Home › Forums › MGTOW Central › Does Atheistic secularism really promote violence?
This topic contains 212 replies, has 38 voices, and was last updated by 
X11 2 years, 2 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
2nd division creating post. KM, might wanna look into this individual, the OP. Seems fishy.
My first error was presuming that you are an objective and rational human being. You’re neither one of these things.
Pure projection.
You keep repeating something about b~~~~, and expecting me to answer.
I hoped, but did not actually expect, you to have the intellectual integrity to answer. Instead you just avoid, evade, ignore, and try to sidetrack with fallacies and irrelevancies.
And you STILL don’t know what “theory” or “prove” mean. And continue to use those words in a way that shows you don’t know what they mean. You try to argue about science without having even the slightest grasp of its first principles. And you refuse to learn.
Again: If you see a ball flying away from you to your right, where did the ball come from?
Why can’t you answer that simple question?
Say whatever you like. Makes little difference to me.
Ever since I exposed your new age woo bulls~~~ you seem p~~~ed.
Sheldrake the fraud.
Stentorian the fraud.
Ever since I exposed your new age woo bulls~~~ you seem p~~~ed.
Sheldrake the fraud.
Stentorian the fraud.
Naw. He’s just willfully ignorant.
He’s trying to argue against something he fundamentally doesn’t understand, and doesn’t want to understand, because that would require him to admit his own ignorance to himself.
I’ve been trying to demonstrate to him what science actually is, but he refuses to take even the first step by answering a simple question.
In spite of his own ignorance he chooses to promote a documented charlatan trying sell new age pseudo science books as his only argument against the most rigorously supported theory humans have come up with.
That level of ignorance is more like spamming than lack of knowledge.
His only counter is personal attacks for not buying his bulls~~~.
Anonymous0I left this in the OPs other trash thread. Ill leave it here as well since it applies word for f~~~ing word.
This is clickbait worthy of the litter box. Posting this because it needs called out for the divide causing lump of gunt sweat soaked s~~~ it is.
This is a bulls~~~ thread that belongs in the garbage. This started after someone ripped the OP for the content of a reply to a post about the recent New York terror attack.
What a
snowturd ball of turds rollling down a douche coated hill this is.This spurred from a few days ago and is still going???!?
WTF! Each and everyone has beliefs of how this or that is/isnt. Religion and politics are like assholes everyone has one but does not walk around with it hanging out all day.
I’m of the same opinion Sandals. It’s quite literally speculation and theory.
You have showed your hand enough for me, you actually do not know what you are speaking about.
X11, why do you talk down to people? Why not just stick to the facts? Why make it personal? (That’s rhetorical, by the way).
Sandals, I am curious. What are your thoughts about Eastern religions, contrasted against what you believe? I see your point about temptation. If a base desire is allowed to run rampant, it could lead a person into ruin. Drug addiction, or excessive eating. Any of the 7 deadly sins, can lead a person out of a state of balance.
A lot of the Eastern practices, are designed to open a person spiritually. With the ultimate end goal of union with the Divine. Yoga, meaning to yolk. To merge.
What are your thoughts, as a Christian, on Eastern religions?
I am not a Christian. I do not believe it is possible to be a Christian, since once one calls one’s spirituality (or religion) a name, is contradicts it’s own spirituality. I agree with the Tao, that spirituality cannot be named, so we call it God (or mother of all things) as a placeholder.
I wonder if religious people realize that God is just the word Good (Go*d) and Devil is only the word evil (d-evil).
I resonate with the Tao. I have read a lot of Zen Buddhism stories, and I really like those.
I have not read much Buddhism yet, but I know in Asia Buddhism has been co-opted by the fakers who, like the church, turn a temple into a marketplace (The Big yearly Church Yard Sale).
I pretty much go by Eckhart Tolle’s interpretation of Western and Eastern religions.
Science certainly has a strong record of predictive success with its theories: eclipses, the motion of the planets, comets, etc, whereas the cosmologies of ancient holy texts are primitive and incorrect at a basic level. If divinely inspired, why don’t these books reveal the germ theory of disease, or Kepler’s laws of planetary motion?
You’re conflating theory and proof – Two different things, but related, as we try to prove theories, but a theory must come from an educated hypothesis.
Have you read the texts of which you speak?
Germ Theory:
The Laws of Leviticus (what we today call Kosher) are all based on health and germs. You can’t eat pork because everyone was most probably getting trichinosis. You can’t eat shellfish because many are severely allergic. And you can’t eat critters because their disgusting and full of s~~~ that will make you sick. Also the Israelites were commanded to wash their hands before eating to get rid of the germs. And Jesus pointed out to the Pharisees that the stomach does in fact kill many germs so they should chill the f~~~ out with their hypocrisy at trying to shame him around everybody.
