Free and Open Challenge to Atheists

[Revolution9]

Right. And anyone who is aware of the HUGE experiential difference between DMT and 5MEO-DMT would likely question the latter being designated as anything godlike (ie, causing a god belief).

Done both. The mandala looks just like that supersymmetry E3 (some danged number and letter) they calculated and drew a year or two back. Of 13 people I have seen do a threshold dose all came out of it with a big grin saying something similar to "all that shit that happened before doesn't matter. I know I am loved." Try this one to someone getting off on 5Meo. Tell them to clasp their hands together to feel the power of prayer. Sends them flying backwards astonished or steering madly with their arms through the relative universe from an absolute position.

Rev9

 

[idirtify]

The word "notation" is key. Like in music.

Best
Rev9

I asked for an explanation and got a hint. That means you refuse to explain. So I’ll go ahead and dissect it as it stands.

“This notation of the causality is in essence the essentials of the realm of faith”
Blatantly false / non sequitur. Knowledge of causality requires LESS faith, where IGNORANCE of causality requires MORE faith.

“is in essence the essentials of”
Redundant. Should be “of the causality is the essence of the realm of faith”.

“is in essence the essentials of the realm of faith and constitutes proofs.”
Blatantly false / non sequitur. The essence of faith (no matter what you are claiming it is) cannot, by definition, “constitute proof”; and proof (by definition) does not require faith.

“This notation of the causality is in essence the essentials of the realm of faith and constitutes proofs.”
The reasoning behind the whole sentence is circular. To claim that faith is proof is to ignore actual proof, and to claim that any belief is true – merely because it is a belief.

So in conclusion, your short sentence appears to contain one redundancy and two directly contradicting fallacies, and to be wholly circular.

 

[idirtify]

Done both. The mandala looks just like that supersymmetry E3 (some danged number and letter) they calculated and drew a year or two back. Of 13 people I have seen do a threshold dose all came out of it with a big grin saying something similar to "all that shit that happened before doesn't matter. I know I am loved." Try this one to someone getting off on 5Meo. Tell them to clasp their hands together to feel the power of prayer. Sends them flying backwards astonished or steering madly with their arms through the relative universe from an absolute position.

Rev9

So you make a religious suggestion to your friend at the precise moment when their pharmacologically influenced mind is vulnerable to it and you get a religious result. Wonderful! Surely you don’t mean to imply that the result of this despicable technique proves that 5MEO causes babies to believe in creator. BTW, I won’t be trying it on any of my friends.

And so it’s not a stretch to figure there was a general religious set and setting that would account for the “big grins”, etc. If not, their grins were probably nothing but expressions of gladness that they survived the 5MEO “hell”.

 

[Revolution9]

So you make a religious suggestion to your friend at the precise moment when their pharmacologically influenced mind is vulnerable to it and you get a religious result. Wonderful!

Very NOT. Yer an ass. Report me for that jerk. It has to do with completing an energetic loop and all of a sudden realising the difference between absolute and relative positioning..But you don't read too well..on purpose. Do you always resort to these lowbrow tactics when you are on the down side of a debate and your knowledge is outstripped?

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

I asked for an explanation and got a hint. That means you refuse to explain.

Things are deemed sacred because unless you experience them they are secret in that no amount of explanation will clarify what it is that is experienced until it has been experienced. The acknowledgement of the sacredness of things is the notation of causality I am speaking to. Once you see it you see it everywhere. If you don't, you do not. It is internal and external. It goes on within you and without you.

Rev9

 

[idirtify]

Very NOT. Yer an ass. Report me for that jerk. It has to do with completing an energetic loop and all of a sudden realising the difference between absolute and relative positioning..But you don't read too well..on purpose. Do you always resort to these lowbrow tactics when you are on the down side of a debate and your knowledge is outstripped?

Rev9

I read fine. Your description perfectly reflected “a religious suggestion to your friend at the precise moment when their pharmacologically influenced mind is vulnerable to it”. And I’m reading here that before you said 11 words, you committed two blatant insults and dared me to flag, thereby refusing to control your aggression and flagrantly violating the core of individual liberty - not to mention accusing me of “lowbrow tactics”, when everyone knows that insults indicate you can’t support your position.

STOP INSULTING! It’s a forum violation.

 

[idirtify]

Things are deemed sacred because unless you experience them they are secret in that no amount of explanation will clarify what it is that is experienced until it has been experienced. The acknowledgement of the sacredness of things is the notation of causality I am speaking to. Once you see it you see it everywhere. If you don't, you do not. It is internal and external. It goes on within you and without you.

Rev9

Let me get this straight…Since I’m not enlightened like you, I can never understand your explanation – even though you say in your explanation that “no explanation will clarify”? Right?

So tell me Rev, does all your spiritual enlightenment and sacred religious experience tell you to initiate aggression and hurl insults at the drop of a hat??

 

[DamianTV]

I challenge any atheist to give me even one logical atheistic argument or logical reason for being an atheist.

