H
HighTGymcel
Self-banned
-
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2019
- Posts
- 13,711
I will never take my antipsychotics 
No, you didn't understand the argument, quoting scripture is circular logic/reasoning.You didn't understand the argument.
A faithful could claim something, but not claim that his claim was inspired by God. Furthermore, there is a difference between a faithful claiming something and the founder of the religion (Jesus) claiming something.
I think you are missing the point so I'll dumb it down for you:
1. You are using circular logic and assuming since you chose a specific religion that it must because the "one true religion"
I mean why wouldn't you choose correctly, you're so amazing and intelligent right?
2. One can only choose from the options available to them.
There have been 4000+ documented religions in human history, each having their respective God(s).
The only reason you believe in Christianity is because it didn't die like the many other thousands and because of circumstances outside of your control, that led to the option being available to you.
The greatest irony about religion is that the only religions that survive, are the ones that excel at doing "unholy things" under the guise of "God makes a special exception"
"Holy Wars"
Christianity (Crusades)
Islam (Jihad)
A lot of people converted just to not be killed lol. Or they will killed for not converting. What a "holy" cause lol.
"Manipulation & Lies To Convert"
Christianity - The Christmas holiday is literally Pagan worship repackaged in order to assimilate and convert Pagans of the past, it worked too lol.
The "Man In Red"
The "Yule Log"
The adornation and veneration of the "evergreen" tree
Etc
All of these things are part of the Pagan faith and were emulated in the holiday to draw in pagans.
Islam - They have a special type of lie that is sanctioned in their faith called "Taqiyyah", they are allowed to use this to escape persecution and to convert others.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVJEMD3GA3w
Those examples were just off the top of my head, there's way more, you can do the research yourself (I mean we both know you won't lol).
There's no reason to assume anyone has met a demon FACE TO FACE (read over what I said) when most religious people haven't even met their God FACE TO FACE either, and they actually try to communicate with that God on a regular basis, if you haven't seen it, it's very unlikely you'd see another entity.
Pascals wager only makes sense to people who use circular logic and assume that their religion is the ONLY one that could POSSIBLY be right, and that's a false assumption.
Right now you are placing all of your chips on Christianity and you could just as likely end up being wrong and still be sent to another God's hell.
Either way you are gambling.
Your thinking is very small, it's clear that you cannot comprehend abstract concepts. Your religion is not the only one in existence, you are merely assuming that Islam isn't the "one true religion" or one of the "dead" religions was actually the true one and lost to time.
pres is a sophist,so trying to reason with him is a waste of time.Christianity/Catholicism is more likely to be true than Islam. Islam is basically this: 600 years after Jesus came to Earth, Mohammed started making claims about Jesus that clearly Jesus didn't defend and neither did his followers for 600 years.
Dead religions, like the greek mythology, have less[UWSL] credibility for obvious reasons. Does Zeus not care that his religion has died? Where are the gods centuries later? [UWSL]Christianity defeated Greek/Roman mythology; Zeus was not able to stop the Holy Trinity.[/UWSL][/UWSL]
you don't need to be concerned about whether a creator deity exists or not to practice occult rituals. Many Buddhist traditions have occult-like practices but have no specific creator deity worshipped. See Tibetan Vajryana Buddhist beliefs for example.>doesn't believe in god
>believes in occult
![]()
Nah I'm good on that level of enthusiasm lol.i would at least check it out
No you retard, it's like saying - "You can BELIEVE what you want when it comes to religion, but you will never KNOW 100% WITHOUT A DOUBT until you die and it's too late to make decisions based on your BELIEFS"it's like saying a philosopher can't believe something because there are 1 million philophical theories out there ,or that no one could believe in darwins theory of evolution because there are a million other theories to account for differences in species and animals.by your logic,you could never believe in anything as there are a million other theories to account for whatever phenomenon you can think of.
What do you mean by reason?pres is a sophist,so trying to reason with him is a waste of time.
Something I forgot to say: [UWSL]from the very beginning (first century)[/UWSL] Christianity claimed that one day it would decline. Did the Greeks believe this from the very beginning too? Or did they only start to believe this after their religion was defeated?No, you didn't understand the argument, quoting scripture is circular logic/reasoning.
You can't use your unproven beliefs as proof for your unproven beliefs.
Imagine if I said unicorns were real and then I started quoting from some kind of "holy book" for my unicorn religion as proof for unicorns, that doesn't make sense. The proof has to be external to your belief.
This is why it makes no sense to quote scripture in an argument about whether your beliefs are true or not, because to do so is circular reasoning, it's fallacious logic.
I don't expect you to understand because religious people (most) can't comprehend abstract concepts anyways.
Let me make this simple. The proof of the black pill is the studies and statistics, not some book merely stating that the black pill is true to begin with. What makes the black pill factual/true is external to any "doctrine" about it. To reference the "doctrine" itself as proof is circular reasoning. You can't say that the black pill is true "because the black pill doctrine states it's true", that's fallacious logic.
I really can't make this any simpler. It's simple logic, you either get it or you don't.
That's not some genius prediction to make. The more advanced a civilization becomes, the more "ungodly" it becomes, and every human in that era could clearly see that humans have advanced, and were continuing to advance.Something I forgot to say: [UWSL]from the very beginning (first century)[/UWSL] Christianity claimed that one day it would decline.
I don't know and nor is that relevant, once again, there are around 4000 religions documented throughout human history. The "one true religion" could have been lost to time, and the one you believe in is ironically one that excelled at war and manipulation (ungodly things). That's why it survived (like Islam, another War hungry type of religion).Did the Greeks believe this from the very beginning too? Or did they only start to believe this after their religion was defeated?
you have been memed by protestants minerva. Protestants have memed the meaning of faith ever since forever,and the way faith and reasoning are often talked about by people outside of the protestants,confuses people who haven't studied christrian theology as much as they have. the video below is a good explanation of the what faith is in a simple way.you can only have faith when you already believe something and not the other way around.Nah I'm good on that level of enthusiasm lol.
No you retard, it's like saying - "You can BELIEVE what you want when it comes to religion, but you will never KNOW 100% WITHOUT A DOUBT until you die and it's too late to make decisions based on your BELIEFS"
That's been my entire argument. Not that one CAN'T BELIEVE when it comes to religion, but that one CAN'T KNOW when it comes to religion.
You idiots speak as if you KNOW and therein lies the flaw in your logic.
There's a reason why religions are called FAITHS. It's because you CAN'T KNOW, you can only BELIEVE.
That's my point. The whole "you could go to hell" argument is moot, because there are potentially THOUSANDS OF OTHER HELLS from THOUSANDS OF OTHER GODS that you can be sent to if you CHOOSE THE WRONG RELIGION.
This is why the threat of hell is pointless.
You are merely ASSUMING that you chose correctly or you were lucky enough to just stumble upon the "one true religion".
Ironically though you weren't lucky enough to be born attractive, nor were you blessed by your supposed god with good looks. So it's funny for you to assume that all of a sudden in the realm of religion you get lucky.
What do you mean by reason?
Religious people don't reason, you guys just lack the self awareness to realize that (you lack the honesty to acknowledge that too).
There is no "reasoning" in religion. You are told what to believe, why to believe it, etc. There is no room for reason. Only circular logic/reasoning and confirmation bias to look for rationalizations that already agree with your beliefs to begin with.
So occult is about becoming a "god".Not necessarily, it may be possible that every being that is a "God" became a "God" through occult means and it's possible for anyone to do that. So that really changes the entire context of the term "God", because a "God" is merely another state of existence to be attained.
Let's say we had this process of becoming a "God" down to a science, we wouldn't hold the title in such esteem as we do today. It would just be like someone getting their drivers license lol.
That advice worked out well in the story of Adam and Eve.You sound like someone who is merely content with believing. Beliefs should be tested, and beliefs should change based on the results of tests.
You don't know the meaning of the word "evidence" thenit's trusting something or someone whom you already have good evidence to believe in.
Maybe the protestants memed the meaning of "evidence" too, because you clearly don't know the meaning of the word lol.Protestants have memed the meaning of faith ever since forever
based meme
Please google "circular reasoning"That advice worked out well in the story of Adam and Eve.![]()
![]()
It's not circular reasoning. Notice I said "story", I didn't say it was necessarily true.Please google "circular reasoning"
Or better yet:
![]()
[For The Religious] - Could You Guys Please Stop Using Circular Logic In Arguments (You Seem To Lack The Self Awareness To Realize You're Using It)
Seriously, its the most common argument I see from you and it always just makes you look disingenuous and stupid, it literally ruins your arguments, you are making your own arguments less convincing YOU ACTUALLY SOUND THIS STUPID:incels.is
You don't even know if Adam & Eve even existed. These are all beliefs you were thought, you are using circular reasoning, try and think for yourself for once in your life.
That's retarded, that means what you said was pointless, because if it isn't true then it makes no sense to use it as an argument.It's not circular reasoning. Notice I said "story", I didn't say it was necessarily true.
I never said we were a type of God, allow my to quote myself:My point is you are foolish to think that we are all some type of "god"
Not necessarily, it may be POSSIBLE that every being that is a "God" became a "God" through occult means and it's POSSIBLE for anyone to do that.
You really can't read English can you?, it must be your 2nd language or something. Allow me to quote myself again:and that becoming a god is like getting a drivers license.
I'm really just giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you didn't read properly (or can't read) rather than assuming that you are being disingenuous and pretending you don't realize you are misquoting me. You left out all of the context, it was literally right there, all you had to do was read it.Let's say we had this process of becoming a "God" down to a science, we wouldn't hold the title in such esteem as we do today. It would just be like someone getting their drivers license lol.
I'm not acting anything, you are clearly just not readingThat's WISHFUL THINKING, and it has the potential to backfire. You are acting like us being some type of "god", is more likely than the potential of us being created by some God.
Nice strawman, it may or may not be true. I didn't say it was true, nor did I say it wasn't true.That's retarded, that means what you said was pointless, because if it isn't true then it makes no sense to use it as an argument.
"You shouldn't do X because this thing that isn't true will happen"
Are you even listening to yourself? lol
Or else what exactly? And why would I believe a random anecdote contradicted by stats and studies? Do you have stats and studies contradicting a monotheistic God? Doubt it.Imagine if I told you to stop being black pilled because of some made up story and I said "It may be true, so you better stop being black pilled, OR ELSE!"
Would that make sense to you?
I think I meant something such that you think we are "potential" Gods, although I have heard from other occult sources that we are all god and that we just need to become more powerful to reach our full "godhood".I'm really just giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you didn't read properly (or can't read) rather than assuming that you are being disingenuous and pretending you don't realize you are misquoting me. You left out all of the context, it was literally right there, all you had to do was read it.
I clearly said that IF we had the process of "becoming a God" down to a science we would treat it like getting a drivers license.
You're acting as if we have the potential to become Gods, and that somehow, every being that is a "god", wasn't always a god, and became gods through occultic means. Which is some sort of atheistic universe with a spiritual realm I suppose. @Transcended Trucel elab on this.I'm not acting anything, you are clearly just not reading.
You are doing it backwards. The black pill has stats and studies that PROVES it's existence, your God doesn't, but you are so brainwashed that in the case of your God you reverse the argument and attempt to assert that stats and studies must be provided to DISPROVE the existence of your God lol.Do you have stats and studies contradicting a monotheistic God? Doubt it.
No, please learn to read, I don't care what you meant, READ. I said what I said.I think I meant something such that you think we are "potential" Gods
You are acting as if we don't, my point is, neither of us knows, we just both have our BELIEFS. I plan on doing actual testing, you just plan on accepting whatever your religion tells you and blindly believing. That's the difference between the two of us. One of us actually has a belief system that allows for TRUE FREE WILL.You're acting as if we have the potential to become Gods
no clue what you mean by talking points,so i am not even going to awnser that in fear that your mind might get another misconception.as for the proofs of christrianity there are many(miracles,prophecies,philosophy,events etc etc) and you can experience just a glimpse of it of the several books in my sig.You don't know the meaning of the word "evidence" then
You don't have any actual evidence for the existence of your specific God or your religion being the "one true religion". All you have are talking points that you BELIEVE are forms of evidence. You lack the self awareness (and honesty) required to distinguish the two.
If the world operated as you do in terms of evidence and experimentation you ironically would not be using a computer to talk to me right now, it would not have even been invented yet lol.
Evidence is objective and independently verifiable (unlike the existence of your God).
Maybe the protestants memed the meaning of "evidence" too, because you clearly don't know the meaning of the word lol.
Ok so now you don't know the meaning of the word "evidence" or "experience". What is it with you and 'e' words?there are many(miracles,prophecies,philosophy,events etc etc) and you can experience just a glimpse of it of the several books in my sig.
Imagine if I told you to stop being black pilled because of some made up story and I said "It may be true, so you better stop being black pilled, OR ELSE!"
Would that make sense to you?
If a disbeliever is trying to convince a believer of God, that he doesn't exist, the onus is on him.You are doing it backwards. The black pill has stats and studies that PROVES it's existence, your God doesn't, but you are so brainwashed that in the case of your God you reverse the argument and attempt to assert that stats and studies must be provided to DISPROVE the existence of your God lol.
