such a dumb topic. yeah, we should stop talking about the bad guys, because ignorance is bliss? the best deterrent for the bad guys is public knowledge.
No, because that is exactly what the bad guys want you to do, perpetuate their false illusion of fear onto you and so forth. The best aide to put out a fire is water. Not to scream FIRE! If you truly care about deterring the power through knowledge, you'd work to help people learn about the infinite being of love. If we all woke up one day and gave absolutely no mind to the imaginary system of society, government and money, we would be truly free. The world would function a lot better without parasitic entities leaching off the energy of humans. Badecker, to say nobody has perfect love is a fallacy. Love is light, positivity, truth, all. We all hold love, as love is the universe, which we are. The universe is a perfect balance of energies by it's nature, and that's what nature is, an equilibrium. Wisdom brings peace. Fear does not. And the biggest bad guy is the devil, Satan, who doesn't even want you to know that he exists, so that it is easier for him to pull the strings behind the scenes.  dank, what are you so afraid of that you want us to stop talking war and politics? Me thinks you are an arm of the devil trying to pull the wool over our eyes. |
|
|
|
i think we are not hate that religion , but we hate bad people / organization who hide behind that religion to make a mess in this world
I hate religion. No, let me rephrase that. I hate organized religion. A belief system held to oneself or imediate family that harms no other, I got no real problem with. Even if it's anti reality or just plain silly, it harms me not. Or as Thomas Jefferson said it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my legs. But when two nasty elements come together, as they do in relgious organization(s), it gets ugly. Those elements being the lust for power and the claim of ultimate authority. Most religions, I daresay all religious organizations, have a greater or lesser degree of these elements. I actually tend to single out Christianity as it has had the greatest personal detriment to me. Islam is no different in that. The most rabid fundamentalist is harmless without backers, followers, and sycophants. Religion breeds 'em like rabbits. Remember, the origin of Christianity was just one guy, who gathered around Himself a dozen disciples. He didn't even go after people. His start was simply trying to help out at a wedding when He turned water into wine. It was the people seeking Him out, after than, that started the religion. It was a bunch of people - a good segment of the nation of ancient Israel - who sought Him out to make Him their King and religious leader. Where do yo draw the line? |
|
|
|
One of the best ways to assure destruction of free trade in the world, is to make Bitcoin the leading form of money in the world. If the electrical grid and the Internet crashed today, fiat would survive. Fiat would survive because people have cash in hand. If the grid and Internet never returned, people could (not easily) go back to record keeping by hand. Bitcoin, however, would be completely gone. If the fiats of the world were ever overcome by Bitcoin to such an extent that Bitcoin threatened the economy of the fiat system, the Power Elite of the world would see to it that both the power grid and the Internet collapsed. Why? Because they are survivalists. And more than any guy with his family, and his bunkers, and his cached food supply, etc., the global Power Elite are prepared for a potential world economy flop in every way that they can think of. And that includes a whole bunch of ways that might never occur to little people, simply because little people are not of the mindset of controlling nations like the Power Elite are. Not only are they prepared, but they are the ones who are stockpiling the militaries of the world with all the supplies that they need to survive and take control. Consider the United States. Consider all the armament that the Government has been giving away to law enforcement, and even to lowly coroners. The Power Elite are more prepared than anyone else, and if their fiats flopped, and Bitcoin takes over, they would crash the world, simply to remain in control. Let Bitcoin grow. But don't let it become BIG... at least not in its current state. If Bitcoin could be held in hand, and could be traded among the people without electronics - computer and Internet - yet retained all the encryption that it currently has, along with the ability to easily be encrypted thousands of times stronger than it currently is, then and only then might it be a candidate for world currency. In the event that technology crashed in a big way, we would be back to gold and silver, and copper. Bitcoin would be completely gone. Just because we are living in a technologically advancing time, don't think that a technology crash couldn't happen, and that we are safe as we are. |
|
|
|
In other words, attorney talk in a common law court does nothing. This is a completely inaccurate summary of that quote. Again, Bangladesh may be different, somewhat. Trinsey v. Pagliaro wouldn't apply, probably. A common law court is based on what the claimants allow. No it isn't. It is based on the rules of the court, as interpreted and enforced by the judge. An attorney CAN talk with effect in a common law court if the claimants allow him. No, that is not true. The claimants cannot prevent the defendant's attorney speaking on his behalf. The defendant has a right to be represented. The point of talking about T v. P is the idea that the claimant bringing the case in common law has stated in one way or another that attorneys may NOT talk. That isn't true. If you actually read the case, it says: The defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim unsupported by affidavits or depositions is incomplete because it