View Poll Results: Can the Existence of God be Proven?

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes the Existence of God can be proven.

    8 22.22%
  • No the Existence of God can't be proven.

    18 50.00%
  • There is no valid answer to this question.

    10 27.78%
Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 103

Thread: Can The Existence of God be Proven?

  1. #31
    Member Tyrant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 3rd, 2005 @ 06:29 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Politics
    Norse Heathen/NS
    Posts
    12
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Can The Existence of God be Proven?

    The Blond Beast:

    It's profound ignorance and a glistening fear of the unknown that drives men to the spiritual (think of something that you can't understand, and if you're simple enough, you'll always find your answer in the panacea of "God(s)").

    First of all, the greatest leaders in European history were the most devoutly religious, men whose breast knew no fear.

    Second of all, by what standards do you therefore gauge a man? By what standard do you gauge righteousness and evil? Acceptable from intolerable?

    It's simple: anything "spiritual is a coping mechanism.

    Not only the mentality of the world's most deceptive Jew, but also his very own terminology.

    You find life not to your satisfaction -- all life is finite and ultimately succumbs -- so you invent something vague and intangible (merely a concept which incapable of being disproven and therefore is not amenable to reason) that serves as an idyllic goal or purpose which will vindicate your earthly suffering. Naturally, this makes your life -- abounding in negativity (death and hardship...) -- only a precursor to what you want to believe is something more ideal and timeless, but which could never be obtained on earth.

    I find life without religion, without a supreme force to dedicate my every breath to, not to my satisfaction. And this current existence is not a precursor to any kind of otherworldy Heaven or Hell, but in fact one plane of several forms of consciousness.

    Pretty ballsy and general statements considering you have no idea what kind of religious background I speak from.

    Once one accepts the fact that humans are just evolved primates with advanced conceptual abilities, all of this "spirituality" becomes simply risible. Humans once had an ecological niche to fill, but having used our intelligence to take us out of nature's cycle, we have made ourselves feel devoid of a purpose and have thus had to invent one.

    First of all, evolution is not a fact, but a theory.

    Second of all, your accusations justify the actions of the Jews. If there is no ultimate and suprahuman standard by which to judge others' actions, Ayn Rand opportunism festers in the human mind. The lack of consequence prevalent in Darwin worshippers perfectly keeps the Jews in a moral state of righteousness simply by their victory. It is therefore best, by the standard you have put forth, to join with the Jews in their puppet-like charade of racial mixing, materialism, relativity, infantile sexuality, and deprivation of homeland. The way of the Jew is therefore no better than the way of the Samurai, the Templar, or the Teutonic Knight; after all, the Jews seem to be winning quite proficiently.

    Third of all, principles like Honor, Loyalty, Nobility, Courage, Discipline, and Fortitude are not invented purposes, but timeless truths consistent throughout all admirable cultures. To say that we invented these divine concepts is like saying we invented gravity. We obviously didn't invent it; it had always been there, awaiting our discovery of it. By the same token, all civilizations, isolated from one another, discovered these principles and saw that they were good.

    Fourth of all, our intelligence has not taken us out of nature's cycle. We as physical bodies will always remain in the chthonic simplicities of natural impulses and elements. It is our intelligence that lets us recognize our potential to ascend beyond it, while still having our physical feet planted in the ground. That's a significant difference.

    A reasonable man accepts the fact that he is a primitive beast with a conceptual mind; a spiritual man is really just a primitive beast -- who refuses to admit that he's a primitive beast -- with a conceptual mind and way too much time on his hands...

    Allow me to clarify the half-truth you spoke. I will admit that a reasonable man accepts the fact that he is a primitive beast with a conceptual mind, but his stubbornness to remain a primitive beast nullifies the possibilities of that conceptual mind. A spiritual man realizes that, fundamentally, he is a primitive beast, but just as a tool serves a purpose impossible to imagine simply by studying the shape, weight, and design of its structure, so can a spiritual man ascend beyond the observable utilities of his body - and thus ascend beyond beasthood.
    http://home.earthlink.net/~norsemyth...iedNothung.jpg

    All peoples will bear witness that unborn I spoke one word and made the vow that I would flee neither fire nor iron from fear, and so I have done until now. Why should I not fulfill that vow in my old age? Maidens will not taunt my sons during games by saying that they feared their deaths, for each man must at one time die. No one may escape dying that once, and it is my counsel that we not flee, but for our own part act the bravest. I have fought a hundred times, sometimes with a larger army and sometimes with a lesser one. Both ways I have had the victory, and it will not be reported that I either fled or asked for peace.

