I wear glasses. But my sight is reasonable without the glasses, and pretty good with them. I never saw any ship I was riding disappear while we were sailing over the horizon. In fact, all we did (outside of docking time, that is) was sail over the horizon. Never disappeared once, unless you call closing your eyes making things disappear. Or what FE people do with their minds.  |
|
|
|
It's amazing how you jokers can't rebut the scientific proof that God exists, so you bring religion into it. But I really shouldn't be so amazed, should I! After all, when people don't have science, the only thing left is religion.  They were debunked many times. Your scientific proof simply shows that we are indeed living in a virtual simulation, obviously, that's why everything seems programmed, because it is. However it also has flaws, flaws that a God would not commit but a programmer would, the one or ones who programmed us obviously is not a God and made mistakes. Thank you badecker for showing us that we live inside a simulation. Well, if you think that has been debunked, pick one little point. Show it here. Show the debunking of it. Then I will debunk your debunking. Debunk my theory then, it fits all your criteria and all your links. Anyone can have one or many theories. There is no debunking of the fact that any theory you have is a theory. You wrote this on evolution is a hoax: ''Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God.'' So thanks for debunking your own theory, I guess. I don't think there is a need for me to do anything else when you just destroyed your own argument Which theory is that? The one that states that nobody has to recognize God when he looks at simple cause and effect? Are you telling me that you now understand how God exists, understanding such through simple cause and effect? Please explain how that works. You posted many times 4 links which supposedly are the proof of God, 3 of them are only about cause and effect and the other one also includes cause and effect. Then you say cause and effect doesn't prove God. If it doesn't why do you keep mentioning it? The other ''proof'' is machine-like or the watchmaker argument, same thing really which is a very stupid argument anyways: For those who are unfamiliar with the watchmaker analogy, it is a teleological argument for the existence of a Creator (in this case, God). A teleological argument is otherwise known as an “argument from design,” and asserts that there is an order to nature that is best explained by the presence of some kind of intelligent designer. The most current incarnation of this argument is, of course, Intelligent Design. Anyway, the watchmaker argument, as formulated by the British Christian apologist William Paley in his book Natural Theology, goes like this: “In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.” The point that Paley was trying to make is that a watch implies a watchmaker, and that the world is like a watch, in that the world implies a worldmaker. Obviously, there are many flaws to this analogy (the world isn’t even remotely comparable to a watch, for example), and in fact, Scottish philosopher David Hume pretty much demolished the teleological argument before Paley was even born in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Read it if you are looking for a wild time on a Saturday night. In recent years the watchmaker analogy has evolved (ha ha) to include the notion of “irreducible complexity,” a term coined by the prominent Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe. So now instead of having the mere presence of a watch (Behe is particularly fond of using a mousetrap as an example) imply a watchmaker, we are to conclude that the watch is far too complicated to have been created by natural processes, and that therefore the watch must have been designed by an intelligent agent. Thus life, like the watch, is too complicated to have arisen by natural causes. But let’s think about this for a moment. If you look at a watch lying on the ground and think to yourself, “Oh, this must be designed,” what are you comparing the watch to in order to make that judgment? Would you compare it to the ground, the trees, the grass, the animals, or the sky perhaps? If the watch looks designed compared to its surroundings, the only logical conclusion we could draw is that its surroundings are not designed. If we were unable to differentiate the watch from its natural surroundings, then we would deem it to be a natural object no different from a rock or a tree. If we say that life is designed, again, with what are we making the comparison? All that is non-life? OK, but then we would still have to say that all non-life is not designed. But suppose we say that the entire universe is designed. Well, we don’t have another universe to compare ours to, and as Hume points out, that’s exactly the problem. We only have experience with one universe, and unless we have the opportunity to examine other universes (if they exist, of course), we cannot say with any degree of certainty that our universe is designed, nor do we have any reason to believe it is in the first place. So without even having to rely on complex and dense scientific arguments to refute the watchmaker analogy, we can easily see that the argument serves to refute itself. By the way, reading this post from the start I found a really interesting post of yours badecker:
I agree with you. At present, we don't have a method that can prove the existence of God to anyone else. Least not that I am aware of. For whatever reason it seems you believe one way and I believe the opposite. You are not the one who has attempted the character assassination. Yours is more of a friendly reprimand; please pardon if I seemed to say more than that in a former post.  Thank you for the sort-of plus vote in red above. Most of your talk, above, is in a religious or mystical direction. The science has not been rebutted. Common observation of nature has not been refuted. Episode 9, 'A short story of an apologist who lied about his intentions and who was also stupid'. There you have it, ladies and gentlemen, the stupidity of the religious idiot who believes we are somehow blind or as dumb as him not to see the hypocrisy of his 'proofs'. First off, he makes ridiculous claims that would even embarrass most creationists, claims that are not even backed up or believed by the religious people on this forum, they even think it is stupid and makes no sense. While anyone tries to start an argumentative conversation with him, he always labels things as 'religious' (although we all know that by definition he is religious) and considers it too low for his scientific knowledge (which tends to 0, he barely knows the definitions and proper usages of the laws he is talking about). Whatever anyone would say, he asks for 'scientific rebuttal' of his pseudo scientific proof. Here comes the hypocrisy, as you can see it clearly in the above quote (note that this happens absolutely each and every time): once someone completely debunks his pseudo scientific proof, he immediately ignores everything in the conversation and calls it 'religious', as you can see above, claiming his work has not been rebutted. He never uses counter argumentation, he just calls it religious and puts a smart ass smile in the end, as if he owned it. So the very own idiotic apologist that claims rebuttal for his pseudo science while promising a rebuttal of the rebuttal, never keeps his promise and always evades logical, rational, reasonable, scientific arguments because he can;t really face that, he is not prepared, he does not even own those ideas in the links, those are simple, fundamental creationist ideas copied from Bob Dutko cds. On the same cds you find guides on how to evade logical arguments, how to 'debate' with people that are intelligent in a hypocrite way in which you can take the public on your side with irrational arguments that seem 'well packaged'. Now we have proof that Badecker is even more and worse than an incredibly stupid man: he is a major hypocrite, he lies in his posts regarding his answers, he can not be trusted, he believes he is much smarter than almost anyone who does not agree with him (and I know exactly which church teaches those morals), he does not like religion but he is religious, and I am pretty sure we'll find out more disturbing things about our little retarded and hypocrite apologist, Badecker. Stay tuned for episode 10 boys, I'm not letting this dumb preacher go. HWW is not blind or dumb (well, maybe a little). Rather, he is a troll with an agenda. I wonder if he will change on time to be saved. |
|
|
|
People normally starts with these kinds of recreational drugs and later they start to do. The hard drugs, taking cocaine, crystal meth and other hard drugs. I recommend not taking any drugs at all. They lead to destruction eventually.
Very wise^^^. And the best thing to do is to not take medical drugs. They are poison. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg19297128#msg19297128. |
|
|
|
|
23144
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: NSA, CIA, IRS, DHS, ATF, FBI, GCHQ, Federal Reserve, ISIS are Terrorists
|
on: May 31, 2017, 07:06:28 PM
|
Secret world economic leaders tricking people into a one-world currency = Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Religion is poison. They are reasoned by books that have no evidence or witness. and i don't know if there are any cure
That is your point of view but you cannot also blame the bond that a certain religion can provide to its people . true religion In my opinion we can consider our soul as healthy but of course it does not apply to everyone True religion cannot be. Any religion based on lies. How a lie can promote good? A lie is always aimed at achieving the goal. Many religious leaders have a good education and may not be aware of the fact that there is no God. They do, however, cheating people of their profession. Religion is a poison. Medicine is poison. The pills your doctor prescribes for you to take are poison. Literally. Go talk to your pharmacist when you get your pills at the drug store. He'll tell you that most of the time your pills contain a bunch of filler, and that there is a kernel of poison in them that does the work. You take the poison, but you get better. Similar with religion. You sit around in church or at the bar (depending on your religion), and you get a bunch of filler, and a kernel of poison. Then you get healthier. I mean, go ask your doctor what chemicals are in chemotherapy. They are poison. Religion tells you that you have to die to go to Heaven. And the stuff you imbibe at the bar helps you to die, but you can get awful happy for a while before you do. |
|
|
|
What religion? I reject all religious claims. I have no religion. I don't need one.
