Total topics: 252
Nancy Pelosi was live in her kitchen getting angry at Trump for not preparing for the coronavirus but 2 things should come obvious
1)Congress is out of session until May 4th. NO ONE is allowed in or out and congress is a HUGE part of government and for Nancy Pelosi to show off her rich house for everyone while Trump is fighting tooth and nail to combat this shows a lot of ignorance by Pelosi and the Dems
Nancy Pelosi went to Chinatown to destroy "Racism". However, she went with a bunch of people and DID NOT EXHIBIT ANY SOCIAL DISTANCING
Ladies and Gentlemen- the worst speaker of the house ever-Nancy Pelosi-Criticizes Trump for not preparing for the Corona and then sitting in her huge house doing nothing with Congress and then concerend about racism
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
during the Yugoslav wars and turmoil, which one of my friends family immigrated from, each side presented a song which combined their ancient culture songs with modern turbo, it is quite interesting
Bosnian song-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW6GSa14xXI
They all have the similar theme of brotherhood, unity and fighting for your country
Additionally, this has even been in todays wars-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ5ax8im3Ow,,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv13s5JmvS4,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu5tiG0hCeg
I think it is rather interesting, what do you think
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Show business
Muslims is a religious group
They are plenty of white Muslim groups, the Chechens of Russia, bosniaks and Albanians of the Balkans and a whole lot more
SO STOP SAYING (X) IS RACIST BECAUSE OF ISLAM! it gets on my nerves
Thank for my ted talk
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Society
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh wait-this is encouraged????
Yup, fuck feminism
BUTTTT, guess what-10 years later and they are ALL like "Where are all the Good men"? They want a commitment when they should hav ebeen looking for one a long time ago.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Society
This is the common usage for the archangels
- Michael - the Sun
- Raphael - Mercury
- Anael - Venus
- Melchizedek - Earth
- Gabriel - the Earth's Moon
- Samael - Mars
- Sachiel - Jupiter
- Cassiel - Saturn
Wrong-Michael is Mars as Mars is red-all paintings of Michael is red and it means blood, an military in almost all cultures
Gabriel is Mercury as the Messenger in the Bible-Mercury acts as a messenger in space and all ancient culture and modern cultures have mercury as the messenger
Raphael is the healer and the peaceful tender so she is the moon-healing through the night and bringing peace. There is a misconception that the moon is feminine just because of fertility and menstrual cycles, but if that was true then Allah would be a women-which he is not.
The moon plays a significant role in Islam because of the use of a lunar Islamic calendar to determine the date of Ramadan. The crescent moon, known as Hilal, defines the start and end of Islamic months as it did for the Babylonian calendar. The need to determine the precise time of the appearance of the hilal was one of the inducements for Muslim scholars to study astronomy.[13] The Quran emphasises that the moon is a sign of God, not itself a god.[14]
femininity in space comes from the virgo constellation mostly and maybe mercury.
Samael is the sun-he is dominate,the authority of God, masculine and he destroys sinners, the reason why he isn't mars is because he has no connection to military while Michael does.
The rest is fine but these two changes are neccessary
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
How dare they name a tragedy over China, the racism!!
So the Boston Bombing is racist???
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
whether Jesus is just a human equivalent of the Sun? I am very conflicted as the evidence is pretty staggering
But is it a bad thing, If the Devil represents darkness than Jesus is the light(sun)
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
But NOOOOOO, its "sexism"
Oh stfu for 5 seconds about your feminist brigading PLEASE
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
"UMM AL-FAHM, Israel — When the Israeli right won a narrow lead in the country’s general election on Monday, Yousef Jabareen, an Arab lawmaker, grimaced — but also smiled.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing bloc won seats in part because of hard-line policies that have disenfranchised Arab Israelis and further delayed a peace deal with the Palestinians.
But so did Mr. Jabareen’s Joint List, an alliance of Arab-led parties that had its best election ever.
The Joint List will now hold at least 15 seats in Parliament, a record for an Arab-led political faction in Israel. That has made it the third-largest parliamentary group, and prevented Mr. Netanyahu from scoring an outright majority.
But so did Mr. Jabareen’s Joint List, an alliance of Arab-led parties that had its best election ever.
The Joint List will now hold at least 15 seats in Parliament, a record for an Arab-led political faction in Israel. That has made it the third-largest parliamentary group, and prevented Mr. Netanyahu from scoring an outright majority.
“It was a mix of happiness and pride at the result for the Arab community, and disappointment at the national result,” Mr. Jabareen said in an interview in his hometown, Umm al-Fahm. “Netanyahu, with all his racist incitement, succeeded in getting more power.”
Counterintuitive as it may initially seem, the two results were in fact intertwined.
Mr. Netanyahu has shored up his base by enacting legislation that alienates Arab citizens and by pursuing a Middle East plan — President Trump’s “deal of the century” — that would annex large tracts of Palestinian land.
But it is exactly those actions that propelled a previously apathetic Arab Israeli electorate to the ballot box.
As a practical matter, whatever gains they made at the ballot box on Monday, little meaningful appears likely to change for Israeli Arabs in a country moving steadily to the right. Indeed, the gains may prove a double-edged sword, and make the Israeli right even stronger.
About one in five Israelis are of Arab ethnicity, but fewer than half of them participated in the Israeli general election last April. That changed markedly on Monday, when an estimated 64.7 percent of Arab Israelis voted in the country’s third election in less than a year — up from 59.2 percent in the poll last September, and 49.2 percent last April."
Counterintuitive as it may initially seem, the two results were in fact intertwined.
Mr. Netanyahu has shored up his base by enacting legislation that alienates Arab citizens and by pursuing a Middle East plan — President Trump’s “deal of the century” — that would annex large tracts of Palestinian land.
But it is exactly those actions that propelled a previously apathetic Arab Israeli electorate to the ballot box.
As a practical matter, whatever gains they made at the ballot box on Monday, little meaningful appears likely to change for Israeli Arabs in a country moving steadily to the right. Indeed, the gains may prove a double-edged sword, and make the Israeli right even stronger.