  2. #32
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 5th, 2012 @ 06:07 AM
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Metropolis
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Journalist
    Religion
    Protestant
    Posts
    6,675
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10
    Thanked in
    10 Posts

    Post Re: Can The Existence of God be Proven?

    What kind of religious backround do you speak from?

  3. #33
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, September 5th, 2008 @ 06:36 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Posts
    4,097
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    16 Posts

    Post Re: Can The Existence of God be Proven?

    Yes, God has been proven not to exist. There is no emperical means of proving god exists, so he doesn't. The problem is in proving a negative, so if the question is: Can it be proven that God doesn't exist? That answer is no, since you can't prove negative evidence.

  4. #34
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, February 9th, 2006 @ 07:40 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    805
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Can The Existence of God be Proven?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    First of all, the greatest leaders in European history were the most devoutly religious, men whose breast knew no fear.
    Indeed, delusion tends to embolden.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    Second of all, by what standards do you therefore gauge a man? By what standard do you gauge righteousness and evil? Acceptable from intolerable?
    Generally, I would deem that which occurs is accordance with nature as more "acceptable" than that which does not. Alas, the differentiation of right and wrong remains arbitrary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    Not only the mentality of the world's most deceptive Jew, but also his very own terminology.
    Ah yes, invoking the Jewish "boogeyman" -- the surefire sign of a lost debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    I find life without religion, without a supreme force to dedicate my every breath to, not to my satisfaction.
    Yet another martyr to nail to the cross...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    And this current existence is not a precursor to any kind of otherworldy Heaven or Hell, but in fact one plane of several forms of consciousness.
    Do you have any basis for saying this -- as though it were an absolute -- other than your abstract thought? Didn't think so...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    Pretty ballsy and general statements considering you have no idea what kind of religious background I speak from.
    Is your religion one of Judaism's bastards?

    Though it really doesn't matter, as all religions find their origins in ignorance -- a plague common to all men.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    First of all, evolution is not a fact, but a theory.
    A theory, yes, but one with a lot of weight -- DNA, the fossil record (...) -- behind it. The outright denial of these things would certainly not be reasonable, now would it?

    Hopefully you will not be so preposterous so as to espouse creationism...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    It is therefore best, by the standard you have put forth, to join with the Jews in their puppet-like charade of racial mixing, materialism, relativity, infantile sexuality, and deprivation of homeland.
    Since when has racial preservation been tied to the validity of the metaphysical? Suffice it to say, racial preservation is more natural -- i.e. aesthetic, gregarian, and perpetuation tendencies -- than supernatural.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    Third of all, principles like Honor, Loyalty, Nobility, Courage, Discipline, and Fortitude are not invented purposes, but timeless truths consistent throughout all admirable cultures.
    Many of these "divine" principles are synonymous with or derivatives of "strength", which just so happens to serve as the arbiter of selection in the animal world -- markedly so amongst primates.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    By the same token, all civilizations, isolated from one another, discovered these principles and saw that they were good.
    Instinct, not the "divine", has always brought these "principles" to the fore.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    Fourth of all, our intelligence has not taken us out of nature's cycle. We as physical bodies will always remain in the chthonic simplicities of natural impulses and elements.
    Our intelligence has taken us out of nature's cycle, as we -- the zenith species -- no longer concern ourselves with the immediacy of starvation, reproduction, and predation: we eat what we want when we want; we reproduce as we please; and we have domesticated the wolf. The fact some peoples of the world have not even mastered these demands alludes to the inherent atavism of man...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    It is our intelligence that lets us recognize our potential to ascend beyond it, while still having our physical feet planted in the ground.
    Indeed, conceptual abilities have undoubtedly allowed men to entertain the baseless and absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    I will admit that a reasonable man accepts the fact that he is a primitive beast with a conceptual mind, but his stubbornness to remain a primitive beast nullifies the possibilities of that conceptual mind.
    A man recognizing his nature does not necessitate the absence of progress: intelligence has been selected for, and so it will achieve.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    A spiritual man realizes that, fundamentally, he is a primitive beast, but can ascend beyond the observable utilities of his body - and thus ascend beyond beasthood.
    Indeed, this is what the spiritual man would like to believe; despite his tendency to calm himself in obeisance, his primitive rage still finds him wishing ill will against those with whom he disagrees.
    Last edited by The Blond Beast; Saturday, October 2nd, 2004 at 08:28 AM.

