Bitcoin Forum
November 01, 2024, 12:37:54 PM *
News: Bitcoin Pumpkin Carving Contest
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »
1  Economy / Games and rounds / Re: [Primedice.com] Follow the format giveaway! on: August 30, 2017, 11:34:10 AM
Username: Horacewooddw

Joined date: 03.06.2017
2  Economy / Games and rounds / Re: [Primedice.com] The Bet ID BINGO Competition! on: August 19, 2017, 01:43:12 PM
Username: horacewooddw


BET #18,512,150,099
BET #18,512,191,998
BET #18,510,895,197
BET #18,510,314,996
BET #18,512,329,595
BET #18,510,370,794
BET #18,512,191,393
BET #18,510,892,692
BET #18,510,893,191
BET #18,511,345,390
BET #18,511,014,989
BET #18,511,915,188
BET #18,511,015,987
BET #18,512,232,086
BET #18,512,341,185
BET #18,512,116,684
BET #18,512,261,283
BET #18,510,890,882                 
BET #18,511,017,081
BET #18,512,114,980
BET #18,511,729,779
BET #18,510,890,578
BET #18,510,312,677
BET #18,511,915,976
BET #18,511,018,075
3  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: July 13, 2017, 06:57:28 AM
Quote from: Horacewoodwood
You keep mentioning the CIA and this makes it even more of a joke.
What is so unscientific about these trials? Empirical evidence was posted, you posted only your beliefs. You have no real reason to object to a finding by the CIA, and no plausible objection to the psychic experiments on camera.
Read more:
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_misdirection#skeptical_misdirection_denying_evidence
Quote from: Horacewoodwood
Yes, the CIA have once believed in telekinesis,
You think they no longer believe in it? Then why the report confirming it?
Sources:
On-Camera test: http://eegym.com/can-eeg-tell-if-telekinesis-is-a-magicians-trick-2/
Test by the United States CIA: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/66xy95/zhang_baosheng_confirmed_cia_psychic_ability_to/


An institution who believed killing goats by staring at them is possible is not quite a proper candidate for scientific research over telekinesis. There is no real report confirming anything, you can contact the CIA and show them the links, see the answer. However, considering you posted a link found in the conspiracy section from reddit, you should see how this becomes highly pathetic. As for the 'unscientific' part, you are either retarded or lack the knowledge to properly read something due to your 'cherrypicking' technique: telekinesis is not about psychology. It would include physics, neuroscience, chemistry, biology. These fields are not researched for telekinesis, so that research that you are talking about are mildly serious and do not confirm absolutely nothing.
4  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: July 12, 2017, 04:05:03 PM
All of these "christian scientists" use the same strategy of misquoting and making up information and claiming it came from real scientists.
What about the research of scientists from the CIA and academic psychologists? Since they found that telekinesis exists over their numerous tests, this indicates that mind has power over matter. That would imply that philosophical materialism is not true.

No, they didn't.
What is so unscientific about these trials? Empirical evidence was posted, you posted only your beliefs. You have no real reason to object to a finding by the CIA, and no plausible objection to the psychic experiments on camera.
Read more:
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_misdirection#skeptical_misdirection_denying_evidence
You keep mentioning the CIA and this makes it even more of a joke. Yes, the CIA have once believed in telekinesis, time travel, psychics and other crazy things. They stopped funding those research a long time ago, there is also a movie mocking these 'secret' fails, it's called 'The men who stare at goats' and it is based on real facts. Those idiots really tried to kill goats by staring at them. As for psychologists, I think they may study it in their field, but there is absolutely no conclusion they can reach without the help of other fields like physics, neuroscience, biology, chemistry. I did not doubt the 'experiments', although there are holes in them. However, stating telekinesis exists, thus the soul exists and survives death based on those mildly serious (yes, they are mildly serious, i am starting to believe you fail to understand what scientific research means and how complicated it is) experiments is ridiculous.
5  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: July 11, 2017, 10:39:11 PM

Talk, talk, talk. All you have there is political science. Like the others, you haven't shown any unrebutted rebuttal to the scientific proof that God exists. That's okay, though. We all know that God exists.

Cool

I already did and you just ignored it and said that i turned aliens into God?? I mean, it's clear that you won't accept that there is no evidence for the existence of god and you are now desperately trying to convince yourself. It's ok, give it some time maybe you will awake one day.

The only thing you did was to SAY that you did it.    Cool

You said it has to be god, what else and then you asked me what else could it be. I gave you 2 examples and then you just went full retard and said that I turned aliens into God.

But the language that I used was showing you that if aliens made cause and effect, entropy and complexity, then the aliens are God.

But, we are not the same as God. We might be His children, but because we are not the same, God is alien to us... at least in some ways. Also, God is so complex that He at least looks like many - even though He is One. So, God is "aliens" in a strange sense of the language.

The point is that you are agreeing that God exists. And that is part of what this thread is about.

Cool

God is also a virtual reality program?

The universe is a virtual reality program that God put together. The "almightyness" of God is exceedingly far beyond understanding. But we virtual machines can understand a little of Him.

Cool

So if it could be aliens or something that is not even sentient why call it God? Unless your definition of god is something else it makes no sense to call anything that created the universe a god.

You are not complex enough to be sentient, are you.

Entropy shows us that for there to be "A" amount of complexity, there has to be "B" amount of complexity that is more complex than A.

Anybody or anything that is complex enough to make the universe as we know it, should probably be termed "God." But anybody or anything that has the ability to set up the thousands of years worth of tremendous complexity through cause and effect, definitely IS God.

Cool
Episode 24 - 'The Second Law of Thermoretardis'
At the moment, the complexity of Badecker's stupidity can be properly measured, since there are less probabilities of stupid shit he might spew out. But among all, there is one thing he kept repeating: cause and effect, entropy combined with complexity, etc. We never understood what the actual fuck is he talking about because he would never explain anything, but now he did. And as expected, the fail is greater than ever. Badecker has no idea what entropy is, what complexity refers to. What I believe he meant to say is that the second law of thermodynamics requires that the total entropy of a system can not decrease other by increasing the entropy of another system. The entropy of our system increases, due to the irreversible processes along the time. That is the arrow of entropy. The complexity of a system does not define intelligence, will, power or knowledge. It only refers to the number of microstates available in a system, the more microstates, the harder to understand and predict the system and its state. That is something that happens with our system because of the increase in entropy. The second law of thermodynamics along with entropy are fields that require lots of knowledge, observation, dedication, intelligence, etc. The superficial way in which our idiot Badecker talks about them shows how much he knows about physics in general. The shit he stated earlier is the proof: he is affected by the Second Law of Thermoretardis, where the entropy of his stupidity is decreasing because of his cold brain. His heat of stupidity is flowing to the cold brain, thus decreasing its entropy while increasing his brain's entropy. See you next time, after our retard decides to share some more retarded facts. Much love!
6  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: July 11, 2017, 05:29:50 PM
Actually you took this out of context, horace. Skeptics use often use a double standard, that is their fallacy:

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_misdirection#skeptical_misdirection_double_standard

The other common tactic is known as Misrepresenting The Scientific Evidence.
I took what out of what context? Speak to me, explain, come up with arguments, enough with the links already. If you are not able to speak to me and you always need to give me links with what others think that us 'skeptics' are wrong about, then you do not understand anything of it. More than that, I can't understand what you are talking about because you solely posted a link. If you want to answer to what I have said, talk about that, you have it there, you can analyze it and tell me what do you believe is wrong and why. In that way, we can have a proper conversation. Otherwise it will be the same as it is with Badecker, everyone trying to have a conversation and a monkey saying anything that crosses his mind. Let's keep this simple and efficient.
The extraordinary evidence (in favor of parapsychology and survival) has already been provided. I also linked to some examples where this evidence was deliberately ignored by skeptics. Since that information is in the link above, I am including it in our conversation by way of reference; surely you have the ability to read through an essay on the topic of skeptical misdirection because it clearly relates to our discussion about parapsychology.

Psychics and telekinesis were tested by the CIA and other spy agencies and on camera by psychologists.

I have posted a lot of other extraordinary evidence, yet skeptics insist there is no reliable evidence. Why keep up the charade? Skeptics should just come out and say what is so unreliable about the tests done to prove telekinesis.

Sources:
On-Camera test: http://eegym.com/can-eeg-tell-if-telekinesis-is-a-magicians-trick-2/
Test by the United States CIA: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/66xy95/zhang_baosheng_confirmed_cia_psychic_ability_to/

Skeptics in this thread consistently ignore the evidence I posted and it demonstrates that they are not here to learn, instead they like to argue and pat themselves on the back.


Ha!  welcome back my friend!  great episode as always.
thread was starting look to to like the Astergath smackdown of BADecker (no contest)
with a sprinkling of parapsychology nonsense.
 sorry qwik,  but telekinesis not even worth discussing, akin to debating a flat earth




How can you say it is not even worth discussing when I have just posted 2 very serious scientific experiments? You do not even have an answer. Prove to me that you are rational and address this.

The pseudo-skeptics went full retard again and actually admitted to being pseudo-skeptics, because according to the skeptic above, there isn't anything else besides scientism! To be more specific, because he has no answer to what was the cause of the experimental results, he believed in scientism because he learned about it in his youth.

Why is it that atheists in this thread all deny experiments that prove telekinesis but never explain what is  wrong with these trials?
First of all, they are not very serious, they are mildly serious and unsolved. There is no conclusion after two experiments and that's they way things work. Phenomenons that claim to suspend the way our reality works need greater observation, experimentation and theory than the laws of science that we understand. It's not even close to conclude anything so we can talk about it but we will never reach a common point which shall make the discussion in vain. Not having an answer yet to some questions or results of experiments does not conclude that it must be paranormal. Some things need a greater time of research, some things may be faux, some we may never find out. Also, science is not an -ism, the only idiots calling it that are the ones that try to find different answers for questions we already have answered. Science is not a system of belief, it works, you are posting now with the help of scientific research in the domain of technology, so for once, please, cut the crap off and pay a bit of respect to the ones who have dedicated their lives into researching something that actually helps you at the moment, you mindless prick. Thank you for your consideration, if there is any.
7  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: July 07, 2017, 07:39:59 AM

Explain how complexity shows god exists, don't just say it does. Where is your argument

With regard to the info in my links, above, explain how God doesn't exist. Don't just say He doesn't. Nobody has rebutted the scientific proof that God exists. But why don't you at least try?

Cool

I have done several times, it's even quoted by you here lol. ''The cause could be many things, claiming it was God it's like claiming it was aliens, no proof for any of them. '' Your links, if everything is true there, which might not be but for the sake of it we will say it is, only proves there is a beginning and a cause for the existence of the universe, it does not say anything about the cause itself. The cause can be many different things and you can only speculate what it is.

You miss the point. The point is that no matter who or what started cause and effect, it is God.

The fact of the "kind of" complexity that cause and effect produces, shows not only that it was absolutely God Who started it, but that God is way beyond the imagination of mankind in the wisdom, knowledge, power, and glory that He has and is.

Cool

Well then we are back to the problem. You said the bible is true, therefore only the god from the bible could be the one who started cause and effect. It can't be anything. It can't be Zeus or aliens. Do you not understand your failed logic here?

You are mixing yourself all up. Focus on the links, and you will prove God to yourself:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

Cool

You love loops, don't you? As I said, even if everything there is accurate, the only thing you are proving is that something created the universe. However you don't know what that something is and you are just assuming is the god from the bible because you believe in him.

I looked through your little post here. There isn't even any attempted rebuttal of science. You simply jump into religion.

Come on. Surely you can find a rebuttal to cause and effect, entropy or complexity... or their combined application in science. I mean, since you are so against science, and in favor of religion, that should be an easy thing for you to do, right? Cheesy

What? No rebuttal? Awe, that's too bad. Gonna miss you in Heaven, though. But only for a tiny moment.

Cool

Are you autistic? Cause and effect, entropy and complexity do not prove or show who or what created the universe.

These scientific truths show that it was definitely God that did the creating, even though they don't explain what God really is.

Cool

Where is the evidence pointing to a God and not to something else?

The evidence is right in what you asked. There isn't anything else. So, all the evidence points to God.

Somebody might suggest that big bang is something else. But BB doesn't even scientifically define a method for intelligence in the universe. BB is out of the picture by its own design.

Do you have a "something else" that you can point at, that makes any sense at all?

Cool
Sorry for the long break, I had some work to do and I was gone for a while. In the meantime, I see our little retard went loose and started growing his rotten teeth again. Well, here we are, episode 23 that proves the stupidity of Badecker, an episode named simply 'Apologeezus'.
 Badecker has done and said many shit while I was gone, but most of it was the same loop of Badecker where he always goes back to the links after a fail. We've seen a very good question from Astargath regarding how complexity works combined with cause and effect and how does that lead to God and of course he never got an answer, Badecker went around the question and somehow got to religion only to accuse Astargath later of talking religion and to change the subject. We already knew Badecker knows nothing about physics, biology, cosmology, etc so nothing new in the fact he can't really answer how the laws presented in his links 'work'.
 However, there is something he hasn't done until now, not in this way: admit he is an apologist. The apologist went full retard again and actually admitted to being an apologist by saying he believes God created the universe because there isn't anything else, to be more specific, because he has no answer to what was the cause of the universe so he just believed in God because he learned about it since he was a baby. That is what an apologist is. What is even funnier is that by admitting that, he denied his whole 'scientific' theory and even his God again, only with the superficiality of the mindset. While believers are tolerated and understood because they need something, they feel they can believe in something great, in something that they call beautiful, apologists are simple idiots who can't admit that they don't know the answer to a question, so they just rule out the question by answering with 'God'. That makes the whole God thing even more superficial and pitiful than it already is nowadays, since that is how religions appeared in the first place, because the lack of knowledge. Now we have the knowledge, but some retards still answer scientific questions with 'God'. One of these retards is right here, and we have 77 more episodes to prove what an idiot he is. Applause for our retarded apologist Badecker for coming out of the closet and stay tuned folks, I ain't going anywhere.
8  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: June 22, 2017, 11:13:59 PM
Alright, I will start from little to big evidences...

There are loads of Crooks making fake ghost videos on YouTube but don't worry, this 2 gentlemen aren't part of them:
Search for MichaelDMagee on YouTube and go through his videos, from Most Viewed to Recent Videos .. or simply use this link to land on his Channel: https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCbAg65u3LLHe2PU8AXx6Vfw

The 2nd gentleman is Luke Millett :  https://m.youtube.com/user/lukesp13/videos?flow=list&sort=dd&view=0&itct=CA4Qui8iEwiE4NzXzJ_QAhUMiBYKHUfxAkU%3D&client=mv-google&gl=NG&hl=en


If you're still not convinced am going to show you one other thing that will enable you go physical with the supernatural.

I will keep an eye on this thread. Goodluck


Come on, this is so fucking sad. It's sad even if you are trolling, this is just weak as fuck. If I would show people a video of a bearded man, dressed in a fucking piece of cloth, walking on water, turning water into wine and coming back to life (Romania's Got Talent had a magician do this trick) nobody would ever fucking believe it's Jesus (except for Badecker, he would believe anything as long as it says God) and everyone would say it's fake, as it would be. You expect someone to believe in the proven existence of evil spirits by showing them the videos of some bored horror movie lovers from YouTube? In 2017? Damn man, that is sad as fuck.
9  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: June 22, 2017, 09:38:24 PM
OK guys you really made your points very well.

Thank you.

Still, I tend to agree with this blog author that either there is not much proofs for Darwin's theory as well.

It seems that Darwin's theory is the most logic but still the are some ''holes'' and unproven facts in this theory, isn't it?
Darwin's theory has been researched before and after his 'revolutionary' theory and the result of it is the theory of evolution, it is proved to be a fact, there are no holes in it, that is if you understand that it does not explain the 'origin of life' but the evolutionary processes. Creationists and apologists try to use it as a counter (they call it Darwinism, trying to make it look like a dogma) and they say it does not prove the origin of life, that it has holes. They are wrong from the start since the theory of evolution never mentions the origin of life. That is what creationists mostly do, as you can see a clear example in our retarded friend here, Badecker, who 'scientifically' proves the existence of God without being even able to define a God, to establish the characteristics, the identity of the God and why it must be it and not something else. In fact, he even fails to properly establish if there is need for a creator or not. Superficiality, in science, can be very easily spotted and rebutted, regardless the fact that some idiots still go on with the same ideas after a spot on, 100% clear scientific rebuttal.

The result of the science fiction theory of evolution, is the science fiction evolution.

Cool
Interlude:
A little dumb boy who believes a super powerful bearded man created the entire universe in order to have a little planet with nasty human assholes on it that might go extinct at any time (watch any science fiction movie and you'll see this shit fits the genre) also believes that a proven, well established biological fact is science fiction. That is the beautiful work of natural selection, not all specimens have the same abilities and intelligence. Some are really dumb and useless. The good thing about nature is that it won't send our little retarded friend Badecker into a lake of fire just for not believing in it, unless the retard sets his house on fire or something. Science: it does not judge you, it needs no prayers, it needs no money, it just works.
10  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: June 22, 2017, 09:32:11 PM
Evolution Is Mere Theory meaning it may end up not true,Do not forget this
The theory makes alot of sense though but I don't see why God won't be responsible for making evolution possible. Human are even considering building self-replicating machines that are capable of learning from their environment and adapting.

Concept of God maybe unique to human. It's possible that as we advance we may slowly begin come to terms with creationism.