I would say that meme I posted isn't 'proof', but it's a potential warning, by using past stories (which may or may not be true). That was the point.The onus is not on the disbeliever to disprove the believer who is demanding that the disbeliever change his beliefs OR ELSE.
The onus is on the believer to provide proof.
You were talking about a potential science where we could become Gods.No, please learn to read, I don't care what you meant, READ. I said what I said.
Both allow for free will actually, humility is part of free will. Also, on what basis do you have to believe that non-Gods could become Gods? You probably read it on some occult website. However, as I said, that is like believing in some sort of atheistic universe with a spiritual and occultist aspect, which is retarded.You are acting as if we don't, my point is, neither of us knows, we just both have our BELIEFS. I plan on doing actual testing, you just plan on accepting whatever your religion tells you and blindly believing. That's the difference between the two of us. One of us actually has a belief system that allows for TRUE FREE WILL.
Yours just says you have "free will" but holds a gun to your head and threatens you with eternal torture if ironically don't restrict your will
![]()
btw the 4th point is a moral argument, so you're probably gonna disregard that one, but the other points still stand.Aquinas' Five Ways argued from the unmoved mover, first cause, necessary being, argument from degree, and the teleological argument.
- The unmoved mover argument asserts that, from our experience of motion in the universe (motion being the transition from potentiality to actuality) we can see that there must have been an initial mover. Aquinas argued that whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another thing, so there must be an unmoved mover.[17]
- Aquinas' argument from first cause started with the premise that it is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself) and that it is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a first cause, itself uncaused.[17]
- The argument from necessary being asserts that all beings are contingent, meaning that it is possible for them not to exist. Aquinas argued that if everything can possibly not exist, there must have been a time when nothing existed; as things exist now, there must exist a being with necessary existence, regarded as God.[17]
- Aquinas argued from degree, considering the occurrence of degrees of goodness. He believed that things which are called good, must be called good in relation to a standard of good—a maximum. There must be a maximum goodness that which causes all goodness.[17]
- The teleological argument asserts the view that things without intelligence are ordered towards a purpose. Aquinas argued that unintelligent objects cannot be ordered unless they are done so by an intelligent being, which means that there must be an intelligent being to move objects to their ends: God.[17]
what are you on about?experiencing is often used to simply mean to encounter something.you can look that up in the dictionary. i can "encounter" the big bang theory in a book.it doesn't mean i was there at the beggining of the big bang.Ok so now you don't know the meaning of the word "evidence" or "experience". What is it with you and 'e' words?.
I swear religious mental gymnastics is always amusing. You are really just rewriting definitions in your mind now to fit your narrative.
You don't experience anything by just reading it, THAT'S CALLED "BELIEVING" NOT "EXPERIENCING".
admiteddly saint thomas aquinas arguments are very confusing unless you already understand the aristotliean background he came from.otherwise terms like potentional and actual just means nothing.this is why reading a beginner introduction to aquinas is kind of necessary.there are a lot of videos on youtube about aquinas arguments so that is cool.i still prefer books.If a disbeliever is trying to convince a believer of God, that he doesn't exist, the onus is on him.
I would say that meme I posted isn't 'proof', but it's a potential warning, by using past stories (which may or may not be true). That was the point.
You were talking about a potential science where we could become Gods.
Both allow for free will actually, humility is part of free will. Also, on what basis do you have to believe that non-Gods could become Gods? You probably read it on some occult website. However, as I said, that is like believing in some sort of atheistic universe with a spiritual and occultist aspect, which is retarded.
Meanwhile, theologians have made logical arguments for the potential of an eternal God, such as Thomas Aquinas. (and more if you follow the link)
![]()
Course Hero
www.coursehero.com
btw the 4th point is a moral argument, so you're probably gonna disregard that one, but the other points still stand.
The idea of some atheistic, occultist universe where non-gods become gods is just a load of garbage, but you can believe whatever crap you want if it helps you cope.
What I meant was, keeping true to the forum's purpose I may learn something about occult practices and try some of that stuff myself. But frankly I question my ability to see at as anything more than fun community activity. I don't think I could (for lack of a better word) delude myself into thinking any of this actually works. Maybe there is something more than entertainment here if I keep an open mind.How about no lol. This forum already exists for that purpose. There's no reason to join an occult forum just to "hang out". I'm trying to create a community of people that are ACTUALLY SERIOUS about this. Outside of that I wouldn't even bother creating it
That is a rather interesting perspective considering the context of this threadYou sound like someone who is merely content with believing. Beliefs should be tested, and beliefs should change based on the results of tests.
You're not supposed to believe any of it actually works until you can do something that proves it to yourself.I don't think I could (for lack of a better word) delude myself into thinking any of this actually works.
Depends on what you think "occultism" is. Alchemy is pretty much the origin of the modern day "scientific method". It came about due to the experiments that those occultists did in the past. They treated it like it was a science. Chemistry also came out of alchemy.That is a rather interesting perspective considering the context of this thread
That's bull. Quantum physicists have found none of that.Quantum physicists have found out that consciousness does not come from the brain but from some metaphysical entity and that the brain is a receiver for that metaphysical entity. I believe religion is nonsense though.
That may be, but the fact remains that alchemy was ultimately wrong in its principles.[UWSL]Depends on what you think "occultism" is. Alchemy is pretty much the origin of the modern day "scientific method". It came about due to the experiments that those occultists did in the past. They treated it like it was a science. Chemistry also came out of alchemy.[/UWSL]
Ok man whatever. Be a full blown atheistThat's bull. Quantum physicists have found none of that.
That may be, but the fact remains that alchemy was ultimately wrong in its principles.
Sounds like pick and choose to meBelieving in God And believing that occult could exist are two different things. I personally believe in a spiritual realm but I don't believe in God.
Modern atheists who believe in magic are still rare. Especially those who argue like OP.you don't need to be concerned about whether a creator deity exists or not to practice occult rituals. Many Buddhist traditions have occult-like practices but have no specific creator deity worshipped. See Tibetan Vajryana Buddhist beliefs for example.
Atheism has got nothing to do with this. Your claim that Quantum Physicists say anything like that is simply not trueOk man whatever. Be a full blown atheist
That's not what he's saying. Either way there's no point in arguing something like this, because like I said, I only want people who are serious and interested to join the group. If I have to convince someone to be interested I don't really need them there to begin with.Ok man whatever. Be a full blown atheist
I would never do something like that because there's no way that I could use it to benefit me lolI will be interested, also have you tried ouija board by yourself?
I'll send you the invite link but I think you're looking at this the wrong way. I'm not "thrill chasing", I'm taking this very literally, and I'll basically be testing it through a scientific method. So I'm not going to be doing anything like a Seance or trying to "talk to the dead" or anything random like that which can't be tested, re-tested and properly experimented with.For extra danger you could do it in a cemetery, but that might be a bit much, I’m too much of a bitch to do it![]()
I would be interested and willing to join, as I practice myself.I don't have the resources or time to start and run a forum, but I've always been interested in the occult and I've thought about creating a sort of group like this before. A group of us could easily just join an already existing occult forum and just PM eachother our usernames and then communicate and forum a group there.
Or we could just start a discord or something.
EDIT:
FUCK!
I thought by default the polls would be set to public results but It's set to anonymous. PM me if you are interested in the forum. I won't be able to see any names in this poll.
Can I join?I don't have the resources or time to start and run a forum, but I've always been interested in the occult and I've thought about creating a sort of group like this before. A group of us could easily just join an already existing occult forum and just PM eachother our usernames and then communicate and forum a group there.
Or we could just start a discord or something.
EDIT:
FUCK!
I thought by default the polls would be set to public results but It's set to anonymous. PM me if you are interested in the forum. I won't be able to see any names in this poll.
I just made a post about creating an egregore on this forum. Please leave feedback.interested. Been reading 72 Angels of Magick to help me ascend![]()
interested. Been reading 72 Angels of Magick to help me ascend![]()
Play legends retardMagic:
![]()
![]()
![]()
You're a fucking retard![]()
![]()
...
(Finale)
![]()
Ave SanctificatusI don't have the resources or time to start and run a forum, but I've always been interested in the occult and I've thought about creating a sort of group like this before. A group of us could easily just join an already existing occult forum and just PM eachother our usernames and then communicate and forum a group there.
Or we could just start a discord or something.
EDIT:
FUCK!
I thought by default the polls would be set to public results but It's set to anonymous. PM me if you are interested in the forum. I won't be able to see any names in this poll.
No black magic for your face/heightI don't have the resources or time to start and run a forum, but I've always been interested in the occult and I've thought about creating a sort of group like this before. A group of us could easily just join an already existing occult forum and just PM eachother our usernames and then communicate and forum a group there.
Or we could just start a discord or something.
EDIT:
FUCK!
I thought by default the polls would be set to public results but It's set to anonymous. PM me if you are interested in the forum. I won't be able to see any names in this poll.