WHY would the government trick us?

Are you sure you addressed every single word I typed? Are you certain you've contradicted every single word? I'd hate to think you missed pissing all over something I typed. That would just be slack of you.

Got anything intelligent to contribute?
Your excuse of not wanting to respond as it is "off topic" clearly doesn't cut it.

MOＤＳ BAN ＴＨＥＭ

Crucify them!

To soon? 

Quote from: Smoke Machine on September 23, 2024, 03:00:31 AM

Are you sure you addressed every single word I typed? Are you certain you've contradicted every single word? I'd hate to think you missed pissing all over something I typed. That would just be slack of you.

Got anything intelligent to contribute?
Your excuse of not wanting to respond as it is "off topic" clearly doesn't cut it.

I know reading comprehension isnt your forte, but I'll try yet again. I told you in no uncertain terms if you wished to continue this, which is off this topic, we'll take it to the philosophy and religion section.

You must be experiencing withdrawals at not being able to tell bulmabriefs how he is wrong today, and you are right. Obviously, he's grown tired of your pomposity.

I know reading comprehension isnt your forte, but I'll try yet again. I told you in no uncertain terms if you wished to continue this, which is off this topic, we'll take it to the philosophy and religion section.

You must be experiencing withdrawals at not being able to tell bulmabriefs how he is wrong today, and you are right. Obviously, he's grown tired of your pomposity.

You mean you will spout more insulting crap, and continue with off topic BS?

Yes, you said that, and then you decided to continue it with more crap.
If you actually were fixed on not continuing off topic things, you wouldn't have responded at all.
And you wouldn't have said so much crap in your previous response saying you would continue it elsewhere, or maybe even taking the initiative to move elsewhere, and you wouldn't have bothered with the insults.

Again, you seem upset that you I don't agree with your religious BS and can rationally object to it, so look for excuses to get out of it.
Maybe you can grow up some time?

Quote from: Smoke Machine on September 23, 2024, 09:17:37 PM

I know reading comprehension isnt your forte, but I'll try yet again. I told you in no uncertain terms if you wished to continue this, which is off this topic, we'll take it to the philosophy and religion section.

You must be experiencing withdrawals at not being able to tell bulmabriefs how he is wrong today, and you are right. Obviously, he's grown tired of your pomposity.

You mean you will spout more insulting crap, and continue with off topic BS?

Yes, you said that, and then you decided to continue it with more crap.
If you actually were fixed on not continuing off topic things, you wouldn't have responded at all.
And you wouldn't have said so much crap in your previous response saying you would continue it elsewhere, or maybe even taking the initiative to move elsewhere, and you wouldn't have bothered with the insults.

Again, you seem upset that you I don't agree with your religious BS and can rationally object to it, so look for excuses to get out of it.
Maybe you can grow up some time?

You had the opportunity to continue in the philosophy and religion section, and clearly declined. It's no sweat off my balls!

You had the opportunity to continue in the philosophy and religion section, and clearly declined. It's no sweat off my balls!

And again, if you really only wanted to continue there, YOU had the opportunity to do so. You chose not to.
You chose to respond here, and then try to kill the conversation, and then throw out insults when I didn't just stop.

I get it, you realise your religion is wrong and don't have the balls to admit it.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on September 25, 2024, 06:05:18 AM

You had the opportunity to continue in the philosophy and religion section, and clearly declined. It's no sweat off my balls!

And again, if you really only wanted to continue there, YOU had the opportunity to do so. You chose not to.
You chose to respond here, and then try to kill the conversation, and then throw out insults when I didn't just stop.

I get it, you realise your religion is wrong and don't have the balls to admit it.

There is nothing for me to admit. I am not religious.The onus was on you to continue that off-topic argument in the on-topic philosophy and religion section. You shied away.

Spirituality is not a religion. You implying I am in some religion, is both an insult and an indicator of your poor grasp of the English language. Heck, even Wise whose English is his fifth language knows the difference between religion and spirituality. Not you.

But then again, you implying someone is in a religion is your bread and butter, isn't it? It's your go-to argument just for the sake of arguing, and feeling like a big he-man winner.

For a guy who doesn't feel alive unless he's telling someone they are wrong, it's  unbelievable you can't see how religious you in fact are. You tell people they are wrong, religiously, and infinitely more than any other person on this site.

What are you at, an average of 9 posts on this site, every day, each post telling someone they are wrong? You think that's normal? 

Lol! You criticize all the flat earthers for believing the earth is not curved because they cannot see and measure the curvature and think nobody will notice you have exactly the same belief structure in relation to a higher being, because you cannot see and measure it.

Are you even capable of typing a post without telling someone why you think they are wrong? You need to get your fix 9 times a day.

Unbelievable!

The onus was on you to continue that off-topic argument in the on-topic philosophy and religion section.

No, that onus is on you.
I started talking here.
I objected to your BS here.
You are now making excuses to avoid it.

If you wanted to do that with any shred of integrity, you don't respond at all.

Spirituality is not a religion.

And I never said it was.
What you are spouting, especially your appeals to God and how evil is so great, amount to religion, not simply spirituality.

And now all you are doing is just throwing out insults.

it's  unbelievable you can't see how religious you in fact are.

I prefer to stick to reality, where I'm not religious, rather than your delusional fantasy.

