# Humans Scare Me



## TheHopeless

Humans freak me out. I don’t think we should consider ourselves an “intelligent” or “advanced” species. First world countries make up only a small minority of the world population. The vast majority of humans live in third world countries. I don’t care that we have advancements like computers or space shuttles; over 4 billion people have little to no access to education, sanitation, clean water, nutrition or health care. And there are still many tribes of people out there that live just as humans lived ten thousand years ago: Hunter-gatherers. 

Also humans have such weird, backwards beliefs. I mean, what kind of a species hates its own anatomy and enforces laws to hide our natural form? I don't think wearing clothes is a sign of advancement, I think it's a sign of extreme stupidity when 90% of the time we only wear clothes because "oh my god, the human body is inappropriate and disgusting!" I live in a temperate climate and my job doesn't involve blades or welding or anything. I don't need to wear clothes for warmth or protection, but I have to wear clothes in public because humans are retarded.

Speaking of god, to this day billions of people follow superstitions, strange rituals and religions. I’m not anti-religion or anything; I just think it’s weird for a species to have such beliefs in the first place. I mean, what the hell kind of a species like to cut their baby’s genitals because it will appease an invisible man in the sky? Humans are still savage, bloodthirsty wild animals under the guise of civilization. Humans hold little value to every other species on Earth, let alone other humans. Humans love to oppress and treat others like crap. People are fickle things with a limit on what they can handle before they flip out and act like rampaging chimpanzees. The only thing keeping most people in line is a government that enforces laws, but that doesn’t change our inherent wild animal nature because there will always be people who steal, kill and rape no matter what the law says. And every government is corrupt, so it’s not like judicial systems or laws are fair. 

And the things that entertain first world humans is only an indication that we’re still savage, wild animals. Why do people love violence in movies? Why do people like zombie movies, or watching people fight, etc. etc. 

And it terrifies me that we do have some big technological advancements, because we’re just glorified apes. We’re savage, wild animals and we have so many ways to inflict harm on others, to the point where we can destroy the entire world with a few of our nukes. That is really, really scary.

Why did it have to be the **** genus that developed this way? It couldn’t have been orangutans or something? I mean, orangutans are the most peaceful and docile of the great apes. I don’t trust chimpanzees, gorillas or humans but I think orangutans would’ve been able to handle themselves better if they developed civilization. In fact, any docile herbivorous species should’ve taken our place. Why couldn’t rabbits or parrots or something develop civilization instead? Parrots are vastly intelligent and can make tools, and since they’re social frugivores, I’m pretty sure a parrot civilization would be a lot more Utopian.


----------



## ugh1979

TheHopeless said:


> Humans freak me out. I don't think we should consider ourselves an "intelligent" or "advanced" species. First world countries make up only a small minority of the world population. The vast majority of humans live in third world countries. I don't care that we have advancements like computers or space shuttles; over 4 billion people have little to no access to education, sanitation, clean water, nutrition or health care. And there are still many tribes of people out there that live just as humans lived ten thousand years ago: Hunter-gatherers.


Without pockets of advancement/intelligence, there is no advancement/intelligence. It has to start local, then expand to the larger group.

Advancement and intelligence levels are relative terms, and we are arguably more advanced and intelligent that all other species on our planet.

The other angle of what you said is that less that half the world now lives in poverty, compared with the vast majority who lived in poverty which had been normal for basically all of human history.

That's certainly a positive advancement, and billions of us live in relative luxury.



> Also humans have such weird, backwards beliefs. I mean, what kind of a species hates its own anatomy and enforces laws to hide our natural form? I don't think wearing clothes is a sign of advancement, I think it's a sign of extreme stupidity when 90% of the time we only wear clothes because "oh my god, the human body is inappropriate and disgusting!" I live in a temperate climate and my job doesn't involve blades or welding or anything. I don't need to wear clothes for warmth or protection, but I have to wear clothes in public because humans are retarded.


That's an interesting belief. I wouldn't say it's necessarily due to a hate of ones own anatomy. Obviously the worlds laws have largely been shaped by people who come from climates where wearing clothes had very practical reasons due to climate, so it became the social norm. It also identifies people, and people often need/like/want to be able to show identity and status with their clothing.

There is also a sexual element, and it could be argued that wearing clothes makes the visual side of sex better as you aren't used to seeing sexual parts of your sexual partners anatomy.

That's just a few reasons why we wear clothes. There are many others. I appreciate clothing laws can also be used oppressively. We can often blame religion for that.



> Speaking of god, to this day billions of people follow superstitions, strange rituals and religions. I'm not anti-religion or anything; I just think it's weird for a species to have such beliefs in the first place. I mean, what the hell kind of a species like to cut their baby's genitals because it will appease an invisible man in the sky?


I don't think it's weird for us to have evolved them in general. In fact there are many good arguments I often speak about on the religious forum about why religion/superstition exists.

They served an important place in our development, but they are superfluous now IMO, since we now have more credible secular, scientific and rational based alternatives to those beliefs.

