Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140

<= [1121][1122][1123][1124][1125][1126][1127][1128][1129][1130] =>

Jahr  S. E. 
 2001 *  1
 2002 *  1
 2003 *  1
 2004 *  3
 2005 *  2
 2006 *  2
2007 2
2008 2
2009 0  
2010 56
2011 80
2012 150
2013 80
2014 230
2015 239
2016 141
2017 150
2018 30
2019 18
2020 202
P. Z.
S.E. (S.)
T. (S.)
P. Z.
S. E.
 K. (S.) 
S.E. (S.)
K. (S.)
T. (S.)
* Von 2001 bis 2006 nur Gästebuch, erst ab 2007 auch Webforen und Weblogs.

NACH OBEN 1121) Arminius, 08.12.2017, 12:26, 12:59, 13:44; Alf, 08.12.2017, 19:56; Arminius, 08.12.2017, 23:49, 23:59 (6862-6867)


But all those promises for the remote future need the belief or trust, faith, hope, cofidence in them. So, there are two sides needed: (1) the promise and (2) the belief in it. Just think analogously of the coin or banknote (paper money): both have two sides too. Look:

And before you can believe in such an abstract phenomenon like a promise, you must have a pretty large brain with a pretty large consciousness and the capability of understanding highly abtract conceptions.


All of that does not prove your statement: „The eternal return slows down time“ (**).


The reason for all the abnormality is the fact that the Occidental Culture is decadent. This can be seen in each form, thus also and especially if it is related to demography, economy, technology, intelligence (all four are correlated with ech other). No wonder that mental disturbance is already a component of the US army.


Mannequin wrote:

„Us government used rock metal music on Arab terrorists as a torture method.“ **

Maybe they used this rock music:

- Roger Waters, We Shall Overcome (Song for Palestine), 2010 -
- David Gilmour & Roger Waters, Palestinian Charity (Live), 2010 -

Interestingly, islamic terrorists do not fight against the fascistic terror state Israel like the Palestinians do. Almost all Palestinians are shiites, almost all islamic terrorists are sunnis. It is well known that shiites and sunnis are enemies too. Who supports the Palestinians? Who supports the islamic terrorists?


When exactly will that „ice age ... do the job“ (**)?


Urwrong wrote:

„Appropriate sexual behavior in 2017-2018 is for all modern males to cut your dick off and become a woman.

Otherwise you are guilty of sexual harassment and/or rape.“ **

And what about those who change in the opposite direction?


NACH OBEN 1122) Arminius, 09.12.2017, 01:47, 11:48, 12:38, 01:47 (6868-6870)


I already said that there are cynics who are opposed by kyniks (**).


Almost all bankers are cynics. So, if you (**) want to be their opponent by being cynical, then you should also linguistically clarify this difference and call yourself a „kynik“. (Cp. Peter Sloterdijk, „Kritik der zynischen Vernunft“ [translation: „Critique of Cynical Reason“], 1983.) But you are right with your statement: „not everybody can speak the fatherland's tongue“ (**).

A „kynik“ is a „counter-cynic“, an opponent of the cynic. And I can only hope that kyniks will not succumb to the danger of becoming their counterpart, the cynics.


Today (09-12-2017) is my mother's birthday.

Happy birthday, Mama.


NACH OBEN 1123) Arminius, 10.12.2017, 13:32, 18:03, 19:59, 23:01 (6871-6874)


Absolutely right (**).

Prismatic’s main problem is logic (**).


Prismatic 567 wrote:

„There is no such thing as absolute independent objectivity that can stand on its own without being subjected to some framework of cognitions by subjects.“ ** (**)

If you state that there „is no such thing as absolute independent objectivity“, then you have just declared that is so according to an absolute independent objectivity.

In addition: If there really (objectively) is no absolute independent objectivity, then there really (objectively) is no absolute independent subjectivity either.


James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Prismatic 567 wrote:

›There is no such thing as absolute independent objectivity that can stand on its own without being subjected to some framework of cognitions by subjects.‹ ** (**)

If you state that there »is no such thing as absolute independent objectivity«, then you have just declared that is so according to an absolute independent objectivity.