Lol! You criticize all the flat earthers for believing the earth is not curved because they cannot see and measure the curvature and think nobody will notice you have exactly the same belief structure in relation to a higher being, because you cannot see and measure it.

No, I don't think people would notice that delusional fantasy of yours.
I criticise FEers for many reasons, primarily for believing in crap which is unsubstantiated, and shown to be wrong in many ways.
It is not simply an absence of evidence for it being round so they don't believe it is round.
So no, quite different.

So care to stop with all the crap and trying defending your religious BS?
Or will you continue with the childish insults because I upset you?

Quote from: Smoke Machine on September 25, 2024, 03:12:31 PM

The onus was on you to continue that off-topic argument in the on-topic philosophy and religion section.

No, that onus is on you.
I started talking here.
I objected to your BS here.
You are now making excuses to avoid it.

If you wanted to do that with any shred of integrity, you don't respond at all.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on September 25, 2024, 03:12:31 PM

Spirituality is not a religion.

And I never said it was.
What you are spouting, especially your appeals to God and how evil is so great, amount to religion, not simply spirituality.

And now all you are doing is just throwing out insults.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on September 25, 2024, 03:12:31 PM

it's  unbelievable you can't see how religious you in fact are.

I prefer to stick to reality, where I'm not religious, rather than your delusional fantasy.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on September 25, 2024, 03:12:31 PM

Lol! You criticize all the flat earthers for believing the earth is not curved because they cannot see and measure the curvature and think nobody will notice you have exactly the same belief structure in relation to a higher being, because you cannot see and measure it.

No, I don't think people would notice that delusional fantasy of yours.
I criticise FEers for many reasons, primarily for believing in crap which is unsubstantiated, and shown to be wrong in many ways.
It is not simply an absence of evidence for it being round so they don't believe it is round.
So no, quite different.

So care to stop with all the crap and trying defending your religious BS?
Or will you continue with the childish insults because I upset you?

Everybody notices your hypocrisy towards flat earthers, especially when someone stirs you by using the term, "god", or dares suggest a different way of viewing "evil".

No, I will continue with the childish insults because you need challenges in life.

You think religion and spirituality are BS, yet look at how many people in the world have either a religious faith or hold spirituality views. But not you.

It's easy to always be right, condescending, and insulting when you're arguing against flat earthers though, isn't it? The odds are stacked in your favor exponentially. The one thing which has been proven beyond any possible doubt, is our earth is a globe and you know it. You can't possibly be wrong - objectively. Subjectively though, that's a different matter, isn't it?

Do you think you will receive a medal for all your years of diligent service in battling the flat earth scourge? How many flat earthers have you turned back to round earthers?

Yet you scoff at me for saying they are people trapped in the illusion of their immediate environment world and can't or don't want to see the forest for the trees?

They are prisoners by their own hands and they and only they, hold the key to let themselves out. Flat earth is their sanctuary, their happy safe place,  just like arguing and believing you are never wrong, is your happy safe place.

I didn't think it was possible for people to get their dopamine hits from something as unlikely as flat earth or an online need to correct others, but here we are.

Both are escapes from reality.

And yet again you demonstrate you truly do not care about it being off topic. Showing yet again that you are just butthurt and being shown to be wrong and have no refutation.

Everybody notices your hypocrisy towards flat earthers

You mean you are so pathetic and buthurt, that because you are wrong and see the comparison between your own religious beliefs and those of FEers, you lash out and make up crap.

No, I will continue with the childish insults because you need challenges in life.

Your pathetic insults in no way challenge me.

You think religion and spirituality are BS, yet look at how many people in the world have either a religious faith or hold spirituality views. But not you.

Yes, people are desperate and cling to BS. That isn't surprising.
Why not try a more honest view?
Lets consider Christianity. What portion of the world accepts it? Roughly 30%. That means 70% of the world don't accept it, and I am among that clear majority.
What about Islam? They have 76% of people not accepting it. Again, I am in the majority.

But guess what? Being in the majority doesn't make you right, and if the best you can do is appeal to the majority, then you have no case.
Especially when you need to so horribly misrepresent the situation to pretend that contradictory beliefs are the same.
Just like FEers pretending that 2 FEers with completely different ideas about how the world work should be considered the same just believe Earth is flat.

You may as well also throw in people who believe in pixies and fairies and leprechauns and other fairy tale creatures.

It's easy to always be right, condescending, and insulting when you're arguing against flat earthers though, isn't it?

And other religious people as well.
That is what happens when you try to make sure your beliefs are correct, rather than accepting delusional BS.

The one thing which has been proven beyond any possible doubt, is our earth is a globe and you know it. You can't possibly be wrong - objectively.

I would put the impossibility of the existence of an omnipotent omnibenevolent god in that list as well.
Such a being is simply incompatible with this world.

Do you think you will receive a medal for all your years of diligent service in battling the flat earth scourge? How many flat earthers have you turned back to round earthers?

No, I don't expect a medal.
You are asking the wrong question there.

Yet you scoff at me for saying they are people trapped in the illusion of their immediate environment

Because they aren't. The immediate environment is not flat.
They are prisoners of their own delusions, or the delusions of others. Some are prisoners of their fears, as they simply can't handle reality.

just like arguing and believing you are never wrong, is your happy safe place.

And more pathetic insults.
I neve argue or believe that.
That is just your pathetic BS because you can't refute what I actually say.

I didn't think it was possible for people to get their dopamine hits from something as unlikely as flat earth or an online need to correct others, but here we are.

