Athias

Well, I am still waiting for the "oh no" part.

Doesnt exist in Luciferianism.

Source: Trust me, bro.

No, but nice guess.

I guess we blame Lucifer for the crimes of Ba'al now. 

Dont Christians usually blame everything on Lucifer?

Recently I watched a video saying how muslims are worshipping Lucifer.

Okay, so you keep lying about Baphomet. You know what, Baphomet doesnt care about your lies. Baphomet is a free demon.

You did admit that adultery is a sin after claiming it wasnt.

Now, do you want me to quote you specific verses of the Bible about overeating and overdrinking, or will you do the search yourself?

Your current stance is a Christian. Thats what you are. A christian!

Deny it all you want now!

I mean, sure, thats a sin, but I am not getting the "oh no" vibes there.

So they want to legalize euthanasia for terminally ill children?

What you are saying sounds like it came from Christian movies.

If you read the Bible, you will see that God of the Bible killed a lot of people, plenty of children too. Bible is the scary book, but people are blind to its horrors.

There are no any sacrifices in Luciferianism.

Luciferianism is just about pleasure and knowledge,

Well, the word congress did confuse me. I dont usually say sex and congress in same sentence.

Why is Baphomet bad?

Yes, they do. Christianity says to be poor, not to commit adultery, not to eat too much and drink too much (sin of gluttony)...

Let me give you advice, dear. When you try to pretend that you are not Christian, try not to praise Christianity so much at the same time. It does kinda blow away your cover.

I don't know, we don't have any video recordings. 

As my first cousin once removed said,  “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

So they just dont believe in Christian God?

You mean abortion?

So, trans surgeries for minors are a no no?

Baphomet is not a bad demon.

Human beings are animals.

They want to eat a lot, drink a lot, fuck a lot with everyone, and have lots of money.

In other words, they want to be opposite of that which is Christian value.

Christian value is doomed to fail because Christianity offers nothing real to person, but asks too much from a person.

I thought they knew, given so many times it was taught what sins were.

Its kinda strange that they dont know,

Generally speaking, no they are not "good" people.

By Christian standards, H-E-double hockey sticks-No.

At best, they deny that the God of Abraham, Jacob, Shem, Moses, Jesus Christ etc. is the one true god, which infracts the first two commandments. At worst, their adherence endorses/compels the practice of ritual child sacrifice as well as sexual congress with children, their consent notwithstanding. (It should be noted that these rituals aren't limited to children.) Luciferians believe in a perverted divine trinity, that is the Father God, the Mother Goddess, and the hermaphrodite (combination of Hermes and Aprhodite) child--the Baphomet, which combined creates the embodiment of Lucifer. I've argued for some time now that the predominant religion on Earth is not Christianity, but Luciferianism because the elite of the most popular "Christian" denomination--Catholicism--including and especially the pope himself are in fact Luciferians. They surreptitiously ingratiate Christians to their Luciferian rituals through innocuous fusions--e.g. "water" baptism.

Most of the "elite," whether they're politicians, international financiers, actors, singers, rappers, athletes, journalists, media personalities and companies (especially Disney), physicians, health officials, lawyers, insurance salesmen, Popes, cardinals, and Bishops etc. are Luciferian. And they hide it in plain sight because many, like Lemming conveyed, have little to no understanding of that which constitutes Luciferianism.

You are the last sad bastard to still believe that desperate lie.

I think Athias is Christian.

Remember that Athias said Beliefs are always true.

Like the past belief that the Earth was flat?

I’m basing it on the real world.

My point is your comment “Yes, because the representation of identical social, political, and economic values can be expressed exclusively and necessarily through skin color” is just nonsense.

OK, and that would also be nonsense.

No it doesn’t, there are social,political, and economic experience differences between the white and black

so-called blacks and so-called whites [are] monolithic socioeconomic and political demographics

but it does not follow that either experience is monolithic. 

Nope.

If you want to argue against the simple statement that “blackpeople deserve their share of representation”,

you need to present more thanobtuse straw man statements and hasty generalizations,

how about you put forth arational argument.

Beliefs can be true, not or combination of both.

Truth exists and sometimes, with well documented facts to confirm the truth of what we believed to be true.

Sometimes were left to circumstantial evidence and/or our confidence in others telling of what they believe they know.

Some conspiracies are true others not. 

Sometimes the true ones are exposed via well documented facts,

When this latter happens we are left to circumstantial evidence,

our confidence in those who say the conspiracy is true, or not.

Greed being the primary reason for covid vaccine or all other to exist I do not believe is truth.

When we have evidence of them saying that was their primary reason, then we can only accept their word at face value,

unless there is circumstantial evidence to dissuade us from believing their comments are not true.

Because of skin color, the social, political, and economic experience is not identical,

the experiential reality of the black man is different than the experience of a white man.

So yes, politically, representation by leaders who understand the issues resulting from skin color is important.

Because it doesn't meet the definition of the word.

To exist is to "have being". Qualities don't have being, they are observations of things that have being.

In this context those two words synonymous.

I suppose you could say that, but my position is that it's not God that is necessarily concurrent with logic but rather existence itself. God is therefore concurrent not because he is God but because he (allegedly) exists.

You can conceptually have logic without God, you cannot conceptually have God without logic.

You're talking about the words,

I'm talking about the essence of what those words are describing.

Long before life existed on earth there were two rocks on some hill and two rocks on another, those rocks still totaled 4 even if there were no humans around to recognize it.

They don't have weights or volumes. This is a category error, one which I know you understand full well. Why ask me such a silly question?

There is a distinction, and it's a very big one here in this conversation. The phrase "subject to" simply means in accordance with, that can very easily be applied and is often applied to mean "along the lines of [something that has no agency]".

Meanwhile "controlled" is used to describe a state where a thinking agent is actively involved in the events of something and actively making decisions as to what happens. Because of this, the word carries with it a clear emotional connotation because of how it has always been applied. That connotation is therefore being smuggled in when used towards something with no agency.

This is a common tactic in theistic arguments,

This is what one has to resort to when their position is ultimately without rational support.

Well, black people deserve their share of representation.

We assign

The numbers "two" and "four" are merely abstract assignments.

a single object as one object,

Add another object and that is 2 objects. We developed numbers to define quantities.

In Spanish one is uno.

Number systems have progressed from the use of fingers and tally marks,

perhaps more than 40,000 years ago,

to the use of sets of glyphs able to represent any conceivable number efficiently.

The earliest known unambiguous notations for numbers emerged in Mesopotamia about 5000 or 6000 years ago.

I just dont want to offend the gender. I can pretend that something is a woman even if it obviously isnt.

Eh, if something says that its a woman, I will trust that its a woman.

Math comes from logic.

Math is an extension of logic,

Very much so.

Put 2 carrots down and then put another 2 carrots down.

Now count the total number of carrots.

That is how math started.

If you look at this topic ( https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9393-consent-and-antinatalism) you see that this women is far more intellectual

than most of the men here. The future of DebateArt depends on intellectual discussions.

It does give off palpable creep vibes.

It is if you are trying to get laid.

It doesn't "interact". It is an observable quality of existence, and is no more explainable than existence itself.

In order for it to come from God that would mean God came first

This means there was a point in which there was a God but no logic

This means it is possible for something to exist without being subject to logic

This means it is possible for something to be what it is and not be what it is at the same time in the same sense.

2+2=4 was true long before humans came along.

We didn't create that

we observed that it was true and then created words to express it.

That's called discovery.

Words have meaning. The universe and everything in it is subject to the laws of physics and math. That is not what it means for something to be controlled. This is a silly semantic point.

I think I answered this above.

This sounds like irrational conspiracy theory to me.  

Nutters who follow irrational lines of thought process are perhaps in the millions on Earth albeit,

various groups may focus on medical, political, sports, money, greed etc type issues, to whatever degree.

This is not to say that greed or worse is not existent to some degree in medical health field, only that over many years of vaccination existent, I dont think greed is high on list of reasons most vaccinations exist, and rather doubt you or other  { OGP } have evidence of other.

I dont know, I didnt take part in statistics.

However, statistics do say that atheists better solve IQ tests.

atheists are cool now and Christianity is doomed to disappear now that we know how being Christian lowers IQ score.

Math doesn't "exist" in any sense of the word, nor is it a product of anything.

Math is an extension of logic,

so when you argue that math comes from God you are arguing that logic also comes from God, which is incoherent.

Do you believe God is subject to the laws of logic?

If you say he is subject to the laws of logic then he cannot be their author, and certainly not their arbiter.

At that point, the rest of your argument falls apart.

Humans didn't invent math, we discovered it.

Math doesn't "control" the universe in any coherent sense of the word.

It's not acting, is not making decisions, it just is.

Math, like logic, are best thought of as necessary qualities of existence itself.

This is why God is subject to them, because the argument is that he exists.

No, I dont think that I am smarter.

It's important that we keep this topic on the front page of DebateArt.  It should drive any women away.

And yes, I am saying women are too smart to go to a shit-hole site.

You mean, simple greed isn't a motive to create a demand for vaccines? Surprised you left that off your list of reasons.

As explained,

on average, atheists are smarter.

So either being an atheist makes you more likely to be intelligent, either being intelligent makes you more likely to be atheist.

His intelligence definitely contributed, as did plenty of other factors. 

However, intelligence is not the only factor, obviously.

Kinda like push and pull. Some things push, some pull. Its impossible for me to figure out all the factors.

Its different for every person.

I dont know exactly when Einstein became atheist, but yes its easier as time passes.

According to Einstein: A Life, a biography published in 1996, he was devoutly religious as a child. But at the age of 13, he “abandoned his uncritical religious fervor, feeling he had been deceived into believing lies”.

I was 12 when that happened to me.

The converting to atheism is a process.

First you have to overcome fear of God.

Then you have to overcome indoctrination from youth spent in religion.

Then you have to care enough to take steps and think about if God exists.

It doesnt happen at once. It takes time, and plenty of doubt and self-talk involved.

I'm not sure that quantification is a necessary requirement of effective vaccination.

One either accepts the efficacy of the smallpox vaccine or one doesn't.

Thereby inferring the efficacy of vaccination as an effective therapy against contagious pathogens.

So, another question.

What is the purpose of the Big Vaccination Conspiracy?

Logic tends to slap one in the face.

Or not as the case may be.

So, simple question:

Why did Edward Jenner bother?

Or was he the founder member of the Big Vaccination Conspiracy Club.

Any relative hypothesis can be described as GOD.

As GOD principle is sound.

And GOD is a common label.

Alan is also popular.

And collapse and rebirth can be numerically represented.

But will anything be counting?

Atheists tend to be less accepting of mythological hypotheses wherein Man simply invents GODS in the image of himself. 

Atheists do not necessarily dismiss the GOD principle.

Theist/deist is generally used to describe a believer in one of various popular MANGOD inventions.

Though an atheist could be regarded as a deist, in so much as the definition of a supreme being is open to interpretation.

Whereas theists often have an accompanying book.