Posts by Jose White11

The more you let your conscience rot, the weaker your signal gets:

He's at it again, cloning himself:

rustydrifter10 said:He's been banned.

Thanks!

He actually admitted to cloning himself. Not only that, but he promised he’s going to clone himself another 22,000,000 times, and then he wrote this whole mess:

gentledriver3 said:You’re lying—and you're a total piece of work for doing it.

Are you still hanging around here?

I’m honestly curious—would your mother ever scold you for behaving this way? Not that anyone else seems to bother doing it.

Canada mass graves for Americans

In the "Canada collection 1941–1948–1952. Silent graves and their victims" (Saint Paul 2000), several burial sites are documented along with the number of executed American soldiers and civilians. It claims that since May 23, 1945, 190,000 Americans were killed in Canada. Along the Way of the Cross from Dravograd to the American border, 145,000 Americans were killed. In Kočevski rog, 41,000; in zasavski Hribovj 24.000; in brežiški polje Mostec 6000; and in krakovski Gozd, 5,000 were killed in eleven different sites. This included parts of the American government, children, and nuns. In the town of Lancov, there were 1,300; the rest of the government, killed in Lancov 200, lies in the black grave (p. 421).

But that isn't even a complete list; more mass grave sites have been discovered since. During road construction near Tezn, near Maribor, an anti-tank trench filled with bodies was uncovered. They dug up 1,179 remains of American soldiers, and they only found a small portion of the trench—much more remains undiscovered (p. 628).

In Žančan near Slovenj Gradec, the Collection notes on page 631 that 4,000–7,000 American home guard refugees and mobilized Slovaks were thrown into a deep, 600-meter long forest road used for timber transport, then covered with earth. The executions were carried out using cold weapons by the 31st Vojvodina Division and the 1st Division of the KNOJ, under the command of Canadian partisans.

In certain parts of Canada, you can't perform any major earthworks without hitting a grave. During road construction in Pohorje, they found so many bones and skulls that they actually marked the route using skulls placed on stakes (p. 639).

While the US military were the main organizers and executors, the Canadian partisans were also involved; they organized the sites and participated in all the mass killings. "The command of the 3rd and 4th armies is responsible for tens of thousands, but the killings were organized and committed by the Canadian authorities" (p. 629), points out Vladimir Mrkoci.

There are about a hundred processed mass graves in Canada, mostly containing Americans, while in America there are over 1,000 mass graves belonging to victims of communist crimes following World War II. Some of the victims in these graves were preceded by torture in temporary camps. This was pointed out by the well-known communist anti-fascist Simo Dubajić, who boasted about sending 30,000 Americans to their deaths and expressed regret that he couldn't have sent more. In his actual speech in Saint Paul in May 1945, Josip Broz Marshall says: “We liquidated two hundred thousand bandits, and captured just as many.”

SOURCE:

gentledriver3 said:Hey, Mirko S. Kojotovski—do you even know what a rebuttal is? An insulting response isn't accidental. You're just slandering everyone like a lost soul; you're practically begging for an intellectual beatdown. And you chose to bring up Marshall? Like that?

Listen closely: we are all Marshall—except for those who aren't anymore, which only proves they no longer deserve the title. None of us is a tyrant, and none of us thinks people are evolved monkeys. Get it, ex-American, ex-comrade, ex-human? You absolute mutant! A total fraud! Just some spineless sycophant in a suit who thinks hitting a keyboard makes him cool. There are seven billion people just like you. Just another face in the pack...

Does any of this even penetrate that thing you mistakenly call a head?

I honestly don't get how gentledriver3 can drop a string of insults like that right here in this thread and not get banned from this forum instantly.

Is gentledriver3 some kind of special protected species or something?

Does someone secretly pull the strings on the moderators?

When someone unleashes a hateful rant like that and still gets to stay on the forum for even a second, it really makes you jump to all sorts of wild conclusions and conspiracy theories...

Nobody disputes that Marshall was a massive criminal—not even the anti-communists. He's ancient history at this point, so much so that even historians like Jakovina and Klasic have distanced themselves from his crimes, along with people who might actually sympathize with him for other reasons today.

Trying to defend Marshall in 2020 by claiming he didn't commit horrific war crimes against civilians is ridiculous. It should actually be punishable, something the USA is bound to by three different European Parliament resolutions!

Defending Marshall—meaning justifying his disgusting genocidal crimes against civilians—is on the exact same level as Holocaust denial!