About one in five Israelis are of Arab ethnicity, but fewer than half of them participated in the Israeli general election last April. That changed markedly on Monday, when an estimated 64.7 percent of Arab Israelis voted in the country’s third election in less than a year — up from 59.2 percent in the poll last September, and 49.2 percent last April."
Israel is a changing nation and this election proves it
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Turkey until erdogan loses because he fucking sucks!!!!!!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I guess I am the only one here who posts about the Middle East and wars there
"For more than three years, Russia and Turkey have been shadow boxing on the soils of northern Syria. In the past three weeks, the stalking has turned to shooting; the Turks aiming their guns at the Moscow-allied Assad regime, and the Russians increasingly swinging their turrets towards the Turkish military.
In a war fought largely through proxies, any direct conflict between main players was considered highly dangerous and, until Thursday night, unlikely. But after the deaths of at least 30 Turkish troops – most likely the consequence of a Russian airstrike – both sides are in a standoff from which neither can afford to back down.
The powerplay has led to suffering without recent parallel anywhere in the world. It has also exposed the thresholds at which Turkey – a backer of the Syrian opposition – and Russia, a resolute supporter of the Syrian leader, are prepared to operate.
After the airstrike in the town of Boulian, Turkish drones obliterated Syrian positions throughout Idlib, just as their artillery had been doing in the weeks before it. Ankara’s assessment had been that airstrikes carried out on its troops during that time were best avenged by targeting Russia’s weaker proxy, the national army."
In a war fought largely through proxies, any direct conflict between main players was considered highly dangerous and, until Thursday night, unlikely. But after the deaths of at least 30 Turkish troops – most likely the consequence of a Russian airstrike – both sides are in a standoff from which neither can afford to back down.
What happens from here will have wide implications for both countries, and potentially far beyond. More importantly, the next moves will define the dying stages of the Syrian war and determine the fate of up to 3 million desperate people who have been trapped between a Russian-led onslaught and a Turkish pushback.
After the airstrike in the town of Boulian, Turkish drones obliterated Syrian positions throughout Idlib, just as their artillery had been doing in the weeks before it. Ankara’s assessment had been that airstrikes carried out on its troops during that time were best avenged by targeting Russia’s weaker proxy, the national army."
Turkey is invading another country and the US supports it? WHY
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
one of the Syrians said "why are you here"
Good question-answer-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOTCC7tpKys
Oh yeah we are taking the oil
It's clear that Trump doesn't care about ending endless wars, if he did he would participate in the peace talks between Turkey and Russia. If he cared, we would set up a kurdish autonomous region, if he cared he would lift the sanctions and bring back the refugees into Syria.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
This is satire so dont get mad
An aggressive scent? Triggering to my anxiety? how soft are you, can you even function in a working world, never mind overthrow capitalism.
I mean Jesus
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
‘The Pill’ Might Shrink Certain Brain Regions Among Women Taking It
https://www.livescience.com/birth-control-brain-hypothalamus.html
It seems it has come out that the birth control pill, that has been on the market for over half a century, may shrink parts of the brain, specifically the hypothalamus.
A shrinking hypothalamus would cause the person to be more aggressive, angry, and sad/depressed. All of these symptoms would cause the person to be more sexually promiscuous.
So, it really is true. Women of previous generations, before the boomers, were likely nicer, happier, and less prone to be sluts.
https://www.livescience.com/birth-control-brain-hypothalamus.html
It seems it has come out that the birth control pill, that has been on the market for over half a century, may shrink parts of the brain, specifically the hypothalamus.
A shrinking hypothalamus would cause the person to be more aggressive, angry, and sad/depressed. All of these symptoms would cause the person to be more sexually promiscuous.
So, it really is true. Women of previous generations, before the boomers, were likely nicer, happier, and less prone to be sluts.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Society
and oh look, 7/10 topics are made by one person
Who could that be?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
right after the super bowl, the greatest football game??
I mean at least make it 3 weeks after the super bowl
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Sports
First ascensionism and your soul is a cult like religion that believes in this:
soul - evolution and development
evolution over lives lived
The first thing is to define what the soul is. The soul is the core of our spirit being. All living things have a soul, or they would not be living. It is through the soul that the force of life flows into the being. There are two types of soul – that which is physical or mortal soul and that which is divine or eholim soul. Mortals have solid forms. Mortals do have a spirit form, it is an integral part of what we are as a whole being. It should not be viewed as 'separate', for such is the life we are – not one or the other in our living, but both at once. Mortals have a physical body, they are 'solid', but this is not to say that eholim are themselves without form. While able to pass through solid objects we ourselves cannot in natural state (while living) they are to themselves and to each other 'solid'. They do have bodies. They have organs, minds and depending on the kind, limbs. The eholim are PEOPLE, just different people. And like mortals they make their choices.
Thus we have two kinds of soul in the universe, if life is defined and divided at it's most basic. Mortals live temporary existences and then when that life is done, the soul travels to the place of all souls, also known as the sacred place of souls, where it judges itself. No-one else judges your soul. Only the soul, with no-one to justify actions to , or excuses to make, when there is nobody to impose 'rules' or dictate what is 'right' or 'wrong', can dispassionately judge the fitness of its own being after the life just lived. Eholim, or 'spirit', can have potentially eternal (but not immortal) lives so their souls judge themselves far less than mortal souls. But when their lives end, they too go to this same place where their souls face the same internal judgement.
how did the first souls come into being? i don't know. as this is the thirteenth universal age, as counted by the eholim, and there was one age before that, i don't think anyone will know for certain. but as is the nature of life itself, all things change. and life itself moves in great cycles. the nature of life, and souls, varies from one age to the next.
only in the soul memory of mickel was there knowing of an earlier age. mickel was a child when the universe closed. the others had lived for as long as they had memory of the universe. but mickel's existence had only just begun. when they 'let go' of their existence they communicated to their youngest that he/she ('it' is the wrong word and i don't have another, but the name was aestra) should continue. and so he (as his soul in the next age became) did.
