers, and soldiers have seen Noah's ark on Mt. Ararat over the years when the snow is receded. There are pictures and books on it. A fun Google topic. And, that happens to be where the Bible said it landed. One thing for sure, nobody carried it up there!
Notanatheistanymore 2 months ago
@Notanatheistanymore The bible also has the lord ordering people to bake bread made from human poo. But then,because he's a loving god,changes his mind and tells them to make it with cow poo instead. And this makes sense to you?!
dianalee84 2 months ago
@dianalee84 lol what verse?
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago
@ReligionlessFAITH it's in Ezekial, I'm not sure which verse. Not having had benefit of a religious background,I must admit finding christianity and it's followers great entertainment. Hairshirts,self flagulation,eating lepers scabs,and the holy of holies Jesus Holy Foreskin (google it,all ye who doubt)all great entertainment.
dianalee84 1 month ago
@dianalee84 Is anybody not surprised at what creationists or believers feel is the truth. Just start with genesis and itis just absolutely midboggling the idiot stuff they believe. It is so difficult for free thinking un brainwashed people to understand just what makes them buy into this shit.
allanhill1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allenhill1 Atheism is a religion and the worse kind. Psa 14:1 The FOOL hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
ATHEISTinHELL34 2 months ago
@allenhill1 Who told you that?
ATHEISTinHELL34 2 months ago
@allenhill1 FAIRYTALES FOR GROWNUPS. Mathematically there would be about 200+/- people per square foot if man had been around that long. The would have burnt out long time ago. The fossil record shows distinct kinds, not infinite stages for each kind. In Texas there is an ancient man's foot print made on a dinosaur print. Read Henry M. Morris.
CarefulKaren 2 months ago
@CarefulKaren You know what can be proved?that christians worshipped bits of dead people(relics) cut little boys testicles off for pleasure until recently(castrati)had 18 foreskins,all belonging to Jesus(google 'holy prepuce')ate poo and scabs for Jesus(spiritual movement)whipped themselves and wore hairshirts,burned huge numbers of innocent people,and its leaders spent lifetimes calculating how many angels fit on a pinhead. Crazy stuff superstitious people do,huh?!
dianalee84 2 months ago
@allenhill1 WHICH "MISSING LINK" MADE A MONKEY OUT OF YOU? Lucy (a 3' tall chimpanzee), Heidelburg Man (built from a human jawbone), Nebraska Man (built from the tooth of an extinct pig), Piltdown Man (built from the jaw of a modern ape), Neanderthal Man (proven to be a man with arthritis), Cro-Magnon Man (equal in physique and brain capacity as modern man, so what's the difference?).
CarefulKaren 2 months ago
@mytruepower2 The church is His body. 1Cor 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
CarefulKaren 2 months ago
@Lilprofessor1740 Donot judge religions ny their followers. Judge them on what they are....lies, manipulation, power hungry cults
allanhill1 2 months ago
@RepentOFstatueKISSIN Of course catholicism is christian. It is a religion who hails jesus christ as the savior sonofgod. Its stupid just like all other religions but its still christian. Its teachings may be wicked because of the bible but it is either worse or better than others but it isstill mythology in all cases
allanhill1 2 months ago
All religions have another agenda other than spreading the good word. They play on the ignorance and fears of gullible people for their advantage. Fortunately,although slowly, people are waking up to this fact and rejecting false gods and religions.
allanhill1 2 months ago
FAMOUS "DEFENDERS" of the
CATHOLIC "FAITH"
The Jesuits had secretly prepared World War II, and Hitler's war machine was built and financed by the Vatican to conquer the world for Roman Catholicism, Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were to be the defenders of the faith. They were set up to win and conquer the world, and set up a millennium for the pope. Behind the scenes, the Jesuits controlled the Gestapo. All this is fully documented in THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE JESUITS, published by Chick Pub.
Helpforheretics 2 months ago
the church is made of all born-again believers. The Catholic "church" is not Christ's church but a few in it may be born-again inspite of what it teaches. It is the evilest organisation ever. Google Avro Manhatten. It is described id'd unmistakably in Revelation 17
AtheistREFUTED 2 months ago
@AtheistREFUTED u sure you're posting to the right channel?
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago
The idiocy act is to cover that he really is one.
If someone told you that your computer self-exisisted without anyone ever designing it, I hope you would say they were nuts.
