MaxKolbe
Discord ID: 285208639059263499
434 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Page 1/5
| Next
Greetings.
I've been following Q and QAnon since late December. Even got my Twitter account suspended for posting on it. Kek.
I've been going insane waiting for something big to happen.
Watching since late December, and it often feels like we're just moving an inch a day at most.
I am not going to be happy until I see at least one high profile politician actually publicly charged.
Hey, we're in spergland. Weird people are everywhere. It's part of the fun.
I used to like Bush. It took me a while to figure out what a filthy liar he was/is.
"Spook" is slang for professional spy, @E Wood
Spies call each other spooks.
As a serious Catholic I'm horrified by what's happening with the Vatican but I'm looking forward to seeing it cleaned out.
Google needs to be destroyed or reduced to nothing but a utility only allowed to do regulated search engine work.
Greetings.
Got my first Facebook suspension. 3 days. LOL
Unreal isn't it?
Ave Maria!
Truepundit is pretty cool.
Anyone else feel disoriented sometimes, accepting that "conspiracy theories" we used to laugh at are true?
ave
Rosie Be in jail would be hilarious.
I pray the rosary everyday I include you all in it. Whether you believe it or not LOL
!agree
!gamer
Yes, we fire and destroy people's reputations, either for fun or profit or for politics--you can even hire people to do that crap to you. Also our civil courts, especially in family law, and our child protective services, are Orwellian.
I always found Chaplin's speech there a little sentimental and maudlin. He sseems to assume people with power normally are just good people and if we would all just get along we'd all have a better world. However, it should be obvious from history, any point including today, that people DO NOT automatically just try to get along, and leaders usually go after power.
The interesting thing is if you're following the pro-Trump alternative media--and I do--they have a completely different story on all this. Who you believe is one of the biggest questions of our day.
A friend of mine who's in UKIP say that Sargon is not liked there. Maybe he'll win them over though.
I believe one of the reasons the Swiss are likely to survive is that the Swiss have near 100% firearm ownership.
Would you agree @DegenAnCap ?
Dr. Steve Turley talks a lot about Sweden and other countries. He's very optimistic -- he is a "far right" person as a cultural and traditional nationalist, but he's VERY optimistic, especially about Europe, even about Sweden.
His anti-Jew and anti-Catholic rants are also a serious problem for him in UKIP circles. And his general contempt for all religions. That's a serious problem because UKIP gets HEAVY support from religious voters in the UK--which contrary to myth, are still very large in number (and actually growing).
Unless Sargon stops being such a douchebag to and about religious voters, Sargon would be poison to UKIP.
Which is what my friend who works for the party says they said when he showed them some of his anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish rants.
There's more active Catholics in the UK than ideological Atheists. His anti-religiosity makes him popular in Sargon's own (ideologically embubbled) base but doesn't allow him to expand to anyone who won't be a rabid Christian- and Jew-hater with him.
The good part of Anarchism. ๐
Be atheist if you want. I used to be one. I have atheist friends, and volunteers who work with me. The difference is, they aren't hateful and obnoxious and rude about it.
Yeah, the fact that you think we're stupid is just another reason for us to dislike ideological Identitarian Atheists and not support them.
Well yes, as a former atheist myself, I've observed for years now that it's VERY easy to sway atheists into various ideologies.
LOL anyone rocking an ATheist logo, hanging out all the time with ATheists, and repeating nonsensical Ideological Theist talking points about religion.
Oh God, I find the Atheism+ rejects more obnoxious even than the ATheism+ people. Who are at least consistent in who they are.
LOL it's a movement.
It's always been a movement. It's an identitarian political cult---at least the capital A Internet ATheism that Sargon comes out of. (Many atheists are sane but not these identitarian nutbags).
The "vocal minority" would be all the shallow, stupid, obnoxious Atheist YouTubers (thankfully a dying breed) and people who join garbage places like "Skeptic" forums, Ahteist Republic, read Atheist books, etc. It's a creepy cult movement, I recognized that over 10 years ago which is what got me questioning my own atheism.
Atheism is a 100% faith-based position, sorry.