to best describe the cycle of souls i try to picture a nebula. a soul, having lived its lives, dissipates peacefully and easily. and in the hazy 'cloud' of what was , new stars - new souls - are born. nothing of what that soul was is imprinted on the new birthings, nothing of its great experience. in the fertile womb of the universe, unique, individual, innocent, these newly formed souls are ready to begin their own journey.
how does a soul 'grow'? i think the best analagy i can supply is to think of an onion. each ring represents growth over previous lives, with the outer ring being representative of the ego. i define the ego in this case not as personality, but as the interface - a sponge through which every single experience/sensation/thought/etc is soaked inwards to the soul. this is my spiritual definition, if you will, of 'ego'.
that does not mean that the soul is like an onion, that if you could cut out a slice there would be rings like on a tree. there isn't. the soul is or should be a whole. we are meant to be "whole unto ourselves". it is also undefinable. although we know we have one, there is no literal physical spot in our bodies which we can point to and say 'here is our soul'. however i believe it would be in the centred in our torso, just above the mid section.
when it comes to the age and development of the soul, initially life, like nature itself is random. we do not choose what we want to be born as and given the sheer variety of life in the universe that would not be considered sensient, i think it's safe to assume that not only would we never guarentee living only one type of creature, let alone spend all our lives on one world, that all souls have at least have the same chance at growth and an equal opportunity to develop within themselves. souls grow with experience, experience while living and away from the place of all souls. it might be asked if ghosts' souls still grow even after 'life' has ended. the answer is yes, but that does not mean it is a desirable state of living. i will expand on this further in a later article.
the turnaround is after the 19720th life. it is the approach to this life that souls truly begin to define themselves as far as evolutionary development goes. in the approach to that life, things become less random for some souls, who have developed within them an appreciation for all life and a desire to cultivate that in others in a way which is in harmony with the nature of life itself. that probably isn't the best way to describe it but i hope you will understand what i mean as i continue. there are in fact two alternatives after the 19720th life - there are those that become returns, living for another 19720 lives, and those whose cycle ends after the their 19720th life ends.
a soul that is fit and becomes a returned 'walks' between lives. they choose the circumstances of their birth (eg country/world and general circumstance BUT NOT specific parents or into a wealthy family, but will lose personal fortune at 20yrs or middle class but personally abused from childhood til adulthood or poor family but become rich/inventor/other by 30yrs etc), and their mortal lives between ending and beginning might be as short as a few generations apart. these souls live for another 19720 lives before their natural end. these are the souls which as they dissipate become the stuff from which new souls are born. and this is the moment of enlightenment - when an ancient soul, having judged itself fit at the end of each life, gently disipates within the sacred place of souls, releasing itself to the universe. and so the cycle of life begins anew.
(in tibettan buddhism this moment is called "nirvana". the word nirvana literally means extinguishing or unbinding. and that nirvana is the ultimate goal of the buddhist practitioner. it is only those souls which in buddhist terms walk or seek the path of enlightenment that at the end of their long journey become the stuff from which new souls are born.
there is another form of mortal soul - the messenger. these incredibly rare souls seem to know almost from the beginning of their cycle their chosen path. it's almost as if they becme 'returns' after five or ten lives, or at least very early on in their soul's journey. they are also of the souls which first filled the universe. these unique souls, if they continue to judge themselves fit, will continue to life mortal lifes throughout the universal age. however unlike other mortal souls they never reach the stage that the time between lives is shortened as it can be for returns.
judgement
this is an important concept to grasp before continuing. how does a soul judge iteself? it is all about INTENT. the conscious intentions behind any action, be they 'good' or 'evil'. and every single factor in the decision to act is taken into account. was it for personal benefit, in expectation of a reward, or done soley to avoid punishment? and while an act of kindness to enhance social standing or recognition is still something, to have done it without such considerations weighs better. was it to save someone else, to defend self, or just following orders? from the smallest act of kindness to the greatest misdeed, only the soul itself can be a true judge of past acts, of choices made.
the act of charity is a simple, and probably safe, example. philanthropists aren't highly thought of, but why? is it because of their wealth? they don't have to give a cent, much less a certain amount. the simple act (tax concessions or not, because how many of all income brackets take advantage of that?) counts. neither does the 'cause' negate the value of giving. a person tossing a few coins in a charity tin or to a begger amounts to the same. because what compassion moves that person to do so is the same. and it is still a choice made.
what of the non-monetary acts of kindness? the simple act of warning your neighbour it's going to rain because they have washing on the line is not too small to count. but if you take on what is to you a 'noble cause' and in the process someone is hurt, something damaged or destroyed, you are not immune from your own soul's judgement. there is no justification. every choice made counts. nothing, not even how you treat your pets, doesn't count. if you chose to reach out and pet you cat or dog, or chose not to, will be considered in all circumstances.
this belief of the soul judging itself does run though different religions throughout history as well. though to a culture in which belief in 'god' judgement in deeply embedded, it may have been recognised as such. despite the many gods accounted by the ancient egyptians, they still believed that none of them judged whether or not their souls was fit for the next life. their heart/soul was weighed on a scale against the 'feather of truth'.
effects of horticultural practices and cloning
in a multi-cell form of life there is still only one soul. that is to say that a tree, a bird or a human has only on soul within their living form that they were born with. but what happens if through a chance of nature or through artificial means, some part of that whole individual becomes split, and grows separately?
evolution over lives lived
The first thing is to define what the soul is. The soul is the core of our spirit being. All living things have a soul, or they would not be living. It is through the soul that the force of life flows into the being. There are two types of soul – that which is physical or mortal soul and that which is divine or eholim soul. Mortals have solid forms. Mortals do have a spirit form, it is an integral part of what we are as a whole being. It should not be viewed as 'separate', for such is the life we are – not one or the other in our living, but both at once. Mortals have a physical body, they are 'solid', but this is not to say that eholim are themselves without form. While able to pass through solid objects we ourselves cannot in natural state (while living) they are to themselves and to each other 'solid'. They do have bodies. They have organs, minds and depending on the kind, limbs. The eholim are PEOPLE, just different people. And like mortals they make their choices.