No, here you are.
Getting your dopamine hit from being a pathetic POS.

I have to say this thread should have been closed upon its main title - why would they?

Do any of us not have enough answers for that question?

They want to.

They are doing it now. They will continue to do it.

"Why would the government trick us?

One can only assume the thread title question is meant to be in relation to the government tricking the people about the shape of the earth. But, "the" government refers to one government. There are hundreds of governments across the world. So, in respect to the shape of the earth, the thread title should read, "Why would all the governments trick us?" Then ofcourse, someone could provide evidence of all the governments in the world tricking their people about the same thing, which nobody could do, let alone about the shape of the earth.

JB, nobody is holding a gun to your head to reply to my posts. Your planet sized ego which demands you always have the last say, would have it no other way.

You continue to demonstrate your pathetic grasp of the English language in your non- understanding of the word, "religious". You peddle the word, "religious", like it's going out of fashion. Can you prove God does not exist, after all your cursing and swearing?

Do you not understand what the word  "subjective" means, either? Who would live their entire life obsessed with objective truths being the only truths in this world?That's not pathetic, that's just plain embarrassing.

You fill your posts with so much shit for people to read, (like a flat earther) that they forget what the original issue was. Like I have! But I'm not worried, because a know-it-all with a track record like yours, is sure to remind me.

Still too scared to take this to the philosophy and religion section, ey, champ? Still afraid I might teach you something?

BTW, 84% of the world is spiritual / religious, which is 6.3 billion people. You are in the minority, not the majority. But according to you, what all those people believe, is BS, and again you are right, and they are all wrong.

All.i was saying is most people have a spiritual need. Most normal people that is  and definitely not someone who spends 75% of their waking life on the flat earth society, pretending to be sane.

JB, nobody is holding a gun to your head to reply to my posts.

And likewise, no one is holding a gun to your head demanding you respond to my posts.

Do you know the key difference?
You are the one who spouted a bunch of crap only to then say you wont respond because its off topic; yet continued with off topic responses.
So now you project with this crap:

Your planet sized ego which demands you always have the last say, would have it no other way.

If that wasn't the case, you would have just said it is getting off topic and suggest continuing it in another forum, and left it there.

Can you prove God does not exist

Specific gods, YES!
Due to either internal contradictions, where the definition of the god contradicts itself, or it contradicts reality.
But this is classic case of pathetic religious people trying to shift the burden of proof.
Can you prove pixies don't exist?
Can you prove a magical ill defined being of which there is absolutely no evidence nor reason to believe it exists, doesn't exist?

The question should be can YOU prove it DOES exist?

Do you not understand what the word  "subjective" means

I do. For example, it is my subjective opinion that chocolate ice cream is much better than strawberry.

Who would live their entire life obsessed with objective truths being the only truths in this world?

I would classify subjective "truths" as opinions.
I see no reason to call them "truths".

And things which would be objective statements about the world, rather than merely personal preferences, which don't match the world, are NOT subjective truths. They are falsehoods.
e.g. there is no subjective truth that Earth is flat. That is just being wrong.

Still too scared

Again, the person who is clearly terrified here is you.
You pretended the issue was that it was off topic.
Yet you spouted a bunch of crap rather than just saying that, and you now continue with off topic BS, showing that clearly is not the issue.
So the issue is that you can't defend your BS, and just want to throw out insults.
That is clearly the only thing stopping you from responding to it here.

BTW, 84% of the world is spiritual / religious

I have already addressed this. Why play dumb?
Firstly, if an appeal to the majority is the best argument you have, you have nothing.
That is even more so when this appeal is nothing more than dishonest BS.
Because, as already explained, considering each god or being.
Does the majority of the world believe in the Christian god? NO!
Does the majority of the world believe in the Islamic god? NO!
Does the majority of the world believe in the Hindu gods? NO!

So am I in the majority regarding the inexistence of the Christian god? YES!
So am I in the majority regarding the inexistence of the Islamic god? YES!
So am I in the majority regarding the inexistence of the Hindu gods? YES!

The majority do not believe in any particular being.

Instead, the "majority" have been brainwashed from childhood into believing in a fairy tale story that can help them cope with the world.
And in plenty of places if they try to leave it they are killed.

And that inability to cope with the world is what leads to people like bulma rejecting reality because they can't handle it.

All.i was saying is most people have a spiritual need.

Do they?
Or were they just brainwashed into it as a child?
How many of them actually need it?
How many people say they are religious yet do nothing for that religion, not even going to Church or reading their holy book or praying, and really just say they are religious because their parents took them to church?

But even then, saying they have a need is really just saying they are looking for a coping mechanism.
If the majority were alcoholics trying to drink their problems away, would you object to someone being sober?
Because that is basically what you are doing.
And we can see this with how religion varies across the world, with those in the worst off countries typically being more religious, and those in better off countries where there is less to worry about typically being less religious.
That is showing it is a coping mechanism to deal with reality, and so a well adjusted person wouldn't need it.

not someone who spends 75% of their waking life on the flat earth society, pretending to be sane.

No idea who that would be. It clearly isn't me.

"Why would the government trick us?

One can only assume the thread title question is meant to be in relation to the government tricking the people about the shape of the earth. But, "the" government refers to one government. There are hundreds of governments across the world. So, in respect to the shape of the earth, the thread title should read, "Why would all the governments trick us?" Then ofcourse, someone could provide evidence of all the governments in the world tricking their people about the same thing, which nobody could do, let alone about the shape of the earth.

JB, nobody is holding a gun to your head to reply to my posts. Your planet sized ego which demands you always have the last say, would have it no other way.

You continue to demonstrate your pathetic grasp of the English language in your non- understanding of the word, "religious". You peddle the word, "religious", like it's going out of fashion. Can you prove God does not exist, after all your cursing and swearing?

Do you not understand what the word  "subjective" means, either? Who would live their entire life obsessed with objective truths being the only truths in this world?That's not pathetic, that's just plain embarrassing.

You fill your posts with so much shit for people to read, (like a flat earther) that they forget what the original issue was. Like I have! But I'm not worried, because a know-it-all with a track record like yours, is sure to remind me.

Still too scared to take this to the philosophy and religion section, ey, champ? Still afraid I might teach you something?

BTW, 84% of the world is spiritual / religious, which is 6.3 billion people. You are in the minority, not the majority. But according to you, what all those people believe, is BS, and again you are right, and they are all wrong.

All.i was saying is most people have a spiritual need. Most normal people that is  and definitely not someone who spends 75% of their waking life on the flat earth society, pretending to be sane.

That is incorrect. There are a series of NGOs (UN, EU, NATO, and various charities like Doctors Without Borders) that function as a makeshift world government. National sovereignty is the idea behind free society since the Magna Carta, but these groups have goal closer to that of Babylon. "Build Back Better," they say. This is what they mean.

Unite the "globe" in one government, impose rules for everyone, even if those rules only make sense locally, and actively oppress other countries.

The goal of deception is control, and to this end, they say or do anything to get people to believe in their cause.

I was in a conversation with a girl last night at a party. She was pretty and more than a bit tomboyish (if I had a type she'd be it, though I wish I were about 10 years younger). Anyway, we talked for a few hours about pets, about artwork and novel writing, about a number of things really, even about the fact that I was kinda genderfluid, which is not something I readily admit but I felt I could trust her.
But here's the thing. When you tell people you're a flat Earther, their eyes glaze over. They immediately try to talk you out of it. I saw that happen, and my heart kinda broke. But well, I like her, so I just changed the subject rather than arguing. the point is, like the other topics, you ought to be able to talk about it. But it's even more a taboo than religion, sex, or politics. And yes, I have seen this glaze over response. A few times. Almost as though at a young age, children are told what to think in defiance of what their own eyes tell them. Why would such a thing be done?

Well, if you can believe the sun doesn't go around the Earth (which you can see) but that the opposite happens, this lays the foundation for other irrational ideas. Only thoroughly brainwashed people accept all the ideas, but the foundation to them is very very common. God gave us the freedom to make choices, and one of those choices is to teach people to believe there is no God, that the Earth is round, and that the Earth orbits around the sun while rotating. These three things form the basis for globalism. And globalism opens up belief in all sorts of folly. UFOs? You first assume the Earth is round and there is outer space. Sasquatch? Belief in Darwinian evolution which is a subset of disbelief in creationism (though there are some types of evolution that are cool). Atlantis? Nah, that one's cool. We do probably have a lost history.

That is incorrect. There are a series of NGOs (UN, EU, NATO, and various charities like Doctors Without Borders) that function as a makeshift world government. National sovereignty is the idea behind free society since the Magna Carta

No, the principle of the Magna Carta was that the King was not above the law.
It is nothing about national sovereignty.

This is what they mean.

You mean this is the delusional BS you come up with to pretend there is a massive conspiracy, which still has nothing to do with the shape of Earth.
Remember, the tower of babel is a story from a fairy tale which has a flat Earth.

But here's the thing. When you tell people you're a flat Earther, their eyes glaze over.

Because they realise you are either a complete moron, a conman, someone who was conned and fell so heavily, or someone trying to get attention.

the point is, like the other topics, you ought to be able to talk about it.

Suggesting Earth is flat is on the same level of stupid as saying drinking bleach is good for you, or suggesting you don't need to eat or drink to live, or saying you can fly.
It shows a detachment from reality.

Almost as though at a young age, children are told what to think in defiance of what their own eyes tell them.

No, almost as if you are saying something so insane, no sane person would believe it.

Your eyes do not tell you Earth is flat.
Any sane person who understands what a curve is like would understand the horizon.

Likewise, anyone who has watched a sunset would understand Earth is blocking the view.

YOU are the one trying to get people to believe things in defiance of what their own tell them.

Well, if you can believe the sun doesn't go around the Earth (which you can see)

No, you can't see.
No more than you can see Earth fly past as you drive down a highway, or fly in a plane.
What you see is relative motion.

Believing you are the centre of the universe so you can tell it is the sun moving, not Earth, just be looking, is arrogant and lays the foundation for all sorts of irrational BS.

God gave us

There is no evidence your imaginary POS exists at all, to give anyone anything.

These three things form the basis for globalism.

No, none of that does.
The sole reason it is called globalism is because Earth is round.
But otherwise, that has nothing at all to do with the shape of Earth.
And plenty of religious people would claim their religion and god would advocate for globalism.

Globalism is simply about accepting that there are people in lots of places on Earth, understanding the different cultures, and caring about these people.

UFOs? You first assume the Earth is round and there is outer space.

Or you assume Earth is flat and there is outer space.

Sasquatch?

You believe in fairy tale creatures like those in the Bible and you believe all sorts of BS.

So still no reason to lie about the shape of Earth, and just more dishonest BS from you.

There are a series of NGOs (UN, EU, NATO, and various charities like Doctors Without Borders) that function as a makeshift world government.

What did the "makeshift world government" look like over 2000 years ago when the Ancient Greeks figured out that the earth is round and why would they want to trick us?  It's not as if they would have known about Antarctica or the nigh infinite lands and resources beyond the ice wall.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on September 28, 2024, 06:35:51 AM

"Why would the government trick us?

One can only assume the thread title question is meant to be in relation to the government tricking the people about the shape of the earth. But, "the" government refers to one government. There are hundreds of governments across the world. So, in respect to the shape of the earth, the thread title should read, "Why would all the governments trick us?" Then ofcourse, someone could provide evidence of all the governments in the world tricking their people about the same thing, which nobody could do, let alone about the shape of the earth.

JB, nobody is holding a gun to your head to reply to my posts. Your planet sized ego which demands you always have the last say, would have it no other way.

You continue to demonstrate your pathetic grasp of the English language in your non- understanding of the word, "religious". You peddle the word, "religious", like it's going out of fashion. Can you prove God does not exist, after all your cursing and swearing?

Do you not understand what the word  "subjective" means, either? Who would live their entire life obsessed with objective truths being the only truths in this world?That's not pathetic, that's just plain embarrassing.

You fill your posts with so much shit for people to read, (like a flat earther) that they forget what the original issue was. Like I have! But I'm not worried, because a know-it-all with a track record like yours, is sure to remind me.

Still too scared to take this to the philosophy and religion section, ey, champ? Still afraid I might teach you something?

BTW, 84% of the world is spiritual / religious, which is 6.3 billion people. You are in the minority, not the majority. But according to you, what all those people believe, is BS, and again you are right, and they are all wrong.

All.i was saying is most people have a spiritual need. Most normal people that is  and definitely not someone who spends 75% of their waking life on the flat earth society, pretending to be sane.

That is incorrect. There are a series of NGOs (UN, EU, NATO, and various charities like Doctors Without Borders) that function as a makeshift world government. National sovereignty is the idea behind free society since the Magna Carta, but these groups have goal closer to that of Babylon. "Build Back Better," they say. This is what they mean.

Unite the "globe" in one government, impose rules for everyone, even if those rules only make sense locally, and actively oppress other countries.

The goal of deception is control, and to this end, they say or do anything to get people to believe in their cause.

I was in a conversation with a girl last night at a party. She was pretty and more than a bit tomboyish (if I had a type she'd be it, though I wish I were about 10 years younger). Anyway, we talked for a few hours about pets, about artwork and novel writing, about a number of things really, even about the fact that I was kinda genderfluid, which is not something I readily admit but I felt I could trust her.
But here's the thing. When you tell people you're a flat Earther, their eyes glaze over. They immediately try to talk you out of it. I saw that happen, and my heart kinda broke. But well, I like her, so I just changed the subject rather than arguing. the point is, like the other topics, you ought to be able to talk about it. But it's even more a taboo than religion, sex, or politics. And yes, I have seen this glaze over response. A few times. Almost as though at a young age, children are told what to think in defiance of what their own eyes tell them. Why would such a thing be done?

Well, if you can believe the sun doesn't go around the Earth (which you can see) but that the opposite happens, this lays the foundation for other irrational ideas. Only thoroughly brainwashed people accept all the ideas, but the foundation to them is very very common. God gave us the freedom to make choices, and one of those choices is to teach people to believe there is no God, that the Earth is round, and that the Earth orbits around the sun while rotating. These three things form the basis for globalism. And globalism opens up belief in all sorts of folly. UFOs? You first assume the Earth is round and there is outer space. Sasquatch? Belief in Darwinian evolution which is a subset of disbelief in creationism (though there are some types of evolution that are cool). Atlantis? Nah, that one's cool. We do probably have a lost history.

Have you been tested for dissociation? I get the impression you dissociate  - a lot.

I'm also curious how many people use your account here. There seems to be a very old man who daydreams all day long, a middle aged man who can't get enough conspiracy, and an immature teenage boy who questions his sexual identity. All three seem to live together and share the same computer. I just hope the creepy old man wasn't the one talking to the young girl at the party.

There is not a world government.

Not so long ago I was working with a person who told me the chemtrails were particularly bad the week before. With my eyes glazing over, I asked what she meant. Yes, she meant, the government had been hard at it, spraying chemicals over the population.

The same person, when I said I had delved into conspiracy theories over the years, bravely declared the moon landing was fake. I politely corrected her and asked, "Do you mean the moon landingS? There were six."  She said, "All of them are fake. Look into it again." By this stage, my eyes were rolling back in my head, and I was feeling slight anxiety this person could potentially have my life in their hands at some point.

So, yes. I know exactly what you're talking about.

Have you ever separated a yolk from an egg white? Try and separate your immediate personal world reality from the greater whole world reality. You have a foot in both worlds. Learn to separate them and then you will see there is no conspiracy to hide the shape of the earth.

Two people standing side by side, watch the sunset. The first person observes the sun to peek over the horizon and then continue to rise into the sky. The second person observes the entire horizon of the Earth to be slowly moving down, slowly revealing the sun in it's fullness. Which person is correct? 

God gave us the freedom to make choices, and one of those choices is to teach people to believe there is no God, that the Earth is round, and that the Earth orbits around the sun while rotating. These three things form the basis for globalism. And globalism opens up belief in all sorts of folly. UFOs? You first assume the Earth is round and there is outer space. Sasquatch? Belief in Darwinian evolution which is a subset of disbelief in creationism (though there are some types of evolution that are cool).

I've been asking this off and on for a while now and never did get a reasonable answer, so maybe you can provide one.  Why should anyone think that God couldn't, or wouldn't, create an expanding, evolving universe?

Exactly

If "its His will" solves all the christian.

Why cant science not be part of it?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 29, 2024, 02:09:50 AM

God gave us the freedom to make choices, and one of those choices is to teach people to believe there is no God, that the Earth is round, and that the Earth orbits around the sun while rotating. These three things form the basis for globalism. And globalism opens up belief in all sorts of folly. UFOs? You first assume the Earth is round and there is outer space. Sasquatch? Belief in Darwinian evolution which is a subset of disbelief in creationism (though there are some types of evolution that are cool).

I've been asking this off and on for a while now and never did get a reasonable answer, so maybe you can provide one.  Why should anyone think that God couldn't, or wouldn't, create an expanding, evolving universe?

Have you seen how a tree grows?

Ironically, picture provided by NASA.

There is nothing to prevent life from evolving. But Darwin's evolution does not provide an answer to first year creation, only to what happens later (I'm a theistic evolutionist and a catastrophist).  "Herp derp, life came from a meteor." Where did that life come from? And so on. Turtles and elephants all the way down.

There is nothing to prevent the universe from expanding. But a flat Earth universe can do this without the Heat Death of the Universe or the Big Crunch.

What you seem to be under a delusion of is the conflict theory of science and religion.  Prior to about the 18th century, nobody blinked if a priest wanted to study science or vice versa. Then this myth came about that religion somehow banned or suppressed science.  Uhhhhh guys? If the natural world is God's creation, then science is the study of all facets of God's creation.  No, I don't have anything against science. I have plenty against the godless atheism of the likes of Darwin and Hawking.  Especially when they propose secular ideas about how things started. Cosmology is religion, not science.

There is nothing to prevent life from evolving. But Darwin's evolution does not provide an answer to first year creation, only to what happens later (I'm a theistic evolutionist and a catastrophist).  "Herp derp, life came from a meteor." Where did that life come from? And so on. Turtles and elephants all the way down.

First of all, Darwin is not the final authority on evolution.  Secondly, one theory for the very first life forms is called primordial soup theory.
https://www.thoughtco.com/early-life-theory-of-primordial-soup-1224531

There is nothing to prevent the universe from expanding. But a flat Earth universe can do this without the Heat Death of the Universe or the Big Crunch.

Oh?  How?

What you seem to be under a delusion of is the conflict theory of science and religion.

Umm...  You seem to have me confused with a creationist.  I see no conflict between the two (and neither does the Pope), but plenty of FE'ers do.

There is nothing to prevent life from evolving. But Darwin's evolution does not provide an answer to first year creation, only to what happens later

Notice how that in no way addresses the question?
The question was why your god couldn't create an expanding universe with a RE.

And guess what, your god doesn't help address your other question either, as it doesn't provide an answer to how God came to be. It just pushes the problem back to something more complex. You can't accept life just existing without a cause but are happy to accept a much more complex being existing without a cause.

There is nothing to prevent the universe from expanding. But a flat Earth universe can do this without the Heat Death of the Universe or the Big Crunch.

And a god could do whatever it pleases. That includes making an expanding universe which doesn't suffer from the problem of the heat death of the universe.
Likewise, it could make your flat Earth fantasy, which DOES suffer from the heat death of the universe.

What you seem to be under a delusion of is the conflict theory of science and religion.

It isn't a delusion.
Plenty of religions contradict science, with different approaches taken by different people.
Some go full delusion and just reject reality to pretend their religion is true.
Others dishonestly misrepresent their religion, trying to twist it to be vague enough to be compatible with reality.
Others, go even further, lying about their religion by pretending some vague passage actually meant what is known now to pretend it is divine knowledge.

If the natural world is God's creation

And that is a massive IF.
It is an entirely baseless claim.
So the real question is what if it isn't, the far more likely option.
Then you have people who have pedalled stories to make their religion to get control.
Then these stories are discovered to be fake by science, with science showing the religion is wrong.
Now the religious have a choice:
they can try to manipulate their religion to say it is compatible with that science;
they can admit their religion is wrong, perhaps by just saying it was a metaphor or some crap like that;
they can admit it is entirely wrong, and their holy books were written by men and are not infallible;
or they can try to say the science is wrong and that can include trying to suppress the science.

Cosmology is religion, not science.

No, it is definitely science. Based upon testing and evidence.
Something religion lacks.

Primordial soup theory lacks merit.

The problem with these godless theories is that they claim Intelligent Design is impossible.

Let's examine that claim.
1. Let us suppose I make a batch of primordial soup. Some carbon, some nitrogen, some hydrogen, some oxygen. And so on, all mixed together. There's the problem that arises with it, basically the fact that a random mix might get a scattershot amount of "life" which amounts to a few amino acids. The problem is this isn't life, it's chemicals. For something to live, those aminos have to combine to a purpose. And because you're just making a stew of random atoms or molecules, there is no guarantee these will last more than a few seconds. But ohhh, we proved it!
2. No you didn't. You proved what is called the antithesis. You proved Intelligent Design. I can hear you objecting. But let's think about this. You, a being created of atoms, RNA, DNA, and so on made a random stew that doesn't work. When I make a cookie, it calls for a recipe: flour, butter, salt, sugar, in various quantities. Oh yeah, and heat. Likewise, this (pardon the pun) half-baked recipe still requires at least unconscious design. Suppose however, we do succeed. We, an intelligent species have to design said lifeform. We are intelligent, and we design it.
"We Built The World's Simplest Cell But We Have No Idea How It Works."
Just as we can bungle out a cell by dumb luck, how much more would we call someone intelligent who actually does know how a cell works, unlike these dumbasses that call themselves scientists.
3. Primordial soup is not a new theory. It's a subset of Darwin's shlock. There are other evolutionary theories but this is just a subdivision of the same old idea. Darwin's godless universe doesn't work if we're talking about a meteor, and it still doesn't work if we're talking about a soup.

DNA is code. Code requires a programmer.

Most of the life we've "made" in the lab is in fact a plagiarism. We take existing living matter and we splice it to make other life. It is the equivalent of me trying to write a book by taking whole paragraphs from existing books, and making a novel. Okay I've spliced War and Peace with Breaking Dawn. What do you think?

Primordial soup theory lacks merit.

The problem with these godless theories is that they claim Intelligent Design is impossible.

Let's examine that claim.
1. Let us suppose I make a batch of primordial soup. Some carbon, some nitrogen, some hydrogen, some oxygen. And so on, all mixed together. There's the problem that arises with it, basically the fact that a random mix might get a scattershot amount of "life" which amounts to a few amino acids. The problem is this isn't life, it's chemicals. For something to live, those aminos have to combine to a purpose. And because you're just making a stew of random atoms or molecules, there is no guarantee these will last more than a few seconds. But ohhh, we proved it!
2. No you didn't. You proved what is called the antithesis. You proved Intelligent Design. I can hear you objecting. But let's think about this. You, a being created of atoms, RNA, DNA, and so on made a random stew that doesn't work. When I make a cookie, it calls for a recipe: flour, butter, salt, sugar, in various quantities. Oh yeah, and heat. Likewise, this (pardon the pun) half-baked recipe still requires at least unconscious design. Suppose however, we do succeed. We, an intelligent species have to design said lifeform. We are intelligent, and we design it.
"We Built The World's Simplest Cell But We Have No Idea How It Works."
Just as we can bungle out a cell by dumb luck, how much more would we call someone intelligent who actually does know how a cell works, unlike these dumbasses that call themselves scientists.
3. Primordial soup is not a new theory. It's a subset of Darwin's shlock. There are other evolutionary theories but this is just a subdivision of the same old idea. Darwin's godless universe doesn't work if we're talking about a meteor, and it still doesn't work if we're talking about a soup.

DNA is code. Code requires a programmer.

Most of the life we've "made" in the lab is in fact a plagiarism. We take existing living matter and we splice it to make other life. It is the equivalent of me trying to write a book by taking whole paragraphs from existing books, and making a novel. Okay I've spliced War and Peace with Breaking Dawn. What do you think?

In your lifetime, you will never truly find out the answers to many of life's big questions. None of us will. 

If you pray for something to happen or to receive something, and you get your wish, you will believe that is all the proof you will ever need for the existence of God. However, someone else, may get exactly the same successful results, just using creative visualisation. (Both involve imagining and really feeling that what you want to happen, has already happened in a future moment) In both cases that's the power of belief and only proves how powerful prayer or creative visualisation can be.

Your thinking will continue to evolve in your lifetime, just as your body continues to evolve from baby, to adolescent, to adulthood, and then finally old age and death. You adapt all the time to new situations as you go through life.

So, if evolution is true in your own life, why would it not also be true outside your life and all around?

If you want to continue believing in God, then thank God for creating evolution.

God isn't a magical wish-granter.

God is a Creator. I trust in God as a simple fact, not as an act of belief. If I make a chair, that chair has a creator. If there is a lifeform with DNA, it has a Creator.

As I say, I have no problem with evolution that comes after creation. The Korean population has inability to sweat, which makes them well-suited to cold climates (low moisture bodies). Likewise, people in Africa and the Middle East are stinky AF because they need to keep cool.

What I do have a problem with is idiots trying to drag other people into their stupidity.


You can't have evolution without creation. You can't have either without someone pushing the Start button.

Primordial soup theory lacks merit.

Creationism lacks all merit.

The problem with these godless theories is that they claim Intelligent Design is impossible.

And already off to a blatant lie.
They make no claim at all about intelligent design.
The best you would be able to get is that it is not needed.

There's the problem that arises with it, basically the fact that a random mix might get a scattershot amount of "life" which amounts to a few amino acids.

Not "a few" in terms of molecules. So many it isn't funny.
And molecules which can spontaneously react to form more complex systems.

The problem is this isn't life, it's chemicals.

And by definition, life is an autocatalytic chemical reaction.
And chemicals like spontaneously reacting, generally to more stable compounds which last for longer.

2. No you didn't. You proved what is called the antithesis. You proved Intelligent Design.

No, we didn't.
That in no way proves intelligent design.
Even look at what you said "There is no guarantee". i.e. you have no idea one way or the other.

Likewise, this (pardon the pun) half-baked recipe still requires at least unconscious design. Suppose however, we do succeed. We, an intelligent species have to design said lifeform. We are intelligent, and we design it.

Congrats on entirely failing to understand what is meant by design.
The idea is to recreate the early conditions on Earth, and see what happens.
That is not us designing it.
It is designing an experiment to see what happens.
But that is just unintelligent nature producing the product.

Having stuff happen which you didn't specifically design into it to make happen is not designing.

3. Primordial soup is not a new theory. It's a subset of Darwin's shlock. There are other evolutionary theories but this is just a subdivision of the same old idea.

Again, evolution deals with life once it exists, abiogenesis deals with how life came to be.
Abiogenesis is NOT an evolutionary theory.

DNA is code. Code requires a programmer.

DNA is a chemical. There is no evidence it requires a programmer, no any reason to think it does.

It isn't code which needs a programmer, it is the interaction with a particular type of storage medium.
e.g. SSDs don't just spontaneously react to create new data. A human (or machine) needs to interact with it to store that data.

This is not the same for chemicals. They spontaneously react, including to form more complex chemicals.

If it was programmed, that programmer is a complete imbecile or really doesn't give a damn about its creation.

And notice how you still haven't addressed the massive problem with ID?
All it does is push the problem back.
If we need a creator, so does your god.

God is a Creator. I trust in God as a simple fact, not as an act of belief.

It is entirely a belief.
A completely unsubstantiated one.

What I do have a problem with is idiots trying to drag other people into their stupidity.

Like you do all the time?

And no, atheism is simply the absence of delusional belief in a god, a belief which there is no justification for.

How is this for you:
Defence of the "necessity" of ID:
The delusional belief that people are complex, and complex things can only be created by things more complex than them, so we need an even more complex creator, but this creator magically just exists for no reason at all without any creator to create it.
Pure stupidity.

You can't have evolution without creation. You can't have either without someone pushing the Start button.

And how is that thing meant to exist in the first place without someone there to push the start button?

i.e. how is your god meant to exist without someone creating it?

Not "a few" in terms of molecules. So many it isn't funny.

A few. As in, not enough to make anything of merit. Did your soup make a puppy? Did it spontaneously even make an amoeba? It's just children bragging about how they can do all sorts of things without help. This isn't even playing with toys, this is playing with stuff that wishes it were shit.

A. Either it is a failure, as there is no design behind it,
B. Or it is a success, because someone brewed the soup according to a working recipe.

Simple as that. And that is what proves Intelligent Design. In order to make any of this work, Intelligence made a Design.

Before we even talk about primordial soup, it wouldn't be able to make anything without bonds. Remember that in chemistry? It's like this. Atoms have sets of (I think it was) electrons from 1 to (I think it was) 8. A noble gas is like a full roller coaster, nobody can get on.  Meanwhile, something like hydrogen can bond with oxygen. Without the ability to make those bonds, carbon or oxygen or hydrogen are just sitting by themselves being wallflowers, and nothing exists period. There had to be the ability to bond. 

And God said, "It is not good for atoms to be alone."

The idea is to recreate the early conditions on Earth, and see what happens.
That is not us designing it.

Do you get to decide what is and isn't meant by a word?

intelligent design
noun
1. The belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result chiefly from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance and other undirected natural processes.
2. The purposeful design perceived in the universe or one of its parts and attributed to such a being.

Do you see the word "God" in this? So if I create a physical or biological system (a life form) by design, then I am an intelligent being, creating a purposeful design. Also, they assume somehow that chance or natural processes are outside the domain of God. This is a God who makes the tornadoes, and the grasses grow. Natural =/= without God. Nor is there such a thing as an "undirected" process. If an orchestra does not have any members and no conductor, do we have any music at all.

So yes, you can blame God for the tornado that hit your house. All of that natural process was surely directed. Go ahead and hate on him all you want. But you can't say he doesn't exist, not without lying. There surely was a cause for the tornado hitting it.

DNA is a chemical

DNA is a code. The amino acids cytosine [C], guanine [G], adenine [A] or thymine [T]), a sugar called deoxyribose, and a phosphate group are all banded to DNA then packaged together into chromosomes. What these pair up as makes the DNA what it is. Ciliated protozoa has 16000 chromosomes, butterflies have 268, potatoes have 48 as do orangutans, humans have 46 (typically 22 pairs, with one pair for sex). A chemical, strictly speaking is something that can be produced by chemical formula. DNA can be made only by plopping amino acids in a sequence.     

Like you do all the time?

Like you do all the time. You and Data think I'm being stupid while you deny painfully obvious things and push nonsensical things like "Oh it's obvious that when we look in the sky and see the sun moving across from it, that's actually backwards." Or "there's all this stuff here but God didn't make that."

i.e. how is your god meant to exist without someone creating it?

To be God means to say "I Am" when asked your name.

I don't ask what created God, because the answer is a process that doesn't make sense to our framework of thinking. This is why we say God Is. There's a fully formed humanoid God that is just there. And one day, he is bored of sitting alone in vast emptiness. So here we all are.

The problem with these godless theories is that they claim Intelligent Design is impossible.

Not necessary.  There are some that think that the purpose of science is to explain God's miracles.

The purpose of science is to understand God's creation. Not simply miracles, but how things work.