Donnadogsoth Posted September 25, 2015 Posted September 25, 2015 Bold and underline is mine for emphasis. We already established he's anti-logic, so why keep trying to use it with him? On the contrary, logic is very important but if we take it too seriously we destroy everything.
Will Torbald Posted September 25, 2015 Posted September 25, 2015 On the contrary, logic is very important but if we take it too seriously we destroy everything. What's wrong with a little destruction?
thebeardslastcall Posted September 26, 2015 Posted September 26, 2015 On the contrary, logic is very important but if we take it too seriously we destroy everything. By taking it too seriously you mean applying it to things like God that make you uncomfortable when logic wins and "destroys everything" (that relates to God)? The whole point of philosophy is to use logic to identify and destroy uncomfortable truths to destroy everything religious and based on anti-rationality and lies and illogical beliefs. So if your everything is a lie, yes I mean to take it seriously enough to destroy that false belief set. You aren't there yet and may never get there if you keep rejecting logic where it's needed most for you to know the truth because you aren't ready for the truth this logic reveals yet as you cling to your mysticism and use different words to describe the situation (like calling it creativity) without understanding what they mean and that they don't actually counter or invalidate the logic presented against your beliefs. When you say logic is important you mean to say it's important so long as you can control where it applies and where it doesn't apply to protect your irrational sensibilities. You can trump one logic with a superior logic by showing the flaws or inadequacies in the logic, but not merely by saying 'insert magic creativity voodoo to invalidate your logic', which doesn't explain or teach anything or point to any flaws, but just says you think you're right without being able to explain why in any rational way.
Donnadogsoth Posted September 26, 2015 Posted September 26, 2015 That's quite a mouthful. I understand where you're coming from. It can be frustrating to consider that the eternal Source is beyond what a friend of mine calls "the Categories". But it is not unintelligible in principle. I give you an example from Cusa to hopefully explain the matter better. "...For God is in our domain, as vision is in the domain of color. Color can only be attained through vision, and so that any color whatsoever could be attained, the center of vision is without color. In the domain of color, therefore, vision is not found that is without color. Hence, in regard to the domain of color, vision is nothing rather than something. For the domain of color does not attain being outside its domain, but rather asserts that everything, which is, is inside its domain. And there it does not find vision. Vision, which exists without color, is therefore unnameable in the domain of color, since the name of no color corresponds to it. But vision gives every color its name through distinction. Hence all denomination in the domain of color depends on vision, and yet we have discovered, that the name of Him, from whom all names exist, is nothing rather than something. Therefore, God is to everything, as sight is to the visible."
Will Torbald Posted September 26, 2015 Posted September 26, 2015 That's quite a mouthful. I understand where you're coming from. It can be frustrating to consider that the eternal Source is beyond what a friend of mine calls "the Categories". But it is not unintelligible in principle. I give you an example from Cusa to hopefully explain the matter better. "...For God is in our domain, as vision is in the domain of color. Color can only be attained through vision, and so that any color whatsoever could be attained, the center of vision is without color. In the domain of color, therefore, vision is not found that is without color. Hence, in regard to the domain of color, vision is nothing rather than something. For the domain of color does not attain being outside its domain, but rather asserts that everything, which is, is inside its domain. And there it does not find vision. Vision, which exists without color, is therefore unnameable in the domain of color, since the name of no color corresponds to it. But vision gives every color its name through distinction. Hence all denomination in the domain of color depends on vision, and yet we have discovered, that the name of Him, from whom all names exist, is nothing rather than something. Therefore, God is to everything, as sight is to the visible." This is complete nonsense. 1
GailG Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 Time is an illusion. It's conceptual at its core. It exists without existing. Take a single second and keep dividing it until it no longer exists as anything but an abstract concept. Now, remember entanglement. If you split a photon and send the now entangled parts in opposite directions down fiber optic cables, then change the spin on one, the other simultaneously changes its spin accordingly. This is endlessly repeatable. How can this be? Einstein predicted it but hated his own prediction because it would, to his way of thinking, mean that information travelled faster than the speed of light. He didn't understand. Information doesn't travel faster than the speed of light. Here's how I think of it: Imagine a sheet of paper. Now imagine a pencil. Stick the pencil point through the paper near the top of the sheet. Now poke it out near the other end of the sheet. Imagine the paper as the reality we see around us. The body of the pencil is invisible to us because it is in another dimension that we cannot perceive. Now twist one of the ends of the pencil. The other twisted simultaneoudly. It's not that God exists outside of time. And it's not that God (if you want to call it that) has any power. If one of the parts of the pencil moves, it moves. It is more like an UN god. If life as we know it began as a singularity that explosively expanded, then it is most likely that WE are entangled. All-that-is, is what so many call God. I choose to believe that singularity/energy is and was sentient and sentience. Thus, from mind comes matter. In this way, we are gods, but God is an UN god. It is powerless.
