PDA

View Full Version : Zeitgeist Movie Refuted


Leonardo
07-16-2009, 12:01 AM
For we have not received the Zeitgeist but the Theogeist that we may know the things freely given to us by God - 1 Cor. 2:12


Zeitgeist Refuted Part 1

ej_coXEnKEI

Zeigeist Refuted Part 2

rZywYayLFwQ

Zeitgeist Refuted Part 3

QQCCY3Wo3sI

Zeitgeist Refuted Part 4

tqBB1xlplm0

Zeitgeist Refuted Part 5

fBHzHFyU9qM

Zeitgeist Refuted Part 6

9Cy0o-B2L4I

Zeitgeist Refuted Part 7

ojd2acH6j04

Zeitgeist Refuted Part 8

GumwukdwTOE

Zeitgeist Refuted Part 9

uz7ClHGwzdQ

Zeitgeist Refuted Part 10

MU5plRweaI0

Milly
07-20-2009, 03:29 PM
Thanks for posting this.

I don't have time to watch them right now.. on my way to work, but I'll watch them later!

RoqEL22
07-21-2009, 11:34 AM
This was a very good movie, with foundational knowledge for truth seekers to launch off.

Laokin
10-06-2009, 02:08 PM
Am I the only person that realizes this "refutes" nothing?

How do they justify the fact that jesus is a clones from religions predating the bible?

The bible is the oldest book, not the oldest slab of tablet. Before there were books... there was stone carvings.

The lack of empirical evidence still stands. It doesn't matter how you interpret anything said in this movie, there is still no empirical evidence to support the claim.

There is however, empirical evidence that disproves "the son of god."

K, thanks.

BTW, I was raised in catholic school and went to church every Sunday for 13 years. Since I was about 5 years old, I could tell that the entire argument for why god exists boiled down to "because I said so." At this time I realized my parents would tell me no to things I would ask to do. Like sleep over at a friends house. I'd ask why, and they would tell me the same thing "Because I said so."

At this point in time I realized that there was no reason they were saying no. They just didn't want to drive me somewhere. The lack of empirical evidence proved my theory correct.

Same logic applies to every other aspect of life. You don't believe something unless you can prove it. You can't prove god, but you can disprove the bible. The bible is the "word of god" so by disproving the bible you are thereby disproving god.

Only people who are unintelligent can't grasp this conundrum. These are the same people that do what they are told, instead of deciding what is best. I.E. Slaves to a book.

BlueAngel
10-07-2009, 09:24 AM
Am I the only person that realizes this "refutes" nothing?

How do they justify the fact that jesus is a clones from religions predating the bible?

The bible is the oldest book, not the oldest slab of tablet. Before there were books... there was stone carvings.

The lack of empirical evidence still stands. It doesn't matter how you interpret anything said in this movie, there is still no empirical evidence to support the claim.

There is however, empirical evidence that disproves "the son of god."

K, thanks.

BTW, I was raised in catholic school and went to church every Sunday for 13 years. Since I was about 5 years old, I could tell that the entire argument for why god exists boiled down to "because I said so." At this time I realized my parents would tell me no to things I would ask to do. Like sleep over at a friends house. I'd ask why, and they would tell me the same thing "Because I said so."

At this point in time I realized that there was no reason they were saying no. They just didn't want to drive me somewhere. The lack of empirical evidence proved my theory correct.

Same logic applies to every other aspect of life. You don't believe something unless you can prove it. You can't prove god, but you can disprove the bible. The bible is the "word of god" so by disproving the bible you are thereby disproving god.

Only people who are unintelligent can't grasp this conundrum. These are the same people that do what they are told, instead of deciding what is best. I.E. Slaves to a book.

You're not the only one who has realized what you say you have realized, it's just that most of us don't read and/or respond to posts by Leonardo and/or Darth.

Leonardo
10-08-2009, 03:56 PM
Am I the only person that realizes this "refutes" nothing?

How do they justify the fact that jesus is a clones from religions predating the bible?

The bible is the oldest book, not the oldest slab of tablet. Before there were books... there was stone carvings.

The lack of empirical evidence still stands. It doesn't matter how you interpret anything said in this movie, there is still no empirical evidence to support the claim.

There is however, empirical evidence that disproves "the son of god."

K, thanks.

BTW, I was raised in catholic school and went to church every Sunday for 13 years. Since I was about 5 years old, I could tell that the entire argument for why god exists boiled down to "because I said so." At this time I realized my parents would tell me no to things I would ask to do. Like sleep over at a friends house. I'd ask why, and they would tell me the same thing "Because I said so."

At this point in time I realized that there was no reason they were saying no. They just didn't want to drive me somewhere. The lack of empirical evidence proved my theory correct.

Same logic applies to every other aspect of life. You don't believe something unless you can prove it. You can't prove god, but you can disprove the bible. The bible is the "word of god" so by disproving the bible you are thereby disproving god.

Only people who are unintelligent can't grasp this conundrum. These are the same people that do what they are told, instead of deciding what is best. I.E. Slaves to a book.

You are not the only one who has not realized this realization that you think you have realized and have not realized.

It's just that most of us don't reply to posts by BlueAngel or Sanjay.

commonsense
10-13-2009, 11:16 AM
Leonardo - hi im new to this, i hope your well?

I watched the first 10min video there and decided not to watch the rest due to time constraints and the fact that the first part seems to have flaws. The initial question asked, 'Was christianity created for social control?' I waited patiently for the answer only to be disappointed to fine the video purely skirted around point at hand. Or was the answer- listen to the word of god, not the word of man? Surely that means there never ever can be a logical arguement made against god - by man! So before I even waste my time watching the further videos I know this isn't an open-minded debate but more of a, 'god is almighty - get used to it' brainwashing video.

I'll just lay my cards down here, I'm an atheist. I was brought up catholic but around the time I realised santa claus didn't exist, god soon followed. My main point to you (and other theists I debate with) is how can there be so many faiths, with each believing they are the 1 truth faith yet only 1 can be right logically (if any)? That was probably the main reason I stopped believing. How do you explain this?

Leonardo
10-13-2009, 12:32 PM
I agree, CS.

The Refutation of Zeitgeist is very poorly done by a group of half-educated, doctrinally errant protestants (sound like Southern Baptists to me).

However, the Refutation does make a few needed points countering the utterly absurd and ridiculous claims of Zeitgeist itself.

I wish there were a more erudite refutation of Zeitgeist, because the net needs it badly. Unfortunately, until that arrives we will simply have to search for nuggets of gold in the Refutation. There are a few.