That's an interesting religion you have there. |
|
|
|
Do you believe in god? If you do, why do you believe? (give a few reasons)
I believe in God, but I do not accept any of the religions. God is one and he directs man wherever he needs, and religion interferes with normal living. Religion is not created by God, but by the government in order to manage people. That is why many people deny God. They do not understand the differences between God and religion. I believe in God and I am sure that he helps me to live. Let me get this straight. So you know your religion was invented by people and is essentially bunch of horse shit but you want to believe in it anyway. I think it makes you more retarded than an average Baptist church goer. They are ignorant, you are not. God concept was MADE UP by people. Why don't you believe in Superman or Santa Claus? There are many other interesting novels with more colorful characters. Do you even know what that imaginary God of yours is? Some ghost somewhere, who knows where, that listens to 6 billions praying to him? Do I need to go on? Actually, it is your religion that doesn't make any sense. What religion? I reject all religious claims. I have no religion. I don't need one. You actually don't need religion to believe in God. Life after death is what religion "promise" to people. How about you? Do you believe life after death? By the definition of "religion," everyone has it whether or not he needs it to believe in God, etc. |
|
|
|
The answer from the theft sympathisers is always "look at all the wonderful things you get from those tax dollars".
They will always spin the conversation away from the fact that the money was taken without consent.
I will flatly say, I want free education for all. I want everyone to have food. I want everyone to have free clothing and housing. That would be wonderful. But that's not what we were talking about was it? We were talking about our current ancient system of getting funds which involves one party forcefully taking from another party without their consent. Until that is fixed then there is no reason to talk about the free ponies and rainbows.
That's all nice, but do you not want schools and roads? Most people agree the system is administered poorly, and that a person has no choice but to pay taxes according to their geographic location, but what are you talking about with ponies and rainbows? You sound like you're running for office, a lot of empty rhetoric with no sense. Most people, the vast majority, acquiesce because the government uses terror tactics to enforce compliance. But terror tactics or not, some services are necessary in crowded places. Home schooling and 100% toll roads. Without tax, people could afford to let the wife/husband stay home and school the kids Rights of way have been built into law for thousands of years, one way or another. Get your stupid highway off the rights of way so that people don't have to use them to get from point A to point B. Let people buy what they want. Don't force them to pay for something they don't want. 1) Toll roads won't get built. 2) Bad as "fiat" might be, if it didn't exist you wouldn't have a computer. Fiat is from the same gangsters who bring you wars. So, some good, some bad, "baby with bathwater" situation. 3) If you enjoy pesticide laced apples, and you visit a natural orchard and eat some apples mixed with worms, what is the lesson? Don't eat apples? No. Pesticide apples are good? No. You have to have some discrimination and separate the useful from the harmful. 1. Better toll roads will get built. 2. Gold and silver by weight as money would make computers far better than what exists. 3. Grow your own apples. Unite with others to put down harm done by industry and industrial waste... volutrily, and get the job done. |
|
|
|
Look two posts up. The maker of a watch would have to be something that could think and operate with reason. The watch is not like nature. The fact that a watchmaker isn't around, doesn't mean that he does not exist and that he isn't made up of natural substances. Extend you idea to the point of the watchmaker existing as part of nature, and existing in a far more complex way than the watch. |
|
|
|
It's amazing how you jokers can't rebut the scientific proof that God exists, so you bring religion into it. But I really shouldn't be so amazed, should I! After all, when people don't have science, the only thing left is religion. They were debunked many times. Your scientific proof simply shows that we are indeed living in a virtual simulation, obviously, that's why everything seems programmed, because it is. However it also has flaws, flaws that a God would not commit but a programmer would, the one or ones who programmed us obviously is not a God and made mistakes. Thank you badecker for showing us that we live inside a simulation. Well, if you think that has been debunked, pick one little point. Show it here. Show the debunking of it. Then I will debunk your debunking. Debunk my theory then, it fits all your criteria and all your links. Anyone can have one or many theories. There is no debunking of the fact that any theory you have is a theory. You wrote this on evolution is a hoax: ''Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God.'' So thanks for debunking your own theory, I guess. I don't think there is a need for me to do anything else when you just destroyed your own argument Which theory is that? The one that states that nobody has to recognize God when he looks at simple cause and effect? Are you telling me that you now understand how God exists, understanding such through simple cause and effect? Please explain how that works. You posted many times 4 links which supposedly are the proof of God, 3 of them are only about cause and effect and the other one also includes cause and effect. Then you say cause and effect doesn't prove God. If it doesn't why do you keep mentioning it? The other ''proof'' is machine-like or the watchmaker argument, same thing really which is a very stupid argument anyways: For those who are unfamiliar with the watchmaker analogy, it is a teleological argument for the existence of a Creator (in this case, God). A teleological argument is otherwise known as an “argument from design,” and asserts that there is an order to nature that is best explained by the presence of some kind of intelligent designer. The most current incarnation of this argument is, of course, Intelligent Design. Anyway, the watchmaker argument, as formulated by the British Christian apologist William Paley in his book Natural Theology, goes like this: “In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.” The point that Paley was trying to make is that a watch implies a watchmaker, and that the world is like a watch, in that the world implies a worldmaker. Obviously, there are many flaws to this analogy (the world isn’t even remotely comparable to a watch, for example), and in fact, Scottish philosopher David Hume pretty much demolished the teleological argument before Paley was even born in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Read it if you are looking for a wild time on a Saturday night. In recent years the watchmaker analogy has evolved (ha ha) to include the notion of “irreducible complexity,” a term coined by the prominent Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe. So now instead of having the mere presence of a watch (Behe is particularly fond of using a mousetrap as an example) imply a watchmaker, we are to conclude that the watch is far too complicated to have been created by natural processes, and that therefore the watch must have been designed by an intelligent agent. Thus life, like the watch, is too complicated to have arisen by natural causes. But let’s think about this for a moment. If you look at a watch lying on the ground and think to yourself, “Oh, this must be designed,” what are you comparing the watch to in order to make that judgment? Would you compare it to the ground, the trees, the grass, the animals, or the sky perhaps? If the watch looks designed compared to its surroundings, the only logical conclusion we could draw is that its surroundings are not designed. If we were unable to differentiate the watch from its natural surroundings, then we would deem it to be a natural object no different from a rock or a tree. If we say that life is designed, again, with what are we making the comparison? All that is non-life? OK, but then we would still have to say that all non-life is not designed. But suppose we say that the entire universe is designed. Well, we don’t have another universe to compare ours to, and as Hume points out, that’s exactly the problem. We only have experience with one universe, and unless we have the opportunity to examine other universes (if they exist, of course), we cannot say with any degree of certainty that our universe is designed, nor do we have any reason to believe it is in the first place. So without even having to rely on complex and dense scientific arguments to refute the watchmaker analogy, we can easily see that the argument serves to refute itself. By the way, reading this post from the start I found a really interesting post of yours badecker:
I agree with you. At present, we don't have a method that can prove the existence of God to anyone else. Least not that I am aware of. For whatever reason it seems you believe one way and I believe the opposite. You are not the one who has attempted the character assassination. Yours is more of a friendly reprimand; please pardon if I seemed to say more than that in a former post. Thank you for the sort-of plus vote in red above. Most of your talk, above, is in a religious or mystical direction. The science has not been rebutted. Common observation of nature has not been refuted. |
|
|
|
Did you ever notice how FE people like to be dazzled by the method used to express what they call science? It's an emotional thing, not a scientific thing. Don't be taken in by the emotional dazzle. |
|
|
|
Government people come to the forums just to see what people think, so they can figure out how to screw the public better. Keep the stupid people, for the Government people. Thy help Government screw us all, better. |
|
|
|
The answer from the theft sympathisers is always "look at all the wonderful things you get from those tax dollars".
They will always spin the conversation away from the fact that the money was taken without consent.
I will flatly say, I want free education for all. I want everyone to have food. I want everyone to have free clothing and housing. That would be wonderful. But that's not what we were talking about was it? We were talking about our current ancient system of getting funds which involves one party forcefully taking from another party without their consent. Until that is fixed then there is no reason to talk about the free ponies and rainbows.
That's all nice, but do you not want schools and roads? Most people agree the system is administered poorly, and that a person has no choice but to pay taxes according to their geographic location, but what are you talking about with ponies and rainbows? You sound like you're running for office, a lot of empty rhetoric with no sense. Most people, the vast majority, acquiesce because the government uses terror tactics to enforce compliance. But terror tactics or not, some services are necessary in crowded places. Home schooling and 100% toll roads. Without tax, people could afford to let the wife/husband stay home and school the kids Rights of way have been built into law for thousands of years, one way or another. Get your stupid highway off the rights of way so that people don't have to use them to get from point A to point B. Let people buy what they want. Don't force them to pay for something they don't want. |
|
|
|
In my opinion, they should do tests before giving someone weapon license. Because there is a case like Eliot Rodger's one, I mean how can you let a mentally disturbed guy own a gun?
They went a step beyond that in Arizona and some other States. In AZ you don't even have to have a license for concealed carry. |
|
|
|
Do you believe in god? If you do, why do you believe? (give a few reasons)
I believe in God, but I do not accept any of the religions. God is one and he directs man wherever he needs, and religion interferes with normal living. Religion is not created by God, but by the government in order to manage people. That is why many people deny God. They do not understand the differences between God and religion. I believe in God and I am sure that he helps me to live. Let me get this straight. So you know your religion was invented by people and is essentially bunch of horse shit but you want to believe in it anyway. I think it makes you more retarded than an average Baptist church goer. They are ignorant, you are not. God concept was MADE UP by people. Why don't you believe in Superman or Santa Claus? There are many other interesting novels with more colorful characters. Do you even know what that imaginary God of yours is? Some ghost somewhere, who knows where, that listens to 6 billions praying to him? Do I need to go on? Actually, it is your religion that doesn't make any sense. |
|
|
|
Do you believe in god? If you do, why do you believe? (give a few reasons)
I believe in God, but I do not accept any of the religions. God is one and he directs man wherever he needs, and religion interferes with normal living. Religion is not created by God, but by the government in order to manage people. That is why many people deny God. They do not understand the differences between God and religion. I believe in God and I am sure that he helps me to live. Let me get this straight. So you know your religion was invented by people and is essentially bunch of horse shit but you want to believe in it anyway. I think it makes you more retarded than an average Baptist church goer. They are ignorant, you are not. God concept was MADE UP by people. Why don't you believe in Superman or Santa Claus? There are many other interesting novels with more colorful characters. Do you even know what that imaginary God of yours is? Some ghost somewhere, who knows where, that listens to 6 billions praying to him? Do I need to go on? And what is to you, that there are people, who inherently understand, they arent mere animals living ultimately meaningless and finite life like you do? Is it that offensive, that indeed majority of humankind either via organized religion or on their own want to ascend to higher existence and find peace within themselves? You on your own accepted the role of pariah consumed by hatred of those not of poor soul like you. May God forgive you for your blind hate of fellow human beings. EDIT.: Your Superman did not create Universe, laws of physics or human soul, did he? Less talking and more thinking. Thank you. Of course living your life believing in nonsense is not offensive to me. It is your life. What is offensive when you say your ideas make any sense. Religious ideas offend my intelligence. That is what is offensive. When you say with straight face that your imaginary friend created this universe and will punish me for not believing in him. Or that I should die because I am non-believer, that is what is offensive. Ask yourself this question: "I am assuming that it makes you happy seeing your family not harmed in any way. Now imagine, your son will turn gay, when you and your son die, he goes to hell, you go to heaven. Would you be happy in heaven knowing that your son is in extreme pain for eternity? Would that be heaven to you?" The whole concept is ridiculous. That is what is offensive. The reasons why some go to Heaven and some go to Hel don't work exactly like you say. Just because you attempt to believe that God doesn't exist, or that He isn't your friend Who is constantly trying to save you, doesn't mean that He isn't there for you. |
|
|
|
You said that scientific laws can't be refuted and scientific theories are not laws therefore are bad and can be changed. I showed you that neither scientific laws or scientific theories are absolute. Science and scientists agree that nothing can really be proved 100% but we can definitely get close to it and as long as it works it's accepted. That's the most we can do. Evolution as I said previously has been used in many applications, maybe our understanding of evolution is not 100% accurate but it definitely works and can be applied to different areas, just like gravity, we can calculate gravity and apply it on different areas, maybe our understanding of it its not 100% accurate either but it works. Creationism does NOT, not a single application for it.
In the forum, and in life, we assume some basic standards. If we are going to be talking from the standpoint that nothing is absolute, our whole base of the way we talk about things has to change. If we are going to change to that kind of a base, it is something that we have to agree on in order to converse clearly. With regard to evolution, cause and effect show that it is a impossible, the way that science suggests it. There are many other things that show that it is impossible, such as probability math. If you want to get to the point of suggesting that facts are impossible, while non-facts are the thing that is real, because science has suggested that nothing is 100% provable, have at it. You will wind up in the funny farm if you do that firmly enough. Depending on the definition of evolution that you are using, you can say anything about evolution that you want, and it might be true... depending on the definition. But that holds for anything. The standard definition of evolution that includes change that goes from inanimate material to life that we see today, and especially human life, is scientifically impossible. Some of the scientific principles that scientists say apply to evolution, are absolutely true. Not all evolution principles hold true for this (^^^) definition of evolution. If you want to get to the point of suggesting that facts are impossible, while non-facts are the thing that is real, because science has suggested that nothing is 100% provable, have at it. You will wind up in the funny farm if you do that firmly enough.Gravity works. Gravity theory is not known to properly fit or match working gravity, even though aspects of gravity theory might work with real gravity very well. Gravity theory might be the way that gravity works. We just don't know. If you want to get to the point of suggesting that facts are impossible, while non-facts are the thing that is real, because science has suggested that nothing is 100% provable, have at it. You will wind up in the funny farm if you do that firmly enough.Cause and effect, universal entropy, complex universe: are scientific laws and principles that, when combined, not only prove that God exists, but also prove that everything came into existence by Him... by the process of elimination... because that is the only way something like God (or even big bang) can be proven. If you want to get to the point of suggesting that facts are impossible, while non-facts are the thing that is real, because science has suggested that nothing is 100% provable, have at it. You will wind up in the funny farm if you do that firmly enough.Evolution is a hoax. At best, it is a religion among those who want to make fiction be stronger than reality. If you want to get to the point of suggesting that facts are impossible, while non-facts are the thing that is real, because science has suggested that nothing is 100% provable, have at it. You will wind up in the funny farm if you do that firmly enough. |
|
|
|
In addition, paying tax is a responsibility to each of the citizens in a particular country inorder to contribute something to its growth which not just you but everyone will also benefit from it. It is true that those who are handling taxes are the ones who committed theft but not the tax itself. Just think about the roads, the facilities and other that have been made possible through taxes that benefits you and others either directly or indirectly is a proof that in order for a country to survuve and improve itself it needs tax by the help of its people.
That's why it is beneficial to not be a citizen of a country. Simply live on the land. Being domeciled on the land isn't even residing in the country. This is a very interesting idea. And in some cases it is worthwhile to heed that you get rid of the citizenship of some country in order not to pay taxes. But you are in one little error and this is what if a person without citizenship wants to have some business and he will still need to register and unambiguously pay the tax, and a simple person will simply lose some of the conclusions that he can get in the country having citizenship. I am sure that many emigrants who moved to a permanent place of residence, for example, in the United States of America and obtained citizenship, very much feel all the privileges that give them this status a country not only inside the country But also abroad. Ideally, and what most people with a good education hope for, is a country that is minimally intrusive. You are right that Americans have enjoyed some benefits abroad that are denied people in other countries. Likewise, a soldier can say he enjoys the benefit of commiting rapes, or a bank executive can say he enjoys the benefit of having secret information about business that allows extra profit. Always putting one person up and another down, you will find that the one who is up will accept the benefits and ignore the one who is down, or find a means to justify it. Groups, nations, are best built on consensus. Agreement is informal but everybody knows the facts. This degrades into a false consensus built on political laws, clever 'leaders' etc, until finally you have not a group built on consensus, but a gang of people who encourage predation and which draws predatory types to enjoy membership in the gang. But when someone formally states that he is not part of the ocnsensus, what then? Execute him for not being one of the group? What about freedom? |
|
|
|
Waiting for more substantial shit to come, now he is only arguing, nothing special. We need him to claim some new stuff, those are always dumb as fuck. Work on boyz!  Such a short post! Running our of hot air already? Or simply finally coming to believe that God exists? Wish you understood science so that you could KNOW that He exists. Of course, you probably KNOW already. |
|
|
|
It's amazing how you jokers can't rebut the scientific proof that God exists, so you bring religion into it. But I really shouldn't be so amazed, should I! After all, when people don't have science, the only thing left is religion. They were debunked many times. Your scientific proof simply shows that we are indeed living in a virtual simulation, obviously, that's why everything seems programmed, because it is. However it also has flaws, flaws that a God would not commit but a programmer would, the one or ones who programmed us obviously is not a God and made mistakes. Thank you badecker for showing us that we live inside a simulation. Well, if you think that has been debunked, pick one little point. Show it here. Show the debunking of it. Then I will debunk your debunking. Debunk my theory then, it fits all your criteria and all your links. Anyone can have one or many theories. There is no debunking of the fact that any theory you have is a theory. You wrote this on evolution is a hoax: ''Nobody has to recognize God when looking at simple cause and effect. Sure, cause and effect looks like God is behind it, but alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God.'' So thanks for debunking your own theory, I guess. I don't think there is a need for me to do anything else when you just destroyed your own argument Which theory is that? The one that states that nobody has to recognize God when he looks at simple cause and effect? Are you telling me that you now understand how God exists, understanding such through simple cause and effect? Please explain how that works. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