And those of us who figure that out and reject it come to different conclusions about the world and about people. IT's the nature of things.
Well if you deny it's a movmeent, you're definitely in an ideological bubble.
"Atheism is lack of faith BY DEFINITION" -- nobody accepts this assertion except t hose indoctrinated by the cult, sorry. Atheism is 100% faith-based, always has been always will be. The bizarre cult of New Atheism/Internet Atheism has worked har to get the rest f us to accept that "lack of belief" definition, along with their fake definition that "faith=belief without evidence.": Both are cultish lies and good reason for religious people like myself to simply avoid them.
Fortunately they're not all like that at all.
Projection.
@Crow That's not true, sorry.
Enh. We don't always agree on things. [shrug] It's still true: ideological atheists like Sargon, who hate on and abuse religious people, are going to be poison for UKIP and its voters unelss Sargon changes his tune that's all.
THe Merriam-Webster doesn't support what you're saying, sorry, and neither do most dictionaries. Some will accept the "lack of belief" claim, but it's just a claim, and it falls apart quickly once you analyze it, which is why most serious sources, like the STanford Encyclopedia of Phiosophy, explicitly reject it (as I do).
In any case, those of us who do not accept these claims that atheism is just "lack of belief" or "lack of faith" -- and we have no reason to accept thesee ideological assesrtions--have every right to be mistrustful of people who talk like that. That's all. If he wants UKIP support, it's gonna be an issue for him. Just a fact.
@GingaBomber My read onit, having watched it since it started, is that y ou're right it was always a SocJus movement, at least once the Horsemen and the Internet movement moved in.
@.B Then stay against us. [shrug]
That you are against us, call us stupid, etc. is just reason for us to dislike you. That's ntohing personal, but just you talking that way about us is alienating and doesn't exactly make friends.
No no, I get along splendidly with Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Deists, agnostics, and atheists who aren't rude jackholes. My buddy @harmsie the gay atheist anarchist helps out a lot on our server and is one of our best volunteers. He knows how not to be a jerk. ๐
Over what?
@.B No, because I just pointed out the citation you used doesn't really support you (becuase it doesn't), and gave you other references. Here, here's a serious one:
They explicitely rejected and all but laughed at Identitarian Atheists who tried in vain to get them to accept the "lack of belief" trope.
It started here:
Sir, when you say religion is for stupid people, religious people have no reason to treat you with any respect or seriousness anymore. I dont' think I'm being confrontational to point that out to you.
Dude, it just started with me pointing out that UKIP leadership already knows about Sargon and finds his anti-Catholic and anti-Jew rants disgusting and a real problem for the party. It's all I wanted to say. ๐
@Schedrevka This is probably a conversation best had elsewhere, but you can read this:
@GingaBomber Yeah, again, not everyone accepts these definitions you're using. But believe whatever you want. ๐
I'll just leave this here on the definition question.
Yeah, and I'll repeat, I don't accept that definition onf "Faith" and netiehr to millions of others. Y ou can use words however you want but the rest of us don't. It's just a fact.
Yes yes, those of us who know there is a God, who have looked at all the available evidence and come to a rational conclusion about it, don't really think much of the unicorn comparisons either, it means you're not even trying to understand what we think. Feel free to come over to my server or ping me privately, I didn't come here for a religious war, merely to note, Sargon'll be toxic for UKIP if he doesn't change his ways.
Atheism+ was originally just the Atheist Movement, which was always a SocJus movement, and Atheism+ was the SocJus purge of everybody who wasn't down with the rest of the agenda. It's pretty classic.
Well is it appropriate to keep using Tim's server and this channel? I dont' want to derail/fight.
So we can say anything?
I should go get some of our old shitposting graphics but meh, maybe another day.
Yep. As Steve Turley notes, while the Nationalist Populists did not do as well as they hoped, they have grown to a point where now, they'll have a major impact on Swedish politics. For the good It hink.
"Generally humans are communal and empathic though, generally we are good people." -- and I just generally do not believe this is true of human beings, or ever has been. I used to. I don't anymore.
Well of course we have to, we have no choice, they'll destroy us if we don't. ๐
YEah I think people are naturally rotton and will naturally be rotton if they aren't taught better. They aren't naturally good. That's sort of rooted in philoso9phers like Rousseu and I just don't see humans that way anymore.
Sociopathy and narcissism--the modern way of saying "evil" I think--is normal in humans.
We're not naturally "good" at all. And as a people we're now so poorly educated we're lost. We have no metaphysical certainties, and a civilization that lacks those will be rolled over by one that has some.
Without a shared set of values and principles, people do not cohere, and we reduce to tribalism and family--which isn't necessarily bad, unless you have no clear tribe or good family, in which case you're really lost and will search everywhere.
But if you cannot protect groups that individuals belong to, that they want to belong to, you aren't really protecting the individual. This is why I find both hyper-individualism and hyper-collectivism both horrifying. It's why I'm not a libertarian anymore, OR a socialist, though I get accused of both. ๐
Right. Then you run immediately into the "Who Watches the Watchmen?" question, which hasn't changed in thousands of years. I think we have yet to show ARistotle or Plato wrong onthese things.
@I AM ERROR cosigned in triplicate.
Remember when we believed the lie it was a "Free speech" site? It isn't. IT's free speech only for what the people running it want to be free.
"Religion generally came about when people needed a way to enforce rules beyond a single leader, is how a friend explained it to me" -- yes this is a common belief. It's a faith-based, non-scientific belief, but it's a belief.
The evidence shows overwhelmingly that spiritual belief and religion are completely normal in humans, and perfectly rational if you engage the topic rationally (which not everyone does).
@Vigil My scientific explanation? Well the science clearly shows we're wired for it. The history clearly shows non-religious and anti-religious societies quickly turn into complete chaos or into authoritarianism. This all points to me to human spirituality as a normal, evolved trait--which It hink is pretty clear from all the data we have.
So the next question the Presuppositional Atheist has is how this would develop, since it's supposedly "irrational" and not "evidence based." But it's rational and evidence based, and normal in humans. Fighting it is anti-human and anti-human rights I think.
I do not believe any atheist believes in morals or can come up with a coherent set of morals. They always go, always, to whether or not someone is "nice" or "kind." But these have no fixed menaing at all. Nice to who, when, and what circumstances? Sometimes you shouldn't be nice or kind or em pathetic, in fact. These are not what you build values on.
It was one of many things that led me away from atheism--the moral question gets a surprising number of people.
"This" meaning what? That I'm critical of an ideology I rejected? That I insist it's an ideology and a movement? [shrug] I recognized it was an ideology and a movement and I left. I then had many experiences to lead me to examine the social phenomenon more largely. Psychological studies, sociological studies, history, philosophy, and quite a bit else. I came to my beliefs hard, over a period of many years.
@Vigil You can think that if you want, but what I find is that no atheist anywhere has ever in all of history at any time anywhere constructed a consistent moral system. Virtually all believe morality is just social convention or genetic and give armwaving generalizations about "group survival." None of it's scientific and none of it makes sense to me anymore. I used to srot of think like that, that it was all social convention and genetics/survival of the fittest. I just reject those beliefs now, I think they're incorrect.
@Schedrevka I can provide scientific evidence for what I say. Let me know if you want to discuss it. Otherwise, you can jhust keep believing whatever you want, about me or about anyone else who doesn't share your beliefs.
@pratel "God" (with a capital G) has been understood for thousands of years not just by religions but philosophers as "The Ultimate Intelligence Running Reality." That is a normal belief in humans that you find in virtually all societies. The Christian claim, in specific--which you can believe or not--is that God chose to become a human being for 33 years in the person of Jesus Christ--that he BECAME a human who wlaked around for a while. The generic idea of "God" as that ultimate creative intelligence/force running reality is pretty universal in humans, and science even says it's a normal evolved trait that most humans are born with. We develop it right around the same age as language, between 2 and 4. There are some exceptions, like autistics, who are more likely to lack this normal intuited rational sense, although certainly it's not true of all autistics.
434 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Page 1/5
| Next