Laokin
10-13-2009, 03:53 PM
I agree, CS.

The Refutation of Zeitgeist is very poorly done by a group of half-educated, doctrinally errant protestants (sound like Southern Baptists to me).

However, the Refutation does make a few needed points countering the utterly absurd and ridiculous claims of Zeitgeist itself.

I wish there were a more erudite refutation of Zeitgeist, because the net needs it badly. Unfortunately, until that arrives we will simply have to search for nuggets of gold in the Refutation. There are a few.


There was nothing wrong with Zeitgeist. They stated the FACTS about religion. Something all religious people ignore completely. It went on to show the history of the US and how things weren't at all what they seemed. It covered the fallacy with the FED... which IS true. The only thing that was not true/bogus was the end, which was more of a prediction rather than being a true position for argument.

All in all, Zeitgeist two is out. It covers different things in a plan to "fix" it all. Haven't watched it yet but I'm sure it's chock full of novel ideas.

Out of the Box
10-22-2009, 11:25 AM
All in all, Zeitgeist two is out. It covers different things in a plan to "fix" it all. Haven't watched it yet but I'm sure it's chock full of novel ideas.

As I remember, Zeitgeist Addedum (the official name of Zeitgeist 2) is really an addendum as its name implies. It ads some information that was not included in the first film rather than correcting some errors that may have slipped in.

Anyway, this attempt to "refute" Zeitgeist is quite pathetic and filled with conjecture. It's reminiscent of the pseudo-scientific methods used by Creationists (who probably have the same target audience).

makaveli
11-03-2009, 07:24 PM
The entire movie can be rediculed by the simple fact that there is no mention of Horus being crucified and ressurected three days later. It just garbage. If anything, jesus is based on bachus, who is based on dionysus who is based on OSIRIS who was killed by seth tossed in the river and ressurected by ISIS minus his penus so reflect the wintersolistace. It strange that the movie seems to be so much in the rite direction but completly bring up wrong facts. Another great example is the krishna hoax i;m not even going to discuss it. Just google some stuff and you see it's complete wrong like someone claiming black is purple! Also to those studieing mithraism its obvious that it borrows elements from the veda's and combines these with the solar cult of achenaton (check out the similarity in the logos). This however doesn't mean anything and doesn't implicate illuminati in india at all. Complete nonsense to discredit India's religion. If anything you can find many similarities such as sethh slaying dragon who absorbd the sun Amenra and the deity Indra slaying the dragon absorbing all the water in the world. India also has piramides (different thought) and spinx aspects. Also both polethistic versions of egyptian religion and vedic religion have many many similiratires. So they should have used that as a argument that all religions are from one source instead they tried to make jesus, krisna representations of the sun. Notice that this is EXACTLY what Achenaton tried to do and what Elagabus (the roman emperor) tried to do and what in my opinion Tibetian Budism is all about (the main reason why itis the news today to indroduce it to the people). The Illuminati wants us to have a Solar religion in my opinion and this is what Zeitgeist is about indoctrinating us believing that people like jesus could have never existed (I believe he existed but rather was quite a harsh warrior like person nothing like the orthodox version).

Only people who are unintelligent can't grasp this conundrum. These are the same people that do what they are told, instead of deciding what is best. I.E. Slaves to a book.[/quote]

commonsense
11-04-2009, 04:34 AM
makaveli - your an idiot - only people like you are so unintelligent

makaveli
11-04-2009, 08:13 AM
makaveli - your an idiot - only people like you are so unintelligent

I'm sorry but your comment seems to indicate that you are the idiot. Please explain why my comments are wrong and they perhaps I could change my opinion but if you simply say that I;m an idiot it just doesn't help this discussion at all.

Out of the Box
11-04-2009, 08:27 AM
During the last century, the oligarchs have promoted Catholicism, Protestanism, Wicca and liberal atheism among the gentile masses (depending on era and target audience) but I can't see any attempt to push Buddhism or any solar religion. Also, I don't see WHY they would push a solar religion onto the masses in this day and age.

You do seem to have done a considerable amount of research and I certainly wouldn't call you an idiot, however I do disagree with your findings.

makaveli
11-04-2009, 08:41 AM
So common sense please tell me what about my post makes me seem like a idiot.

The entire movie can be rediculed by the simple fact that there is no mention of Horus being crucified and ressurected three days later. It just garbage. If anything, jesus is based on bachus, who is based on dionysus who is based on OSIRIS who was killed by seth tossed in the river and ressurected by ISIS minus his penus so reflect the wintersolistace.

Please provide me any evidence that Horus was killed and ressurected three days later. I've found no evidence from this. Yet I've found much evidence that it was Osiris who was killed by his brother Seth and tossed in the river. His wife Osiris collected his different bodypieces minus the penis and ressurected him. No I didn;t neccecarily say that it's a fact that the greek equelevant is dionysus and the roman is bachus, so jesus must be the christian version. I said "if anything" its this story and not the horus version. So this can only make me an idiot if everything is completly false which I have stated. But since it isn't and these gods have been known for dieing and coming back I don't see how I am an idiot.

It strange that the movie seems to be so much in the rite direction but completly bring up wrong facts. Another great example is the krishna hoax i;m not even going to discuss it. Just google some stuff and you see it's complete wrong like someone claiming black is purple!

There is no evidence of Krisna's existince. Altough some have agrued that the ancient city of Dwarka as been found this is merely circumstancial evidence that seem to point out to a certain aspect of the story being truth. I'm not saying that he never existed, I'm saying there is no evidence except for the indian scriptures. And since those scriptures are the only evidence of his existince they should be regarded as the highest authority available to us regarding a possible existence of Krishna. And none of the scriptures mention Krishna dieing, being ressurected, being born of a virign (if I remember correct its even stated that his mother in which the child was grown had sex during incarceration + had chidren before) of being crucified. If you can even find any scripture tablet or whatever that indicates this did happen that please inform us about it. Still don't see how I am unintiligent or idiot.

Also to those studieing mithraism its obvious that it borrows elements from the veda's and combines these with the solar cult of achenaton (check out the similarity in the logos). This however doesn't mean anything and doesn't implicate illuminati in india at all.

This is a common exepted fact. Mithraism came in existence at least after 1500 BC (much later) and 1500BC is the common exepted date for the vedas (by western scolars but many disagree). The cult of achenaton portrays the soul as a winged sundisk, the logo of zorastrism that rose at the same time in persia is also a winged sundisk but now with the image of zoraster in it. Plus the persian shahs being converted to zorastrism where of an egyptian background:


"According to A. T. Olmstead’s book History of the Persian Empire, Darius the Great’s father Vishtaspa (Hystaspes) and mother Hutaosa (Atossa) knew the prophet Zarathustra (Zoroaster) personally and were converted by him to the new religion he preached, Zoroastrianism."

