humor and being ''WOKE''

[Wizard22]

Can you morons stay-on-point about Wokism, Postmodern Eunuchs, Child Castration and Genital Mutilation, instead of arguing about abortion?

Wokies like Sculptor and Kropotkin need to be thoroughly defeated on their promotion of these vile, evil Marxist manipulations.

After they are defeated, THEN you can go back to arguing about "WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN AHHHH"

[vegetariantaxidermy]

[Gary Childress]

What am I "making up", that you don't answer direct inquiries into why YOU believe Christianity is the one true religion?

Yep. I've been very forthright about that. That you haven't been paying attention...well, I can do nothing about that. Go back to sleep, I guess.

Fair enough. I don't perceive that Christianity is clearly the one true religion. As far as I can tell people embrace spirituality in many ways and life as it is and as I have perceived it is inconsistent with the notion that God is "benevolent" or made human beings in his/her/its image--if God is even a being in the sense that we perhaps anthropomorphisize "him" to be. We seem to be his pets at best. And this pet can't deal with much more of the misfortunes of psychological "illness". And other people tend to scare me too because you can just as easily kill me as God can whether by intent, accident or indifference. I have psychological trauma. According to human derived psychology it's a "problem" I possess. I see no "problem" only reality.

[Wizard22]

This is the logical conclusion of Kropotkin, Sculptor, Harbal, most on this forum, the Liberal-Left, The West, etc.

This is what their beliefs, morals, values, virtues, religion, spirituality, has all led to. This is its Apex. This is what they Want.

This is their "Pride" Month.


Proud of Sodomy.

Proud of Castration.

Proud of Sexualizing Children.


This is also why they are not funny anymore, why they are no longer capable of "humor".

In order to have humor, you also need to stand apart from something taken seriously.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

This is the logical conclusion of Kropotkin, Sculptor, Harbal, most on this forum, the Liberal-Left, The West, etc.

This is what their beliefs, morals, values, virtues, religion, spirituality, has all led to. This is its Apex. This is what they Want.

This is their "Pride" Month.


Proud of Sodomy.

Proud of Castration.

Proud of Sexualizing Children.


This is also why they are not funny anymore, why they are no longer capable of "humor".

In order to have humor, you also need to stand apart from something taken seriously.

I wouldn't include Harbal with those two. Wokies have a very distinctive odour, as do disingenuous relgious nuts...

[Wizard22]

I wouldn't include Harbal with those two. Wokies have a very distinctive odour, as do disingenuous relgious nuts...

And people like you are soon going to have a very important choice to make, do you side with the Woke, or the Nuts?

[Gary Childress]

I wouldn't include Harbal with those two. Wokies have a very distinctive odour, as do disingenuous relgious nuts...

And people like you are soon going to have a very important choice to make, do you side with the Woke, or the Nuts?

Sounds like a false dichotomy to me. But it has ita endearing humorous aspects.

[Immanuel Can]

Fair enough. I don't perceive that Christianity is clearly the one true religion.

Well, let's start with that.

The Law of Non-Contradiction tells us that genuinely mutually contradictory statements cannot be true at exactly the same time, in exactly the same way. Take any statement about God, therefore: that He is one, that there are many, that He's intrinsically good, that he's a demiurge... Whenever two claims genuinely contradict, it is possible both are errors or falsehoods (except in cases where the two are comprehensive of all rationally-possible options); it is possible that one of them is true, and the other is false; what is not possible, and what we know to rule out for sure, is that BOTH of them are simultaneously true: the Law of Non-Contradiction rules that out absolutely for us, regardless of the subject or content involved.

Now: do any religions actually contradict? And does Atheism contradict any religions? We need to resolve out minds on that question. Because if there is actual contradiction involved, then it is impossible for all religious views to be true at the same time. Some, or one, must be true, and others must be false...or all of them false. And there's no escaping that, because it's just basic logic.

We haven't even yet tried to resolve the question whether any, or which one of them, is correct: but before we even try that, we need to be clear on what to expect, and what explanation will inevitably turn out to be wrong. "All religions are true" will be false, if any contain a genuine contradiction with any other.

So far, so good?

[Gary Childress]

What I'm telling you IC is that I believe that you think Christianity is the one true religion. I'm trying to tell you that I do not agree with what I perceive to be necessarily YOUR belief if you are indeed a Christian. Otherwise I'm an agnostic and don't pretend to know the one true religion--if there is one or isn't.

[Immanuel Can]

What I'm telling you IC is that I believe that you think Christianity is the one true religion. I'm trying to tell you that I do not agree with what I perceive to be necessarily YOUR belief if you are indeed a Christian. Otherwise I'm an agnostic and don't pretend to know the one true religion--if there is one or isn't.

You're ducking the problem, Gary. "I don't pretend to know" does not change the Law of Non-Contradiction: it just makes it one step worse, because it means there's still going to be falsehoods out there, but you will lack the discernment even to recognize one when you see it. Surely you don't want to sit at that point, do you?

So slow down and follow me, if you want to get anywhere in thinking about this: the claim, "all religions are true" will be false, if any contain a genuine contradiction with any other.

That's just the first step. but it sure is an important one.

Do you see it?

[Gary Childress]

What I'm telling you IC is that I believe that you think Christianity is the one true religion. I'm trying to tell you that I do not agree with what I perceive to be necessarily YOUR belief if you are indeed a Christian. Otherwise I'm an agnostic and don't pretend to know the one true religion--if there is one or isn't.

You're ducking the problem, Gary. "I don't pretend to know" does not change the Law of Non-Contradiction: it just makes it one step worse, because it means there's still going to be falsehoods out there, but you will lack the discernment even to recognize one when you see it. Surely you don't want to sit at that point, do you?

So slow down and follow me, if you want to get anywhere in thinking about this: the claim, "all religions are true" will be false, if any contain a genuine contradiction with any other.

That's just the first step. but it sure is an important one.

Do you see it?

I am familiar with the "law" of non contradiction. If you have some insight into the issue of religious truth that I am not aware of or haven't thought of, then I will listen to what you have to say.

[Immanuel Can]

What I'm telling you IC is that I believe that you think Christianity is the one true religion. I'm trying to tell you that I do not agree with what I perceive to be necessarily YOUR belief if you are indeed a Christian. Otherwise I'm an agnostic and don't pretend to know the one true religion--if there is one or isn't.

You're ducking the problem, Gary. "I don't pretend to know" does not change the Law of Non-Contradiction: it just makes it one step worse, because it means there's still going to be falsehoods out there, but you will lack the discernment even to recognize one when you see it. Surely you don't want to sit at that point, do you?

So slow down and follow me, if you want to get anywhere in thinking about this: the claim, "all religions are true" will be false, if any contain a genuine contradiction with any other.

That's just the first step. but it sure is an important one.

Do you see it?

I am familiar with the "law" of non contradiction. If you have some insight into the issue of religious truth that I am not aware of or haven't thought of, then I will listen to what you have to say.

Fair enough. Well, then, we are caught between two hypotheses:

1. The world's religions and ideologies contain statements about God that directly contradict one another... or....

2. The world's religions and ideologies about God do not contradict one another.

But if 2 were true, then we'd have to say to Muslims, "Ultimately, your beliefs are the same as those of Jews and Hindus, even though you don't know it," and to Jews, "Ultimately, your beliefs are the same as those of Atheists and Gnostics, though you don't know it." To which the Muslim or Jew might reply, "What gives you the right to dismiss the particularity and specific claims of my religion, and to reduce them to your bland pablum of sameness?" to which we would have no reply, I think. We do not possess some master-code of all religions by which we can decode and geld them all; and if we had such a code, then we would hold it in defiance of the claims of specialness and particularity that all religions and ideology have, and we would have to tell them they were all mistaken about what they ultimately, truly are believing.

In any case, we can see very easily that 1 is true. We can see it even in the simplest and most basic cases. If God is the Supreme Being and good, then He is not a gnostic demiurge; or if he were a demiurge, He would not be good or the Supreme Being. If there are many gods, then by definition, monotheism is false; if monotheism is true, then there are not many gods. If there is any God or gods, then Atheism is false; if there are no god or Gods, then all the religions that say there are are teaching a false precept...

The cases can be multiplied. And once we understand that, we can overcome our naive belief that all religions and ideologies can be the same thing. With that, we can also realize that to claim that one religion is "right" about a particular matter is not arrogant or bigotted -- it's a plain fact that the Law of Non-Contradiction requires us to know to be true. And we realize that failing to discern the differences among religions and ideologies is not only deeply insulting to all of them, but also is 100% bound to be erroneous.

So let's now get past the worry that anybody who says "My belief is right" is acting in any strange or prejudicial way. That is exactly what we should expect of a rational belief system, if such exists: that it would aim to be true.

That's step 2. With me, still?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I wouldn't include Harbal with those two. Wokies have a very distinctive odour, as do disingenuous relgious nuts...

And people like you are soon going to have a very important choice to make, do you side with the Woke, or the Nuts?

What a ridiculous statement. I side with science, logic, facts and reason. The infuriating thing is that religious nuts are only 'agreeing' with me for nefarious reasons. The awful irony is that the cult of woke is doing exactly the same thing as any other religion--indoctrinating children. The difference here is that children are being medically altered to suit a religious agenda. Christians would be perfectly happy for this to happen if it suited THEIR religious agenda. Take away all the political/religious agenda bullshit and what are you left with? Misogyny and child abuse--both of which christianity has never been averse to.

[Gary Childress]

You're ducking the problem, Gary. "I don't pretend to know" does not change the Law of Non-Contradiction: it just makes it one step worse, because it means there's still going to be falsehoods out there, but you will lack the discernment even to recognize one when you see it. Surely you don't want to sit at that point, do you?

So slow down and follow me, if you want to get anywhere in thinking about this: the claim, "all religions are true" will be false, if any contain a genuine contradiction with any other.

That's just the first step. but it sure is an important one.

Do you see it?

I am familiar with the "law" of non contradiction. If you have some insight into the issue of religious truth that I am not aware of or haven't thought of, then I will listen to what you have to say.

Fair enough. Well, then, we are caught between two hypotheses:

1. The world's religions and ideologies contain statements about God that directly contradict one another... or....

2. The world's religions and ideologies about God do not contradict one another.

But if 2 were true, then we'd have to say to Muslims, "Ultimately, your beliefs are the same as those of Jews and Hindus, even though you don't know it," and to Jews, "Ultimately, your beliefs are the same as those of Atheists and Gnostics, though you don't know it." To which the Muslim or Jew might reply, "What gives you the right to dismiss the particularity and specific claims of my religion, and to reduce them to your bland pablum of sameness?" to which we would have no reply, I think. We do not possess some master-code of all religions by which we can decode and geld them all; and if we had such a code, then we would hold it in defiance of the claims of specialness and particularity that all religions and ideology have, and we would have to tell them they were all mistaken about what they ultimately, truly are believing.

In any case, we can see very easily that 1 is true. We can see it even in the simplest and most basic cases. If God is the Supreme Being and good, then He is not a gnostic demiurge; or if he were a demiurge, He would not be good or the Supreme Being. If there are many gods, then by definition, monotheism is false; if monotheism is true, then there are not many gods. If there is any God or gods, then Atheism is false; if there are no god or Gods, then all the religions that say there are are teaching a false precept...

The cases can be multiplied. And once we understand that, we can overcome our naive belief that all religions and ideologies can be the same thing. With that, we can also realize that to claim that one religion is "right" about a particular matter is not arrogant or bigotted -- it's a plain fact that the Law of Non-Contradiction requires us to know to be true. And we realize that failing to discern the differences among religions and ideologies is not only deeply insulting to all of them, but also is 100% bound to be erroneous.

So let's now get past the worry that anybody who says "My belief is right" is acting in any strange or prejudicial way. That is exactly what we should expect of a rational belief system, if such exists: that it would aim to be true.

That's step 2. With me, still?

Ok. So step one is that two conflicting statements cannot both be true? Step two is that just because someone says "my belief is right" does not mean they are being "prejudicial".

Is that correct? If not simply correct my interpretations of your two premises and I will give you my agreement or disagreement before proceeding to step three.

[Immanuel Can]

I am familiar with the "law" of non contradiction. If you have some insight into the issue of religious truth that I am not aware of or haven't thought of, then I will listen to what you have to say.

Fair enough. Well, then, we are caught between two hypotheses:

1. The world's religions and ideologies contain statements about God that directly contradict one another... or....

2. The world's religions and ideologies about God do not contradict one another.

But if 2 were true, then we'd have to say to Muslims, "Ultimately, your beliefs are the same as those of Jews and Hindus, even though you don't know it," and to Jews, "Ultimately, your beliefs are the same as those of Atheists and Gnostics, though you don't know it." To which the Muslim or Jew might reply, "What gives you the right to dismiss the particularity and specific claims of my religion, and to reduce them to your bland pablum of sameness?" to which we would have no reply, I think. We do not possess some master-code of all religions by which we can decode and geld them all; and if we had such a code, then we would hold it in defiance of the claims of specialness and particularity that all religions and ideology have, and we would have to tell them they were all mistaken about what they ultimately, truly are believing.

In any case, we can see very easily that 1 is true. We can see it even in the simplest and most basic cases. If God is the Supreme Being and good, then He is not a gnostic demiurge; or if he were a demiurge, He would not be good or the Supreme Being. If there are many gods, then by definition, monotheism is false; if monotheism is true, then there are not many gods. If there is any God or gods, then Atheism is false; if there are no god or Gods, then all the religions that say there are are teaching a false precept...

The cases can be multiplied. And once we understand that, we can overcome our naive belief that all religions and ideologies can be the same thing. With that, we can also realize that to claim that one religion is "right" about a particular matter is not arrogant or bigotted -- it's a plain fact that the Law of Non-Contradiction requires us to know to be true. And we realize that failing to discern the differences among religions and ideologies is not only deeply insulting to all of them, but also is 100% bound to be erroneous.

So let's now get past the worry that anybody who says "My belief is right" is acting in any strange or prejudicial way. That is exactly what we should expect of a rational belief system, if such exists: that it would aim to be true.

That's step 2. With me, still?

Ok. So step one is that two conflicting statements cannot both be true? Step two is that just because someone says "my belief is right" does not mean they are being "prejudicial".

Is that correct? If not simply correct my interpretations of your two premises and I will give you my agreement or disagreement before proceeding to step three.

So far, so good.

We can now set aside any objection that when one belief system says, "I'm right and others are wrong," that there is anything bad about that. EVERY belief system, including especially the most self-proclaimed-inclusionary ones, do exactly the same thing. And the interesting thing about that is that we have had to appeal to no particular ideology at all, but only to the universal principle of the Law of Non-Contradiction itself. So the whole thing is quite beyond further dispute, unless one simply no longer believes in logic at all...but for such a person, no answer will ever suffice.

So the third step is this: is there any basis on which we might actually be able to judge whether the claims of one religion or ideology were actually right? We know for certain it's possible that one is. We know it's impossible for them all to be right.

Well, Gary...what would you recommend? What would you accept as evidence that an ideology was the true and right one?