requests this Court to consider facts outside the record which have not been presented in the form required by Rules 12(b) (6) and 56(c). Statements of counsel in their briefs or argument while enlightening to the Court are not sufficient for purposes of granting a motion to dismiss or summary judgment. It has nothing to do with the claimants saying that attorneys can't talk. That is just crap made up by wacky websites, that you have accepted without checking. What it says is that defendants have to actually submit evidence of what they claim, they can't just claim it. That would be exactly the same if the defendants had represented themselves, without counsel.If it is put in the form of an order by that claimant, then whatever an attorney says is not admitted into the record. That isn't true. You do realize that common law courts are courts of record? What do you think that means? I'm not going to bother with the rest, as the above shows that you simply have no understand of how courts work. Please provide some evidence to back up anything you have said above. Okay. So, we don't agree. |
|
|
|
If unintelligent processes, without purpose, evolved into intelligence, how can we then say that we trust our intelligence to tell us how un-intelligence and randomness brought us here?
When you do a study on randomness, you will find that not only is there NO random, but the concept of random is almost completely outside of anything we can comprehend. We might think we comprehend it, but the more a person is an examiner of science and reality, the more he naturally looks for the reason behind things. Random is a thing that offers no reason whatsoever. Random is non-existent, at least in the form of pure random, and to our minds and comprehension. |
|
|
|
Wow, you guys are still talking about this. I think it's clear that if you build your world and philosophy around the idea of a god, you CAN'T accept science or anything else that would destroy your ego. Us non-believers need to understand that while it's easy to see that there is no god, it is asking a lot of believers to recognize the obvious. Its not just this one fact they have to accept. They must throw out all their notions about reality. Not everyone can do that.
Actually, the only thing that maintains the ability to believe that there is no God is the freedom that God allows. Close to proof for God: 1. Machine quality of the Universe; need a Machine-Maker that is not evident from the universe; 2. There is no such thing as pure random; random as we know it is a crutch to help us because of our weakness; evolution does not exist without God in no pure random; 3. Consciousness and conscience both suggest strongly that there is a God. These things are evident. They are even scientifically evident. The only time science nullifies them is when people pick and choose the science they are going to use, and then interpret their science in ways that they want, ignoring the other interpretations. 1: No it doesn't, if the universe wasn't in a state to support life the way it happened then we wouldn't be here to comment on it. Fine-tuned universe fallacy 2: Doesn't make any sense 3: No they don't, they suggest that we are conscience As long as you keep a narrow mind, or limit yourself to simple thinking, you won't ever understand. Since you obviously don't understand, who is the leader of your religion that has convinced you into believing the things that you DO believe? I mean, you obviously don't know it through understanding it. So you must have someone who has convinced you of it without understanding. Is he/she your high priest(ess) of your religion? Saying atheism is a religion is like saying nothing is a flavor of icecream. Nobody convinced me of anything, I've read up on the science and drawn conclusions Since atheism can't be proven to be correct, it is a religion in the way it is being handled. Once it is proven (if it is), then it will no longer be a religion. I would have to agree with BADecker here. A truly logical and objective person can't draw any 100% conclusions from sensory input that is presented to their conscious mind. For example we might be living in a simulation. Nobody can argue against the possibility of that. In fact most philosophical arguments would favor that we actually do. The creator of said simulation would be for all intents and purposes godlike. Any long drawn out purely logical debate will always lead to this conclusion. If you want to say "I'm logical and objective" then you must say "I am agnostic" I completely agree with emergent complexity through evolution, and it is awesome, but who is to say that's not just a program running in a simulation? Actually, there is some indirect evidence for a simulation. It works something like this. God created the universe. Mankind sinned. God can't stand sin at all... not even a hint of sin. God immediately destroyed the universe because all of it is connected... to sin through mankind. Jesus, Who is the Son of God, caught mankind. He caught mankind within Himself through inter-dimensional time reaction, that based itself on His promise to suffer and die for mankind at some future time via inter-dimensional reaction. Because He is the Son of God, all people have been living in a simulation of the original universe that God destroyed, a simulation that is in the God-mind of the God-man, Who is the Almighty Son of God Almighty. |
|
|
|
Is that the Volga? |
|
|
|
Wow, you guys are still talking about this. I think it's clear that if you build your world and philosophy around the idea of a god, you CAN'T accept science or anything else that would destroy your ego. Us non-believers need to understand that while it's easy to see that there is no god, it is asking a lot of believers to recognize the obvious. Its not just this one fact they have to accept. They must throw out all their notions about reality. Not everyone can do that.
Actually, the only thing that maintains the ability to believe that there is no God is the freedom that God allows. Close to proof for God: 1. Machine quality of the Universe; need a Machine-Maker that is not evident from the universe; 2. There is no such thing as pure random; random as we know it is a crutch to help us because of our weakness; evolution does not exist without God in no pure random; 3. Consciousness and conscience both suggest strongly that there is a God. These things are evident. They are even scientifically evident. The only time science nullifies them is when people pick and choose the science they are going to use, and then interpret their science in ways that they want, ignoring the other interpretations. 1: No it doesn't, if the universe wasn't in a state to support life the way it happened then we wouldn't be here to comment on it. Fine-tuned universe fallacy 2: Doesn't make any sense 3: No they don't, they suggest that we are conscience As long as you keep a narrow mind, or limit yourself to simple thinking, you won't ever understand. Since you obviously don't understand, who is the leader of your religion that has convinced you into believing the things that you DO believe? I mean, you obviously don't know it through understanding it. So you must have someone who has convinced you of it without understanding. Is he/she your high priest(ess) of your religion? Saying atheism is a religion is like saying nothing is a flavor of icecream. Nobody convinced me of anything, I've read up on the science and drawn conclusions Since atheism can't be proven to be correct, it is a religion in the way it is being handled. Once it is proven (if it is), then it will no longer be a religion. |
|
|
|
Completely off topic, but I saw a quote today that should solve the question of evolution at least! "If evolution is true, how come mothers still have only two hands?"  Cute. |
|
|
|
Anybody who has borrowed money from a legal lending institution (bank, savings and loan) is NOT in debt. THAT debt is a lie. It is a creation of new money. There is no borrowing done. "Creation of new money" or not, it is still a debt...if you're a moral and ethical person, you pay back what you borrow. As a creation of new money, it is not a debt. Can't pay back something you haven't borrowed. Try paying it back all you want. It is impossible, since it was never borrowed. If you vouched (ie. signed a contract to pay back a certain amount of money at a given interest rate) to re-pay this "creation of new money", you have the ethical (and legal) obligation to honor your word. The thing you signed is a contract. Standard contract law says that something you signed without realizing what the terms are - without a full meeting of the minds - is a null and void contract. In the case of the loan system, there is fraud involved, because they have intentionally changed the legal meanings of words so that you think that you really have a loan going. Fraud makes any contract null and void. If you go into this loan planning on using this fraud to get out of paying your debt, you'd be correct- it is fraud, but not on their end, Mr. BADecker. I was talking about people who go innocently into a loan, taking it at face value, then finding out later. However, since the banks know it is fraudulent on their part (often only bank presidents and higher ups know this), and since you are simply using the process to create more money for yourself - a thing which would have happened in the loan anyway - there just might be no fraud involved. After all, the banking system is not harmed if you don't pay it back. They never loaned anything. They did not lose. The loss comes to all the people who use the USD. It is in the form of diminished value of every last FERN. But the whole system is set up this way. So, if you "borrow" with the idea of not paying back, you just might be acting acceptably, even though you might have to press the issue in court. Although I have written the above, I DO have questions about the morality of it. |
|
|
|
Look, one that beleves in Allah says that Katholics are bad, vica-versa.
Fact is that they all did bad things, and that will remain forever, people form they'r religions in a shape or form that fits them best.
In the case of the religion of ancient Israel - the one that is the foundation for all Christianity - God formed the religion for the people. The Bible is record of both, the religion that God formed, and how the people reacted to it over the ages (about 1,500 years). People are people. We see people from all over the world reacting to God's religion in all the same ways that the ancient Israel people did. |
|
|
|
The "language of the book" is a void point, as it was later inserted into it. Makes no sense to point Arabic for Islam when it was originally written in Assyrian, as doesn't make sense for the Bible to be in Latin when it was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.
So at some point these books needed to be and were translated from the original sources.
If they don't want to understand that...
Does not matter, because the Word of God is to be faithful, to do that one must not read the Book except in the Arabic, which one does cannot read, hence illiteracy rules. Your words can't be trusted, since you are one who read it not in Arabic. The belief system is internally self consistent. Why can't translator's translate faithfully? They can. But a valid objection has to do with understanding Middle Eastern concepts. |
|
|
|
The entropy of the words in the frame does not match the entropy of the rest of the pic. In truth, you ( id est, yourself) dwell within a place still calmed. The fear of the Lord—that is wisdom, and to shun evil is understanding. The fear of the LORD is pure, enduring forever. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. The fear of the LORD adds length to life, but the years of the wicked are cut short. The fear of the LORD is a fountain of life, turning a man from the snares of death. The fear of the LORD teaches a man wisdom, and humility comes before honor. The fear of the LORD leads to life: Then one rests content, untouched by trouble. Humility and the fear of the LORD bring wealth and honor and life. He (God) will be the sure foundation for your times, a rich store of salvation and wisdom and knowledge; the fear of the LORD is the key to this treasure. This is satanic horse radish. To fear the lord is to live in fear. To fear the lord is to fear yourself. The lord is light and love. Fear is the negative energy of gravity and pain. Fear is satan, and it's only an illusion. Perfect love drives out fear. Too bad nobody has perfect love. This is why fear is wisdom. |
|
|
|
Places like this are so backwards and just want to control people's lives. The internet will eventually break all of the bs that governments spread. It is a good thing to have bitcoin so people can use it and find useful information on the internet to get out of these backwards practices. It might only be a small sample of people who use it but the fact that some people rebel and risk it shows we are continuing to grow as a human race.
I just skimmed the topic at the Bitcoin Foundation Forum that is in their Bangladesh section - https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1107-the-case-for-bitcoin-in-bangladeshi-by-jon-matonis/ . The feeling that I got was mixed. Perhaps some Bitcoin people are truly trying to change things for the better for the people. But I also see that they might simply be trying to switch who controls the Bangladesh government, not much, but just enough so that they can make a profit there. The people/population is unlearned in the ways of the law that reside in their government. Anyone who really wants to help the people needs to educate them somehow. Once the people are educated, they will handle the government on their own. Being new to such education if it happens, they just might do a better job of handling their Bangladesh government than Americans do their U.S. government. Educating the people might take a long time, although not as long as one might think - look at how many American doctors come from that area of the world (not Bangladesh, but India - next door). |
|
|
|
Wow, you guys are still talking about this. I think it's clear that if you build your world and philosophy around the idea of a god, you CAN'T accept science or anything else that would destroy your ego. Us non-believers need to understand that while it's easy to see that there is no god, it is asking a lot of believers to recognize the obvious. Its not just this one fact they have to accept. They must throw out all their notions about reality. Not everyone can do that.
Actually, the only thing that maintains the ability to believe that there is no God is the freedom that God allows. Close to proof for God: 1. Machine quality of the Universe; need a Machine-Maker that is not evident from the universe; 2. There is no such thing as pure random; random as we know it is a crutch to help us because of our weakness; evolution does not exist without God in no pure random; 3. Consciousness and conscience both suggest strongly that there is a God. These things are evident. They are even scientifically evident. The only time science nullifies them is when people pick and choose the science they are going to use, and then interpret their science in ways that they want, ignoring the other interpretations. 1: No it doesn't, if the universe wasn't in a state to support life the way it happened then we wouldn't be here to comment on it. Fine-tuned universe fallacy 2: Doesn't make any sense 3: No they don't, they suggest that we are conscience As long as you keep a narrow mind, or limit yourself to simple thinking, you won't ever understand. Since you obviously don't understand, who is the leader of your religion that has convinced you into believing the things that you DO believe? I mean, you obviously don't know it through understanding it. So you must have someone who has convinced you of it without understanding. Is he/she your high priest(ess) of your religion? |
|
|
|
Where do you get your story that says the prophet is a violent person? I would fill this thread with so many quotes that the database would crash! Just read the Hadeeth and Quran...  Can you bring one or two quotes? I was looking at some of your posts in this thread, you were saying foul things about Islam. It is not the Islam I am thought and brought up with. Bring proof of what you are talking about Islam if it is the truth. Hate is a bad thing. It corrupts the hearts and minds of those who entertain (use, do) it. But in the case of Islam, hate is totally appropriate.
That is straight up bigotry. We really need to stop hating each other because of our differences in religion, beliefs or anything. And just because some groups are doing atrocities, it is not justifiable to hate other people that are not involved or their beliefs. There are many issues in our lives that can be solved if we work together and put our differences aside. The money masters that are bringing corruption to this world are chilling right now and they love having people hating and fighting each other instead of them. It will be hard to bring change as they have so much control in the society including governments but if we are going to be divisive nothing can be changed. Hate of people may be bigotry. But hate of their religion might be appropriate and right, if that is the way you feel about it. The idea of Christianity is to love all people, but to hate anything that turns the people away from the true God. It is true that hatred of anything corrupts the person and weakens his life. But, it still happens. |
|
|
|
The history of many nations has been that of using the Stockholm Syndrome to make them part of the conquering nation rather than killing them all. After all, what good are a bunch of dead bodies. After all, they could be slaves. |
|
|
|
Your "posits" are expressed in such a way that I don't understand for sure what they are, or for sure if one even exists. |
|
|
|
Actually, the only thing that maintains the ability to believe that there is no God is the freedom that God allows. Close to proof for God: 1. Machine quality of the Universe; need a Machine-Maker that is not evident from the universe; 2. There is no such thing as pure random; random as we know it is a crutch to help us because of our weakness; evolution does not exist without God in no pure random; 3. Consciousness and conscience both suggest strongly that there is a God. These things are evident. They are even scientifically evident. The only time science nullifies them is when people pick and choose the science they are going to use, and then interpret their science in ways that they want, ignoring the other interpretations. I just don't think those premisses are true. The universe is in no way machine like. At the small scale it is super weird and follows none of the physical laws that govern machines. Not a simple machine, no. Not even a machine like a complicated car engine, or a computer. Rather, machines upon machines using all the machines and lever actions of machines, inside one gigantic machine we call the universe. I don't understand the non-random comment? Are random numbers not random?
Random numbers are not random. There is no such thing as random. For example, a computer that generates random numbers does so based on the identification number of the computer. But even if it doesn't, there are certain charges across the chips that CAUSE certain activity, resulting in a number that we call random. It is all cause and effect, action and reaction. We think that it is random because we don't see the forces at play causing the reaction. Right back to the beginning of the universe, something CAUSED the universe to exist. This CAUSE set up the actions which would cause reactions which would cause other reactions, right down to the present. In other words, the whole universe is programmed. All science looks at why things happen, what causes them to happen the way they do. The greater the scientist, the more he is able to figure out the cause behind the "things" or reactions that he is examining. It is mind boggling, I know. But everything is pre-programmed. Whatever programmed this universe, THAT is God. Is it the Big Bang? Is it a Being/Entity? Science hasn't told us yet, what God is. The universe is too complex. We need to go somewhere else for the answer, like, maybe God has left us a message. Lastly, I see no suggestion that because I am conscious there must be a God?
The way that consciousness and conscience prove God, is something that is detailed. If you seriously want to see how it works, study more on the subject. It doesn't mean there is no god, but that's like saying that a dinosaur might live under my bed. He is a disappearing dinosaur, so when you look at him he vanishes. Now, try proving that a disappearing dinosaur is NOT under my bed.
|
|
|
|
This thread is really growing. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