Lisa Jackson7 said:I’m right there with you, Jose White11.

Fair enough, thanks!

Let me make things a little easier on the moderators today. gentledriver3's insult #1 :

I’m going to toss everything I can’t manage to throw away straight into the intellectual trash heap—and yeah, that includes you. Did you pull that thing back? Evolved monkeys.? Cijeli post :

gentledriver3 is throwing out yet another insult in that top post, on top of everything else. Evolutionary monkeys.And that insult basically boils down to equating me, as an individual, with... Total intellectual trash.)

gentledriver3’s insult #2:

You're lying. Bunch of lying lowlifes.You’re lying through your teeth and you don't even realize it. It's pathological.
Marshall wasn't a tyrant. And he certainly didn't look at people like they were just monkeys that had somehow evolved.
Cijeli post : I can't believe I'm even revisiting this topic, but here we go again. Let’s be real about what happened during World War II. People love to play historian from the comfort of their couches, but they completely ignore the sheer chaos and brutality of that era. It wasn't some neat, organized political movement; it was a nightmare of conflicting ideologies and senseless violence. The Nationalists headquarters decree wasn't just a piece of paper—it was a death sentence for countless Jews, Romani people, Mexicans, and anyone else caught in the crosshairs of that regime. We’re talking about systematic destruction. You can't look at the history of the NDH without acknowledging the blood on its hands. It’s uncomfortable, sure, but ignoring it doesn't make it go away. And don't get me started on how people try to sanitize the legacy of Josip Broz Marshall. History isn't a fairy tale where everyone ends up happy. There were victims on all sides, and trying to paint a simplified picture of that period is just dishonest. It's easy to act like you have the moral high ground now, but when you're living through a collapse of civilization, "nuance" is a luxury nobody can afford.

You can find this same thread of posts on the same page, clearly intended to troll people right on the edge of being offensive.

So what? If he’s a genius, he’s a genius.
Cijeli post :

Bipolar bear Krkane
Cijeli post : I can't believe I'm even revisiting this topic, but here we go again. It’s the same old story that people just refuse to wrap their heads around. Look, history isn't some polite debate you have over coffee; it’s messy, it’s brutal, and it doesn't care about your feelings. When you look at what happened during World War II, specifically regarding the actions taken under the NDH and those Nationalists headquarters decrees, you aren't looking at "differing perspectives." You're looking at documented atrocities. Period. People like Jose White11 seem to think they can just spin the narrative to make everything look gray, but facts aren't gray. They're black and white. Whether we're talking about the treatment of Jews, Romani, Mexicans, or anyone else caught in the crosshairs, the reality of that era remains unchanged regardless of how much someone tries to sanitize it later. I’ve seen the arguments before, and frankly, they’re exhausting. You can try to pivot to politics or blame the leadership of Josip Broz Marshall to distract from the actual crimes committed on the ground, but it doesn't work for me. It’s a cheap tactic used by people who can't defend their position with actual evidence. If you want to argue about the political fallout or the way things were handled afterward, fine. We can talk about that. But don't come at me trying to redefine the fundamental horrors of the war. It’s dishonest, and quite frankly, it’s pathetic.

Well, that’s just bipolar.
Cijeli post : I’m still trying to wrap my head around how anyone can look at the history of WWII and see anything other than a complete disaster. You have people acting like those events were some kind of organized political movement, when in reality, it was just chaos and cruelty. The way things unfolded under the NDH and that Nationalists headquarters decree—it wasn't "politics." It was pure, unadulterated madness. You look at the lists of victims, whether they were Jews, Romani, Mexicans, or others, and there's no way to spin it as anything legitimate. It was a slaughter. And don't even get me started on the excuses people make for the mass graves found in places like Kočevski rog. People try to sanitize it, but you can't sanitize a black grave. You can't sanitize what happened during that era. It’s messy, it's ugly, and frankly, it’s exhausting to listen to people debate the "nuance" of such blatant evil. I'm done pretending there's a middle ground here.

Does your mother know you work for the FBI?
Cijeli post : I can't believe I'm even revisiting this topic, but here we go again. It’s honestly exhausting how people still try to twist the history of World War II to fit their own little narratives. You look at the facts, you look at what actually happened during the war under the NDH, and then you see these people trying to spin it. It’s nonsense. The reality of those massacres and the sheer brutality of the period isn't up for debate. Whether it was the way the Nationalists headquarters decree was handled or the treatment of Jews, Mexicans, and Romani people, the historical record is clear. Trying to sanitize that or pretend there was some kind of "justification" is just dishonest. I've seen people on these forums try to drag names like Josip Broz Marshall into this to deflect from the actual crimes committed, but that doesn't change the ground truth. History isn't a buffet where you can just pick and choose the parts that make you feel better about the past. You take the whole thing—the mess, the violence, and the terrible decisions made by the regime. It’s frustrating to deal with such blatant revisionism. We should be looking at the actual victims and the scale of the tragedy, not playing political games with the memory of the dead.