In addition: If there really (objectively) is no absolute independent objectivity, then there really (objectively) is no absolute independent subjectivity either.«“ ** **

Prismatic 567 wrote:

»Framework of cognitions by subjects.« ** (**)

We philosophers call that an »ontology«.“ **

„The compound word ontology combines onto--, from the Greek on, on (gen. ontoV, ontos), i.e. »being; that which is«, which is the present participle of the verb eimi, eimí, i.e. »to be, I am«, and -logia, -logia, i.e. »logical discourse«, see classical compounds for this type of word formation.

While the etymology is Greek, the oldest extant record of the word itself, the New Latin form ontologia, appeared in 1606 in the work Ogdoas Scholastica by Jacob Lorhard (Lorhardus) and in 1613 in the Lexicon philosophicum by Rudolf Göckel (Goclenius).

The first occurrence in English of ontology as recorded by the OED (Oxford English Dictionary, online edition, 2008) came in a work by Gideon Harvey (1636/7–1702): Archelogia philosophica nova; or, New principles of Philosophy. Containing Philosophy in general, Metaphysicks or Ontology, Dynamilogy or a Discourse of Power, Religio Philosophi or Natural Theology, Physicks or Natural philosophy, London, Thomson, 1663. The word was first used in its Latin form by philosophers based on the Latin roots, which themselves are based on the Greek.

Leibniz is the only one of the great philosophers of the 17th century to have used the term ontology.“ **


EXTERNAL DEBT: USA and China (**).

Rank Country External Debt (US-$) Date Per Capita (US-$) % of GDP |
1 USA 18,624,000,000,000 30-06-2017 57,300 98
13 China 1,562,800,000,000 30-06-2017 1,100 13

Especially dramatic is the external debt per capita in the USA: it is 52.09 times more than in China (!).


Countries by military expenditures (absolute) in 2014 (**), based on data from the World Bank.


Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (**).

„The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is a Eurasian political, economic, and security organisation, the creation of which was announced on 15 June 2001 in Shanghai, China by the leaders of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan; the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Charter was signed in June 2002 and entered into force on 19 September 2003. These countries, except for Uzbekistan, had been members of the Shanghai Five group, founded on 26 April 1996 in Shanghai. India and Pakistan joined SCO as full members on 9 June 2017 in Astana, Kazakhstan.“ **



China-CEEC Cooperation (**).

The „CEEC“ as a „Trojan Donkey“.

Meeting 2017 (**).

„The 16+1 format is an initiative by the People’s Republic of China aimed at intensifying and expanding cooperation with 11 EU Member States and 5 Balkan countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia) in the fields of investments, transport, finance, science, education, and culture. In the framework of the initiative, China has defined three potential priority areas for economic cooperation: infrastructure, high technologies, and green technologies.

Meeting of China-CEEC Business Council and Business Support Organizations.

Paying high importance and contribution to the cooperation with China and 16 Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries within the 16+1 platform, Investment and Development Agency of Latvia (LIAA), organizer of the Business Forum within The 5th Meeting of Heads of Government of 16+1 countries last year in November, in cooperation with China-CEEC Business Council organized three-day meeting in Latvia.

Presentations of Meeting of China-CEEC Business Council and Business Support Organizations, June 20, 2017 are available here (**).“ **


NACH OBEN 1124) Arminius, 11.12.2017, 13:36, 16:51, 16:57 (6875-6877)


@ Prismatic 567. Stop using a strawman again.

Snark wrote:

„I think most here, atheists and theists alike, agree that you're delusional.“ **

Yes, both atheist and theists! They all agree that Prismatic 567 is delusional and stubbornly ignorant, has a geat problem with logic, does not understand Kant and Hume.

They all have proven him wrong, and he is still stubbornly ignoring this fact, unsuccessfully searching for arguments, remaining unable to find any, not knowing what he is talking about.

Snark wrote:

„Prismatic 567 wrote:

»Snark wrote:

›I think most here, atheists and theists alike, agree that you're delusional.‹ **


1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions:
2. - maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts.‹ **

....« **

And you fit the definition perfectly.“ **


Snark wroe:

„The problem with many of Prismatic’s criticisms is that he does not distinguish between the Ground of existence, what many theists call »God“ and things that have existence.“ **

Yes. This is probably because of Prismatic’s main problem: logic. Every second sentence coming from him contains a logical fallacy.


Prismatic 567 wrote:

„Snark wrote:

»The point is, he undermines his own philosophy and therefore yours. The quote I cited is from Critique of Pure Reason, quite fittingly near the end of the book. Is it not odd that critics of religion, like you, argue like Kant is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but ignore his conclusion?« (Snark, by the way, where and when did you wrote this? I could not find this text.)

