Jump to content

201ajgrant

Members
  • Posts

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by 201ajgrant

  1. Seriously, watch this vid from the 40min mark, if you think "islamofascists" did it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a36_CwzA0bk And, Gpa ... watch it from the start.
  2. You did so when you "corrected" me. You said that "scientists are more about UNDERSTANDING creation; than they are about it being their all". See? I can create illusions as much as you can. Capitalisation of the word "him" denotes your belief. Such a word does not hold a capital letter by itself.
  3. Stop elisioning. Start an intelligent conversation. Quote sources. Call you "scott". Are you done with ordering? Start some arguments if you are "awaiting" your ever-searched-for "intelligent conversation". I gaurantee you that I will end your appreciation of your god.
  4. I long for the days when a time traveller is some dumbfuck who doesn't know a wit about their machine, how they got here, or why they are here. In fact, I add to that list the fact that they aren't even cogniscant of being here.
  5. The resistance should have actually been the floors below; not just the central steel support structure. There was another very informative vid I saw a while back that theorised that "squibs" were both visible, and used ... can't recall the name off hand though. Another one would be to watch the first zeitgeist film, as it offers a little insight as well.
  6. That is because science is as limited as religion. I ask of you: Scientifically explain to me the presence of a thought, that does exist in one's own mind. It cannot be weighed, or measured, and its' not fully understood to be electromagnetic phenomena.
  7. ... surprised that I haven't seen Razimus up in this thread ...
  8. "The origins of this universe, and life on Earth, as discussed in the textbooks I have read, are very inaccurate. The texts – the books – that I have been given relating to the function of life forms contain information that is based on: false memories; inaccurate observation(s); missing data; unproven theories; and superstition. For example, just a few hundred years ago physicians practiced “bloodletting” as a means to release supposed “ill-humours” from the body, in an attempt to heal, or relieve, a wide variety of physical, or mental, afflictions. Although this has been corrected somewhat, many barbarisms are STILL being practiced in the name of medical science. In addition to the application of incorrect theories concerning biological engineering, many primary errors that scientists make are the result of the ignorance of the nature, and relative importance, of souls as the source of energy, and intelligence, which animate EVERY life form. The correct information, about the origins of biological entities, has been erased from our minds, as well as from the minds of our mentors. In order to help you regain your own memory, I will share with you some material concerning the origin of biological entities. You will find “evolution” mentioned in the ancient Vedic Hymns. The Vedic texts are like folktales, or common wisdoms, and superstitions, gathered throughout the systems of the universe. These were compiled into “verses” like a book of rhymes. For every statement of truth, the “verses” contain many: half-truths; reversals of truth; and fanciful imaginings – blended without qualification, or distinction. The “theory of evolution” assumes that the motivational source of energy – that animates every life form – DOES NOT EXIST. It assumes that an inanimate object, or chemical concoction, can suddenly become “alive” - or “animate” - accidentally, or spontaneously. Or, perhaps, an electrical discharge into a pool of “chemical ooze” will MAGICALLY spawn a self-animated entity. There is no evidence – whatsoever - that this is true; simply because it's not true. Dr. Frankenstein did not REALLY resurrect the dead into a marauding monster; except in the imaginations of the souls whom wrote a fictitious story one dark, and stormy, night. No Western scientists ever stop to consider: “Who?”; “What?”; “Where?”; “When?”; or “How?” this animation happens. Complete ignorance, denial, or unawareness, of the spirit as the source of the lifeforce required to animate inanimate objects, or “cellular tissue”, is the SOLE cause of failures in Western medicine. In addition, “evolution” does not occur “accidentally”. It requires a great deal of technology and energy. Very simple examples are seen in the modification of farm animals, or in the breeding of dogs. However, the notion that “human biological organisms evolved naturally from earlier ape-like forms” is incorrect. No physical evidence will EVER be uncovered to substantiate the notion that modern humanoid bodies evolved on this planet." And you STILL hold to the notion that I "know not of which I speak". The end statement ALONE makes more sense than all religious dogma in existence today - COMBINED.
  9. You left it alone, because you have no answer for it - not for the reason of your lack of comprehension of the question/statement. And I don't care if your name's Jack, or Scott, or Bill ... I won't use it. Yet ... here we are. I have no need for evidence to my claims, as much as you have no need for evidence of there being a "god". What you've espoused - amongst your non-sensical ranting there - is not atheism. Atheism through ignorance is JUST ignorance. I know FAR more athiests that hold militant views against religion than I do of those whom are simply ignorant of religion. The "lack of comprehension" is on YOUR part. Scientists that claim religion as a basis of being are NOT scientists. Religionists that seek to use scientific evidence as proof are CONVERSLY not religionists. There is NO middle ground in the "Science vs. Religion" debate. Those that *claim* otherwise are detriments to both. You have no evidence that your god exists - let alone that your god exists as has been indoctrinated ... sorry, "taught" ... to you. Yet here you are willing to argue the case for god, and the meaning of its' existence. Have you ever questioned why that is so? I have no answer for that to give to you ... save only that the mentality driving your pursuit is that of a slave.
  10. So ... obarma[sic] will be executed in 2053? lmao. by then he'll be a bajillion years old.
  11. One nagging lie is that he "predicted" that rights will be taken away ... when the patriot act [maybe not in its current form] was in the workings at around the time of the first trade center bombings. Thus it was considerably known that "they" were planning to introduce that act as a result of THOSE bombings.
  12. Since when has ANY discussion not had narrow aims? A contrary idea is folly. The monologue is clearly there - it needed no emphasis as it was its' own emphath. Since this idea is being rejected (somewhat) ... then I propose an outright banning of anyone whom suggests god is behind time travel ... since a thread negatively discussing such is against accepted protocol.
  13. He never "revealed" himself in the first place. "Yahweh" is greek/ancient sanskrit for "anonymous". How can you truly believe in a jailor that calls itself "anonymous"?
  14. 1) There is no evidence that Jesus died for that reason. There is also no evidence that Jesus even existed - aside from felacious fables. 2) These ghosts have seen the trap that awaits us, and have somehow worked out a way to NOT be caught by it. I only wish that I knew how that were. 3) As for communication, well, the Schole experiments might tempt you to revise your theory. Seriously, search youtube for it. Watch it. It might change your views on the subject.
  15. ^perhaps as a sign they've somehow been abducted. Anyhow, without the existence of "time rips", how would you explain the phenomena of "missing time"?
  16. That's because everyone knows that the driver "killed" JFK. Oswald severely injured him.
  17. Since when have major claims required proof to sustain their existence?
  18. And yet, here you are propagating christianity as "the way". I notice that you didn't address my opening line in that post. I await your response to that also.
  19. First of all, I commend you for the contained clarity within your post. I'm sure that with some of the truths I am laying down it might just seem hard to maintain such opinions ;) Seeing as you begin it arguing word corrections, "elisions" also refers to percieved reality. Moreover, the omissions of - or from - a perceived reality. It is within that context that I have used the word. That said, I may be playing with definitions by using it in such a way. Also, the use of the word "omission" would have been more incorrect than my usage of the word "elision". An "elision" is also caused when (white) lies are intermixed between truthful facts. There are a few fundamental flaws in your argument - and I've this one to be common to all religions. Your religion requires dogged worship by you. It requires of you that you relinquish ALL responsibility for your actions to your god. That requirement alone is not only found in cowards, but is one borne of a slave mentality. Your religion is blinding you to the nearly infinite wonders of creation around you by perpetuating the self-belief that you are "one, under another". Science is not concerned AT ALL with the creator. A scientist whom attests against that fact is no scientist. They are seeking to have their own delusional version of their god proven right. No scientist has scientific value when they claim to be anything towards a creator. The truth is that science worships matter. When you travel to the end of a universe - concieved by science - you will fall off the edge into an abyss filled with cold, desolate space, and sheer, unrelenting force. (the infamous "donut" theory, but I forget by whom). I never eluded to being posted up as my own god. That suggests you cannot grasp that which I tell you. I am a god. As are you. We are separate gods. Neither of us is subservient(?) to the other. Yet, YOU have been dogmatically programmed into thinking that you are of lesser stature than that of a god. In fact, as part of that programming process you have been told that it is WRONG to think of yourself as equal to a god. It is WRONG for you to look after yourself before you do so to others. It is WRONG for you to not see it in another alternative way that ultimately leads to the same END. I hold no such preservations. I feel nothing towards your god; as I equally feel nothing for your opinions on your god. I know that your god is no god that is greater (or lesser) than me. We are equals. We are ALL equal gods. There is no "class system" used in reference to ourselves as gods, either.
  20. They throw themselves at the ground - hoping they'll miss - then spend years analysing why they did it in the first place.
  21. Since when has mere time spent performing a practice been justifiably usable as a reason for the continuation of that practice? Christian values are falsehoods in themselves. Personally, the upheavel(?) required to rid America of them should be admired; not denegrated as its' downfall. For thousands of years the practice of marriage was not religious-based, nor was it made specific to man-woman relationships [in legal terms]. That is a thing of modern times ("modern" meaning roughly 100AD onwards). Homosexual relationships have existed since Adam pronounced his love for god. These people do not flaunt their relationships in front of you atm, do they? If so, then maybe you'd have a factual basis for your argument. My bet is more aligned with reality though. These people are forcing you to confront your own conflicts with your own latency. There is nothing wrong with these people seeking marriage. There is no moral obligation for it to be between a man and a woman. There IS a moral obligation for it to be between two PEOPLE. These people are not suggesting anything that resembles bestiality or the other perversions you've mentioned. Only the same tax advantages afforded "married" people.
  22. It proves that god DOES exist ... just not as organised religions dictate. Basically, Yahweh is one of us - and not above us AT ALL. We were imprisoned here because elsewhere we were no longer needed.
  23. ^No religion believes that creation is the glory of the creator. That is an ellission[?] on the text. Wrong. Science believes that creation is all, as it worships matter. "Matter" is not important for a soul to grow. Modern-day ellisions on olden-day texts are of no use to anyone. As are such interpretations as well. You are worshipping at two altars. Not one. How can you find a path, by travelling two ways at once? I *feel* that yours is more blind to the trap, than it is "free and unafraid". Science cannot truly observe what is important to all souls, as it has self-imposed blinders to truth. You only "suppose" what you see, based on inherently false inputs. EDIT Perhaps I could "reword" that this way ... In the absence of complete and accurate data, anyone observing a phenomenon will assume - or hypothesise - explanations in an attempt to make sense of the data. [/edit] Conversely, organised religions all fail to observe comparative truth, as they are blind to viewing all things as a living [and interactive] whole. Secondly, their "belief" in there being a single "creator" is a falicy, as they relinquish all responsibility for their own thoughts, and actions, to said creator. Secularism may well be a way out of the hypnotic trap for you (I've yet to find mine). It is not what I imply at all.
×
×
  • Create New...