How long would it take for a jet fighter to form itself by chance, say in the ground, without a designer? A million years? A billion years? A million billion years? It'll NEVER happen. Man is designed infinitely more complicated, yet you want me to believe it was by chance? Are you crazy?
AtheistREFUTED 2 months ago
@AtheistREFUTED I believe you are insane. Nobody ever said man happened by chance. Life didnt happen by chance. The beginning of life may have we cannot be sure. once it did begin in a very primitive minute state it evolved into all the life forms we have today. It happened over billions of years natually No magic man in the sky
allanhill1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I see you gentlemen are still butting heads. Have fun. Its all part of the process of evolution. The world was not created for us. Maybe it had no beginning (eternal). Whatever we are part of the world. Its like two fleas arguing about the dog on which they live. It does not exist for them. Lol.
allanhill1 2 months ago
@allanhill1 That's right.. maybe it had no beginning. In that case, we have to accept infinite regress, infinite time, and we're still no closer to finding out why it's here or why we're here. If there is no purpose...then what does it matter to you or me if I see a purpose and you dont ... nadda. If however, there is a purpose, I'd like to know. We don't see infinite amounts of anything. There's no evidence for spontaneous existence, loads of evidence for cause with purpose within reality..
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
I'd like to believe that. It makes so much sense. It feels satisfying. But then again, we observe the universe ONLY thru this lens which may have a built-in function (doxa, perceived reality) that makes us believe this outcome in order to feel safe, correct, or whole? This lens- this brain- it may soak up the unrelated bits of information, and like a working base 8 calculator in a base 10 world, it spits out an answer that we think we understand. So I keep on keepin on
ReasonableAtheist 2 months ago
@ReasonableAtheist it's not a matter of feeling safe or whole...Any religion can do that for its believers. It's about bringing people out of their religious trance long enough to recognize the philosophy and logic by which their god's have been created by humans. To try to get them to see we all get here by birth and we all leave by death, so we probably have a common creator... the diverse definitions of god we've built don't reflect a common creator, all they reflect is imperfect paradigm.
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
It's all broken, but I think the "broken-ness" may be in our minds instead of in our choices. You cant even get ME to jump on your bandwagon. And I've got an EXTREMELY OPEN MIND when compared to the religious nazis of the world. Look at Muslims- SHEESH. Look at the MEGAchurches - EWWW. On your drive to work, count all the religious expense- the brick, mortar, cemetery, signage and so forth. UGH talk about entrenched... It would take more than what you got...
ReasonableAtheist 2 months ago
@ReasonableAtheist George Carlin said ~"they're wondering why their prayers never get answered, they're asking for this, they're asking for that, they pray for prosperity, health, eternal life, happiness, the rent money, and the love of their lives,... but THEY DO MOST OF THIS PRAYING ON HIS DAY OFF... (the look on his face here as he curtsey's... jus hilarious) ...Bah, church is just a competition to see who's got the best clothes...alright... you win already." RIP George (catholic childhood)
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago
@ReligionlessFAITH I got what everyone has: reality to observe. I'm just one individual wondering why science hasn't picked up on this. Could it be the censors of knowledge have been too afraid to let this out because a creator kinda backs religion at first? Have they failed to carry the paradigm to its final product: religious gods = manmade gods? I can see how it might cause a bit of chaos but I bet a society based on reality would be worth it. Headline: Possible Creator Found! Gods extinct.
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago
Atheists are usually not the type to force anything on you. We actually just react to nonsense claims. Always ask yourself "why do I believe what I believe?". Atheists don't have to.
allanhill1 2 months ago
@allanhill1 I believe what I believe because my belief is founded on observations of nature(reality). I can't find evidence for spontaneous existence anywhere in nature. Denial of observation is not how science works. Atheists deny reality and replace it with ... nothing. Nature doesn't force us to believe that cause is the reason for effect, we can embrace this reality, or we can deny it. I deny philosphies which ignore reality and resort to magically delicious unsupported speculation.
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago
@ReligionlessFAITH In truth, I am more atheistic than you, even though my personal belief based on my own observations (which I don't force on anyone), is that spontaneous existence is improbable, likely impossible: in light of it's absence in nature. I found in my observations so far, a creator/creation (cause/effect) phenomenon universally present among all things. This is a truth. To me, it appears self-evident, from my own data. I welcome anyone to verify the data, and add to it.