Donnadogsoth Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 Time is an illusion. It's conceptual at its core. It exists without existing. Take a single second and keep dividing it until it no longer exists as anything but an abstract concept. Now, remember entanglement. If you split a photon and send the now entangled parts in opposite directions down fiber optic cables, then change the spin on one, the other simultaneously changes its spin accordingly. This is endlessly repeatable. How can this be? Einstein predicted it but hated his own prediction because it would, to his way of thinking, mean that information travelled faster than the speed of light. He didn't understand. Information doesn't travel faster than the speed of light. Here's how I think of it: Imagine a sheet of paper. Now imagine a pencil. Stick the pencil point through the paper near the top of the sheet. Now poke it out near the other end of the sheet. Imagine the paper as the reality we see around us. The body of the pencil is invisible to us because it is in another dimension that we cannot perceive. Now twist one of the ends of the pencil. The other twisted simultaneoudly. It's not that God exists outside of time. And it's not that God (if you want to call it that) has any power. If one of the parts of the pencil moves, it moves. It is more like an UN god. If life as we know it began as a singularity that explosively expanded, then it is most likely that WE are entangled. All-that-is, is what so many call God. I choose to believe that singularity/energy is and was sentient and sentience. Thus, from mind comes matter. In this way, we are gods, but God is an UN god. It is powerless. You're describing pantheism. It's a seductive view, which in its stripped down form gives us the advantages of theism without all the worship, and the beautiful sterility of atheism without the crassness. Very kumbaya with marshmallows. The (chief) problem with pantheism is that it doesn't explain Being's origin. It is just another "shit happens for no reason" stance. The Christian (mystical) conception of God is that he is anterior to Being and thus is the origin of the origin, that he is all in all, everything in everything, and nothing in nothing. Yet we as creatures are not God, even though God is everything in us. This is a richer understanding of Origin, God, and religion than the relatively malnourishing pantheism can provide. 1
Will Torbald Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 Time is an illusion. It's conceptual at its core. It exists without existing. Take a single second and keep dividing it until it no longer exists as anything but an abstract concept. Now, remember entanglement. If you split a photon and send the now entangled parts in opposite directions down fiber optic cables, then change the spin on one, the other simultaneously changes its spin accordingly. This is endlessly repeatable. How can this be? Einstein predicted it but hated his own prediction because it would, to his way of thinking, mean that information travelled faster than the speed of light. He didn't understand. Information doesn't travel faster than the speed of light. Here's how I think of it: Imagine a sheet of paper. Now imagine a pencil. Stick the pencil point through the paper near the top of the sheet. Now poke it out near the other end of the sheet. Imagine the paper as the reality we see around us. The body of the pencil is invisible to us because it is in another dimension that we cannot perceive. Now twist one of the ends of the pencil. The other twisted simultaneoudly. It's not that God exists outside of time. And it's not that God (if you want to call it that) has any power. If one of the parts of the pencil moves, it moves. It is more like an UN god. If life as we know it began as a singularity that explosively expanded, then it is most likely that WE are entangled. All-that-is, is what so many call God. I choose to believe that singularity/energy is and was sentient and sentience. Thus, from mind comes matter. In this way, we are gods, but God is an UN god. It is powerless. If you have some time to study the physics of time, it would be better to catch up on some concepts of time. To say that time is an illusion has absolutely no scientific value with proof, evidence, or use in any experiment. Here's a lecture by Richard Feynman about time: However, if time were an illusion, you could be able to travel to the past. You can't. Also, no, we are not entangled with each other. It is purely a rare physical phenomena between particles. That is the kind of new age woo woo that distorts real science. You're describing pantheism. It's a seductive view, which in its stripped down form gives us the advantages of theism without all the worship, and the beautiful sterility of atheism without the crassness. Very kumbaya with marshmallows. The (chief) problem with pantheism is that it doesn't explain Being's origin. It is just another "shit happens for no reason" stance. The Christian (mystical) conception of God is that he is anterior to Being and thus is the origin of the origin, that he is all in all, everything in everything, and nothing in nothing. Yet we as creatures are not God, even though God is everything in us. This is a richer understanding of Origin, God, and religion than the relatively malnourishing pantheism can provide. If something is before being even exists, it is being during unbeing, which is a contradiction.
Donnadogsoth Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 If you have some time to study the physics of time, it would be better to catch up on some concepts of time. To say that time is an illusion has absolutely no scientific value with proof, evidence, or use in any experiment. Here's a lecture by Richard Feynman about time: However, if time were an illusion, you could be able to travel to the past. You can't. Also, no, we are not entangled with each other. It is purely a rare physical phenomena between particles. That is the kind of new age woo woo that distorts real science. If something is before being even exists, it is being during unbeing, which is a contradiction. That's presuming God is mundane enough to merely exist.
thebeardslastcall Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 That's presuming God is mundane real enough to merely exist obey logic. Fixed. Fake things are immune to contradiction. You're still trying to use logic with someone rejecting logic Will. He's just trolling at this point.
Will Torbald Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Fixed. Fake things are immune to contradiction. You're still trying to use logic with someone rejecting logic Will. He's just trolling at this point. I used to be a theist, so I know that even small chips like these eventually crack the rock. Not overnight, and definitely not now, and probably not him, but if it's just one low cost sentence, I just pay the small toll.
Donnadogsoth Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 I used to be a theist, so I know that even small chips like these eventually crack the rock. Not overnight, and definitely not now, and probably not him, but if it's just one low cost sentence, I just pay the small toll. I used to be an atheist, I gave it my best shot, but I couldn't muster the faith to believe that everything came from nothing for no reason. There is nothing richer to contemplate, no morality more sublime, no consequence on human civilisation greater than the God of Christianity.
Will Torbald Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 I used to be an atheist, I gave it my best shot, but I couldn't muster the faith to believe that everything came from nothing for no reason. There is nothing richer to contemplate, no morality more sublime, no consequence on human civilisation greater than the God of Christianity. At least you're admitting it's just an aesthetic choice for you. You just like it. You just want to believe in it because it's pretty for you. I do however take notice of the comment on morality, and I thoroughly oppose it. Christianity is deeply amoral and immoral.
Donnadogsoth Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Aesthetic, moral, cultural, economic, and probably more are why it appeals to me. It is among the chief defenders of Western civilisation and on that count merits apology. But, I'm interested in knowing why you think Christianity is "deeply amoral and immoral".
Will Torbald Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Aesthetic, moral, cultural, economic, and probably more are why it appeals to me. It is among the chief defenders of Western civilisation and on that count merits apology. But, I'm interested in knowing why you think Christianity is "deeply amoral and immoral". "Obey my commandments or else hell" is not a moral theory, therfore amoral. Ignoring all other immoral acts being commited during the time of the bible and not mentioning that they were bad is passive acceptance, and considering you are supposedly taking the commandments of a know all being, for that deity not to mention those acts of immorality means he is cool with those. And all the other immoral acts that were actually encouraged, not just passively agreed with. Not to mention the fact that is is just not true, not even historically, and children are indoctrinated and propagandized in a human sacrifice death cult.
thebeardslastcall Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Aesthetic, moral, cultural, economic, and probably more are why it appeals to me. It is among the chief defenders of Western civilisation and on that count merits apology. But, I'm interested in knowing why you think Christianity is "deeply amoral and immoral". Morals are based in and on reason,reality, logic, and life. Religion is not. Religion denies these things and is a parasite on life.
Donnadogsoth Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 On the contrary, religion puts logic in its place, is eminently reasonable (viz. St. Thomas Aquinas), appeals to the highest reality, and gives immortal purpose and hope to life. Atheism leads to hedonism, nihilism, materialism, and is a general bummer.
shirgall Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Morals are based in and on reason,reality, logic, and life. Religion is not. Religion denies these things and is a parasite on life. On the contrary, religion puts logic in its place, is eminently reasonable (viz. St. Thomas Aquinas), appeals to the highest reality, and gives immortal purpose and hope to life. Atheism leads to hedonism, nihilism, materialism, and is a general bummer. There is no presented evidence of the claimed causal links nor are adjectives arguments. What are you two hoping to accomplish?
thebeardslastcall Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 You can't make arguments with someone that rejects logic and reason. I was simply noting that morality is based on that which he rejects, so he has no means of getting it. He defines morality by God, by illogic or anti-logic, as a base, so there is no where to go from there.
Donnadogsoth Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 For my part, I'm interested in knowing why Will Torbald thinks Christianity is "deeply amoral and immoral". Once people have accepted that nothing can produce everything for no reason, well, who's being irrational here?
Kurtis Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/44612-dont-feed-the-trolls/
shirgall Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Fair enough, thanks for answering my question.
thebeardslastcall Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 For my part, I'm interested in knowing why Will Torbald thinks Christianity is "deeply amoral and immoral". Once people have accepted that nothing can produce everything for no reason, well, who's being irrational here? You still.
Will Torbald Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 For my part, I'm interested in knowing why Will Torbald thinks Christianity is "deeply amoral and immoral". Once people have accepted that nothing can produce everything for no reason, well, who's being irrational here? I already gave my summary as to why. I'm not going to go point by point, just the general idea. If you wish to educate yourself on the immorality of christianity you can go to www.youtube.com and search "christianity is immoral" and you'll get many videos explaining it to you. Lots of debates. Really good stuff.
Troubador Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 The gold standard here has got to be secularism. When you strip everything down the most common reason people have this or that religion is down to the culture they grew up in and were exposed to. Now granted there are some people who convert later in life, but I'd be willing to guess that a majority of athiests have arrived at their conclusions in spite of cultural conditioning not because of them. In other words they have put a lot more thought into the buisness than the average theist. I'll state up front I am religous, and have no imminent plans to change from that position, but having studied several religions, there is literaly no case I can make using reasoning and logic that anyone should practice, and hold the same beliefs as I do, as opposed to any other of the myriad religions that exist. In fact the only case I can make is that having faith does seem to have a measurable positive effect on health, but I would be being intellectually dishonest if I tagged that to any one religion in particular. I am happy to discuss religion to all and sundry, but in discussions relating to how we structure society then we have to be grounded in the secular. There is absolutely no other way to slice it that I can see. I get where this god outside of time question comes from, but the moment one asserts the divine is unknowable, you've effectively made the divine untalkable aboutable in any meaningful sense, unless you are talking with people who agree with the premise that divinity is real in the first place. I am also of the firmly held view that religious organisations have been given a free pass way too many times, like child abuse in the catholic church, radical islamists to name but two. Whilst I am in favour of freedom of religion, that should never obsfucate the importance of the secularism that even allows that in the first place. Whatever I personally believe without secularism humanity is doomed to be in a state of perpetual warfare over what is the right thing to believe.
Donnadogsoth Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 I already gave my summary as to why. I'm not going to go point by point, just the general idea. If you wish to educate yourself on the immorality of christianity you can go to www.youtube.com and search "christianity is immoral" and you'll get many videos explaining it to you. Lots of debates. Really good stuff. Sounds like itching ears to me.
Donnadogsoth Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 The gold standard here has got to be secularism. When you strip everything down the most common reason people have this or that religion is down to the culture they grew up in and were exposed to. Now granted there are some people who convert later in life, but I'd be willing to guess that a majority of athiests have arrived at their conclusions in spite of cultural conditioning not because of them. In other words they have put a lot more thought into the buisness than the average theist. I'll state up front I am religous, and have no imminent plans to change from that position, but having studied several religions, there is literaly no case I can make using reasoning and logic that anyone should practice, and hold the same beliefs as I do, as opposed to any other of the myriad religions that exist. In fact the only case I can make is that having faith does seem to have a measurable positive effect on health, but I would be being intellectually dishonest if I tagged that to any one religion in particular. I am happy to discuss religion to all and sundry, but in discussions relating to how we structure society then we have to be grounded in the secular. There is absolutely no other way to slice it that I can see. I get where this god outside of time question comes from, but the moment one asserts the divine is unknowable, you've effectively made the divine untalkable aboutable in any meaningful sense, unless you are talking with people who agree with the premise that divinity is real in the first place. I am also of the firmly held view that religious organisations have been given a free pass way too many times, like child abuse in the catholic church, radical islamists to name but two. Whilst I am in favour of freedom of religion, that should never obsfucate the importance of the secularism that even allows that in the first place. Whatever I personally believe without secularism humanity is doomed to be in a state of perpetual warfare over what is the right thing to believe. Don't forget the threat of secularism wedding itself to Leviathan and producing a new communist-style totalitarianism, this time with homofascism and feminism in key places. We're closer to that than most might think.
Will Torbald Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Sounds like itching ears to me. That is very disrespectful and unnecessary.
Donnadogsoth Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 That is very disrespectful and unnecessary. You call me, my God and my Christ immoral, and the question arises why, and you wave in the direction of YouTube without even providing a single link? How is that respectful?
Will Torbald Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 You call me, my God and my Christ immoral, and the question arises why, and you wave in the direction of YouTube without even providing a single link? How is that respectful? You didn't read my post before that one where I said why: "Obey my commandments or else hell" is not a moral theory, therfore amoral. Ignoring all other immoral acts being commited during the time of the bible and not mentioning that they were bad is passive acceptance, and considering you are supposedly taking the commandments of a know all being, for that deity not to mention those acts of immorality means he is cool with those. And all the other immoral acts that were actually encouraged, not just passively agreed with. Not to mention the fact that is is just not true, not even historically, and children are indoctrinated and propagandized in a human sacrifice death cult. Here's a short list of all the cruelties of the god of the bible: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.htmlHere's another one where god has no morals and contradicts his own commandments like "don't kill" and then he goes on to kill: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html I said that you should educate yourself with the countless presentations on youtube made about it. I don't have the time to go one by one, just point you in the direction you should take to have more awareness of your chosen superstition. Since you want one given to you here, watch this one on the ten commandments: Here's another on the irrationality of god And before you say "but that's not Jesus" remember that Jesus very well said that everything in the past is ok by him, and that the god of the Jews is his god, and that he is super ok with human sacrifice to retroactively save people of imaginary sins from the mythical original man and woman. Therefore an amoral and immoral human sacrifice death cult.
Will Torbald Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 The gold standard here has got to be secularism. When you strip everything down the most common reason people have this or that religion is down to the culture they grew up in and were exposed to. Now granted there are some people who convert later in life, but I'd be willing to guess that a majority of athiests have arrived at their conclusions in spite of cultural conditioning not because of them. In other words they have put a lot more thought into the buisness than the average theist. I'll state up front I am religous, and have no imminent plans to change from that position, but having studied several religions, there is literaly no case I can make using reasoning and logic that anyone should practice, and hold the same beliefs as I do, as opposed to any other of the myriad religions that exist. In fact the only case I can make is that having faith does seem to have a measurable positive effect on health, but I would be being intellectually dishonest if I tagged that to any one religion in particular. I am happy to discuss religion to all and sundry, but in discussions relating to how we structure society then we have to be grounded in the secular. There is absolutely no other way to slice it that I can see. I get where this god outside of time question comes from, but the moment one asserts the divine is unknowable, you've effectively made the divine untalkable aboutable in any meaningful sense, unless you are talking with people who agree with the premise that divinity is real in the first place. I am also of the firmly held view that religious organisations have been given a free pass way too many times, like child abuse in the catholic church, radical islamists to name but two. Whilst I am in favour of freedom of religion, that should never obsfucate the importance of the secularism that even allows that in the first place. Whatever I personally believe without secularism humanity is doomed to be in a state of perpetual warfare over what is the right thing to believe. I agree with this except for one single objection. Secularism is not the gold standard. It's a copper standard at best. The silver standard would be agnosticism. The gold standard is hard, rational, scientific, philosophical atheism for all. That is the true liberation of the human mind. The final freedom is not anarchy. It's the end of superstition.
Donnadogsoth Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 You didn't read my post before that one where I said why: Here's a short list of all the cruelties of the god of the bible: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.htmlHere's another one where god has no morals and contradicts his own commandments like "don't kill" and then he goes on to kill: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html I said that you should educate yourself with the countless presentations on youtube made about it. I don't have the time to go one by one, just point you in the direction you should take to have more awareness of your chosen superstition. Since you want one given to you here, watch this one on the ten commandments: Here's another on the irrationality of god And before you say "but that's not Jesus" remember that Jesus very well said that everything in the past is ok by him, and that the god of the Jews is his god, and that he is super ok with human sacrifice to retroactively save people of imaginary sins from the mythical original man and woman. Therefore an amoral and immoral human sacrifice death cult. I think my human sacrifice death cult is a good idea and here's why: You and AronRa are talking like Pharisees. You're focussing on the jots and the tittles of the ancient Jewish laws while missing the spirit of Christianity. I won't go so far as to say you're alienated from the Holy Spirit, but you certainly haven't registered the concept of the sublime as manifested by Christ. The essence of the concept of the sublime, is the transformation or metaphorical peripetaia of tragedy, creating a species of triumph, a triumph through tragedy. Christ, as the most human of humans, was put to death by the Romans at the instigation of the Pharisees for the crime of threatening the “powers and principalities” of the world, which is what Christians continue to do today. This set in motion a force that would eventually absorb Rome, fight off Islam, generate the Renaissance and lead to the globally-extended European civilisation that ended slavery, brought hundreds of millions out of poverty, and went to the Moon. China didn't do this. Africa didn't do this. Islam didn't do this, but Christendom did, on the basis of the principle of the sublime. The modern atheist Pharisees would have us believe that Christianity is a mere rider to the success of art, politics, economics, and science over the past 2,000 years, rather than a force for positive change fighting a difficult battle against entrenched wickedness within and without. Cancel this human sacrifice death cult and you cancel the sublime, and then God help us.
Will Torbald Posted October 4, 2015 Posted October 4, 2015 I think my human sacrifice death cult is a good idea and here's why: You and AronRa are talking like Pharisees. You're focussing on the jots and the tittles of the ancient Jewish laws while missing the spirit of Christianity. I won't go so far as to say you're alienated from the Holy Spirit, but you certainly haven't registered the concept of the sublime as manifested by Christ. The essence of the concept of the sublime, is the transformation or metaphorical peripetaia of tragedy, creating a species of triumph, a triumph through tragedy. Christ, as the most human of humans, was put to death by the Romans at the instigation of the Pharisees for the crime of threatening the “powers and principalities” of the world, which is what Christians continue to do today. This set in motion a force that would eventually absorb Rome, fight off Islam, generate the Renaissance and lead to the globally-extended European civilisation that ended slavery, brought hundreds of millions out of poverty, and went to the Moon. China didn't do this. Africa didn't do this. Islam didn't do this, but Christendom did, on the basis of the principle of the sublime. The modern atheist Pharisees would have us believe that Christianity is a mere rider to the success of art, politics, economics, and science over the past 2,000 years, rather than a force for positive change fighting a difficult battle against entrenched wickedness within and without. Cancel this human sacrifice death cult and you cancel the sublime, and then God help us. Nothing in this is about morality, as it shows in your deflection when you have nothing to defend. Your concept of the sublime is an abstraction of real human endeavor and emotion. It is nothing metaphysical. Yes, the christians as a whole did good things, but also bad things. None of that makes it true. None of that makes it moral. None of that takes away the opium you are consuming through delusion.
Donnadogsoth Posted October 4, 2015 Posted October 4, 2015 Nothing in this is about morality, as it shows in your deflection when you have nothing to defend. Your concept of the sublime is an abstraction of real human endeavor and emotion. It is nothing metaphysical. Yes, the christians as a whole did good things, but also bad things. None of that makes it true. None of that makes it moral. None of that takes away the opium you are consuming through delusion. More respect, I see. Take away the appeal to the immortality of the human soul, take away agape, take away imago viva Dei (creativity), and mankind neither has any compass nor engine, nor is of any consequence in the universe, and shall, as he should, wither to nothing.
Will Torbald Posted October 4, 2015 Posted October 4, 2015 More respect, I see. Take away the appeal to the immortality of the human soul, take away agape, take away imago viva Dei (creativity), and mankind neither has any compass nor engine, nor is of any consequence in the universe, and shall, as he should, wither to nothing. And all of those things are made up. Complete fantasy. Humanity does have a compass called reason which brings forth philosophy and science. Humans mold the universe around them, they don't need to be told what to do by the univrse. Our endeavors last generations even when our bodies don't. We are immortal in our ideas.
Recommended Posts