Well, with that title I already know you ain’t refuting nothing. If all you are going on is bumper stickers…
We’ve all read those bumper-stickers which tell us to “Question Reality” yet at the same time want us to take seriously what the bumper sticker says. And when did your stupid self begin to take bumper stickers seriously? Especially, since most are a joke. Something to make you laugh. Sometimes think. Some even urge the various religions of the world to “Coexist”; religions which contain completely contradictory truth claims. I’ve even read one which urged me to “Question Authority”. I assume that I am to question all authority except the “bumper sticker gods”. ↞Proof all Religitards (bold) are incredibly more retarded than Downs Syndrome sufferers. You Religitards ASSu&ME way, way too often. I’ve often wondered if that person was ever stopped by a police officer, if they followed their own advice. But someone might say, “Loosen up man! It’s only a bumper sticker! It’s meant to be funny!” My response is “Yes! It certainly is a joke! But the joke’s on them!”
And that last bit about a LEO stopping someone for a “Question Authority” bumper sticker is so god-damned stupid. Even YOU have to know no LEO would even bring up the bumper sticker if it is a legal traffic stop. The LEO may note the bumper sticker, but it would never be brought up if the person were stopped for exceeding safe speed limit. Is it not amazing how stupid a grown adult can be? Frank, asked many times: Are you truly that god-damned stupid? There is no way in 7734 you were ever a Naval Aviator. That is a lie. You do not possess enough intelligence. I guarantee you were at best an Airdale technician. For mechanics can even be learned through rote by chimpanzees. A proven scientific FACT. Ever wonder why scientists call those 3-piece business suits “Monkey Suits”?
Unfortunately, sloppy thinking dominates Religitard thinkingour culture today and it is no laughing matter. No it is not. That is why religion needs to be eradicated. For it is religion that purposefully promotes and requires sloppy thinking. Poisoned thinking. Just read y’awl’s horse hoowhee, bullshit, and brain diarrhea. And, those whom cannot see your lies for lies, then they are doomed to stupidity. Ideas have enormous consequences! What we think and how we think matter. This is counter to what many people believe today. Perhaps you have overheard one or more of the following statements or slogans:
Gotta love this: “Ideas have enormous consequences!” This is going to make your brain glaze over, “Regardless of veracity, ideas actually have no consequences unless you beLIEve them.” And THAT is the problem with those prevaricating Religitards and their flock of sheeple. They abusingly force their Empathic Predation by making YOU use your emotions against YOUR intellect. I know I say this many times; however, it is worthy of never ending reiteration. And by forcing their Empathic Predation, they are actually performing psychological terrorism, emotional molestation, and mental rape. And you dumb-arse sheeples WANT to beLIEve it. And this is a scientific FACT that the Religitards prey upon: “Humans ALL wish to beLIEve in something.” Even the most hard-dicked scientists have wishful thinking. However, unlike the religious, we KNOW it is only wishful thinking.
In this article I’ll attempt to give a concise response to relativism in it’s various forms – the belief that there is no such thing as absolute truth.
From Highlighted above. It is not a beLIEf. It is True Truth. Anything you put forth about these “beLIEfs” is all lies. Remember that FACT. Remember, the only thing philosophy proves is that you are capable of speaking truthfully, but also capable of LYING. Thus, philosophy CANNOT prove anything. The ONLY time philosophy (“beLIEfs”) proves anything is if it is already true. I beLIEve the sky, when clear, appears a blue color. That actually becomes a KNOWN. a FACT. Not beLIEf. And if your dumb arse wishes to call my KNOWLEDGE beLIEfs, I am fine with that. My beLIEfs can be proven true. Yours cannot. There is no such thing as “Absolute Truth”, except for the Absolutes:
We’ll ask four vitally important questions:
1. Is relativism self-contradictory?
Yes. No.