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago
@ReligionlessFAITH My feeble mind can't help contemplate the origin of existence. It tells me to use my observations to try to understand. I see our reality as a web of cause/effect intstances in a fluid environment governed by what we think of as time as well as the other forces we observe.. There is space between these instances(existences) and space inside them, even if they're solid, or even if they're thought etc. This is what I have to work with. Your reality may be different. dunno
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago
@ReligionlessFAITH I believe reality is much the same for most of us through impressions of communication..and because I don't want to be lonely. I think I stumbled on the reason why science can't prove that religious gods don't exist. Science needs a truth to investigate, probe, experiment and confirm or deny, even though sometimes we get lucky and knowledge falls into our laps by accident or deflection from a misdirected or unrelated investigation.
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago
@ReligionlessFAITH I haven't said I've found proof of the existence of god. I found a truth...that all things are linked in a web of creator/creation association. Science can use this truth by axiom to build a paradigm when observations infer an improvable conclusion. So, armed with the axiom of creation we can interpolate a cause for our reality. We build a paradigm, a model to represent the nature of a creator of this reality. We find we have no technology to observe this creator. indefinable.
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago
@ReligionlessFAITH My skepticism of religion and my faith in science paid off. I can accept an indefinable creator,..It gives science the upper hand. Without the premise of the truth of a creator of reality, science can't evaluate ANY speculation about a creator/god. Now all gods can be held up against the paradigm of an indefinable creator to test for validity.The bickering stops. Those who would define the indefinable creator as any less or any more must now bring evidence.
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago
@ReligionlessFAITH I'd say, my atheistic desire to prove theist speculation as fantasy in an effort to curb religion's devastating effect on humanity is pretty clear by now... what have you done?
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
But your faith that a creator exists makes us nervous of you. Are you saying "Creator" or just the "First thing that moved" or something like that? Because, to me, I dont see anything other than a questionmark.
ReasonableAtheist 2 months ago
@ReasonableAtheist In our attempt to understand the origin of existence we encounter 2 possibilities. That our origin follows a universal self-evident trend of causality, or that it doesn't. We can stick with what we see happening as each instance of existence is created (caused) and build a paradigm based on what we see or we can abandon observation of reality, for a paradigm based on what we don't see. The former is built on observation and fact, the latter is built on speculation. Nobrainer
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
Sure, it seems reasonable but when you compare it to the complex universe, I'm just not sure I can buy it. I get your points, and they seem fairly reasonable after I've given it some thought (and allowed you to stop yelling AXIOM at us ;-0) I'm just not sure I can trust observations and allow them to guide me to that conclusion. I will say, it's a good attempt and I think it's at least a good, working thought experiment. I'm just not sure it'll jive with reality.
ReasonableAtheist 2 months ago
@ReasonableAtheist heh...at least we agree that anything is not always possible. Which brings me to the axiom of agreement....
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
I dont agree to that.
Sorry... had to jab at you once more... ha
ReasonableAtheist 2 months ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
"Your reality may be different. "
Perhaps, but probably not. The universe seems to have a reality even if we can not detect it directly.
Also, did you see the new numbers on the Fine Structure constant? Turns out, it may not be constant at all.
ReasonableAtheist 2 months ago
@ReasonableAtheist Duuh.. Ohh ckaayy. α feels like a pong ball when you get it trapped in a corner
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
What created bosons? What created first? What created hydrogen? What created the universal constants? What created a system where we see stuff as color, but that color is the rejected wavelengths having nothing to do with the original object- in other words, a green leaf is not green, it's everything BUT green. That's nonsense.
ReasonableAtheist 2 months ago
@ReasonableAtheist a photon is a boson. When an electron makes a jump from an orbital of higher energization to one of lower, a boson is caused to exist. I am unfamiliar with the other elementary bosons, but i'm sure they too have their cause. If first exists in a timeless reality, it wouldn't be expected to have a cause. A proton and a neutron combine to cause a hydrogen ion. If an electron is captured, it creates the hydrogen atom. Nature causes universal constants....
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
"Atheists deny reality and replace it with ... nothing."
No, I replace it with "something." But that's unknown as of yet.
ReasonableAtheist 2 months ago
@ReasonableAtheist :) same for me. not just unknown, but very likely unknowable...the cause for existence may have expended itself in causing this reality... like the salmon spawn, then die. We don't have the technology to bring the event back, or prove it beyond paradigm yet. Maybe some day we will. All kinda people keep tellin me god is jesus, or god is allah or god is this or that, or god is an invisible friend in the clouds...Bah! They may be gods, but they're not first cause, nor divine.
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago
@ReligionlessFAITH What really baffles me, is: most religions start with a perfect, omniscience theme, then embellish it, define it, and sell the god they create as truth. I understand exactly how they get away with it. the mainstream scientific community overlooks countless creations and creators (reality) and dismisses this constant "because we've never seen spontaneous existence". It's there, it's workable, what's the harm in building a model? and a new paradigm : religios terminus
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
"not just unknown, but very likely unknowable."
I would love to know why you railed against me when I said the exact same thing?
ReasonableAtheist 2 months ago
@ReasonableAtheist lol, bin looking, cant find where you said it.... maybe I misunderstood.
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago
No snow in Niagara yet
...could it be...
god is punishing you both with snow for assuming I'm just another braindead biblepusher?
(theme from twilight zone)
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
I grew up near Lake Placid. Niagara is nice, save the love canal... finger lakes adjacent.
ReasonableAtheist 2 months ago
@ReasonableAtheist Really makes you wonder that the worlds most brilliant minds still haven't learned not to put reactors near important aquafers, or seismic zones. Virtually all of them are in bad places. They just CAN'T be so STUPID!¿ It almost looks like the work of bizzaro! 104 reactors in N America 11 on the great lakes, 5 within 100 miles of me! if bizzaro wins this one, I'm a goner. We must remember to thank the politicalization of education which causes people to behave like it's ok.
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago
@ReligionlessFAITH please can we put all the reactors on fresh H20 reservoirs? Let's not agree where to put the waste, too. Accidents NEVER happen except Thorp, 3 mile island, Chernobyl, Sellafield, VT Yankee, Fukushima, SL-1, K-19, K-27, K-431, Kyshtym, Windscale, radiotherapy ax's in Costa Rica,Thailnd, Zaragoza, Morocco, Goiania, Mex City,Mayapuri... oh the Mihama explosion. And nobody attacks reactors except 6 times Al Tuwaitha Osirak Bushehr Iraq in 1991 Dimona and also Syria.
ReasonableAtheist 2 months ago
@ReligionlessFAITH
Cold weather yet? Or just no snow? Last year or so my mom picked me up from Syracuse airport and we drove up thru Pulaski where they had 11 feet of snow. I wish we had a huge mountain to catch the snow- it would make the best skiing ever. Also, too bad Buffalo has no major mountains!!
ReasonableAtheist 2 months ago
@ReasonableAtheist rain today,, been dipping to frost at night. The Allegany mountains are bout an hour from buffalo...nice snowmobile trails...some nice ski hills too. Not like out west i guess.
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago
So you used to say "god" and now you've backed off and now you say "creator" and you basically accept being called an agnostic or atheist even. I dont get you bro
And I'm not "dude" as you've been calling me, bro. I'm a lady-dude. Address me as such.
ReasonableAtheist 2 months ago
@ReasonableAtheist Whoa.. please accept my apology for assessing your gender based on my impression of your dialogue. I haven't met many lady-dudes and the ladies I've met generally don't tread on the topics we're discussing. My bad.
I was wondering when someone would call me on using the word god...but if you follow the dialogue, I do so when I discuss my own speculations about the creator. It indicates my acknowledgement that the creator i'm defining is manmade, not a proven entity.
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago
@ReasonableAtheist ok, lady-dude, :P...you don't get me?
I believe everyone has the right to observe document and assimilate information from reality. In turn we have the obligation to be skeptical enough to test any theories or truths we encounter with scientific method using the best available logic systems and most acute reasoning, to build testable paradigms where self-evidence fails truth. The axiom of creation used by theists is not the axiom of creation derived scientifically. get me?
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago
@ReligionlessFAITH I believe many groups - be they motivated by greed, charity, politics, or religion - REQUIRE us to cease observing and assimilating, and replace the only first-hand account we have the chance to make, with interpretations of someone else's speculations presented as truth: This is not reality, it is a pseudo-reality some people gladly accept. It is a violation of their right and denies them precious time they could spend learning from reality. get me now?
ReligionlessFAITH 2 months ago