The most disturbing image I saw in my life

[WinterHold]

Any realistic and authentic human would testify that the "biblical narrative/stories/tales" are the writings of the Roman monks who worked for Emperor Constantine during the meeting in First Council of Nicaea.

This is an example of the fallacy of poisoning the well.  Implying that anyone who disagrees with you is inauthentic and unrealistic and therefore must be wrong.

How come?

Literally, I was saying:

1-The monks who wrote the Bible of the Council of Nicaea cannot be trusted or taken as an authentic writers because, the Well is literally poisoned: so anything produced by them is also poisoned.

Example: trusting the testimony and tale of a Mafia boss and his gang in an event they witnessed from afar.

2-The political motive was enforced since the gathering of these Monks took place by Constantine's order, command and advice.

Example: trusting the story of the CIA in a case about internal questioning.

Sorry dear. The well is already poisoned. It's not a fallacy.

[WinterHold]

Your mind is the central piece of the CNS so as your nerves, the rest of the body is just a resource: actually an evidence is that you can live without arms, legs, and even a heart (an artificial heart must be present though) but you cant live without a brain.

It's a matter of dependancy: the highest value is for the brain, not the heart or organs.

Actually, I think the higher value is life.  All of my parts work together toward that goal.

This life's meaning is only realised if you were a creation with a CNS allowing you to be conscious.

[Angrboda]

This is an example of the fallacy of poisoning the well.  Implying that anyone who disagrees with you is inauthentic and unrealistic and therefore must be wrong.

How come?

Literally, I was saying:

1-The monks who wrote the Bible of the Council of Nicaea cannot be trusted or taken as an authentic writers because, the Well is literally poisoned: so anything produced by them is also poisoned.

Example: trusting the testimony and tale of a Mafia boss and his gang in an event they witnessed from afar.

2-The political motive was enforced since the gathering of these Monks took place by Constantine's order, command and advice.

Example: trusting the story of the CIA in a case about internal questioning.

Sorry dear. The well is already poisoned. It's not a fallacy.

It's a fallacy because a person being inauthentic and unrealistic has no logical connection to them being correct or not. That you don't understand this is simply another side of your ignorance. You have to demonstrate that any inauthenticity or unrealism influenced their claims, not simply assume it in order to undermine their claims. Essentially, assuming it turns your argument into a form of argument from bare assertion, aka an ipse dixit argument, i.e. asserting that "their claims are corrupted by their biases" without any actual evidence or support for your belief. But I don't expect you to grasp these facts any more successfully than you grasped that plasma is physical.

(As an aside, Constantine's influence on, and the extent of the changes which occurred as a result of Nicea are frequently exaggerated by ignorant morons like you.)

[WinterHold]

How come?

Literally, I was saying:

1-The monks who wrote the Bible of the Council of Nicaea cannot be trusted or taken as an authentic writers because, the Well is literally poisoned: so anything produced by them is also poisoned.

Example: trusting the testimony and tale of a Mafia boss and his gang in an event they witnessed from afar.

2-The political motive was enforced since the gathering of these Monks took place by Constantine's order, command and advice.

Example: trusting the story of the CIA in a case about internal questioning.

Sorry dear. The well is already poisoned. It's not a fallacy.

It's a fallacy because a person being inauthentic and unrealistic has no logical connection to them being correct or not.  That you don't understand this is simply another side of your ignorance.  You have to demonstrate that any inauthenticity or unrealism influenced their claims, not simply assume it in order to undermine their claims.  Essentially, assuming it turns your argument into a form of argument from bare assertion, aka an ipse dixit argument, i.e. asserting that "their claims are corrupted by their biases" without any actual evidence or support for your belief.   But I don't expect you to grasp these facts any more successfully than you grasped that plasma is physical.  

(As an aside, Constantine's influence on, and the extent of the changes which occurred as a result of Nicea are frequently exaggerated by ignorant morons like you.)

I judge their claims as being "fabrications" and "nonsense" because I know exactly that these men were gathered in the council to serve the agenda of Rome; and that any of them attempting to defy the will of the Emperor Constantine would end up crossed on the Roman cross.

We have detailed documented chronicles of how Rome was governed in the period of Constantine.

As for your side; it is demolished by the definition of the council itself:

The First Council of Nicaea (/naɪˈsiːə/; Ancient Greek: Νίκαια [ˈnikεa]) was a council of Christian bishops convened in the Bithynian city of Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325.

This ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all Christendom. Hosius of Corduba may have presided   

...

1. While Arius claimed that Jesus Christ was created, the Council concluded, since He was begotten, that He was not made.
   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Coun...aea#Agenda

[Paleophyte]

Any realistic and authentic human would testify that the "biblical narrative/stories/tales" are the writings of the Roman monks who worked for Emperor Constantine during the meeting in First Council of Nicaea.

No. The First Council of Nicaea was about doctrine, largely the Arians and the relationship between Papa God and God the Whelp. And they were Bishops. Try to get your history straight. What you're yammering about is the Synod of Hippo, held nearly 60 years later and long after Emperor Constantine was dead.

Not a single word was taken from Jesus's -peace be upon him- mouth

How would you know?

Not saying that I disagree with you, just that you're standing on some pretty shaky ground given what we know about the origins of Islam and the Quran.

[Deesse23]

I just saw a haunting image that kept me shocked, scared,  and feeling pain allover my body.
It wasn't a physical pain, but rather... I can't explain it.

I got another picture that i can not get out of my head, and its magnitudes "worse" than a nervous system.

Its a little child missing a hand. The hand being chopped off for stealing a candy bar, because ignorant moronic barbarians like Winter think thats a reasonable thing to do.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It's a fallacy because a person being inauthentic and unrealistic has no logical connection to them being correct or not.  That you don't understand this is simply another side of your ignorance.  You have to demonstrate that any inauthenticity or unrealism influenced their claims, not simply assume it in order to undermine their claims.  Essentially, assuming it turns your argument into a form of argument from bare assertion, aka an ipse dixit argument, i.e. asserting that "their claims are corrupted by their biases" without any actual evidence or support for your belief.   But I don't expect you to grasp these facts any more successfully than you grasped that plasma is physical.  

(As an aside, Constantine's influence on, and the extent of the changes which occurred as a result of Nicea are frequently exaggerated by ignorant morons like you.)

I judge their claims as being "fabrications" and "nonsense" because I know exactly that these men were gathered in the council to serve the agenda of Rome; and that any of them attempting to defy the will of the Emperor Constantine would end up crossed on the Roman cross.

We have detailed documented chronicles of how Rome was governed in the period of Constantine.

As for your side; it is demolished by the definition of the council itself:

The First Council of Nicaea (/naɪˈsiːə/; Ancient Greek: Νίκαια [ˈnikεa]) was a council of Christian bishops convened in the Bithynian city of Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325.

This ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all Christendom. Hosius of Corduba may have presided   

...

1. While Arius claimed that Jesus Christ was created, the Council concluded, since He was begotten, that He was not made.
   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Coun...aea#Agenda

It's important to remember that a pronouncement by a biased person serving an agenda can still be true. If - for the purpose of argument - we take it as read that Jesus of Nazareth with an historic personage, the Council was perfectly correct in saying that he was 'begotten'.

Boru

[Objectivist]

Actually, I think the higher value is life.  All of my parts work together toward that goal.

This life's meaning is only realised if you were a creation with a CNS allowing you to be conscious.

I wasn't created, I came about by natural causation, just like everything else except existence as such.  That is eternal.  

Meaning is something that applies only to concepts and symbols.  I'm guessing you mean by 'meaning' either purpose or value.  If it is purpose then I am the purpose giver.  If you mean value then I am responsible for that too.  Life is the ultimate value but like all values, it has to be earned.

[Belacqua]

Life is the ultimate value but like all values, it has to be earned.

Interesting. I don't see how this would work in practice. 

Like, a newborn baby has life, but has it somehow earned its life? Or is there some kind of grace period during which a child has to behave or perform so that it earns the right to continue? (And who would judge this? And what would happen if it failed?)

Likewise, all the bugs and plants in the world certainly have life, but how can I say that "this bug has earned its life"?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Life is the ultimate value but like all values, it has to be earned.

Interesting. I don't see how this would work in practice. 

Like, a newborn baby has life, but has it somehow earned its life? Or is there some kind of grace period during which a child has to behave or perform so that it earns the right to continue? (And who would judge this? And what would happen if it failed?)

Likewise, all the bugs and plants in the world certainly have life, but how can I say that "this bug has earned its life"?

Agreed. If all value has to be ‘earned’ (whatever that means), then intrinsic value doesn’t exist.

Boru