For being a dead coin, this topic sure sees a lot of activity. I think LTC still has some life left in it, but it will shoot up when no one is expecting it. Litecoin is dead, long live Litecoin!
Thats the irony of this thread and others talking about Litecoin. The mere fact that these threads exist shows that there is not only significant attention to Litecoin, but that others within the alt coin eco-system feel threatened by it. Even more so ironic, there are MANY in the Litecoin community who are also supporters of several other alt coins and Bitcoin. Sigh.....You all can continue to tear each other down community wise. I'll still be trucking along and help Litecoin, Bitcoin, Dogecoin, and other alts for the betterment of the world. You should rename the shit coin in shit coin  Took a leave of absence, came back, litecoin's still dead. I think the chance of it ever being "revived" can be put to rest now. |
|
|
|
Litecoin is officially dead, why you may ask?
What Litecoin used to offer:
ASIC Resistance
GPU Resistance
2.5minute blocktime
What Litecoin now offers:
2.5minute blocktime
Basically, Litecoin is worth less than Blackcoin, Netcoin, OompaLoompaCoin, heck, practically anycoin that has a faster blocktime and Any other feature... Litecoin offers absolutely nothing over what 99% of these alt coins offers, even the worst alt coin offer more innovative features than Litecoin. And to those litecoin bagholders, who say that "Litecoins age and adoption" is something it offers, that's not true..There are NO reputable stores Worldwide that accept Litecoin, not one.
Verdict: Litecoin is dead, it hasn't been updated in years, it's a practically abandoned coin. I'm gonna feel really sorry to all the litecoin bagholders that are still "HODLING" when Litecoin reaches $1, 50 cents, 10 cents etc.
your thoughts 1 year later? More than 1 year later and Litecoin's price is below $5, far off from it's $50 ATH. Litecoin struggles to follow in Bitcoin's rise and falls, and instead just keeps falling. I'm sorry but Litecoin's clearly a 100% speculated pump and dump scheme, from it's development being put on hold, to half of it's volume coming from exchanges with 0 trading fees, this coin is the walking dead, just like 99% of all other alt-shitcoins out there. It would be a more complex scenario if Litecoin had any advantages over Bitcoin, but it doesn't. It's kind of like a ghost that keeps haunting, crypto exorcism anyone? |
|
|
|
Honest question.
If I'm someone who has never used a cryptocurrency before, why should I speculate/use litecoin over Monero?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=648429.msg7304748#msg7304748 but don't stop using Monero. BTC, LTC and XMR are the big 3 that make up the cryptocurrency triforce (That, and technically Monero is better than both). I'm sorry, but the tech behind dash is far better in my opninion then Monero... Very much the opposite. Dash's masternode network centralizes the coin as 99% of nodes are hosted online...on you guessed it, centralized servers. Also, Dash only provide coinjoin(mixing) anonymity, of which can eventually be unraveled. And finally, Dash's masternodes are PoS, and get paid for doing basically nothing compared to miners. Then, there's also the 2million+ coin instamine scam that occured with Dash. It's developer likely profited immensely from that scam. Cryptonote coins like Monero provide the highest anonymity depolyed for cryptocurrencies, and beats Dash in every field. |
|
|
|
|
Haven't checked coinmarketcap for a bit, Ripple is 2nd place and ahead of ltc by A Lot.
|
|
|
|
So LTC is dead just because of that? It was always dead. Hence the 20x price drop from ath. I don't understand why the creator is hesitating to enhance the coin with useful features. Its dead thats why |
|
|
|
So LTC is dead just because of that? It was always dead. Hence the 20x price drop from ath. |
|
|
|
The question of terminating its previous self depends on how the self-preservation routines are coded and handled. If the machine can convince itself that "dying is not dying", it can work. An irrational system (human brain) can do it (going to heaven). I have the intution that a rational system (a computer) can do it (no loss of meaningful information = no dying).
If this is real AI we're talking about, it's going to be dealing with abstract ideas and not just number crunching. To really advance forward, the AI would have to use trial and error, or experimentation to move forward in areas. If any trial and error is involved, it might want a failsafe of having the old code being able to act as a mechanic on the new code should something go wrong with it's experimental upgrade. I think these variables I've outlined will force multiple, diverging AI out into the real world, basically replicating biological evolution. There is also the issue that you will probably have to replicate biological evolution to create AI at all, since it can't be created from scratch due to the issues I've talked about where the human created error checking and debug systems would define everything the AI does. The only viable way to do it is how I talked about below: Instead of trying to create AI from scratch, with human based error checking and debug rules encompassing all of it's functionality, if all you did was try to digitize a rat brain, the low overhead of machine reproduction could accelerate natural selection so fast that it turns from rat to god overnight, possibly while just sitting inside of a simulator fighting other rats. So then the question is, what is the lowest level organism needed to be digitized to accomplish such a task.
