Do You Have a Thinking Problem?
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Friday, April 24, 2026 00:33
VIEWED: 13256
PAGE 15 of 17
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Maybe they're mean, jealous, and abritrary and can only be placated by lots and lots of blood.
We can only hope
Quote:
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
The funny part is that you had this sig before the arguement started.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It's very clear that Bush and the Christofascists stay away from the New Testament as if it would burn their fingers.
I heard somebody say one time that if all you believed in was the Old Testament that it meant you were Jewish, no ifs ands or buts.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i just want to address your comments. proof, can mean a number of things... do we have proof that the north won the civil war? thats considered a fact...even though it is more a subjective historical obvservation.
We destroyed their military, we conquered their territory. By the standards of history that means we won. Now the fact that many people in the South prefer to believe that the Civil War is still going on is not much different from a Frenchman disliking Germany because of WW1 and 2 (and all the other times too). It's just a little more pronounced because we are supposed to be one united country.
Quote:
so what about all of the cultures of the ancient world..as far back as is documented, reporting of "gods" and superhuman entities and encounters?
Attempts to explain natural phenomena that defied the knowledge of the day. We understand now how lightning works, we can produce lightning at will therefore we no longer atribute it to the gods. We understand how viri and bacteria work, we understand genetic mutation, we understand the seasons, we no longer need to explain these using supernatural terms so the old gods and supernatural encounters have fallen by the wayside.
Quote:
apparently none of those facts matter since Darwin came along; and i think their is a fair bit of hypocracy, since evolution is to rely on a belief that Man simply evolved from apes, period; considering all of our ancestors believed differently, why arent their belifs taken into account?
First off, you are wrong, as someone here said apes and humans came from a common ancestor (and if you go back farther most mammals came from one or two ancestors), we did not come from apes. Read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawlins for an education on evolution.
As to why our ancestors beliefs aren't taken into account on the matter, simple: their beliefs are not substantiated by any reputable science, Darwin is. Our ancestors believed that lightning bolts were thrown by Zues or Thor (or was it Odin?) whenever and wherever they felt like, we know now that they were wrong.
Quote:
-why does God allow people to do evil things and compromise their eternal destinies? first of all, Man sins out of his own freewill; if you dont believe in God, or Satan, then what causes you to do negetive things? thats right, you.
But if I've never had the chance to read the bible then I don't know what is wrong, I don't know that I'm not suposed to work on Sunday, I don't know that I'm not allowed to make an idol of god. If God hasn't put a bible in my hands and given me the means to read it I don't know what's right and wrong according to god.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It’s probably true that you do put the threshold out much further then I do for certain things, but I think it is also true that you do not apply it objectively. Your tolerance for supernatural concepts is higher where the perceived association with Western philosophies is small, such as Christianity. You have made an effort to discredit Christian belief by pointing to what you call its “pro-Western bigotry,” even attempting to align scientific materialism with “Christian ideology,” which is completely at odds with history. However, I don’t draw a distinction here. I don’t view one person’s unprovable supernatural concept necessarily superior to another, because of cultural or religious distinctions. I don’t say that Christianity is more “real” then Islam, Buddhism or a host of other religions. And I don’t believe that any such distinction between what is known can be made between the Eastern and the Western philosophies. Concepts like psychic powers are Western in origin, going back to Greek, Roman and Celtic religious practices. Although the way they are thought of today is a product of the 19th century.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I think our argument, Finn, is over where the threshold of the unknowable lies. I think it's a little farther off than you do. There is a lot in the West that is considered unknowable that is common knowledge around the world.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Your tolerance for supernatural concepts is higher where the perceived association with Western philosophies is small, such as Christianity. You have made an effort to discredit Christian belief by pointing to what you call its “pro-Western bigotry,” even attempting to align scientific materialism with “Christian ideology,” which is completely at odds with history. However, I don’t draw a distinction here. I don’t view one person’s unprovable supernatural concept necessarily superior to another, because of cultural or religious distinctions. I don’t say that Christianity is more “real” then Islam, Buddhism or a host of other religions. And I don’t believe that any such distinction between what is known can be made between the Eastern and the Western philosophies. Concepts like psychic powers are Western in origin, going back to Greek, Roman and Celtic religious practices. Although the way they are thought of today is a product of the 19th century.
Finn, I know you're an historian, but I dare say that you haven't studied the history of paranormal phenomena very widely or deeply, if this is what you think.
Psychic awareness is by no means "Western in origin." Where did you get that idea? Nor is it "non-Western," except to the degree that we here in the West, more than any other culture in the world, have the peculiar need to discredit and discount people's actual experiences in favor of abstract principles and dogma. Shamanistic practices which incorporate everything you might construe as "psychic" have been part of cultures across the globe including that of the ancient celts (I'm not using "Western" to make a literal geographical distinction, however; I'm talking about Western Culture and Occidental Tradition which does take in the Ancient Greeks but is dominated by Judeo-Christian tradition).
In this context, the "West" does not exist in binary opposition to the "East," but to all things "non-Western." In this context, Christianity and scientific materialism are both part of a Western tradition. The Enlightenment was a specifically Western historical moment brought about by the excesses of Christian Theocracy.
Nonetheless, both Christianity as practiced and the modern scientific mindset have a powerful colonial bent; debunking aboriginal science where ever they find it. Both modern scientific materialists and the Church have been greatly concerned with worldy power, though Science is by far more honest about it. And I'm not so much concerned with "Christian belief" as I am with Christian practice.
You say that my "tolerance for supernatural concepts is higher where the perceived association with Western philosophies is small." Firstly, whatever tolerance I have for what you would concider supernatural is born out of my experiences. I don't believe in a supernatural, I find it insulting, mostly. "The supernatural" was originally a Christian concept to describe their god that exists "outside of nature." Christians and scientists both happily use the term to trump each other in this endless agon between "science" and "religion."
My experience has shown me that certain phenomena which both sides of that debate consider supernatural are not (e.g.: so-called spirits and precognition). But certain other phenomena which y'all consider supernatural may very well be nothing but supernatural (e.g.: the Pearly Gates and the Lake of Fire).
For instance, if a Christian told me that Jesus spoke to them through the television set, I wouldn't discount the experience because of its Christian gloss. I wouldn't rule out that some non-corporial "spirit" spoke to this person as I have observed such things happening. Nor even would I discount that it was a message from that level of mind folks in the New Age like to call "Christ consciousness," but I'd be very interested at that point in what this person's Jesus told them. I am very interested in personal experience and practice, and largely uninterested in, and unsatisfied wi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Huh... How to begin? Has it ever occurred to you that the Bible might not just be a wee bit tweaked but completely false at it's core? That everything you THINK you know... about God, the Bible, Lucifer.... is completely and ruinously wrong?
if the bible, as we all know it, were false, or crucially skewed, what chance would we have had throughout history to recognize Gods profound truths and prophetic enlightenments?
How does one demonstrate that the Bible refers to anything consequential at all? Maybe this particular book at best describes the peculiar beliefs of a bunch of goatherders. Maybe God's a "she". Maybe there are more than one. Maybe they're mean, jealous, and abritrary and can only be placated by lots and lots of blood. Maybe there is none at all.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
it has occurred to me that the bible was false...actually, i grew up, like everyone here im sure, being told that its merely some fanciful story meant to control people; ive certainly heard that all the different spin and propoganda before. the problem is that history ultimately does not support that premise. have you sincerely ever considered that it may be true? because suddenly all the volumes of occult knowledge, which is INSEPERABLE from the PROVEN NWO agenda, which is occurring as we speak, certainly counts as evidence to support the bibles claims. that is why i believe the bible is accurate...as i said, that was an anecdotel example, out of faith..but i have plently of historical incidents which i feel are foretold prophetically in the bible, which i reference constantly. it would be one thing if you couldnt tie the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers to the Illuminati, but you can; seeing as how they own the worlds central Banks, and the Banks run the world..it is not too far a stretch to make the connections here
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The problem is that these people you point to have had the script for the last couple of millennia. People are not above using the bible to their own ends ! We've seen this ad nauseam. All they have to do is find a convenient paradigm to plug into and crank their agenda for all it's worth. That to me doesn't speak to god's universal power. I would find this more convincing if, suddenly, isolated Indonesians started following the script. THEN you'd have my attention.
the problem is that history ultimately does not support that premise. have you sincerely ever considered that it may be true? because suddenly all the volumes of occult knowledge, which is INSEPERABLE from the PROVEN NWO agenda, which is occurring as we speak, certainly counts as evidence to support the bibles claims.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
the bible can be used as a tool, such as Bush is doing, by using false doctrines to rile up a voter base which votes almost entirely upon party(perceived-religious) lines; ill grant that. only that does not make it an accurate interpretation of Jesus' message, nor does the bible condone such actions. the bible does not support their agenda to create a global fascist oligarchy..it is opposed to it; so im not sure how the bible benefits them in a way akin to it being a manufactured political divice. the bible warns us of this agenda, and tells us to oppose it with love and Gods word.
if im wrong, give me a better explanation as to why their are world elites who are admitted members of occult societies? if the bible is a fairy tell, why do they worship lucifer? honostly, i wanna know.... what are the odds that so many prominant American officials, including our last 2 presidential candidates, were member of the order of death? if it is all just fun and games, why is it all soo secretive; why wont the elite allow independant press inside Bohemian grove, or the Bilderberg conferences? why would masonry go to such lengths to actually incorporate idolatrous imagery into their heritages? i am never given good reasons for this.
if you want to argue that worshipping Lucifer does not mean he actually exists, then that is a seperate arguement(that neither of us can prove, as the creation debates tend to go). but then i think its strange that the people who actually run the world behind the scenes, the elite bloodlines and institutions, hold such Satanic idealogical beliefs..just as the bible states.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here's where I find the crux (you may place it elsewhere).
If im wrong, give me a better explanation as to why there are world elites who are admitted members of occult societies?
Because those particular world leaders grew up in cultures that created those occult societies? Because those belief systems are part of those cultures?
You might as well be asking why these world leaders use iron tools, or write using a particular script, or wear pants rather than kilts.
To put it another way, if the Chinese started following a scenario NOT in their culture, I WOULD wonder why. I might wonder what unnatural force held sway.
Otherwise, for these particular leaders, I'd just say they are practicing what their own cultures have taught them.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No it's a question of agree with CTS or your merely being insulting and not making a case. It's rhetorical nonsense from someone who seems to desperately want to re-label religion as a type of science. You and CTS go believe in Intelligent Design all you want, but it isn't science and it isn't logical.
Originally posted by Finn Mac Cumhal:
This debate is not about logic, as some wish to frame it. It is about an assessment of truth. SimonWho wants you believe that only his truth is logical, not CTS, because he wants you to believe that only his truth is right.
Quote:A postulate isn't a faith, it's an idea that you try and prove, if you can't prove it the idea is accepted as wrong, or most likely wrong. With faith you work backwards and if the data doesn't fit you make it fit, an inherently illogical process.
Concepts based on faith are the foundations of truth. In mathematics, they are called postulates. And logic flows from these.
A postulate is an idea, faith is the 'truth' and if something doesn't fit the ‘truth’ it is wrong, rather than revaluating the ‘truth’.
Quote:If I said psychic phenomena is true because I thought I read someone’s mind once, despite there being other possible explanations that would be illogical, just like, say, deciding there must be a god because you felt gods presence once when there are explanations that can be verified that don't include an almighty is illogical.
Many of you, including HK and Citizen, have claimed to have undeniable “psychic” experiences, of which you cannot prove or even provide evidence of. These ideas are set forth axiomatically, not proven; they’re based on faith.
Point is your flat out lying, I never said belief in the paranormal is inherently logical and religion and psychic phenomena being the same thing is only true if we accept YOUR beliefs, ergo the only person setting their beliefs up as better than everyone else’s is you.
Your framing of the debate that there is no scientific evidence for psychic phenomena is funny, just because the field of parapsychology doesn't support your view of the world doesn't mean it doesn't exist, sorry.
Quote:Your right about the first part, we're not trying to prove that CTS is illogical, that was her framing of the debate to silence dissent ("either you agree with me or your insulting me", hey that's kind of like "either your with us or your against us"). The "our religion is better than hers" thing is your attempt to silence dissent through a different type of rhetoric.
They are essentially religion. So what SimonWho, HK and Citizen have set upon doing here is not to prove that CTS is illogical, but rather that their religion is better then hers.
Quote:Which thread were you responding to here? It wasn't this one, unless you’re talking to CTS, I suppose on a non-strict reading of some of the things she's said that could apply.
The truth is that none of us have a mandate on the truth. None of us have complete knowledge of the universe. None of us can say for sure that what he or she sees or experiences or knows is the real universe or just how he or she is interpreting it.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME