IT.COM

What's going on with Epik and Rob Monster?

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

MapleDots

Account Closed (Requested)
Impact
13,169
I'm catching the tail end of this, seems to be some kind of controversy...

https://domaingang.com/domain-news/rob-monster-off-twitter-after-christchurch-massacre-controversy/

Must be something odd to evoke this type of a response from one of our members.

Picture0016.png
 
8
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
I just feel sorry for all those humans that walked the earth for the 198,000 years before the heavens seemingly decided to intervene. Presumably they're all in hell now?

how about the Neanderthal man?

would "god" take care of these poor guys too?
 
0
•••
2
•••
I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse, but to clear there is a God of the universe (YHWH) and there is a God of this world (Satan).

Until you understand the existence of the duality of Good and Evil as being not the product of random interactions but ultimately orchestrated by YHWH and Satan, very little of the world will make sense.

more or less very little of what you talk about makes sense
when you don't believe in a counter part
opposing an all-mighty - all-knowing being

makes no sense to oppose an all-mighty guy
right?


and the beginning of all problems of the world is
thinking there is a duality

duality creates all problems

but duality was invented by men
so he can understand the universe

in realty
it's all ONE
 
0
•••
0
•••
So, yes, evil is rampant. The God of this world, Satan, wants the people who worship him to demonstrate their allegiance. In return, he damns their soul but may give them fame, fortune and carnal pleasure.

At the end of the rabbit hole, you will find this simple truth: Satan is real but Jesus Christ is Lord.

Satan is real in the mind of sick men

who try to enhance their tiny being
in creating fear in vulnerable weak people mind

creating a position of power and strenght
versus the weak whom they try to influence

its all about power and influence

sick stories
of sick men
 
Last edited:
0
•••
With all the discussion about hate and disorder, I just wanted to share something random about light. There is a simple but short story of order that you can find in LIGHT. It comes in threes.

As everyone knows, the three primary colors are red, green and blue. Blended they make white light. When beamed through a prism you get the 7 colors of the rainbow.

Show attachment 117709

The sun itself has 3 types of rays: light rays that you can see but you can’t feel, heat rays that you can feel but you can’t see, and actinic rays (like UV) that you can neither see nor feel and yet matter.

More here:


People can get mad at each other or they can acknowledge the distinct possibility that there is a Creator and he is using our differences for some unified purpose. I strongly believe that.

The pieces to the puzzle are all around us. The folks here who are stakeholders on the Internet play an important rule. Some of you are unsung heroes and don't even realize it yet. Your day is coming though.


what a crazy idea
( want to be polite today )

the 3 parts of god

WHY

who has ever understand that ??

you may only believe in the one and only god
-->
but he is 3

what for?

one is one
and not 3

the holy spirit
poor guy
what is he for?

you guys know how to make people mad

and actualy :
now the 3 colors of light
there are no 3 colors in that diagram but 7
3 beams
but only 1 light
7 colors

you know how to confuse people

what a BS
my cat has 2 colors
black and white

so there must be only 2 gods
or none
as those are no colors

and the sun shine was yellow today
....


so glad
most of the time
I ignore you
 
0
•••
I do completely know first hand that there are many lovely Muslims.


must have been the women

.. do you understand how insulting that phrase is in the first place?????
 
0
•••
Do you accept evolution is real?

Yes, of course. If you missed that, then you're not reading what I wrote very thoroughly.

The above is just a quick sanity check to determine whether it's worthwhile discussing any of this further.

So you would not deign to discuss differences of opinion with someone who disagrees with you? Let's say, with someone who disbelieves in evolution like Rob? In that case, what on earth are you doing?

And someone who doesn't believe in evolution isn't simply mistaken; rather, they are insane? My, my, you are generous with those you argue with.

Out of interest, do you agree with Robs last post? Or can you still see how nutty it is?

No, I don't agree with Rob's views. Since most people will view Rob's views as "nutty" without me commenting on them, I don't bother. However, when someone exploits Rob's individual views as an excuse to denigrate billions of people, as you are doing, then I chime in.

For the record, your ill informed, anti-religious posture strikes me nutty, offensive, and pernicious. This pop cult or fad of anti-religious dogmatism has more worshippers than Rob's outlier worldview does.

As an atheist myself, I find your dogmatism and intolerance especially abhorrent. There is plenty in religion that I would criticize as mistaken or morally objectionable. Likewise, in a secular society, there are plenty of viewpoints that I would criticize as mistaken or morally objectionable. But, unlike you, I don't see myself as belonging to a class of special, enlightened individuals who are entitled to declare billions of their neighbors "barbaric" and "poisonous".

True, I don't believe in God or gods. But I want a tolerant, free, pluralistic society that allows incompatible world views to coexist peacefully with mutual respect – including atheists like me, christians, muslims, jews, everybody. Unlike you, I don't believe other groups are a "Poison" to be eradicated.

It took thousands of years to evolve a worldview that can dispense with God or gods. We have only had access to such a worldview for about 150 years out of 200,000 years of homo sapiens. Beliefs don't change overnight everywhere. Here and there, some societies become secular. Here and there, some people become tolerant. Here and there, some people become deists or agnostics or atheists. Meanwhile, older beliefs linger.

For the people who just changed their mind yesterday to declare the people who haven't changed their mind yet as "Poison" is unjust and harmful. A more reasonable attitude would be to allow people who haven't yet been converted to the new ideology (such as atheism) to gradually come around, over the course of generations as necessary, based on persuasion and voluntary change – or not, if they choose not to.

I'm very skeptical of people who want to create an instantly "pure" society over night by eliminating some group or belief system – whether through genocide, state censorship, building a wall, or simply through stigma and ostracism.

You seem to have intentionally misinterpreted me.

How so? You need to explain.

As I said, we'll never know what route humanity might have taken if it were not for religion dominating the economic and social framework of much of the last 2000 years. To suggest I write a fictional narrative of this alternative timeline is both silly and pointless

I agree that it would be silly. But that is your point of view, after all.

You say that humanity could have reached the present point without religion along the way. In that case, there must be some alternative route by which the same progress could have been achieved without any history of religion.

I deny that such a path exists. You assert that it does. Demonstrably, history did not take such a path. Your path is fiction. But you believe that it was possible. So you ought to attempt to explain what that path – that alternative history of the world without religion – would be like.

Really, your faith in this nonexistent path – this world history of progress without religion – is like another person's faith in an omnipotent unseen God. Once you're asked to explain it, your viewpoint dissolves in a puddle of hissing bubbles.

But religion belongs in the past

In that case what do you recommend be done with the billions of people whom you consider poisonous? Boycott? Exile? Imprisonment? Forced re-education? Concentration camps? No solution would be too severe. After all, you are the Doctor curing humanity of a Poison that has caused unspeakable harm.

The irony is that your dogmatism and intolerance are no different from the dogmatism and intolerance of the Church that you say stifled progress. When the theory of evolution first appeared, people regarded it as a Poison that would damage society.

During the Spanish Inquisition, muslims, jews, and heretics were regarded as a Poison that needed to be cured through torture. Hitler regarded Jews as a Poison that needed to be eradicated. Saying that religion – or any group of people or any idea – is a "poison" leads logically to repression of that poisonous influence.

As you say:

And I don't take back the barbarism comment. But I apply it equally to all religions, not just Islam. Religion, is a danger to society

So what do you propose? Concentration camps? I prefer a tolerant, free, pluralistic society.

Rabid intolerance of those you disagree with is not progress. You have retrogressed to the old internecine conflicts of tribalism, sectarianism, of "us" versus "them". The "Other" is always portrayed as Poison. But it is that attitude that is the real poison.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
For the record, your ill informed, anti-religious posture strikes me nutty, offensive, and pernicious. This pop cult or fad of anti-religious dogmatism has more worshippers than Rob's outlier worldview does.

LOVE THIS SENTENCE :xf.smile:

Pernicious - I'm going to have to use that word a few times until I can make it my own (y)
 
2
•••
Yes, of course. If you missed that, then you're not reading what I wrote very thoroughly.



So you would not deign to discuss differences of opinion with someone who disagrees with you? Let's say, with someone who disbelieves in evolution like Rob? In that case, what on earth are you doing?

And someone who doesn't believe in evolution isn't simply mistaken; rather, they are insane? My, my, you are generous with those you argue with.



No, I don't agree with Rob's views. Since most people will view Rob's views as "nutty" without me commenting on them, I don't bother. However, when someone exploits Rob's individual views as an excuse to denigrate billions of people, as you are doing, then I chime in.

For the record, your ill informed, anti-religious posture strikes me nutty, offensive, and pernicious. This pop cult or fad of anti-religious dogmatism has more worshippers than Rob's outlier worldview does.

As an atheist myself, I find your dogmatism and intolerance especially abhorrent. There is plenty in religion that I would criticize as mistaken or morally objectionable. Likewise, in a secular society, there are plenty of viewpoints that I would criticize as mistaken or morally objectionable. But, unlike you, I don't see myself as belonging to a class of special, enlightened individuals who are entitled to declare billions of their neighbors "barbaric" and "poisonous".

True, I don't believe in God or gods. But I want a tolerant, free, pluralistic society that allows incompatible world views to coexist peacefully with mutual respect – including atheists like me, christians, muslims, jews, everybody. Unlike you, I don't believe other groups are a "Poison" to be eradicated.

It took thousands of years to evolve a worldview that can dispense with God or gods. We have only had access to such a worldview for about 150 years out of 200,000 years of homo sapiens. Beliefs don't change overnight everywhere. Here and there, some societies become secular. Here and there, some people become tolerant. Here and there, some people become deists or agnostics or atheists. Meanwhile, older beliefs linger.

For the people who just changed their mind yesterday to declare the people who haven't changed their mind yet as "Poison" is unjust and harmful. A more reasonable attitude would be to allow people who haven't yet been converted to the new ideology (such as atheism) to gradually come around, over the course of generations as necessary, based on persuasion and voluntary change – or not, if they choose not to.

I'm very skeptical of people who want to create an instantly "pure" society over night by eliminating some group or belief system – whether through genocide, state censorship, building a wall, or simply through stigma and ostracism.



How so? You need to explain.



I agree that it would be silly. But that is your point of view, after all.

You say that humanity could have reached the present point without religion along the way. In that case, there must be some alternative route by which the same progress could have been achieved without any history of religion.

I deny that such a path exists. You assert that it does. Demonstrably, history did not take such a path. Your path is fiction. But you believe that it was possible. So you ought to attempt to explain what that path – that alternative history of the world without religion – would be like.

Really, your faith in this nonexistent path – this world history of progress without religion – is like another person's faith in an omnipotent unseen God. Once you're asked to explain it, your viewpoint dissolves in a puddle of hissing bubbles.



In that case what do you recommend be done with the billions of people whom you consider poisonous? Boycott? Exile? Imprisonment? Forced re-education? Concentration camps? No solution would be too severe. After all, you are the Doctor curing humanity of a Poison that has caused unspeakable harm.

The irony is that your dogmatism and intolerance are no different from the dogmatism and intolerance of the Church that you say stifled progress. When the theory of evolution first appeared, people regarded it as a Poison that would damage society.

During the Spanish Inquisition, muslims, jews, and heretics were regarded as a Poison that needed to be cured through torture. Hitler regarded Jews as a Poison that needed to be eradicated. Saying that religion – or any group of people or any idea – is a "poison" leads logically to repression of that poisonous influence.

As you say:



So what do you propose? Concentration camps? I prefer a tolerant, free, pluralistic society.

Rabid intolerance of those you disagree with is not progress. You have retrogressed to the old internecine conflicts of tribalism, sectarianism, of "us" versus "them". The "Other" is always portrayed as Poison. But it is that attitude that is the real poison.

Crikey... You seem to have jumped from me suggesting that the nonsensical and often unpleasant views of religious people should be called out, to allegations that I want to exterminate and torture people. That's a hell of a leap.

No - I just want to be free to call out their fairytale beliefs for what they are. Particularly as religious dogma once again appears to be driving much policy making. And let's not forget, many "kind and peaceful" religious people believe people like me will face an eternity of torture in hell... But I'm meant to respect this abhorrent position? Think about this for a second. Rob is quite happy for me to burn and suffer for all eternity - in fact he thinks it's a good thing that I do. Amazing!

Would you bother debating with someone that refused to believe gravity exists. That Oxygen isn't required for human respiration? Sometimes it's worth checking just how nuts someone is before continuing... But I admit I had lost track of the fact you're not actually religious, so in that sense I needn't have been so worried.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
No - I just want to be free to call out their fairytale beliefs for what they are. Particularly as religious dogma once again appears to be driving much policy making. And let's not forget, many "kind and peaceful" religious people believe people like me will face an eternity of torture in hell... But I'm meant to respect this abhorrent position? Think about this for a second. Rob is quite happy for me to burn and suffer for all eternity - in fact he thinks it's a good thing that I do. Amazing!

thank you
 
0
•••
how about the Neanderthal man?

would "god" take care of these poor guys too?

The entire history from Adam and Eve to the present day is only about 6,000 years. People can debate the historicity of the Biblical record, but secular history fully aligns with all events from Genesis 11 (Tower of Babel) onwards. Here are the main dates, plus or minus a few years, based on the Biblical record and validated by secular history where applicable:

upload_2019-5-22_7-29-56.png

As for "Neanderthals", if you are relying on the professional liars called paleontologists, I would say they are just not going to be a great source. There was no "missing link" that demonstrates that intelligent humans evolved from monkeys, that evolved from nothing. Research the long and storied history of fossil hoaxes for context, e.g. "Piltdown Man". THIS is definitely nonsense:

upload_2019-5-22_7-36-58.png


The complexity of DNA and the precision of DNA replication alone should be enough to convince most people that life has an architect. Paleontologists and other "scientists" are relying on billions of years of randomness to convince people that a tornado can go through a junkyard and make a sentient and self-healing Boeing 747 assuming the tornado has enough kicks at the can. Talk about a leap of faith!
 
0
•••
Evidence of that? Oh right...

I had a very enjoyable lunch meeting with Jon Pederson yesterday. For those who don't know Jon, he spent 3 years as Product Manager at Amazon Registry, and is now advising the .BIBLE registry. Epik is the leading registrar fo the .BIBLE domain extension. Yes, shocking, I know.

Jon shared a pretty remarkable story with me about growing up. At age 13, Jon traveled with his Dad to the Philippines where his Dad was doing Christian missionary work.They came upon a village where there was a young boy who was chained up under a house. The villagers explained that for years the boy would run into the fire and burn himself anytime they unchanged him. The local (witch) doctor was unable to fix him.

Jon's Dad, a relatively inexperienced missionary at the time, not knowing what else to do, simply sat down with the chained boy and read him the Bible for some hours. At the end of that, he told whatever it was that was making the boy crazy to leave the boy alone. Jon and his Dad came back to the village a few days later and found that the boy was in his right mind for the first time in years, the villagers had booted out the (witch) doctor, and were reading a shared Bible.

The Dad went back a few years later. The whole village had become Christian after seeing this one miracle done by some random white guy who was not even experienced in deliverance ministry or spiritual warfare. This is not the first time I have heard of such miracles. In the world of deliverance ministry this stuff is quite common. I believe much of it very real and legitimate though I am sure one can find TV preachers that are engaging in theatrics.

Yes, you could call it crazy but binding of demonic spirits, loosing of angelic spirits and breaking of curses in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, are indeed all a thing. It is part of the reason why we sometimes see revival in certain parts of the world. When there is a critical mass of people who grasp the authority that exists in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, some pretty interesting things can happen.

The Welsh revival of 1904-1905 was a very good case study. Jesse Penn Lewis was one of the key players during that revival. She wrote some of the = classic texts on Spiritual Warfare that people still refer to more than 100 years later.

Ephesians 6 is perhaps the core Biblical text on spiritual warfare. The tools for spiritual victory are all there but most overlook it or are too timid or brainwashed to exercise the endowed authority. The internet provides us with the means to seek these things out. It is a very good reason for preserving free speech so that people can decide for themselves if this is nonsense.
 
1
•••
Crikey... You seem to have jumped from me suggesting that the nonsensical and often unpleasant views of religious people should be called out, to allegations that I want to exterminate and torture people. That's a hell of a leap.

No - I just want to be free to call out their fairytale beliefs for what they are. Particularly as religious dogma once again appears to be driving much policy making. And let's not forget, many "kind and peaceful" religious people believe people like me will face an eternity of torture in hell... But I'm meant to respect this abhorrent position? Think about this for a second. Rob is quite happy for me to burn and suffer for all eternity - in fact he thinks it's a good thing that I do. Amazing!

Would you bother debating with someone that refused to believe gravity exists. That Oxygen isn't required for human respiration? Sometimes it's worth checking just how nuts someone is before continuing... But I admit I had lost track of the fact you're not actually religious, so in that sense I needn't have been so worried.
Some things are poisonous though, see, so if you use the wor poisonous it doesn't necessarily mean you want to exterminate them or suppress them
:xf.grin:
Big news from a small, dark corner of Facebook on Thursday, as the social media giant announced it's banning seven “dangerous” accounts from the platform:
  • Infowars, a far-right conspiracy news website known for claiming that the Sandy Hook Elementary School murders in 2012 either didn't occur or were a "false flag operation" by gun control activists.
  • Alex Jones, the far-right conspiracy theorist who runs Infowars.
  • Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, whose rhetoric has been labelled anti-Semitic and homophobic.
  • Laura Loomer, a media personality who has been accused of peddling far-right conspiracy theories.
  • Paul Nehlen, a former U.S. congressional candidate who has described himself as a "pro-White Christian" and was banned from Breitbart News in 2018 for "for ties to neo-Nazis and racist comments about Meghan Markle," according to The Washington Post.
  • Paul Joseph Watson, a British conspiracy theorist who also works for Infowars.
  • Milo Yiannopoulos, a British right-wing media personality and former Breitbart News editor.
(Was it so small though?)
The seven banned are NOT the voice of conservatives, they are the outer edge of the worst of conservatives. Heck, two days ago Jones started making claims that the "Globalists" were weaponizing measles by sending migrants into the USA to infect anti-vaxxers so they would start vaxxing so the globalists/liberals/mkultra/"Jews"/etc could do their mind control. :ROFL:

Glad to see them gone.
Are they "gone"? It seems to me that they will just be shifted from 1 platform (FaceBook) to another. They and their audience will end up in some forum that is more extreme, where poisonous ideas will circulate in greater concentration and seldom be subject to a rebuttal.
Admittedly, there are some dangerous people in Gab, as there are on Facebook and Twitter. I personally hope that those dangerous people are allowed to express their poisonous views in mainstream forums where their acquaintances can call them out, challenge them, and report them to law enforcement agencies. The alternative is for the extremists to be de-platformed by mainstream sites.

I agree. Rob needs to change what he's doing – and not just for the sake of preventing further damage to Epik or his own reputation. Whatever his motives, he is promoting conspiracy theories that serve the ends of xenophobes and racists. That harms society. Period.

Also, Rob is permitting antisemitic comments that are made to him or near him without repudiating them publicly. That emboldens bigots and abets the spread of their poisonous views. I don't believe Rob shares those views. So he ought to criticize them harshly and unambiguously. I implore him to do so. If he doesn't, people will assume that he shares those views.
For the people who just changed their mind yesterday to declare the people who haven't changed their mind yet as "Poison" is unjust and harmful. A more reasonable attitude would be to allow people who haven't yet been converted to the new ideology (such as atheism) to gradually come around, over the course of generations as necessary, based on persuasion and voluntary change – or not, if they choose not to.


But "religion" is so broad
Could change to say fundamentalist versions of certain religions
 
0
•••
Crikey... You seem to have jumped from me suggesting that the nonsensical and often unpleasant views of religious people should be called out, to allegations that I want to exterminate and torture people. That's a hell of a leap.

Is it? Either you believe what you say, or else you're staring at a reductio ad absurdum argument that should cause you to abandon your position.

If you believe Religion = Poison, then you have a moral obligation to exterminate that Poison, or contain that Poison behind lock and key, or to make use of that Poison illegal.

I don't believe Religion = Poison. So I'm not in the awkward position you now find yourself in.

Rather, I consider some religious beliefs to be incorrect. Not "poisonous". Merely mistaken and untrue. Most non-religious beliefs are also wrong. I can disagree with and challenge ideas that I consider incorrect without labeling a few billion people as poisonous.

Likewise, I think that some religious rules, practices, and values are harmful whereas others are good. I can say exactly the same thing for non-religious rules, practices, and values. Even in a secular society, there is no shortage of harmful notions.

No - I just want to be free to call out their fairytale beliefs for what they are.

No, that isn't your position. You didn't say that religion was simply wrong. You called all religion "Poison". And that is why I cornered you about the logical conclusion of your opinion – which should be concentration camps or forced re-education or laws making poisonous ideas illegal. Rationally, that is the next step. If you're not prepared to take it, then you don't have the courage of your convictions.

But I admit I had lost track of the fact you're not actually religious, so in that sense I needn't have been so worried.

Whether I'm an atheist or a zoroastrian or an army of monkeys typing at 1000 typewriters makes no difference. The identity or credentials of the person who is presenting an argument makes no difference as to the argument's validity. That's the ad hominem fallacy.

It strikes me as a bit childish that you want to pick fights with religious people and are only prepared to consider what I've said because I'm not religious.

Particularly as religious dogma once again appears to be driving much policy making.

But you believe Religion = Poison. Given that attitude, I assume you want policies to be made in such a way that Poison is excluded from society as much as possible. For example, I assume you want state education to teach that religion is a fairytale. In other words, you want anti-religious dogma to drive policy making. It's not that you object to dogma driving policy. Rather, you just want the opposite dogma to be in charge so that religious dogma can be suppressed or minimized in the future.

We may both be atheists. But we have diametrically opposed views about society. I would object to any dogma, religious or anti-religious, driving policy. As mentioned previously, I want a free, pluralistic society that allows people with incompatible ideologies to coexist. From my perspective, the enemy isn't someone whose theistic worldview disagrees with what I consider the truth. Rather, the enemy is someone who attempts to enforce homogeneity and create a "pure" society with "correct" beliefs – like you and the Taliban.

And let's not forget, many "kind and peaceful" religious people believe people like me will face an eternity of torture in hell... But I'm meant to respect this abhorrent position?

Give me a break! If you believe Hell doesn't exist, then how does it hurt you if someone mistakenly believes you'll go there? Don't pretend to be hurt by something that doesn't hurt you.


"Shall quips and sentences and these paper bullets of the brain awe a man from the career of his humor?"

In any case, we can turn that argument around. Many atheists believe that religious people won't enjoy heaven or see their loved ones again after they die. Atheists believe that a child who dies of cancer is simply worm food. How insulting to the parents who have just lost a daughter and who hope to be reunited! How discouraging to the grandmother in the hospital! "But [they are] meant to respect [your] abhorrent position?"

Yes, people can respect one another even if their world view includes human suffering. Believing that human suffering will occur is very different from hoping to cause that human suffering oneself. Grownups understand this.
 
1
•••
The entire history from Adam and Eve to the present day is only about 6,000 years. People can debate the historicity of the Biblical record, but secular history fully aligns with all events from Genesis 11 (Tower of Babel) onwards. Here are the main dates, plus or minus a few years, based on the Biblical record and validated by secular history where applicable:

Show attachment 119596
As for "Neanderthals", if you are relying on the professional liars called paleontologists, I would say they are just not going to be a great source. There was no "missing link" that demonstrates that intelligent humans evolved from monkeys, that evolved from nothing. Research the long and storied history of fossil hoaxes for context, e.g. "Piltdown Man". THIS is definitely nonsense:

Show attachment 119597

The complexity of DNA and the precision of DNA replication alone should be enough to convince most people that life has an architect. Paleontologists and other "scientists" are relying on billions of years of randomness to convince people that a tornado can go through a junkyard and make a sentient and self-healing Boeing 747 assuming the tornado has enough kicks at the can. Talk about a leap of faith!



https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/dtcgenetictesting/neanderthaldna
"The percentage of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans is zero
or close to zero in people from African populations,
and is about 1 to 2 percent in people of European or Asian background.
Neanderthals were very early (archaic) humans who lived in Europe and
Western Asia from about 400,000 years ago until they became extinct about 40,000 years ago.
However, research has shown that modern humans overlapped with Neanderthal and Denisovan populations for a period, and that they had children together (interbred). As a result,
many people living today have a small amount of genetic material from these distant ancestors."
 
Last edited:
0
•••
The complexity of DNA and the precision of DNA replication alone should be enough to convince most people that life has an architect.


The complexity of a "GOD" entity
alone should be enough to convince most people
that life has an architect
other then "GOD"

who created "GOD" ??

and if you accept that there is no need for a creation of the "creator"
why do you need a "GOD" ?

why can't a highly complex universe create itself
if a "god" figure can do so?

universe is god enough for me

maybe the reason is
that in that case
its hard to create a "Satan" figure at the same time
thats only possible with a human kind of creator

can you really not see the nonsense?
 
Last edited:
1
•••
The entire history from Adam and Eve to the present day is only about 6,000 years. People can debate the historicity of the Biblical record, but secular history fully aligns with all events from Genesis 11 (Tower of Babel) onwards. Here are the main dates, plus or minus a few years, based on the Biblical record and validated by secular history where applicable:

Show attachment 119596
As for "Neanderthals", if you are relying on the professional liars called paleontologists, I would say they are just not going to be a great source. There was no "missing link" that demonstrates that intelligent humans evolved from monkeys, that evolved from nothing. Research the long and storied history of fossil hoaxes for context, e.g. "Piltdown Man". THIS is definitely nonsense:

Show attachment 119597

The complexity of DNA and the precision of DNA replication alone should be enough to convince most people that life has an architect. Paleontologists and other "scientists" are relying on billions of years of randomness to convince people that a tornado can go through a junkyard and make a sentient and self-healing Boeing 747 assuming the tornado has enough kicks at the can. Talk about a leap of faith!

your own mind is creating your reality
same is true for me
and more or less everybody else

you will find evidence for whatever you believe
is true

but that doesn't make it true

your "naive" view of the world
to me is really "far out"

I still think you are just playing games
pretending you believe every nonsense you come across

like the flat earth nonsense
where you admitted that you think its BS, too


just giving food to discuss
and get excited

in order to let us and everybody in the world forget
what you really think

I'm not sure if I should feel scared of you
of feel pity for you
depends on my mood
it changes
 
Last edited:
2
•••
Should this thread be under break or entertainment section as it has nothing to do with review?

Or better yet close it for good so the cancer dies not get transmit to other people.
 
0
•••
Should this thread be under break or entertainment section as it has nothing to do with review?

Or better yet close it for good so the cancer dies not get transmit to other people.

HeHe,

No way, it has entertainment value and it's a great place to blow off a little steam. :xf.laugh:

Besides

Whats going on with Epik and Rob Monster?

The topic is exactly on topic
 
2
•••
your own mind is creating your reality
same is true for me
and more or less everybody else

you will find evidence for whatever you believe
is true

but that doesn't make it true

your "naive" view of the world
to me is really "far out"

I still think you are just playing games
pretending you believe every nonsense you come across

like the flat earth nonsense
where you admitted that you think its BS, too


just giving food to discuss
and get excited

in order to let us and everybody in the world forget
what you really think

I'm not sure if I should feel scared of you
of feel pity for you
depends on my mood
it changes

Thanks Frank.

The good news is that you are getting a fairly distilled introduction to what a rational Bible-believing Christian believes to be the the explanation for why the world is the way that it is, and indeed the meaning of life.

The context of this view might also begin to explain why I would have the audacity to object to the antics of the SPLC when they weaponize social media in order to censor lawful free speech.

As you can see, the topic is even more important than business. Confidence in a Creator heavily informs my world view, and is what prompts me to challenge evil when I see it in action.
 
0
•••
Thanks Frank.

The good news is that you are getting a fairly distilled introduction to what a rational Bible-believing Christian believes to be the the explanation for why the world is the way that it is, and indeed the meaning of life.

The context of this view might also begin to explain why I would have the audacity to object to the antics of the SPLC when they weaponize social media in order to censor lawful free speech.

As you can see, the topic is even more important than business. Confidence in a Creator heavily informs my world view, and is what prompts me to challenge evil when I see it in action.


guess my english is really bad ....
 
0
•••
God the Creator

On comments about the Chinese, and humanity's lack of progress because of God/religion. Edward de Bono (creative thinking expert) has stated the following in a # of his books. From his book Serious Creativity:

"Chinese technology was very far advanced about two thousand years ago but then it came to an abrupt end because the Chinese never developed the concept of the hypothesis. When everything had been labeled and described by the "scholars" there was no method of provocation or speculation. Possibly the Chinese did not develop the "hypothesis" because they never developed the concept of "God" as a super-designer of the world. A hypothesis is only a presumptuous guess as to what the underlying design might be."

So it seems "God", even if only as a concept, is "a creator" - possibly even "the Creator".

:) ;)
 
1
•••
Is it? Either you believe what you say, or else you're staring at a reductio ad absurdum argument that should cause you to abandon your position.

If you believe Religion = Poison, then you have a moral obligation to exterminate that Poison, or contain that Poison behind lock and key, or to make use of that Poison illegal.

I don't believe Religion = Poison. So I'm not in the awkward position you now find yourself in.

Rather, I consider some religious beliefs to be incorrect. Not "poisonous". Merely mistaken and untrue. Most non-religious beliefs are also wrong. I can disagree with and challenge ideas that I consider incorrect without labeling a few billion people as poisonous.

Likewise, I think that some religious rules, practices, and values are harmful whereas others are good. I can say exactly the same thing for non-religious rules, practices, and values. Even in a secular society, there is no shortage of harmful notions.



No, that isn't your position. You didn't say that religion was simply wrong. You called all religion "Poison". And that is why I cornered you about the logical conclusion of your opinion – which should be concentration camps or forced re-education or laws making poisonous ideas illegal. Rationally, that is the next step. If you're not prepared to take it, then you don't have the courage of your convictions.



Whether I'm an atheist or a zoroastrian or an army of monkeys typing at 1000 typewriters makes no difference. The identity or credentials of the person who is presenting an argument makes no difference as to the argument's validity. That's the ad hominem fallacy.

It strikes me as a bit childish that you want to pick fights with religious people and are only prepared to consider what I've said because I'm not religious.



But you believe Religion = Poison. Given that attitude, I assume you want policies to be made in such a way that Poison is excluded from society as much as possible. For example, I assume you want state education to teach that religion is a fairytale. In other words, you want anti-religious dogma to drive policy making. It's not that you object to dogma driving policy. Rather, you just want the opposite dogma to be in charge so that religious dogma can be suppressed or minimized in the future.

We may both be atheists. But we have diametrically opposed views about society. I would object to any dogma, religious or anti-religious, driving policy. As mentioned previously, I want a free, pluralistic society that allows people with incompatible ideologies to coexist. From my perspective, the enemy isn't someone whose theistic worldview disagrees with what I consider the truth. Rather, the enemy is someone who attempts to enforce homogeneity and create a "pure" society with "correct" beliefs – like you and the Taliban.



Give me a break! If you believe Hell doesn't exist, then how does it hurt you if someone mistakenly believes you'll go there? Don't pretend to be hurt by something that doesn't hurt you.


"Shall quips and sentences and these paper bullets of the brain awe a man from the career of his humor?"

In any case, we can turn that argument around. Many atheists believe that religious people won't enjoy heaven or see their loved ones again after they die. Atheists believe that a child who dies of cancer is simply worm food. How insulting to the parents who have just lost a daughter and who hope to be reunited! How discouraging to the grandmother in the hospital! "But [they are] meant to respect [your] abhorrent position?"

Yes, people can respect one another even if their world view includes human suffering. Believing that human suffering will occur is very different from hoping to cause that human suffering oneself. Grownups understand this.

You can treat poison in many different ways. It's you that seems to think the only solution is murder and torture - which probably says more about you than me.

As I have said numerous times, I personally treat the poison by calling out nonsensical and unevidenced views when I see them. You are the only one suggesting violence.

If someone you knew had an infectious disease (which religion is) would you kill them or try and cure them? Are you being intentionally simplistic?

And there is a world of difference between me saying that there is no evidence to support the existence of an afterlife and someone wishing eternal torture on me. Again, are you intentionally being dim with these lazy comparisons?

Look at what religion has done to Rob's mind. And you see no issue with this?

Replace God with any other entity and people would consider him seriously mentally ill.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
You can treat poison in many different ways. It's you that seems to think the only solution is murder and torture - which probably says more about you than me.

As I have said numerous times, I personally treat the poison by calling out nonsensical and unevidenced views when I see them. You are the only one suggesting violence.

If someone you knew had an infectious disease (which religion is) would you kill them or try and cure them? Are you being intentionally simplistic?

And there is a world of difference between me saying that there is no evidence to support the existence of an afterlife and someone wishing eternal torture on me. Again, are you intentionally being dim with these lazy comparisons?

Look at what religion has done to Rob's mind. And you see no issue with this?

Replace God with any other entity and people would consider him seriously mentally ill.


Picture0016.png


One could almost think there is more than one reason you are posting here :xf.laugh::xf.laugh:
 
1
•••
Back