If someone makes a statement which is self-contradictory, it simply means that it can’t logically be true. A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense. There is no middle ground. This comes from a law principle in philosophical logic called the “principle of non-contradiction.” A self-contradictory statement would be “I can’t write a word in English.” Obviously, that statement is false because I just wrote a sentence in English. And what of a person who does NOT know English? Other statements such as “I don’t exist” or “Relativism is true for everyone” can’t be true because if they are true then they are false. How? You never offer any evidence. Except that brain diarrhea. Now there would be a Nobel Prize: Discovery of a mental Pepto-Bismal. They are self-contradictory statements. Most relativists believe that relativism is true for everyone except them. Another LIE. There is no person whom understands relativity that ever thinks that. ALL Brain-Things are relative to each and every individual person. But, once again, if it is true then it is false. Yet you offer not even a molecule’s worth of evidence. Typical Religitardism. You spew bullshit without any evidence. Also see the Absolutes above.
In summary, the claims of relativism are self-contradictory and false and therefore should be rejected on logical grounds. Truth is whatever corresponds to the real (to reality).
Frank… MUST you show how stupid you truly are? Truth, Mores, Beliefs, Knowledge, [Brain-Things] ARE ALL relative to that [Brain-Thing], each and every individual person. No one is obligated to follow the Brain Diarrhea of any person. MYSELF INCLUDED, MOST OF ALL. How many of you Religitards are willing to admit you are stupider than the average person. Yes, me tiny miscreant mind may have accumulated mountains of knowledge in many, many decades; however, I still consider me self a MORON. Are you willing to admit your moronicism? Compared to you, I possess infinitely greater amounts of knowledge about the bullshit you spew from your lips. Quit doing that. That is what the anus is for. Your PhD accounts for nothing, except that you have learned how to be the best Pulpit Prevaricator in order to keep believers beLIEvers. Liberal Arts based degrees mean nothing in today’s WWW society. I can literally obtain the knowledge to earn a PhD in any Liberal Arts degree. You cannot do the same with science. You MUST arduously work your arse off to obtain the knowledge required to falsify or verify a new Hypothesis. Sometimes a Hypothesis stays a possible Hypothesis because we do not currently possess the technology to falsify or verify. This is where brand new technology gets invented. And Religitards have completely destroyed their ability to invent. Not just imagine, but invent. Why do you think no Religitard has come up with (invented) any new argument for over 500 years? Well over seven times longer than I have been alive. And I wonder why I have seen nothing new from Religitardism.
And I have read about the greatest and most truest analogy for religion. A gentleman at Atheist Republic said this (paraphrased): “I have concluded that religious beLIEfs are exactly like your genitals. You keep them hidden, and never show them to children. Even your own.” Cannot get much truer than that.
Unfortunately, that also includes the God-Thing Hypothesis. In fact, although I may seem highly militant and obnoxious, I am still wide-open to any presentation of any OHEFE for your God-Things. Unfortunately, that means I shall never see any for I would have to wait for geologic time periods before that ever happens. All Religitards can offer for their God-Things:
Brain Diarrhea – (dfntn derived from AI search) Brain Diarrhea is not a medical condition. It is a humorous term used to describe someone who constantly talks or speaks their thoughts without ever thinking. It is similar to a “brain fart”, but with a constant stream of nonsensical words coming out of their mouth.
And, I got the above definition by typing in: “define brain diarrhea”. Perfecto. Primus Perfectus.
Horse Hoowhee – (dfntn NA through AI search) Have you ever walked into a horse stables that needed cleaning on a super “Dawg Day” in August? Temperature 98°F, humidity 90+%… The smell made me go: “HOOWHEE!!” Thus, Horse Hoowhee.
Septic Tank Flotsam ‐ (dfntn NA through AI search) You should know what this is.
A good way to test claims or statements is to turn the statement back on itself. You mean like what can be done with ALL those Religitard CLAIM statements?
Good stupid idea Frank. You forgot the Principle of the Double-Edged Sword. You do realize all of your Brain Diarrhea can be done the same?
All truth is relative. – Is THAT true?