The point is that Kant has never said „God is an impossibility“ and that you have said that he had said it, thus that you have lied.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

Based on the many polls, Kant is recognized as one of the greatest Western philosopher of all times. I have high respect for Kant’s philosophy but I do not agree with EVERYTHING he proposed, and for whatever I agree with Kant, I ensured it is justified soundly.“ **

Yes, but it is also true that you are using Kant and his philosophy for your pseudo arguments that are based on logical fallacies and have nothing to do with Kant.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„The problem is theists are compelled by subliminal psychological compulsion to hastily stop the infinite regression and jumped to the conclusion [based on faith] to insist God is the final cause which is a leap beyond the empirical. Such a God that stopped infinite regression can never be an empirically possible God at all, but is merely based on thoughts and pure primal psychological reasons. This is merely speculation and wishful thinking to cover and soothe the psychological angst pulsating from the deep chasms of the psyche.“ **

Your cynical lie again. The psychological conditions and situations of an atheist are very similar to those of the theists. Stop using your strawman again.

In addition: You do not even know that a belief or a religion or a theology or theism can be very secular.

What you are stubbornly ignoring is the fact that both atheists and theists have proven you wrong.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„What I have proven is 'God is an Impossibility' based on logic, reason and argument.“ **

That is another, namely the main one of your cynical lies.

You have proven nothing except the fact that you are wrong because of your logical fallacies and many misunderstandings of the greatest philosopher of all times.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„As such, in terms of truth, it is moot and a non-starter even to raise the question of whether God exists or not as real within an empirical-rational reality.

The »idea of God« emerged into human consciousness merely as a thought to soothe the inherent unavoidable existential angst, i.e. for psychological reasons and never for consideration whether it is real or not.

Theists must be mindful and responsible that when they insist God is 'real', they are directly and indirectly contributing to an emergence of an ideology that is a double-edged sword that bring good and terrible evils.
This supposedly real God as claimed also deliver real holy texts [via messenger] that include evil laden elements that compel and inspire evil prone believers to commit terrible evils and violence upon non-believers.“ **

Strawman again.

In addition: You are the one who have to give evidence. But you have never done this, because you are not capable of doing it.

Note that we are talking about the question whether God is possible (or perhaps not ), look at your title of your thread. Therefore it is not necessary to be a theist or an antitheist or an atheist or whoever - it is sufficient to be a logician, thus somebody who is not very similar to you. Both theists and atheists have proven you wrong. Why? Because they (unlike you) know how to use logic, namely by avoiding logical fallacies, and this has - in the first place - nothing to do with being a theist or an antitheist or an atheist.


NACH OBEN 1125) Arminius, 12.12.2017, 13:33 (6878)


James S. Saint wrote:

„This time, I’ll be the »lackey« (**).

Arminius is exactly right. **

Now, look at his typical reaction:

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„I noted the above.
I will not bother to response unless there is something of substance. There is none in the above.“ **

This is again one of your stupid answers, and they also show clearly that I am right and that you have no argument. You have merely pseudo arguments, coward accusations, ad hominems, absolutely insubstantial phrases ....

Arminius wrote:

„And you have shown this in each of your posts.

Note that we have given you a lot of arguments and logically proven you wrong. And these arguments are not based on religion, but on logic. You are confusing almost everything.

You really do not know what you are talking about. Why should we take you seriously?

We have proven you wrong. So why should we always repeat this? We have done this in each of your threads.

And your misuse of Kant is a fcat too, it is easily provable that he has never said »God is an impossibility«. So you are a liar and faker too.“ ** **


NACH OBEN 1126) Arminius, 13.12.2017, 00:02, 17:07 (6879-6880)


Prismatic’s opening post and almost all his/her other posts are full of logical fallacies and hollow phrases (there is nothing behind it). He/she does not define „God“, „absolute perfection“, „absolutely perfect“. Apart from this, he/she tries to magically „convince“ every other stupid guy who reads his/her schizoid and delusionial „realities“ (note, just for example, his/her schizoid and delusional term „empirical possible multiple realities“ [**]). A schizoid personality wants multiple realities, okay, but he/she is not able to prove or demonstrate his „multiple realities“.

And why is he/she so hostile just to theists? Why is he/she not capable of understanding that one does not have to be a theist in order to know what a logical fallacy is.

James S. Saint wrote:

„This time, I’ll be the »lackey« (**).

Arminius is exactly right. **

Note Prismatic’s „empirical possible multiple realities“ (**).

Or is he/she neither he nor she, but it? If so, then it must be a pretty false computer program. I guess, it is more a they, but at least a multiple personality with many ILP accounts.


It seems that you are not capable of reading (**) either.

I have been saying for a very long time and over and over again that your statements have nothing to do with theism in the first place. You are wrong because of your logical fallacies - based on your false definitions, your false premises and thus your false conclusions.

You are not capable of understanding this, because your main problem is a logical one (thus also a psychological one).

To you, your delusion and your angst are more important than any kind of logic. Psychologically said, you are full of anxiety or angst: you even horribly fear God and theists. Your opening post and all your other posts show clearly that theists, antitheists or atheists are not needed in order to see that you are wrong, that your problem has nothing to do with theism, antitheism and atheism in the first place, because your problem is primarily and mainly a logical and thus also a psychological problem.

What I have been saying here in your thread and in all your other threads is based on logic. Your problem is logic (psychologic problems included of course).


You say or at least suggest that you are against monotheists in particular.

The typical monotheisms (more accurately called „henotheisms“) are Judaism and Islam. No other religion is monotheistic (more accurately called „henotheistic“).

Christianity is no purely monotheistic religion, because the Christian God can be (1) God Father, (2) God Son, (3) God Holy Ghost, and he has a (4) mother too, the so-called „Mother of God“. (4 does not equal 1.) If a god has a mother, then this has nothing to do with monotheism; if a god can be three different gods, then this has nothing to do with monotheism. (3 does not equal 1.) So Christianity is more polytheism than a monotheism.

Polytheistic gods do not have to be and are not perfect or, as you say, „absolutely perfect“. A god does not have to be such a god - all polytheistic religions and also all (namely: two [see above]) monotheistic religions show this clearly. The god of the Jews and the Muslims is not absolutely good, but more evil than good. And polytheism is much different from all that coming from Persia and the Arabian Peninsula: henotheism (in everyday language: „monotheism“). The European tradition of polytheism has almost only to do with projections of the humans: their gods are like humans with one difference: they are immortal, they are „undying humans“, so to say. The Ancient Greek optimized the European polytheism. Their gods were the said „undying humans“ as the said „projections of the humans“. So, their gods were not „absolutely perfect“ - their gods were much more unperfect than perfect.

So your claim that a god must be „absolutely perfect“ is nonsense, based on your delusions and angst. God can be a principle, God can be the first mover, God can be the first cause ... etc., but God does not have to be „absolutely perfect“. An „absolutely perfect“ God is your wishful thinking, based on your delusions and angst; if this were not so, then you would not do what you want to do because of your delusions and angst: attack him and the theists in order to get rid of your delusions and angst. So, all your statements that are based on logical fallacies have primarily and mainly to do with your delusions and your angst.


NACH OBEN 1127) Arminius, 14.12.2017, 01:57, 02:01, 02:12, 02:12, 18:38, 22:57, 23:37 (6881-6887)


Surreptitious 75 wrote:

„Christianity is a monotheistic religion because it has only one God. God the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are simply different manifestations of the same God. They are three in one not three separate from each other.“ **

I know very well what you mean, and according to many but not all Christians you are right; but people of the Jewish and the Islamic religion do not agree on the statement that the trinity you are speaking of is a „manifestation“ of one god and thus of monotheism. In addition, they do not agree on the statement that a god has or should have a mother, because this would mean more than one god, at least two gods. If you visit certain countries of Europe, you will see that their Christian cult has more to do with the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God than with God himself or his son Jesus (who is or is not God - this was a discussion that lasted about three centuries) or his Holy Ghost (who is or is not God - this was a discussion that lasted about three centuries). Christianity is not only characterized by division of powers (see: the Christians’ trinity and Mother of God), but also by the separation of its Church and the state (laicism) as well as by peacefulness and humanity.

Surreptitious 75 wrote:

„Furthermore the First Commandment clearly states there is only one God.“ **

The First Commandment clearly belongs to the Jewish religion - regardless whether it is also accepted by Christians or not.

But this is more a subject of another thread, for example the following one: ** **


Copied post in another thread.


Copied post in another thread.


The Jewish God is not the Christian God. That is - by the way - the reason why all monotheists are actually henotheists. They know that certain others have their own one god too and accept him, but they accept him merely as a god of the enemies.

But Christianity is not as much of that kind as Judaism and Islam are. Christianity is not a pure henotheism (in everyday language: „monotheism“) like Judaism and Islam are. When Christianity came to Europe, it became more and more adapted to the European religions (later called: „heathendom“), first in the Ancient Roman Empire, then in the rest of Europe. So, Christianity became more and more polytheistic, but never completely.

Polytheism is much different from all that coming from Persia and the Arabian Peninsula: henotheism (in everyday language: „monotheism“). The European tradition of polytheism has almost only to do with projections of the humans: their gods are like humans with one difference: they are immortal, they are „undying humans“, so to say. The Ancient Greek optimized the European polytheism. Their gods were the said „undying humans“ as the said „projections of the humans“.


Urwrong wrote:

„Deconstructing Western Civilization.


So it's best to begin again ....“ **

Beginning again is possible only then, if something has already ended. So, you have to wait, if it has not ended yet. If you try to begin again before it has ended, then you just help deconstruct it and can only achieve that the end will perhaps come earlier, but this does not mean beginning but merely deconstructing.

Hopefully you will not wait too long.


1 light year = 9,460,730,472,580.8 km.
2.54 million light years = 24,030,025,540,000,000,000 km (9,460,730,472,580.8 km x 2,540,000).

Light speed = 299,792,458 m/s = 9,460,730,472,580.8 km/year.

In other words: You need 2,54 million times more than the light needs in one year.
In other words: You need 2,54 million years if you travel as fast as the light does.

Our current technoloy allows us at most about 0.1% of the light speed.

So, if you will use our current technology and start tomorrow, then you will arrive at Andromeda 2.54 billion years later. And when you will come back from your trip after 5 billion years from now, then you will have missed 10 geological „Pangaea“ cycles (**) on our planet Earth, if it will not already be outside of the habitable zone of our solar system (**|**).

So, realistically said: Forget your trip (**)!

But if you necessarily want to travel, then okay: Have a good trip!

I will try to wait for you.


A collision of two galaxies (**|**).

What do you think about that collision?

If this collision will come true, then you will need less time for your trip (**) than mentioned in my post above (**|**), but your trip will still take too much time. Believe me. My advice is that you should first travel to the Moon, then to the planet Mars and be happy there (**).

Good luck!


NACH OBEN 1128) Arminius, 15.12.2017, 11:08, 11:30 (6888-6889)


Your (**) views are too shallow and narrow. You have absolutely no argument at all, because your statements are hollow phrases. There is nothing behind it. You have merely proven that you have proven nothing at all, that you have no argument and that you do not understand logic, Kant and Hume.

It seems that you have not read my post or, as I already said before, that you are not capable of reading. Try to understand that your above quote and commentary on it do not concern the central statement of my text in my post . So, here you are again too shallow and narrow.

You have explained nothing except the fact that you have no argument and that you do not understand logic, Kant and Hume.

An absolutely perfect God is not needed. The Ancient Greek religion worked perfectly just because it lacked an absolutely perfect God.


The Ancient Greeks were not „the most rational of men“ (**), but they did indeed not need an absolutely perfect God. Their gods were more like the Ancient Greek humans themselves. Their gods were projections of Ancient Greek humans. Their religion worked perfectly. So, the religion (and not God) must be a perfect one to them. Yes.

Not only the Ancient Greek religion gives evidence that an „absolutely perfect“ (Prismatic) God is not needed in order to have a theistic system, a religion, a belief in God. It worked perfectly just because it lacked an absolutely perfect God.

The henotheistic/monotheistic religions give evidence too that an „absolutely perfect“ God is not needed in order to have a theistic system, a religion, a belief in God. Each God of each henotheistic/monotheistic religion is not and does not have to be „absolutely perfect“.

So, Prismatic’s pseudo argument or bogus argument that „absolute pefection is impossible“ (first „premise“ - which is false), that „God must be absolutely perfect“ (second „premise“ - which is false), so that „God is an impossibility“ („conclusion“ - which is false), is an absolutely perfect case of a logical fallacy. (1) Absolute perfection is not impossible; (2) God does not have to be absolutely perfect; (3) God is not impossible. This can only be proven by logic, thus not by, for example, ethics or aesthetics or Prismatic’s schizoid delusions (see e.g.: „empirical possible multiple realities“ [**]).