Thus we have two kinds of soul in the universe, if life is defined and divided at it's most basic. Mortals live temporary existences and then when that life is done, the soul travels to the place of all souls, also known as the sacred place of souls, where it judges itself. No-one else judges your soul. Only the soul, with no-one to justify actions to , or excuses to make, when there is nobody to impose 'rules' or dictate what is 'right' or 'wrong', can dispassionately judge the fitness of its own being after the life just lived. Eholim, or 'spirit', can have potentially eternal (but not immortal) lives so their souls judge themselves far less than mortal souls. But when their lives end, they too go to this same place where their souls face the same internal judgement.
how did the first souls come into being? i don't know. as this is the thirteenth universal age, as counted by the eholim, and there was one age before that, i don't think anyone will know for certain. but as is the nature of life itself, all things change. and life itself moves in great cycles. the nature of life, and souls, varies from one age to the next.
only in the soul memory of mickel was there knowing of an earlier age. mickel was a child when the universe closed. the others had lived for as long as they had memory of the universe. but mickel's existence had only just begun. when they 'let go' of their existence they communicated to their youngest that he/she ('it' is the wrong word and i don't have another, but the name was aestra) should continue. and so he (as his soul in the next age became) did.
to best describe the cycle of souls i try to picture a nebula. a soul, having lived its lives, dissipates peacefully and easily. and in the hazy 'cloud' of what was , new stars - new souls - are born. nothing of what that soul was is imprinted on the new birthings, nothing of its great experience. in the fertile womb of the universe, unique, individual, innocent, these newly formed souls are ready to begin their own journey.
how does a soul 'grow'? i think the best analagy i can supply is to think of an onion. each ring represents growth over previous lives, with the outer ring being representative of the ego. i define the ego in this case not as personality, but as the interface - a sponge through which every single experience/sensation/thought/etc is soaked inwards to the soul. this is my spiritual definition, if you will, of 'ego'.
that does not mean that the soul is like an onion, that if you could cut out a slice there would be rings like on a tree. there isn't. the soul is or should be a whole. we are meant to be "whole unto ourselves". it is also undefinable. although we know we have one, there is no literal physical spot in our bodies which we can point to and say 'here is our soul'. however i believe it would be in the centred in our torso, just above the mid section.
when it comes to the age and development of the soul, initially life, like nature itself is random. we do not choose what we want to be born as and given the sheer variety of life in the universe that would not be considered sensient, i think it's safe to assume that not only would we never guarentee living only one type of creature, let alone spend all our lives on one world, that all souls have at least have the same chance at growth and an equal opportunity to develop within themselves. souls grow with experience, experience while living and away from the place of all souls. it might be asked if ghosts' souls still grow even after 'life' has ended. the answer is yes, but that does not mean it is a desirable state of living. i will expand on this further in a later article.
the turnaround is after the 19720th life. it is the approach to this life that souls truly begin to define themselves as far as evolutionary development goes. in the approach to that life, things become less random for some souls, who have developed within them an appreciation for all life and a desire to cultivate that in others in a way which is in harmony with the nature of life itself. that probably isn't the best way to describe it but i hope you will understand what i mean as i continue. there are in fact two alternatives after the 19720th life - there are those that become returns, living for another 19720 lives, and those whose cycle ends after the their 19720th life ends.
a soul that is fit and becomes a returned 'walks' between lives. they choose the circumstances of their birth (eg country/world and general circumstance BUT NOT specific parents or into a wealthy family, but will lose personal fortune at 20yrs or middle class but personally abused from childhood til adulthood or poor family but become rich/inventor/other by 30yrs etc), and their mortal lives between ending and beginning might be as short as a few generations apart. these souls live for another 19720 lives before their natural end. these are the souls which as they dissipate become the stuff from which new souls are born. and this is the moment of enlightenment - when an ancient soul, having judged itself fit at the end of each life, gently disipates within the sacred place of souls, releasing itself to the universe. and so the cycle of life begins anew.
(in tibettan buddhism this moment is called "nirvana". the word nirvana literally means extinguishing or unbinding. and that nirvana is the ultimate goal of the buddhist practitioner. it is only those souls which in buddhist terms walk or seek the path of enlightenment that at the end of their long journey become the stuff from which new souls are born.
there is another form of mortal soul - the messenger. these incredibly rare souls seem to know almost from the beginning of their cycle their chosen path. it's almost as if they becme 'returns' after five or ten lives, or at least very early on in their soul's journey. they are also of the souls which first filled the universe. these unique souls, if they continue to judge themselves fit, will continue to life mortal lifes throughout the universal age. however unlike other mortal souls they never reach the stage that the time between lives is shortened as it can be for returns.
judgement
this is an important concept to grasp before continuing. how does a soul judge iteself? it is all about INTENT. the conscious intentions behind any action, be they 'good' or 'evil'. and every single factor in the decision to act is taken into account. was it for personal benefit, in expectation of a reward, or done soley to avoid punishment? and while an act of kindness to enhance social standing or recognition is still something, to have done it without such considerations weighs better. was it to save someone else, to defend self, or just following orders? from the smallest act of kindness to the greatest misdeed, only the soul itself can be a true judge of past acts, of choices made.
the act of charity is a simple, and probably safe, example. philanthropists aren't highly thought of, but why? is it because of their wealth? they don't have to give a cent, much less a certain amount. the simple act (tax concessions or not, because how many of all income brackets take advantage of that?) counts. neither does the 'cause' negate the value of giving. a person tossing a few coins in a charity tin or to a begger amounts to the same. because what compassion moves that person to do so is the same. and it is still a choice made.
