This is waaaaaay off-topic... can we get back to atheism?
OK, you bring up one "blue man" who grossly misused CS... But atheism is harmful for health for so many more individuals, as we have already discussed ITT. Furthermore: in the below thread we have evidence that those who meditate can improve their health and DNA, so already this is plenty of reason to seek to understand meditation and meditators; therefore, I have pointed you to Alan Watts as introductory material, so now you can add this thread to your reading list as well: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.msg14735612#msg14735612Now, I point you to Alan Watts' book and meditation because those who have meditated extensively are not EVER inclined to tell you that this ego is the sole form of experience for YOUR awareness. I also pointed you to Cayce because he discussed these topics extensively and regardless of what is presented to anyone else, I have presented to you the successful and fulfilled predictions mentioned in my source, you only attempted to address one of them or change the subject to failed predictions, but were mistaken about the danger of ingesting CS when it is prepared properly. No one who has educated themselves is really at risk of becoming blue, so I suggest you likewise educate yourself about meditation before the health effects of that ego get to YOU. The point about Moloch is, he proves that atheism exists by one main method only. You and I and a lot of people can show Moloch the scientific reasons why God exists, and why atheism is religion. So, what can Moloch do except to use the only scientific field which can bypass all the others? If Moloch and knowledgeable atheists were truthful and honest, they would have ceased to exist as atheists long ago. But because they aren't truthful and honest - to say nothing about the fact that they are not forthright - they absolutely MUST go to the one science that might have any kind of a chance of proving that atheism is right, and that God doesn't exist. Which science is this? It is Political Science. Moloch isn't a master of Political Science. At least not the way he is using it regarding atheism and God in this forum. Rather, he is training himself to be a master of it... or he is a master and is just playing with us because he doesn't have anything better to do. How is Moloch using Political Science? Through his continual propaganda. In other words, he talks, talks, talks, without anything to back up what he is saying, while throwing in enough REAL knowledge in a twisted form, so that he looks good. Whatever Moloch's goal, he is simply talking with hot air. He is propagandizing. And he is getting really good at it. He is getting so good that I can't see him not applying the words that I am saying here to us rather than himself. The difference is, you and I have the other sciences to back up what we say, while he does not. But as long as he can convince us, by means of using Political Science, that he is using the other sciences, we wind up batting at the air, because Moloch answers with Political Science, one of sciences that we don't use. I don't really blame him. I kind of feel sorry for him. He is like the proverbial rat with his back to the wall, and all there is left to do is fight, with whatever means and methods are left to him. It's all he and other atheists have. If they want to reach their goal - whatever it is, although it includes a lot of pure propaganda - the only thing they have left is Political Science. And with our posts, we are helping him (and others like him) to learn to use it proficiently and effectively.  |
|
|
|
Why do people use so many Bitcoin wallets? To test their ability to organize things. The testing improves ability. And they are sharper people for it. When do you think the devs will come up with a Core program that will allow you to name your wallet something other than wallet.dat? If they worked it the right way, thieves would have to have your pass-key to even access your wallet, and they would have to do it with your Core on your computer. EDIT: Of course, pray your computer doesn't break down. |
|
|
|
They would borrow huge sums of money from the Federal Reserve Bank, and buy all the bitcoins up. |
|
|
|
All scammers deserve this. Jail, for all stealers. What the hell some guys need stole of good people and dont get a job and earn money like a man?
Jail is the minimum thing.