Plus the mother of Atossa was the Egyptian princess Neithiyti. So how does this make me stupid please tell me cause I really don't understand./

Complete nonsense to discredit India's religion. If anything you can find many similarities such as sethh slaying dragon who absorbd the sun Amenra and the deity Indra slaying the dragon absorbing all the water in the world. India also has piramides (different thought) and spinx aspects. Also both polethistic versions of egyptian religion and vedic religion have many many similiratires. So they should have used that as a argument that all religions are from one source instead they tried to make jesus, krisna representations of the sun. Notice that this is EXACTLY what Achenaton tried to do and what Elagabus (the roman emperor) tried to do and what in my opinion Tibetian Budism is all about (the main reason why itis the news today to indroduce it to the people).

The slaying of the dragon by both Seth and Indra are actually just facts as they are written in both religious scriptures. So how does citing this make me stupid? Or how does using these facts as an argument for common origin or atleast interaction make me stupid?

Achenaton did indeed try to ban all gods and create on single sun god. I'm just citing common maintstream egyptian knowledge if it isn't truth and based on lies please step forward and explain. Elagabus belonged to the Sol invictus religion so again how does this make me stupid?

I stated that in MY OPINION this is exactly what the current tibetian budism is about without argumentation because it wasn't worth putting it here on this forum I just though I drop that piece of information in to clarify my vission of the pattern of solar cults around the world. Is this the reason you think I'm stupid?

The Illuminati wants us to have a Solar religion in my opinion and this is what Zeitgeist is about indoctrinating us believing that people like jesus could have never existed (I believe he existed but rather was quite a harsh warrior like person nothing like the orthodox version).

Again my opinion and I never explained it I just mentioned it for those interested as an extra again how does this make me stupid? If you don't know my arguments for these thoughts that how can you go around say I'm stupid based on partial information? That's actually just plain stupid if you ask me:D

Only people who are unintelligent can't grasp this conundrum. These are the same people that do what they are told, instead of deciding what is best. I.E. Slaves to a book.[/quote][/quote]

This last isn't mine I accidently quoted it from another guy and the previous page.

So please be so kind to explain how and why I am stupid.

Out of the Box
11-04-2009, 08:46 AM
Feel free to address my comments.

makaveli
11-04-2009, 09:12 AM
During the last century, the oligarchs have promoted Catholicism, Protestanism, Wicca and liberal atheism among the gentile masses (depending on era and target audience) but I can't see any attempt to push Buddhism or any solar religion. Also, I don't see WHY they would push a solar religion onto the masses in this day and age.

You do seem to have done a considerable amount of research and I certainly wouldn't call you an idiot, however I do disagree with your findings.

Ok if you are interested I'd be happy to mention some of my ideas but can't fully explain becasue that whould take lots of time hope you understnad this.

You say the illuminati promoted chatholicism, protestantism, wicca and other things to the masses. Well I don't actually think this is quite the case. In my opinion they promoted : Atonism, Judaism, Sol invictus, Mithraism, Islam, Templarism, Renaicance, Protestantism, Rosicrucianism, Enlightment atheism.
I don't believe it was ever the intention of promoting chatholiscism to the world.

If you look at the religious schools I mentioned you noticed that most of them have something to with egypt, are oriented on sunworship, stricly monotheistic and are against idols (or even innocent pictures of animals etc). This is controdictionary in chatolocism because it basicaly allows idolworshipping (supports it even), doesn't find it neccary to get people circumciced (hyksos, hebrews and muslims do get circumsiced) etc etc. These are some indications on the superficial level that seem to indicate a different origin of preconstantine christianity. Constantine christianity seems to have lots of elements of mithraism in it so thats basicaly 'the infiltration' lots of christian are speaking about.

Also what you must understand is that I don't know one religion in the world that isn't monotheistic. Even hindusm or pre hyskos/achenaton religion is monothestic. The omiponent invisible namelss god is just represented in various human forms like a mystsic system if you will to understand the various elements of something you can call god. For example: If god exists then why do we suffer. Why do we need to be tested if god = time he know wheter we fail or not its just a pointless charade etc. These are just superficial questions. These and much deeper questions are answered in the rites of the polothestic religions. Or at least aswered in the way they believe it to be I can't tell of course if its fact or not. So destroying all these deities and getting everybody to nature worship is completly abstract. If you picture god as a human being you can understand how he is like and you can live up to his image. What would a perfect human being be like: Controlling his or her emotions, composure, humble, mastering the langueange etc. But if god is water, threes or let's say the sun that gets very abstract and hard to comprehend. Does the sun want you to be kind or fierce? Does the sun want this goverment structure or that? Well the one who can tell you is the pharaoh himselve achenaton as he has a direct link with god (similar to the pope today kind of - notice influence of mithraism) so it is essentially nothing more than a complete political powergrab.

On the one hand atheism is perfect because everything is explained simple no gods but it does leave a gap cause if there is no higher god or deity than how can the NWO proclaim themselves master so that we would exept their superiority? This question that can be answered in two ways: aliens and a atheistic religion. I;m not going to touch the alien aspect but when it comes to atheistic religion you have been indoctrinated with that all the time: Star Wars, Dragonball Z. Both are religious as they believe in superhuman things but instead of believing in god they believe in someting completly abstract as THE FORCE. Messias are then the force tryin to balance itselve (see the matrix reloaded scene with the architect). We have been slowly seeing the parts of the NWO religion unfolding in films (star wars, matrix) and in media (budhism). Cause bhudism doens't believe in a god it basicaly believe in nothing. Beyong everything there is nothingness. Its perfect. Also note the Nazi-Tibetian-Blavaski connection! When George Bush goes out and openly supports the tibetian budhist cause you can see how lots of conspiracy peeps become suspicious. Plus its pushed on us by bringing it in the news. Budism is the best alternative to dogmatic christian west and lots of peeps dig it. Just check the budish industry in west is HUGE. quite amazing you would say. So atheism and budism kind of like can go hand in hand if you think about it.

Notice this isn't an essay its just some aspects of my ideas trown together for you to better understand from what perspective I look at the world and its events (doesn't mean I'm correct though).

makaveli
11-04-2009, 09:18 AM
In my opinion the real way to see that chatolicism has a non illuminati origin (to a certain extent) is to look at the person who created it: St. Paul. Notice he doesn't appear on the historical record. I believe paul was a pseudonym for his real name but I don;t feel like continuing here cause lots of people are blindly going to call me idiot again and besides the information is out there conclusions drawn from your own research are much more valueble then someone just indoctrinating you with his or her believes. Just analyse the writings of Paul with other famous writers of that same era and see the same styles + the same events happening in their lives. But like I said this is really something you need to do for yourselve cause its quite radical and someone on the internet just spitting it out is just not the right way to be persuaded.

Out of the Box
11-04-2009, 11:19 AM
You say the illuminati promoted chatholicism, protestantism, wicca and other things to the masses. Well I don't actually think this is quite the case. In my opinion they promoted : Atonism, Judaism, Sol invictus, Mithraism, Islam, Templarism, Renaicance, Protestantism, Rosicrucianism, Enlightment atheism.
I don't believe it was ever the intention of promoting chatholiscism to the world.

Several of these religions have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the "Illuminati".

Anyway, they used Catholicism for their agenda, just like they used other religions deemed fit.... For example, Christian-fundamentalist protestantism in the US is (ab)used to gain support for Israel.

On the one hand atheism is perfect because everything is explained simple no gods but it does leave a gap cause if there is no higher god or deity than how can the NWO proclaim themselves master so that we would exept their superiority?

Today, there use a concept called "democracy", with selected individuals for charade elections. It gives the masses the illusion of freedom and choice while in fact they're run by an oligargy.

This question that can be answered in two ways: aliens and a atheistic religion. I;m not going to touch the alien aspect but when it comes to atheistic religion you have been indoctrinated with that all the time: Star Wars, Dragonball Z. Both are religious as they believe in superhuman things but instead of believing in god they believe in someting completly abstract as THE FORCE. Messias are then the force tryin to balance itselve (see the matrix reloaded scene with the architect). We have been slowly seeing the parts of the NWO religion unfolding in films (star wars, matrix) and in media (budhism). Cause bhudism doens't believe in a god it basicaly believe in nothing. Beyong everything there is nothingness. Its perfect. Also note the Nazi-Tibetian-Blavaski connection! When George Bush goes out and openly supports the tibetian budhist cause you can see how lots of conspiracy peeps become suspicious. Plus its pushed on us by bringing it in the news. Budism is the best alternative to dogmatic christian west and lots of peeps dig it. Just check the budish industry in west is HUGE. quite amazing you would say. So atheism and budism kind of like can go hand in hand if you think about it.

What a load of nonsense.

In my opinion the real way to see that chatolicism has a non illuminati origin (to a certain extent) is to look at the person who created it: St. Paul.

For most of our history, Catholicism has been the oponent of those you call "Illuminati". While it is not impossible it was orriginally founded as a way to turn man away from his orriginal pagan religion, Catholicism certainly turned against the Jewish/Templar elite during the Middle-Ages. It is only since the 19th century that these people graduately got a hold of the Vatican.

makaveli
11-04-2009, 03:40 PM
Several of these religions have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the "Illuminati".

Yes and my penis in 1000 inches long.... Come on you know you need to explain and provide further evidence to persuade but again your not doing that. :(

Anyway, they used Catholicism for their agenda, just like they used other religions deemed fit.... For example, Christian-fundamentalist protestantism in the US is (ab)used to gain support for Israel.

Another weak claim it keeps getting weaker. How did they use catholicism for what agenda. How? Explain further. Where and when was it used? What event? Who orchestrated? What reason motivation YOU PROVIDE NO INFORMATION AT ALL!

Today, there use a concept called "democracy", with selected individuals for charade elections. It gives the masses the illusion of freedom and choice while in fact they're run by an oligargy.

Democracy is a very complicated system to run and infiltrate and there is always the danger that sooner or later people are figuring everything out. You aren't really using your brain no are you? Have you ever wondered what an immense input it requires to fool the people this way and to keep politicians constantly quite. Its just a temporary thing to show the people that a elected government isn't working (anticipating on the financial collapses and outbreak of WW3) and then they go back to dictatorship.

What a load of nonsense.

What a load of nonsense to suggest a complicated analysis of a secret conspiractol future worl religion is a load of nonsense without providing any furher argumentation.


For most of our history, Catholicism has been the oponent of those you call "Illuminati". While it is not impossible it was orriginally founded as a way to turn man away from his orriginal pagan religion, Catholicism certainly turned against the Jewish/Templar elite during the Middle-Ages. It is only since the 19th century that these people graduately got a hold of the Vatican.

And I suppose the babyeaters that fight the womanrapers are any better then the womanrapers. You obviously are not getting the point at all what I am trying to say.

Out of the Box
11-04-2009, 04:33 PM
Yes and my penis in 1000 inches long

Poor girlfriend you must have ;)

Another weak claim it keeps getting weaker. How did they use catholicism for what agenda.

Until the 1950s most Catholics listened to their local priest almost blindly. By gaining control of whatever those priests preached in their churches, they could control what views Catholics were holding.

Where and when was it used?

Between the French Revolution and the social changes of the 1960s. It was used mostly in Catholic countries.

What event?

The most important event was what was decided at the Second Vatican Council during the 1960s. This was pretty much the surrender of the Vatican to the oligarchy.

What reason motivation YOU PROVIDE NO INFORMATION AT ALL!

I don't like explaining the obvious, OK!?

Democracy is a very complicated system to run and infiltrate and there is always the danger that sooner or later people are figuring everything out.

It's actually not so hard once you have sufficient understanding of psychology and sociology. Religion is a much more difficult vice, especially the sort of religions popular in the West (which requires faith in imaginary "supernatural" beings like "God" or "Jesus".

What a load of nonsense to suggest a complicated analysis of a secret conspiractol future worl religion is a load of nonsense without providing any furher argumentation.

Argumentation for what exactly?!?

And I suppose the babyeaters that fight the womanrapers are any better then the womanrapers. You obviously are not getting the point at all what I am trying to say.

???

iHIMself™
04-04-2010, 08:03 PM
Refuting the bible does not refute god. It only refutes the IMAGE in which god has been portrayed...not God HIMself.

There are some wonderful texts that appear in the bible. Anyone who has NOT read it, is a fool. It is a 2000 year old book. Atheist or not. Read it. As well as the quran. Do yourself the blessing.

Science proves, that all life is connected, as one.

i is alive...i is life...god is life...i is god

This is actually repeated, although misinterpreted to be a prophets' favour or claim to divinity, many times throughout these books.

Zeitgeist is a production that brings all the popular conspiracies that have been in place for centuries into one movie. Worth the viewing, for sure. But don't take it as gospel....the truth that actually matters in this world, lies within you.

commonsense
04-05-2010, 05:26 AM
Without any holy texts then what evidence is there for a god?

Obviously zeitgeist is full of holes, most of it I don't believe but then I was an atheist before I seen the movie. The only interesting and most likely true part for me was part 1. in relation to the sun and how this is most likely the basis for most supernatural beliefs. It sheds light on mankind in an interesting way (no pun intended).

But today we humans have science and it can explain better the universe in which we live far better than any supernatural stories. This is way religion is on a downhill trajectory in the educated world. Religion was used to first explain the universe, and then to try to help weak individuals with the prospect of a better life after death, especially if you'd suffered in this world.

Although science cannot explain the biggest question of all, 'why are we here?', yet religion can, does no sway me. Science has got no answers, only theories - but all those theories make actual logical sense! ....actually can religion answer that question? Not really! Although science has not a clue on why the big bang happened or what was before it, religion states god created us, but what before him? Who created him?

I feel sorry for people that grasp to the threads of religious doctrine, and I do not mean to insult as most of my family are catholic. As determined as they are now to their belief in god I can see a day in the future free of religion, when young children ask their parents about a time when the masses believed in a man in the clouds.

iHIMself™
04-06-2010, 04:26 AM
Without any holy texts then what evidence is there for a god?

To even suggest it must be written in order for it to be fact, is absurd.

The world was factually flat for a thousand years, even though the ancient greeks knew about the solar system, a thousand years earlier.

The interpretation of God varies between cultures.

Xtians believe Jesus was God. A father that gave birth to himself, sacrificed himself, whilst asking how has he forsaken himself, before raising himself from the dead to join himself in heaven as himself. Sigh.
Muslims and Jews on the other hand, believe God is God, and nothing is as Great. Muslims honour jesus as a prophet. Jews do not. Yet they all fall in the...'forget your life now, do as you're told, so you can live forever in the next life. With 72 virgins, even '.

There is no next life. This is It. Forever. Amen.

I believe God is LIFE. ALL life. His word, cannot be written. Every LIVING thing evolves, so to write it down, is only a fragment of time. Not reality.

Karma, is real. Every LIVING thing has electricity running through it. Magnetism. The planets, the stars, me and you.

There is only but ONE force. ONE god. And it is LIFE. And it tries to evolve in as many different ways as is possible, and not possible. In his image, in ALL images. ENDLESS images. ENDLESS colour, not black or white, good or evil.

Yin Yang....Black IS white

I am, therefore he be. I can create and destroy.

Before there ever was....i am.

The hand is not a foot, but of the same body. Letter to Corinthians. Awsome.
Every hair on your head, has its own shape, its own life, and dies/falls out in its own time, yet belongs to your body. So it is with you and god/life.
You live your own, follow your own path, destiny, and die when it's time, but you are a part of Him...you ARE him. Another image of HIM.

If you haven't read the bible, then you are only denying yourself of one of the most revered texts in history.

But just because one sentence is brilliant and TRUTH, doesn't make the rest of it true now does it?

commonsense
04-06-2010, 06:56 AM
Pray tell me ihimself, what proof is there for a supernatural deity?

Not to insult you but I do not want my answer much like your last post, full of nonsense.

I want straight proofs of the existance of a deity? Of course any written texts cannot be used as proof, nor stories from them as written proof....as that is apparently absurd.

I've got a feeling your going to litter your answer with crap about flows of energy throughout the universe that link one with god.....etc etc. Well if so please detail this energy flow, what makes it supernatural and how that proves a deity.

MANY THANKS!

iHIMself™
04-08-2010, 09:45 AM
firstly....lol.

Deity
1. a god or goddess.
2. divine character or nature, esp. that of the Supreme Being; divinity.
3. the estate or rank of a god: The king attained deity after his death.
4. a person or thing revered as a god or goddess: a society in which money is the only deity.
5. the Deity, God; Supreme Being.

In the dictionary alone, there are 5 interpretations of what a deity is or can be. I, and you, for example, may represent a deity. The torah, the bible, and the Koran, dismiss all others to uphold, what they believe, to be the one true deity. The greatest of them all. God/jehovah/Allah.

Surely the proof of a deity is not really what you are asking. You want hard proof that God exists. The truth is in your interpretation of Him. Those books have been written by MEN and edited and published by the governments of their times, to make you forget about this life, just do what you are told, and pray best for the next.

If you are searching for WRITTEN proof, then follow SCIENCE...PROVEN mathematically, that ALL is ONE. Me, you, the ants, the trees, the air you breathe, the moon, the stars, the planets, the dark space around the planets.....it is all a PLASMA of LIFE.

THAT is GOD. Not just a great almighty powerful piece of it, like our sun for example. It is ALL ONE PLASMA of LIFE.

Your mind has been attacked with lies assaulted with illusion.

SCIENCE proves that god exists. Just not the god you seem to be looking for.

commonsense
04-08-2010, 10:50 AM
LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOL!!!!

You crack me up ihimself!

What a steaming pile of jizz!

After wading through the copious amounts of horsecrap I more than expected, I came across only 4 sentences that 'tried' to answer my question, mind you though it was hard to differentiate from all the other horse manure!

"If you are searching for WRITTEN proof, then follow SCIENCE...PROVEN mathematically, that ALL is ONE. Me, you, the ants, the trees, the air you breathe, the moon, the stars, the planets, the dark space around the planets.....it is all a PLASMA of LIFE.

THAT is GOD. Not just a great almighty powerful piece of it, like our sun for example. It is ALL ONE PLASMA of LIFE."

PLASMA of LIFE eh? Last night my sprayed my life plasma on your mum's face - and she liked it! Seriously though....WTF?? I love the way you first make a logical sentence about how everything in the universe is made of atoms and how these constantly cycle, in ways we are all one....although you thought you'd call this PLASMA.....again....WTF???

But the beauty is, you like mosts fundaMENTALISTS, took a piece of hard science and in the very next sentence....BAM...."that's god so it is!" Hmm....sorry but that doesn't fly! I could easily switch the word god to me!

I am the PLASMA of LIFE!!! lol

Great proof, I think you should win the Templeton Prize for that one!!

iHIMself™
04-09-2010, 09:50 AM
SCIENCE proves that god exists. Just not the god you seem to be looking for.

is there an echo in here?

commonsense
04-09-2010, 11:22 AM
No wonder you believe in the supernatural, you believe your own tripe!

Whatever it is in your life that is going wrong, please don't try to find answers in blind faith.

Logic prevales everytime....I hope you see the light.

iHIMself™
04-10-2010, 03:09 AM
you know, common sense just aint that common anymore.

blind faith is believing what is written. What has been told. I care not to believe what has been told, and forced upon the world, whether judaic, christian or muslim. But all three have wonderful texts that should be observed, taught, AND questioned, by all means.

SCIENCE proves that god exists, just as much as it proves that He doesn't.

You search for texts, even demand it, so that you may believe, and then mock blind faith, as if it were any different. Now that is precisely the point that I make, God is not what you are looking for. You are looking for God as that which has been interpreted for you.
An IMAGE of God. But He is ALL images.

There is only life. As it is. There are MUCH more powerful things in this life than others, yet it is still only a part of the whole complexism. I called it a plasma, so that you would understand. A body, so that you may understand.

I call LIFE, god. I am not searching for something SEPERATE from it. Or proof of something seperate from it, in control of it.

LiFe is LiFe. There is no good, or evil. There just is. There is positive and negative energy...male and female....Night and day...but no good or bad. Good and evil are INTERPRETATIONS, that have changed over years from social values, laws, and such, to control the population. ALL is good.

Atheists KNOW this, and CHOOSE to believe that god does NOT exist. There is only LIFE. and that's it.

Where as I believe life iTSELF is God. Because every action has a reaction. Not PUNISHMENT from God, but a punishment from God. lol. It is a LIVING force i CHOOSE to call God. A force that creates, and destroys. The alpha and omega. A force that doesn't favour the reproduction of species, but rather the endless reproduction of endless possibilities.

Refuting god, is refuting LiFE itself. Absurd. Much like your personal attacks.

You can use science to prove God doesn't exist, and live your life as if it were meaningless to the whole body of life, or you can choose this body of life to BE god, and KNOW that you have been BIRTHED to achieve that which was always intended to be achieved. To LiVE.

Life will always find a way, and so far has found you....are you the way???

i IS ALiVE...i IS LiFE...GOD IS LiFE...i IS GOD.

Before there ever was....i AM.

These are MY words....MY interpretation of God. The living force that exists. That we are undeniably a part of.

Your brain cells die off every day. Obviously quite a bit for you. They have their own growth, their own life, and die in their own time. Who/What is god to these cells?..your brain? But if your heart stops...you brain cannot function, and will die soon after. If your liver fails, your heart will stop, and your brain will die. So many factors determine the life of these cells, even though they have their own life. Who/What is God to your brain cells?

Exactly.

You can take it as...there IS no God for your brain cells, and it is all meaningless....OR.....The WHOLE BODY is GOD to your brain cells, far more powerful as ONE, than individually.

Take away our sun...and we die...take away our moon...and we die...take away our stars, or our saturn, our PLUTO even, and eventually....we will die. It is all ONE BODY of LiFE. As humans on this planet, we hardly compare to the powers of the mentioned. But we are just as important and relevant to this LiFE as the Sun. TOGETHER we are GOD.

A part of HIM...we ARE Him.

That, my friend...is science.

commonsense
04-10-2010, 06:22 AM
insaneInsane in the membraneInsane
in the brain!Insane in the membraneInsane in the
brain!Insane in the membranePlenty insaneGot no brain!Insane in the membraneInsane in the
brain!Insane in the brainIt's because
I'm locoInsane in the brainIt's because
I'm locoInsane in the brainIt's
because I'm locoInsane in the brainIt's
because I'm loco"...I think I'm going
crazy..."

iHIMself™
04-10-2010, 06:38 AM
i believe there is no right or wrong. There just is...

Therefore I have the inability to distinguish between right or wrong, thus, am LEGALLY insane.



You seem to reply pretty quick, as if you're just waiting to pounce on my every word. The fact you continue to do this only shows that you are somewhat beaten, as you don't respond with any real emphasis on anything besides your own lack of comedic talent.
Well, at least YOU laughed, and I guess that's all that counts.

Out of the Box
04-10-2010, 07:36 AM
Science proves the anthropomorphic concept of God (like in eg. Judaism, Christianity or Islam) impossible and gaps in our scientific knowledge leave room for a pantheistic alternative to an anthropomorphic concept, however to claim that science PROVES the existence of God is as foolish as to say that science disproves the existence of God.

Leonardo
04-11-2010, 02:35 PM
Science proves the anthropomorphic concept of God (like in eg. Judaism, Christianity or Islam) impossible and gaps in our scientific knowledge leave room for a pantheistic alternative to an anthropomorphic concept, however to claim that science PROVES the existence of God is as foolish as to say that science disproves the existence of God.

Science is a Pantheistic Religion. They believe in a Trinity of Gods -- Beagle, Monkey, and Darwin.

Out of the three though, Monkey is their Savior. They love Monkey. They yearn for Monkey. They want to be unified with Monkey. They write about Monkey. They made Idols to Monkey. And they worship Monkey.

They are part of the secret worldwide cult of Monkeyanity.

commonsense
04-11-2010, 02:44 PM
lol yep!

Leonardo
04-11-2010, 03:01 PM
lol yep!

This day I defy Monkey and the armies of Monkey! Let the altars of Monkey and all who worship His Unholy Image in either invoking Baboon or Gorilla in their secret rituals be Anathema unto the Aeons. So mote be it!

Let Monkey be Damned!

jane doe
04-12-2010, 09:57 PM
!

do you need a body wax?:eek:

iHIMself™
04-13-2010, 03:33 AM
to claim that science PROVES the existence of God is as foolish as to say that science disproves the existence of God.

I actually stated both. The answer lies in your interpretation of god.


As for monkies, deny it or not, all creatures represent an image of god. All things....everything...and nothing. Image of god. MY interpretation of Him.

We are all stardust....from the same egg. whether we evolved from monkies or elsewhere, we became, because it was absolutely necessary in order for life to continue....and prosper...in as many colours as possible.
Noone wants to be the decendant of the monkey, but that only makes you a decendant of the pig.
You are no greater, or more admirable, than the dirt you walk on. Until you come to terms with 'the body of life' you will always be a decendant of the pig.

jane doe
04-13-2010, 08:09 PM
What if the image of god was a sound created when different molecules vibrate....it could take forever to find the one distinct sound which created all vibrations. Our earth is special enough, but are humans? What if god has nothing to do with humans?

iHIMself™
04-14-2010, 04:09 AM
It is MY interpretation of God. He is EVERYTHING and NOTHING. He is in OUR image, and in ALL images.

You are absolutely right. He is indeed that sound, and ALL sounds. ALL molecules, and NO molecules. Are your blood cells, YOU? Or an insignificant PART of you? Because there is nothing insignificant about any ATOM that makes you...you. Let alone a blood cell.

I use the analogy of the body to describe what God is, because that is how this universe works. Your heart is a god to your body, like our sun. Without it, we perish. As is the brain, the kidney, all various organs constitute a God to our body. Which brings light to various religions that assumed planets, or the sun, as god. But science has proved that ALL, including NOTHING, is ONE.

If there is a universe beyond ours, which I have no doubt that there is, and I were to use the same pattern that exists within this one, then it is still a part of LIFE itself. Another organ, another molecule, or atom.

No matter what...ALL is ONE.

Not One Nation under God....but ONE life AS God.

commonsense
04-14-2010, 05:07 AM
Well MY interpretation of GOD is a dude that doesn't bother me throughout life. I can do anything I choose to be moral, like raping children which is actually a good thing in MY interpretation. Also in MY interpretation of GOD I go to heaven automatically since I AM in his IMAGE. But nobody else goes to heaven, but limbo instead. ihimself though, in MY interpretation of GOD goes straight to hell, does not collect 200! Why? Because he's the craziest weirdo I've met online in quite sometime!!

And I AM totally 100% CORRECT because my argument can bend to anything you through at it, because GOD can bend the rules of PHYSICS, and most importantly it's MY INTERPRETATION.

BlueAngel
04-15-2010, 02:04 AM
Well MY interpretation of GOD is a dude that doesn't bother me throughout life. I can do anything I choose to be moral, like raping children which is actually a good thing in MY interpretation. Also in MY interpretation of GOD I go to heaven automatically since I AM in his IMAGE. But nobody else goes to heaven, but limbo instead. ihimself though, in MY interpretation of GOD goes straight to hell, does not collect 200! Why? Because he's the craziest weirdo I've met online in quite sometime!!

And I AM totally 100% CORRECT because my argument can bend to anything you through at it, because GOD can bend the rules of PHYSICS, and most importantly it's MY INTERPRETATION.

Obviously, you have NO common sense and should be sent to prison for believing that to rape a child is a good thing.

I can't send you to prison, but I can ban you.

That's the best I can do for this world as far as you're concerned.

superted
04-15-2010, 02:40 AM
Ah.....BlueAngel?? Did you look through the entire thread, I think it's pretty obvious you didn't as you would have seen that commonsense's last post was the most sarcastic post I've ever read. It was meant to point out that ihimself can commit any crime he/she wants to and still go to heaven as he/she can "interpret" a supernatural deity anyway they want to fit their lifestyle.

Now as you obviously misunderstood commonsense's last post I'll reiterate incase you've misunderstood mine as well and without any grounding ban me forever.

Commonsense quite obviously was being sarcastic and DOES NOT think it's ok to rape children, infact he thinks it is the worst thing EVER, hence the use of it in his post to get across the point that ihimself can make up whatever moral rules he wants!

I think you should first, lift the ban on commonsense and second, apologise for your balant misunderstanding of his post! Just read through the previous posts in this thread, you'll see that using CAPITAL letters to emphasis words such as GOD and such was typical of ihimself's posts, and commonsense used the same style to mock this! If you have actually bothered to read the whole thread you'd see that commonsense doesn't actually believe in god.....from the first sentence you should have got the irony...

BlueAngel
04-16-2010, 02:01 PM
Ah.....BlueAngel?? Did you look through the entire thread, I think it's pretty obvious you didn't as you would have seen that commonsense's last post was the most sarcastic post I've ever read. It was meant to point out that ihimself can commit any crime he/she wants to and still go to heaven as he/she can "interpret" a supernatural deity anyway they want to fit their lifestyle.

Now as you obviously misunderstood commonsense's last post I'll reiterate incase you've misunderstood mine as well and without any grounding ban me forever.

Commonsense quite obviously was being sarcastic and DOES NOT think it's ok to rape children, infact he thinks it is the worst thing EVER, hence the use of it in his post to get across the point that ihimself can make up whatever moral rules he wants!

I think you should first, lift the ban on commonsense and second, apologise for your balant misunderstanding of his post! Just read through the previous posts in this thread, you'll see that using CAPITAL letters to emphasis words such as GOD and such was typical of ihimself's posts, and commonsense used the same style to mock this! If you have actually bothered to read the whole thread you'd see that commonsense doesn't actually believe in god.....from the first sentence you should have got the irony...

Sorry, but commonsense wasn't banned because he doesn't believe in GOD.

Here is one of commonsense's posts from this thread:

PLASMA of LIFE eh? Last night my sprayed my life plasma on your mum's face - and she liked it! Seriously though....WTF?? I love the way you first make a logical sentence about how everything in the universe is made of atoms and how these constantly cycle, in ways we are all one....although you thought you'd call this PLASMA.....again....WTF???

iHIMself™
04-17-2010, 07:00 AM
Firstly, hahahaha to being banned.. but anyway, ill answer your rubbish.

Well MY interpretation of GOD is a dude that doesn't bother me throughout life.
Is He a Dude? An imaginary deity? ok....go on..

I can do anything I choose to be moral, like raping children which is actually a good thing in MY interpretation.

There is no right or wrong...there just is.
But every action has a reaction. That is physics. So just be prepared for the wrath that follows your....goodness.

Also in MY interpretation of GOD I go to heaven automatically since I AM in his IMAGE. But nobody else goes to heaven, but limbo instead.

There is NO heaven. There is only NOW.
And, yes, you are in His image. Fatally flawed, ignorant, and offensive, but yes, nonetheless, in His image. And I assure you, most are already in limbo...go on...

ihimself though, in MY interpretation of GOD goes straight to hell, does not collect 200! Why? Because he's the craziest weirdo I've met online in quite sometime!! .

Hahaha. nice. But there is no hell. There is only NOW.

And I AM totally 100% CORRECT because my argument can bend to anything you through at it, because GOD can bend the rules of PHYSICS, and most importantly it's MY INTERPRETATION.

Yes i through at it. hahahaha. Weirdo or not, at least I can spell. And God doesn't bend the rules of physics. He is the epitomy of physics. Simple, pure, and true. The magic of god is far greater than your little imaginations of the impossible.

As the dictionary suggests, and you have so... eloquently pointed out, God may be interpreted in all sorts of ways. But beliefs in magical powers and potions, above and beyond all scientific explanation, or, as your name suggests, common sense, is ......well.....a delusion. A false God.

So....who cares what YOUR interpretation is. It's not even real.

iHIMself™
04-17-2010, 07:35 AM
ihimself can make up whatever moral rules he wants!

When did I make up whatever moral rules I want?
mor·al

   /ˈmɔrhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəl, ˈmɒr-/ http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled[mawr-uhhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngl, mor-] http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA
–adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.


I simply said...........

There is NO right or Wrong.......there just is.....

Killing, raping, and all sorts is a NATURAL phenomenon. MOSTLY, for survival. Whether physical or mental.

Good and bad are based on morals, ethics, social values, etc. Not reality. But that doesn't mean it is ok to RAPE. There are consequences to every action you take. Every action has a Reaction, and raping someone, will...consequently....
a) get you in jail, and raped yourself...
b) get you punished or even killed by vengeful family or freinds
If that is an ok scenario....you need help, and are desperate for survival.

morals themselves have, understandably, evolved over generations in society, because society, itself, has changed.

Is it morally wrong to cultivate or smoke weed? Many would say yes.
But ...
'how do you make nature...illegal??' Bill Hicks

The essence of this truth lies in the understanding that right or wrong belongs in the courtroom.

Out of the Box
04-17-2010, 07:37 AM
Organised religion is the belief that someone else's imaginary friend is more real, more intelligent and more powerful than they are themselves. That pretty much sums it up for me.

iHIMself™
04-17-2010, 07:39 AM
agreed. There's pills that can help though. lol

BlueAngel
04-17-2010, 10:03 AM
When did I make up whatever moral rules I want?
mor·al

   /ˈmɔrhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəl, ˈmɒr-/ http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled[mawr-uhhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngl, mor-] http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA
–adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.


I simply said...........

There is NO right or Wrong.......there just is.....

Killing, raping, and all sorts is a NATURAL phenomenon. MOSTLY, for survival. Whether physical or mental.

Good and bad are based on morals, ethics, social values, etc. Not reality. But that doesn't mean it is ok to RAPE. There are consequences to every action you take. Every action has a Reaction, and raping someone, will...consequently....
a) get you in jail, and raped yourself...
b) get you punished or even killed by vengeful family or freinds
If that is an ok scenario....you need help, and are desperate for survival.

morals themselves have, understandably, evolved over generations in society, because society, itself, has changed.

Is it morally wrong to cultivate or smoke weed? Many would say yes.
But ...
'how do you make nature...illegal??' Bill Hicks

The essence of this truth lies in the understanding that right or wrong belongs in the courtroom.

There is right and there is wrong.

Some people commit acts that are wrong such a killing another because they are sociopaths/psychotic.

They don't know this is wrong due to their state of mind, but WE do.

iHimself said:

Killing, raping, and all sorts is a NATURAL phenomenon. MOSTLY, for survival. Whether physical or mental.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Raping and killing are not mostly for survival.

iHIMself™
04-18-2010, 02:39 AM
i said mostly. Pertaining the natural world.

But i somewhat agree. Raping and killing can also be for financial gain or social obediance, which governments throughout history have demonstrated.



But please explain what is right or wrong, without referring to social values, virtues, morals, or written law?

Out of the Box
04-18-2010, 04:05 AM
But please explain what is right or wrong, without referring to social values, virtues, morals, or written law?

I would say that doing right means that you seek to not hurt other living beings intentionally (either mentally or physically) unless it is vital for your own survival or that of your peers. Doing wrong would mean that you hurt other living beings intentionally without it being vital for your own survival or that of your peers.

What is considered vital for survival is open for interpretation, though. For example, punishment of criminals could be considered as a necessary evil to keep society stable and thus maintain the survival of the species. Another example is eating meat, as vegetarians will argue that eating meat is not vital for our survival whereas many others disagree. Religions and ideologies exist precisely to align people's interpretation of what's right and wrong.

superted
04-18-2010, 06:17 AM
nicely put out of the box!

BlueAngel
04-18-2010, 02:23 PM
i said mostly. Pertaining the natural world.

But i somewhat agree. Raping and killing can also be for financial gain or social obediance, which governments throughout history have demonstrated.



But please explain what is right or wrong, without referring to social values, virtues, morals, or written law?

One should not have to explain to another what is right and what is wrong.

This is based upon an individual's belief system.

Out of the Box
04-18-2010, 02:34 PM
One should not have to explain to another what is right and what is wrong.

This is based upon an individual's belief system.

That's just your opinion. Not everyone agrees with that opinion.

BlueAngel
04-18-2010, 02:40 PM
That's just your opinion. Not everyone agrees with that opinion.

Yes.

Most of the time, comments by members of this forum reflect their opinion and not the opinion of everyone else on the planet.

:)

iHIMself™
04-23-2010, 03:26 AM
I would say that doing right means that you seek to not hurt other living beings intentionally (either mentally or physically) unless it is vital for your own survival or that of your peers. Doing wrong would mean that you hurt other living beings intentionally without it being vital for your own survival or that of your peers.

What is considered vital for survival is open for interpretation, though. For example, punishment of criminals could be considered as a necessary evil to keep society stable and thus maintain the survival of the species. Another example is eating meat, as vegetarians will argue that eating meat is not vital for our survival whereas many others disagree. Religions and ideologies exist precisely to align people's interpretation of what's right and wrong.


So we are in agreement then?

superted
04-23-2010, 04:47 AM
but ihimself, out of the box's defination of morals does not include god - you actually agree with that?

iHIMself™
04-23-2010, 08:06 PM
I have stated many times, that god's existence, is merely MY interpretation of the BODY of LIFE. We all know that ALL life is connected. Our universe, and even universes beyond, are all ONE part of a body..called life. I choose to call this body...god.

Out of the Box merely pointed out that morals are based on interpretation, as well as social values, virtues, religious affiliations, etc. NOT fact. I don't believe the existence of god was ever in question.

The question...does god exist, is one which has been purely concentrated on the judeo/christian/islamic faith. Which, no question, are based on a deity. Does a deity exist? Of course. There are so many deities. The judo/christian/islamic faiths like to believe the one in which they worship, is the supreme of them all. The sun. Hence, the star of david, the cross. In ancient greece, it was Zues, or Jupiter, our largest planet in the solar system. Individually, they are ALL gods. It is based on interpretation. So, in essence, there is NO question that god exists, for there are many. The question is, do you believe your heart is the supreme god to your body, or even though more powerful, it is only a part of it, and it is YOU, your ENTIRE body, TOGETHER, that makes up....YOU. God.

I am ALIVE...I AM LiFE...GOD is LIFE...I AM GOD.

say it...believe it...for that is truth.