The Problem with Religion

[Tomasz Winnicki]

No, it's not as simple as that.

[DeShawn S. Williams]

Now I don't know so much about art or literature, but I gotta say I respectfully disagree with you, Mr. Linder, on Bach. His music was inspired by his Christian faith, and it is some of the BEST, most beautiful,and ingenius stuff out there. Can you really say that this doesn't move you?

PEACE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtiFsVlqGSA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtiFsVlqGSA

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

Religion is less wrong than just horribly incompetent, low-class and just flat ugly in what it tries to do.

It's an ungainly ugly massive beast mucking toward the idea that life is more than just atoms. Ok, there's nothing wrong with that idea. It might even be true. I am one with even the Southerners in the detestation of that utterly, utterly abhorrent two-dimensional equality flatness so characteristic of the high-IQ but truly brainless egalitarian charlatanesses like, for example, Nancy Grace. They are people truly gracelesss, sans rhythm or soul.

BUT

While religious folk often have this rhthym, what they don't have is art.

Thus, the people who have the art best, your Mencken and your Twain, are most often atheists. Not believers. Believers can't do any better than your drama-queens like Doestoyevsky.

You say Bach, I say mating dance of electronic snakes. No more real spirit in Baugchkkh. than anyone can achieve beating in a stick in a well. As well claim a Gregorian chant expresses spirit. It expresses dispirit. The lifeless self-imposed welling of the congenitally diseased and melancholic anchorite drifting up where confused healthy humans peer down in cisternation.

You say Michaelangelo. I say if someone hadn't told you the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel was great, you wouldn't 'know' it. I could say that while it's technically impressive that someone could spend years on his back and still keep perspective in his doodling, at the end of it, it's just some queer scribbling murals depicting sci-fi scenes from bogus jewish historical fiction...on the ceiling. There is no part of on the ceiling that is ever not bad taste, and that's Italian bad taste, which is like the ultimate in bad taste, this side of nigger. I mean, what part of the Sistine Chapel is not lip-curlingly execrable? 'Art' on ceiling? Murals? Dudes mutually poking? Ugly pastels of pulpy nudes? The crowds of four-foot-tall Guidos craning and gesticulating over them?

Christian and taste are mutually exclusive categories. Christian is very much like 'woman.' She's the first female to do something. She has the best time for a female. He's a great christian writer. He's in a really great christian band.

What's great in christian art is always the product of a man working for money at the behest of a patron, never simply a man inspired, as Twain and Mencken and other real artists were.

If you want real art, real spirit, real soul, real rhythm, real bubbling over foamy joy...you don't go to the boo boxers. You go to the atheists. No one does genuinely joyful expression -- not faked forced synthetic positivism -- like atheists.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins

Being raised as a Christian (Methodist), I can say that I found all aspects of the religion boring and out of sync with who I am.

Yeah, I've been to Methodist services, pretty washed-out stuff. The thrill is gone, it's safe to say.

The Bible being full of Hebrews from 2000 years ago in Israel held absolutely no appeal or interest to me, and Christ dying on a cross for humanity's sins did not evoke the slightest twinge of guilt on my part.

To me, and I attended the better part of two decades of christian science sunday school, it was simply funny to watch the teachers never, ever doubting that they had something to deliver young ears, and that it was the goods. Really? Doesn't this stuff seem kind of nasty and dubious? Did you actually read what's in Genesis? Just vile stuff, and not interesting stuff either. Then you have jeboo in the new testament. Die for someone else's sins? How is that possible? It's not. How is that needed? It isn't.

I mean, ok, we're not really seriously pretending this stuff actually happened, are we? We are? Are you all insane?

Come on. Let's be adults here. This is drama-queen piffle for old women. There's nothing in the bible for men.

Once you get older and have more appreciation for literary style, you realize that the bible is a big fat semitic steamer dipped in an English literary chocolate shell. A truly disgusting and off-putting mix. The basis of civilization? It ain't that, that's for sure. The antithesis of civilization is more like it. Good taste and truth draw small crowds, not large. The bible makes solid sense to the type of folks found the night before at World Wrestling events.

Heaven seemed like a tedious and intollerable bore to me. It was only a child's fear of being sent to a place of eternal torment that made me afraid to not believe, for awhile.

