I played the Payday 2 beta with a friend; it's a very interesting game but it wasn't for me.  I was downed like 10 times each game and couldn't seem to stay out of the public eye long enough to do anything meaningful; a camera would catch me or someone would randomly walk into me.  If you're a planner, I'm sure it's wonderful, but I'm more of a guns-a-blazin type, which didn't work out well most of the time

Perhaps anonymous posters could be subject to that?  With membership removing the need for recaptcha

I could see this happening, but that seems limiting to what anonymous posters are seeking.

How does 4chan keep the spam out?

This would first require the newbie jail be removed

Right; it's inclined to happen because we're familiar, so though she can't actually read my mind, it sometimes seems as though she can.

You're meant to know, but only if you dare to look; it depends on how you approach these mysteries, and I believe it all begins with a question.  When you begin with an answer, you can only ever change the world around you to conform to your answer, but it's difficult to do this as the truth tends to be unforgiving no matter what you believe, unless you believe in the truth.  Ergo, a foundation without any answer, but possibilities, is the best approach to seeking the truth, as there is no presupposition or bias towards any idea, allowing us to accept what is likely and discard what is improbable; if we realize our beliefs are inconsistent with the truth, we must not change the truth, but change our beliefs, right?

So the question, in this case, is: "Why does person A with belief X receive inconsistent treatment in death when compared to people B, C, and D with belief X?"  My hypothesis is, when considering the data as being inconsistent--sometimes devout Christians have pleasant deaths, sometimes devout Christians do not--is that there is no correlation.  This would imply that one's devotion to God is not relevant to the quality of one's death.  So let's expand on this: "Why does person A with belief X receive inconsistent treatment in death when compared to person B with belief Y?"  Comparing two differing beliefs, we can still see that the ways people die are inconsistent with their beliefs; we can continue expanding on this on and on, until we can reach the conclusion that anyone, anywhere, has no guarantee of a better or worse death than anyone else based on their beliefs, and so we come to a conclusion: death, whatever its driving force, does not discriminate against belief.  These observations remain consistent with our hypothesis, so we can call this a truth in the context of our existing.

This is the general method we can go about seeking the truths of life; all we need is a question, a bit of logic, and an open mind, and we can make sense of anything.

Practice makes perfect

Every lottery has a winner; if I leaned my head out the window every day and said, "Let it rain!", eventually I'd have a story to tell about how it rained on my command.  In other words, if you're seeking miracles, you're bound to find them; you need no faith for chance.

Look at it another way: if this happened to every person while they passed away, we'd have a real lead to work from; I would have no doubt that some supernatural force was looking over us if every person's favorite song played without intention as they passed on.  If it doesn't happen, not even to most, but we still believe it was intentional, we're left with "God works in mysterious ways" but again, a mystery answers a mystery and we're no closer to the truth than before; in what ways does God work and why does he favor some but not others?  Alas, there's no way to answer this without yet more mysteries, so we cannot be satisfied if it's the truth we're worried about.

So as a test to our findings: sometimes my best friend says exactly what I was thinking; is she a mind reader?

If so, she should always be capable of such a feat, especially on command, especially to those deemed worthy (assuming she had a following.)  Otherwise, it's coincidence.

I really should use SAI more often; I'm currently using PSCS6 for all my work, but I use it for a very specialized purpose and though it is a versatile tool, it can be a little odd to navigate through all the features I never use.  With SAI, it moves all those distractions out of the way and leaves very little between the artist and his medium, which is always nice.  I used it for a long while but I can't remember why I stopped.

Digital; here's a link to my page.  Once you're out of the newbie section, you could try your hand at selling your services to earn BTC.

You're welcome; it's a negligible amount but it'll keep growing.  I first learned about BTC when it was hardly $15 a piece.  I remember charging a person 6$ worth of BTC for a painting when I first joined this site, and now that's $100.


It'll usually take an hour before the transaction has 6 confirmations; that's a block solved every 10 minutes, just about.  By the first confirmation it's practically yours, and the rest are for security.  As Bitcoin is basically a distributed ledger, it depends on all clients to agree on which transactions occurred; the more confirmations, the more you can rest assured they did indeed occur.  Six seems to be the magic number; I suppose it fits well within an hour so that's the one that was decided on.

Enjoy your dollar

Are you looking forward to the PS4?

What's your BTC address Leanna?

Sure; I didn't mean to put forth the idea that BTC wouldn't shift in price.  My point is that right now it is, so using denominations like 0.01 BTC still makes good sense.  It's a problem that isn't really looking for a solution; I don't know what I'm going to wear on this day five years in the future, though I'm certain I'll be able to solve this one once the moment arises.  If you like those denominations, you should use them; that's all I'm asserting.  I always see these threads saying "we should use X denomination" and we never shift from what works best at the moment

That seems to be the key to the loop; there is absolute faith in God only when unaware that the faith is directly on man, for it is man alone who claims to put forth the word of God; there is no word spoken by God or Jesus that man did not put to paper; because God is omnipotent, all he says is truth; if God says the Bible is factual, it is so.  However, if it is made aware to the believer that their faith is being placed entirely on man's ability to lie, and we know he is perfectly capable and willing to do so, the believer would be repulsed knowing very well that people are flawed, "sinful" beings.  To believe in God as told by the world's religions is to believe that man is perfect and unable to lie, but this is made very evident within even the Bible that man is not, for he otherwise would have no need for God; the God fallacy, then, is that if God is necessary, man cannot reliably speak for him, and if God is not necessary, man would not write of him anyway.

It would seem, then, this cycle is broken most effectively by making the middle man an obvious and unavoidable element which faith must pass through to get to God, else all religions would divert into flavorless deism for though man can trust God, for God is omnipotent, man cannot trust man, especially if man can write himself legitimate by writing God as having said so.


As you can probably guess, faith--that being, complete trust in that which has no proof--brings us no closer to the truth   If we answer a mystery with a mystery, we're left with two mysteries.

It's the least understandable; 100 pennies making a dollar is understandable, a hundred million satoshis making one bitcoin is overkill when bitcoin isn't worth more than 200$ a pop.  People prefer to have 8 slices of a pizza, not 8 million; the slices would be so incredibly tiny that the pie would turn to mush.  The logic doesn't follow here; when that bitcoin pie is way bigger so 100 million slices made logical sense, then we'll start using satoshis.

I see where you're coming from; however, this still leaves the question at hand: can ethics, as Jesus Christ puts forth, be objective without a middle man?  If so, is it truly an observable set of facts, in the same way an apple can be objectively red or green?

I guess you'll have to start self-moderating.

I see your point; just laying out some practical questioning for people who may otherwise not see the need to ask

There has been no greater farce in modern history than authority disguised as liberty: behold, the modern liberal, a living contradiction.