You are making the same confusion as Badecker does regarding the term 'theory'. Theory, in the domain of science, is not even by far the same as the term theory that we use in the day by day conversations. It is the opposite of it. While in regular terms, 'theory' means a unsubstantiated hypothesis, a scientific theory is ' an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.' So, again, no, the theory of evolution might not end up true, it is true, it works, unlike the practices and principles of religion. Always remember, God appeared in religion, not separate. Creationists, the ones that try to combine science with religion, failing big time in every domain, appeared long after religion already established its dogmas, made its claims, spew its bullshit, brainwashed the populations of our planet. They appeared just by the time religion started to lose credibility in front of truth. Too big of a coincidence, isn't it? And if you are ever worried by atheists, always remember that an atheist is only 1% more atheist than you are, since you believe in one religion out of 4200, most of which have numerous Gods, like hinduism, with 320.000.000 Gods. I guess 1% is even exaggerated in this case.
11  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: June 22, 2017, 09:21:13 PM
OK guys you really made your points very well.

Thank you.

Still, I tend to agree with this blog author that either there is not much proofs for Darwin's theory as well.

It seems that Darwin's theory is the most logic but still the are some ''holes'' and unproven facts in this theory, isn't it?
Darwin's theory has been researched before and after his 'revolutionary' theory and the result of it is the theory of evolution, it is proved to be a fact, there are no holes in it, that is if you understand that it does not explain the 'origin of life' but the evolutionary processes. Creationists and apologists try to use it as a counter (they call it Darwinism, trying to make it look like a dogma) and they say it does not prove the origin of life, that it has holes. They are wrong from the start since the theory of evolution never mentions the origin of life. That is what creationists mostly do, as you can see a clear example in our retarded friend here, Badecker, who 'scientifically' proves the existence of God without being even able to define a God, to establish the characteristics, the identity of the God and why it must be it and not something else. In fact, he even fails to properly establish if there is need for a creator or not. Superficiality, in science, can be very easily spotted and rebutted, regardless the fact that some idiots still go on with the same ideas after a spot on, 100% clear scientific rebuttal.
12  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: June 22, 2017, 11:40:29 AM

So a wisp of stardust is god. Horace, you definitely have a new episode here

And that ^^^ entirely proves your lack of good faith in this topic.

Cool

Why are you bringing religion into this? This is scientific proof for god and yet no one has presented any good scientific proof to prove god.

Cool

Now you tell us that you have a religion of bad faith.

The reason it fits this topic is to show folks that most (if not all) of what you say is designed to downplay the fact that God exists, while you, yourself, know that He does exist. Knowing such will strengthen the understanding that people have, that the things you say can't be trusted.

Right on topic.

Cool
As I said, 353 pages and still no one has been able to provide any scientific evidence for the existence of God. Hopefully people will realize that god doesn't exist and religion is poison. The only thing that works is science.

Nobody is force to accept proof for much of anything. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Check out the proof for the fact that God exists:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

Cool

Sci-fi. When you look the whole thing over, and compare the writings, it is all based on non-facts. The links you provide show it right within themselves. And you can find rebuttals to the things in the links, by simply reading the things that are said there, and finding the circular references.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps I can find rebuttals right in the stuff in my links. Perhaps I can find circular references there. I am kinda smart in a way. It just might be that I can find these things there.

But you can't. How do we know? Here's how.

You are adamantly against the things that I say. You are so much against them, that you are against me just for saying them. You show this in your posts. What does this mean? Here's what.

If you could find any rebuttals against the proof that God exists, as expressed in my links, you would show them. You would get right into my wording, and show a rebuttal and how it is a rebuttal. You wouldn't sit around rebutting ME. You would rebut the proof that God exists.

You blab all kinds of things against me and how "goofy" I am to suggest that there is proof for God. You attempt to rebut me, as a person, in all kinds of ways. But you can't seem to find a rebuttal for the scientific proof that God exists. BECAUSE IF YOU COULD, YOU WOULD POST IT.

And if I rebutted what you posted, you would rebut my rebuttal to you. But you don't do this. You can't. Because science proves that God exists, just as I explain, and in many other ways.

This means that the only rebuttal you have is to SAY that you have rebuttal. And SAYING alone doesn't rebut anything. In fact it strengthens the thing it is trying to rebut.

God exists, and you are helping to strengthen it as fact in the minds of the readers, simply by not rebutting the proof, yet saying that there is rebuttal.

Cool
Welcome back folks, to episode 22 that proves our Badecker is as stupid as possible, 'The apologistic crybaby and his downfall'.
Although we've had enough material by now, we got very short on the 'humor' part simply because Badecker repeats himself and never comes up with something new. The only thing that gradually increases is his level of stupidity...it's just a scientific thing, he would never get it. He still missuses terms like 'stardust', he 100% does not know what is the difference between cosmic dust and stardust, but it's not the first time. He still bitches about people talking about religion, as if God would be part of science, not religion. He still bitches about people not rebutting his shit links although almost everyone did and he never responded properly, he just kept re-posting the links and acting like a 3 year old by saying 'no, that's not true, I am right'. He also bitches about people rebutting him as a person  and that proves that he is not capable of observing that I am the one rebutting him and the claim that he knows any science at all. The reason why I do it is the same: rebutted his links, he kept acting like a kid and doing some nasty propaganda, so the next step is proving that the guy that posts those links is a stupid, idiotic, brainwashed, hypocrite, mentally ill monkey. It's not a hard job either, any sane person could prove that Badecker is indeed stupid. Even religious people would say the same thing, because he does not make any sense and he can;t make any sense, that is the only reason he only posts the same links over and over again and when it comes to having some scientific debate over it, he can't say anything else besides that, or if he does, the second he speaks he spews out some really stupid shit, like that moment when he debunked himself. He just went in a loop where he bitches, he re-posts, he says something retarded and goes back to bitching, re-posting, and so on. If no scientist could not prove God in absolutely any way until now, the probability of a bitching, narrow minded idiot who knows nothing about science to 'scientifically' prove God, and exactly that God, is actually lower than the probability of God existing. That is why my proof is needed, whether the retard likes it or not. And the episodes will continue until number 100. Stay tuned folks, we're still here!
13  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: June 18, 2017, 08:16:11 PM

You're still too ignorant to understand the answer, I see.    Cool

EDIT: You and stats should head over to the local tavern together. The tavern patrons and the bartender would get the biggest laugh ever watching you two try to order a couple of drinks.

Maybe whilst at the tavern the entire place could discuss how ignorant you are.

We could even discuss how you believe it is appropriate for children to marry.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1969184.msg19591768#msg19591768

You are a twisted individual BADecker.
Interlude:
I don't really think this should pass unobserved, regardless the fact that Badecker calls anyone a troll or not. I've kept talking about the lack of morality on most apologists, but this is a little bit beyond. A creep who pretends to understands science claims that 12, for girls, and 14, for boys, is a good age for marriage. Of course, marriage implies sexual intercourse, it may also allow pregnancy, etc. Nowadays, a big majority of people who get married experience a divorce at a certain time, mostly because we still fail to communicate properly and we make really bad choices being influenced, at many times, by the chemistry of attraction. A simple relationship requires understanding, cohabitation, cooperation, and many other social 'talents' that the human being possesses, a 12 or 14 year old is not even close to behave like that, let alone the fact that such a thing would interact and ruin the beautiful and sincere process of childhood. Of course some religious people, especially christians nowadays, have no problem with having sexual intercourse with a 12 or 14 year old, they actually believe it's right and healthy. We can observe the same behavior on our friend Badecker. I'm not accusing him of molesting children, I am highlighting a lack of morality, or better said, the presence of a specifically religious immorality in his behavior. Check the link and you will see his answer after stats actually asked him 'what the fuck?'. He posted some links (typically of him) of some laws from Massachusetts, as if that would make it right. Conclusion: now we know he is stupid, most probably mentally ill and he also lacks morality, since his morality is 'God given', and as we all know, his God, the 'scientifically' proved one, only gave 10 commandments...child abuse is not part of them. Stay tuned folks, our Badkecker shows his faces with every post.
P.S. He won't ever answer to these accusations, he will just say it's 'trolling or religious talk' and he will try to go around it by claiming that this does not rebut his 'science'.
14  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: June 18, 2017, 07:57:47 PM
of course GOD exists, how do you think babies are born ?
God fucks everything up and voila...babies are born!
15  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: June 18, 2017, 12:02:32 AM
You're still too ignorant to understand the answer, I see.    Cool

EDIT: You and stats should head over to the local tavern together. The tavern patrons and the bartender would get the biggest laugh ever watching you two try to order a couple of drinks.

Rip the definition of God, badecker can't even define what he is trying to prove scientifically ROFL. Badecker: Scientifically speaking, I don't know what the Creator really is. haha
Cool

Being that you jokers are so interested in God all of a sudden, look Him up in the dictionaries and encyclopedias. Or study the Bible.

As with many things in science, the scientific proof for God proves that He exists, without showing a lot of other info about Him.

What's the matter? Can't do your own research? If you spent half the time researching, that you spend writing nonsense posts, you could find out a lot about Him.

Cool
Episode 21: 'The drama with the joker'
Whoever thinks that Badecker would ever stop from repeating himself regardless of the circumstances should quit hoping at this moment. Our little apologist is way too ill and stupid to ever have a comeback to reality, he'll just keep on going chaotically about the same thing, over and over again. It's funny how he refers to people who argue with him as jokers but what is more funny is this 'Being that you jokers are so interested in God all of a sudden'. He actually reproaches people that they are 'interested' in God on a thread that is called 'scientific proof of God' and where he makes a living from saying God once a couple of words or so. He also recommends the bible since it works so great with science. (if he reads the post, this was irony; search it on the internet and see what it means) He then proceeds to his normal trajectory by going full retard in stating that science proves God exists, but without the necessary info. He believes his religion is science. It is also very funny to observe how he always says 'science', he can't really pick on domains like physics, biology, cosmology, chemistry, etc. He just calls everything science. He does not know that you can not prove that a certain thing exists while not being certain if the certain thing is what you believe it is or maybe something else. He believes with certainty that human emotions, thoughts, etc were made, just like cars are made. I once saw a short video, an interview with a man that lived in a village and did not know too much about this world. He was asked about the axis of Earth, if he knows about it. The man's answer was delightful: he did not think it existed because he thought it would be too big not to be seen and if it exists, than who takes care of it not to rust, who oils it, who repairs it when it is broken? The man literally thought the axis was a machine. That's the same with Badecker who believes the man is a machine and emotions were programmed, designed and made. The only difference is that the man in the interview had an excuse: all he did, day by day, was work on his land, grow animals and drink. He did not know any better, he was never interested in such things, nor did he claim to know about them. Badecker is as stupid as that man, but he claims to be a scientist. That man was uninformed. Badecker has access to the information and also knows some things...but he is too stupid to understand them. Episode 22 coming soon, stay tuned for our proof that Badecker is as stupid as a human can be.
16  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: June 17, 2017, 06:06:55 AM
Episode 21: 'Chaos and randomness inside the mind of a retard named...you know the name'
Ever won an argument with a decent, intelligent human being? Things change, the argument changes from his side, he thinks about it, even if he still sustains his idea, his argumentation will take new thinks into consideration. Try the same with dumb, stupid, idiotic people and it will go like this: no matter how evident your argument is, his argument will always stay the same. He can never realize the fallacy in his thinking so he will always believe he is right, never researching further. That is what is happening with our small retard, Badecker. His answers have a randomness, many times he does not answer to what you said but to what crosses his useless mind. But no matter how random his answer is, he will always keep claiming the same stupid shit, over and over again. For him, the big bang is not real. He can't really understand that the Big Bang has been scientifically observed, its traces have been seen, they completely match the theory. He does not understand that there was first a theory and a prediction of what they would find and they found exactly the same thing the theory contained (Background Radiation). He does not understand the Big Bang was not a myth (as Gods are), it was properly defined, it obeys scientific laws, it is completely understandable and it has already been reproduced, on a very small scale. He somehow surpasses all of the facts in favor of his brainwashing fairy tale. He can not understand logic and he does not realize that cause and effect can not be a definite law since some things may except from the rule (radioactive decay, the big bang itself) because a cause has not yet been found, which turns cause and effect into an imperfect rule. He does not understand complexity, neither entropy and we can tell that just by the very own fact that he calls them 'scientific laws'. He does not understand that a God could not be proven based on the fact that cause and effect, entropy and complexity exist since all of these might (and might is the right term because of the exceptions) lead to the existence of a cause of the beginning, one that is undefined and unseen at the moment. He does not understand that because of our understanding of this universe (an understanding that works, it gets things going) science never mentions God as a possible first cause since there are an infinite more probable causes than this one. He does not understand that all religions have the same 'characteristics' of the Creator, they differ on the stories an are all man made and 90% they are historically erroneous which makes it all to seem a 'forgery' from the beginning. He does not understand that the age of our universe is an approximation, a very close one, not a theory and that it is a fact because the proofs have already been made, observations were clear, research was strongly done. All that Badecker can think of is that whatever the circumstances, God exists. No matter how hard the evidence would be, he would believe the same. That is a mental illness and a huge level of stupidity. The funny thing, the one that makes us not give a flying spit on his ideas, is that he doesn't even understand that he is stupid. Stay tuned for more, the chaotic retard will most surely come back with some new package for his own shit.

LOL!

Did you write that before my last comment? Or did you start it as soon as you saw I was online?

The scientific laws of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, when combined, not only prove that God exists, but also prove that there is no other way. Check out the summaries here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380,
and then research it to see for yourself.

HWW, your humor is simply too much Cheesy

Cool

Ha ha ha ha ha ha

You still posting your links.

Have you ever asked yourself why noone else posts your links? Its because they prove nothing.

You are the only one who believes them.

That is why i laugh at you.


It's not that other people don't believe. It's like you... don't understand. Science isn't a believing matter. It is an understanding of knowledge matter.

Cool
Interlude:
Of course, our small idiot will never be able to surpass his stupidity, he actually believes he is so important that someone would follow to see when he is online. He believes himself to be a small God. He also believes people were healthier before and they could all be inbred. They could, but they were not healthy and neither were the off springs...it's just a science thing, we can't expect Badecker to understand it. He always says about anyone who actually knows a bit of science that they do 'religious talk', he does not believe in the Big Bang...and then he goes telling stats science isn't a believing matter. A religious apologist who believes God exists because cause and effect exists says science is not  believing matter. Not that he wouldn't be right, science really isn't a believing matter, it's just the irony of it all: he only makes false assumptions (he believes stuff) while he knows science is not about that. Understanding of knowledge? This guy does not even understand in what he believes anymore. That is indeed mental illness with a shit ton of stupidity. Stick around for episode 21!
17  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: June 17, 2017, 12:07:37 AM
God exists. Scientists have always known this. From Apologetics Press:
Cause and Effect—Scientific Proof that God Exists
by     Kyle Butt, M.Div.

The Universe exists and is real. Every rational person must admit this point. If it did not exist, we would not be here to talk about it. So the question arises, “How did the Universe get here?” Did it create itself? If it did not create itself, it must have had a cause.

Let’s look at the law of cause and effect. As far as science knows, natural laws have no exceptions. This is definitely true of the law of cause and effect, which is the most universal and most certain of all laws. Simply put, the law of cause and effect states that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect.

Material effects without adequate causes do not exist. Also, causes never occur after the effect. In addition, the effect never is greater than the cause. That is why scientists say that every material effect must have an adequate cause. The river did not turn muddy because the frog jumped in; the book did not fall off the table because the fly landed on it. These are not adequate causes. For whatever effects we see, we must present adequate causes.


Read more at https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=879.


Cool

The evidence is sufficient to show that this material Universe needs a non-material cause. That non-material Cause is God because...Huh?? Yet again a stupid christian webpage claiming that God did it without not one single shred of evidence. Look I can do it too.
The evidence is the complexity. Stuff doesn't become complex without a more complex precursor. Entropy shows this. The complexity of the universe is so extremely great that the term "God" fits Whatever made the universe.



The evidence is sufficient to show that this material Universe needs a non-material cause. That non-material Cause is the (Pick any God from any religion you want)
Religions are usually misguided in their understanding of God. Choose the real God, the one that science proves through cause and effect, entropy, and complexity. Then find the religion that most correctly matches the real God. Then study that religion to find the things about God that science is too weak to find out.



If there is to be a deity that is the exception from the requirement that all existing things need a cause then the same exception can be made for the sum of all energy that exists, considering that it manifests in different forms.
That we know, only the things of the universe are cause and effect things. In fact, we can barely conceive of anything that would be outside of the universe at all. Nothing random has ever been proven. But, God, being outside of the universe (at least in part) may have randomness within Himself. We just don't know through scientific observation, because science can barely observe things in this universe, but hasn't found a way to observe anything outside of the universe.


Further, even if a person wanted to accept that there was such a being there is nothing at all in the cosmological argument to indicate that the being would have any of the properties of humans that are projected into the concept of the deity of  any particular religion.  The first mover or first cause is devoid of any other characteristic.

The point is that through scientific observation, we know very little about the characteristics of God. Many religions have elements of truth regarding the characteristics of God, because the religious info has been passed down or written down from the beginning. Science has a long way to go to find out as much about God as religion has found out about Him.

Science is going in the wrong direction. Used to be that science searched for truth, and only accepted it as truth when it was proven. Now science accepts as truth the unproven big bang, and an unproven 13 to 14 billion year old universe, when religion shows us that the universe is less than 6,200 years old. Science is going the wrong way, and will ultimately fail if it doesn't change.

Let's get back to real science, both in this thread, and in scientific observation. Real science proves God exists. The proof is found through combining the basic scientific facts/laws/principles of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity. These could not exist together as they do in the universe without God, Whatever He may be.

Cool

Nope, stop it. Science doesn't prove any god at all. You haven't shown a single piece of evidence pointing to a specific god. Complexity? How does complexity point to your specific god? You have to define what god means which you haven't. You always talk about the god from the bible because thats your belief, a belief based on faith, not science.

So you don't have much scientific understanding about complexity. Look above at what I said about it.

We have no evidence in the universe of complexity coming about without something more complex being its precursor.

The fact that you want me to "stop it" shows that you are irritated because you don't have an answer to the things that I am showing you. Why are you so against reality? What changes in your life if you realize God is real? You still go on living just like you always have. The only thing that you might achieve is peace if you come to be on God's side rather than against Him.

Cool

Still not defining god. Still no evidence that proves anything you say points to your specific God. I can agree with everything you said and it still doesn't show God exists. The precursor has to be more complex but it doesn't have to be God. If it is God, who is the precursor of god then? Same argument over and over again. Self refuting arguments that you keep using.

-Everything has a cause (then you would say but god doesnt have a cause but you just said everything has a cause but god doesn't have a cause....)
-Everything that is complex requires a more complex precursor (then you would say god doesn't but you just said everything does....)
Loop arguments and none of them point to a specific God. You keep avoiding the question. Where is the evidence that shows your specific God is the real God.


You are forgetting one major thing here. God isn't necessarily part of everything. Everything includes this universe. If God has made Himself partially part of this universe, God still isn't included in everything, because He is outside of this universe, as well.

This is my God, the real God, as proven by the scientific laws/principles of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, combined.

Cool
Episode 21: 'Chaos and randomness inside the mind of a retard named...you know the name'
Ever won an argument with a decent, intelligent human being? Things change, the argument changes from his side, he thinks about it, even if he still sustains his idea, his argumentation will take new thinks into consideration. Try the same with dumb, stupid, idiotic people and it will go like this: no matter how evident your argument is, his argument will always stay the same. He can never realize the fallacy in his thinking so he will always believe he is right, never researching further. That is what is happening with our small retard, Badecker. His answers have a randomness, many times he does not answer to what you said but to what crosses his useless mind. But no matter how random his answer is, he will always keep claiming the same stupid shit, over and over again. For him, the big bang is not real. He can't really understand that the Big Bang has been scientifically observed, its traces have been seen, they completely match the theory. He does not understand that there was first a theory and a prediction of what they would find and they found exactly the same thing the theory contained (Background Radiation). He does not understand the Big Bang was not a myth (as Gods are), it was properly defined, it obeys scientific laws, it is completely understandable and it has already been reproduced, on a very small scale. He somehow surpasses all of the facts in favor of his brainwashing fairy tale. He can not understand logic and he does not realize that cause and effect can not be a definite law since some things may except from the rule (radioactive decay, the big bang itself) because a cause has not yet been found, which turns cause and effect into an imperfect rule. He does not understand complexity, neither entropy and we can tell that just by the very own fact that he calls them 'scientific laws'. He does not understand that a God could not be proven based on the fact that cause and effect, entropy and complexity exist since all of these might (and might is the right term because of the exceptions) lead to the existence of a cause of the beginning, one that is undefined and unseen at the moment. He does not understand that because of our understanding of this universe (an understanding that works, it gets things going) science never mentions God as a possible first cause since there are an infinite more probable causes than this one. He does not understand that all religions have the same 'characteristics' of the Creator, they differ on the stories an are all man made and 90% they are historically erroneous which makes it all to seem a 'forgery' from the beginning. He does not understand that the age of our universe is an approximation, a very close one, not a theory and that it is a fact because the proofs have already been made, observations were clear, research was strongly done. All that Badecker can think of is that whatever the circumstances, God exists. No matter how hard the evidence would be, he would believe the same. That is a mental illness and a huge level of stupidity. The funny thing, the one that makes us not give a flying spit on his ideas, is that he doesn't even understand that he is stupid. Stay tuned for more, the chaotic retard will most surely come back with some new package for his own shit.
18  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: June 15, 2017, 06:10:55 AM

Nope. That's actually God. The retard calls everything God, he never even described what God really is. He said his God is the God from the bible which can't be the fucking big bang because that's not what the bible says, therefore he is contradicting himself again with this non sense. He doesn't even know how to make any sense of what he says, it's pretty sad to be honest.

Just to show you how stupid your thinking is, consider the human body for example. We know humans exist. We know they have bodies. We have examined their bodies and found out lots of things about their bodies. But even after thousands of years of human life, we still are finding new things about their bodies.

Science proves God exists. Just because we haven't found out a lot of stuff about Him, doesn't mean He doesn't exist. Are you trying to say that people don't exist because we haven't found out everything about them? You jokers are about as backward as they come.

Cool

What you said has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. What I said is that you contradicted yourself and said that there is no evidence for God and that you didn't prove god's existence. Now you are just trying to say you didn't say that when it's right here, everyone can read it, save yourself from more embarrassment, it's pointless to keep arguing, you already destroyed yourself, quit being a delusional idiot and use your brain. Do something productive with your life.

Hey, man. Thank you for a couple of things. Thank you for thinking that I am important enough that you would focus on me rather than on the scientific proof for the existence of God. And thank you for the admonishment to "save" myself "from more embarrassment." Everyone needs thanks and admonishment now and again.

But you ARE having a bit of a bad day, aren't you? You know how it goes. If you can't destroy the message, "kill the messenger..." if you can.

So, somebody told you that I contradicted myself, eh? In an ongoing talk like this one, there are lots of things said. Some of them might sound like contradictions. But they aren't, necessarily. They might simply be unclear use of the language. Or they might be a misunderstanding of what was said. The point? I didn't contradict myself, even though you or others might have understood it that way.

The more important point? The scientific proof for the existence of God has always stood. Long ago Godly folks went on to other, more important things than sitting around, bantering with a bunch of jokers like you, who are unwilling to learn science.

Research the basic scientific laws and principles of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity. Then combine them, and show us how they DON'T prove the existence of God.

And thanks. You jokers are kinda fun. You are so easy to rebut.

Cool
Episode 20: 'A bitchslap to heaven'.
There we go folks, the nasty religious attitude, the lack of morals, lying in our faces that he never did something that is there to be seen. He acts as if the post itself is not there and someone lied about him contradicting himself. He calls his categorical contradiction an 'unclear use of the language' or a 'misunderstanding of what was said'. He concludes he did not contradict himself, it's our fault, not his. That is a lie. Anyone here can check out a few pages earlier and see it. That is how delusional religious people have become nowadays. I can understand the use and appearance of religion in primitive times, people did not know any better, they were useless, they needed to call the 'unknown' somehow, in case the unknown gets mad and makes the volcano erupt. But today? It is for sure a mental illness, lying you did not kill the victim while holding its decapitated head in your right arm and a bloody knife in your left arm means you are completely ill. To maintain your idea, the same you have contradicted, after absolutely everyone has rebutted it is also a sign of delusion and illness. To believe you know something in a domain (science is general, scientists are most of the time based in a domain, some are physicists, some are evolutionary biologists, cosmologists, etc), to have the proof and demonstration that you know shit and to still believe you are the best and everyone else should study you, that is again delusional and a sign of a mental illness. Of course, we would have liked if Badecker was indeed that stupid, if he was not mentally ill and just super dumb. But he is ill, he is nuts. When the messenger repeats the same message frantically, you can let him go, he is crazy as fuck. Well, let us all hope he gets his bitchslap to his heaven and someone takes care of him by administering the proper medication.
19  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: June 14, 2017, 12:17:09 PM
there are so many reason to believe in god, scientist don't even know where the life is begin with, so better to make our own research to make sure that there is a really god, i believe in god, but some people don't cause they are saying that they have nothing to proof it.
The proof, my friend, is the ultimatum, the last thing asked in order to establish the existence. The problem starts way before than proof. First of all, people start to sense something fake, a forgery, something man made, the stories behind all of the Gods are flawed, make no sense in reality, they take effect in a fiction writing. People understand that so they start to ask questions, they begin to research, they see how those writings, the only testimonials of Gods, are incompatible with the truth of our world, are not sustained by history, logic, physics, biology, cosmology, etc. The more they search, the less they believe because religion has always based it's power on the lack of knowledge. In the end, they all reach to the same conclusion: you can be as religious as you want, you can have faith, but keep it for yourself. If you claim that the world should acknowledge your God as a general truth, children must be baptized, people who marry must go to church, funerals must be attended by priests, religion must be taught in school, etc, then you must prove that your God exists and you have to do it categorically. So instead of blaming the scientists who actually do something instead of just praying for your soul who might exist or not and also get paid for it, you should start learning, research, appeal to common sense and reason and most important of all, don't start already set with the idea that God definitely exists. I don't expect you to leave your faith, I understand how impossible it is for you to conceive the fact that God might not exist at all, most people know for sure that smoking does really much harm to your health and they still smoke, it's a vice. Religion is worse than a vice, it is so widely spread that it is really hard to escape the simulacra. But that doesn't mean you have to preach your religion just because you believe it's the truth. It's not and as long as we have understanding for you and we don't even think about banning your 'thoughts' you should also have the understanding and keep it for yourself and the ones like you.
20  Other / Off-topic / Re: Scientific proof that God exists? on: June 14, 2017, 06:18:41 AM

Thanks again for helping to spread the proof that God exists, by not rebutting the scientific proof found here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.
 Cool

Romans 1:20:
Quote from: Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Since Saint Paul shows the logical reason for understanding the existence of God, in this and other passages, why wouldn't there be scientific proof, as well?

Cool


                     




See? Even the devil knows that God exists. And he is way more scientifically capable than the rest of us.

 Cool

Badecker also shows that cause and effect doesn't prove God existence. Then he proceeds to say that the rest of his argument doesn't prove God either because it points to ''something'' but we can't really know what that something is and then he admits he believes in God from the bible purely on faith. Then he goes full retard or maybe he has double personality and keeps posting the same links that he said didn't prove God because nothing can really prove God and he is trying now to deny that he said it. Why? It's right here, we can all see it, we can see what he wrote, why would he try to deny it now? Is there an explanation besides him being mentally ill?

You are not being logical. I don't generally us science fiction quotes, but Spock says it well in Star Trek (2009): "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth."

The point is that, because of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, even if big bang were fact, then big bang would be God. As it is, we don't know if BB is fact, but the three scientific laws and principles existing together as they do, point to a something which fits what God must be.

God exists, even though we don't know much about Him from science. The fact that He exists is a scientific fact, as well as an observational understanding... from simply observing the world.

Now that we can all see it again, why not understand it?

Cool
Episode 19: 'In deeper shit'
It has been a while, things cooled off and now Badecker, the retarded apologist went out of his lair not being afraid of his shadow anymore. He can eat shit again without the fear that everyone will laugh at him for debunking his own theory. He is happy and he has new answers...or not. Somehow he fails to see the great error in his mind, we don;t know why, but we've seen people speculate it might be mental illness...it probably is. What Badecker can't realize is that his mind is infected with the religious propaganda, his whole universe starts with the idea 'God exists', he can never take it out of the picture, not even in an imaginary way, because religion has always set its foot when talking about God: jokes were punished, the simple idea of not believing would have got you killed, mocking a God would have got you killed, etc. That is why the idea remained, it imposed itself through terror, and through generations it remained with it's laws but the terror is not needed anymore, because the world is infected properly in such a way that  very precise, time expensive surgery is needed to ever get out. It has been said before and it is a good comparison: religion is a North Korea dictatorship. Of course any idiot infected will say 'If Big Bang exists it must be God' because any answer is God for him, he can't think of anything else but God. In North Korea, everything is about the dictator, you think about him, not anything else in the world. Can this lead to a mental illness? Of course it can, it has all the possibilities of developing severe mental illnesses, but first of all, it's a mental delusion, a simulacra, it derives the 'believer' from reality and it makes him live in the simulation of a world that, he hopes, will never end because eternal life will be his reward for only 'believing' the lie. Yes lads, the shit goes deeper. Badecker might be mentally ill. We'll wait here for more so we can come with episode 20.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!