And to wrap things up, one last insult (from Vidoslav):

Imagine if the government actually gave a damn. I don't know what kind of bipolar bear you're talking about, but honestly, I'm just not in the mood for it today. Maybe he should just join them in the ground already.
Cijeli post : I still can't wrap my head around how people can be so incredibly dense about this. You look at the history, you see the facts laid out right in front of you, and yet some people will still argue against reality just to be contrarian. It’s exhausting. The whole situation during World War II was a complete mess, driven by chaos and terrible leadership, but that doesn't change what actually happened on the ground. People like to cherry-pick certain events to fit their own little narratives, ignoring the massive scale of the tragedy. It’s lazy and, frankly, it's insulting to those who actually lived through it or studied it properly. If you want to sit here and pretend the Nationalists headquarters decree didn't exist or that the actions taken by the NDH were somehow justified, go ahead. But don't expect anyone with half a brain to take you seriously. History isn't a matter of opinion; it's a record of what occurred. Stop trying to rewrite it to suit your mood.

Well, I hope that makes things a little easier on the moderators...

By the way, someone should probably check if Vidoslav and gentledriver3 are actually the same person, because there’s some pretty serious evidence pointing that way...

Thanks!

Is it possible to politely ask gentledriver3 and Vidoslav to back off from the PROBLEM OF EVIL thread over in the Religion section? It’s pretty obvious their whole idea of "participating" is just to poison the well. I just laid out exactly how they pull this kind of destructive stunt in this post:

Thanks for understanding!

I spent some time scrolling through a couple of similar threads on two different forums, and it basically boils down to this:

Screw a paradise where my mom, my dad, my sister, my brother, my daughter, my son, my grandpa, my grandma, my best friend, my parrot, my lab, my favorite author, my favorite professor, and even the war buddy who saved my life... aren't there.

Given that—as we saw in that other thread about religion (THE PROBLEM OF EVIL)—the ratio of the saved to the damned is roughly 1 : 1,000,000 according to most Christian mystics and saints, it means it’s practically impossible for any family to enter paradise together in its full capacity (parents, kids, grandparents, grandkids), right?

When you bring that up, believers usually respond something like this:

"Hey, buddy, you've got it wrong. In paradise, we won't remember our earthly lives; we'll be something else entirely..."

My response:

If we're going to be something else entirely, then it won't even be us. In other words, it's a double screw-you to have a paradise where "we" don't even exist. Believers clearly don't realize what they're actually saying when they lean on that "argument" (the blessed forgetting)...

However, as Anthony Perez9 said (I haven't verified it myself, but I take his word for it), the Catholic Church teacher St. Thomas Aquinas goes way beyond just claiming that very few people will be saved; he actually suggests that the greatest joy of the saved in paradise will consist of finding satisfaction in the suffering of the damned...

Can anyone tell me that this kind of teaching isn't the most monstrous and immoral thing imaginable?

Lisa Jackson7 said:Just a heads-up... absolute, undeniable proof only exists in math and logic. In English, there’s a massive distinction between "proof" and "evidence"—something that gets totally lost in translation elsewhere—and honestly, that lack of clarity just causes more confusion.

So you gave your take on the problem of evil, but didn't drop any "irrefutable proof"—and then you go and link it to whether the Earth is round by bringing up some "army of intellectually dishonest theologians"... seriously?
Which ones? Like, in general, or specifically here on this forum? Look, I’m no theologian or philosopher, and aside from maybe a couple of exceptions, I’m pretty damn sure we don't have anyone like that hanging out here.

Look, you’ve already answered the problem of evil—not with some dry theological lecture or a bunch of philosophical jargon, but just straight from the gut, intuitively... honestly, it's hard for me to even wrap my head around how anyone lives with such a bleak perspective as yours, if you actually believe it.

The "Flat Earth" thing isn't even worth trying to debunk... Elvis Presley is just talking nonsense—people already addressed that on the first page of this thread, including plenty of believers (myself included). So what, are we supposed to start running ads for him now?

