Its not refutable.

So what? Aliens taught humans to first speak isn't refutable either.

That's true, he is.

Unfortunately, every subsequent sentence is you just making up stuff as well.

No I think I meant irrefutably correct. The old school way of thinking was trying to sort out the lies and truths from the mess, the good guys and the bad guys etc.

But when you look back without those beliefs, at humanity as a whole, you see a total movement for example you will see man was once separated and has now became whole again. All the fighting and arguing from different beliefs is a result of this integration (or reintegration we aren't sure).

This is historical fact, I can't say to a religious person....but with your mindset its the kinda proof you want. Theres no book source or historical person to back that up. Shed your conditioning and look at the situation, its obvious, plain simple and direct.

The cross is just part of mans movement with symbols. The Indus valley and the civilizations around egypt/rome/sumer (Jesus) etc we not isolated other than the separations of time. Therefore the cross and the swastika are part of the same movement. We were told differently.

you're quick, thats how fast i am

“Do not argue with an idiot; they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

Newguy, stop. Slow down. Take a breath.

Do you have any EVIDENCE for this claim? If you can not cite any source or any evidence or any justification, then you will be (rightly) accused of making stuff up.

Sorting lies from truth may be some 'old school way of thinking' to you but to the rest of the human race it's a pretty useful exercise when trying to discover if someone is talking nonsense.

Omnipotent being battling a non-omnipotent being? Must be a tough battle, like a man fighting a retarded wheelchair bound toddler. But no, it makes perfect sense, carry on.

What a load of malarkey. Listen, if you want to be taken seriously then you need to provide a source. It's that simple. Until then I'm going to assume you're a crank.

EDIT: Goddamn slow typing; Uke_Master already replied.

I didn't refute your accusation.

As for my claim, you have to understand from the correct perspective its obvious. This is contrary to what you have been told is possible. But once you view man as an entire movement you can see how all these things are interrelated and completely inseparable.


Whoever told you that those things can be sorted was telling you a lie.

Your logic is rooted in A = A ...whats your source for that?

You sir, are retarded. How is this, in any way, relevant?

EDIT: Do you really not understand that 'source' and 'cite' are synonymous in this context? Really?

No, i think just like you. You like to be skeptical and see clear evidence and examples. So lets start this correctly, no assumptions. Start the convo, or debate, or conflict or whatever with absolutely zero assumptions. Thats all I'm suggesting.

And anything I say is the same thing Jiddhu K. points out in conversations with David Bohm so you're calling each of them retarded too. And if I remember correctly Einsten suggested Bohm was to blow all peers and past scholars away.

not sure what you are saying here but A=A is the same assumption that god is and that Descartes makes. It has no basis, why do you accept that, but never anything else?

If it is so obvious, surely some other person has thought of this. So do you a reference to some other person who has also stumbled on this obvious claim of yours?

That religious symbolism has the same root? Do you believe man came from different sources?

A=A is descriptive, not proscriptive. So yes, it has a basis.