I agree. All scammers deserve this and worse. What is gold? Some metal that has some industrial uses. Difficult eating. Paper money is worthless, inherently. Bitcoin is nothing but encryption. That's it for Bitcoin. Property of all kinds has some value. Using Bitcoin and gold as money generally doesn't scam anyone. But paper dollars is the biggest Ponzi the world has known. It has literally turned power, property and control over to the bankers. And that for nothing... literally nothing. Because of the banking system - especially the Federal Reserve - people have died, the IRS was made possible, wars rage around the world to keep the Ponzi going by adding nations to the scheme, and you an I are having the proverbial wool pulled over our eyes by bankers and government all the time. Bankers and government people deserve formal execution. |
|
|
|
I wonder if the Chinese navy is patented as well. Or was it simply supplied by Russia? |
|
|
|
Actually I'm quite familiar with analogs, similar things to the thermite processes, although I have not worked with thermite. But it's nothing but a welding compound. The nano-thermite nonnsense, I recall reading a number of college dissertations that were on similar processes in rocket motors. We're not talking here about the chemistry of the processes.
We're talking about crazy talk — your talk of building explosive materials into buildings, and your insinuation that that was and is being done. Please tell us more.
And what is the process of welding composed of? That's right, melting metals like steel in order to liquefy them so they can be bound once cooled. It is also well known to be used in the military to destroy large weapons which are resistant to penetration by classic projectiles. Something like thermite could have very well been used to weaken the internal structures of the WTC buildings. There is evidence of this on video as well as in samples collected from the iron girders, dust, and satellite thermal imagery. Also there is no debate over whether nanothermite is real, it exists. This is not a theory. Also there is evidence using simple laws of physics demonstrating that explosives MUST have been used by the distance that iron girders were propelled from the towers. You are not nearly as informed as you think you are. So you think the planes the towers, they were loaded up with "nano thermite," AND there were explosives? Of course. As soon as the planes made it into the Towers, they loaded themselves up with Tower nano thermite for an instant before they exploded. It was the fuel in the planes that set the nano thermite off, which boiled away the remaining fuel while it was setting other nano thermite in the building off. Just watch the videos of the big chunks of Tower, dissolving and disintegrating as they fall to earth next to the Towers. Nano thermite throughout.
Wow. That sounds like one very complicated set of stuff.
Not so complicated. The nano thermite was mixed right in with the cement when the buildings were built. Remaining big buildings still have it within them, ready for a Silverstein calibre of a person to set them off as well.
There must have been hundreds of ninjas prowling in and around those buildings for months to get all that set up.
They weren't ninjas. Ninjas move so fast that they would attract lots of attention. They moved slowly, so that nobody would suspect anything. They were turtles.  |
|
|
|
Most Muslims can't read well, so they don't know what the Koran says. The ones who read the Koran don't take the time to digest it, but simply believe what the clerics tell them about it. Peaceful Muslims, if they think about it, wish there was a way out of Islamism. |
|
|
|
Belivers don't need any proofs but atheist don't belive in God but trying to find a proof, where is the logic here?  Not needing proof doesn't necessarily have anything to do with wanting proof for some reason. Atheists say they don't believe in God, but they do. |
|
|
|
Note that the jet fuel I talked about was burning jet fuel, but you didn't mention the burning part in your post, above. Basic chemistry doesn't take into account the many effects of burning fuel in buildings like the Twin Towers. Nor does it take into account the many effects of using liquid fuel to put out fires by depriving the fires of oxygen, especially in the Twin Towers. Nor does basic chemistry take into account the billows of black smoke in the Towers area, caused by partially burned fuel being boiled away by the relatively little that burned. There wasn't nearly enough heat from the fuel, in the Towers, to reduce their structural strength at all. The heat came from the explosives that caused the explosions, explosions that many people attested to. The explosions of the prepared explosives is what brought the towers down. However, I would caution everyone working in buildings that are part of the complex there, to consider having sample tests done on the materials making up the buildings. Why? Because you can see in many of the videos of the Towers coming down, great big chunks of masonry in free fall, virtually disintegrating in mid air, with nothing there to make them disintegrate like that. The point is, either there is explosive sulfur thermite built into all these buildings to make it easier to demolish them when the time comes, or there was some "disintegrating ray" sent from space satellites, like the Ronald Reagan Star Wars systems that he had placed around the earth back then. If you work in any of those buildings, you are in potential danger. Your arguments presented here have already been refuted. Yes, with 8th grade chemistry. How do you want to proceed? Each of your rantings one by one? I guess that what I wonder is where on Earth do you come up with this stuff? If it is refuted by science, it's not true a week later. Yet that's what you are doing. Taking arguments that have been refuted, then presenting them as true yet once again. "explosive sulfur thermite built into all these buildings to make it easier to demolish them when the time comes" You have any idea how crazy that statement is? Perhaps if you would happen to expand your chemistry knowledge beyond the 8th grade, you might understand some of these things. |
|
|
|
First, nobody questions everything about God. Nobody can question more than a little about God, because nobody knows enough about Him to ask more than a fraction of the questions that could be asked about God. The important answer about God is that God is love.