  5. #35
    Senior Member Stríbog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Last Online
    Wednesday, January 12th, 2005 @ 11:45 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid-Baltid (Aistin)
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    Where Rust Belt meets Farm Belt
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Occupation
    college student
    Politics
    Environmentalism and eugenics
    Religion
    occultism & Nature worship
    Posts
    2,163
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post Re: Can The Existence of God be Proven?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    First of all, the greatest leaders in European history were the most devoutly religious, men whose breast knew no fear.
    As Mencken pointed out, belief in Santa Claus makes children more obedient. This doesn't mean he exists.

  6. #36
    Member Tyrant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 3rd, 2005 @ 06:29 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Politics
    Norse Heathen/NS
    Posts
    12
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Can The Existence of God be Proven?

    The Blond Beast:

    Indeed, delusion tends to embolden.

    Religion emboldens men. And you think it's because they like fooling themselves?

    So the very foundation of every respectable nation, from Ramses the Great to Julian the Apostate, should be disregarded because it was based on a religious knowledge fundamental to the very existence of all worthy Empires - a knowledge that you have yet to reconnect with?

    Generally, I would deem that which occurs is accordance with nature as more "acceptable" than that which does not. Alas, the differentiation of right and wrong remains arbitrary.

    You improperly define 'nature.' Nature is a feminizing principle. What is 'natural' is what is 'automatic.' Natural action, to me, is taking the path of least resistance. An African tribe with wisdom observed thus by Carl Jung: "When I steal other men's wives, it is good. When they steal my wives, it is bad" is fundamentally 'natural', but far from admirable.

    What makes once civilization fundamentally better is going beyond natural impulses and instincts for the sake of alignment with higher principles true to all traditional civilizations (thus necessitating the acceptance of an ultimate "good" and an ultimate "evil."

    Ah yes, invoking the Jewish "boogeyman" -- the surefire sign of a lost debate.

    I was referring specifically to Sigmund Freud, who on all but one count was horrendously incorrect, yet still manages to have a significant number of followers in his psychological school - women included.

    Yet another martyr to nail to the cross...

    Hardly a martyr.

    Do you have any basis for saying this -- as though it were an absolute -- other than your abstract thought? Didn't think so...

    First of all, answering your own questions is hardly a useful debate technique, least of all on the internet.

    Second of all, every religion other than the Judeo-Christian axis admits the existence of several different forms of consciousness, from an analysis of the Nine Worlds of Midgard to the Platonic Chakras to the Hindu planes of consciousness.

    Interestingly enough, not one of these arcane and primordial civilizations point to the existence of a beastly origin, as you put forth as undeniable fact, but instead points to higher origin, of being descended from gods.

    Scientific fact provides positively no proof of the transmutation of species, but only speculates on it based on civilizations whose traditions involved burial - thus ignoring those that incinerated their dead.

    Is your religion one of Judaism's bastards?

    Though it really doesn't matter, as all religions find their origins in ignorance -- a plague common to all men.


    To answer your question, no. To address your accusation, name anything any religion has done to express or cultivate ignorance.

    A theory, yes, but one with a lot of weight -- DNA, the fossil record (...) -- behind it. The outright denial of these things would certainly not be reasonable, now would it?

    Denying that these things exist would be preposterous, I agree. To admit that this does anything to nullify religious validity would be equally preposterous.

    Hopefully you will not be so preposterous so as to espouse creationism...

    Depends on what you mean by creationism.

    Since when has racial preservation been tied to the validity of the metaphysical?

    Since race has been tied to destiny.

    Suffice it to say, racial preservation is more natural -- i.e. aesthetic, gregarian, and perpetuation tendencies -- than supernatural.

    I think ten seconds on any street corner anywhere in America shows you otherwise.

    Many of these "divine principles are synonymous with or derivatives of "strength", which just so happens to serve as the arbiter of selection in the animal world -- markedly so amongst primates.

    So does strength by numbers. Doesn't make democracy a good political system, or popularity a determinant of what is ultimately best.

    Instinct, not the "divine", has always brought these "principles" to the fore.

    You're using too many different words interchangeably. Instinct simply says "Survive!" Natural impulse, urge, and drive says, "Survive by running from foes!" Courage and nobility says, "Survive by conquering your foes!" Which is better?

    Our intelligence has taken us out of nature's cycle, as we -- the zenith species -- no longer concern ourselves with the immediacy of starvation, reproduction, and predation: we eat what we want when we want; we reproduce as we please; and we have domesticated the wolf.

    First of all, just because we remove ourselves from the immediacy of starvation, reproduction, and predation doesn't mean that we no longer need to eat, reproduce, or conquer.

    Second of all, you're saying that us eating what we want when we want, reproducing as we please, and domesticating wolves is a good thing. I say that eating what we want when we want turns us into a planet of gluttonous slobs. Reproducing as we please turns us into overpopulated insects and breeding grounds for venereal disease. Domesticating the wolf separates us from the fighting spirit we should have as both animals and humans.

    Indeed, conceptual abilities have undoubtedly allowed men to entertain the baseless and absurd.

    Just because something is not limited to the five senses our brains can interpret does not make anything beyond those five senses "baseless and absurd."

    A man recognizing his nature does not necessitate the absence of progress: intelligence has been selected for, and so it will achieve.

    You think both nature and progress are good, when our 'natures' and this 'progress' have separated man from the traditional values that make Indo-Europeans gods amongst beasts.

    Indeed, this is what the spiritual man would like to believe; despite his tendency to calm himself in obeisance, his primitive rage still finds him wishing ill will against those with whom he disagrees.

    Spiritual man achieves this ascension. You automatically believe religion is some kind of macrocosmic lullaby that quells any fears people have concerning shadows. In truth, religion is the metaphysical origins of the righteousness of stalwart tenacity and conquest. Religion is the voice and spirit to all I've ever truly known and fought for.

    This hypnotism archetype you've covered the whole of 'religion' is an irresponsible rejection of the muse of anything originating from northern lands.

    Stribog:

    As Mencken pointed out, belief in Santa Claus makes children more obedient. This doesn't mean he exists.

    First of all, Santa Claus did exist at a certain point in time, but his name was actually Saint Nicholas.

    Second of all, Santa Claus in the common marketing figure is a symbol - a metaphor for the virtue of acting in righteousness even when you believe no one is watching.

    Northern Paladin:

    I speak from many different religious understandings - Paganism, the Cult of Prince Siddartha-Buddha, Akhnaton's Religion of the Disk, the Ars Regia, Hinduism, and the like. The easiest way to explain my beliefs is an understanding of Tradition. Taking into account Carl Jung's ideas of archetypal expression, Joseph Campbell's analyses of religious synchronicity, and philosophy in the vein of Julius Evola, Rene Guenon, and Savitri Devi, it can best be explained as an admiration of Empire, of Rite, of Aristocracy, of the rejection of the Modern world - all summed up in the word 'Tradition.'

    Thank you for asking after my remark about BB not knowing the religious background from which I come.
    http://home.earthlink.net/~norsemyth...iedNothung.jpg

    All peoples will bear witness that unborn I spoke one word and made the vow that I would flee neither fire nor iron from fear, and so I have done until now. Why should I not fulfill that vow in my old age? Maidens will not taunt my sons during games by saying that they feared their deaths, for each man must at one time die. No one may escape dying that once, and it is my counsel that we not flee, but for our own part act the bravest. I have fought a hundred times, sometimes with a larger army and sometimes with a lesser one. Both ways I have had the victory, and it will not be reported that I either fled or asked for peace.

  7. #37
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, February 9th, 2006 @ 07:40 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    805
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Can The Existence of God be Proven?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    Religion emboldens men. And you think it's because they like fooling themselves?
    Religion (erroneously) provides the delusional with what they perceive as "directive".

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    So the very foundation of every respectable nation, from Ramses the Great to Julian the Apostate, should be disregarded because it was based on a religious knowledge fundamental to the very existence of all worthy Empires - a knowledge that you have yet to reconnect with?
    Simply because a religion has been useful in having served a (manufactured) purpose for some people doesn't vindicate its "truths". Admit that much...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    An African tribe with wisdom observed thus by Carl Jung: "When I steal other men's wives, it is good. When they steal my wives, it is bad" is fundamentally 'natural', but far from admirable.
    Admirable? It's simply absurd to censor nature (instinct) and necessity...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    What makes once civilization fundamentally better is going beyond natural impulses and instincts for the sake of alignment with higher principles true to all traditional civilizations (thus necessitating the acceptance of an ultimate "good" and an ultimate "evil.")
    So you find it preferable fight for an unattainable goal as motivated by overt ignorance and falsification? You exalt religion simply because you feel it has been the motive behind conquest? Surely the same could be said exclusively of the manifestations of strength...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blond Beast
    Do you have any basis for saying this -- as though it were an absolute -- other than your abstract thought? Didn't think so...
    Second of all, every religion other than the Judeo-Christian axis admits the existence of several different forms of consciousness, from an analysis of the Nine Worlds of Midgard to the Platonic Chakras to the Hindu planes of consciousness.
    It doesn't matter in the least whether people in the past have believed in higher consciousness -- you, ultimately, remain unable to validate such a belief or to justify its perpetuation other than the fact that it has been useful to some in the past...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    Interestingly enough, not one of these arcane and primordial civilizations point to the existence of a beastly origin, as you put forth as undeniable fact, but instead points to higher origin, of being descended from gods.
    Of course these arcane and primordial civilizations did not suggest man's beastly origins -- they had no knowledge of genetics, paleontology, or primatology. :eyes

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    Scientific fact provides positively no proof of the transmutation of species, but only speculates on it based on civilizations whose traditions involved burial - thus ignoring those that incinerated their dead.
    So you have entirely ignored the strong implications of the irrefutable fact that humans share 98% of their DNA with chimps...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    To address your accusation, name anything any religion has done to express or cultivate ignorance.
    I stated that religions finds their origins in ignorance, not that they necessarily promote ignorance.

    Although, the perfect example was the Catholic Church's refusal to even tolerate (let alone accept) heliocentrism. There can be no greater contradiction of Christianity's stated intentions than the Church's willingness to murder in the name of maintaining ignorant dogmatism.

    Most faiths abhor enlightenment, as knowledge can only sew seeds of doubt in any faith's adherents...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blond Beast
    A theory, yes, but one with a lot of weight -- DNA, the fossil record (...) -- behind it. The outright denial of these things would certainly not be reasonable, now would it?
    Denying that these things exist would be preposterous, I agree. To admit that this does anything to nullify religious validity would be equally preposterous.
    The fact that the theory of evolution is tangible and supportable -- amenable to reason -- certainly makes it more realistic and acceptable than the arbitrary belief in the intangible vagaries of conceptual thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blond Beast
    Since when has racial preservation been tied to the validity of the metaphysical?
    Since race has been tied to destiny.
    Since when has "destiny" involved only the metaphysical and not a finite supremacy on earth?

    [quote=Tyrant]
    [quote=The Blond Beast]Suffice it to say, racial preservation is more natural -- i.e. aesthetic, gregarian, and perpetuation tendencies -- than supernatural.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    I think ten seconds on any street corner anywhere in America shows you otherwise.
    Simply because miscegenation occurs doesn't necessitate that others don't seek to secure their own blood and those among their own which they have deemed beautiful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    You're using too many different words interchangeably. Instinct simply says "Survive!" Natural impulse, urge, and drive says, "Survive by running from foes!" Courage and nobility says, "Survive by conquering your foes!"
    You have just validated my point -- you are using too many words -- as there is no difference between "instinct" and "natural impulse".

    All you have affirmed is the immutability of strength as the means for self-preservation -- the timelessness of instinct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    First of all, just because we remove ourselves from the immediacy of starvation, reproduction, and predation doesn't mean that we no longer need to eat, reproduce, or conquer.
    As I stated before, it's obvious that we do so now at whim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    Second of all, you're saying that us eating what we want when we want, reproducing as we please, and domesticating wolves is a good thing.
    Again, I was obviously stressing that these things are diharmonious with man formerly having a natural niche.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    I say that eating what we want when we want turns us into a planet of gluttonous slobs. Reproducing as we please turns us into overpopulated insects and breeding grounds for venereal disease. Domesticating the wolf separates us from the fighting spirit we should have as both animals and humans.
    The undisciplined, gluttonous slobs and the profligate breeders are just as pathetic and irredeemable as the insular, willingly self-deluded religious sycophants who live in the abstract.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    Just because something is not limited to the five senses our brains can interpret does not make anything beyond those five senses "baseless and absurd."
    Something that has no form, that is not amenable to the senses, nature, and experience -- to reason -- is baseless; and the belief in such a flight of fancy is absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    First of all, Santa Claus did exist at a certain point in time, but his name was actually Saint Nicholas.
    So Sait Nicholas cruised around in a sleigh driven by reindeer?

    Stribog is obviously referring to the fact that because something is utterly fantastic, yet serves a useful purpose -- like all religion -- doesn't necessitate any inherent truth to the artifice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    I speak from many different religious understandings - Paganism, the Cult of Prince Siddartha-Buddha, Akhnaton's Religion of the Disk, the Ars Regia, Hinduism, and the like.
    Ah yes, belief in the extinct, the false and the flimsy...
    Last edited by The Blond Beast; Tuesday, October 5th, 2004 at 01:05 AM.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Stríbog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Last Online
    Wednesday, January 12th, 2005 @ 11:45 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid-Baltid (Aistin)
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    Where Rust Belt meets Farm Belt
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Occupation
    college student
    Politics
    Environmentalism and eugenics
    Religion
    occultism & Nature worship
    Posts
    2,163
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post Re: Can The Existence of God be Proven?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    Religion emboldens men.
    So does psychosis.

  9. #39
    Member Tyrant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 3rd, 2005 @ 06:29 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Politics
    Norse Heathen/NS
    Posts
    12
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Can The Existence of God be Proven?

    The Blond Beast:

    Religion (erroneously) provides the delusional with what they perceive as "directive".

    And the actions of great men will echo across generations because of their directive. You, with apparent disdain for the principle of "direction," won't.

    Simply because a religion has been useful in having served a (manufactured) purpose for some people doesn't vindicate its "truths". Admit that much...

    What you say is true. Manufactured purposes, however, are not our concerns here. The construction of Empires and Nations, the leadership of the Volk, the perpetuation of spiritual enlightenment - these are not 'manufactured' purposes, but destinies accepted a priori amongst the greatest men in history.

    Admirable? It's simply absurd to censor nature (instinct) and necessity...

    I never said 'reject everything natural because it's natural.' I said 'Don't do natural things as an end in and of itself.' It's simply absurd to say that having sex for the sake of sex is more admirable than having sex to raise a family, or eating for the sake of eating is more admirable than eating to nourish the body in its daily tasks.

    So you find it preferable fight for an unattainable goal as motivated by overt ignorance and falsification? You exalt religion simply because you feel it has been the motive behind conquest? Surely the same could be said exclusively of the manifestations of strength...

    I find it preferable to fight for an unattainable goal motivated by the knowledge and realization of truths foreign to the modern world, bereft of metaphysical consciousness. And religion is not the motive behind conquest, but the reason for principal Conquest. Religion - as an affirmation of life, strength, and tradition - is why men seek to conquer. And yes, the same could be said exclusively of the manifestations of strength - and that ultimately becomes the deciding factor in a one-on-one conflict - but that, as I mentioned before, does not make that conquest fundamentally better than another. Stalin killing more people than Hitler does not make Communism better than National Socialism.

    It doesn't matter in the least whether people in the past believed in higher consciousness -- you, ultimately, remain unable to validate such a belief or to justify its perpetuation other than the fact that it has been useful to some in the past...

    People in the past didn't merely believe in higher consciousness - it was a fundamental characteristic and aspiration of their every waking breath.

    As far as validation of the belief in higher consciousness, consider this:

    1. Your perception of the archaic man in question puts him at an intellectual handicap in comparison with our level of 'superior' knowledge, thus crippling his conceptual capacities.

    It is therefore very difficult to imagine, therefore, that the primitive man would be anything except atomistically oriented. It is most likely, from a speculative point of view, that men were mere observers of cause and effect. Can you imagine trying to convince a man who only truly knows his five senses, who observes causality and calls it reality, that in order to cease tornados, hurricanes, and lightning storms, to invoke and appease giant men with absurd deformations and characteristics that these men cannot see before them?

    But the consider this:

    2. Every single civilization, no matter how primitive or basic, as far back as history can be traced, attests to some kind of tradition dealing with man's relationship to the elements and virtues around him and concludes abstract origins.

    This points to an autonomous understanding of forces beyond those five senses, and a compulsion to follow a series of rites and rituals to correlate a relationship with these unseen forces - forces that, as the atomistic, primitive caveman that he is accused of being, has no evidential reason to acknowledge.

