Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "The Truth about Illuminati, Masons, the New World Order (Fourth of July Message!)" video.

the only secularism that was in Islam was from Greek philosophers. literally. soon teachers and philosophers went "too far" and eventually sects were created that eventually destroyed them -- fast foward a bit, and then you get Wahabbism (spelling?) ... the smart people in Islam were smart despite being indoctrinated. but that doesn't mean that there weren't some certain tenants of the Quran that didn't give it extra merit over what decent stuff could be found in the Bible. the fact that Allah needs to be inherent ABSOLUTE it would requite that it falls in line with reason, which is why the first real Islamic philosophers inferred about everything from medicinal science, to math, and secularity -- but this also is attributed to Aristotle of the Greeks! but nevertheless, it was allowed at least, because the scriptures assured Allah's reality in conjunction with reason and provability...to a point! but when it becomes that a philosopher questions the ultimate existence of Allah, he gets killed, and sets off a horde! all because the religion can't be dropped, it just can't, because it has passages that insist that apostates be killed. there is no escape the trap of the dogma, even if there was some hope.
1
yep, but the book does influence those whom reverted Islam to it's present state. like i said, it's inescapable. unfortunately. if only the intelligentsia in the Islamic world could do secular law and reason, and education NOW -- well that would be great!
1
and you're just using kettle logic. that, and also, i am not saying the Quran causes all the problems within the Islamic world. if you read my comments, you'll see no notion of any claim. all i claim is the way the scriptures are written and taught, it makes for a superb trap.
1
i don't see it in this video, however. does it look like the guy in this video is a materialist? he doesn't even have a shirt...but let alone, not much else that seems extravagant. i know i rely on rationality, but for nothing more than to question reality. the questions that are still up in the air, i leave there, until the gravity of their reality becomes heavier, and i don't have to reach past the extension of my arms.
1
no. you haven't watched his videos, CLEARLY. this guy clearly acknowledges psychical and spiritual existences -- he just doesn't believe in deities.
1
it depends how you define these concepts. reality can be effected psychically.
1
they're interchangeable terms.
1
that is strictly the philosophical definition. *1. a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.* Materialism also means the above ^
1
for the third time, you are mixing up the fact that i did not mix up anything. i know what you're talking about. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/materialism do try and follow. PS: you're still wrong. it takes two seconds to look up his occult videos and watch him talk about spirituality. so again...wrong wrong and wrong.
1
it's funny how idiotic you are. i said: "i don't see it in this video, however. does it look like the guy in this video is a materialist? he doesn't even have a shirt...but let alone, not much else that seems extravagant." in case you didn't notice -- which you didn't -- i made a joke. the shirt was the reference that was the joke. the rest of what i said here, quoted above, was in regards to his appearance. he appears to not be entirely too materialistic. now you can infer from that that maybe he is more spiritual that you think, because if he was a pure materialist, then you'd figure he might be more concerned with the physical and not have videos on his channel (also mentioned, afterwards) that deal with the spiritual and where he talks about paranormal subjects and things that he defines as "not able to be explained, yet, by science"...but yet he does all these things. perhaps you need to research a bit before you make retarded claims. especially if someone corrects you, you shouldn't fight that person on it, either. you should just roll with the punches. also, don't expect people to baby you. i told you that you were wrong, and that you can even extrapolate from his lack of extravagance.
1
"Now you've hiding behind "a joke". I win. :)" you don't win shit. first of all, i didn't really speak on Islamic history. i told you that philosopher's have been beheaded for questioning the existence of God -- this is a fact. i don't need to study much, at all, to know this. i've seen the many works and some f the history, enough to know. i don't need your lesson. secondly: i didn't mess up the definition of materialism, you did. i didn't mess anything up. i used the definition of materialism as "a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values" -- which sums up how to address your stupidity. the joke was just that...and i'm not hiding behind anything. you were told the joke, and you just didn't get it. isn't that clever? you thought i was talking about materialism from a strictly philosophical point of view, but i wasn't, i was using the other definition to make the joke -- why? -- because i knew that you clearly hadn't watched his videos, but having no knowledge of this, i had to prove it to myself. tell me that isn't clever. = ) you proved to me that you knew nothing because you insisted, after i told you that you were wrong, that i needed to brush up on what you meant, but obviously you missed the part where i confirmed that he was no materialist; and i told you that you should go and check out his videos, so you can understand how wrong your assumption was. instead of doing that, you're still here. this is not my problem. it's yours. LOL
1
this is sad. i don't need to retort. this isn't an argument. this is aimless rhetoric, on your part. if you can't understand that there is two common usages of the definition of the word Materialism, then how i can help you understand how you're wrong? Styx doesn't believe in deities. he isn't a philosophical materialist, and there hasn't been legitimate "materialism" since almost a century ago, because we have tools now that can detect the presence of dark energy & matter thus making the label moot -- also if you'd watch Styx's videos you'd see that he is not a strict materialist, and that he notes his experiences with the paranormal and spiritual THUS ISN'T A MATERIALIST. IE HE ISN'T EVEN WEARING A SHIRT.
1
i didn't say it did. i said the label was moot. it doesn't need to deny anything...dark energy is just that, energy...hence not material...hence not of materialism. DOH
1
for you to say that you clearly don't understand what materialism is, or you can't understand what i said. take the consciousness for example -- scientific mystery. no material way to process an experiment on consciousness as a MATERIAL OBJECT or FORM, right? so hence, it's not material, as far as we can presume. what a materialist would be concerned with is the actions of the brain which govern the cognitive actions of the consciousness, but since there is no form to said consciousness, save the form of the nervous system, there is no way to measure such an energy -- if philosophical weight is given to the presumption that that energy is responsible for governing action, as opposed to the presumption that the brain controls these functions entire, is a non-materialist philosophical point of view; which is what Styx talks about more than anything else, in regard to spirituality; ie he's not a materialist. do try getting it through your thick soul knot.
1
LOL that's hilarious that you think that. PS: you still haven't refuted shit.
1
Every single abrahamic religion. Islam promotes insidious nature. Christianity, CAN, and does, the same, in alot of circles. Judaists, they too, also promote (perhaps more overtly than anyone) their use of "tax dollars" "bilking" people to serve their own ends. They are certainly not an impoverished group. Hindus, too. Why not. They have alot of bilking that is done, as well. But not to the fucking extent as the abrahamists.
1