what of the non-monetary acts of kindness? the simple act of warning your neighbour it's going to rain because they have washing on the line is not too small to count. but if you take on what is to you a 'noble cause' and in the process someone is hurt, something damaged or destroyed, you are not immune from your own soul's judgement. there is no justification. every choice made counts. nothing, not even how you treat your pets, doesn't count. if you chose to reach out and pet you cat or dog, or chose not to, will be considered in all circumstances.
this belief of the soul judging itself does run though different religions throughout history as well. though to a culture in which belief in 'god' judgement in deeply embedded, it may have been recognised as such. despite the many gods accounted by the ancient egyptians, they still believed that none of them judged whether or not their souls was fit for the next life. their heart/soul was weighed on a scale against the 'feather of truth'.
effects of horticultural practices and cloning
in a multi-cell form of life there is still only one soul. that is to say that a tree, a bird or a human has only on soul within their living form that they were born with. but what happens if through a chance of nature or through artificial means, some part of that whole individual becomes split, and grows separately?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Idlib is full of terrorists, FULL OF IT, just al-queda pigs, not good
Really? What is wrong with you!!! The war is won by Assad and that's that, Idlib is full of terrorists and the war in Syria is unpopular in Turkey, We can wholly convince them to drop out if we convince erdogren that it would help his political popularity
We support Turkey's right to set up random observation posts in an another country, they totally have the right to do so!
WE.ARE.FUCKED
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I am endorsing Hezbollah,Syria and Russia now because American foreign policy sucks
Peace between Israel and Palestine? How delusional are you?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Now there dead! HAHA, obama's foreign policy was a disaster and especially this
Assad won, the west lost, incredible
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The Argument
Leibniz's argument consists of 3 premises and 2 conclusions, as follows:
• Premise 1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence
• Premise 2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God
• Premise 3: The universe exists
• Conclusion 1: The universe has an explanation of its existence
• Conclusion 2: Therefore the explanation of the universe's existence is God
However, is it a good argument? A good argument must satisfy the following criteria:
• The premises must be true, and
• The conclusions must follow logically from the premises.
In this article, I will work backwards. I will firstly discuss the logical structure of the argument (its validity) and then consider the premises. We will firstly assume that the premises are true and verify whether the conclusions follow from the premises.
Logical Structure
Conclusion 1 is justified by Premise 1 and 3 as follows:
• Premise 1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence
• Premise 3: The universe exists
• Conclusion 1: The universe has an explanation of its existence
Thus if everything that exists has an explanation of its existence and the universe exists, then it follows that the universe has an explanation of its existence.
Conclusion 2 follows from premise 2 and conclusion 1 as follows:
Leibniz's argument consists of 3 premises and 2 conclusions, as follows:
• Premise 1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence
• Premise 2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God
• Premise 3: The universe exists
• Conclusion 1: The universe has an explanation of its existence
• Conclusion 2: Therefore the explanation of the universe's existence is God
However, is it a good argument? A good argument must satisfy the following criteria:
• The premises must be true, and
• The conclusions must follow logically from the premises.
In this article, I will work backwards. I will firstly discuss the logical structure of the argument (its validity) and then consider the premises. We will firstly assume that the premises are true and verify whether the conclusions follow from the premises.
Logical Structure
Conclusion 1 is justified by Premise 1 and 3 as follows:
• Premise 1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence
• Premise 3: The universe exists
• Conclusion 1: The universe has an explanation of its existence
Thus if everything that exists has an explanation of its existence and the universe exists, then it follows that the universe has an explanation of its existence.
Conclusion 2 follows from premise 2 and conclusion 1 as follows:
- Premises 2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God
- Conclusion 1: The universe has an explanation of its existence
- Conclusion 2: Therefore the explanation of the universe's existence is God
I think it is fairly self-evident that the logical structure of the argument is valid. Now we will look at the premises.
Are the Premises True?
• Premise 3
Premise 3 states that the universe exists. I think this is fairly self-evident. I am sure that there have been extreme sceptics that have questioned this claim, but I will not concern myself with them.
• Premise 1
• Objection 1
Premise 1 states that everything that exists has an explanation of its existence. This has prompted the following objection:
If premise 1 is true, then God must have an explanation of his existence. The explanation of God's existence must be some other being greater than God. That's impossible; therefore, premise 1 must be false.
However, this objection is a misunderstanding of what Leibniz meant by "explanation". According to Leibniz, there are 2 kinds of explanations:
• Beings that exist necessarily (necessary beings), or
• Beings that are produced by an external cause (contingent beings).
Necessary beings are those that exist by a necessity of their own nature. In other words it is impossible for them not to exist. Some mathematicians believe that abstract mathematical objects, such as numbers, sets and shapes (e.g. circles and triangles) exist necessarily. Necessary beings are not caused to exist by an external entity and necessarily exist in all possible worlds.
On the other hand, contingent beings are caused to exist by something else. They do not exist necessarily and exist because something else produced them. This includes physical objects such as people, planets and galaxies. It is easy to imagine possible worlds in which these objects do not exist. Thus we could expand premise 1 as follows:
Premise 1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either due to the necessity of its own nature or due to an external cause.
It is impossible for God to have a cause. Thus Leibniz's argument is really for a God who must be a necessary, uncaused being. Thus the argument helps to define and constrain what we mean by "God".
• Objection 2
Some atheists have objected that premise 1 is true of everything in the universe, but not the universe itself. However, it is arbitrary to claim that the universe is an exception. After all, even Leibniz did not exclude God from premise 1. This objection is also unscientific. Modern cosmology is devoted to a search for the explanation of the universe's existence, and rightly so. To give up and declare that the universe exists reasonlessly would stymie science.
• Objection 3
Some atheists have suggested that it is impossible for the universe to have an explanation of its existence. Their argument goes something like this:
The explanation of the universe would have to be a prior state of affairs in which the universe did not exist. This would be nothingness. Nothingness cannot cause anything, Therefore the universe exists inexplicably.