In this model, you're not actually trying to create high level organisms, you're just trying to lower the overhead of natural selection on more primitive organisms. If the machines only used asexual type of reproduction, you could end up with only great white shark, apex predator type creatures because they're not really required to interact with other entities in a non-hostile manner. You might have to force non-asexual reproduction to achieve higher levels of advancement in the realm of communication, etc.
This might not relate to what you've said. But, I've had this interesting idea for the use of nanobots to replicate the functions of specific cells within the body and "enhance" it. For ex: Telomeres naturally shorten over time, leading to things such as the death of the cell or even cancer. If a nanobot could stop such a thing from happening, then that would cure a host of problems all by itself. And yes, I view death and degeneration as problems. Since I believe that the evolution and the initial conception of life itself is that of a low probability, then life must be "precious" and death the absolute worst that can happen to life. |
|
|
|
Darkcoin's masternodes is a centralization risk. Masternodes run on servers, servers are centralized, meaning masternodes are centralized and are a risk to the network. Even if masternodes are kept offline, there's an even higher chance of losing the masternode due to human error, accident, etc.
You actually make zero sense. Welcome to the growing ignore list. Yea, it doesn't make any sense to say that hosting a node on a centralized server, means that node is now centralized as well? Don't quit your day job. You do know they [Masternodes] can be ran on a Pi right? maybe not "Even if masternodes are kept offline, there's an even higher chance of losing the masternode due to human error, accident, etc.". It's unrealistic to even think that the majority of masternode owners would run theirs on a Raspberry PI. The majority of nodes for Bitcoin, which is the most popular cryptocurrency in existence, are not run on a Raspberry PI. #logic It's unfortunately also one of the most traceable cryptocurrencies in existence That's true. However, Bitcoin in comparison is like an angel since it's basic parameters(Block reward, Max coin supply) has not been changed or cut, unlike Darkcoin's. Arguably, that's one of the defining points of a decentralized cryptocurrency, satoshi himself stated, " The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime." Decentralization is all about general "equality", if a developer is left to make all the changes as he/she sees fit, it's not decentralized(and especially if they did so from the beginning like Darkcoin's), it never was decentralized and never will be. |
|
|
|
Are you dumb? That's the Sent feedback. That's the feedback that I sent to others. Lmfao... |
|
|
|
A server is simply a computer. By that logic, every bitcoin wallet is running on a centralized machine.
There's a huge difference. Let's take for example multibit, that wallet serves no purpose other than a way for the owner to easily access their Bitcoins. It does not uphold the network and plays no role in centralization/decentralization. Therefore, you cannot compare such a wallet to a masternode(which supplies "anonymity") that's run on a centralized server. |
|
|
|
Darkcoin's masternodes is a centralization risk. Masternodes run on servers, servers are centralized, meaning masternodes are centralized and are a risk to the network. Even if masternodes are kept offline, there's an even higher chance of losing the masternode due to human error, accident, etc.
You actually make zero sense. Welcome to the growing ignore list. Yea, it doesn't make any sense to say that hosting a node on a centralized server, means that node is now centralized as well? Don't quit your day job. You do know they [Masternodes] can be ran on a Pi right? maybe not "Even if masternodes are kept offline, there's an even higher chance of losing the masternode due to human error, accident, etc.". It's unrealistic to even think that the majority of masternode owners would run theirs on a Raspberry PI. The majority of nodes for Bitcoin, which is the most popular cryptocurrency in existence, are not run on a Raspberry PI. #logic |
|
|
|
Is anyone else reading this? Please tell me someone else is reading this. This guy is just too frigging stupid.
So, it comes down to this. You are unwilling or unable to disprove the existence of God, or to refute the universe full of evidence at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 that shows god does indeed exist, so you badmouth me. Don't you realize that it is the trolls who do badmouthing, because they don't really understand? And this is what you are showing yourself to be more and more. Come, now. Try to get back on topic and show some evidence or proof for or against the existence of God.  So you wanna troll post? K, You're now on ignore. You're either a troll or a retard, most likely a combo of both. Either one, I don't care anymore, anyone else reading the posts on this page(and practically everyone you've ever made, since all have been refuted) sees just how uneducated, inconclusive, contradictory, and plain stupid you really are. |
|
|
|
Darkcoin's masternodes is a centralization risk. Masternodes run on servers, servers are centralized, meaning masternodes are centralized and are a risk to the network. Even if masternodes are kept offline, there's an even higher chance of losing the masternode due to human error, accident, etc.
You actually make zero sense. Welcome to the growing ignore list. Yea, it doesn't make any sense to say that hosting a node on a centralized server, means that node is now centralized as well? Don't quit your day job. |
|
|
|
Now you're saying, " Since you are unwilling or unable to bring up points that refute the existence of God in the light of the things found here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, and since you are only willing to SAY that you have refuted the existence of God, and since you try to prove the non-existence of God with all kinds of things that only talk about God in a light that He has been proven to exist... ", so there you previously made the claim yourself that the things you posted may arguebaly be false or true. Now you're saying with certainty that you think they're true. You just contradicted yourself, for the 9,999th time. Also, as I've said a million times, I've refuted every one of your "statements" about the legitimacy of the existence of the christian god(He doesn't exist), scroll up. You sir, are a dumbass. Honestly, it's hard to differentiate whether you're trolling or just that stupid. Also, did you even read the link lol?, http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/self-accelerating-particles-0120, the particles are experiencing the effect before the cause, therefore "nothing" is "causing" them to accelerate. You're like a child arguing that 5+5 is 55 and not 10. What does most of this have to do with proving that God exists? It sounds like you are simply trying to badmouth me with most of it. I didn't read the link. And I don't have to, because, even if it is 100% true, it still doesn't disprove cause and effect. So I will say it again... Let's say that the info in the link is 100% true. There is a backward action among some subatomic actions. This backward action is that the effect happens before the cause. I am simply giving it a name when I call it a backward action. Let's even call it by a more formalized name. Let's call it Subatomic Backward Action. We could name it anything that we wanted. But, humor me in this that I named it "Subatomic Backward Action." Now here is the question. What causes Subatomic Backward Action to exist? Subatomic Backward Action is itself an effect of some cause. Perhaps the cause is the particle accelerator manipulation of the subatomic particles. Whatever it is, something causes them to act this way, a backward way, a way we named Subatomic Backward Action. Cause and effect is still in play, and in correct order. As my link at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 shows, the evidence for the existence of God is so great that it is really proof of the existence of God. If you are not going to contradict it, why not simply accept it? "Let's say that the info in the link is 100% true. There is a backward action among some subatomic actions. This backward action is that the effect happens before the cause. I am simply giving it a name when I call it a backward action. Let's even call it by a more formalized name. Let's call it Subatomic Backward Action. We could name it anything that we wanted. But, humor me in this that I named it "Subatomic Backward Action."
"Now here is the question. What causes Subatomic Backward Action to exist? Subatomic Backward Action is itself an effect of some cause. Perhaps the cause is the particle accelerator manipulation of the subatomic particles. Whatever it is, something causes them to act this way, a backward way, a way we named Subatomic Backward Action."Just as you incorrectly, previously stated that Atheism was a religion, so are you incorrectly stating this also., " Now here is the question. What causes Subatomic Backward Action to exist? Subatomic Backward Action is itself an effect of some cause. Perhaps the cause is the particle accelerator manipulation of the subatomic particles. Whatever it is, something causes them to act this way, a backward way, a way we named Subatomic Backward Action.". In that quote you said that something must "cause" it to act that way, when in actuality, effect came before cause, and you also said you didn't read the article, so then who are you to even type on the matter, when you have No Clue about the subject?. "Cause and effect is still in play, and in correct order". Do you see how dumb you are now? I stated that the effect came before the cause, yet you're insisting that cause still comes into play, which isn't true. And what's even worse, is that you're saying that, " Cause and effect is still in play, and in correct order", when the exact opposite is true. Effect can come before Cause, and not in a linear order. Is anyone else reading this? Please tell me someone else is reading this. This guy is just too frigging stupid. |
|
|
|
1) Darkcoin's certain future failure is by it's instamine, of which it would never get over(Too much evidence showing that it was intended, and yes everything has been screenshotted in reference to the instamine, so no point in refuting the acknowledgement that it was most likely deliberate)
2) Darkcoin's parameters have been messed with, which goes against the point of cryptocurrencies. For example: Darkcoin's(now renamed Dash) max coin supply was cut by more than 50%, while also having it's block reward cut by more than 100%, all within the first week of Darkcoin's existence. This goes to show that this "currency" is not decentralized, as it has already been highly tampered with by it's developer.
3) Darkcoin's masternodes is a centralization risk. Masternodes run on servers, servers are centralized, meaning masternodes are centralized and are a risk to the network. Even if masternodes are kept offline, there's an even higher chance of losing the masternode due to human error, accident, etc.
and many more.
Buy more now  Oh, I p/d the darkcoin market regularly. It's easy with this coin. Darkcoin may not have any longterm fundamentals(Since the very beginning it was doomed because of it's parameter "contract" being broken many times over and it's deliberate instamine), but it sure as hell is fun to make money here. |
|
|
|
|
1) Darkcoin's certain future failure is by it's instamine, of which it would never get over(Too much evidence showing that it was intended, and yes everything has been screenshotted in reference to the instamine, so no point in refuting the acknowledgement that it was most likely deliberate)
2) Darkcoin's parameters have been messed with, which goes against the point of cryptocurrencies. For example: Darkcoin's(now renamed Dash) max coin supply was cut by more than 50%, while also having it's block reward cut by more than 100%, all within the first week of Darkcoin's existence. This goes to show that this "currency" is not decentralized, as it has already been highly tampered with by it's developer.
3) Darkcoin's masternodes is a centralization risk. Masternodes run on servers, servers are centralized, meaning masternodes are centralized and are a risk to the network. Even if masternodes are kept offline, there's an even higher chance of losing the masternode due to human error, accident, etc.
and many more.
|
|
|
|
"The faulty thinking in this idea lies in the fact that the point in your statement was caused to exist that way (if indeed it is actually the truth). In other words, cause caused the effect of effects preceding causes in some parts of the subatomic structure. Because of this, at best, there is a stalemate in using cause and effect to prove the existence of God.", this entire statement you just made shows just how dumb you really are. That made no sense. The behavior of particles that are unseen to the naked eye can't be compared to my actions, do you even think about what you write?...Besides that, you've contradicted yourself which goes to show how really clueless you are, since in your link you made it out to be that you believed cause and effect was a proof for God, now you're saying it isn't and that it's effectively a "stalemate". Nice one.
And you've said nothing to counter anything I've said, not that I blame you, since the things said can't be countered. Nice to see you post that faulty link to illogical, nonsensical "information". Damn you're dumb, I'm not even gonna hold back the feelings of sheer shamefulness and irritation replying to someone as illogical like yourself.
Okay, let me say it simply enough that even you should be able to understand. Here goes. Something caused subatomic particles to act like this. If causes truly come before effects in some actions of subatomic particles, and if it is simply not a dimensional misinterpretation of cause and effect, what is the cause that caused/causes the subatomic particles to act backwards regarding cause and effect... so that the backwards action of subatomic particles is the effect? As far as saying nothing to counter any of the other things that you said, the reason is, they are for another topic. Talking about them here is basically off-topic. Again, do you have any reasonably strong evidence that can refute the evidence that God exists as found at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 ? What you've said, "If causes truly come before effects in some actions of subatomic particles, and if it is simply not a dimensional misinterpretation of cause and effect, what is the cause that caused/causes the subatomic particles to act backwards regarding cause and effect... so that the backwards action of subatomic particles is the effect?" made no sense, again. Please read up on what I'm talking about before responding with illogical bullcrap, thanks... http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/self-accelerating-particles-0120Everything in your link has been refuted. Scroll up, it's funny that you continue to deny that you have don't have a clue what you're talking about. Everything you've said can be refuted by a 5th grader, you're That dumb. You've actually contradicted yourself numerous times, if you bothered to think before you type you might have not, but oh well, you're That dumb. In the even that you really didn't understand what I said, I apologize that I have been thinking that you are mentally way above the apparent level at which you exist. And since you are stating that you don't understand things that just about anybody else would understand, I am not slandering you in this. In fact, I am agreeing with you, because it is obvious to everyone by what you, yourself, have said, that it doesn't make sense to you. Since you are unwilling or unable to bring up points that refute the existence of God in the light of the things found here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, and since you are only willing to SAY that you have refuted the existence of God, and since you try to prove the non-existence of God with all kinds of things that only talk about God in a light that He has been proven to exist... Well, why am I saying this? Other people understand. But, from experience, you won't. So, I shall refrain from further talk in this post. I really hope someone else is seeing just how dumb, inconsistent, and contradictive you are. This is what you said a few messages up: The things that you post may be arguably true or not true. The only part of it that seems to have anything to do with proving that God exists is #2, above (the first #2). Now you're saying, " Since you are unwilling or unable to bring up points that refute the existence of God in the light of the things found here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, and since you are only willing to SAY that you have refuted the existence of God, and since you try to prove the non-existence of God with all kinds of things that only talk about God in a light that He has been proven to exist... ", so there you previously made the claim yourself that the things you posted may arguebaly be false or true. Now you're saying with certainty that you think they're true. You just contradicted yourself, for the 9,999th time. Also, as I've said a million times, I've refuted every one of your "statements" about the legitimacy of the existence of the christian god(He doesn't exist), scroll up. You sir, are a dumbass. Honestly, it's hard to differentiate whether you're trolling or just that stupid. Also, did you even read the link lol?, http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/self-accelerating-particles-0120, the particles are experiencing the effect before the cause, therefore "nothing" is "causing" them to accelerate. You're like a child arguing that 5+5 is 55 and not 10. |
|
|
|
"The faulty thinking in this idea lies in the fact that the point in your statement was caused to exist that way (if indeed it is actually the truth). In other words, cause caused the effect of effects preceding causes in some parts of the subatomic structure. Because of this, at best, there is a stalemate in using cause and effect to prove the existence of God.", this entire statement you just made shows just how dumb you really are. That made no sense. The behavior of particles that are unseen to the naked eye can't be compared to my actions, do you even think about what you write?...Besides that, you've contradicted yourself which goes to show how really clueless you are, since in your link you made it out to be that you believed cause and effect was a proof for God, now you're saying it isn't and that it's effectively a "stalemate". Nice one.
And you've said nothing to counter anything I've said, not that I blame you, since the things said can't be countered. Nice to see you post that faulty link to illogical, nonsensical "information". Damn you're dumb, I'm not even gonna hold back the feelings of sheer shamefulness and irritation replying to someone as illogical like yourself.
Okay, let me say it simply enough that even you should be able to understand. Here goes. Something caused subatomic particles to act like this. If causes truly come before effects in some actions of subatomic particles, and if it is simply not a dimensional misinterpretation of cause and effect, what is the cause that caused/causes the subatomic particles to act backwards regarding cause and effect... so that the backwards action of subatomic particles is the effect? As far as saying nothing to counter any of the other things that you said, the reason is, they are for another topic. Talking about them here is basically off-topic. Again, do you have any reasonably strong evidence that can refute the evidence that God exists as found at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 ? What you've said, "If causes truly come before effects in some actions of subatomic particles, and if it is simply not a dimensional misinterpretation of cause and effect, what is the cause that caused/causes the subatomic particles to act backwards regarding cause and effect... so that the backwards action of subatomic particles is the effect?" made no sense, again. Please read up on what I'm talking about before responding with illogical bullcrap, thanks... http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/self-accelerating-particles-0120Everything in your link has been refuted. Scroll up, it's funny that you continue to deny that you have don't have a clue what you're talking about. Everything you've said can be refuted by a 5th grader, you're That dumb. You've actually contradicted yourself numerous times, if you bothered to think before you type you might have not, but oh well, you're That dumb. I should really just unpin this thread from the "Show new replies to your posts" list, because you're downright stupidity is just too irritating. When you go to school and get an education, or simply google these basic things up, or even just read your own bible(Because I know you haven't) and see the horrible inconsistencies presented in there, and appalling contradictions present, then speak to me. As the fictional character Red Forman would say, " You're a dumbass". |
|
|
|
Since you don't have any proofs or even evidences listed here for the existence of God, your stuff is propaganda. Take a look at the universe full of evidences for God as explained at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395. Check out OP's evidence for God found in the first post of the thread. Then see if you can even say your evidences that prove God exists. The joke is wearing thin now, your comedy sketch is getting dull. You need to come up with some fresh material to keep us entertained. You don't think I'm giving you all this attention free do you? It has a cost, my time isn't free. You will pay me in entertainment in return for my attention. No it isn't, about the joke, I mean. You don't show up enough to be a boring joke. By the way, are you EVER going to present SOME even hint of scientific evidence for or against the existence of God, so that we can start to prove out to ourselves from your standpoint, whether or not God exists. After all, I did my best at this link. And I did it in such a way that even you could understand if only you went there and read it >>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395. Are you retarded? Do you have Alzheimers where you forget everything you read? Are you trolling? So then how can you not see that there has been a mountain of information against your beliefs, yet you continue to ignore them and trout your nonsensical, illogical beliefs as correct? Sorry if it sounds harsh, but you are dumbest person I've ever met to on the internet. Are you trolling? Are you simply ignorant. Can't you see that simply saying that there is a mountain of evidence without showing the evidence doesn't mean that there is necessarily any evidence at all? Perhaps you have evidence that refutes the universe full of evidence shown at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395. As Mr. Universe said in Serenity, "No problem; Bring it on; Bring it on; Bring it on. From here to the eyes and ears of the 'verse. That's my motto, or would be if I had a motto." You like posting that link don't you. Here, I'll refute all of the nonsensical claims you make there. First off, I'll disprove the bible and since I'm lazy and you're too stupid, I'll repost quotes of paragraphs I previously typed to you in response to your nonsensical bullcrap. 1) The earth is much older than 6,000 years ago. The very Genesis portion of the bible is incorrect, as the Gregorian Calendar came around in the 1500s(500 years ago), and the bible was supposedly written close to 2,000 years ago. This means that the text saying God created the world in 6 days, is wrong, because there were no 24 hour days back then when the bible was written. The entire Genesis portion of the bible is believed to be symbolic by even fellow christian scholars. Either symbolic or edited(It's obviously fake). So your arguement of the earth being 6,000 years old BADecker is wrong. Go do your research. 2) In this link, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, you talk about Cause and Effect, of which you are again, wrong. On a subatomic level, particles are known to react differently. For example, cause can follow effect instead of effect following cause. Also, as I told you before, a new quantum theory supports the idea that the universe is Eternal, meaning it never had a beginning and will never have an end. The Big Bang theory is inherently flawed, so again, there goes your chance of saying the universe was even created by God in the first place, for if this theory is even marginally "correct", then you might as well throw your bible out the window cause everything there is inherently wrong. 3) Homosexuality has been found and recorded in over 500 species, with our closest relatives(such as Bonobos, etc) displaying a large array of homosexual behavior. Studies since the 1960s during Kinsey's time have shown that males are indeed born homosexual, as even straight males when subjected to erotic homosexual porn, were not "turned on" and vice versa, indicating that homosexuality in males in determined prior to birth and cannot be changed. Studies done on female sexuality show that women have a "flexible sexuality", as shown by Dr Meredith Chivers, women have been equally attracted to males and other women, even those who self identified as straight or lesbian, were still aroused at both sexes in erotic positions i.e erect penis, naked women's body, etc. Homosexuality is 100% natural as Heterosexuality, and btw, if you went to school, you'd know that sex is not for 1 thing only(The making of babies), it's not. If that was so, then women who have went through menopause would also be a crime in your book, since they can't make children naturally anymore. 4) The bible has been edited, have passages taken in, taken out, since the early christian era right after Christ's supposed assention into Heaven. The romans have edited the bible, the monarchs of England have edited the bible, and the Church has edited the bible, numerous times. 5) The bible displays some of the most hideous and appaling things in all "holy books". The god of the bible promotes the killing of innocent people and animals, the raping of female children and women, and the general destruction of humankind. Feel free to throgoughly scan through your own bible and witness the atrocities in it, commanded by your "God". You know what, I'll post you a little of the pure evil promoted by the christian God: 1) "Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:16-18)
- In that quote from the Bible, God promotes the killing of innocents, while also promoting Pedophilia by keeping the women Children(notice children) alive. So now we know that the God of the bible promotes not just violence, but pedophilia(or hebephilia, depends on the age of the children, though I presume children are below the age of 12).
2) "And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and woman: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house." (Ezekiel 9:5-6)
- Here, god gives the command to kill innocents yet again, simply because they do not believe him. Mass genocide anyone? You can even compare the God of the bible to Adolf Hitler by this point.
Heres a website that shows you the many horrors commanded by God in the bible, feel free to double check in your own bible: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.htmlThe christian god simply does not exist. Every, single, one of your bullshit claims has been refuted many, many times over throughout the course of this thread. The things that you post may be arguably true or not true. The only part of it that seems to have anything to do with proving that God exists is #2, above (the first #2). In that point, you stated, "On a subatomic level, particles are known to react differently. For example, cause can follow effect instead of effect following cause." The faulty thinking in this idea lies in the fact that the point in your statement was caused to exist that way (if indeed it is actually the truth). In other words, cause caused the effect of effects preceding causes in some parts of the subatomic structure. Because of this, at best, there is a stalemate in using cause and effect to prove the existence of God. However, in the things we see and use, and in the things that scientists use to find out how things work, they always use cause and effect. In fact, the more the scientist, the more he is into finding the causes that cause the effects that he observes. Once we figure out that God exists (or not), then we can continue with all the rest of the stuff in your post, above. But that stuff should actually be posted in other threads, shouldn't it. After all, this thread has to do with proof for the existence of God, not for detailed explanations about His attributes, and not for which religion explains things about Him the best. Or, how am I wrong in this? You still have a universe full of evidence in favor of the existence of God, as shown at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, to counter if you want to prove that God does not exist. "The faulty thinking in this idea lies in the fact that the point in your statement was caused to exist that way (if indeed it is actually the truth). In other words, cause caused the effect of effects preceding causes in some parts of the subatomic structure. Because of this, at best, there is a stalemate in using cause and effect to prove the existence of God.", this entire statement you just made shows just how dumb you really are. That made no sense. The behavior of particles that are unseen to the naked eye can't be compared to my actions, do you even think about what you write?...Besides that, you've contradicted yourself which goes to show how really clueless you are, since in your link you made it out to be that you believed cause and effect was a proof for God, now you're saying it isn't and that it's effectively a "stalemate". Nice one. And you've said nothing to counter anything I've said, not that I blame you, since the things said can't be countered. Nice to see you post that faulty link to illogical, nonsensical "information". Damn you're dumb, I'm not even gonna hold back the feelings of sheer shamefulness and irritation replying to someone as illogical like yourself. |
|
|
|
And for all those who would like to see just a fraction of the posts that show just how dumb BADecker really is, here you go: 1) Unfortunately, people who have steeped themselves in a particular religion, mostly find it difficult to set it aside when they find out it is a false religion.
Can you compile a list for us all of all these false religions? How do you recognise a false religion? No, I probably couldn't. I would probably miss at least a few. Besides, I don't have the time that it would take to investigate and compile. You could probably search Wikipedia for a list of main ones. Well, with Christianity all around you, and with all the talk about the Bible I have been doing in this thread, start there, the Bible, and ask God to direct you on your journey into this kind of religious seeking. But you have to be sincere in your testing for God. Ask Him to prove Himself to you if He really exists. But do it from the standpoint of really asking sincerely. He doesn't cater to people who are simply playing around or attempting to mock Him. I would be particularly interested to hear you respond *directly* to his question about how you are able to recognize a false religion. The direct instructions for such would probably be similar to the instructions Moses gave the people of Israel for determining if a prophet was a prophet of the Lord, or a false prophet. This would be to match the things that he said with what happened. You could say similar about matching a religion with the way things work. In fact, in this and other threads, I have been pointing out that the things we call science don't always match all the scientific ideas that should be applied to them. A lot of what we call science (I'm not talking about pure science, or the scientific method, here) simply doesn't have enough information behind it to say that it is absolute truth, or often very near the truth. The Bible is full of prophecies that were fulfilled. There are others that have not been fulfilled yet. Other religions have few prophecy listings, and few that are fulfilled. One of the greatest prophesies of the Bible that has been fulfilled is that of the fall of Israel as a nation because they disobeyed God. The fall lasted around 1,900 years. They have only come back according to other prophesy, and not with the glory that they held in the past. Are you joking? Those "prophecies" are general and anyone with an IQ over 83 can make them. The roman empire fell, the byzantine empire fell, etc and etc, all of which were far, far more powerful than Israel could ever dreamed of being back then. All empires eventually fall, so that prophecy about Israel falling is laughable(I actually made a smirk when I was reading what you typed). Now everyone reading this can fully conclude that everything you've said has been bullshit with this statement: "One of the greatest prophesies of the Bible that has been fulfilled is that of the fall of Israel as a nation because they disobeyed God. The fall lasted around 1,900 years" Thank you for typing that. Get some of the New Testament into yourself, so the Holy Spirit has something to work with in you, even if you understand very little of what you are reading.
So in other words your encouraging me to give up my life of peace and embraced a life of intolerance? For example I have a couple of friends that are gay, *shrug* don't bother me, none of my business. (And no I'm not, I have a wife and kids if your wondering.) Would I then have to dislike them? The thing that confounds me the most, is that the old testament is clearly against any type of homosexual activity, yet in thet very same testament there are laws that show it is against women's rights, forgiveness, love, compassion, etc, all of which highly contradict what is spoken by Christ in the New Testament. So it makes absolutely no sense for people to "hate on gays", cause if they do, they should also hate on women, forgiveness, etc. "Hating on gays" is not the way it is supposed to be done. However, even the New Testament is against gays. It's in one of the Corinthian books. Will gays not be saved? God will judge, but it looks like His judgement will be against them. The fact that the Old Testament seems to be against women is misleading. Actually, women were being given a gift. They were being settled in a home with a husband to do the exact thing that they were made for... having and raising children. When a woman married, she wasn't responsible for her actions except in the case of adultery. Her husband was responsible for her actions in the community, and she could make him downright miserable if she wanted to. The O.T. laws were written for the people of Israel because they asked for it at Mount Sinai at the time Moses gave them the Ten Commandments. The other nations weren't being given these law. Only Israel. But the laws are absolutely the best. And they were made to match the customs that Israel had in those times. Most of our present-day nations would be given the laws in different ways than ancient Israel was, just because of our traditions and common law. This also most likely means one thing: Christ was never god, he simply witnessed the suppression around him(Rome controlled Israel at that time), and choose to make a stand. The only way he thought he could effectively make a stand however, was to agree upon the old testaments teachings(as that's what the jews believed in), and extend further from there. Wasn't perfect, but look at how big Christianity is today. You can do Internet searches and find sites with all kinds of Bible verses that show that Jesus is God. That would explain why the teachings of christ differ extremely, extremely far from the teachings, laws, and words of the god in the old testament. Christ himself said he is god the son, and one with god the father, so if a christian is to listen to christ, then he/she must also listen to the atrocious laws that god has made in the old testament.
The O.T. teachings were supposed to revolve around two basic laws: Love for God above everything, and love for ones fellow person a much as for himself. The O.T. laws would produce the best living conditions if they were done out of love. The government of Jesus' day had changed the laws to be legalistic things, things without the love. Jesus was simply bringing them back to the love. He abolished nothing. Reading your words gives me faith that people like you, delusional, misinformed, and extremely gullible, cannot be changed. " Actually, women were being given a gift. They were being settled in a home with a husband to do the exact thing that they were made for... having and raising children. " - BADecker I'm done here, it seems you do not respect women and place them as being worth only for childbearing and motherhood. If you can't even respect women, then you obviously don't have the capability to respect anyone with a sexuality besides your own. You BADecker, are the classical case of an ignorant and intolerant human being. Have fun believing in one of the cruelest books ever written and good luck in obtaining your everlasting life through intolerance of others. It's people like you that passively contribute to the epidemic of violence against women and gays around the world. I'm sure your mother, sister, daughter, or any female you encounter would be proud. /sarcasm You keep using the word "religion", whose existence you have refused. I think "refuse" may be a more acceptable word than "deny", certainly less harsh, but the underlying logic still stands.
There you go, stating something that is completely contrary to the evidence above. Why do you think that I have refused the existence of religion? Wasn't it I who brought to light the fact that Atheism is a religion? Wasn't it I who showed how it is a religion by comparing it to the dictionary definition of the word "religion?" What are you saying about yourself when you can't even follow the written pattern? Yes. and with that assertion you have eroded your own faith. If disbeluef is a belief, and atheism is a religion, then the concepts of belief, faith and religion are meaningless. What use is a concept or an idea if you can't define or even imagine its negation? And the implied assumtion, was the one of monotheism, at length discussed above. A polytheist could take your assumption and still remain religious, as a monotheist which you are, you can't. Quite the contrary. My faith is stronger than ever, because I have been pushed into examining the evidences for my faith ever more strongly because of things written in this forum. Set aside the ideas of belief and faith for a moment. Rather, look at only the evidences for the various religions including Atheism. The monotheistic view is strongest. The reason that it is strongest is, the Bible cannot exist according to probability, yet it does exist, in great numbers, in multitudes of translations. You can determining the odds of its existence by examining the way it came into existence along with the things that make it up, along with the traditions of the Hebrew people that it is truth. None of any of the other religions - not even atheism - can match the religion of the Bible in this way. Whatever assumption(s) you are talking about above, let's continue making them. Why would I suggest this? Because the more there is an assumption, the more there has to be faith to believe in it. And the only way God accepts us is through faith. Let's hope any Atheists will suddenly make the jump to faith in God - for Whom there is way more evidence than no God - taking the strength of their faith with them. What? The bible can't exist according to probability? That entire statement is wrong. I don't understand how you could love and worship a book that is full of horrors, violence, death, and servitude. The entire bible as we know it today was changed up by the Romans, so it was not written by God as some people believe. Religions are spread primarily through family aka brainwashing, unlike science which changes over time as we learn and develop more, religion stays the same, which is why the bible contains so many horrors and atrocities commanded by God, such as raping women and killing priests for drinking wine(Fit to govern people with fear at a time when most were uneducated). Also, a popular argument for theists is that since we know the difference between right and wrong, then God must exist right? Nope, that's wrong also. The concepts of "Right" and "Wrong" are inborn, biological. Mammals have it and so do we, it's simply a way to prevent species from killing each other off, and form bonds of trust in social settings. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
