Holocaust Denial Congress Held In Iran

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Susano

Nope, as the other animals have no concept of god at all they would be agnostic. Atheism is explictly saying "There is no god". Not caring about god falls under the wide field of agnosticism.

Agnosticism is a philosophical view on the existance of a supreme being. It does not make claims as to the identity of this being in absolute terms. But it does not deny his existance either. Agnosis means no knowledge, it doesn't mean not acknowledgement.

Not anywhere a beast can reach by any stretch of your imagination. Atheos, instead, is more suitable to beasts as it means literally no god.

However, my spiritual belief is one inherited and evolved through ages, since my ancestors started to wonder about the existance of a supreme being until their defining of this supreme being identity in cultural terms, through all the cultural and spiritual evolution process.

I am a Christian Agnostic. There is no myth there, only rational (philosophical) and human (spiritual) evolution in it.

I am not in any way spirtual, either, and yet I am still German.

Perhaps it is possible to be a German without a soul? I would have thought not, but I'm getting increasingly surprised as time passes.

Or perhaps being a German is a much devalued term in your conceptual meaning of the word. Bot only yours, by the way, but I know of some new age nazis who are not that different to you.

[Susano]

How can somebody New Age be similar to somebody non-spiritual?

I know what Agnosticism means, and I know there is also a deeprooted agnostic philosophy. However, by general definition, "not caring about God/ wether there is a god" is also considered "agnostic". In any case I am sure you will find no animal that says "there is no god", which would be the prerequisite for being atheist, because animals have no conception of god at all.

However, that discussion is idle and useless. Having a religious belief just so to differ from animals seems a bit nonsensical to me. I know I differ from animals, and that is good enough for me.

However, my spiritual belief is one inherited and evolved through ages, since my ancestors started to wonder about the existance of a supreme being until their defining of this supreme being identity in cultural terms, through all the cultural and spiritual evolution process.

And yet that tradition started with somebody breaking the previous medeival tradition of beliving unquestioningly in God (wetehr the medeival Christians really did so is anotehr question, but is was the publcially proclaimed norm)...

Besides - ah, let's say so: Religion is about truth. Each religion proclaism an own "truth". Now, I do think there is one, objective reality, so that means almost all or indeed all religions are untrue. But that is a matter for another discussion. What I want to say is, every religion presents what they believe is the truth. You enter a religion because youa ccept that version of truth. It is, or should ideally be, the result a process of own thought and decision.

Thus to say one holds to a belief simply because the ancestors did is IMO somewhat wrong. Everybody should think about the issue on himself, and if need to be digres radically from what his parents and ancestro sthought to be the truth. If that is the result of his or her musings, well, then that is the only consequence. So what if one belief is held for centuresß YOu might as well sa "it was so yestedray". It is meaningless.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Susano

How can somebody New Age be similar to somebody non-spiritual?

There is nothing spiritual in a pretended and faked spirituality.

But you are right. After all you are more consequent than them. Even if that doesn't mean much, it still makes a difference. So, my apologies here.

I know what Agnosticism means, and I know there is also a deeprooted agnostic philosophy. However, by general definition, "not caring about God/ wether there is a god" is also considered "agnostic".

Can't be the case, since as I said, I am a Christian Agnostic.

In any case I am sure you will find no animal that says "there is no god", which would be the prerequisite for being atheist, because animals have no conception of god at all.

So, you do have a conception of god? That would be very un-atheistic, wouldn't you agree?

However, that discussion is idle and useless. Having a religious belief just so to differ from animals seems a bit nonsensical to me. I know I differ from animals, and that is good enough for me.

That's a mischevious malinterpretation.

One doesn't have a spirituality "just so to differ from animals". Either you have it or you don't. And, well, just as rationality, spirituality is one important element of the individual's identity that makes him different from beasts. Other things, like the ability to love, hate, fear, enjoy, etc., are basic traits which we share with beasts.

And yet that tradition started with somebody breaking the previous medeival tradition of beliving unquestioningly in God (wetehr the medeival Christians really did so is anotehr question, but is was the publcially proclaimed norm)...

If you refer to Pagan spiritualism, it is included. Remember that I speak of an evolutive spiritual process.

Besides - ah, let's say so: Religion is about truth. Each religion proclaism an own "truth". Now, I do think there is one, objective reality, so that means almost all or indeed all religions are untrue. But that is a matter for another discussion.

It's not necessarily a matter for another discussion. I can split the thread.

But your perception there is wrong. Again.

Each religion explains spirituality in terms of the ethno-cultural group to which it belongs.

What I want to say is, every religion presents what they believe is the truth.

See above.

You enter a religion because youa ccept that version of truth. It is, or should ideally be, the result a process of own thought and decision.

You do not enter a religion. You enter in a sect. You inherit the spiritual beliefs of your ancestors, until your parents. If you reject them, you reject a strong part of your identity.

This is a sad and it is not limited to just multiculturalists. Many who believe otherwise and who clinge to constructs through myths, are equally infected.

Thus to say one holds to a belief simply because the ancestors did is IMO somewhat wrong.

No, no. You keep missing the entire point.

You have the ability to walk straight (I'm only assuming here ) because it is a part of the evolution of your ancestors. Not because you want to do it just because some of your ancestors did it.

However, you are free to regress that evolution and start walking on your four legs, if you wish to do it.

Everybody should think about the issue on himself, and if need to be digres radically from what his parents and ancestro sthought to be the truth.

See above. I should also add here another example.

Say that you wanted to build a computer. Would you neglect not just the acquired knowledge in electronics and programming of the last decades, but also all the mathematics and physics knowledge of the past?

[Kernunnos]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Ljubomir, they may be Hassidic, but still they support the existance of the Holocaust.

Anyway, the Congress in itself doesn't disturb me in the least. What disturbs me is the implications of it, by which the attendants are recognizing through their presence the moral superiority of Islam at present. It disturbs me because of its implications.

The nazi idiots have spent years bashing Christendom which has been the pillars of Europe, in the name of some pretended and ridiculous neo-Paganism, and now they give themselves in to Islam?

Perhaps german members are more tranquil than people living in southern european areas because thir country has less arabs than we currently have.

Actually I live in northern italy where their presence can be perceived almost everywhere, and their number, as well as the number of negroes, is growing esponentially and continuously.

Imagine your all white town turning into a sort of new orleans just in a couple years, with rapes getting high, obviously moslem rapes, mostly unreported or downplayed by a press strongly cooperative towards the invaders.

I toured teh Stuttgart area and Austria last year, it was not surely like here, a few turks and nothing more.

Try to visit Padua, or Brescia, or Vicenza, or Turin: the right definition is calling them town being fastly colonized by invaders, most of them moslem.


That is why why are so pessimistic about islam: its steadfastly becoming a french style situation here too.

By this pace in two generation this will be a northern african area, heavily infested by moslem.

It seems also that two out of ten marriages are mixed.

That is why we can in no way conceive an alliance with islam, it would simply erase any remainder of opposition to their presence here.

[Menydh]

Actually, that's not quite right. The situation in Germany is far worse than in Italy as a whole. Probably similar to that of Northern Italy if not worse. Their Moors are the Turks.

Much worse still is in England. There with Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and others.

It is even worse (if possible) in The Netherlands. There it doesn't matter. Moors, Turks, Pakis, ... you name it, they have it.

It is pathetic that being on the brink of destruction those nazi idiots don't do anything but trying to denigrate Southern and Eastern Europeans and masturbate in front of pictures of Hitler. On Skadi forum they even erased the moustache from Hitler's face to that end.

Pathetic falls short to explain it. Congenital retardness defines it better.

I'm sorry for normal Germans and Netherlanders. I don't think that they have to pay any forseeable consequences for the extreme irresponsibility and retardness of a few.

[Strengthandhonour]

It's true. The situation in Northern Italy is quite bad, mainly because its economically strong, therefore, attracting people from third world countries. In the south, only in the bigger cities you can find abudant amounts of immigrants. Not saying there isnt any in the towns, but not as much in comparison to the bigger cities.