First, your shouldn't speak for everyone... See? There you go again, setting yourself up as god.
I question god all the time... that's how I know your god does not exist... if you truly think about what your book claims god says/commands, you will realize that is not god
First you state that you are god by giving inappropriate orders to a fellow human being. Then you try to say that god doesn't exist. You funny guy. God is your God as well. You just might have to find out the hard way.
Perhaps you have to read it first?
What sort of moral lesson is the story about Lot handing his virgin daughters over to be raped by an angry mob? Did he at least try to talk them out of the raping? Or perhaps offer just one daughter instead of both?
If you had read it, you would have realized that Lot didn't hand his daughters over. He might have attempted it. He might have offered it. But he didn't do it. And what does that story have to do with anything that we are discussing here? Or do you simply like to confuse issues?
I'd think a better moral lesson would be to stand your ground and not let the angry mob rape anyone, including your daughters... just saying
If god was truly on Lot's side, he could have manhandled the angry mob, right?
Or, better... God could have given Lot the right words to say, to calm the angry mob... so they didn't rape anyone... wouldn't that have made a better story and moral lesson for children?
God DID handle the situation for Lot. The two angels reached out their hands and pulled Lot inside the house before he could hand his daughters over to the wicked men of the city. Then they caused the wicked men to be blind so that they couldn't find the door of the house and harm Lot and his family. Are you simply too dense to read the Bible? Or are you intentionally lying to the people. Your credibility is going way down. |
|
|
|
[So Hillary, Saunders and Obama are put on the no guns list?
Hillary and Obama don't care. They will receive taxpayer funded armed Secret Service protection for the rest of their lives. Or in a more perfect world, by prison guards for the rest of their lives. In adjoining cells next to every living POTUS and their minions, in a desert labor camp with no possibility of ever leaving it alive. This is the thing that nobody seems to understand. The United States is a corporation, just like any other corporation. Like every corporation, it has control over the people who are part of the corporation, BY THEIR AGREEMENT.Words are important, especially in a contract. There is no place that the people who set up the U.S. government way back when, ever gave themselves over to it. But if you have signed paperwork stating that you have done this, it is your own doing. According to standard contract law that has been around long before the U.S. government, you can get out of the agreement, because there was no meeting of the minds. But if they changed the terms without telling you, they broke the contract. However, if they didn't break the contract by changing the terms, you can still get out by rescinding your signature off whatever docs you agreed to. The government corporation people would like it if they could be dictators. But because of the structure of government, the only way they could come close is to dissolve the government. And there are too many of them that don't want to do this for it to happen. Here is key. Let them rule as they want until they become a real threat or actually harmful to you. Then, take the man or woman to court for repayment. Make the court your court, and hold court at, not in, the standard court building. You may want to take government to court as well. But litigate the human being who did the harm to you. |
|
|
|
image
Interesting game you are playing, Moloch. You claim you are an atheist, which means that you don't believe in the existence of God (or something like that). Then, by pictures and words like the above, you attempt to set yourself up in a position like God. Then you even act like you are God by admitting to believing that God exists, even if God is only you. And you do it in a religious way, proving that even if atheism happened to only be philosophy, you have strong, dedicated religion, personally. Then you call yourself an asshole. It would be interesting to know exactly what your goal is with all this. I think that is not the case. What is not what case? Atheism is religion. However, if all those people who are stating that it is religion are wrong (Google "atheism religion"), they are not wrong by much. Moloch, by being a bit of an atheist zealot, is also a religious zealot, the thing he seems to despise. I am not so sensitive to posts like this and i agree to this posts. But it's ironic that you call them assholes while posting an asshole posts. Just trying to be agreeable as much as I can while at the same time speaking his language. And i too am an atheist but it doesnt mean im gonna question everything about god. It's just i dont care.
First, nobody questions everything about God. Nobody can question more than a little about God, because nobody knows enough about Him to ask more than a fraction of the questions that could be asked about God. The important answer about God is that God is love. Second, you care at least a little, or you wouldn't have posted the way you have. Third, as I said to Moloch here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1424793.msg14773029#msg14773029: How many times do I have to tell you. I checked my pockets, the dresser drawers, the cupboards, behind the couch, even the shed, and I still can't find any god that I own. Since you care enough to reply, the Thing you are saying "your god" about, is the God of the universe, as proven to exist by science and nature. God is sorry you just don't care. He is sorry for you. He made this whole universe including yourself, and He holds everything in place. By your not caring, you are pushing Him out of your life, which is really you pushing yourself out of life. It's sad. I can tell by the language of your post that you are a caring, loving person. You should live. Your choice, however. |
|
|
|
Craig obviously is Satoshi. The famous retort on this forum is "sign a message and prove it," well he did just that - and still the circus continues.
It's obvious that Craig was a mere piece on the chess board.
It's akin to some talented developer from the Ukraine that responds to an ad on UpWork to become the lead developer for a $1Million+ project. Craig created something on the behalf of a powerful group of people, who employed him to bring their ideas to fruition.
It was never the intention of this group of individuals to reveal their identity, hence the Satoshi Nakamoto pseudonym - which is actually an anagram for "So a Man Took A Shit." (Pump and dump anyone?)
Craig being disruptive by nature comes out and reveals that he is the creator of bitcoin (oh no, what else will he reveal? why doesn't he want to take credit and receive praise?)....... then this character assassination plot is launched against him to diminish his credibility. I mean this guy actually created bitcoin... so if anyone could create a rival to this system it would be Craig White, with the support of a plethora of financial backers.
But, no credibility = no support, societal shunning etc - think middle easterners, michael jackson, muammar gaddafi. Assasinate the character first, and then get rid of them entirely
..... So now anytime Craig White is mentioned in the media, the agenda will be to tarnish his credibility and paint him as incompetent, and incapable. The first time the media introduced us to Craig he was being dragged out of his home in handcuffs - psychologically, 90% of those that saw those images now subliminally associate Craig White with criminalism, instead of innovation. We never saw Steve Jobs home being raided.
To me it doesn't matter who created bitcoin. I traded penny stocks for years without caring to know who the CEO of any of those companies were
But I will not engage in this agenda to tarnish another human being
Craig white may have alot of other interesting information to reveal, but the media has now started their tirade to paint this man as a liar. So whatever he reveals next will be laughed off, and dismissed. I wont be surprised if the guy turns up dead due to suicide via two gunshots to the head
We all should think
We call ourselves anarchists and libertarians etc etc, yet here everyone is.... Still being lead and controlled by the hidden hand
^^ This guy! What? Tinfoil hat broken? So, no proof == obvious proof? He used the protocol to verify his identity to a third party, so we should trust that evidence and ignore what we don't see on the chain? Are we once again resigned to relying upon third party validation even though we invented this wonderful system to eliminate that " PROBLEM?" I think this reasoning is exactly why Craig Wright doesn't fit the profile of the Satoshi Nakamoto we've come to understand. WE DON'T NEED, NOR SHOULD WE ACCEPT, THIRD PARTY VALIDATION OF MATTERS CONCERNING THE LEDGER....PERIOD! So, whether he's a middle aged white guy going thru some form of mid-life crisis, or a long haired, pot smoking, midget mind in a basement somewhere really doesn't matter. If he is trying to invalidate the value of the block chain ledger, then he is not our (Bitcoin's) guy; he is our (Bitcoin's) enemy! I agree. In addition, anybody who calls him "Craig White" when we all know his name is Craig Wright, really has some kind of a problem. Or was LCSociety actually dropping a hint that some joker named Craig White is the real Satoshi? |
|
|
|
Students Go Head to Head in Human-Powered Submarine Race The 12th annual International Submarine Races (ISR) took place the last week of June at the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Carderock Division. Students were given two years to build a one- or two-person human-powered submarine, which they would race along a 100 meter course in a model basin at the NSWC. Because the subs aren’t waterproof, the teams compete while wearing full scuba gear.
Contestants must follow a 44-page manual, and subs generally cannot be reused from prior years. Because the race takes place every two years teams have some time to plan their vessels.
It may sound like the plot of a Hanna-Barbera cartoon, but the submarine race is yet another way to get engineering students out of classrooms and into workshops—in this case, to create undersea vessels. The race was organized by the NSWC and the Foundation for Undersea Research and Education (FURE) and sponsors include the Oceanic Engineering Society of the IEEE, and the Marine Technology Society Read more at http://www.wired.com/2013/07/underwater-race/.
|
|
|
|
image
Interesting game you are playing, Moloch. You claim you are an atheist, which means that you don't believe in the existence of God You still can't seem to grasp this simple concept... I'll try to explain for the 8000th time... Being an atheist does not mean I don't believe in the existance of any gods... Wow! You are finally stating that atheism is a self-contradictory idea. Or are you simply redefining the word "atheism?" it means I don't believe you... I don't believe in YOUR god... YOUR god is a lie... it's fiction... How many times do I have to tell you. I checked my pockets, the dresser drawers, the cupboards, behind the couch, even the shed, and I still can't find any god that I own. How can my god be a lie when I don't own one?
This does not mean I do not believe any gods exist or could exist... just that your description of a god is all wrong... it's contradictory and provably inaccurate
Just because I don't attempt to prove the existence of God, doesn't mean that I don't show the things that anyone can research to see that God exists. I even show that the only things that science uses to attempt to disprove science facts, are science theories which are not know to be factual. So, now that you are re-defining "atheism" for yourself, how in the world is anyone not knowing your definition ever going to be able to determine whether or not it is the truth? Just by listening to you say it is? Be reasonable. We need more than your simple suggesting to that effect.
At the same time, I an open-minded enough that there could still be gods... just not the inconsistent god you believe in...
So, you admit that you aren't an atheist in the standard definition of the word.
I'd relate it to Buddhism, but I doubt you understand that either...
How is anyone supposed to understand "it" when you don't clearly express which "it" you are talking about?
I still don't know why you insist on replying to me with such nonsense... you only make yourself look stupid, over and over
I had thought that I was replying to someone who is a bit logical... one who makes sense. Now I see that you are re-defining "atheism," admitting to being an atheist at the same time you are admitting to not being one, jumping between the standard definition of "atheism" and your definition (which you haven't clearly defined for us, yet), and then dumping down into Buddhism (which probably has a different definition that the standard one for you, as well) without explaining why you are talking about Buddhism. You seem to be hinting that you believe in some form of mysticism. Is that it? Or have you been going off the deep end for a long time, now, and are finally almost there. BitNow suggests that you are a demon, and not a human. I, at least, think that you are a human who is possibly troubled by a demon. Come on, buddy. Pray to God for strength. He is ready and willing to help you through this time of trial, if only you will let Him... before it's too late. |
|
|
|
You keep bringing up the idea of basic chemistry. Nobody is going to refute basic chemistry regarding the 9/11 inside job. Why not? Because basic chemistry doesn't apply in the 9/11 inside job. Why not? Because chemistry and else way beyond basic chemistry was used. Wake up sometime. The only reason you said this is you don't know what chemistry is. "Does jet fuel melt steel" is a question of chemistry. Next? I don't really know of anyone who says that jet fuel melts steel. Perhaps some of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists in this forum have said it. I simply don't remember, and I am not going to go looking for them, and I don't even care. The fact is, jet fuel of the past was similar to kerosene. I don't know what JF is made up of today. But if you put some kerosene in a steel can, it doesn't melt the steel can... at least not in quantities that are noticeable. So, why do you even ask that? And your "Next" means what? Next question? You are asking the questions. Go ahead, ask another. I'll help. Is the sky blue? Or does it only look that way? Here's ONE OF MANY TIMES you discuss jet fuel. Your concern. Not mine. And it's chemistry. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1025761.160;imodeThere is lots of fuel in a plane of that size. But there is, also lots of building concrete and metal to be heated up with that fuel. In addition, there is convection time (the time it takes heat to penetrate steel and concrete from the outside). In addition, one need consider the air passages to the fuel. The fuel can't burn without air. When you look at the pictures of the people standing around the crash openings in the buildings (Twin Towers before they came down), it is highly unlikely that that there was enough heat to melt anything - that most of the fuel burned off inefficiently in the air - because the people would not have been able to stand around in the 2,000+ degrees F that it would take to crumble concrete and melt steel, especially when there isn't near enough time for convection to have occurred without roasting the people as well. Note that the jet fuel I talked about was burning jet fuel, but you didn't mention the burning part in your post, above. Basic chemistry doesn't take into account the many effects of burning fuel in buildings like the Twin Towers. Nor does it take into account the many effects of using liquid fuel to put out fires by depriving the fires of oxygen, especially in the Twin Towers. Nor does basic chemistry take into account the billows of black smoke in the Towers area, caused by partially burned fuel being boiled away by the relatively little that burned. There wasn't nearly enough heat from the fuel, in the Towers, to reduce their structural strength at all. The heat came from the explosives that caused the explosions, explosions that many people attested to. The explosions of the prepared explosives is what brought the towers down. However, I would caution everyone working in buildings that are part of the complex there, to consider having sample tests done on the materials making up the buildings. Why? Because you can see in many of the videos of the Towers coming down, great big chunks of masonry in free fall, virtually disintegrating in mid air, with nothing there to make them disintegrate like that. The point is, either there is explosive sulfur thermite built into all these buildings to make it easier to demolish them when the time comes, or there was some "disintegrating ray" sent from space satellites, like the Ronald Reagan Star Wars systems that he had placed around the earth back then. If you work in any of those buildings, you are in potential danger. |
|
|
|
"What am I?" is a wrong question. The right question is "What am I not?".
If we were defined by what we are not, the possibilities would be infinte. It is easier to define what we are. I didn't say "we were defined by what we are not", I just said that trying to define what we are leads nowhere. It's wiser to analyze and find out what we are not. And the possibilities are not infinite, they are just bodily and mental phenomena. Yes I know! That's how a discussion works. I quoted you and then I said something in reply to what you said. Clearly, you didn't say what I said; I said what I said. I didn't say what you said; you said what you said! I am me. I am not you. <-- see what I did there? "What am I?" is the right question. "What am I not?" would take much longer to attempt to answer and you would NEVER be understood. By the way, I am not mean-spirited.  I think a person can be self-centered without being mean-spirited. |
|
|
|
We are the children of stars.
The stars are the nannies of the universe. |
|
|
|
I think that it's really good law about gun control, people should not using any weapon ever. I am for peace in the world, it's so default but i hate war and other stuff that linked with war.
Guns keep the peace because people recognize how dangerous guns can be, and don't usually attempt to harm people who have guns. The question is, How do you enforce gun control without using guns? Enforcing gun control with guns is simply the gun-group making slaves of the people they take the guns away from. Gun-control is a self-contradictory idea that is used by those who want to make slaves of others. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