I've seen lots of atheistic arguments and have never seen even one logical argument from atheists. I declare that there is no such thing as a logical atheistic argument.

Everything is free and open, as soon as you provide your argument I'll just explain how it's illogical.

There is no logical reason to be an atheist.

There is one. Because it is NONE of your business to tell me what Religion I should follow.

You Intolerant Ass.

---

This in my Opinion is the exact type of mentality we try to fix. Youre not like me so you should be a 2nd Class Citizen. This is probably one of the worst posts that I have seen in my entire time of being here on the forums, and due to the absolute disregard for respect of other people flat out warrants a NEGATIVE REP. Who is next on this guys shitlist? Jews? Blacks? Women? Fatties? Smokers? Single Mothers? Maybe even YOU?

 

[idirtify]

There is one. Because it is NONE of your business to tell me what Religion I should follow.

You Intolerant Ass.

---

This in my Opinion is the exact type of mentality we try to fix. Youre not like me so you should be a 2nd Class Citizen. This is probably one of the worst posts that I have seen in my entire time of being here on the forums, and due to the absolute disregard for respect of other people flat out warrants a NEGATIVE REP. Who is next on this guys shitlist? Jews? Blacks? Women? Fatties? Smokers? Single Mothers? Maybe even YOU?

Hey, chill out. Actually, you are making the same mistake that the religious advocates usually initiate: unwarranted aggression. Apparently you are misinterpreting the OP. If you look at the wording closely, the OP only attacked the message of atheism; not atheists. So even though the OP’s message was wholly inaccurate, the poster did not deserve your behavior.

Frankly, you just blew it for our side. The religious advocates were batting 1000 as being the ones to predominantly resort to aggression. Next time, think twice; when THEY resort to aggression, we win by forfeit/default.

 

[DamianTV]

Youre probably right.

However, I dont think he is going to adjust his posture of intolerance towards either Athiests or Atheism regardless of our stated opinions, and the difference between the two is a mute point. The thing is, statements like that fuel the fire for any kind of intolerance. They are different! Quick! Attack! And I dont really believe the Jews would say they "won" by forfeit / default during the Hollocaust by letting people that dont like them attack them first. I do believe that they deserved a Negative Rep (which from pretty much anyone is exceptionally rare), as in accurate as their message may be, it carries the seeds of hatred, the hatred to attack anyone that is different than they are, even if they dont have a choice but to be born what they are. People like that deserve a Negative Rep from just about everyone in the Forum (in my humble opinion), as people like that should not be able to identify themselves as respected members of our community. So I didnt really blow anything. That level of intolerance is not something that I'm not just going to stand by and let them insult me or my beliefs. I didnt start the fight. But I'll damn well finish it. Maybe "the poster" should think about that before opening their mouth.

We don't and shouldnt have to be White Christians to have Rights, Freedom or Liberty.

 

[Revolution9]

Let me get this straight…Since I’m not enlightened like you, I can never understand your explanation – even though you say in your explanation that “no explanation will clarify”? Right?

So tell me Rev, does all your spiritual enlightenment and sacred religious experience tell you to initiate aggression and hurl insults at the drop of a hat??

Enlightenment? You said that in this regards, not I. The problem you have is leaping off the cliff with your own prejudiced version. I spoke as to why sacred tends to be a "secret". Try explaining a 2000mic dose of pure LSD to someone who has never done it. The try it again with someone who has. The degree of understanding is magnitudes apart.

As for the smacking around some clownage that has occurred here. No..that ain't religious. That is pure Court Jester and bodyguard to the King. I am glad it frustrates some dogmatic atheists. They start way tooo many frakking threads on this board to spout in and pretend they are all adult in.. They deserve whatever humorous smack arounds they get as the objective of the threads is to mock those of faith, and that includes the good Doctor. It has happened in every Atheist thread by the atheists. When those of faith react the Atheists whine.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

There is one. Because it is NONE of your business to tell me what Religion I should follow.

You Intolerant Ass.

---

This in my Opinion is the exact type of mentality we try to fix. Youre not like me so you should be a 2nd Class Citizen. This is probably one of the worst posts that I have seen in my entire time of being here on the forums, and due to the absolute disregard for respect of other people flat out warrants a NEGATIVE REP. Who is next on this guys shitlist? Jews? Blacks? Women? Fatties? Smokers? Single Mothers? Maybe even YOU?

Overreact much? Atheism is not supposed to be a religion so why act like your God has been blasphemed and your faith mocked? Is it because you adhere to it as though it is a religion?

Rev9

 

[DamianTV]

Overreact much? Atheism is not supposed to be a religion so why act like your God has been blasphemed and your faith mocked? Is it because you adhere to it as though it is a religion?

Rev9

I just get sick and tired of being told by every over-religous fucknut that I can not be a good or moral person because I refuse to follow their Religion, or because of my Name.

 

[TER]

I just get sick and tired of being told by every over-religous fucknut that I can not be a good or moral person because I refuse to follow their Religion, or because of my Name.

St. Damian is one of the most beloved saints of the early Church. He was an Unmercenary (a physician who went around healing the sick at no cost).

 

[idirtify]

Youre probably right.

However, I dont think he is going to adjust his posture of intolerance towards either Athiests or Atheism regardless of our stated opinions, and the difference between the two is a mute point. The thing is, statements like that fuel the fire for any kind of intolerance. They are different! Quick! Attack! And I dont really believe the Jews would say they "won" by forfeit / default during the Hollocaust by letting people that dont like them attack them first. I do believe that they deserved a Negative Rep (which from pretty much anyone is exceptionally rare), as in accurate as their message may be, it carries the seeds of hatred, the hatred to attack anyone that is different than they are, even if they dont have a choice but to be born what they are. People like that deserve a Negative Rep from just about everyone in the Forum (in my humble opinion), as people like that should not be able to identify themselves as respected members of our community. So I didnt really blow anything. That level of intolerance is not something that I'm not just going to stand by and let them insult me or my beliefs. I didnt start the fight. But I'll damn well finish it. Maybe "the poster" should think about that before opening their mouth.

We don't and shouldnt have to be White Christians to have Rights, Freedom or Liberty.

I don’t know anything about his “posture of intolerance”. All I know is the OP you quoted; and it was only a disagreement. And saying “statements like that fuel the fire for any kind of intolerance” is getting it backwards. A disagreement is not intolerance; but the first person to TAKE IT personally is the one fueling the fire. IOW, by confusing the difference between person and message, YOU are making this an issue of personal intolerance (being intolerant). I think you actually understand but are refusing to abide. Besides, you begin by saying you think I’m probably right. So then why did you proceed to further confuse and twist the issue from non-personal to personal (dig your hole deeper)?

 

[idirtify]

Enlightenment? You said that in this regards, not I. The problem you have is leaping off the cliff with your own prejudiced version. I spoke as to why sacred tends to be a "secret". Try explaining a 2000mic dose of pure LSD to someone who has never done it. The try it again with someone who has. The degree of understanding is magnitudes apart.

As for the smacking around some clownage that has occurred here. No..that ain't religious. That is pure Court Jester and bodyguard to the King. I am glad it frustrates some dogmatic atheists. They start way tooo many frakking threads on this board to spout in and pretend they are all adult in.. They deserve whatever humorous smack arounds they get as the objective of the threads is to mock those of faith, and that includes the good Doctor. It has happened in every Atheist thread by the atheists. When those of faith react the Atheists whine.

Rev9

So I asked you about your contradictive “no-explanation-explanation” remark, and you explain how some drug experiences are hard to explain to the inexperienced. But get this: it was AFTER you just finished implying that you never claimed you were enlightened and I’m not. HA!

So I asked you if your religion/spirituality is what compels you to occasionally behave aggressively, and you answer “no”, that you only do it because your victims “mock those of faith” and deserve your insults. Well understand this: That IS a religious motivation! In fact, twisting a disagreement with a message into an attack on a people is the oldest excuse in the book for initiating religious aggression.

 

[idirtify]

I just get sick and tired of being told by every over-religous fucknut that I can not be a good or moral person because I refuse to follow their Religion, or because of my Name.

Congratulation, you just fell to their level AGAIN by doing what they do so well: name-calling. Look, I know your frustration, but you cannot resort to insults.

 

[Revolution9]

So I asked you about your contradictive “no-explanation-explanation” remark, and you explain how some drug experiences are hard to explain to the inexperienced. But get this: it was AFTER you just finished implying that you never claimed you were enlightened and I’m not. HA!

So I asked you if your religion/spirituality is what compels you to occasionally behave aggressively, and you answer “no”, that you only do it because your victims “mock those of faith” and deserve your insults. Well understand this: That IS a religious motivation! In fact, twisting a disagreement with a message into an attack on a people is the oldest excuse in the book for initiating religious aggression.

You sure are bad with understanding an analogy. Perhaps this is the root cause of your misunderstandings. Second, the motivation to toy with those toying with others comes from my dislike of bullies and word twisters. This is purely secular.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

Congratulation, you just fell to their level AGAIN by doing what they do so well: name-calling. Look, I know your frustration, but you cannot resort to insults.

And honestly, the insulting tone is what I take offense with and take their spoon of venom and feed it back to them with a few alterations. I generally stay out of the good natured discussions or simply add an opinion and go on to other threads.

Best Regards
Rev9

 

[idirtify]

You sure are bad with understanding an analogy. Perhaps this is the root cause of your misunderstandings. Second, the motivation to toy with those toying with others comes from my dislike of bullies and word twisters. This is purely secular.

Rev9

Is this your latest excuse for insulting; indirectly implying that I’m a “bully”? Wow, indirect insults are real clever.