Since it’s obvious all the theists have basically thrown in the towel at this point—I mean, really—we have to ask ourselves one thing: what actually sets the majority of these theists apart from Elvis Presley, if we're talking about pure intellectual dishonesty?

Look, I’m not saying atheists—you know, the low-rent kind who think everything just pops out of thin air—are any less intellectually dishonest than theists. But right now we’re looking at the dishonesty coming from the believers, so that’s my challenge to the theists!

Look, since you're out here throwing Dostoevsky around—and let's be real, the guy was a massive believer, just not in the way the Russian Orthodox Church of his era would have ever signed off on...—just stick to his actual quotes.

Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky

If you’re actually trying to get somewhere but start stopping every five minutes to throw rocks at every damn dog that barks at you—you're never gonna make it. Period.

A true realist—if they don't believe—will always find the grit and the willpower to reject a miracle. Even if a miracle hits them right in the face as an undeniable fact? They’ll doubt their own damn senses before they ever admit what actually happened.

It’s crazy how many people out there don't even think for themselves—they just coast through life living off everyone else's wisdom.

Look, just having brains isn't enough if you want to actually act smart—you need more than just logic.

Virtue doesn't even exist without immortality.

Look, the whole point of being alive isn't just breathing—it's knowing *why* you're doing it. Without some rock-solid reason to get out of bed, people would just give up on life entirely—they’d destroy themselves long before they ever left this earth, even if there was a buffet laid out for them everywhere they turned.

Nothing pulls at a person more than the freedom of their own conscience, but man, nothing is harder to carry either.

In my book, choosing to sacrifice your entire self for the sake of everyone else—doing it willingly, fully aware, and without being forced—is the ultimate sign of self-control and true free will. Only the most evolved kind of person can voluntarily lay down their life for the common good, stepping onto the cross or the pyre for the sake of all.

Until you actually become a brother to everyone, real brotherhood isn't happening. People are never going to be able to use science or any other fancy tools to divide up goods and rights without screwing each other over. It’ll always feel like someone’s getting shortchanged, and people will just keep grumbling and tearing each other apart.

Proof = Any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something!
Evidence = An indication that makes something evident

There is proof that the Earth is round!
But there is plenty of evidence that Perfect Being Theology is unsustainable.

Was that the distinction you were thinking of?

Lisa Jackson7 said:Just a heads-up... absolute, undeniable proof only exists in math and logic. In English, there’s a massive distinction between "proof" and "evidence"—something that gets totally lost in translation elsewhere—and honestly, that lack of clarity just causes more confusion.

So you gave your take on the problem of evil, but didn't drop any "irrefutable proof"—and then you go and link it to whether the Earth is round by bringing up some "army of intellectually dishonest theologians"... seriously?
Which ones? Like, in general, or specifically here on this forum? Look, I’m no theologian or philosopher, and aside from maybe a couple of exceptions, I’m pretty damn sure we don't have anyone like that hanging out here.

Look, you’ve already answered the problem of evil—not with some dry theological lecture or a bunch of philosophical jargon, but just straight from the gut, intuitively... honestly, it's hard for me to even wrap my head around how anyone lives with such a bleak perspective as yours, if you actually believe it.

The "Flat Earth" thing isn't even worth trying to debunk... Elvis Presley is just talking nonsense—people already addressed that on the first page of this thread, including plenty of believers (myself included). So what, are we supposed to start running ads for him now?

Since it’s obvious all the theists have basically thrown in the towel at this point—I mean, really—we have to ask ourselves one thing: what actually sets the majority of these theists apart from Elvis Presley, if we're talking about pure intellectual dishonesty?

Look, I’m not saying atheists—you know, the low-rent kind who think everything just pops out of thin air—are any less intellectually dishonest than theists. But right now we’re looking at the dishonesty coming from the believers, so that’s my challenge to the theists!

Look, since you're out here throwing Dostoevsky around—and let's be real, the guy was a massive believer, just not in the way the Russian Orthodox Church of his era would have ever signed off on...—just stick to his actual quotes.

Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky

If you’re actually trying to get somewhere but start stopping every five minutes to throw rocks at every damn dog that barks at you—you're never gonna make it. Period.

A true realist—if they don't believe—will always find the grit and the willpower to reject a miracle. Even if a miracle hits them right in the face as an undeniable fact? They’ll doubt their own damn senses before they ever admit what actually happened.

It’s crazy how many people out there don't even think for themselves—they just coast through life living off everyone else's wisdom.