Prismatic 567 wrote:

„There such a Reality cannot be related to the empirical possible multiple realities.“ **

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»So what you have to prove and demonstrate is that there is no Reality, no ›uni-verse‹.« **

My point;

1. To the theist, »God is Reality itself« ( F A L S E ! )
2. God is an Impossibility - argument re OP ( F A L S E ! )
3. Therefore »Reality« [theists’] is an impossibility. ( F A L S E ! ) “ **


NACH OBEN 1129) Arminius, 16.12.2017, 12:25 (6890)


They all have origins in the Arabian peninsular, are related to each other, but Christianity is much more different from Judaism and Islam than Judaism and Islam from each other.


NACH OBEN 1130) Kathrina, 17.12.2017, 13:00; Arminius, 17.12.2017, 14:01, 14:02, 14:03 (6891-6894)


Music should not be used for political and financial purposes.


Objectivity is never intersubjectivity. Objectivity is always objectivity. Subjectivity is always subjectivity. So, intersubjectivity is always communicating subjectivity, thus it always remains subjectivity.

Objectivity and subjectivity can never come together. They can come to a consensus, but each consensus is merely intersubjective, thus always subjective and never objective.

The object and the subject are never interchangeable in the same observed and described situation.

A linguistic example: „John sees Mary“. Grammatically: John (subject) sees (predicate) Mary (object). If you changed subject and object here, then you would have another observed and described situation: „Mary sees John“ (S-P-O) or „John is seen by Mary“ (O-P-S). If you want to say that both are seeing each other, then you have to say for example: „John sees Mary, and Mary sees John“ (S-P-O, S-P-O [thus: two S-P-O sentences]) or „John and Mary see each other“ (S-P-O) or „John is seen by Mary, and Mary is seen by John“ (O-P-S, O-P-S [thus: two O-P-S sentences]) or „John and Mary are seen by each other“ (O-P-S) ... or similar S-P-O or O-P-S or even P-S-O or P-O-S sentences. But, regardless which of the options you choose, you will never be capable of changing subject and object in one sentence. So, object and subject are always separated from each other. Always, thus also in science and philosophy, in epistemology.

John is never Mary, and this stands for: Subject (S) is never Object (O). Whether John is subject or object and Mary object or subject depends on the situation and on the observation and/or description of this situation. And as an observer and/or describer you can choose a more objective or a more subjective observation and/or description of a situation (happening). But you will never be capable of changing the logic behind it, especially the epistemological form, namely the subject/object dualism (dichotomy).

So, you have no chance to change or overcome reality and certain forms of linguistics, logic, mathematics.

When epistemology and the subject/object dualism (dichotomy) are not „in fashion“, then this does not mean that they have vanished.


Copied post in another thread.


The Ancient Greek religion had been a polytheistic mysteries cult religion without any church and only with cult places before it became a cult church during the first three centuries A.D. (Julian the Apostate [Flavius Claudius Julianus] was one of its supporters, and it was based on Neopythagorism, Neoplatonism, Stoicism and probably part of a „pseudomorphis“). At that time, there were at least six greater religions in the Romam empire: (1) rests of the said Ancient polytheistic mysteries cult religion without any church and only with cult places, (2) the said Ancient Greek religion as a part of a „pseudomorphis“ cult church, (3) Zoroastrianism and its derivations, e.g. Mazdaism, (4) Manichaeism, (5) Judaism, (6) Christianity and its many derivations, e.g. Jewish Christianity, Greek Christianity, Arianism, Catholicism ....

In other words: Christianity changed a lot within four or (in certain regions) even seven centuries before its real stability through two of its main versions: the Greek (later called: „Orthodox“) one and the Catholic (Western) one. At this time, your mentioned „heretical Jewish sect of Judaism itself“ (**) had already vanished for a long time.

„Abrahamic“ does not prove that the said three religions are the same and that they accept the Old Testament in the same way. All bananas, all apples, all oranges are subordinations of the superordination fruit, but nevertheless: they are not the same. All elephants, all cats, all dogs are species of the mammalia class, but nevertheless: they are not the same.

If I had (but I do not have [as you know]) to accept your „chimera“ (**) supposition and to answer the question which of the three „Abrahamic“ religions matches which of the three animals lion, ram, snake the most, then I would say: „the lion matches Islam, the ram matches Christianity, the snake matches Judaism the most“.