To me the whole scheme seemed merely ridiculous. My natural instinct: oh really? You have any evidence that any of this crap exists? No. You have some guy sweating really really hard, and shrieking imprecations on any who doubt. Meh. That kind of ass-clown is a dime a dozen. I can honestly say I never thought the bible was anything but a bunch of tall takes. Even when I was a five-year-old I knew that christianity had something to do with female emotional problems. I didn't mind going, mind you, most of the time, but I never took seriously in the way that it presented itself. It isn't a serious thing.

This is the only thing you need to know about the bible: 1700 pages. Not a single funny bit. This is the ultimate truth about human nature and the meaning of the universe? Bullshit.

As I grew older and dismissed such nonsense as idle superstition, I abandoned Christianity altogether; while my interest in my family's ancestry and heritage, coupled with a fascination with Tolkien's writings, led me to delve into the pre-Christian spirituality of my pagan ancestors.

Understandable. I personally find physical anthropology interesting. I enjoy the idea of being part of a context and chain that stretches both directions. I see our people as fundamentally questing, rational, high-spirited and joyous. Thus christ-insanity has no appeal to me.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Horseman

If the meaning of life is mere atoms then what difference does it make whether jews rule the earth or whites do?

That's a non sequitur. What does the composition of the world have to do with the desirability of jews running things?

Planted axiom: without the jebus cult, nothing has meaning.

Only a christ crank can't see how silly that is.

It all just boils down to atoms either way. one set of atoms are no better than another set of atoms. Same thing with music. Rap music and Mozart are the same thing if they both are nothing but pressure waves. Eventually you are going to need to admit there is such a thing as good and bad.

Too stupid to refute. But since you care, good and bad exist, the point is that they aren't absolutes, as the christ cultists incorrectly and hysterically and counterfactually claim.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by DeShawn S. Williams

Now I don't know so much about art or literature, but I gotta say I respectfully disagree with you, Mr. Linder, on Bach. His music was inspired by his Christian faith, and it is some of the BEST, most beautiful,and ingenius stuff out there. Can you really say that this doesn't move you?

PEACE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtiFsVlqGSA

Insipid.

Handel's Messiah is the only Christian music that actually is first-rate and inspiring. Whether you believe or not, the power and the driving passion reflect the subject matter wonderfully and persuasively; very much like a roller coaster ride you are thrilled and spent by Messiah's end.

Bach's stuff is paltry next to that. Bach is popular because it's restrained. It's only a step or two above Muzak, which middle class people love because it has the balls cut off. I daresay that the man who invented Muzak was most likely listening to Bach when the idea occurred to him.

[Alex Linder]

Bach's music goes perfectly with drinking wine and thinking well of oneself, that's why it was beloved and championed by notable tergiversator William F. Buckley Jr.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Tomasz Winnicki

Don't attack Christians too hard. Some of them love to be martyrs for their cause. It makes them more fervent. Just point out their foolishness where appropriate. Over time I think the better parts of Christianity that are compatible with Aryan spirit (is there a better word?) will simply become part of our folklore.

From a neurological point of view, I think it's interesting to consider WHY do brains generate thoughts that lead to superstitions which eventually lead to whole organized religious/belief systems. All races of humans exhibit that trait. Even if Whites were the only subspecies on earth I think we would still have some forms of religions around.

Now here's a question. If we had a supercomputer powerful enough to simulate matter-energy physics at subatomic level, gave the simulator program enough atoms to play around with and it eventually generated virtual 'live' humanoids with comparable brain structures to our own, would those virtual humans also develop religions? There still exist aspects of nature we don't have adequate understanding of. Like the existence of the Higgs boson which supposedly is responsible for gravity, what dark matter is and other spooky stuff like that. Perhaps there's a lot more out there totally unknown which would be as alien to us as computers would be to a caveman.

We don't know everything about everything yet. Like the low-class phenomenon it is, religion insists it has all the answers about everything. Science, with due circumspection, insists only on what it can verify, and even then remains open to evidence.

Soul, spirit, mind - we have an idea what these refer to, but if they can't be tied today to particular particles, that doesn't mean that won't be the case tomorrow.

Can you think clearly when your tooth or back pains you? Is your soul rested under same? Do you feel high-spirited during the throbbing?

Then it is clear that these supposedly non-material qualities are highly subject to influence or control by mere physical parts. How can that be if the two are entirely different or separated? It can't.

In time, science always discovers more. Religion never advances one iota from the bogus omniscience it claimed at the start.

[Steven L. Akins]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

Insipid.

Handel's Messiah is the only Christian music that actually is first-rate and inspiring. Whether you believe or not, the power and the driving passion reflect the subject matter wonderfully and persuasively; very much like a roller coaster ride you are thrilled and spent by Messiah's end.