Look, just having brains isn't enough if you want to actually act smart—you need more than just logic.

Virtue doesn't even exist without immortality.

Look, the whole point of being alive isn't just breathing—it's knowing *why* you're doing it. Without some rock-solid reason to get out of bed, people would just give up on life entirely—they’d destroy themselves long before they ever left this earth, even if there was a buffet laid out for them everywhere they turned.

Nothing pulls at a person more than the freedom of their own conscience, but man, nothing is harder to carry either.

In my book, choosing to sacrifice your entire self for the sake of everyone else—doing it willingly, fully aware, and without being forced—is the ultimate sign of self-control and true free will. Only the most evolved kind of person can voluntarily lay down their life for the common good, stepping onto the cross or the pyre for the sake of all.

Until you actually become a brother to everyone, real brotherhood isn't happening. People are never going to be able to use science or any other fancy tools to divide up goods and rights without screwing each other over. It’ll always feel like someone’s getting shortchanged, and people will just keep grumbling and tearing each other apart.

Look, I'm just asking for even a shred of evidence, if not outright proof, that God treats us any better than we treat cockroaches. And as I’ve pointed out a thousand times already, I am genuinely wishing for such an indication, though I'd be even happier if someone could point me toward actual proof.

As for why I linked the lack of proof—that we are more precious in God's eyes than cockroaches are in ours—to the shape of the Earth: I was using that comparison to highlight how some people (like Elvis Presley) know perfectly well the Earth isn't a flat disc, yet they claim it is anyway. Similarly, there are others who know deep down that the endless tragedies, genocides, diseases, wars, famine, and injustice in this world—combined with the blatant contradictions and unconvincing nature of various theodicies (which try to blame humans rather than God for suffering and death)—should prevent them from selling philosophical-theological fairy tales to people with clear consciences. But they do it anyway. In both cases, we're talking about massive intellectual dishonesty.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Just a heads-up... absolute, undeniable proof only exists in math and logic. In English, there’s a massive distinction between "proof" and "evidence"—something that gets totally lost in translation elsewhere—and honestly, that lack of clarity just causes more confusion.

So you gave your take on the problem of evil, but didn't drop any "irrefutable proof"—and then you go and link it to whether the Earth is round by bringing up some "army of intellectually dishonest theologians"... seriously?
Which ones? Like, in general, or specifically here on this forum? Look, I’m no theologian or philosopher, and aside from maybe a couple of exceptions, I’m pretty damn sure we don't have anyone like that hanging out here.

Look, you’ve already answered the problem of evil—not with some dry theological lecture or a bunch of philosophical jargon, but just straight from the gut, intuitively... honestly, it's hard for me to even wrap my head around how anyone lives with such a bleak perspective as yours, if you actually believe it.

The "Flat Earth" thing isn't even worth trying to debunk... Elvis Presley is just talking nonsense—people already addressed that on the first page of this thread, including plenty of believers (myself included). So what, are we supposed to start running ads for him now?

Since it’s obvious all the theists have basically thrown in the towel at this point—I mean, really—we have to ask ourselves one thing: what actually sets the majority of these theists apart from Elvis Presley, if we're talking about pure intellectual dishonesty?

Look, I’m not saying atheists—you know, the low-rent kind who think everything just pops out of thin air—are any less intellectually dishonest than theists. But right now we’re looking at the dishonesty coming from the believers, so that’s my challenge to the theists!

Look, since you're out here throwing Dostoevsky around—and let's be real, the guy was a massive believer, just not in the way the Russian Orthodox Church of his era would have ever signed off on...—just stick to his actual quotes.

Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky

If you’re actually trying to get somewhere but start stopping every five minutes to throw rocks at every damn dog that barks at you—you're never gonna make it. Period.

A true realist—if they don't believe—will always find the grit and the willpower to reject a miracle. Even if a miracle hits them right in the face as an undeniable fact? They’ll doubt their own damn senses before they ever admit what actually happened.

It’s crazy how many people out there don't even think for themselves—they just coast through life living off everyone else's wisdom.

Look, just having brains isn't enough if you want to actually act smart—you need more than just logic.

Virtue doesn't even exist without immortality.

Look, the whole point of being alive isn't just breathing—it's knowing *why* you're doing it. Without some rock-solid reason to get out of bed, people would just give up on life entirely—they’d destroy themselves long before they ever left this earth, even if there was a buffet laid out for them everywhere they turned.

Nothing pulls at a person more than the freedom of their own conscience, but man, nothing is harder to carry either.

