Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

Christians believe in angels. Muslims believe in a pegasus equivalency (Burāq). Mormons believe in Big Foot, Yeti and Sasquatch. Jehovah's Witness believe in giant space elves (Nephilim). Jews believe in anthropomorphised beings made from inanimate objects like clay (Golems).

Its Super-natural and completely rational.

Haha my sides.

Christians believe in angels. Muslims believe in a pegasus equivalency (Burāq). Mormons believe in Big Foot, Yeti and Sasquatch. Jehovah's Witness believe in giant space elves (Nephilim). Jews believe in anthropomorphised beings made from inanimate objects like clay (Golems). Its Super-**natural** and completely rational. Haha my sides.

(post is archived)

[–] • 4 pts

Never before in the the history of man has atheism existed. All ancient civilizations believed in some sort of supernatural or Devine. Only in the last 100 years or so have the jews convinced people that there is no god.

[–] • 0 pt

Post modernism = atheism = jews.

[–] • 0 pt

Nah, there have always been atheists even if they weren’t as loud or annoying as they are now. Cicero rejected the gods of his time for example, as did many of his contemporaries.

[–] • 0 pt

I didn't know that about Cicero.

[–] • 0 pt

Cicero believed in nature, therefore believed in God. The engines that power our cars and planes that fly are built according to the laws of nature, God's laws. If you don't follow God's laws your plane will crash.

[–] • 0 pt

That’s the “god of the gaps.” The laws of nature exist, we don’t know why the laws of nature exist, therefore god must have made the laws of nature exist. It’s fallacy.

[–] • 0 pt

They have a god, they just don't call it that. The state, "science", etc.

[–] • 0 pt

The age of enlightenment and almost all the Greek philosophers are calling you..... a faggot.

[–] • 1 pt

Atheists believe you can chop your dick off and become a woman, and that the state is god.

[–] • 0 pt

You believe your soul doesn't exist, which is on the same level of ridiculousness. Something you could intuit, and you deny it. I could appeal to your sense of logic, but I can't provide the personal first hand evidence that the rest of the world has experienced. But I should explain the way I think about it.

When I say 'you', what am I referring to? There is an entity that is separate from me that is looking at this text. You can't accurately feel the bounds of yourself as an entity, but you know you're not me, or anybody else.

What is the relationship of the human body, the brain, incoming sensory information, and your perception of it? The eyeball takes in light, flips it, transforms it to electrical and chemical signals that enter your brain. That whole arrangement is nothing more than incoming information and transformation.

Take a glass prism. It takes in light, transforms it, and outputs it. The brain as described by science is nothing more than a complex series of the same action in different forms. Why are 'you' where you are? For the prism, we know there isn't a person in the glass during the transformation of a light ray. So between exactly which transformation would the bounds of 'you' be? We can reproduce electrical and chemical reactions in a lab. If we reproduced every step individually of a person experiencing visual perception, would it make sense to say 'between step 1 and 1500, there is no consciousness. Step 1501, however, we found it! We isolated it!'. No. No matter how complex, there's no room for an 'entity' as you know you are. And yet you are there.

This idea of an entity observing incoming perceptions is supernatural, but so what? If science DID find and isolate the exact chemical reaction that brings an observer entity into existence, would that not be supernatural as well? It breaks inductive reasoning. It's as if you have a series that adds 1 every time, and the result is "1, 2, 3, a, 4, 5...". The fact we can't prove that there is anything supernatural anywhere else in reality is separate to the observation that is DOES EXIST HERE and can be proved through introspection.

Now, a god? I wouldn't be surprised. Unknowable however, and the facts given in some texts are clearly wrong. To say there isn't a god is just as speculative as saying there is one. We can't apply empirical methods to something unreplicable, and the big bang is pretty fucking unreplicable.

My conspiratorial mind wants me to point out that Jews want atheism for you, religion for them. There's a reason for that.

[–] • 0 pt

You believe your soul doesn't exist, which is on the same level of ridiculousness.

Prove unequivocally the existence of a soul.

Take a glass prism. It takes in light, transforms it, and outputs it

A glass prism does no such thing to "transform" light.

It refracts light, bending momentarily a portion of visible light.

[–] • 0 pt

Prove unequivocally the existence of a soul.

As I told you, I can't. I can prove it to myself about myself, I can't prove it for you. I can only provided the logic used to prove it given an accepted premise of the presence of the observer behind one's perceptions. I can't prove you're sentient, I have to assume that. If I didn't assume that, I'd be a solipsist, and wouldn't even bother with trying to persuade you of anything.

On a semi-related note to the existence of a soul, how would any system of ethics apply if souls didn't exist? Would a finite computer program that only responds "yes" or "no" based on some RNG algorithm, does that have as much weight as a human life? Why not, if souls don't exist?

A glass prism does no such thing to "transform" light.

Well, these scientists have no problem with the use of the term: https://www.osapublishing.org/oe/fulltext.cfm?uri=oe-14-20-9093&id=114587

I can argue semantics if you want, but not only will you be wrong on this, you aren't responding to my main point at all.

[–] • 0 pt

As I told you, I can't. I can prove it to myself about myself, I can't prove it for you.

If you are asserting something to be true, show me how you got there. I'm not name-calling, if you believe in something, why should I believe it if you cannot prove it? If I tell you the sky is green but can't tell you why, not only that I believe it to be true but is true for everyone else, (for argument's sake) then why should you believe me without reason?

I can't prove you're sentient

Do you think you are talking to Tam bot? Sentience is about feelings, not logic, so I feel as though you are giving me the shits because you cannot quantify your belief. By definition, even dogs can have limited sentience as they exhibit self-awareness and have feelings. You can't just run on feelings, are you saying your entire belief is based on emotion and zero logic?

On a semi-related note to the existence of a soul, how would any system of ethics apply if souls didn't exist?

I've posted it before, they are cultural customs. Ethics are not universal and different tribes value different governing moral principles and acceptable forms of behaviour.

e.g Collectivist and Individualistic attitudes are expressed as predominately oriental vs occidental and tribal groups evolutionary strategies to survive the end of the Pleistocene Epoch.

I can argue semantics if you want, but not only will you be wrong on this

Wrong huh?

Dove prism manipulates light, it is exactly and specifically 'Negative refraction' which is the unusual bending of light.

They're using the word transform non-literally, as transform means modification of form, nature, or appearance. So light is the inclusion of all colours and separating the wave-lengths is a transformation of form and appearance, they are not literally transforming light into something else, even splitting light is the incorrect term as they are bending it as it passes through the prism.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

When you read (among others) the Chinese annals, Avesta, Bhagavad Gita, Torah, Gospel, and Quran you find a consistent general voice and theme. That is God. Only the Quran hasn't been rewritten by men. Therein you will find no mention of a buraq or pegasus. The Prophet sallahu alayhi wasalam was sleeping next to the Kabaa one day, and God transported him to Jerusalem to lead all previous Prophets in prayer. The satanic Jewish Nickelodeon cartoon Avatar mocks this very Islamic notion. They did their research.

I find it very interesting that a direct line from Mecca to old Jerusalem in Palestine passes through the Faroe Islands. That used to be the direction that Muslim's prayed before it was towards the Kabaa in Mecca.