Bach's stuff is paltry next to that. Bach is popular because it's restrained. It's only a step or two above Muzak, which middle class people love because it has the balls cut off. I daresay that the man who invented Muzak was most likely listening to Bach when the idea occurred to him.

I prefer Vivaldi over all of them.

[Bev]

Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins

Children are born to parents, so it is a normal, common, human experience to have an authority figure over you, protecting and punishing you. This is the basis for the idea behind gods.

Deities are parental figures for adults who find the grown-up world a scary place.

That's actually an interesting thought. I've always looked on christianity/catholicism as a weekly dose of someone else's morals to keep you on the straight and narrow (hence the frankfurters quest to destroy it) and it always confused me (when younger) as to why your own, inbuilt sense of morality wasn't enough. Throw in all the Magdalen laundry scandals, the catholic priest and choirboy scandals, and all the rest of it and I wondered what qualified these people to tell me (and others) what was right and decent.

Then I realised that some people just don't have morals and some people have different morals and a "god" who used members of an institution that harboured countless child molesters to tell me and others that we were sinners and would burn in hell for various minor, normal childhood crimes (being lippy, smoking in the school toilets etc) was quite probably either a) full of shit or b) non-existent and from that point on, I would decide for myself where my own moral line was on any given issue. I'm not sure what my point is, but you made a good one here.

[Tomasz Winnicki]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

We don't know everything about everything yet.

Yeah, sorry for that type of remark. I knew it was cliche.

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

Can you think clearly when your tooth or back pains you? Is your soul rested under same? Do you feel high-spirited during the throbbing?

That's EXACTLY the thought and personal experience that inspired Christof Koch to write his "The Quest For Consciousness - A Neurobiological Approach". Sounds like you'd like to read it. Christof Koch was a close associate and friend of Francis Crick.

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

Then it is clear that these supposedly non-material qualities are highly subject to influence or control by mere physical parts. How can that be if the two are entirely different or separated? It can't.

I didn't even imply that the subjective mind is uninfluenced by the objective matter/energy. But it's still possible that there are other 'players' involved. Perhaps some super high energy/frequency waves/particles that we don't have the equipment to detect yet. Would a computer running a brain simulator experience qualia; the redness of red, the painess of pain, the joyousness of joy? Could it become an anti-semite???

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

In time, science always discovers more. Religion never advances one iota from the bogus omniscience it claimed at the start.

And that's why SCIENCE is my 'religion' . The White genius nerds/geeks/hackers like Nikola Tesla, Max Planck, James Maxwell, Leonard Euler, the Wright brothers, Kelly Johnson, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford and whichever dude it was that designed the Bugatti Veyron, Charles Babbage, Konrad Zuse, Dennis Ritchie, etc., are my 'high priests'.

[Sándor Petőfi]

How much of a blathering idiot wallowing in the blindness of ones own arrogance does one have to be to even consider writing such inanity? Or isn't that just the sort that a journalist, and an American one at that, is? And, aren't we surprised, Akins joins in.

Alex Linder, as I have written before, has no feeling for life, and therefore no inkling of an idea of what art is, and like his idols Twain and Mencken, who were journalists rather than artists, lacks intellectual depth (and so they are of course materialists of the most naive sort, and naturally atheists too) - a lack which he attempts to hide beneath cleverness, that manifests itself in excessive criticism and continued employment of the rhetoric of ridicule against his opponents under the assumed sanctity of the rational and material Weltanschauung, since their criticisms, having no proper philosophical foundation amongst other things, inevitably lack intellectual force.

But I won't leave it at that. That Linder's spiritual origins lie in the Levant should by now be clear to any thinking person. And I do not doubt that so do his ethnic origins, as one glance at his physical phenotype confirms (hence his absurd dismissal of the claim that one can identify a Jew by appearance).





So I may as well come out and say it, as many have before me:


ALEX

LINDER

IS

A


JEW



Charles Baudelaire

Les Phares

Rubens, fleuve d'oubli, jardin de la paresse,
Oreiller de chair fraîche où l'on ne peut aimer,
Mais où la vie afflue et s'agite sans cesse,
Comme l'air dans le ciel et la mer dans la mer;

Léonard de Vinci, miroir profond et sombre,
Où des anges charmants, avec un doux souris
Tout chargé de mystère, apparaissent à l'ombre
Des glaciers et des pins qui ferment leur pays;

Rembrandt, triste hôpital tout rempli de murmures,
Et d'un grand crucifix décoré seulement,
Où la prière en pleurs s'exhale des ordures,
Et d'un rayon d'hiver traversé brusquement;

Michel-Ange, lieu vague où l'on voit des Hercules
Se mêler à des Christs, et se lever tout droits
Des fantômes puissants qui dans les crépuscules
Déchirent leur suaire en étirant leurs doigts;

Colères de boxeur, impudences de faune,
Toi qui sus ramasser la beauté des goujats,
Grand coeur gonflé d'orgueil, homme débile et jaune,
Puget, mélancolique empereur des forçats;

Watteau, ce carnaval où bien des coeurs illustres,
Comme des papillons, errent en flamboyant,
Décors frais et légers éclairés par des lustres
Qui versent la folie à ce bal tournoyant;

Goya, cauchemar plein de choses inconnues,
De foetus qu'on fait cuire au milieu des sabbats,
De vieilles au miroir et d'enfants toutes nues,
Pour tenter les démons ajustant bien leurs bas;

Delacroix, lac de sang hanté des mauvais anges,
Ombragé par un bois de sapins toujours vert,
Où, sous un ciel chagrin, des fanfares étranges
Passent, comme un soupir étouffé de Weber;

Ces malédictions, ces blasphèmes, ces plaintes,
Ces extases, ces cris, ces pleurs, ces Te Deum,
Sont un écho redit par mille labyrinthes;
C'est pour les coeurs mortels un divin opium!

C'est un cri répété par mille sentinelles,
Un ordre renvoyé par mille porte-voix;
C'est un phare allumé sur mille citadelles,
Un appel de chasseurs perdus dans les grands bois!

Car c'est vraiment, Seigneur, le meilleur témoignage
Que nous puissions donner de notre dignité
Que cet ardent sanglot qui roule d'âge en âge
Et vient mourir au bord de votre éternité!

The Beacons

Rubens, river of oblivion, garden of indolence,
Pillow of cool flesh where one cannot love,
But where life moves and whirls incessantly
Like the air in the sky and the tide in the sea;

Leonardo, dark, unfathomable mirror,
In which charming angels, with sweet smiles
Full of mystery, appear in the shadow
Of the glaciers and pines that enclose their country;

Rembrandt, gloomy hospital filled with murmuring,
Ornamented only with a large crucifix,
Lit for a moment by a wintry sun,
Where from rot and ordure rise tearful prayers;

Angelo, shadowy place where Hercules' are seen
Mingling with Christs, and rising straight up,
Powerful phantoms, which in the twilights
Rend their winding-sheets with outstretched fingers;

Boxer's wrath, shamelessness of Fauns, you whose genius
Showed to us the beauty in a villain,
Great heart filled with pride, sickly, yellow man,
Puget, melancholy emperor of galley slaves;

Watteau, carnival where the loves of many famous hearts
Flutter capriciously like butterflies with gaudy wings;
Cool, airy settings where the candelabras' light
Touches with madness the couples whirling in the dance

Goya, nightmare full of unknown things,
Of fetuses roasted in the midst of witches' sabbaths,
Of old women at the mirror and of nude children,
Tightening their hose to tempt the demons;

Delacroix, lake of blood haunted by bad angels,
Shaded by a wood of fir-trees, ever green,
Where, under a gloomy sky, strange fanfares
Pass, like a stifled sigh from Weber;

These curses, these blasphemies, these lamentations,
These Te Deums, these ecstasies, these cries, these tears,
Are an echo repeated by a thousand labyrinths;
They are for mortal hearts a divine opium.

They are a cry passed on by a thousand sentinels,
An order re-echoed through a thousand megaphones;
They are a beacon lighted on a thousand citadels,
A call from hunters lost deep in the woods!

For truly, Lord, the clearest proofs
That we can give of our nobility,
Are these impassioned sobs that through the ages roll,
And die away upon the shore of your Eternity.

[Steven L. Akins]

Originally Posted by Sándor Petőfi

How much of a blathering idiot wallowing in the blindness of ones own arrogance does one have to be to even consider writing such inanity? Or isn't that just the sort that a journalist, and an American one at that, is? And, aren't we surprised, Akins joins in.

Alex Linder, as I have written before, has no feeling for life, and therefore no inkling of an idea of what art is, and like his idols Twain and Mencken, who were journalists rather than artists, lacks intellectual depth (and so they are of course materialists of the most naive sort, and naturally atheists too) - a lack which he attempts to hide beneath cleverness, that manifests itself in excessive criticism and continued employment of the rhetoric of ridicule against his opponents under the assumed sanctity of the rational and material Weltanschauung, since their criticisms, having no proper philosophical foundation amongst other things, inevitably lack intellectual force.

But I won't leave it at that. That Linder's spiritual origins lie in the Levant should by now be clear to any thinking person. And I do not doubt that so do his ethnic origins, as one glance at his physical phenotype confirms (hence his absurd dismissal of the claim that one can identify a Jew by appearance).





So I may as well come out and say it, as many have before me:


ALEX

LINDER

IS

A


JEW

I don't know anything about Alex Linder; but I do know that Jesus was a Jew, and that Yahweh is the god of the Jews.

A Christian cannot be a White Nationalist because they can never put their race before their religion. A Christian will always put their Jew god before everything else; because they are so terrified by the prospect of going to hell.

[Horseman]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

Bach's music goes perfectly with drinking wine and thinking well of oneself, that's why it was beloved and championed by notable tergiversator William F. Buckley Jr.

I don't agree with this at all. I can enjoy Bach's well tempered clavier sitting in jeans, drinking orange juice. I know what you're saying, but those snobs who listen to classical music like that are missing what it's all about.

[Horseman]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

That's a non sequitur. What does the composition of the world have to do with the desirability of jews running things?

Planted axiom: without the jebus cult, nothing has meaning.

Only a christ crank can't see how silly that is.

No, I'm no jebus cultist or any cultist. I'm asking what difference does it matter to you whether jews or whites run things, if either way it all just boils down to atoms . The reason is that it's more than just atoms. you operate according to an absolute cosmic force of good that is in you. You are good and you hate evil and want to do something about it. For whatever reason, many jews seem to have a natural tendency to be oriented along the cosmic forces of evil, and naturally oppose good as the problem. I'm happy that my jewishness didn't cause me to be like this.
BTW, some religions use a beast metaphor to represent the evil lines of force. THere's nothing crazy about that, unless you take it literally and believe in a real beast.

[Horseman]

Originally Posted by Sándor Petőfi

How much of a blathering idiot wallowing in the blindness of ones own arrogance does one have to be to even consider writing such inanity? Or isn't that just the sort that a journalist, and an American one at that, is? And, aren't we surprised, Akins joins in.

Alex Linder, as I have written before, has no feeling for life, and therefore no inkling of an idea of what art is, and like his idols Twain and Mencken, who were journalists rather than artists, lacks intellectual depth (and so they are of course materialists of the most naive sort, and naturally atheists too) - a lack which he attempts to hide beneath cleverness, that manifests itself in excessive criticism and continued employment of the rhetoric of ridicule against his opponents under the assumed sanctity of the rational and material Weltanschauung, since their criticisms, having no proper philosophical foundation amongst other things, inevitably lack intellectual force.

But I won't leave it at that. That Linder's spiritual origins lie in the Levant should by now be clear to any thinking person. And I do not doubt that so do his ethnic origins, as one glance at his physical phenotype confirms (hence his absurd dismissal of the claim that one can identify a Jew by appearance).





So I may as well come out and say it, as many have before me:


ALEX

LINDER

IS

A


JEW

Sandor half the things you say are hyperbole. I wonder if you really believe that Alex is a jew. He doesn't look like one to me, and I know better than you. But Alex is definately one of those people who do not have a good sense of art.

[Sándor Petőfi]

Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle

Horseman believes in the Ghost in the Machine.

See Maxwell's Demon- how mind could affect matter without violating the second law of thermodynamics as no work would be done.

At the very least that would go both ways. And since the mind indubitably exists, whereas your concept of 'matter' exists in the mind, that doesn't bode well for your own idiotic philosophy. Attempting to use the theories of physics to justify your metaphysical presuppositions is laughable when the philosophical interpretation of these theories presupposes these very metaphysical presuppositions. Apparently the irony is lost upon 'scientists', who shun the word philosophy and in their, frankly embarrassing, ignorance of the products of its intellectual history instead adopt bad philosophy, namely, a naive materialism, and worse still as of recently among physicists, a most absurd kind of subjectivist nominalism which stands in contradiction to the empirical objectivism that forms the foundation of science.

Now, not only are there no 'closed systems' in actuality, not only can your 'Second Law' only be demonstrated in artificial laboratory experiments and technological machines, not only will nobody ever show its validity in applying to the phenomena of life, no matter how much they talk of 'complex systems' and the shortcomings of analytical mathematics in the applied sciences, no, not only this: even were this 'law' (the irony of the fact that the development of the idea of 'physical laws' postdates and depends upon that of the 'moral laws' which form the basis of our monotheistic 'religions' is also lost on scientists) governing each and every aspect of a mechanical nature, the objection itself would have no validity outside of mechanical causes and effects. Of course the mechanist has no other concept of causation apart from the mechanical one, and this is in this case doubly ironic, since the concept of the efficient cause, which underlies mechanical causation, consider the 'force', has its origins in no other place than the ego's experience of the acts of its will.

Your primary, and false, presupposition, however, is the idea that the world is an intelligible machine, and living organisms mere automata. Naturally, you use this to go about in a circle trying to prove just that.

[Tom Scabdates]

Originally Posted by Sándor Petőfi

At the very least that would go both ways. And since the mind indubitably exists, whereas your concept of 'matter' exists in the mind, that doesn't bode well for your own idiotic philosophy. Attempting to use the theories of physics to justify your metaphysical presuppositions is laughable when the philosophical interpretation of these theories presupposes these very metaphysical presuppositions. Apparently the irony is lost upon 'scientists', who shun the word philosophy and in their, frankly embarrassing, ignorance of the products of its intellectual history instead adopt bad philosophy, namely, a naive materialism, and worse still as of recently among physicists, a most absurd kind of subjectivist nominalism which stands in contradiction to the empirical objectivism that forms the foundation of science.

Now, not only are there no 'closed systems' in actuality, not only can your 'Second Law' only be demonstrated in artificial laboratory experiments and technological machines, not only will nobody ever show its validity in applying to the phenomena of life, no matter how much they talk of 'complex systems' and the shortcomings of analytical mathematics in the applied sciences, no, not only this: even were this 'law' (the irony of the fact that the development of the idea of 'physical laws' postdates and depends upon that of the 'moral laws' which form the basis of our monotheistic 'religions' is also lost on scientists) governing each and every aspect of a mechanical nature, the objection itself would have no validity outside of mechanical causes and effects. Of course the mechanist has no other concept of causation apart from the mechanical one, and this is in this case doubly ironic, since the concept of the efficient cause, which underlies mechanical causation, consider the 'force', has its origins in no other place than the ego's experience of the acts of its will.

Your primary, and false, presupposition, however, is the idea that the world is an intelligible machine, and living organisms mere automata. Naturally, you use this to go about in a circle trying to prove just that.

A lot of big words cupcake. First you call the admin a kike with no merit and then in another thread accuse everyone on the board of being a fed. Two reasons alone why your ass should be shitcanned.

Too bad really. You used to post some good stuff before revealing yourself as a rabid christinsaner. But I'm curious. There have been plenty of anti-christian posts on this board historically. Why did it take so long for you to "activate"?

[Sándor Petőfi]

Horseman believes in the Ghost in the Machine.

And what you believe in is the creation, ex nihilo, of phenomena from an undefinable 'matter' which cannot even in principle, without violating the foundations of materialism, contain in essentia the phenomena which manifest themselves or have any reason to bring any one to manifestation, no matter how the matter behaves. One can configure a system of particles as complex as one likes and behaving however one likes, but it logically remains a system of particles, necessarily identical with itself and not any phenomenon, its positions mere positions, its momenta mere momenta, not mind, not will, not belief, not colour, not sound, not taste, not love, not fear, not anger, and, most certainly not a single thought.

Hocus pocus.

It's clear which idea is the more absurd.

[Sándor Petőfi]

Originally Posted by Tom Scabdates

Too bad really. You used to post some good stuff before revealing yourself as a rabid christinsaner. But I'm curious. There have been plenty of anti-christian posts on this board historically. Why did it take so long for you to "activate"?

Christian? Don't make me laugh you intellectual dwarf.

[Steven L. Akins]

Originally Posted by Sándor Petőfi

And what you believe in is the creation, ex nihilo, of phenomena from an undefinable 'matter' which cannot even in principle, without violating the foundations of materialism, contain in essentia the phenomena which manifest themselves or have any reason to bring any one to manifestation, no matter how the matter behaves. One can configure a system of particles as complex as one likes and behaving however one likes, but it logically remains a system of particles, necessarily identical with itself and not any phenomenon, its positions mere positions, its momenta mere momenta, not mind, not will, not belief, not colour, not sound, not taste, not love, not fear, not anger, and, most certainly not a single thought.

Hocus pocus.

It's clear which idea is the more absurd.

If you believe that god can exist without a creator, then surely it is easier to accept that creation can exist without a god?