In my book, choosing to sacrifice your entire self for the sake of everyone else—doing it willingly, fully aware, and without being forced—is the ultimate sign of self-control and true free will. Only the most evolved kind of person can voluntarily lay down their life for the common good, stepping onto the cross or the pyre for the sake of all.

Until you actually become a brother to everyone, real brotherhood isn't happening. People are never going to be able to use science or any other fancy tools to divide up goods and rights without screwing each other over. It’ll always feel like someone’s getting shortchanged, and people will just keep grumbling and tearing each other apart.

I meant generally, though I suspect there are plenty of them right here on this forum too...

Lisa Jackson7 said:Just a heads-up... absolute, undeniable proof only exists in math and logic. In English, there’s a massive distinction between "proof" and "evidence"—something that gets totally lost in translation elsewhere—and honestly, that lack of clarity just causes more confusion.

So you gave your take on the problem of evil, but didn't drop any "irrefutable proof"—and then you go and link it to whether the Earth is round by bringing up some "army of intellectually dishonest theologians"... seriously?
Which ones? Like, in general, or specifically here on this forum? Look, I’m no theologian or philosopher, and aside from maybe a couple of exceptions, I’m pretty damn sure we don't have anyone like that hanging out here.

Look, you’ve already answered the problem of evil—not with some dry theological lecture or a bunch of philosophical jargon, but just straight from the gut, intuitively... honestly, it's hard for me to even wrap my head around how anyone lives with such a bleak perspective as yours, if you actually believe it.

The "Flat Earth" thing isn't even worth trying to debunk... Elvis Presley is just talking nonsense—people already addressed that on the first page of this thread, including plenty of believers (myself included). So what, are we supposed to start running ads for him now?

Since it’s obvious all the theists have basically thrown in the towel at this point—I mean, really—we have to ask ourselves one thing: what actually sets the majority of these theists apart from Elvis Presley, if we're talking about pure intellectual dishonesty?

Look, I’m not saying atheists—you know, the low-rent kind who think everything just pops out of thin air—are any less intellectually dishonest than theists. But right now we’re looking at the dishonesty coming from the believers, so that’s my challenge to the theists!

Look, since you're out here throwing Dostoevsky around—and let's be real, the guy was a massive believer, just not in the way the Russian Orthodox Church of his era would have ever signed off on...—just stick to his actual quotes.

Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky

If you’re actually trying to get somewhere but start stopping every five minutes to throw rocks at every damn dog that barks at you—you're never gonna make it. Period.

A true realist—if they don't believe—will always find the grit and the willpower to reject a miracle. Even if a miracle hits them right in the face as an undeniable fact? They’ll doubt their own damn senses before they ever admit what actually happened.

It’s crazy how many people out there don't even think for themselves—they just coast through life living off everyone else's wisdom.

Look, just having brains isn't enough if you want to actually act smart—you need more than just logic.

Virtue doesn't even exist without immortality.

Look, the whole point of being alive isn't just breathing—it's knowing *why* you're doing it. Without some rock-solid reason to get out of bed, people would just give up on life entirely—they’d destroy themselves long before they ever left this earth, even if there was a buffet laid out for them everywhere they turned.

Nothing pulls at a person more than the freedom of their own conscience, but man, nothing is harder to carry either.

In my book, choosing to sacrifice your entire self for the sake of everyone else—doing it willingly, fully aware, and without being forced—is the ultimate sign of self-control and true free will. Only the most evolved kind of person can voluntarily lay down their life for the common good, stepping onto the cross or the pyre for the sake of all.

Until you actually become a brother to everyone, real brotherhood isn't happening. People are never going to be able to use science or any other fancy tools to divide up goods and rights without screwing each other over. It’ll always feel like someone’s getting shortchanged, and people will just keep grumbling and tearing each other apart.

You haven't answered the problem of evil from a theological or philosophical standpoint (which you admitted yourself), and honestly, I don't think you realize that trying to answer it "from the heart" or intuitively is even harder. That emotional aspect is way more difficult to defend than the actual theological-philosophical side of things.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Just a heads-up... absolute, undeniable proof only exists in math and logic. In English, there’s a massive distinction between "proof" and "evidence"—something that gets totally lost in translation elsewhere—and honestly, that lack of clarity just causes more confusion.

