I wish to simplify the argument by creating instances in which the religious doctrines are as protected as possible. Introducing further variables allows for the possibility of strawman accusations, of which would further skew the conversation.

Thus the omission thereof allows us to tackle one instrumental part of the belief at a time, reducing the probability of fallacious deflections or altered representations of the topic.

---

Meaningless trivia: yeah, I believe in the concept of God, though my definition and implications thereof are almost certainly different from every other individual on this planet. What are they, you might ask? Not telling!

Assuming that your idea of God is partially comprehensible, how can you be sure of anything in absolution? Let us not confine ourselves to those known unknowns, but expand our horizons to search for the unknown unknowns.

I do wonder, however, why the bible is a beacon or anchor of absolute information.
Considering the fact that there doesn't seem to be any divine intervention against the possibility of alterations thereof, it seems odd to place such a degree of power upon such a piece of literature.

Let us observe this case:

Let the original bible in its purest form be decreed B.
Early civilizations happen upon B and transcribe the contents onto a copy: B₀.
Apart from having been man-made, B₀ is indistinguishable from B.
Through circumstance, the original text B is lost and irrecoverable.
Future transcriptions are fitted to a variety of languages, of which differ in semantics and syntax.
Due to these differences, increased variation in interpretation between B₀ and its successors is inevitable.
Unfortunately, through passage of time, B₀ and successors continually decay and are eventually unreadable.
Despite best efforts, human error occurs, reducing accuracy between transcriptions by up to 1% for each iteration.
As B_i approaches infinity (where i := iteration #) we note that the probability of having B_i representative of the original text B approaches 0 in response.

---

One final remark: if we cannot pragmatically distinguish the empirical relevance of an object X's existence as opposed to its non-existence, then whether it exists or whether it does not exist is of no relevance to our lives.

That is, if you can't consistently measure any result derived from a belief in a proposition P, then its truth value is of no pragmatic significance.
Example: toilet demons exist and will eat your flesh, but only in the year 3000.

I'm not sure why you're telling me that people can't comprehend God and then following up with a description for what God does. Which is it?

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Love is...

for people who don't have thick skins.

---

How could I be angry at a response to a joke of which I have no deep commitment? To act in such a way would be an act of severe insecurity and as you know, no user of Bitcoin has ever retaliated in an insecure fashion. To fathom such a premise would be an impossibility.

In contrast to the views of many others here, I actually don't think this user is related to cryptohunter.
I had a short PM discussion with the user and noted a significant difference in writing style and personality.

It is detrimental to immediate jump to accusatory remarks when it comes to users you disagree with and the constant barrage of "you're an alt of X" is tiring.
These accusations boil down to a simple projection, rooted in the accuser's history, rather than any tangible logical progression.

Therefore, your argumentation for the proof of God's existence is...?

It can't possibly boil down to "complexity = God" right? That seems like a very strong non-sequitur.

---

While you're considering this, allow me to present a thought experiment. Given the typical approach to the Abrahamic god, it is simple to create a utilitarian environment in which the highest number of people are given the best possible afterlife.

How do we do this? Simple! Maximize reproduction and infant mortality! We use one sinner to "carry our sins" and send as many people to heaven as possible. If they don't have time to turn against theism, then they won't have time to reduce their afterlife to that of hell!

That's what a truly moral person would do, were they to honestly believe in their Abrahamic religion.

---

I was, however, under the impression that nullius's post was satirical.

Orifice knotted all dare and tension, mime a steak.

---

See, Vod? Look at what happens when you put your clothes back on.

If the proof of existence is rooted in the object's definition itself, then the object has no foundation except for itself.
If we accept such a tautological concept, then there should be no reason to further disbelieve anything.
If we simply redefine any object X as "X, and also it exists," then we have created the required evidence.

Unfortunately, a system based on such logic would be subject to inconsistencies. Infinitely many inconsistencies, in fact.
For example, consider objects A and B. We have already applied the existence clause to both of these objects, thereby proving their existence.
Now, we consider objects A₀ and B₀.
A₀ := "A, but only if B₀ does not exist"
B₀ := "B, but only if A₀ does not exist"

Which takes precedence? It seems unclear.

I'm not so certain it's a good thing, considering that in lieu of the massively-tagged account, a brand new account trying to scheme newbies into his website would potentially have a higher success rate. On one hand, there is the constant "ban evasion" looming over future accounts, but on the other hand that takes time and is subject to circumstantial evidence (what of the argument, "i'm not related to gp and just advertising their service") if they're not going to sign up with the same network identification.

---

Instinctively, though, I want to say that I'm happy with the outcome.

Yeah... this is probably just a coincidence. A number of results for "acessable" and "adress" come up (4 and 5 pages respectively) of which there can be multiple instances in each of the threads (probability approaches 1 as page count increases).

Though in that specific post you have both of them show up, it's not as if the other users of which produced the spelling mistakes couldn't have done the very same. I have not checked for an overlap in the search results but I don't think linking accounts in this way would be a great precedent. I know that "adress" with one d is a common misspelling. As for the other, it would be difficult to justify for native speakers but I believe this is derived from a "sound-it-out" idea of spelling.

Interestingly enough, lovesybitz stops with the double spacing at around October of 2018: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=952731;sa=showPosts;start=440
And what's stranger is that they don't actually start posting in that form until mid-2018: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=952731;sa=showPosts;start=640

---

Overall, though, you'll find shitposts galore... it's possible that the account traded hands for a few months (posts are using different prose here vs here)

Bear in mind you only cared about the negative once it had a visible impact. I doubt your objectivity.

Back when I wrote the feedback I wasn't part of DT. Then in 2018 I was added to Blazed's list and all hell broke loose it seems. You have claimed many things, of which you have followed up on very few thereof.

Remember the whole lawsuit debacle?
Remember the whole "quitting the forum" (and immediate return)?

The fact that there are now DT wars and manipulation on various fronts of the system should strike "centralized decentralization" into your heart. Perhaps we should return to the "decentralized centralization" of having DT comprised of theymos's picks... but wait, doesn't that mean he's going to only add scammers to DefaultTrust since theymos hates you so much?

Maybe the only system that works is one where Thule is at the head thereof. I'm sure you wouldn't have any complaints about that.

I suppose the signature spammers would have to find that source, though I expect the substitution to result in even more severe spamming and complacency. Certain people treat the situation as an entitlement - a job - when campaigns are nothing more than a bonus for quality posts.

Though, the whole "quality" part can be subject to heavy debate.

On the topic of exploitation, smart hackers (or what have you) would use the fact that they can sign up with multiple accounts and withdraw winnings. I made a similar comment when someone complained about rollover requirements that were imposed on them, under the guise of being AML terms.

And both FJ and NS also have this whole rollover requirement, which is of course equivalent to a 1% fee for actual money launderers and is merely an obnoxious hassle to regular players.

---

Bear in mind that I have in fact withdrawn figures around 1 BTC from FortuneJack without the need for KYC - I'm not specifically targeting the casino. Rather, these terms that masquerade as "preventing abuse" are just sneaky ways of extracting additional value from your users, regular or not.

Just a curious question to you: which God are you referring to? Statistically, I'm assuming the Abrahamic variant but since there are countless paths and sects thereof it's difficult to get a grasp on the exact "God" people refer to.

Life has no meaning without an afterlife

An afterlife has no meaning without life.

If the course of this eternal afterlife is determined by the events within one's life, then surely one's life is more important than the afterlife.

I want to show you what I see every time someone writes one of these posts. Let us perform a direct substitution on the word 'Lauda' and see the concreteness of your response which I still find is plagued with antagonistic remarks.

---

I'm not sure why you don't just do the right thing and put negative feedback on satoshi. You need to open a flag on this scamming piece of dirt.

There's tons of evidence.

Fuck satoshi, they're clearly undeniably crooked and they're a blatant scammer. This is why I call them undeniably crooked and a blatant scammer because they don't deserve politeness.

It doesn't matter what you say about him, because the evidence clearly shows he's a scammer.

There are no weak arguments in relation to satoshi being a scammer.

---

In all of that, what do we see? Well, for one, nothing really backing up your whole schtick of "Lauda = Scammer".

If you have time to insult them over several lines in the post, then you should have time to provide a link to the evidence your whole post is based on.

Cool, so why don't they do it before users deposit?

How can this clause benefit users when the only time it impacts them is when they don't lose their entire balance?

---

If you lot are shitposting, then great. Get your post quota and get the fuck out of here.

If you're actually here to engage with the dishonest practice and try to say that it's justified, then I'd love to understand the point of even allowing people to sign up without KYC.

Wh-what?! Evidence? What are you, one of them?!

Just another reason why you lot need to come over to the correct political party. If only everyone were on my side, then the world would be a better place. If you disagree with me, your opinion doesn't matter.

#PartisanForLife

I believe it is important to distinguish oneself from a typical rabblerouser in the Reputation section if you truly do wish to persuade others.

One vital step is the immediate disengagement from all ad hominem remarks. Countless times have I explained to various users: as opposed to strengthening your argument by way of character assassination, one may find that the true character assassination is of their own argument.

Regardless of the validity of your statements, by planting the seed of contempt you are creating a structure of thoughts that is easier to attack. By using a weak argument, you too weaken your character. It calls to question one's character if they have to resort to underhanded tactics in order to "win" an argument.

---

Let us impart an example to further elaborate this duality.

A supposedly-cunning serial killer has entered your house, killed your wife, and let you witness the entire event, allowing for your infuriation to blossom. Fortunately, their fingerprints are on the knife they foolishly left behind.

As opposed to solely providing the evidence, you begin to make remarks that appear to be unfounded: "He thinks he's smart but he's a total idiot, this ugly fuckface is clearly a killer."

As the serial killer walks in, you immediately start lashing out at him, spewing threats and instilling the halo effect upon his other characteristics.

Do these remarks help, or is it a mere mental masturbation of ego stroking?