Total posts: 1,907
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I never hide like YOU.. already know. Right, Dan? Lol.
If I had wanted to hide I wouldn't have revealed information about DDO as I actually did, that is why EtrnlVw recognised me.
As to the "over the top claims", I've never stated something that I can't explain or debate.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
Before going on with the matter at hand, I want to make clear that this thread is not meant to stir things up. I understand that this kind of subjects usually tend to divide opinions according to people's beliefs. Broadly speaking, religious people would stand for creationism (if ithere is such thing in the scientific community), and atheists would stand for the many theories of evolution that exist out there. As I don't stand for any of them, I will give my informed, unbiased opinion as to what I know about the subject, which is not little. You're free to dissent as long as you do it with respect and without bias.
1. With the fossils found thus far, it's undenieable that evolution did come about. NEVERTHELESS, evolution doesn't mean that species evolved by themselves or evolved out of nothing. There are yet unknown mechanisms that triggered such changes, especially the big ones, meanwhile we have some theories that attempt to explain this evolution, one of them is the Synthetic theory based principally on mutation and natural selection, which is the most accepted among scientists, and also the most controversial. However, many people still confuse the concept of evolution with the theories that try to explain it. Evolution is a fact, what it's not a fact yet is the mechanisms of change that made evolution possible. That being said, if I disagree with the postulate of one of these theories, like for example the Synthetic theory, these confused people would get jumpy inmediately and will accuse me of being a creationst or even worse of being a religious guy, which would be a fallacy.
2. It's useless to explain the differences between microevolution and macroevolution, so I will make it short. Microevolution is more of an adaptation to the environment in which mutuation and natural selection play an important role. However, contrary to what people believe, microevolution doesn't lead to macroevolution or speciation because of one simple reason, animals micro-evolve to develop traits they already hold on their DNA, like for example the skin's or fur's color which can change, but a terrestrial animal can't grow wings to fly because this trait should be created at DNA level or be taken from somewhere. In other words, the Synthetic theory of evolution can't explain macroevolution, or in other case the theory is incomplete.
It is fair to say then that the most accepted theory of evolution has problems to explain the speciation and hence the evolution. As a result, scientists should acknowledge humbly that natural selection and mutuation are prone to criticism. What I observe nowadays though is that scientists consider the Synthetic theory as true and unique, and any attempt to criticise the orthodox theory, as I actually do, could be refuted by the false argument that it comes from creationists or religious people, which is not true.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
And you must be bullpoop. You really enjoy pity, don't you?
Get a life, dude!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Still waiting on the refutation of Evolution you kept on about for so long, that is, until you had to leave ddo for having to endure the humiliation of making that claim. It's no wonder you're here under a new account. Hilarious.
You really missed me, didn't you, oldy?
No wonder now why you struggle too much to debate with others, you have the brain of a chicken. But still, it's really funny to have you here. What would we do without you!! Lol.
Have a nice happy new year, oldy. Take care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Yeah, it's me, Archaholic. It's good to see you again.
But what do you mean Goldtop is not here? I see the Goldtop of here is the same stupid guy that I used to endure on DDO.
Created:
Mopac is right. To women, breeding entails having less time to get educated or work, and as a consequence less chances to maintain or increase her social status. So, the higher status women have, the harder they have to work which means postpone or limit the number of children they are willing to have.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
You have taught us much, that your beliefs are insane and dangerous to humanity, offering post after post of hard evidence to that fact, that it has destroyed your mind and is causing you to be a very bad person.
Get out of here, troll.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Are you by any chance this dude that used to love everyone on DDO?
I remember someone who claimed to love Goldtop. Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Lol, you'll just say anything at this point. Better quit while you're so far behind.
It's because you have serious problems with reading comprehension. Thank you for resolving this doubt I had about you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I did elaborate, showing how you were incapable of thinking when you offered nonsense instead of fact.
Really? Let me see, you said 10% of Christians are in the US. So what? What did this piece of information show? You would have explained at least what you wanted to say because this data doesn't say that much.
Or are you trying to say that in developed countries people are not Christian? Let's see, almost 75% of Europeans are Christians, which is a fact. Isn't it at odds with what you have said?
You're either a troll or you have serious problems with reading comprehension.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I did elaborate, showing how you were incapable of thinking when you offered nonsense instead of fact.
Really? Let me see, you said 10% of Christians are in the US. So what? What did this piece of information show? You would have explained at least what you wanted to say because this data doesn't say that much.
Or are you trying to say that in developed countries people are not Christian? Let's see, almost 75% of Europeans are Christians, which is a fact. Isn't it at odds with what you have said?