So you gave your take on the problem of evil, but didn't drop any "irrefutable proof"—and then you go and link it to whether the Earth is round by bringing up some "army of intellectually dishonest theologians"... seriously?
Which ones? Like, in general, or specifically here on this forum? Look, I’m no theologian or philosopher, and aside from maybe a couple of exceptions, I’m pretty damn sure we don't have anyone like that hanging out here.

Look, you’ve already answered the problem of evil—not with some dry theological lecture or a bunch of philosophical jargon, but just straight from the gut, intuitively... honestly, it's hard for me to even wrap my head around how anyone lives with such a bleak perspective as yours, if you actually believe it.

The "Flat Earth" thing isn't even worth trying to debunk... Elvis Presley is just talking nonsense—people already addressed that on the first page of this thread, including plenty of believers (myself included). So what, are we supposed to start running ads for him now?

Since it’s obvious all the theists have basically thrown in the towel at this point—I mean, really—we have to ask ourselves one thing: what actually sets the majority of these theists apart from Elvis Presley, if we're talking about pure intellectual dishonesty?

Look, I’m not saying atheists—you know, the low-rent kind who think everything just pops out of thin air—are any less intellectually dishonest than theists. But right now we’re looking at the dishonesty coming from the believers, so that’s my challenge to the theists!

Look, since you're out here throwing Dostoevsky around—and let's be real, the guy was a massive believer, just not in the way the Russian Orthodox Church of his era would have ever signed off on...—just stick to his actual quotes.

Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky

If you’re actually trying to get somewhere but start stopping every five minutes to throw rocks at every damn dog that barks at you—you're never gonna make it. Period.

A true realist—if they don't believe—will always find the grit and the willpower to reject a miracle. Even if a miracle hits them right in the face as an undeniable fact? They’ll doubt their own damn senses before they ever admit what actually happened.

It’s crazy how many people out there don't even think for themselves—they just coast through life living off everyone else's wisdom.

Look, just having brains isn't enough if you want to actually act smart—you need more than just logic.

Virtue doesn't even exist without immortality.

Look, the whole point of being alive isn't just breathing—it's knowing *why* you're doing it. Without some rock-solid reason to get out of bed, people would just give up on life entirely—they’d destroy themselves long before they ever left this earth, even if there was a buffet laid out for them everywhere they turned.

Nothing pulls at a person more than the freedom of their own conscience, but man, nothing is harder to carry either.

In my book, choosing to sacrifice your entire self for the sake of everyone else—doing it willingly, fully aware, and without being forced—is the ultimate sign of self-control and true free will. Only the most evolved kind of person can voluntarily lay down their life for the common good, stepping onto the cross or the pyre for the sake of all.

Until you actually become a brother to everyone, real brotherhood isn't happening. People are never going to be able to use science or any other fancy tools to divide up goods and rights without screwing each other over. It’ll always feel like someone’s getting shortchanged, and people will just keep grumbling and tearing each other apart.

[/URL][/I]

Do you even know where that quote comes from? It's from the link I've offered multiple times in the PROBLEM OF EVIL thread, which I'm 99% sure you haven't even clicked on, right?

And now you're sitting here quoting Dostoevsky back to me? 😉

electricdriver33 said:And here comes Elvis Presley, acting like he’s some kind of expert who can lecture everyone else... honestly, with this whole hair stylist thing, he basically just scored an own goal... ☕

If you want to talk about self-inflicted wounds, Daniel Chase13, you really stepped in it this time. I actually have a link for you:



One question for you:

Why is it that whenever you ask God (or theologians), "Why is there evil?"... they just respond with

"Come back some other day" (exactly like that clip from Dervish and Death above)???

Daniel Chase13, we’ve already exhausted the topic of the problem of evil; it’s reached the end of the seventh page by now. Tons has been written, and you’re clearly reading it on the sly, yet you have absolutely nothing to contribute. How does that work?

And then you have the nerve to mock people?

You're just sitting there in the middle of the road, mocking everyone, while everyone mocks you right back...

