If we can include a childs simulation toy gathering dust on a shelf then I'm in.

My pleasure.

Great point, well made.

Don’t the Ángels count as wizards? There seem to be a plurality of them.

You can rationalize your position with that word salad as you need, but your attitude and approach is pretty much dismissed by the vast amount of humanity and clearly you do not care about it. I have no doubt that your limited, extreme position is very reasonable to you.

Those are his beliefs, correct. He will admit that openly.

Their beliefs are generally much more specific (evil people eating babies in pizza places or prisons at the White House or Biden will never fly on a plane or will be arrested in public) and are easily disproven, so I do not put them in the same category as someone who has some general faith and uses that to help guide them in life.

The parallels only exist for you and D2 to serve your agenda. I do not agree with you that they are parallel, but I understand believing them to be parallel is essential to your faith, and you are welcome to follow whatever faith you need in that regard as it is for the most part harmless. Hope that explained it better.

Wizlets
Wizlings

???

I don't know how you define "vast", but let's not forget that half of all people are below average, and I'm pretty sure you know how dumb the average person is. So no, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Wizkids.

I would counter that with the question that 'as the numbers of Qanon believers grow (and they have been growing exponentially) does the merits of the beliefs system thusly gain credibility?'


Meaning is it sufficiency of numbers that makes a theory legit or not, or is it scientific processes that operate regardless of number of adherents?

Again not being facetious. Scientology is now recognized as a religion. I suspect Qanon will seek such recognition, as it grows to gain the benefits of the that designation and I cannot see any legit way for the gov't to deny them (again Scientology) since the only basis seems to be 'a shared set of beliefs amongst sufficient numbers' and there is no required tie to anything resembling reality.

The answer to that is tricky, because if it grows it likely has to tone down the crazy stuff, kind of like how scientologists do not talk about aliens in general. If you look at the history of Kwanzaa you will see it was a bit different in its origins than it is today.

If eventually a religion exists that believes in the spooky deep state, but drops the nutty Pizzagate stuff - then maybe it can start to approach being more "mainstream," but it seems that is not really the direction those types of beliefs will head, because Pizzagate and public executions are the energy behind how the followers get drawn in, and as long as it is extreme, niche and easy to disprove then it has a pretty hard cap of how big it can really get.

Just to be clear you are talking about the hurdles to even wider scale adoption and not recognition as a religion, right?

As I think gov't take no position on the merits of the beliefs of a 'religion' and it is just a question of 'do enough adherents believe or not', to get that certification or gov't status. I think the proof of that is the most extreme elements of Christianity and Scientology still being on the books, even if most adherents restrict talking out loud about them.

The more extreme elements of the bible, Christianity, Islam, Scientology would certainly not stand out alongside some of the crazier stuff of Qanon as not belonging in that category.

I have no doubt that some fringe stuff gets through, but for now I do not agree that Qanon will be given religion status by governments, and as such I cannot get on board your faith that Qanon is parallel to various mainstream religions.

If and when Qanon gets the tax benefits of being a religion you are welcome to come back to toss this post back at me. I will specifically predict that will never happen.

Maybe if you didn’t mock and insult people, they’d be less liable to fire back with “sky daddy” quips? Seems like you’re missing an essential Biblical teaching here.

I am confused. Do you think the gov't actually vets the beliefs of adherents when an application to be newly recognized religion is processed as i read that no such thing was done to make sure govt did not sanction or not beliefs.

I would struggle t believe Scientology could get through any rationale vetting of beliefs in todays world.

My understanding that is that criteria is that there is a certain set of shared beliefs, by enough mass people and for long enough that the gov't allows that is not just a 'fad'. And then you are a new religion.

If there is a dictionary definition of wizards that would apply to angels, I'm kewl with calling them wizards.

1. Other than serial liars like you and Victor, who have I insulted in this Forum?

2. I try to avoid mocking people. I do mock certain ideas. I'm kewl with people mocking my ideas. I'd be fine with "Skydaddy" if it actually made any sense. "From the goo to the zoo to you" isn't factually incorrect. I can quote Evolutionists who have employed the terms "primordial goo" and "primordial soup." Zoo is a common term for a collection of animals, so that's not objectionable.

Could you please clarify where god lives so I can be more factual with my mockery in future?

A distinction without any real difference. You go out of your way to mock and troll people and get huffy when it comes back on you. It seems very un-Christian.

Please cite an example in which I was "huffy" about being mocked. I generally only get huffy when people like you and Victor lie about me.

Mockers like d2_e4 are actually an asset to my agenda, since they have to resort to non sequiters in order to mock my ideas. And people like you have to resort to lying in order to mock my ideas.

I am grateful to d2_e4 for posting stuff about my religious beliefs, even in threads that have nothing to do with religion.

Non sequitur. /nitpick

Can you answer my question? You seem to have skipped it.

cf, your last dozen or so posts. It’s perfectly fine to be upset, by the way., d2 is very clearly trying to rile you up. It’s just funny that you can’t be honest about the fact that you’re doing the same thing.

I plead nolo contendere.

Why would he be upset? He said clearly that people like e2 let him spread his own personal agenda. He knows e2's positions on the issue are kind or meaningless, and they give him the chance to speak to the world. He is not being subtle, he is literally telling you his strategy, and realistically he is true to his beliefs so he aint gonna be riled up by someone on the internet saying something snarky. I don't think he cares at all about riling up anyone else, its about spreading and sharing his beliefs. Seems pretty obvious. If he riles someone else up, that is a secondary bonus if that.

All the best.

standard troll is to claim people are upset. It's most upsetting

Check it, bitches, I'm moving up in the alphabet, one letter at a time.