Planetary motion:
That is exactly what religion is. Here is four minutes worth watching. The next is thirty minutes but also worth a watch.
Keep in mind, Pagan just means the farmers outside the city, who kept the crops.I tend to favor Occam’s razor, the simplest explanation is usually correct, and thus, the Universe is close to 14billion years old.
I do not believe that is the point of Occam’s razor – to say “simplest” is a stretch, and, oddly enough, you are actually using Occam’s razor to make your point.
It is interesting, nobody ever has issues with scientific theories or the scientific method, EXCEPT for evolution and the Big Bang, because they may clash with their religious ideas.
That’s because
1.) The Big Bang Theory is, well… a Theory. It’s not a proof, and the Theory is utterly tenuous at best, and at worst, a religion.
Religion: In the Beginning, there was nothing. Then There was the Word. And the Word was good. And God Said, “Let There be Light”.
Big Bang: In the Beginning, there was nothing, and then – there was the Big Bang.
See the problem here…?
2.) Evolution. Darwin himself said truth is temporal. He said his theory (again, not a proof) is the best truth we have, but one day, someone may come up with a better truth, which will replace the current truth, and that is science, and what we know as truth will cease to be true.
Who are we to argue with Darwin on his own theory of evolution?
But ultimately, is severely limited in providing any proof towards the origin of the universe. Something that old and vast, is beyond what present day science can prove.
Philosophy is a pretty good way to approach this, though. Philosophy is scientific proof by reason of the mind, rather that in the lab: for instance, philosophy can disprove certain things about God, but postulating: Is God so powerful that he can create a rock so heavy that even he can’t lift it? Or… If God knows everything, he has nothing to fear, and can therefore not know fear, etc…
Grow up man.
No need to stoop to their level. I know – it’s tempting. It’s very frustrating to talk with folks like this. Even I lost it sometimes.
Pretty much everything in the post above is incorrect and exposes complete lack of knowledge and total ignorance on the author.
You keep using that word: Ignorance. You keep calling others ignorant. This is fascinating. You keep saying ignorant. Are you aware of how you are perceived by others when you call intelligent and thoughtful people ignorant? Something to think about, Bro.
2nd division creating post. KM, might wanna look into this individual, the OP. Seems fishy.
Interesting take on it. On a site such as this, isn’t any post potentially a division creating post?
The OP gave his opinion, certainly a strong and contentious one. But I notice the people throwing caustic insults and swear words at others in this “division-creating” post are the same one throwing insults and swear words at others in so-called non-division creating posts.
Religion and politics requires gentlemen to have a discussion. Should everyone resort to only hive-mind threads because some folks argue at a base level? That’s like making the whole class skip recess because one kid acted out of line.
I see nothing the OP has done wrong here although I do not know anything of the New York Terror reply – I haven’t seen that thread.
Sandals in spite of your high opinion of yourself you are clearly not educated on basic science.
How about you publish a paper refuting the evidence that supports BB and evolution and win yourself a Nobel prize.
Oh you can’t, you are just another new ager cherry picking elements of every religion you stumble across to make up your own unprovable and unsupported new age pseudo science quasi spiritual woo.
I hoped, but did not actually expect, you to have the intellectual integrity to answer. Instead you just avoid, evade, ignore, and try to sidetrack with fallacies and irrelevancies.
sidecar, do I need to be a mechanic to drive a car? Should I invest time and study dentistry before I proceed to brush my teeth?
In order for me to understand and clearly see the limits of science, I now have to become a scientist? You think these things are not self evident?
I am looking at it from a much larger scale. And at that scale, if you were honest or objective, you would out of integrity, admit what others here who have studied the science in depth have already admitted. That they are the best theories that we have. But no more than that.
I never laid claim to being an authority on science. My claim is that science itself is not an authority when it comes to matters on a universal and infinite scale. That at present, it lacks the ability to do anything other than theorize.
On that level. If you were to sell science as fact, you would be dead wrong. But you know this very well. And so you try to reduce the focus to the minutia. Which fails to mean anything when we are speaking on a universal scale, and in infinite terms.
So who here is lacking in integrity?
What is your background in sciences, and what makes you qualified to educate?
I’ll keep an open mind. Go right ahead. Sell me science at universal and infinite levels.
Let me know what science shows before the BB. Where did matter come from? Where did the energy required to produce the BB come from? Explain dark matter.
The ball came from whichever trajectory it was launched. That would be my best guess without knowing all the variables and parameters.
“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”
@stentorian you said;
“I never laid claim to being an authority on science. ”
But you know scientific authorities are wrong.
BB theory is a giant puff of smoke. I’ve said this. Rupert Sheldrake who is a scientist. He said it.
See past this religious, whimsical fabrication which they try to pawn off as science. It’s not. It’s really intricate guess work. At the very best. Nothing more.
And you are right.
Stop frauding.
Sandals: I would disagree about ‘pagans’. Whilst they did reside outside Rome in what we would call rural areas, in a religious context, where they lived, isn’t the main characteristic. It used to mean those that kept with the old polytheistic religions of their forefathers, after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire under Constantine. Today it usually just means a non-Christian or someone not following a mainstream religion.
The Big Bang theory isn’t tenuous, because it agrees with factual observations. It also isn’t a proof—-on this we agree. Outside of pure mathematics, you cannot ‘prove’ anything.
Even gravitational theory or the inverse square law, is not a ‘proof’.
A scientific theory is very different than the word used in common language where it means a hunch or best guess. In science it is an explanation of natural phenomena based on observed facts, and has predictive power. It can be shown to be false, by new contradictory facts from experiments that don’t fit its predictions, resulting in improved theories with better predictive power. But a theory can never be proved TRUE without a shadow of a doubt. So I would also agree with you there.
While the videos were interesting, I’d dispute some of the information. There is no single book of the dead, and Horus’s mythology does not so closely parallel Christ’s birth as this video indicates, but the thesis that Christianity is syncretic, drawing from other religions and traditions that predated it, just as they drew from their predecessors, is accurate.
Also, there is a huge gulf between dietary rules that existed based on experience, to prevent illness, and actual understanding of the cause of diseases.
when it comes to matters on a universal and infinite scale.
Evidence the universe is infinite plz.
And you STILL don’t know what “theory” or “prove” mean. And continue to use those words in a way that shows you don’t know what they mean
Please show where I confuse these terms in any way. Who doesn’t know what a theory is? Or what proof means? I really don’t know what you’re on about. Show me where I have demonstrated a lack of knowing the meaning of those words.
‘theory – a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.’
That is what the BB theory is. That is the context in which I have used this word, and referenced. That it is only a theory, and has no basis in fact. Plausible but no proven.
https://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html
“Because current instruments don’t allow astronomers to peer back at the universe’s birth, much of what we understand about the Big Bang Theory comes from mathematical formulas and models. Astronomers can, however, see the “echo” of the expansion through a phenomenon known as the cosmic microwave background.”
I have said this almost verbatim. Over and over. We lack the instrumentation. Can only theorize and use models.
“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”
Who doesn’t know what a theory is? Or what proof means?
Clearly you.
I really don’t know what you’re on about.
Correct.
But you know scientific authorities are wrong.
Of course. The universe is infinite. There may be multiverses.
Our knowledge is finite.
By definition, we simply cannot know all there is to know.
Scientific authority beyond our finite grasp, is an oxymoron.
I’ve said this repeatedly. In varied ways. Scientists can only speculate beyond a certain point.
“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”
Of course. The universe is infinite.
How do you know that, where is your evidence?
You want to play scientist then play it.
You have made a claim the universe is infinite – prove it.
In spite of his own ignorance
LOGICAL FALLACIES:
Ad hominem
Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery), is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent’s argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worth consideration.
Appeal to spite
(argumentum ad odium)is a fallacy in which someone attempts to win favor for an argument by exploiting existing feelings of bitterness, spite, or schadenfreude in the opposing party. It is an attempt to sway the audience emotionally by associating a hate-figure with opposition to the speaker’s argument.Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal logical fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.
he chooses to promote a documented charlatan trying sell new age pseudo science books as his only argument
Genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone’s or something’s history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.
Also, from above: poisoning the well, appeals to both spite and ridicule.
against the most rigorously supported theory humans have come up with.
Is it? What data have you ascertained for it to hold the pre-eminent position as the “most rigorously supported theory”?. Is it more certain than the theory of general relativity, for example?
Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted.
That level of ignorance is more like spamming than lack of knowledge.
Ad hominem, appeals to spite, ridicule. Poisoning the well.
His only counter is personal attacks for not buying his bulls~~~.
Projection.
I’m kind of glad you’re always on hand in these threads, I get to revise my store of logical fallacies. You post them belt-fed. Thanks.
So chu, you ever going to post your beliefs and your evidence or you just going to throw up dust?
I didn’t read your post, I bet you posted a bunch of cookie cutter grade school logic and never told anyone what you believe and why.
Amirite??
So chu, you ever going to post your beliefs and your evidence or you just going to throw up dust?
Nope.
I am going to use you as practice for tightening up my logic though, get it ready to finally complete that masters degree in philosophy I started back in 2013.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