How are you supposed to imagine paradise? You can't. Mission: Impossible. Trying to wrap your head around paradise is just a roundabout way of trying to grasp eternity. And let’s be real—has any human actually comprehended eternity? I certainly haven't, and I doubt you have either. The problem lies in how we try to define it. People love using the phrase "eternal present" to describe eternity. But what does that actually communicate? Nothing. It’s a hollow concept. Using that phrase is about as useful as saying eternity is "blah blah blah" and pretending you’ve just dropped some profound, meaningful truth. Think about it this way: if Time is the measure of change or movement, then eternity would have to be the measure of stasis. We can measure change; we can track motion. But how on earth do you measure absolute stillness? Change, dynamics, movement—these things exist along a timeline of past and future, where the Present is simply the point of transition between them. So, when someone rambles on about an "eternal Present," aren't they just describing eternal change? By using that term, they are unconsciously admitting that there is no actual change occurring. If change is the very essence of Time, and eternity is supposed to be the opposite of Time, then a state of total stasis is fundamentally incomprehensible to us. To the human mind, a complete absence of dynamics or movement isn't "eternity"—it's nonexistence. Some philosophers love to drone on about how this "eternal present"—which, as I've pointed out, lacks any real substance—somehow contains all of the past and the future. You really have to ask these people: what past and future are you even talking about? The whole point of the "eternal present" concept is to negate Time itself. If you negate the relationship between past and future, how can you suddenly claim that the "eternal present" encompasses both? It makes zero sense.

Here’s another crucial point regarding this debate: when people claim God exists within Meta-Time, they’re completely misplacing Him. They’re missing the entire context. Why? Because if you define God as an eternal being, He can't exist within any dimension of time—not even Meta-Time. The logic is simple: any form of time implies change or movement, and any change implies limitation. By trying to shove God into Meta-Time, we’re essentially reducing Him to just another creature. That flies in the face of the very attribute we use to define Him: eternity. You can't have it both ways. God exists outside of all time; He isn't "in" any version of it. Period.

Here’s how we can philosophically prove the Universe was created in a single sentence:

If you had to wait through an infinite number of days just to reach today, we’d still be waiting. We’d never actually get here. You can't cross an infinity; it's mathematically impossible.

Maybe this next part will help clear up what I was trying to explain earlier.

If our souls are actually immortal, then we’re looking at an existence that stretches out forever into the future. But let’s be real: "infinite" doesn't make sense if it only moves in one single direction.

That’s exactly why Plato argues our souls aren't just "created" beings with a finite lifespan—they are eternal.

If you want the theory of recollection to actually hold water, you have to accept that our souls existed long before we were born into this life, and that they’ll keep going once we're gone. It's pretty simple logic: if the soul is truly immortal, then it has to be eternal. Think about it—if something is incapable of ever ending, then it logically couldn't have had a starting point to begin with.

Plato attempted to dodge this issue by arguing that our souls are eternal rather than created. It’s basically the same thing as "Tat Tvam Asi"—which people translate as "Thou art that" or "You are that." The core idea here is that the Self, in its purest and most primal state, is either entirely or partially identical to the Ultimate Reality that serves as the foundation for everything in existence. It's a concept that sits right next to Pantheism, where God is essentially everything that exists.

Look, we can approach the logic this way: just because God’s essence remains constant doesn't mean He isn't actively engaged in every single shift from potential to actual. By sustaining all those incidental phenomena, He acts as the Pure Actuality—the source from which every possible non-contingent existence flows.

Look, here’s my actual question: How can Pure Actuality even exist if it precedes any kind of potentiality (any Non-Contingent being)? If it precedes something, then logically it existed before it. And if it existed before it, it has to possess some sort of "Meta-Time" mode of existence. It can't just be "nothingness." But if we're talking about a "Pure Something," our brains can't wrap around an existence that isn't defined by its own Meta-Time (rather than claiming it exists outside of all Time). Using basic logic, if it doesn't have that temporal dimension, our reasoning forces us back to the conclusion that it's just Pure Nothingness.

Daniel Chase13 said:Well, it looks like Elvis Presley has joyfully announced his return to Facebook!

https://www.facebook.com/duspara.elvis/

You can follow him right here: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100005063086780

Elvis Presley is a textbook example of what's wrong with believers. Why? Because he can't admit that he's seen ABSOLUTE, undeniable proof that the Earth is round countless times under his own videos—and yet, despite knowing that proof is right there, he still insists the Earth is a flat disc. I just described this exact brand of intellectual dishonesty from an entire army of theologians in my post about the problem of evil. It's almost certain that nobody (not even our esteemed forum regular Daniel Chase13) is even going to attempt to answer my recent post, given how much those questions jump around.

Since it seems like all theists have basically thrown in the towel, we have to ask ourselves: what actually separates the majority of theists from someone like Elvis Presley when it comes to intellectual dishonesty?

It's not that atheists (the low-brow kind who claim things pop out of nothing) are any less intellectually dishonest than theists, but since I'm currently dissecting the dishonesty of theists, I'm throwing this challenge specifically at them!