    These compulsions, consistent across culture, time, and circumstance, cannot have existed for so long, only now beginning to dissolve in the present and modernized era of the past half-millennium, unless their ultimate spiritual thirsts were appropriately quenched by the vitality of higher consciousness.

    Of course these arcane and primordial civilizations did not suggest man's beastly origins -- they had no knowledge of genetics, paleontology, or primatology.

    Never mind the fact that they had knowledge of agrictulture, astrology, chemistry, physics, architecture, physical discipline, and supreme fortitude that has YET to be matched; simply because they don't worship Darwin, Watson, Crick, or Newton, means they are, indeed, incorrect and worthless and inferior to the common age of drive-through pharmacies and cell phones.

    So you have entirely ignored the strong implications of the irrefutable fact that humans share 98% of their DNA with chimps...

    1. Chimp DNA has yet to be mapped out.
    2. Our DNA is more similar to rats than chimps.
    3. Chimps still exist as chimps and, unless I missed something and Planet of the Apes was actually a documentary, chimps are remaining chimps.
    4. Even accepting that we do share 98% of our DNA with chimps, similarities between two different species in DNA still does not prove that one came from the other - especially in light of point number 3.

    I stated that religions finds their origins in ignorance, not that they necessarily promote ignorance.

    Although, the perfect example was the Catholic Church's refusal to even tolerate (let alone accept) heliocentrism. There can be no greater contradiction of Christianity's stated intentions than the Church's willingness to murder in the name of maintaining ignorant dogmatism.


    Let's get one thing straight before we continue: I am not now, nor ever will be, a Christian. Christianity is the abhorrence of Tradition, and I therefore reject it furiously.

    To address the point, however, heliocentrism was, at the point of its vehement opposition by the church, a sketchy and hole-filled conspiracy theory at best, simply because there was no proof of it. I can hardly imagine Catholics today refusing that the earth revolves around the sun, or that the planet is round.

    Most faiths abhor enlightenment, as knowledge can only sew seeds of doubt in any faith's adherents...

    Name any faith that abhors enlightenment aside from Christianity - a false religion in all circumstances.

    The fact that the theory of evolution is tangible and supportable -- amenable to reason -- certainly makes it more realistic and acceptable than the arbitrary belief in the intangible vagaries of conceptual thought.

    I just realized that you forgot to point out whether or not you meant micro- or macroevolution every time you talked about evolutionary theory. Because there are fantastically abundant resources to support the former, but scarcely anything beyond science-worshipping faith prepositions in the latter.

    Besides, like I said before: just because you have yet to experience it does not make it any less real.

    Since when has "destiny" involved only the metaphysical and not a finite supremacy on earth?

    Since when did I say that Destiny involved only the metaphysical? Destiny involves the metaphysical guidance manifested in physical leadership. Significant difference.

    Simply because miscegenation occurs doesn't necessitate hat others don't seek to secure their own blood and those among their own which they have deemed beautiful.

    You didn't go to that street corner, did you?

    You have just validated my point -- you are using too many words -- as there is no difference between "instinct" and "natural impulse."

    First of all, that's not true.

    Second of all, how does your twisting my words around to fit your insistence on making 'instinct' and 'natural impulse' synonymous prove your point?

    All you have affirmed is the immutability of strength as the means for self-preservation -- the timelessness of instinct.

    With the example of "Survive!" perhaps. Let's try another. Instinct simply says "Conquer!" Natural impulse, urge, and drive says "Conquer by subterfuge, deception, and least harm to yourself!" Courage and nobility says, "Conquer with honor to achieve glory!"

    Starting to understand the difference?

    As I stated before, it's obvious that we do so now at whim.

    And, therefore, we have not taken ourselves out of the natural cycle.

    Again, I was obviously stressing that these things are diharmonious with man formerly having a natural niche.

    ...

    The undisciplined, gluttonous slobs and the profligate breeders are just as pathetic and irredeemable as the insular, willingly self-deluded religious sycophants who live in the abstract.


    Are you Catholic?

    Something that has no form, that is not amenable to the senses, nature, and experience -- to reason -- is baseless; and the belief in such a flight of fancy is absurd.

    Religious consciousness is most certainly amenable to experience, since that is the fundamental origin of religion. Besides, does that mean that honesty is baseless and absurd simply because it has no form, and is not amenable to the senses or nature? And loyalty? And nationalism? None of these things have form or sensual stimulation. Do you agree that these things, in fact, exist?

    So Sait Nicholas cruised around in a sleigh driven by reindeer?

    That was a fancified allegory to Thorburn (or Freyja, perhaps).

    Stribog is obviously referring to the fact that because something is utterly fantastic, yet serves a useful purpose -- like all religion -- doesn't necessitate any inherent truth to the artifice.

    So a German WWII poster indicating a happy family of seven children, which can be considered utterly fantastic in the modern age, yet serves a useful purpose -- the connection to family and culture -- does not necessitate any inherent truth to the artifice of Family?

    Ah yes, belief in the extinct, the false and the flimsy...

    Are you a Catholic altar-boy?

    Stribog:

    Religion emboldens men.

    So does psychosis.


    Not true. Psychosis does not allow men to understand or interpret reality. This is hardly characteristic of someone who is 'bold.'
    http://home.earthlink.net/~norsemyth...iedNothung.jpg

    All peoples will bear witness that unborn I spoke one word and made the vow that I would flee neither fire nor iron from fear, and so I have done until now. Why should I not fulfill that vow in my old age? Maidens will not taunt my sons during games by saying that they feared their deaths, for each man must at one time die. No one may escape dying that once, and it is my counsel that we not flee, but for our own part act the bravest. I have fought a hundred times, sometimes with a larger army and sometimes with a lesser one. Both ways I have had the victory, and it will not be reported that I either fled or asked for peace.

  10. #40
    Senior Member Stríbog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Last Online
    Wednesday, January 12th, 2005 @ 11:45 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid-Baltid (Aistin)
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    Where Rust Belt meets Farm Belt
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Occupation
    college student
    Politics
    Environmentalism and eugenics
    Religion
    occultism & Nature worship
    Posts
    2,163
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post Re: Can The Existence of God be Proven?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrant
    And the actions of great men will echo across generations because of their directive. You, with apparent disdain for the principle of "direction," won't.
    Blond Beast doesn't lack direction, he is just wise enough not to get it from musty, tattered rags of faith, relics of a time when men could conceive of little else.


    Never mind the fact that they had knowledge of agrictulture, astrology, chemistry, physics, architecture, physical discipline, and supreme fortitude that has YET to be matched; simply because they don't worship Darwin, Watson, Crick, or Newton, means they are, indeed, incorrect and worthless and inferior to the common age of drive-through pharmacies and cell phones.
    Post hoc ergo propter hoc.


    2. Our DNA is more similar to rats than chimps.
    LMAO, care to substantiate this?


    3. Chimps still exist as chimps and, unless I missed something and Planet of the Apes was actually a documentary, chimps are remaining chimps.

    4. Even accepting that we do share 98% of our DNA with chimps, similarities between two different species in DNA still does not prove that one came from the other - especially in light of point number 3.

    Have you ever read a basic biology textbook? Or do you avoid their
    blasphemous teachings?

    Chimpanzees are not our ancestors, they are our closest living kin, descended from a common ancestor.


    Name any faith that abhors enlightenment aside from Christianity - a false religion in all circumstances.
    Judaism... Islam... Hinduism... various paganisms...

    Wasn't Socrates killed for impiety towards the Gods?


    I just realized that you forgot to point out whether or not you meant micro- or macroevolution every time you talked about evolutionary theory. Because there are fantastically abundant resources to support the former, but scarcely anything beyond science-worshipping faith prepositions in the latter.
    Yeah. Scarcely anything except conservation of protein structure and function as well as homologous skeletal morphology, not to mention gill slits, dorsal nerve chords and other morphogenetic and embryological data. You probably haven't heard the phrase "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," have you?


    Not true. Psychosis does not allow men to understand or interpret reality
    Apparently neither does religion.

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Ancient Herb Proven to be a Potential Cure for Alzheimer’s
    By Verðandi in forum Health, Fitness & Nutrition
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Friday, April 13th, 2012, 02:57 PM
  2. British Sense of Fair Play Proven by Science
    By Blood_Axis in forum Psychology, Behavior, & Neuroscience
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Thursday, March 20th, 2008, 12:56 AM
  3. Genetics Have Proven It: Your Eyes Depict Your Personality!
    By Marinus in forum Medical & Behavioral Genetics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Saturday, March 10th, 2007, 11:19 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Friday, May 27th, 2005, 08:37 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, March 22nd, 2004, 09:07 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •