Step outside sometime in the summertime, and sit down on a lawn chair. Take a half-hour off from the bustling business of the day to watch a leaf on a tree, swaying gracefully in the gentle summer breeze.

Track every molecule of air that touches the leaf. Track where they each individually come from as they are swept along by the other molecules, all of which are being played upon by the energy of the sun. Track where they are going as they are deflected by the vanes in the leaf. Track the energy that moves the molecules, each one swinging to the vibration of the particular waves that touch it.

When you can do the above, you are starting to capture the control needed to maintain your life by your own understanding. Science isn't even close to something like this. And this is only the tiniest start of starts towards controlling your own life.

You better hope that God is a gracious God, and that He is willing to have mercy on you and hear your cry. 'Cause otherwise, you simply are going to die.

There is a difference between the capability of running a client while connecting via TOR and having it built into the client so it *only* connects via TOR.

If Cryptonite can guarantee that transaction fees will always equal or exceed the loss in block reward, it should be fine. Otherwise it's unnecessary and detrimental to reduce the block reward until the entire coinbase had been tapped. And as a casual user, I'd rather not pay fees until it's absolutely necessary.

Unless Bitcoin finds a way to shrink it's blockchain by at least 90%, it's going to have 0 volume in less than 5 years.

Only for its name and its history as the first tor coin it has a long term value quite high. When the next surge occurs in crypto anc will climb high on the backs of people who have not followed the drama.

It is a shame that almost all coins now are controlled by essentially marketmakers. Anyone with us$50k can takeover almost any midcap coin and make a huge profit whipsawing people. In this case you had people with unlimited capital even able to force out other miners so they could acquire coins.

Bitcoin is the only "privacy" currency right now. A U.S. two star General can fly into Pakistan, hand a usb stick with $5m in bitcoin to his Pak counterpart. The heroin will arrive because bitcoin is trusted.

You cannot do that with anc or drk or any others.

No, they do not run on TOR.

Or by the devil himself.  

in the past, lets say the American revolution, running from the king for taxation without representation. The king hacked their monies, they ran, the king and his men followed trying to kill those who escaped his reign…. Well todays world works much the same way except bitcoin changes the battlefield DRASTICALLY…


Not to mention, this is not trolling. These are ideas I have and sometimes they all come at once and I want to discuss them, and I'm not sure about you but have you tried going to a local bar or cafe and talking about this stuff.... You are an ass for rejecting my desire to converse and play Plato's Soceretes.  You don't have to participate or read this conversation. Beside who determines who is a troll, the person who is obsessed with bitcointalk, but hates those who don't subscribe to your exact view on EVERYTHING….

Jesus Christ youre nuts

The contents of the Bible, the history of how it was written, its unity, the theme of salvation for mankind, the traditions of the Hebrews/Israel/the Jews regarding it, the way it depicts mankind, the science in it, the wisdom in it, the love in it, and the way that this all is brought together is way beyond probability regarding that such a book like this could exist.

Such things as "horrors, violence, death, and servitude" are found throughout the world today. They are depicted in many books, in movies, and throughout life. What sheltered life are you living in?

The late rabbi, Uri Harel, of Phoenix, Arizona, did many great studies on the Old Testament in its ancient Hebrew. The Old Testament canon is essentially the same as it has always been. One of the things that Rabbi Harel found is that there are only 12 small "spots" in the Old Testament where we are unclear as to the actual text. These 12 places change nothing regarding the meaning of the Old Testament.

The Romans did us a blessing by setting the New Testament in stone, so to speak. By directing the study and comparison of both O.T. and N.T., especially at the council of Nicea, they were able to do something that the Church wasn't willing. They were able to get rid of a whole lot of N.T. writings that at the time were contrary to the good sense of the O.T., and contradicted the pure message of the N.T. as well.

Perhaps the Romans went too far. Perhaps their scholars should have included a few books in the N.T. that they left out. However, those books wouldn't have added anything to the message, anyway.

The whole Bible was written, and exists, so that people can be saved. As usual, people don't want to be saved, but would rather go on groping throughout their lives, until it is gone, and only on their deathbeds do they start to recognize that they are lost, if then.



When science gets to the point that we understand more than just a smattering of what exists, we will easily see God in it. The problem lies in the fact that, just like now, the scientists will try to cover up the knowledge of God Whom they are finding more and more in science right now. This is being done today, in the fact that scientists often are unwilling to even allow for the existence of God, though more and more they see through their investigation, the technology of God built right into the universe. Rather, they cover Him up as much as they can.

Since the horrors and atrocities of life are happening all the time right now, if God happens to use some of it to get it to stop, He is righteous in doing it this way. Would you rather that Hitler had won WWII? We needed to fight fire with fire. God could up and destroy us for our wickedness and because of His righteousness. But He would rather save as many of us as He can.

If it weren't for God's laws written in our hearts and consciences, we ALL would be off committing worse crimes than God would ever think of. Thank God He is stopping the crimes, even though many of us don't recognize that it is He that is stopping them.



Sometimes science fiction writers include real science in their fiction stories. Sometimes science fiction readers believe completely fictitious stories as truth. To a rather ignorant person who happens to be looking on from the outside, it can be very difficult to determine what is truth.

So far, all of the science info that we have, that seems to disprove the existence of God, or that seems to disprove the truth of the Bible, can be shown to disprove the science itself, showing that such science is, or might be, fiction.

Other than that, there is a lot of propaganda hollering by a bunch of people who don't know anything at all, or who are out to deceive others for the sake of money.

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.

There isn't such a thing as lack of belief in some form, at least not among people. People always believe in something. That is, they hold something as true even though they do not know it is true.

This makes Atheism to be what it really is, a lie, as well as a belief.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t:
Looks like Atheism is a religion according to #3, sometimes #5, and #6.

Who are you talking to?  It shouldn't be me, because if it is then I'd advise you to go back, reread, and understand the argument before countering it.  Fortunately, I made it easy for you in that I provided you with complete, grammatically correct sentences that flow in a logical order.  I can't even read half your post without guessing what the hell you might be trying to say.

You can yell and scream and shout that you're right, but unfortunately, that doesn't make it so.  The stupid person thinks he's smarter than the smart person, and therein lies his stupidity.

Who knows for sure what he thought, but, too many "homos" don't think that they are sinners. He was probably simply showing the homos that they are sinners, as well. So it would have been only a clarification.

Often the dividing line between prejudice and bigotry isn't very clear. One might say that homosexual sinners are prejudiced against Christian sinners, or vice versa. And there are bigots in both groups as well.

The thing that is interesting is that usually it is the homosexual sinners that jump immediately into accusations of bigotry against the Christian sinners, almost as though they are throwing up a wall of protection from some unseen foe, because, while there might be accusations on the Christian sinners side, such accusations come from desires for change among homosexual sinners, so that good can come to homosexual sinners as it is coming to the Christian sinners.

it was murder conspiracy, and not murder attempt, don't?

I guess the sentences are lower for it.

Responding sequentially:

1)    So then, what's the probability that you exist?  Still 50/50?  You either exist or you don't.  Arbitrarily ascribing probabilities as you did increases the absurdity of your argument by 67%.

Seriously, though, I have absolutely no idea why you think you can just randomly ascribe some probability to something you haven't even confirmed to exist in the first place.  That's just all kinds of weird.

Think of it this way: consider a probability function as a law governing so-called 'chance' events.  Because we can observe these events but not the probability function itself,  things can appear random or probabilistic.  But really, the probability function itself is the causal mechanism for these events.

2)  The point here is that whether you agree or disagree with the morality of any given religious text says absolutely nothing about whether God exists.  Liking or disliking something does not cause things to exist or not exist.

I'd hold off on the trite comments if I were you.  Your ramblings are almost as incoherent as they are contradictory, and I'd like to remind you of the irony in using the contents of the Bible to support your argument when your argument calls the contents of the Bible into question.  That's what tends to happen when people are ignorant yet take pride in their belief they are not.  I would hold off on your assumptions about me and redirect your focus back onto your horrid line of reasoning if I were you.  That's the issue you need to address, not me.

3)  When you say "absolute truth is wrong," are you saying that absolutely or relatively?  On one hand, if you claim to be making an absolute statement, then you contradict your own argument.  On the other hand, if you claim to be making a relative argument, then you skip completely past contradiction and straight to irrelevancy (because you wouldn't be making a claim one way or the other about absolute truth).  Again, I would listen if I were you.

The existence of absolute truth is simply demonstrated, for any attempt to deny absolute truth only reaffirms its existence.  Saying "there is no absolute truth" is equivalent to saying "it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth."  Similarly, saying "truth is only relative" is equivalent to saying "the absolute truth is that truth is only relative."  Furthermore, saying "there is more than one absolute truth" is equivalent to saying "it is the absolute truth that there is more than one absolute truth."

This is what you need to understand:  Absolute truth is absolute, relative to conditional phenomena, and conditional phenomena is relative to both other conditional phenomena and to absolute truth.

@the joint Hey I'm reading your comments in this thread and I see you haven't made any progress outside your comfort zone since our last bout. Your ego seems to have grown a bit though  
Anyway I'm not here to start another session (unless you're ready to enforce your theory in which case I'd take you seriously ), I just thought I'd chime in on this one specific point. While I cannot know the thought processes that led darkota to his comment about the 50-50 chance of God existing, superficially his words allude to a logic slightly more 'fundamental' than the one you're using here.
Unrelated: One thing I couldn't help notice, your analogy in the last paragraph seems to imbue you with some rather special knowledge indeed