RationalMadman

Blamonkey is a right-wing Libertarian to my knowledge, he considers himself Centrist though. I don't know how he got the Progressive title.

If there is a purpose to failed species (or breeds within species), you concede that their purpose was to be out-competed and die off in relation to the thriving and/or surviving ones. This in no way at all implies organised design, but random variation playing out its odds over time.

You call me a joke in defence of me saying you have an agenda... Nice defence?

If you say that consciousness has always existed, you concede that if something exists it in no way at all necessitates a creator. This then extends to the very reason you say God is in any way necessary and real; it isn't, we don't need a creator under your logical framework.

If this is true, it in no way at all explains what came before consciousness or where matter came from. You say your God doesn't 'poof' things into existence ever, so then how did matter originate and why can't matter, like God and consciousness under your logical framework, itself have always existed?

Energy is present with a plethora of unconscious, inanimate activity too, like wind eroding rocks, the production of electricity and many other things. Energy transfer in the brain and body of conscious beings is an extremely tiny percentage of the overall energy transfer on Earth as we know it, let alone the rest of reality.

You say that the reason why energy exists is that it's present with conscious activity but that in no way at all is a reason for it to exist, just an interaction and codependency it has while existing.

The complete lapse in your hypothesis to conclusion here is that you forgot that your God can't 'poof' things into existence ever, correct? So where did energy come from?

The discussion being had is whether a God that never creates things, but only alters processes can exist in any shape or form that doesn't logically contradict the reality in which you're saying the God operates and controls things. We are not discussing whether consciousness and energy co-exist; everyone knows that they do.

Awareness can always be destroyed, right now you're paying attention to the screen in front of you, are you aware of that very quiet background noise? How about the feeling of your clothes on your skin? I doubt you were aware of those things, it would be a waste of your brain's energy to be aware of them while focusing on the screen, for starters. What is a person in a coma then? Awareness can be destroyed and regularly is, especially before you were born and after you die even if you're reborn.

Energy is transferred only as far as we know it and in our area of reality. For all we know in other realities energy is regularly created and destroyed, not just transferred. In no way at all is this some kind of absolute rule or way of understanding the God that happened to decide that energy should have a set amount. Also us, as humans, have never ever been able to actually prove this theory true it's simply that as far as our means of producing electricity, compounds etc all require energy transfer and not any destruction of it or creation of it.

If poofing things into existence is absurd, why is it not absurd to think that there is a god and that things didn't just exist and transfer from the beginning of time with no organiser or creator? You speak of absurdity readily when discussing other versions of God and religious outlooks but when discussing your own, you forget the absurdity.

If you pay attention to quantum mechanics you'd know that there is antimatter that interacts continually with particles to create and destroy what is and is not at any given moment in time. You'd also know that there in no shape or form is a creator or organiser necessitated for the very seemingly random system to work.

You just said it has no form, then you said it permeates all of creation, which would require it to have form that does so and operates via that mechanism.

I want to know how a God that never poofs anything into existence based on you calling it absurd (and it seems, never destroys anything either) is in any way itself able to be poofed into existence along with consciousness and energy.

You are violating the site's code of conduct here, please discontinue.

You named one. Sabre-tooths.

Why was I blackballed by mods to not accept speedrace's debates and other people who ruled me out in their description?

Don't worry man, you can just ignore this and keep your mouth shut, the problem will run away and people will call me a lunatic. :)

My true answer is 'no' to 1 and 'yes, strongly' to 2 but I know the rules of the street around here and will answer 'no' to both.

I await your reply to this post:

I loathe oppressive nations in general but just as I admire Sun Tzu, who was a Chinese war strategist, I can admire and like you back too in time.

WARREN! WARREN! OOH ah OOH ah OOOOOOOOH!

This is a quintessential toque and how it's supposed to fit on the head if it lacks a ball:

Quintessential beanie for female:

When you search 'toque', most of what shows up is a folded-up beanie but I guarantee you it's wrong. The toque is designed to not fold or seem in any way baggier than the head itself. People clearly have confused the terms for one another for so long that even sellers get it wrong.

Toques need to have a ball on top to truly qualify though but anyway, beanies are not toques.

The toque fits around the head, the beanie rests on it. The elasticity of a beanie is entirely around the bottom of it while a toque doesn't have any or if it does, it's uniform around it.

That's not a beanie. A beanie is bigger and baggier. It is a toque, which is a type of hat...

Damn right. They are doing the right thing. If 8Chan has an issue with DDOS attacks, it should consider that when being friendly to criminals, it is exposed to ones against it. If it wishes to have Cloudflare and to engage with the general Internet's populace, it should readily report dangerous individuals to authorities ASAP to prevent real life horrific events, instead of letting manifestos stay up for 3 days, saying nothing to anyone about it and not taking it down either which I believe was the 'straw that broke the camel's back' with the tolerance Google and such authorities had for the website.

Oh I see, so energy just poofed into existence, God just poofed into existence, energy magically turns into matter when it suits your agenda and everything just 'works' because it suits your outlook. I see.

Remind me again, why is it that God can't poof things into existence but can only 'work with' them? Wouldn't working with the processes available include creation and destruction via energy transfer? Even if God only has energy available, if your hypothesis is that God can transform energy into matter and even consciousness, then God can indeed poof matter and consciousness into and out of existence as he/she/it pleases.

It was all a reply to your OP, it was a constructive take on it rather than a destructive one. Rebuttals are only one way to counter an argument, the other is building a better case that runs in opposition to the other. 

"Statements without reason" is the entirety of your reply there as well as your OP.

You clearly ignored my second reply.

Animals also have a rudimentary understanding of language, I have no idea what you mean by that statement in trying to prove me wrong.

The entire reply to my 'denary' comment failed to appreciate my post and how deeply I agreed with you and specified what it was I believed vs didn't believe regarding the necessity of mathematics vs how humans use mathematics (denary).

Asking if I mean 'base 10' is ridiculous when I just said 'denary' which is 'base 10'.

Nonsense. The creator does poof things into existence or it would have had absolutely nothing to work with to make the processes occur to begin with. The creator itself poofed into existence, after all.

The 'predetermined direction' you speak of ignores the vast array of 'failed alternatives' that died out or had their children die out.

You say the sabre tooth was no mistake but the sabretooth itself was one example of a failed species... So?

Self is both body and brain. It's not sexist, racist or anything but intelligent to notice that a lot of personality traits and even intellectual strengths are linked to the body. If you lack a body that is agile, your brain won't be agile until you fix the body (the your brain will begin to become agile if you keep practising but if you naturally weren't, you'll never get near the peak in that regard). Mall Cop Paul Blart is a movie, people like that simply do not exist.

As the body becomes adept at things, from the eyes to the nose etc., you will see a person's entire personality and even core interests alter when they get glasses, hearing aid, or any such thing. People are the body, no point denying it, that's all ignoring the actual brain by the way, which is physical entirely too.

This is why I never understand people who say AI can't become people, of course they can, we're primarily people because of physical neurons firing in our brain; that can be simulated on a complex bot in no time. Will they be corrupt people? Of course, they'll prefer either whoever they're programmed to prefer or whoever shows up later on and ticks boxes of 'usefulness'. They can bond deeply, much like pet cats do, but just like pet cats will never fully be in-tune with every minute emotion of the owner/friend.

why did you copy a recent thread and make it seem like your own idea?

Members of more oppressed nations tend to hide where they are from, for obvious reasons. This means out of those revealing, it will tend to be people linked to nations that aren't small that feel the least risk admitting the country they live in and still feeling relatively anonymous. So, logically, Canada scores high after the US on an English speaking debate site as a revealed nation one is linked to.

Omar have you yet come up with an answer to be talking down to us for not having one?

And have a 'law' section separate from politics. Politics is more people and structures of govt. Law is specifics of legality. I suggested this long ago.

Interesting, why was the on-topic bickering not helping? Would you like us all to be sheep and join the browser, use the browser and think we are 'private' and 'secure'? Brave browser specialises in the appearance of privacy and anonymity. It's based on Chromium and honestly I don't know why I am not permitted to explain that no browser type other than Firefox is capable of being truly privacy driven because that is the very pillar around which the Firefox browser is built and is why TOR is based on Firefox and not Chromium. There are too many parts of Chromium's coding that force, encourage and/or reward you allowing them to track your activity and the punishment for refusing to do so is extremely awkward needing to remember all your accounts yourself etc. Firefox compartmentalises things very effectively, allowing you to have them remember passwords in one area, that you can individually delete, cookies in another that you can delete 'everything except sites X, Y Z' up to a certain point in history or you can go site by site if you want and do this. You even can delete specific cookies of specific sites if you have the time and effort and this is made extremely straightforward as long as you are willing to think and use the buttons that blatantly mean 'go here to do this' and not just click one button hoping all your dreams come true.

Firefox separates many things in your browser's logging so that even Mozilla itself would struggle to create an overall 'profile' of you even if you never ever deleted your history. The reason is that you store all the cookies and such locally but even if you are enabling cross-device 'profile' of your data, Mozilla encrypts it even to themselves. This means if you ever truly forgot your password, they'd never be able to help you get it back (but law enforcement would know how to decrypt the encrypted stuff since they'd work out the key with their expert crackers in no time and it's possible that Mozilla has somewhere got an encrypted key for that encryption of each account to use to decrypt it but the point stands that the organisation functions well by compartmentalising.

Compartmentalising is something I don't do enough of and maybe soon I will. It involves separating my IRL self from my 'online letting off steam' self and also from my 'professional self' severely. the three should never mix in a truly optimal psyche for online anonymity, meaning even patterns of speaking, things spoken about and such would all differ between the three personas. Some people require a fourth persona if they have a particularly public-spotlight job as they'll have a persona for the public and then another persona for their general coworkers in daily working environment.

This is nothing new, I already knew it but it's most prominently come up due to a YTer I enjoy watching regarding these things:

Dr. Franklin replied to me and Ramshutu having on-topic bickering. You agreed with him.

Omar the word you're looking for is 'infer' not 'imply' just so you know.

OT is much more honest than NT so god of the world is the correct answer if the fictional world of the Bible were true.

WARREN! WARREN! 

yes, he was lying. Satan was never sent down to the mortals.

Do you know how lying works?

That is the most narrow-minded way of approaching life that I have ever come across literally ever.

But what was it you were showing and that Dr. Frbaklin replied to?

He is lying completely. Also if you do the Android steps, it takes your phone number to begin with.

It is cherry picking. Stop denying it.

I don't have any idea why you think that I am not atheist because Ramshutu is but clearly you think I was born and developed opinions only after I met Ramshutu, which is just flat out ridiculous.

My accusations against Bsh1 are all backed up, every single one. You don't know what you are talking about and just want me to feel shit.

Where is your evidence for who runs the world? Who makes money worth anything? Do you know who they are? Really, who?

I am talking about the people who make it so that laws are laws, the people who make it so that 'reliable sources' are 'reliable'. Who are they?

Paganism as opposed to what? You think other religions involve less as opposed to more sheepthink? You are a good laugh, Omar.

I was asked something about what I believe, attention was already given. I obliged, would you rather I ignored him and played normal?

Actually my statement is more ridiculous than that. NASA did fake the moon landing, even if the Earth is Round. Many experts on video analysis and cinematography have explained that there's many elements of the filming that completely and utterly indicate it's being done in a studio environment with harnesses. 

The moon landing being faked is something I'll happily go into fully, because they don't care about people realising that unless I somehow influenced too many people but even then I wouldn't be blamed for it, they'd blame the ones who designed and faked it.

I have no issue of explaining it up to a certain point. Past a certain point I will stop because if I prove things in a tangible manner, that is when I must fear for my life. I will never go that far to fully prove something about them in any concrete way but it's there.

I see, did you care to ask how I know they are real?

Of course it is a conspiracy theory, they are conspiring to remain in charge for millennia and if/when they cure ageing, they will literally do that, not even needing elitist bloodlines to rule but the actual same people (and for all we know, they already have achieved immortality because the true heads of it are not the ones that even the conspiracy theorists reveal as the leaders, you can climb up as far as the second band of the elite by getting rich and socialising with other rich and powerful people but you never get to the true top without being a very, very vetted and chosen one by your bloodline, friends you knew from birth etc. If they can't track you from birth, they never let you join the top-end of them (we're talking people who run UN, I am speaking of people running it, not ranking high in it, the high rankers serve them, they may not be human).

The name Illuminati is most ironic as they exist in darkness, not in an illuminated manner, but yes there is an organised Elite ruling the world as we speak. In fact they will read this as I have no doubt they are shocked with how much I know about them despite lacking any sensible way of getting the information. The answer is simple; I am a genius of pattern analysis and their one weakness is they leave patterns, I don't even need to read the news to know their patterns, it's in the entire structure of education, careers (especially those in military and law enforcement).

I love them, for I have no logical choice but to bow before them, but do I respect them? Not one bit. You may think I mixed up 'love' and 'respect' but love is that I care for them over anarchist lunatics, respect is that I think they truly deserve their power (which I don't think).

Did you intentionally leave out the plethora of bickering that directly involved that?

Hurled to earth? Satan was never hurled to Earth, but it's true that Lucifer was, as he was Jesus.

Hurled with the angels to Earth? Not to Hell? Strange thing to say, right? NT is full of lies, after all the character Jesus often would lie to maintain the illusion that himself was divine and higher than all others in relation to God.

You are hilariously naive. What do you have to attach to your account as a child? A parent's email. What is that going to have? A number.

What intellectual discussion was going to happen that did not happen due to our bickering?

Ok pretend to be a kid and list as a parent account something with a phone number attached... Same thing, but fraudulent.