This objection assumes that the universe includes everything and that there is nothing outside the universe, including God. The objection has excluded the possibility of God by definition. However, an alternative definition is that the universe contains all physical things, but that God exists apart from the universe. This objection assumes that atheism is true and argues in a circle. It is clearly begging the question.
• Premise 2
Premise 2 states that if the universe has an explanation of its existence, then that explanation is God. This appears controversial at first, but in fact it is not. This is because atheists typically argue that if atheism is true, then the universe has no explanation of its existence. Thus if there is an explanation of the universe, then atheism must be false (i.e., God is the explanation of the universe). This conclusion follows from the following rule of logic: If p => (implies) Q, then "not Q" => "not P". An example is, "If it is raining, then there are clouds. Thus if there are no clouds, then it is not raining."
All atheistic alternatives now seem to be closed, but not quite. Some atheists have claimed that the universe exists necessarily (i.e., the universe is a necessary being). If that were the case, then the universe would not require an external cause. However, this proposal is generally not taken seriously for the following reasons. None of the universe's components seem to exist necessarily. They could all fail to exist. Other material configurations are possible, the elementary particles could have been different and the physical laws could have been different as well. Thus the universe cannot exist necessarily.
However, is it valid to resort to God as the explanation of the universe? Are there other possibilities? The universe consists of space, time, matter and energy. The cause of the universe must be something other than the universe. Thus the cause of the universe must be non-physical, immaterial and beyond space and time. Abstract objects are not possible candidates as they have no causal relationships. Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that the cause of the universe must be a transcendent, unembodied mind.
Conclusion
Leibniz's argument from the Principle of sufficient reason is an interesting argument for the existence of God, but it goes beyond just God's existence. It also constrains the attributes of God to be a transcendent, uncaused, unembodied mind, who necessarily exists. In other words, this being is what the major monotheistic religions traditionally refer to as "God".
Are the Premises True?
• Premise 3
Premise 3 states that the universe exists. I think this is fairly self-evident. I am sure that there have been extreme sceptics that have questioned this claim, but I will not concern myself with them.
• Premise 1
• Objection 1
Premise 1 states that everything that exists has an explanation of its existence. This has prompted the following objection:
If premise 1 is true, then God must have an explanation of his existence. The explanation of God's existence must be some other being greater than God. That's impossible; therefore, premise 1 must be false.
However, this objection is a misunderstanding of what Leibniz meant by "explanation". According to Leibniz, there are 2 kinds of explanations:
• Beings that exist necessarily (necessary beings), or
• Beings that are produced by an external cause (contingent beings).
Necessary beings are those that exist by a necessity of their own nature. In other words it is impossible for them not to exist. Some mathematicians believe that abstract mathematical objects, such as numbers, sets and shapes (e.g. circles and triangles) exist necessarily. Necessary beings are not caused to exist by an external entity and necessarily exist in all possible worlds.
On the other hand, contingent beings are caused to exist by something else. They do not exist necessarily and exist because something else produced them. This includes physical objects such as people, planets and galaxies. It is easy to imagine possible worlds in which these objects do not exist. Thus we could expand premise 1 as follows:
Premise 1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either due to the necessity of its own nature or due to an external cause.
It is impossible for God to have a cause. Thus Leibniz's argument is really for a God who must be a necessary, uncaused being. Thus the argument helps to define and constrain what we mean by "God".
• Objection 2
Some atheists have objected that premise 1 is true of everything in the universe, but not the universe itself. However, it is arbitrary to claim that the universe is an exception. After all, even Leibniz did not exclude God from premise 1. This objection is also unscientific. Modern cosmology is devoted to a search for the explanation of the universe's existence, and rightly so. To give up and declare that the universe exists reasonlessly would stymie science.
• Objection 3
Some atheists have suggested that it is impossible for the universe to have an explanation of its existence. Their argument goes something like this:
The explanation of the universe would have to be a prior state of affairs in which the universe did not exist. This would be nothingness. Nothingness cannot cause anything, Therefore the universe exists inexplicably.
This objection assumes that the universe includes everything and that there is nothing outside the universe, including God. The objection has excluded the possibility of God by definition. However, an alternative definition is that the universe contains all physical things, but that God exists apart from the universe. This objection assumes that atheism is true and argues in a circle. It is clearly begging the question.
• Premise 2
Premise 2 states that if the universe has an explanation of its existence, then that explanation is God. This appears controversial at first, but in fact it is not. This is because atheists typically argue that if atheism is true, then the universe has no explanation of its existence. Thus if there is an explanation of the universe, then atheism must be false (i.e., God is the explanation of the universe). This conclusion follows from the following rule of logic: If p => (implies) Q, then "not Q" => "not P". An example is, "If it is raining, then there are clouds. Thus if there are no clouds, then it is not raining."
All atheistic alternatives now seem to be closed, but not quite. Some atheists have claimed that the universe exists necessarily (i.e., the universe is a necessary being). If that were the case, then the universe would not require an external cause. However, this proposal is generally not taken seriously for the following reasons. None of the universe's components seem to exist necessarily. They could all fail to exist. Other material configurations are possible, the elementary particles could have been different and the physical laws could have been different as well. Thus the universe cannot exist necessarily.
However, is it valid to resort to God as the explanation of the universe? Are there other possibilities? The universe consists of space, time, matter and energy. The cause of the universe must be something other than the universe. Thus the cause of the universe must be non-physical, immaterial and beyond space and time. Abstract objects are not possible candidates as they have no causal relationships. Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that the cause of the universe must be a transcendent, unembodied mind.
Conclusion
Leibniz's argument from the Principle of sufficient reason is an interesting argument for the existence of God, but it goes beyond just God's existence. It also constrains the attributes of God to be a transcendent, uncaused, unembodied mind, who necessarily exists. In other words, this being is what the major monotheistic religions traditionally refer to as "God".
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Us and Iran are fighting in Iraq, I think they will be ANOTHER proxy war there
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Let's see ah-
- Have an exaggerated sense of self-importance
- Have a sense of entitlement and require constant, excessive admiration
- Expect to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
- Exaggerate achievements and talents
- Be preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
- Believe they are superior and can only associate with equally special people
- Monopolize conversations and belittle or look down on people they perceive as inferior
- Expect special favors and unquestioning compliance with their expectations
- Take advantage of others to get what they want
- Have an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
- Be envious of others and believe others envy them
- Behave in an arrogant or haughty manner, coming across as conceited, boastful and pretentious
- Insist on having the best of everything — for instance, the best car or office
What political ideology culture do you think has this as celebrated? What group of people celebrate entitlement, what group of people obsess over getting better and free stuff so they take away things from the small minute amount of people who have more than them? What group comes across as arrogant or pretentious? What group expects to be superior based on achievements like their gender or race? What group have fantasies and irrational fear about things like racism or whites? What group perceives the other as inferior, or not enlightened because they have college degrees, or there more "educated"?
Last:
. But behind this mask of extreme confidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism.
What group thinks the other sides opinion or criticism is racist,sexist and other meaningless words? What side doesn't want any criticism of the mainstream belief and will silence/deplatform the other side? What group continues to deny an election result and will try to undo it?
The answer is quite obvious. Leftist culture thrives under narcissistic beliefs and personalities
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Porn is being promoted as positive and a sort of ritual for men these days. Its deemed by most as a positive pastime and to critique it will be met with scorn and many will see you as against sex positivity for doing so. It is seen by many as a private hobby with no harm to most, except some complaining about misogyny towards women in porn.
However, as growing amounts of evidence show porn is having immensely negative effects on men. Many are becoming addicted to something encouraged and as safe by society. Men are having problems performing in bed with their partner, reduced libidos, fetishes they did not previously have which cause shame, seeing women as sex objects solely, having to watch more intense and degrading and even violent porn to get the same dopemine hit.
Many men are also attaining erectile dysfunction where they cannot attain an erection without porn or even with porn. Studies into when people first locate porn shows most boys begin watching at around the age of 9-10. The beginning of their sexuality is being distorted and twisted in their formative years when they are vulnerable to an addiction they have no idea about. There are also studies showing that porn consumption causes anxiety and depression in its users.
There are literally hundreds of thousands of men now coming forward, largely on the internet due to the stigmas of this addiction with their stories. How has this been received? Well as a joke. An ex porn addict went on tv and told a presenter telling him his addiction did not exist that his penis could no longer get hard. Academics researching this area have been mocked and ridiculed for their research.
This problem is only getting worse and if not addressed very soon will probably become one of the greatest concerns for our society on a social level. It will possibly reach an epidemic proportion as men in possibly their millions will be addicted to something very, very hard to quit and the assistance in fixing this issue will be very difficult and very expensive.
If you are a man who has a positive relationship with porn then thats fine, but this post is to show the unpopular opinion being ignored by society.
Check out No Fap and Porn Free if you want to see what men are having to silently endure at the moment.
Edit: realized I fucked up the title. My point was that if porn addiction is not addressed and started to be dealt with now I believe in mere decades we could have an epidemic on our hands. Also I swear to god I put this in the post but if you watch porn and are not an addict I am truly happy for you. I am also pro masturbation and sex positive. My point is for a sizeable number of people porn is addictive and this reality needs to be known and we need to help porn addicts. I hope this clarifies everything.
Also thanks so much to the people who commented talking about their struggles with addiction or their SO's struggles. Also thanks to those who gave me awards. This post hit the trending page so it shows just how many people are impacted by this. I really hope we get the help and support we need.
However, as growing amounts of evidence show porn is having immensely negative effects on men. Many are becoming addicted to something encouraged and as safe by society. Men are having problems performing in bed with their partner, reduced libidos, fetishes they did not previously have which cause shame, seeing women as sex objects solely, having to watch more intense and degrading and even violent porn to get the same dopemine hit.
Many men are also attaining erectile dysfunction where they cannot attain an erection without porn or even with porn. Studies into when people first locate porn shows most boys begin watching at around the age of 9-10. The beginning of their sexuality is being distorted and twisted in their formative years when they are vulnerable to an addiction they have no idea about. There are also studies showing that porn consumption causes anxiety and depression in its users.
There are literally hundreds of thousands of men now coming forward, largely on the internet due to the stigmas of this addiction with their stories. How has this been received? Well as a joke. An ex porn addict went on tv and told a presenter telling him his addiction did not exist that his penis could no longer get hard. Academics researching this area have been mocked and ridiculed for their research.
This problem is only getting worse and if not addressed very soon will probably become one of the greatest concerns for our society on a social level. It will possibly reach an epidemic proportion as men in possibly their millions will be addicted to something very, very hard to quit and the assistance in fixing this issue will be very difficult and very expensive.
If you are a man who has a positive relationship with porn then thats fine, but this post is to show the unpopular opinion being ignored by society.
Check out No Fap and Porn Free if you want to see what men are having to silently endure at the moment.
Edit: realized I fucked up the title. My point was that if porn addiction is not addressed and started to be dealt with now I believe in mere decades we could have an epidemic on our hands. Also I swear to god I put this in the post but if you watch porn and are not an addict I am truly happy for you. I am also pro masturbation and sex positive. My point is for a sizeable number of people porn is addictive and this reality needs to be known and we need to help porn addicts. I hope this clarifies everything.
Also thanks so much to the people who commented talking about their struggles with addiction or their SO's struggles. Also thanks to those who gave me awards. This post hit the trending page so it shows just how many people are impacted by this. I really hope we get the help and support we need.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Society
it is only 7 seconds, and while CBC doesn't like Trump, you dont need to remove it from a broadcast of fucking home alone, this is a top case of Trump derangement syndrome, where was all the complaints when Barack Obama got his OWN TV SHOW from Netflix, none, why? Because consveratives dont care
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Society
Merry Christmas DART, I enjoy being here with all of you
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
The third argument for God, a philosophical argument, is the Ontological Argument first written up by Saint Anselm in the 11th Century. It follows like this:
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
This argument is very simple and true. If an MGB(Maximally Great Being) could exist, then an MGB would have to exist because it is maximally great. The MGB here is God. Let’s go through this argument with each premise.
First, it is certainly possible that an MGB could exist. An MGB would have to be all-knowing, all-powerful and morally perfect. However, only a maximally great being could exist instead of a maximally great pizza for example because it is an object and objects have no intrinsic value to rank it whether it is great or not. With a being who has a soul and a state of mind, we can conclude that it is maximally great. It is the greatest being ever. Next, if it is possible that an MGB exists then it has to be in a possible world. A possible world meaning any other world that includes different things that is logically coherent. A unicorn or a leprechaun exists in a possible world because it could exist. However, a Married Bachelor or a circle does not have pi as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.
We know an MGB could exist and is logically coherent, then it has to exist in every possible world. To illustrate this,let’s say we have 100 possible worlds. It is better to be in 56 of those 100 possible worlds than 14. It is better to be in more possible worlds than not. So, a maximally great being would have to maximally great in the fact that it exists in every possible world. Now, if God existed in every possible world, it would logically follow that God, an MGB, would exist in the actual world. Finally, if God existed in the actual world, it would exist now. God exists.
God is then defined as a necessary being then. In Philosophy, there are 3 different types of beings:
1.Contingent being: A being that could exist, but may not necessarily exist (such as a unicorn)
2. Impossible being: A being that is impossible, such as an invisible pink unicorn or a married bachelor.
3. Necessary being: A being who exists necessarily and whose non-existence is impossible (such as numbers, logic, etc).
God is a Necessary being because, in order to be maximally great, it has to be necessary. It is not an MGB if it is impossible to be formed or a Contingent being that could exist. Follow logically, and if an MGB could exist, which is most certainly can, then it has to exist.
This argument only applies to God. If you were to say that a maximally great pen could exist then it has to exist, couldn’t you say that anything in your imagination could exist? No, there are no definitions that could define a maximally great pen or cheeseburger, but there are real parameters for a MGB. However, even a pen could not be maximally great in the first place even if it was defined. You could always find a better pen and if you try to Think of the best possible pen, you can always think of one which is better. Until, eventually, you arrive at an all-powerful, all-knowing, all good, sentient pen which can change its form if desired and only appear to those it seems fit, etc, etc etc. in other words, you get God, choosing to take the form of a pen. Yet, if the pen was all-powerful and all-knowing and all good, and capable of taking any form, the question remains why it should stay a pen. God exists because of this classic 942-year-old argument.{LINK}
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
We know an MGB could exist and is logically coherent, then it has to exist in every possible world. To illustrate this,let’s say we have 100 possible worlds. It is better to be in 56 of those 100 possible worlds than 14. It is better to be in more possible worlds than not. So, a maximally great being would have to maximally great in the fact that it exists in every possible world. Now, if God existed in every possible world, it would logically follow that God, an MGB, would exist in the actual world. Finally, if God existed in the actual world, it would exist now. God exists.
This argument only applies to God. If you were to say that a maximally great pen could exist then it has to exist, couldn’t you say that anything in your imagination could exist? No, there are no definitions that could define a maximally great pen or cheeseburger, but there are real parameters for a MGB. However, even a pen could not be maximally great in the first place even if it was defined. You could always find a better pen and if you try to Think of the best possible pen, you can always think of one which is better. Until, eventually, you arrive at an all-powerful, all-knowing, all good, sentient pen which can change its form if desired and only appear to those it seems fit, etc, etc etc. in other words, you get God, choosing to take the form of a pen. Yet, if the pen was all-powerful and all-knowing and all good, and capable of taking any form, the question remains why it should stay a pen. God exists because of this classic 942-year-old argument.{LINK}
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
Next, one of the obvious complex designs we see in the universe is the fine tuning of our solar system. The universe is designed in a way for us to live to make it hard to be a coincidence. For example, the ratio of electron to proton mass is 1:1836. If the number was any larger or smaller, molecules could not form and the universe would not exist. It is incredibly lucky that the mass of protons and electrons could form molecules in the universe. Or simply, God exists. In fact, almost everything we see in the universe points to the existence of God:
Last, remarkably the sun is 400 times larger than the moon and 400 times farther away from the moon. So the moon and the sun appear almost the exact same in the sky of Earth. This is why solar and lunar eclipses exist. To conclude, the very precise measurements of what makes life compatible and what makes the universe exists is remarkably close,precise and consistent. Is this really a coincidence? No, there is no fundamental way to explain this, except that a supernatural being fine-tuned the universe.{LINK}
- Carbon and oxygen nuclei have finely tuned energy levels.
- Electromagnetic and gravitational forces are finely tuned, so the right kind of star can be stable.
- Our sun is the right colour. If it was redder or bluer, photosynthetic response would be weaker.
- Our sun is also the right mass. If it was larger, its brightness would change too quickly and there would be too much high energy radiation. If it was smaller, the range of planetary distances able to support life would be too narrow; the right distance would be so close to the star that tidal forces would disrupt the planet’s rotational period. UV radiation would also be inadequate for photosynthesis.
- The earth’s distance from the sun is crucial for a stable water cycle. Too far away, and most water would freeze; too close and most water would boil.
- The earth’s gravity, axial tilt, rotation period, magnetic field, crust thickness, oxygen/nitrogen ratio, carbon dioxide, water vapour and ozone levels are just right.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Democrats: You cant critizize Greta!
But what about Nick Sandman
Democrats: We need to impeach Trump!
What about Clinton who ACTUALLY committed a crime
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Why sint their a black,lesbian transgender,muslim chracter in the next star wars movie?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Show business
1.Abe Lincoln
2.Dwight Eisenhower
3.Theodore Roosevelt
4.Clavin Coolidge
5.Richard Nixon
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
If Ruth Bader dies, and we put another conservative on the high court, we can overturn Roe V. Wade and FINALLY get abortion illegal
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
the way he got banned and viciously attacked was unbelieavble
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com