All truth is objective. — Is THAT true? NO! It is False. Each person interprets what they see as truth individually from every other person. Only you Vampiric Religitards force your Brain Diarrhea onto others. I do not. I just point out where you are severely lacking in knowledge, then require the reader to do True Research. Prove me wrong.
You shouldn’t judge people! You are being intolerant! – Was THAT a judgment you just made? Were you being tolerant of my view?
You should judge people! — Is THAT what you wish? Why are you so fucking god-damned intolerant of Actual True Truth? Because you know you are a LIAR. I have the RIGHT to judge anything, everything, something, nothing in accordance to My Moral Code. My summary judgment on you is that you are an incredibly stupid mental retard that has purposefully destroyed and damaged your brain to a point you cannot be anything else but a god-damned liar for YOUR beLIEfs. As far as other persons’ judgment of you, that is within their Moral Code. I have no right to force anything, everything, something, nothing onto any other person. I require them to think about what you have written compared to my destruction of it. And, if necessary, they also may need to do some True Research. Which with the WWW today can be extremely frustrating since 99.999999999846748% is Pure Garbage. The Great GIGO Machine.
You know… That is great name for the WWW. The Great GIGO machine. Used to be only available to scientists. Then came the dial-up version with FidoNet and BBBs. However, if one does know how to search, and research, the WWW is the greatest Fact-Checking Tool ever invented. You Religitards never saw it coming. Especially how quickly the UseNet systems adapted. They had tremendous archives of the discussion between science and religion long before you Religitards knew what to do with. You were not tech-savvy enough. You had to BRIBE people to get such education while keeping them between the Hammer and Anvil. Then you have these Religitards who did nothing but earn their science degrees to ultimately make lying jack-arses of them selves. A few in mind: William Dempski, Stephen Meyers, Georgia Purdy. The list goes on. You wealth-gathering Religitards were able to simply BRIBE them to use their science knowledge to prove your Idea correct. THAT is another problem with religion. IT is a BRIBE.
Question reality. – Should I question that statement then?
Why not? But, you cannot. Frank, are you truly that stupid? Or do you just act that way so you can gather treasures and wealth? You completely missed the meaning of the statement. Here is a meme for you to think about.
Truly TRY to think about what this meme truly says. It is simply describing the difference in the methods of data and knowledge acquistion. T…H…I…N…K…
Another thought. What if that “Question Reality” was a bumper sticker on scientist’s conveyance? Scientists do just THAT everyday. We question; thus, we investigate. Religitards do not question. They pervert and twist the truth to fit their narrative. AND, ain’t it so hilarious that y’awl’s biblical science facts ain’t discovered until well AFTER the FACT? With that time spent fabricating beLIEvable prevarications against that science.
2. Do the laws principles of logic apply to all of reality or just part of it?
Typical of ALL Religitards. You list your questions, then you reword those questions. [StruckOut above.] Quit being a goal post mover. It is this kind of bullshit why you Religitards are actually despicable and should be despised. After 2000 years, us unbeLIEvers should turn the tables and visit upon you Religitards with mountains of disparagement and ridicule, and Religitards should be locked away into insane asylums. To list a few: Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Frank Turek, Matt Slick, William Dempski, Stephen Meyers, Casey Luskin, …too many to list.
Another aspect of the law principle of non-contradiction is something called the law principle of identity. Or to put it another way, whatever is real is real or, whatever is not real is not real. You repeated the previous one. T…H…I…N…K… This seems like common sense (does not exist), and it is (NOT)! The laws principles of logic were not invented, they were discovered! True. They are universal still relative (they apply to all reality); they are timeless (then does not exist) (they are true AND false no matter what century it is), they are unchangeable and they are !certain (like the laws principles of math – 2 + 2 always = 4!). And yet “2 + 2 = 4” also tells us everything it ain’t. Forgot that, did you not?
Here is something for you to wrap around your pinky finger. The Principle of Noncontradiction already includes Principle of Identity. Or, vice versa. If something has Identity, it also includes Noncontradiction. T…H…I…N…K…
The basic assumption here is that whatever is real is logical, so the answer is yes, the laws principles of logic DO NOT apply to ALL of reality (whatever is real!).
Why do you think us scientists now refer to these “laws”, as you call them, as Principles. Principles are more like Guidelines. They can be bent and changed. Laws are only made to be broken. And amended. It was the uneducated civilians that called them laws. Besides, one syllable versus three. Here is my favorite Morality Question. Your bible-thingy simply says, Thou shalt not murder. Nothing more. Nothing less. If I am attacked by a person wholly bent on killing me, yet I end up killing him first. I have just murdered. That means I am to be dragged outside the city gates and stoned to death. And why was your God-Thing so powerless to not KNOW this justifiable homicide would happen. Omniscient. NOT! In accordance to your Ten Godly Commandments, I have utterly sinned. Yes. It is justifiable through self-defense. Even your Lich Heysoos says I should just let him be the one to kill me. WHAT A CROCK OF SHIT! Where is your philosophical logic now?
If it is real, then the laws principles of logic apply to it and help us to discover it.
However, you are not using True Logic. You are using that wishy-washy philosophical logic. Empathic Predation. True Logic does not give a damn about your retarded word-play. It does not give a damn about your What-Ifs, Maybes, Buts, or Howevers. On the other hand, Philosophical Logic was created just for the Religitards. Philosophy only proves two things: 1. You can speak truth. 2. You can LIE. Otherwise, philosophy, solipsism, prove nothing. Only Objective Hard Empirical Facts and Evidence (OHEFE). If you cannot provide evidence, excepting that Brain Diarrhea, then anything, everything, something, nothing you claim is a LIE.
7734! Let me turn the tables and throw one of your style of analogy at you. If you were to tell me that the sky on a clear day is green in color, I know you are liar. Why? Everybody, anybody, somebody sees the sky as blue. And I know the science as to why it looks blue. Do you? It is your incredibly infinitesimal (infinitely or immeasurably small) amount of scientific knowledge you possess. You know nothing about science. Another proof you were no aviator.
3. Should all philosophy begin with doubt?
Why not? It is the best starting point: False, until proven True.
Some of the greatest philosophers who ever lived (Socrates and Descartes) began with doubt, so doesn’t this mean that skepticism and doubt is the best place to discover knowledge of the truth? While it is true that Socrates used his famous method of “questioning,” he never practiced universal methodic doubt as did Descartes. If we practiced universal doubt about everything (as did Descartes in his “Discourse on the Method.”) then why don’t we doubt our doubts? In order to doubt there must be something there in order for us to doubt it.
Skepticism is THIS: “not accepting a claim without proof (OHEFE)”. Nothing more. Doubt is more or less synonymous. And what better place to start than from skepticism? The Default Axiom, simply stated, without proof IT is False. After the first interrogative statement, your brain really does have a severe case of diarrhea. WOW. You simply utilized the Circular Reasoning Fallacy.
It was Aristotle who said that philosophy begins with “wonder” – and that all men desire to “know” and not “doubt.”
Actually, Aristotle said, ““Wonder?” Is that not where we begin?” Putting emphasis on wonder as an interrogative. I wonder? Hmm…
Universal Doubt leaves us only with skepticism and is actually self-contradictory (see #1. above).
In actuality, since this is in reference to Socrates, Descartes, Aristotle, the definition of “doubt” is “the state of being unsure, or in wonder, of something”. Perhaps you should rethink your Brain Diarrhea. Read that definition without unsure. The state of being in wonder of something.
You have applied your “Religitard” definition: Lacking confidence.
Skepticism is also synonymous with another term: Apistivism. A refusal to accept any claim by, with, through, from blind faith. Skepticism simply “doubts” Religitard claims because you have NO EVIDENCE. Just word salad, gish gallop, Empathic Predation, through beLIEvable LIES.
4. Do words convey truth about real things?
Not unless the definition of each word is already understood. When scientists speak, we do not need to define every word we may use. With a Religitard, I just refuse to do so. If you cannot understand, sometimes derogative, the meaning of what I am saying, then I am placing the Onus Probundi upon you to sit in your Doubt.
The final question we’ll briefly answer here is whether or not words adequately convey truth and what this means in our search for truth.
No, you shall offer no answer. Ain’t even read the below yet. Remember, by using probability and knowledge, I can make predictions.
One of the most prevalent Postmodern theories floating around today is Deconstructionism which basically says the following: that words cannot adequately describe reality (because they cannot); that words don’t intend reality (real things); As Johnny Five would say about previous: “No compute. Need more input.” that language is bound to one’s culture, race, etc…; or that language (words) are used only to gain power over some other person or group (via the Will to Power, Friedrich Nietzsche).
Well… I know nothing about Deconstructionism. Your argument is suffering from supercircularity. I think it is something you Religitards created as a derogative about whatever it is you are talking about. I sure as 7734 ain’t NEVER going to rely on your definition. Remember, Religitards are automatically LYING. Found this definition at a True Reputable WWW Site, something you never will visit:
Deconstructionism (or sometimes just Deconstruction) is a 20th Century school in philosophy initiated by Jacques Derrida in the 1960s. It is a theory of literary criticism that questions traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth; asserts that words can only refer to other words; and attempts to demonstrate how statements about any text subvert their own meanings.
Far, FAR!, different than your definition. Just showed how Religitardism POISONS everything, anything, something, even nothing. You Religitards just cannot stop your selves from showing to the world how stupid you truly are. You look for truth, but only truth that can be perverted and twisted into a psychopathic monster. You took the true definition of deconstructionism and perverted and twisted it until you can support YOUR narrative. Make your prevarication seem more plausible. This Begs the Question: “Who the 7734 are you to force your beLIEfs system onto any other person? What gives you the RIGHT to tyrannically dictate your beLIEfs? To act like your God-Thing, Judge, and Jury? I am passing judgment, Yes. I shall admit so. However, when a person gets filthy rich from LYING to people, I have every RIGHT to judge you as a LIAR in accordance to My Moral Code.
But, this is the skepticism in its most extreme form. Basic skepticism says “I don’t know the truth” whereas Deconstructionism says “I don’t have the ability to know the truth.”
I have already shown the true definition of skepticism: Refusal to accept any claim without proof. Your “I don’t know the truth” is the bullshit put forth by those ball-less, gut-less agnostics. We do not have the ability to KNOW whether any God-Things exist. That is their offical stance. However, I DO have the ability to KNOW. And your “I don’t have the ability to know the truth.” is also agnoticism, NOT skepticism. Learn English Frank. Why do you think Stephen Colbert called them Atheists Without Balls. So… What does Skepticism and Deconstructionism mean? You fail to define your terms correctly, misinforming the public. That is LYING. What does bible-thingy call it, false testimony? False witness?
We can answer this radical skepticism with a few observations and criticisms. Have not read any further. Prediction: All you offer is beLIEvable prevarications. Word Salad. First, any philosopher or otherwise who writes books telling us that language is inadequate is breaking the rules of their own philosophy! Why would we read them if we can’t trust what they write since their words don’t intend (?????) reality; they are bound to the author’s culture, and are only meant to gain power over me? It seems like the only exception to the philosophy of deconstructionism are the deconstructionist philosophers themselves. If we simply apply their own methods on their own philosophy (& books) then we will discover it to be self-contradictory and hence false.
What you just said is the same exact verbiage you say about all else, except YOUR beLIEfs. Here is an analogy for you. At one time, I was a psychenaut. An explorer of psychedelics. I had my epiphany for infinity during one journey. In another, it was a journey I cannot put into words. Phantasmagoric, would be one I could use. However, ultimately, out of the 13 languages I learned, there are not enough words or definitions to adequately describe that journey. I can still see it at times in my imagination, but it ain’t like the real one. Thus, I am saying that there are no words I could use to convey that psychenautic journey into your comprehension. If I were capable of psionic transfer, then I could blast that journey into your mind. Then, and ONLY then, would you comprehend that no language is adequate. Like the Vulcan Mind-Link. Your examples of this true phenomenon are childish wishes. Remember, Logic cares nothing for your feelings. Your feelings have absolutely no bearing on the True/False of Logic. All your wannabes, maybes, wishes, desires have nothing to do with Logic. You should talk to Matt Slick. My example is proof that in some cases, language fails miserably. Yes. I can use some words to convey SOME meaning, but never enough. IOW, that psychenautic journey I had can ONLY be experienced. Never duplicated. Never describable.
Just like my epiphany with infinity. I have an understanding and comprehension of infinity. However, there are not enough words in any/all languages to define this understanding/comprehension. And it always begs this question from me. How can I spend a finite amount of time grapsing something that is utterly infinite without end? It does not make any sense to me. I cannot explain it, other than… I know infinity. Without infinity, quite a lot of our current technology would not work. T…H…I…N…K…
All rational discourse and debate assume may agree the laws principles of logic (the law principle of non-contradiction and the law principle of identity) and that words can convey the truth about reality (meaning, but NOT always). If we abandon these principles, or if we deny them, then we have nothing to speak about; we have nothing to debate about. We just remain silent.
First three words. Frank, you do not offer discourse. And what you offer ain’t rational. And you cannot obey debate. Now think on that. The Principles of Noncontradiction and Identity are, for the most part, true. However, there are situations where they are false without contradiction. Have you just igNORed that? I require you to attempt thinking about them. Or, at least try.
We live in a culture today which is highly skeptical of any claims to absolute truth (for there is no absolute truth) whether religious, philosophical, or otherwise. Yet, this same culture is hypocritical when it comes to others criticizing its own cherished views of tolerance, relativism and pluralism.
But you do NOT criticize. You poison and pollute. Remember, Brain Diarrhea has no other function. Now, here is something funny for you, Frank. I have had a relationship with a SoulMate. We had twin daughters. They now only exist as fantasy. Memories are still a fantasy. A created abstract only within me tiny little mind. In my Heart. And if you wish, part of my soul. I have no better word for it. I am half-undone.
I just see all persons as a human being, whether stupid or intelligent. I see you as a human being. One whom has lost his mind. Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration. Look it up.
Philosophical and religious statements (in language whether written or spoken), which claim to be true are subject to the laws principles of logic – and hence criticism. If someone doesn’t want or like their view criticized or challenged then they shouldn’t make statements which can be evaluated by reason.
But, you do not use “reason”. You use emotional prevarication.
The Truth is out there – it is the truth about reality (about what is real). We can know it and we can communicate it.
That last I have to agree is true. However, always remember, IT is entirely relative. Each individual person.
For more on this subject:
* – And you are reading books written only by Religitards. Wrong research methodology. Where are the science books you studied? Why only restrict your studies ONLY to others who have convinced them selves of all those lies? Offering the Brain Diarrhea of other Word Salad Prevaricators is not the way to prove anything. Where is the evidence? You offer none.
First and Foremost, why is it no Religitard can understand that philosophy NEVER proves anything. Unless it is already true.
Second, Frank, you need to study Einstein’s Theories of Relativity. Then again, you ain’t got enough intelligence to understand anything science.
Einstein’s Theories of Relativity proved one thing: There is no absolute frame of reference. All things are relative to each other. These Theories alone proves there is no such thing as objectivism, universality, absolutism. EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE TO THE FRAME OF REFERENCE USED.
This can be classified as another Absolute: All things are relative to all other things. IOW, Relativism is an absolute. Thus, is an Absolute Truth.
Universality, objectivism, and absolutism are all false. There is no philosophy, or philosophical logic, that is universal, objective, nor absolute.
Yes. In our studies to understand the Natural World, us scientists do rely on objective experimentation and data acquisition. However, scientists also know there is no such thing as 100% objectivity. Objectivity is ranked on a scale of: 0 ≤ N < 1. This ranking means that objectivity can be 0% (such as religion). But it shall never be 100%. We scientists devise our experimentation to be AOAP (as objective as possible). We try to get at least 0.999917 objectivity.
How do you Religitards do your experiments to prove that God-Thing exists? Where are your science journal papers detailing your experiments and data acquisition? Where is your god-damned OHEFE?
Why NOT do you Religitards take those Billions of tax-free $ and put them where your dogmatic rhetoric is. Do like IBM did in North Carolina in building Research Triangle Park. Just find a large chunk of land, buy it, and build your own R&D park to prove the Principles of Science false. Or, at least prove the supernatural does somehow coexist with the natural. Billions of tax-free $ wasted on your treasures and wealth. Not for the betterment of Humanity.
Everything in this article that you wrote reads like a childish spoiled brat who cannot get his way, going waah, waah, waah. Everything written is nothing more than a big baby’s “Waahhh!”. Almost like little baby crying, “Why won’t you just beLIEve?” I cannot beLIEve because you offer no evidence. Just a huge pile of word salad, without vinaigrette even, damn, gish gallup, and brain diarrhea. You do not possess enough knowledge to even refute what I am saying, writing. 7734, I may use obnoxious language, but you deserve even less for LYING to all those people.
What a Brain Fart! Perform DNA tests on scientists and Religitards. How much you willing to bet that the Religitards have a higher percentage of Neander DNA? Worldwide, Sapiens today possess 3-8% (avg 5%) Neander DNA. It is part of the Junk DNA.
When I was forced to attend church by me mom, one Sunday School Teacher (greatest oxymoron) asked me: “Why won’t you use the brain God-Thing gave you and beLIEve?” Well, I did use my brain. Now I am a retired Scientist and Professional Atheist. Ironic. No?
I can claim to be a Professional Atheist since I have never beLIEved in anything. Like Carl Sagan, I do NOT want to beLIEve. I would rather KNOW True Truth than beLIEve an unsubstantiable lie. Why? Because I can PROVE that which I know, but I cannot prove a lie.
And always remember this FACT discovered by a certain type of brain scan technology, science has proven that even if a Religitard actually speaks truthfulness, their brain is still processing it as if it were a lie. Inexorable Religitards purposefully damage their prefrontal cortex by never using it; thus, they end up with brain damage known as Frontotemporal Lobar Denegeneration. In other words, if an inexorable Religitard for long enough, they can no longer use their prefrontal cortex. And what is the prefrontal cortex responsible for?
What is the part of the brain Religitards exclusively use responsible for?
In other words, Religitards only exclusively use the section of the brain that is already fallacious and irrational. This is why Religitards always use that psychological terrorism Empathic Predation.
Reiteration: Since the Religitards use the most fallacious area of the brain, they must use psychological terrorism, emotional molestation, and mental rape in order to FORCE you to use your most irrational part of your brain to override YOUR intellect to reinforce their lies as beLIEvable truth. Always remember this. It is the Religitards that are the insane fruitcakes (“a person who is deranged and dangerous”). You Religitards are mentally disturbed and in need of severe psychiatric help. You have a mental disorder that has as its basis: Schizophrenic Delusional Disorder. Any LIE that cannot be proven true, but is beLIEved to be true regardless of evidence, is the very definition of schizophrenia. Then add on language disorders, OCD, narcissism, and others.
Another FACT to always remember. Where is the Religitards’ OHEFE? Why must everything they utilize to prove their God-Things are real by using lies, more lies, and perverted and twisted prevarications? Why can no Religitard bring any OHEFE? That is all I am asking for. Whar’s the OHEFE? You say your God-Things are spaceless, timeless, immaterial. All this means is that those Things do not exist. Can not exist. To be able to create, you must have time in order to be able to perform an action. If timeless, then that Thing has no time to define a “before creation” and “after creation” event. Without time, there can be no before/after. THINK stupid. Immaterial just means it is a powerless ghost. Spaceless just means it cannot exist.
— The Unknown Atheist
Copyright © 2024 by RMFR. Licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 International. All Other Rights Reserved