You're either a troll or you have serious problems with reading comprehension.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I'd say almost all of that progress is the result of abandoming religion and adopting secular rationlism.
This was just a change of regime, people still had the same values and beliefs though. Church lost its power, that is right, but not its influence. So Chrsitianity has remained as a moral and ethical asset for Western Civilization, which was an important motivation to progress.
I would read about protestantism and how it influenced the United States.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I didn't see any elaboration on your post. I'm sorry.
Keep trying, though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
But this is la raison d'etre of Christianity. Jesus said it, or I don't know who was, that Christians should please God.
Am I wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
But, I agree with you. I mean, you call it different, but at the end the results and emotions are the same anyway. For you is pure love with the mind, soul or whatever it is. To me, which is what anyone can see, this is brain washing.
I insist, this is what I deep down want, zealots that behave like ants working hard to please the queen, well, in this case please the "God".
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Could you elaborate, please? I mean, if you're capable of doing it. Because as much as we can see, the Western Civilization is still the most advanced culture humans have ever achieved in terms of economics, technology, politics, values, and so on.
Please, elaborate. Make a liitle bit of effort, I know you can do it.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Yes, I sign my posts using my username, so what?
I don't know what it is more ridiculous, signing like this or being a complete ignorant like you?
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Detached from God, these "moral principles" are not really Christian.The letter kills, the spirit gives life.
I guess you mean with people who are devoted to Christianity those principles are true Christian. Yes, I totally agree, humanity needs this kind of people, zealots that trust in "Christian God's words" and follow their commandments blindly. You know, people are so gullible that I'd really prefer they were Christian rather than Muslims or other potential dangerous religion.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Didn't you realize that "Il Diavolo" means "the devil"?
I bet you're American. Lol.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
Never trust in just one source. A good practice is use all of them and then draw your own conclusions. The more sources you have the better your conclusions are.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You do realise that all that you claim to support are the ideas of ignorant, primitive superstitious savages? Good luck with that.
Lol.
You really live up to your username.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
Christian morality perhaps. I used to be Christian because I was raised in a Christian home, but I'm not any more. Christian beliefs make no sense at all nowadays, in general religions make no sense in our times. However I believe its moral principles should remain, I somehow feel that this is the best way to build a strong society and family, contrary to Islam principles for example which are a threat for humanity.
That way, I support several Christian ideas, for example, against abortion, homosexuality, gender ideology, and all this rubbish that will destroy our society. I would say Christianity is the best thing that ever happened to Western civilization.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
How would you know without asking every one individual what there reason was for belief? That sounds like a subjective opinion to me.
It's not necessary to ask. You've got to read something about the history of religions. Do you know all this story about Jesus is just a copy of prior religions? There is nothing in the Gospels that hadn't been said before.
Religions are a sort of belief system that human beings have been building in order to satisfy their needs. People need to belief, they crave a God, it's in their DNA. I would say that it's a basic need, like food, shelter, clothing, and sex.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I wouln't say "incapable". This is a baseless judgement you do from your anti-religious point of view, which is trustless.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
According to who? to you?
I don't know if you're atheist, but you're antireligious for sure.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
One of the most interesting things about spirituality most unbelievers are unaware of,...
I have very little time to elaborate on that but I really appreciate you bringing up this subject since there is some confusion about it.
Firstly, spirituality is not religion and religion is not spirituality. I have never denied the spiritual dimension of human beings, I embrace it, though. You should know that even though I call myself "the devil", I'm a fervient follower of buddhism. I actually practice meditation and some praying as a way to reach the spiritual enlightment, but I know it's going to take really long. At any rate, when it comes to spirituality many people confuse it with what religions are used to show us, like Gods, angels and deamons. No, spirituality is not about paranormal experience, let alone about invisible beings watching us. Rather, it is a way to know us, to discover our nature and what we really are. It's explore our mind in order to connect with the whole universe, and feel what people define as happiness.
On the other hand, religions are completely different. I will take on that later because I don't have time. The only thing I'm going to say so you can think about it is that religions are a human construction based on the basic principles of spirituality, but aimed to satisfy the needs of the ignorant masses, mostly changing and distorting those pristine principles. For example, Jesus was a simple mortal, like you and me, who wanted to teach the real spirituality to his community, but failed to do that because his people not only deifed him but also distorted his teachings conflating them with judaism, resulting in a new religion called Christianism.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I know what you're talking about, the so called religious experience. I tell you, I've met a lot of people who experienced it, but I could count them on the fingers of one hand. If we talk about buddhists, that would be different.Spirituality/religion is not just a coping "mechanism", there is an objective nature to Theism and therefor there are facts that deal with the nature of our experience. Spirituality is not really a method to minimize or to cope/tolerate stress or fears in as much as it is a method of understanding the nature of our being itself, not just a coping mechanism but learning and applying what is necessary about reality itself.
My point is that in general the ignorant masses use religion as a coping mechanism, or even as a life motivator. That is why the abrahamic religions are so popular.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Being afraid of hell is a moral issue, it has nothing to do with what I'm discussing here, which is people's problems.
I'm talking about "holes to fill", which means people who feel empty inside, or have emotional problems derived from a particular event, like a disease or a loss of a loved one. Going to church is just a choice to overcome that problem, religions don't create those problems.
If you refer to hell as a way to create a moral issue in people, that is another thing, which by the way I totally agree.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I'm sorry, what did you say?
I would like to remind you that I'm not used to this vocabulary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
No, religions merely mask problems, they don't actually deal with or solve them. It's basically exchanging one vice for another.
I didn't say otherwise. If you read my post again I said that religion is a tool that help to cope with common problems, even with big ones. People can avoid distress if they believe there is a God that will save them, there it is the psychological effect of religions. Whether it solves their problems or not, I don't kwno. What I'm pretty sure is that people can think clearly to solve their problems when they stay calm, and religions can give that tranquility.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
I would't know what to say because I don't see myself as a religious guy. I'm very honest and I feel uncapable of decieving others.
But if you see all these preachers from various religions you will notice that all of them sell a solution to people's problems. or in other words they promise "fill the hole". They don't make any hole, people come with a hole already. "You can't walk? Geezes will cure you". "You have problems with your wife? Geezes will fix it." Haha. I don't mean religions are useless, they are necessary though. It's a sort of tool to cope with human problems.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
This is all about concepts, and as far as I'm concerned the soul is, say, the vital energy that makes us living beings. This vital energy is just a way to explain why we are alive philosphical speaking, but in reality we don't know yet what mechanisms make us alive. So, with that description, animals have soul as well. Hence, humans have always had souls, because before attaining the final stage of human evolution they had souls already.
Il Diavolo
Created:
-->
@Castin
My guess is that Satanists are former Christians that never got satisfied by their God. As a consequence, they defy his authority doing things that the Christian God doesn't like.
I disagree with the argument that Satanists are atheists because to be a Satanist one should believe in the existence of God.
Il Diavolo
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Satan and the Devil are not the same. There is no Devil or Hell fire in the Jewish faith system.
If you mean in terms of traits, they're different indeed. But both in essense are the same, they tempt people.
Created:
Posted in:
As soon as I saw the phrase "fundamental conciousness" I stopped reading.
Religions define God as a powerful, omnipresent, and ubiquitous being which seems to be something pulled out from a fairy tale.
Il Diavolo
Created:
This is almost a atheism vs theism debate. There will always be a bit of bias on the vote.
Il Diavolo
Created:
-->
@MagicAintReal
It's not about trust. You just need to read the history of humanity and you will see that what I said makes a lot of sense.
Knowledge is freedom. Ignorance is slavery.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Huh!! A thread dedicated to me at last, I was starting to feel a bit anxious. I have several things to say but I really don't know where to start off.
1. First of all, I don't exist in the real world. I mean, I do but in an abstract way. You know, people oftentimes use metaphors to explain things that are difficult to understand. So, who am I? I'm just a concept that describes the evil escence of human beings. I inhabit each human mind that ever walked on this planet. I am, in simple words, the human ego, the only oponent that ever existed for human beings. Because of me people crave power and fortune. Ahhh, poor people, because of me they are killing each other and making the world a horrible place. I always wonder how long this is going to last.
2. People usually confuse me with disgusting characters, like a red creature with corns and a big fork. This is all bs. All this stuff started to appear, if the memory serves me correctly, in the Renaissance, when the church used the arts (painting and sculpture) to describe their already untenable beliefs in a way to attract more believers.
3. You might be wondering why people think the devil is an invisible monster always tricking them. Well, this is all about psychological projection. As you know this is a defense mechanism that people's subconciousness use to cope with their tough feelings. People are uncapable to admit that all the shet they do in this world is their fault simply because that would entail an unbearable remorse. So, people project their moronic acts to an another being, which is the devil. People did not create the devil, they just redefined it for their benefit.
Il Diavolo
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
How can you say Islam is neutral if the muslims conquered half the world?
What happened to you, Keith? I thought you were more rational.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
And the higher the gay relationships... :)
Created:
Posted in:
It is worth it. What it's not worthwhile is marriage, so try to steer clear of it.
Enjoy your life, son.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Instead of producing a grammatically abhorrent sentence, whose content borders on insanity, have a deep (or in your case: moderately deep) think about what you just wrote. Do you honestly believe that dating patterns, something that involves romantic feelings and sometimes sex, is "completely different" to sexual attractiveness?
Yes, I totally believe it. You will see later why.
You've got it the wrong way around, buddy, probably because you're a shut-in virgin lol.People have casual sex to find out of they want to pursue further. If the sex/partner is good, then someone will push for something more long term, even if it's just a regular sex partner. It's not the prettiest or most admirable way to go about mingling with the opposite gender (I personally don't like it), but alas, it's the way things seem to be done nowadays.If you're not physically attracted to someone, you wouldn't even bother with a one night stand.
By the same token I would say that I can marry a prostitute "in the long term". Cheeses Christ!! Lol. Sexual atractiveness is important in dating, I didn't deny it, but it's not exclusive. I can be attracted to a woman but I will not necesarily date her. As I said, there are other factors in dating patterns that you overlook. That is why sexual atractiveness is different to dating patterns, both need to be approached differently. And that is why both studies you presented are different and need to be interpreted in a different way.
Look, to be honest I don't want to keep going with this conversation. You're insanely obnoxious and toxic. I bet you're alone and sad, can't imagine a poor man aside you, assuming you're a woman as you said. Hope I'm wrong in that, sincerely.
See you never.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Because that way you tell others that your post is formal and serious, as any document you issue in real life.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
So, whose sock puppet are you?
As the lord of darkness I'm the only master of puppets. Lol.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Based on the data I provided, you're wrong. I'm not sure why you think your opinion should be taken over a large amount of data.
Maybe it's because you're confusiong sexual attractiveness with dating patterns, both are completely different. While the former determines at what age people look atractive, sexually speaking, the last shows at what age people are desirable to date with and eventually get married, I mean that is the raison d'etre of these dating websites, ain't it?
To be honest I just threw some opinions and ideas in the air, but since I see you're a pretentious cock, I will do some effort (I have no much time, sorry) to analyse this thread. You presented two different studies, the first was about a survey that determines the physical atractiveness of people, and the second was about online dating patterns. I would like to know if you understand that simple difference because it's evident your're conflating them,
And where do you think attraction comes from? HMMMMM. Do you, perhaps, think it comes from breeding potential? You know, since people who are attracted to each other want to have sex together, and sex, without intervention, usually results in children? Could fertility be tied to sexual attraction? Or maybe 112 year old grannies the hottest, due to being "experienced?"
Again, you're conflating things, seriously, You're asumming we're just animals that follow our instincts. So wrong. We're complex beings, there are several factors in play when it comes to find a partner for the rest of our lives, I mean to date someone, not just casual sex. Sexually speaking it's true that people are more atractive at their thirties according to the first study you presented, although this is not the unique factor for dating someone. For example, the studies of ONLINE DATING, which is what you presented, says that men increase their desirability as they age and reach their peak at their 50s, which demonstrates this is not about appearances. Or do you think otherwise? I mean, try to put aside your clear misogyny and you will see this is pretty evident.
Why would you doubt that? You haven't cited any kind of data, other than your feelings. This is a resoundingly stupid comment. Again, you seem to think your guesses are more important than large quantities of data.How about YOU check the case of Tinder? You know, since you're the one making the argument. Oh that's right: you don't care about data at all, because you think your factless opinions are more valuable.Now, provide something worthwhile or get the hell off my thread.
My last post was aimed to show my opinion and it was not a statement at all. So, why on earth should I present evidence or any sort of data to support my opinion? So you either don't understad the difference or you're trying deliberately to offend me using such a misleading argument.
Finally, I can give my opinions wherever and whenever I want. People call it freespeech if you didn't notice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
When I was young my friends and I had memorable sexual encounters with MILFs (single mothers). I mean, women are really hot in average at their thirties. So, there might be an explanation for what the article has shown. Maybe men tend to date young women because they're more fertile and the chances they get pregnant are higher.
I tell you from my experience, women are attractive and experienced (this last is tremendously important when having sex) aged between 30-40.
You've got to check the case of Tinder. I doubt it has similar results.
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Of course, using my real name. Signing with a userid is quite immature.
Inmature is the behaviour you keep showing in this forum.
Do you actually have any idea what you're talking about? Seems like a nonsensical rant. I guess you're not one of the smart ones here.
This was the answer to your usual dodging response:
Ah, you must be one of those really smart people, tell me genius, how does one go about finding out things? Wearing shoes?
Il Diavolo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Says the guy who signs his post with his userid. Lol.
I use my username which is normal. Didn't you ever sign any message, post, or email? I believe you did considering how old you are.
Says the guy who signs his post with his userid. Lol.
Typical answer of the cretin that doesn't want to admit his errors.
Created: