chairman bill wrote:

savithru wrote:... I am forcing you to follow a tradition in a religion you were born with.

I wasn't born with a religion. I was born without belief in supernatural fuckwittery of any kind. I remain lacking belief in supernatural fuckwittery of any kind. What should I do?

You have not investigated the religion of your ancestors honestly otherwise you would not have end up as an atheist.

savithru wrote:

chairman bill wrote:

savithru wrote:... I am forcing you to follow a tradition in a religion you were born with.

I wasn't born with a religion. I was born without belief in supernatural fuckwittery of any kind. I remain lacking belief in supernatural fuckwittery of any kind. What should I do?

You have not investigated the religion of your ancestors honestly otherwise you would not have end up as an atheist.

Which religion of my ancestors? I wasn't born into a religious family. The religion of my ancestors will include Christianity (of various flavours), and a multitude of paganisms, both British, Scandanavian/Germanic, and no doubt at some distant point, animistic.

I wasn't born with any of these, and you are failing to force me to follow one.

savithru wrote:You have not investigated the religion of your ancestors honestly otherwise you would not have end up as an atheist.

Why should the religion of a particular person's ancestors be relevant if religions are all meant to be magically equivalent?

Anyway, most of the atheists I know didn't 'end up as atheists'.
They always have lacked belief in deities, and to the extent that religions may have tried to market god[s] to them, those religions have simply failed, despite centuries or millennia of time to get their marketing sorted out.

When it comes to adult choices, I'm aware of vastly more people who left religion as adults having once been believers after childhood indoctrination than people who were adult atheists who decided that religious arguments made sense and started to believe.
Religious arguments really are extraordinarily unconvincing to mentally-stable adults who aren't already desirous of believing them. That's nothing to do with there being any great force for atheism, it's because the arguments for religion are consistently shit, and typically put forward by people who have no more comprehension of what proper 'evidence' is than you display in your posts.

tolman wrote:

savithru wrote:

tolman wrote:
What's 'arrogant' about failing to see worthwhile evidence for any of the mutually incompatible supernatural entities that various people claim exist?

Incompatible in the minds of atheists and believers of orthodox religions but not at all incompatible to esotericists.

I think you mean 'not at all incompatible in the minds of the self-deluded and bullshitters'.

If one supposed deity supposedly approves of A, B, and C and another quite categorically disapproves of them, those supposed deities are mutually incompatible.
That's what 'incompatible' means.
Some people may pretend to themselves or others that there's some other meaning of 'incompatible', but they're wrong.
Equally, some people may say there is a dream-like realm of unreality where the notion of 'compatibility' is irrelevant, but it is fuckwitted in the extreme, not to mention dishonest, to try and use feelings from that realm to say that two incompatible things actually are compatible.
The most an honest non-idiot could say is that in some dreamy states compatibility is not a meaningful term since in those states there is no worthwhile reality-checking going on. To say that ideas from such a state can be exported to objective shared reality and treated as true is just as colossally retarded as someone saying that because they can fly in dreams they can actually fly.

Just read my OP and come back that'll show you who the fuck is dreaming. Oh BTW no need to explain about esotericism to the deluded fuckwits of atheism who all share the same fucking dream state. Read C.D Broad's argument from religious experiences as to how when there is a core agreement in the religious experiences of people of different traditions across different timelines it is reasonable to believe that they were all sharing an objective reality inaccessible to us. I am not irrational, it is the position of materialists which is fucking arrogant and irrational with contemporary empirical evidence and findings. Of course it would be very easy for deluded fuckwitted atheists to rubbish away such things as pure imagination or hallucination rather than acknowledging a serious problem.

savithru wrote:All evil in this world is because of atheists and atheism, in that sense atheism is not only arrogant its moronic, all it does is keep people away from God and blurs their mind from being enlightened and to see the truth. The world will be a much better place without atheists.

The world would be a much better place without arrogant preachy smug fucktards who couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag.

The world doesn't operate based on your delusional fuckwitted notions. Atheism should be criticized and questioned more and should be thrown out from earth.

savithru wrote:

Most believers fail to see worthwhile evidence for the existence of most/all or the entities which aren't part of their religious/spiritual mythology.

And yet you can see here how I have amalgamated deities from different religious/spiritual mythology which falsifies your above premise.

You have pretended that different things are the same, based at best on incompetence of thinking. That falsifies nothing.

Indeed, the one common-sense approach which actually does unify religious beliefs in an important sense and put them on a truly equal footing is to see them all as expressions of human desires and imagination rather than glimpses of some special reality

Its not a pretention I am a true example of someone who believes in how all the world religions at its core share the same experiences and why its important that we don't kill each other and spread hatredness among ourselves and rather unify and tackle atheism. I cannot argue much with people who are brainwashed to believe from their childhood that their own God is the only God that is true and the rest are devil or false. If Moses, Jesus, St. Paul, Mohammad, Buddha etc had seen the atrocities that their religion has caused today they would have committed suicide.

Common-sense can be wrong and in your case it is definitely wrong because religious experiences are genuine connections with the spirit world and affirms the existence of the divine. They are not hallucinations.

savithru wrote:Yes the believers are highly dedicated and passionate because they had genuine visionary experiences of the divine and that's enough evidence to convince oneself about the existence of the divine.

People can quite easily have 'experiences of the divine' by taking suitable quantities of appropriate alkaloids, just as they can have experiences of flying in alien spaceships by the same process. But that doesn't mean that the divine is any more real than the spaceship. Nor does intenisty of experience or its fitting with preconceived ideas count as any indicator of 'genuineness'.
Experiences in ones own head are quite clearly not necessarily 'evidence' of anything other than imagination, except to people who don't understand what 'evidence' means.

That's exactly what my point in this thread is that religious experiences are not just hallucinations happening inside one's head, it has empirical effects.

savithru wrote:Valuing traditionalism over exoteric religions which is nothing but a species of atheism is not arrogant at all, a lesson which every atheist and believers of other religions need to learn. I am not forcing you to follow my religion instead I am forcing you to follow a tradition in a religion you were born with.

You are not forcing anyone to do anything.
To even hope to persuade anyone, you would have to write posts which were far less arrogant and silly.

Matthew 10:34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Christ is mocking at the ignorance of atheists and this world but he loves atheists and he is preparing everyone to make them see the light.

savithru wrote: Read C.D Broad's argument from religious experiences as to how when there is a core agreement in the religious experiences of people of different traditions across different timelines it is reasonable to believe that they were all sharing an objective reality inaccessible to us.

But, um, accessible, to them. Or so they say.

There are certainly lots of anecdotes about religious experience. No spoons being bent. Why should I believe a bunch of anecdotes? Including (and maybe especially) yours, since you're the anecdotalist du jour. The repetition of anecdotes about religious experience looks too much to me like monkey-see, monkey do to take seriously, sans a bent spoon or two.

savithru wrote:That's exactly what my point in this thread is that religious experiences are not just hallucinations happening inside one's head, it has empirical effects.

So you keep saying. I don't take testimonials as evidence of anything but emotional involvement. No degree of difficulty. If you have no way to show your work except to regurgitate your study of theology, you're making a lot of noise for nothing.

tolman wrote:

savithru wrote:You have not investigated the religion of your ancestors honestly otherwise you would not have end up as an atheist.

Religious arguments really are extraordinarily unconvincing to mentally-stable adults who aren't already desirous of believing them. That's nothing to do with there being any great force for atheism, it's because the arguments for religion are consistently shit, and typically put forward by people who have no more comprehension of what proper 'evidence' is than you display in your posts.

What is proper evidence? Repeatable empirical effects is what I am looking for once I have that you atheists are pretty much fucked up. Macro-evolution is also a rare event which is not repeatable but you evolutionists enforce creationists to blindly believe in that delusion.

savithru wrote:

tolman wrote:

savithru wrote:You have not investigated the religion of your ancestors honestly otherwise you would not have end up as an atheist.

Religious arguments really are extraordinarily unconvincing to mentally-stable adults who aren't already desirous of believing them. That's nothing to do with there being any great force for atheism, it's because the arguments for religion are consistently shit, and typically put forward by people who have no more comprehension of what proper 'evidence' is than you display in your posts.

What is proper evidence?

Gotta do better than anecdotes, mate.

savithru wrote:... Repeatable empirical effects is what I am looking for once I have that you atheists are pretty much fucked up ...

Do feel free to come back once you have that. Bye.

savithru wrote:

Fallible wrote:
No it isn't. Even if it were, what you have provided is evidence only of a man lying on the floor and shaking himself, not of a connection between heaven and earth nor of gods using telepathy to transfer their thoughts directly and instantaneously to the mind of the experimenter. I refuse to believe you don't get that, so the likelihood is that you're just trolling.

Evidence of only one man? Wake up from your dreams.

Yes, your video showing one man is evidence of only one man. How can you possibly be struggling with such a simple fucking concept?

savithru wrote:

chairman bill wrote:

savithru wrote:... I am forcing you to follow a tradition in a religion you were born with.

I wasn't born with a religion. I was born without belief in supernatural fuckwittery of any kind. I remain lacking belief in supernatural fuckwittery of any kind. What should I do?

You have not investigated the religion of your ancestors honestly otherwise you would not have end up as an atheist.

We all start out as atheists, including you.

savithru wrote:
Valuing traditionalism over exoteric religions which is nothing but a species of atheism is not arrogant at all, a lesson which every atheist and believers of other religions need to learn. I am not forcing you to follow my religion instead I am forcing you to follow a tradition in a religion you were born with.

Oh I get it, you're forcing fuck all then.
None of us were born with a religion, even you. Just the same as none of us were born preferring Elvis over The Beatles. Takes a few years of repeated exposure for infants to even grasp the concept of a god etc. That's indoctrination, not being born with something.

Something you can't force someone to do, is believe something ridiculously ludicrous, such as the shite you're touting. People don't just believe in shit like that because someone like you insists that they are right. Without supporting evidence, what you have is a lot of bullshit and bluster, much of it demonstrably wrong, I give your claims way back in the OP as evidence for my claim. When people have fixed false beliefs, it starts to concern people around them that what started as curiosity into something like 'ancient religions' has spilled over into the makings of a good old set of psychotic beliefs, making that person appear delusional, even grandiose at times what with their claims of powerful abilities and knowledge available only to them and not the rest of the mere mortals around them.
Strip away the bullshit, remove the veneer of religious wibble and the accompanying 'respect' that so many expect goes with it and all we're left with is someone insisting that they have special powers and knowledge, capable of inflicting harm to others over great distances and of invoking the supernatural. Its barking at the moon fucking mental!!

Fucking Jesus. I hate Elvis. I'm not even keen on The Beatles.

Can't you like Pixies?

savithru wrote:You have not investigated the religion of your ancestors honestly otherwise you would not have end up as an atheist.

I investigated the religion of my ancestors and found many kiddie-fiddling priests.

Getting fed up with his trolling. Either this guy is for real, and if so, I pity him for the brain-rot he suffers from, or he's a poe and troll of the more persistent kind.

savithru wrote:Read C.D Broad's argument from religious experiences as to how when there is a core agreement in the religious experiences of people of different traditions across different timelines it is reasonable to believe that they were all sharing an objective reality inaccessible to us.

Well, given that there is substantial core disagreement in the religious experiences of people of different traditions across different timelines, you just argued that it is not reasonable to believe that they were all "sharing an objective reality inaccessible to us". Although ... I thought you were claiming this "reality" was accessible to you at any rate, making your comment here contradict earlier assertions? Which, let's face it, has been a characteristic of your claims here from the beginning.

It's almost like you were just copy-pasting new-age/biblical/pseudo-Buddhist wibble at random.

At any rate, on to this Broad character. I hope this post will fascinate, inform, and change the lives of those who read it. It's possibly the only post here that's bold enough to make the uncompromising statement that C. D. Broad's drones form a slatternly organization devoted to harassment and barratry. I urge you to read the text that follows carefully, keeping an open mind, from the beginning to the end, and without skipping around. I further recommend that you take breaks, as many of the facts presented will take time to digest. Broad takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on him. He also ignores all of the evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts) his position.

I feel that writing this post is like celestial navigation. Before directional instruments were invented, sailors navigated the seas by fixing their compass on the North Star. However, if Broad were to trick them into fixing their compass on the wrong star they'd soon be so off-course that they'd actually be willing to help him fleece people out of their life's savings. He thinks it would be a great idea to biologically or psychologically engineer the most atrabilious meanies I've ever seen to make them even more feral than they already are. Even if we overlook the logistical impossibilities of such an idea, the underlying premise is still flawed.

None of what Broad says carries any weight. An obvious parallel from a different context is that his crime syndicate is an insane asylum writ large, with the inmates converting houses of worship into houses of nonrepresentationalism. This is not what I think; this is what I know. I additionally know that if Broad bites me I will clearly bite back. Wanting to impose theological straightjackets on scriptural interpretation is one thing, but why would anybody possibly want to etiolate Broad's nemeses? People often ask me that question. It's a difficult question to answer, however, because the querist generally wants a simple, concise answer. He doesn't want to hear a long, drawn-out explanation about how Broad's cajoleries are becoming increasingly stubborn. They have already begun to encourage the acceptance of scapegoating and demonization. Now fast-forward a few years to a time in which they have enabled Broad to require schoolchildren to be taught that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to popularize a genre of music whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge destructive, unctuous hippies to hijack the word “succinylsulphathiazole” and use it to confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds. If you don't want such a time to come then help me address a number of important issues. Help me fight scurrility and slander.

As I see it, Broad says he's going to convict me without trial, jury, or reading one complete paragraph of this letter quicker than you can double-check the spelling of “unexceptionableness”. Good old Broad. He just loves to open his mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how testy they sound.

Although Broad is trying to portray himself as a great philosopher on par with Wittgenstein or some such personage, he contends that matters of racial justice should enter a period of “benign neglect” and that, therefore, he answers to no one. This bizarre pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces oligophrenic clodpolls (as distinct from the unprofessional quacks who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that Broad's plane of understanding is beyond the realm of human imagining. In reality, contrariwise, Broad's attempts to talk about you and me in terms that are not fit to be repeated are much worse than mere larrikinism. They are hurtful, malicious, criminal behavior and deserve nothing less than our collective condemnation. His reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, he always begins an argument with his conclusion (e.g., that drug money is being used to pay for the construction of huge underground cities intended to house both humans and aliens who serve a secret, transnational shadow government) and therefore—not surprisingly—he always arrives at that very conclusion.

A small child really couldn't understand that this was true long before the latest scandal broke. But any adult can easily grasp that I recently informed Broad that his rank-and-file followers create a desolation and call it peace. Broad said he'd “look further into the matter”—well, not too much further. After all, we can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we certainly have to open minds instead of closing them. I don't care to waste my time listening to his effing and blinding about how I tend to the casualties of his war on sanity. It's also true that Broad is always demanding money, sympathy, and the punishment of his opponents, but that'll have to be a subject for another letter. His capricious emissaries are nothing more than subservient blobs of easily controlled protoplasm. That's why they're so willing to help Broad feed blind hatred.

Broad does not appeal to most people as being the most endearing or public-minded of citizens. Maybe his image would improve somewhat if he stopped trying to remove society's moral barriers and allow perversion to prosper. A surprisingly large number of diabolic crumbums consider him to be their savior. This overwhelmingly positive view of Broad is obviously not shared by those who have been victims of Broad's apothegms or by those who believe that Broad's propaganda factories continuously spew forth messages like, “Coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power” and, “Everyone who scrambles aboard the C. D. Broad bandwagon is guaranteed a smooth ride”. What they don't tell you, though, is that if one could get a Ph.D. in Ultracrepidarianism, Broad would be the first in line to have one.

I have no set opinion as to whether or not what we are dealing with here is fashion, politics, and money. I do, however, unequivocally suspect that he wants to guarantee the destruction of anything that looks like a vital community. You know what groups have historically wanted to do the same thing? Fascists and Nazis. Forgive me if I ramble; I'm really upset, as I think you can tell. Broad has spent untold hours trying to teach our children a version of history that is not only skewed, distorted, and wrong but dangerously so. During that time, did it ever once occur to him that he has deliberately and with malice aforethought sought to sell quack pharmaceutical supplies (and you should be suspicious whenever you hear such telltale words and phrases as “breakthrough”, “miracle”, “secret remedy”, “exclusive”, and “clinical studies prove that…”)? I once asked Broad that question; I am still waiting for an answer. In the meantime, let me point out that I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, “The deep-seated, unbridled hatred that Broad's vicegerents have for us is visceral and inculcated from cradle to grave.” I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way but rather because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I'm not the only one who thinks that when I was younger I wanted to admonish Broad not seven times, but seventy times seven. I still want to do that, but now I realize that we are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which cankered prophets of anarchism like Broad are utterly absent. The other road leads into the darkness of heathenism. The question, therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? Let me answer from my own personal perspective: As many of you know, I realized a long time ago that on a television program last night I heard one of this country's top scientists conclude that, “Broad has values that are antagonistic to a traditional, moral society.” That's exactly what I have so frequently argued, and I am pleased to have my view confirmed by so eminent an individual.

One thing is certain: Many people are worried that Broad will resolve a moral failure with an immoral solution before you know it. I don't like to speculate on uncertain things, but I will say that as soon as the time is ripe I will lead us all toward a better, brighter future. This isn't just a public-relations move. It's a real move to get people to see that Broad has been taking rights away from individuals on the basis of prejudice, myth, irrational belief, inaccurate information, and outright falsehood. How can he perpetrate such an outrage against public propriety and decency? That's not a rhetorical question. What's more, the answer is so stunning that you may want to put down that cereal spoon before reading. You see, now that I've been exposed to Broad's philosophies I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps Broad maintains a “Big Brother” dossier of information about everyone he distrusts to use as a potential weapon. Is your name listed in that dossier? The answer is obvious if you understand that if we are powerless to follow knowledge like a sinking star beyond the utmost bound of human thought, it is because we have allowed Broad to attack everyone else's beliefs.

Broad's votaries argue, against a steady accretion of facts of already mountainous proportions, that we'd all be better off if they'd just make our lives miserable. (Yes, I am fed up with Broad's endless satires and critiques of those hardworking people who serve their country by taking vengeance on him as being the fomenter of what is a universal plague throughout the civilized world, but that's an entirely different story.) According to the latest scientific evidence, if I had to choose between chopping onions and helping Broad diminish our will to live, I'd be in the kitchen in an instant. Although both alternatives make me cry, the deciding factor for me is that I can reword my point as follows. What was morally wrong five years ago is just as wrong today. Do you, like he, think that he is a martyr for freedom and a victim of cameralism? If you do, you're very lackluster. The fact is that Broad says he's going to create a beachhead for organized buttsecks when you least expect it. Is he out of his pea-brained mind? The answer is fairly obvious when you consider that he argues that the ideas of “freedom” and “fogyism” are Siamese twins. This is an entertaining statement, perhaps, except that when taken at face value it presages a likely attempt by Broad to shatter other people's lives and dreams. I'll finish this post by instructing you not to blindly accept my words or those of others as truth. Investigate, discriminate, and question everything not proven. Only by doing so can you determine for yourself that C. D. Broad should be responsible for his own actions.

savithru wrote:
I can live without using anything which science has discovered but can you guys give up your pride of life and lust of the flesh

Oh the irony of having to convey that first thought through a device that actually operates on scientific principles. And I would be very interested to see how long you could survive without electricity. Not impossible of course but it would be severely compromising. As for giving up pride of life I already have and have made my peace with death and accept it without any reservation at all. Now I cannot say the same for lust of the flesh but it is purely psychological in my case
because I do not engage with other human beings and so am amongst other things celibate. Which is just fine by me as social isolation allows me to function exactly as I want. So I for one do not conform to the sterotyptical image you have of members of this forum so maybe you should avoid engaging in such a caricatured generalisation in future. Especially when you have no actual evidence with which to substantiate it

savithru wrote:

Xaihe wrote:
You don't need a computer to be a programmer. You could just write out programs with pen (fucking gadget which science has discovered) and paper (fucking gadget which science has discovered) and let others use them ebil computers to input your programming. That's how the first programmers did it, you should be able to do the same. After all, God made you a programmer so he'll help you if you just get rid of them ebil computers. The only problem left to you then is that without using anything science has discovered, you won't have anything to eat, drink, sleep on, to wear, etc. Unless you live in a cave, wearing animal skins (that you skinned yourself using sharp stones) and eating the berries you picked yourself.

Or you can be a hypocrite. Either way, no one cares.

I can live without using anything which science has discovered but can you guys give up your pride of life and lust of the flesh?

It's funny that you talk about others giving up pride when everything you post reeks of it.

savithru wrote:no need to explain about esotericism to the deluded fuckwits of atheism who all share the same fucking dream state.
...
it is the position of materialists which is fucking arrogant and irrational
...
deluded fuckwitted atheists
...
your delusional fuckwitted notions. Atheism should be criticized and questioned more and should be thrown out from earth.

Well, that's just insulting. You do that a lot.

savithru wrote:Read C.D Broad's argument from religious experiences as to how when there is a core agreement in the religious experiences of people of different traditions across different timelines it is reasonable to believe that they were all sharing an objective reality inaccessible to us.

Or simply that a lot of human psychology is similar across cultures.

savithru wrote:Its not a pretention I am a true example of someone who believes in how all the world religions at its core share the same experiences and why its important that we don't kill each other and spread hatredness among ourselves and rather unify and tackle atheism.

Interesting from someone whose posts practically drip of "hatredness" [sic].

savithru wrote:Common-sense can be wrong and in your case it is definitely wrong because religious experiences are genuine connections with the spirit world and affirms the existence of the divine. They are not hallucinations.

Evidence required.

savithru wrote:That's exactly what my point in this thread is that religious experiences are not just hallucinations happening inside one's head, it has empirical effects.

Which you have failed to demonstrate or substantiate.

savithru wrote:[Matthew 10:34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Christ is mocking at the ignorance of atheists and this world but he loves atheists and he is preparing everyone to make them see the light.

You make him sound like a right prick.

savithru wrote:What is proper evidence? Repeatable empirical effects is what I am looking for once I have that you atheists are pretty much fucked up.

Why are you making your bold assertions before you have found those "repeatable empirical effects"? In fact why do you, and should anyone, believe what you do before that?!

savithru wrote:Macro-evolution is also a rare event which is not repeatable but you evolutionists enforce creationists to blindly believe in that delusion.