@ shinyblurry

This had already turned into an essay and I didn't want to take up even more room by quoting you verbatim so I've tried to break it down to save space.



1. "Except that?"

There are no absolute logical principles <---- including that one.
This is simply another way of describing the problem of induction and under determination. Like so many philosophical arguments you have attacked my position based upon the language it was described in and not due to its underlying thought process. This has resulted in a fallacy. Language merely conveys knowledge, it does not in an of itself contain it (and excellent example incidentally of what I was talking about).

2. "Is that absolutely true?"

All principles (save the observation "thinking exists") can only ever derived by induction. This is the case because one can never know for certain if any or all of ones experiences are fabrications, and furthermore that they never encompass all possible variables/possibilities. To put it another way, you can't ever be certain about any judgement one makes about the universe or anything in it because one cannot observe an exhaustive perspective (i.e. all of time and space for the thing in question). Thus there may always exist an example that could falsify your assumption. e.g. if I inducted that all swans are white because I had only ever seen white swans I would ultimately be incorrect as black swans can be observed to exist. Unless you can verify the entirety of existence across time there might always exist and experience/example to falsify any objective assertion. (you could be a brain in a jar, you can't prove 100% that your not)


3. "Including not permitting..which means you have no further argument against Christianity."

^ Pardon me? Did you even read what I wrote by way of explanation for that? What part of "everything is permitted" even remotely precludes me (or anyone) from anything, let alone arguing against Christianity?!?!?

What I felt I'd explained fairly clearly was the idea that the only demonstrable moral authority was yourself, or to put it another way that there are no moral authorities to be found anywhere else but within peoples minds.
Even if God himself speaks to you directly, that is an experience reducible only to the mind because ALL EXPERIENCES WITHIN HUMAN CONCEPTION OCCUR IN or at best VIA THE MIND!

Nothing has ever happened to any human being anywhere that was not experienced entirely in the mind (notice I didn't say "brain" ). When you see a chair you don't see the photons of light hitting your retina, you see something your mind made up to be representative (at best) of whatever phenomenon your eyes detected.

With that in mind (<- mind lol), "everything is permitted". The universe will continue on, unmoved by our moralities (or lack of). Only other humans will cry or rejoice at your actions and only within the sovereignty of your own mind will you find an irrefutable and absolute moral judge...

As for the other bits

A. "The earliest records of Mithraism bear no similarity to Christianity at all....."

Apart from all the same major dates for festivals and holy days (25th dec etc.), the entire symbology of dieing on a cross for three days then being resurrected, the "last supper" with 12 disciples, 3 wise men from the east bearing gifts. etc. etc.

I'd have more time for the Christian counter argument that the Mithraists stole this stuff from them if the same themes, dates and symoblogy didn't pop up in ancient cultures going back a few 1000 years over and over and over. The list of Messianic figures with the above characteristics in western folklore & myth is so long its almost a joke! & naturally is no co-incidence as they are describing the movement of the heavens (specifically the sun) by way of allegory. Speaking of which............

Pagan & Gnostic traditions are deeply intertwined to the point where one could consider many examples to be one and the same. Mithraism would be one such example. Pagan just means many Gods/worship of nature & archetypes in the human psyche. Mithraism fulfils this definition but it also fulfils the Gnostic one i.e. it teaches that one finds god of and within oneself, not as an external force, or indeed a force which is separate from oneself.

But then the Catholic Church did it level best to suppress and destroy any trace of Gnosticism through the ages so its no surprise to me that you're not entirely familiar with it. (most people haven't even heard of it and those that do tend to be under the misapprehension that its a Christian thing (again understandable under the circumstances))


B. "Actually, they came from a progressive revelation of Judiasm which preceeded all of that."

I'll come with you a little on that one. Before Rex Mundi (Jehova) showed up to fk everything up for them the Kabbalistic (and essentially Pagan) Jews possessed great wisdom and insight. Naturally not all of this was lost! (though after Solomon passed it would appear a regrettably large amount was)


C. "What Jesus did not teach that came from Judiasm was wholly His and entirely unique, and they came from the mouth of God Himself."


I'm not sure I even want to grace that with a response. How could you possibly know what came from the mouth of God to a man 2000 years ago? If you say "because it says in the bible" please don't expect a sensible reply (I'm happy to fight non-sense with none-sense)


D. "The difference is Jesus Himself. You could take buddha out of buddhism, or zoroaster out of zoroastrianism and you would still have something. Without Jesus there is no Christianity."

