Fantastic Four

Ligurian said:

"From the deciphering of the Hittite and Hurrian-Mitanni inscriptions we learned that a mighty Indo-Germanic wave poured through ancient Asia Minor and Palestine. In the language called Hittite (Kanesian) the grammatical framework is allied to the Latin, though the vocabulary is largely Mongolian. But no IndoEuropean gods are yet recognized in the Hittite inscriptions. The Hurrian-Mitannian is a non-Indo-European language, with several chief gods that appear much later in the Sanskrit literature."

The Lost Tribes A Myth Suggestions Towards Rewriting Hebrew History : Allen Howard Godbey : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Allen Howard Godbey, minister and educator, was born in Pettis County, Mo., the son of William Clinton and Caroline Smith Godbey. At the age of fourteen he...

archive.org

Click to expand...

And again... nothing in there backs up what you said, especially in this context: "The Greeks took the Pelasgian lands, along with their history and religion... same thing happened to the Hurrians under their Mittani overlords... and the Silurians under the Celts."

Mitanni was a Hurrian state, a Hurrian kingdom, not a group that replaced the Hurrians. They were Hurrians. Your grasp on history is just horribly, though admit that I expect no less from an American pagan.

essentialsaltes said:

Only if you think the coincidental name of dollar is meaningful.

Click to expand...

That make zero sense sense. A Canadian Dollar is worth 38% less than an American dollar look at the link

essentialsaltes said:

Everything is not "35% more expensive" in England because the pound is 35% bigger than the dollar.

Click to expand...

The American dollar is worth .74 pounds. And it shows everytime I am there.

It has nothing to do with size, it has everything to do with value.

childeye 2 said:

I see two statements above.
The first statement compares a belief with a fact, articulating a belief as 'something possible' vs something actual (factual). <-- this statement speaks to clarity.

Click to expand...

It speaks to the main issue, since being wrong about a belief would require it to actually not be the case that our belief is true. So recognizing the possibility that our beliefs are mistaken is different from believing we are wrong.

childeye 2 said:

The second statement compares two beliefs (two possibilities) therefore neither are definitively actual/factual.

Click to expand...

beliefs are not "possibilities", they are positions about the truth or falsity of a state of affairs. For them to be wrong, it must actually be the case that what we believe is false.

childeye 2 said:

So, this is how I see it. Something actual is already factual even if it isn't realized, therefore it qualifies as an 'unrealized' fact. Whereas something possible is also potentially false as well as possibly true. In a left/right dichotomy the objective Truth is calculated in the abstract center. It's used to reason upon two subjective opposing yet equally valid points of view. Wherefore in a left/right dichotomy it's possible to question our own beliefs on one hand without necessarily compromising our beliefs on the other hand.

Click to expand...

If it is unrealized, it's a possibility and not a fact. I'm not sure what you're on about with the rest of this paragraph.

childeye 2 said:

Okay, this is worded differently, but it's still carrying the same circular thought. You're claiming that if we honestly question everything, we end up facing inadequate grounds for justification (inadequate grounds for a just conclusion). <--- I've already proven this theory is not true ---> "It's an observable fact that it is reasonable to presume someone is innocent until proven guilty and it's unreasonable to presume someone is guilty until proven innocent."

Click to expand...

You haven't' proven it untrue, you've adopted one of the three prongs of the trilemma(dogmatic/axiomatic) and ran with it. You've stopped the questioning at something you think is self-evident rendering it immune to questioning.

childeye 2 said:

We either accept something as true dogmatically, resort to circcular reasoning, or find ourselves facing an infinite regress of questions. <--- Apart from the circular reasoning, this statement is true. Why? Because by definition, it's not possible to prove that that which is Eternal is actually Eternal.

Click to expand...

It's not about definitions, it's an open problem in epistemics from a thought experiment about a man trying to lift himself and his horse out of the mud by pulling on his hair.

childeye 2 said:

If we don't question slander, it is wickedness. If we question slander, it is faithfulness.
Defending negative prejudice is cynicism, defending positive prejudice is grace.
Negative prejudice violates Love others as oneself, positive prejudice doesn't.

As an aside Please note: "...the paralysis arises because if we honestly question everything..." <--- You said 'everything' rather than 'something'. When we claim 'everything' we're denoting an absolute.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're on about with the first part of this, and the second seems to miss the issue at hand. I'm not asserting an absolute, I'm recognizing a live problem in epistemics. Questioning everything means not taking anything as self-evident, because as soon as we assert something as self-evident we cannot question it.

childeye 2 said:

Well yes, "reality" is a difficult term to qualify. But that doesn't mean observable facts appear according to our opinions. On the contrary what we believe to be true manifests emotions accordingly.

Click to expand...

The issue is, "facts" tend to more often be common agreements not to question them rather than indisputably true statements.

childeye 2 said:

That's why terms like realized and unrealized exist.

The simple point is that reality dictates what is factual, and reality is not created in our imaginations.

Click to expand...

Sure, but the key issue there is that we don't apprehend reality directly. We have senses that are interpreted. by our brains. For example, what we see is inverted and corrected by our brains rather than the raw image our eyes detect. And our perceptions are highly dependent on our beliefs and the language we use, for example speakers of languages with more words for different colors are able to perceive subtler variations of color than those with fewer color words. Reality isn't created in our imagination, but we do not apprehend it naively.

childeye 2 said:

To be clear, I'm qualifying meaningful as the opposite of meaningless, and I'm qualifying meaningless with this ---> "they'll either end up paralyzed and unable to believe anything, or throw up their hands and become a nihliist".

Click to expand...

yeah, but you used two different sense of "meaning", one being carrying a definition and the other denoting purposeful

childeye 2 said:

Since I use True dichotomies to reason upon, they're not arbitrary constructs. Hence it was easy to conclude ---> it's reasonable to presume someone is innocent till proven guilty and unreasonable to presume someone is guilty until proven innocent. <--- This is not an arbitrary construct.

Click to expand...

How was it determined that it was reasonable to presume someone is innocent until proven guilty?

childeye 2 said:

It's not that complicated. I look down and see my toes and it's self-evident that I have toes. Similarly, it's self-evident to me that you exist since I'm here responding to your correspondence. Since I'm corresponding with you, I can know it's false to conclude that you don't exist.

Click to expand...

To the first, you're conflating two distinct situations. Certainly, it would be foolish to question things immediately present to us. But if we're to question everything, we must entertain skeptical hypotheses such as the question of whether we were created in this very moment with false memories implanted in us. Or that what we "see" is a simulation and not reality. Or that the "person" we're conversing with on the internet is not in fact a person but is an AI chat bot. Claiming somehting is self-evident is simply taking skeptical inquiry off the table, and fails as a solution for Munchaussen's trilemma

childeye 2 said:

We use axioms to reason upon.
These are basic axioms ---> somethings are true --->somethings are false.
They form this positive/negative dichotomy ---> True/False

Click to expand...

Those aren't axioms, that's a tautological statement. Which while trivially true tell us nothing about reality, only about what we mean by the words we use.

childeye 2 said:

This is circular reasoning, a logical fallacy. --->There are no universally self-evident Truths because the dogmatic solution is no solution.

Click to expand...

Nope, there are no unversally recognized self evident truths because no one has proposed something that everyone agrees upon. Claiming something is self-evident isn't a solution to Munchaussen's trilemma, it's simply refusing to subject whatever is supposedly self-evident to skeptical inquiry.

childeye 2 said:

Not true, the axiom that no one can prove something is Eternal means we must either trust or distrust. ---> Trust/distrust <--- True dichotomy.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you understand what the word "axiom" means.

These people are salesmen first and will always find a willing buyer. Such is life when religion combines with free enterprise. What they are selling has been twisted almost from the beginning of Christianity, and the resulting theology leaves lots of room for diverse products.

That wouldn’t have happened had they stuck to the origin movement of putting God’s will ahead of ours thus loving all as self, acting in servitude to Father and each other in need. Not much room for manipulation there. It said it all and what God’ kept saying since the Garden . All the rest is backstory.

Setting aside the issue of deporting him, what is the reason or justification for deporting someone to a country other than the one they came from?

Amo2 said:

Yes they are, and they should be examined for authenticity by holy scripture, in regard to their truthfulness or not.

Click to expand...

You mean for the authenticity according to how you interpret Scripture. We've all been here before.

concretecamper said:

So? So is the Doctrine concerning the Trinity. So are the doctrines relating to Christology. You're barking up a tree that has been cut down centuries ago.

Click to expand...

Yes they are, and they should be examined for authenticity by holy scripture, in regard to their truthfulness or not.

Ed, Edd n Eddy

Oompa Loompa said:

Once again, the liberal left accomplished nothing. Despite their best attempts, the wife beating gangster is out of the country.

Click to expand...

The Swazi are a nice enough lot, certainly more socially accepting than the CECOT gulag in El Salvador

Hvizsgyak said:

Exile for life use to carry a heavy sentence back in the day.

Click to expand...

That's true. Back in the day.

But correct me if I'm wrong, some of you want illegal immigrants deported simply because they are illegal immigrants. So if you have someone who has been here for decades, married a citizen, works hard, paid his taxes and raised a family but is here illegally, you just want him deported. And if there's someone you say is human trafficking, a gang member and dealing drugs, then...you just want him deported.

Maybe you can explain the logic of both of them being treated exactly the same.

Jim Bakker and his wife Tammy, John, Joel, Paul and Victoria Osteen, Peter Popoff, Jesse Duplantis, and John Gray come to mind.

FreeinChrist said:

I'll stop there

Click to expand...

I would also. There is a difference between facts and biased opinions.

Fact - here in the United States people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Either you support that part of our court system or you dodn’t.

you can wiki a million innuendo’s and allegations - he is still innocent until PROVEN guilty. What you do not have - is proof.

Ligurian said:

Are they part of the old "Out of Africa" mentality? Give me half a minute, and I can find a dozen "finally and absolutely" debunkers of the debunked... the net has all things for everyone... until AI/Skynet hits the reset and hopes y'all didn't burn CDs and hard-copies of the science... before the masses.

Click to expand...

Are you personally offended by the idea that you share ancestry with someone from Africa?

Amo2 said:

No. It is extra biblical.

Click to expand...

So? So is the Doctrine concerning the Trinity. So are the doctrines relating to Christology. You're barking up a tree that has been cut down centuries ago.

rambot said:

Violence in americna culture is soooo weird compared to nudity and sexuality.

Click to expand...

Like hockey in a crowd of drunk white men?