^This one amused be greatly. I would say Buddhism & Zoroastranism were clearly superior for exactly that reason but that's not what I think you were alluding to? I assume you were suggesting that certain parts of the whole Jesus shebang could only have come from Jesus/God/Holy spirit because he made himself the centre of attention?
This is why I make a very distinct separation between the "Jesus" and the "Christ". Christ (or anointed one) goes back at least to Egypt. Horus is clearly "Christ" by basically any sensible measure I can think of, and by "Christ" I mean the "Sun of God" i.e. the freaking Sun.
This also forms the basis for an "as above so below" parable/allegory for the spiritual journey to enlightenment. You can find your way to heaven and God via the "Sun of God's" wisdom. No Miracle performing hippie Jew's were required before and I fail to see how sprouting the same fundamental idea just with a figurehead for a disenfranchised Jewish noble family anchored to everything helps?

Are there some pearl's of Jesus's wisdom I missed? Thus far I have yet to come across anything that didn't strike me as either a rewording of things wise men had preached for 1000's of years previously, or a power play by an unscrupulous or deluded individual.


E. "The Jesus myth theory isn't taken seriously by even skeptical bible scholars. There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than for Alexander the Great."

I happen to know its hotly contested even to this day but lets for the sake of this just take it as a given. When I said "at best a fabrication" it was because I consider the historical figure to be an impostor and a fraud. If anyone was a "true" messiah then John the Baptist and moreover Simon Magus are far better contenders but then that's a colossal can of worms I'm not sure I can be bothered to open at the moment. I'll just say in summary that I am of the opinion that Mr. Ben Yosef and his crew were plotting to return the house of David to power but largely failed in the end as the Roman establishment usurped most of the legacy they tried to create (though not entirely).
Either way they worshiped and championed a being (Psychological archetype) which I feel I have little choice but to call Satan i.e. the God of Abraham. This alone is a pretty major indictment for me and any historic figure that puts said "being" at the center of their belief system will garner my suspicion.

How can the God that appeared to Abraham be anything but malevolent if the accounts in the Torah and Quran are accurate?

(I hope that made sense towards the end, getting very late & tired here...)

I find it interesting that just after the Boston Bombings, two men in similar circumstances were arrested in Canada for plotting to bomb a commuter train. The arrests were without incident and happened after several months of surveillance. Presumably the timing was due to a concern over the possibility that Boston might embolden the Canadian terrorists.

The interesting side-note is that police and CSIS were aware of the men because several Muslims who knew the men were concerned that the men had become radicalized.

I wonder, would the Boston bombers have been caught earlier if not for the draconian measures police regularly resort to, including ethnic profiling and harassment of Muslim men and women. Would someone from that community have come forward with information if they weren't afraid of the police? The iron fist plays well to the American psyche, but is it simply counterproductive?

wanna lick? PSYCH!!

that was my first exposure to adult comedy as a kid....scarred me for life

NORTON! Norton pal come on over here I want to show you something!

Duuuuude really, pee-pee?? it's a non-issue considering the bulk of their depraved soiree-

Oh and Jerryk???-No need for all the draconian measures in an attempt to adjust society to your idyllic model: The military has rigorous psyche-screens for the guys whose job it is to turn the keys, enter the codes, and push the big red button and folks with better ideas (not unlike yours) are usually MP's or infantry!

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Yet his shadow still looms. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?" -Friedrich Nietzsche


^ We have murdered our God's because we (rightly) came to understand that by this very act were to become their superiors. The "Will to power" (the most fundamental force in the human psyche) always demanded that this must one day come to pass, we were always destined to outlive our fairy tales.
However given our God's now lie dead at our feet the same "Will to power" demands of us a stark choice...

We can stare forever into the abyss of meaninglessness we have created in their place.....
or
We can fill that void with the only meaningful entity that remains, ourselves!

We have killed the God's, now WE must take their place. The "Ubermenschen" are simply those Human's who have attained such a mastery of their own minds that the left hemisphere of the brain (where logic & rational thought occur) has complete assess and control of the right (where the God's & spirit/emotions/inspiration live).

This is why I would never call myself an Atheist but rather a post-modern Gnostic. The God's & spirits did exist to us in every sense that matters, all we changed was our relationship to them. Instead of being their slaves we are now their masters, and we can command them to do whatsoever we please.
Or to put it another way, we became masters of our own reality when we killed our tyrannical God's, now it's time for us to exercise this new found power. (Novus Ordo Mundi! ;-) )

☠
"In Hoc Signo Vinces"

I do not know if going twenty five on the freeway is more careful, I honestly think I swerve more stoned because I am so paranoid that I psyche myself out.

First thing I thought of watching this was my high-school psych class on manipulation. Of course, "persuasion" sounds a lot better.

Leave it to Americans to have a nation wide debate over the logic that "more guns = more gun violence". It astounds me the volume of Americans blindly defending their idiotic right for guns.

I like guns, I think they're cool, but I'm not deluded enough to not know the fact that they are designed for killing! That is their single purpose. They are not a fucking toy (may seem obvious but jesus, so many Americans seem to forget this fact). There HAS to be regulations and very strong restrictions when weapons (remember, their sole purpose is killing) are concerned. There are more regulations and restrictions for owning a car than owning a gun, for fuck sake.

There needs to be regulations like:
You must have licence to own a firearm with different types of licences for different and more advanced weapons, if you want to be a legitimate collector. You must be trained in proper firearm usage and safety and pass a test to get a licence. Maybe even undergo a psyche test if you want things like assault rifles. Every firearm must be registered, then you are responsible for that firearm, and any unregistered firearms should be confiscated and destroyed. Then more advanced weaponry must be stored in something locked and secured.
If you think regulations like these are draconian, you're a tool.

@RedSky, I get what you're saying, but does that mean they shouldn't even bother trying? If they want to fix the situation, they have to start, no matter how long it might take

The image not supposed to make sense-The image is quite non-linear and the attraction or repulsion to viewing it may be an indication of aspects of one's psyche best left uncharted.

>> ^campionidelmondo:

>> ^dag:
FYI VideoSift 4.0 was 3 years and 3 months ago.

Wow, has it been that long? Well I'm psyched for 5.0. You and lucky are the Videosift Jesus, you can do no wrong so I'll take any change as positive. I'll be the (probably not) first and say by now I'm sick of the current design.


Yeah, so watch out for Videosift Judas, Videosift Jews and Videosift Romans. Or not... if shit goes down, you'll be fine in a few days anyway.

>> ^dag:

FYI VideoSift 4.0 was 3 years and 3 months ago.


Wow, has it been that long? Well I'm psyched for 5.0. You and lucky are the Videosift Jesus, you can do no wrong so I'll take any change as positive. I'll be the (probably not) first and say by now I'm sick of the current design.

'Only been doing dots regularly in the last decade. I have ventured into many art genres over the years.
>> ^chingalera:

>> ^dotdude:
If the original description says what needs to be said, I see no point in trying to reinvent the wheel.

That coming from an artist whose recurring spark of imagination has been firing dots for the past half century....( < there's a few more for ya!)
A combination of laziness and a creative decaying orbit brought on by societal demands on the psyche. Not everyone can be funny, clever, entertaining with words, or enthusiastic for life when free-will be continually usurped and wage-slavery robs energy and time.
Pay your taxes, obey the laws, and microwave your dinners, copycatz!!!

>> ^dotdude:

If the original description says what needs to be said, I see no point in trying to reinvent the wheel.


That coming from an artist whose recurring spark of imagination has been firing dots for the past half century....( < there's a few more for ya!)
A combination of laziness and a creative decaying orbit brought on by societal demands on the psyche. Not everyone can be funny, clever, entertaining with words, or enthusiastic for life when free-will be continually usurped and wage-slavery robs energy and time.

Pay your taxes, obey the laws, and microwave your dinners, copycatz!!!

@Stormsinger, cool! I love that you have strong women in your life! And yeah, I am aware that women have grown up in a very different world than I did. (There were no women pilots, few women doctors, things that current generations take for granted. That is so great, I can't hardly stand it. These things have shaped their psyches, which is way great.)

And. You gonna try the experiment? Only call men "boys", regardless of their age? Only call women "women", translating the "girl" to "woman", if they are age 20 or older? Not just TV and videos, but newspaper articles? Anywhere, any time?

As an experiment? Be open to how the experience is for you, as the language changes?

Here's the real deal: In America, you are rich according to most of the know world's standards by way of your geographical location. If you live here and think yourself poor you have been duped by those who have designed the place to operate on a mixture of your blood and psyche.

True wealth comes from the freedom from desire and the leisure to evolve spiritually, physically, emotionally, etc. The box most are kept in by the few who determine the direction of humankind according to their power and influence over economies and governments??...Pure, fucking, evil. Always been here, always will be.
Obama is one of their lackey's (for all ye who would "vote" a better way), and the other candidate is an equally as out-of-touch, succubus from the realm of the undead.