There are of course a world of 'weird' customs and practices across cultures that exist, religious or not. The reason for them can be elusive.



> Humans are still savage, bloodthirsty wild animals under the guise of civilization. Humans hold little value to every other species on Earth, let alone other humans.


That's too extreme IMO.

We can still be savage and blood thirsty, and some people do hold very little value for other species or other people, but it's not the norm.

Most people are relatively civilised and care about others.



> Humans love to oppress and treat others like crap. People are fickle things with a limit on what they can handle before they flip out and act like rampaging chimpanzees.


Some do, most don't.



> The only thing keeping most people in line is a government that enforces laws, but that doesn't change our inherent wild animal nature because there will always be people who steal, kill and rape no matter what the law says.


Do you think you wouldn't stay in line if there was no government to enforce laws? If not, do you not think most people are like you in that respect?

It's a minority that would steal, kill and rape, but society wouldn't and couldn't exist without some form of laws, be that government legislation or group consensus, like it was for most of human history.

Many non-human societies of intelligent animals have 'laws'. They are necessary to group functionality and success, so are inherent.



> And every government is corrupt, so it's not like judicial systems or laws are fair.


Corruption is always on a spectrum, and many governments are now less corrupt than they have ever been. As for laws, most are fair, some aren't. That's a big tangent topic in its own right.



> And the things that entertain first world humans is only an indication that we're still savage, wild animals. Why do people love violence in movies? Why do people like zombie movies, or watching people fight, etc. etc.


Violence equates to drama, and people like drama, as it's novel and entertaining to most people who live a fairly non-dramatic life. Seeing it releases all sorts of rewarding neuro-chemicals.

Of course there are elements of the spectacle of violence that harks back to a time when violence in day to day life was much more frequent, but the flip side is that there is a world of wonder and beauty which also entertains us that is entirely peaceful.



> And it terrifies me that we do have some big technological advancements, because we're just glorified apes. We're savage, wild animals and we have so many ways to inflict harm on others, to the point where we can destroy the entire world with a few of our nukes. That is really, really scary.


Again, the flip side is that big technological advancements have allowed us to evolve to an arguably more developed and intelligent state than our primate cousins. Technology has also been key to allowing so many of us to live in relative luxury, while also helping those less fortunate.

It's true technology has the potential to kill billions, and has in various ways with weapons etc, but it has also saved the lives of billions via countless ways.

It's just how we use it. I appreciate that can be a scary concept, but an even scarier concept is having little or no technology.



> Why did it have to be the **** genus that developed this way? It couldn't have been orangutans or something? I mean, orangutans are the most peaceful and docile of the great apes. I don't trust chimpanzees, gorillas or humans but I think orangutans would've been able to handle themselves better if they developed civilization. In fact, any docile herbivorous species should've taken our place. Why couldn't rabbits or parrots or something develop civilization instead? Parrots are vastly intelligent and can make tools, and since they're social frugivores, I'm pretty sure a parrot civilization would be a lot more Utopian.


There are very good evolutionary reasons why intelligent omnivores evolved and developed into species far more intelligent than the likes of rabbits and parrots.

Walking upright having two free limbs with dexterous fingers is a rare trait that gives huge benefits and advantages over other species in many habitats. Several species evolved those traits, but only _**** sapiens_ still exist. We outcompeted the rest. Our naturally fairly aggressive nature undoubtedly helped that, as we were active rather than passive in our territory expansion which increased our species numbers as we could sustain more people. Eating meat was also key as it's such a great source of calories, which when combined with fire to make the meat more digestible, meant our brains had the fuel source to allow it to grow to the size it is while also giving us lots of time to develop technology and culture.

These are just some reasons why our species is in the place it is on this planet.


----------



## OrbitalResonance

We are the greatest thing since trees and we will build empires in the sky.


----------



## JustALonelyHeart

Humans are the only species that grows members of other species for food and clothing.Humans are the only species that invented animal farms.As you said, we have nukes and other destructive weapons.Humans are the only species seeking for other planets to live on(and possibly **** up like they are doing to Earth).Humans scare me as well.


----------



## ugh1979

JustALonelyHeart said:


> Humans are the only species that grows members of other species for food and clothing.Humans are the only species that invented animal farms.


Not quite right, as there are ants that farm other species of animal.


----------



## twitchy666

*humans are stupid animals*

constantly selfishly at war / competitive with everyone
about finances greedily

contradictory

feeding on losers:
"You Can't"

compendium: we're better than you

sport heralds the throne

run a bit faster? further? so earning money?
singin'? smiling
posh clothes, red carpet, flashes

proper wild animals can't do any of that

make fire (is that how science began?)
mirrors
building skyscrapers

I thought every species has eyes. Things look good (in sun)
most have mouths
we got sewers
animals don't need 'em
maybe ants don't plant trees
big cats farm antelopes... & lots...
breeding isn't protection or conservative of any species (humans, zoos et al). They take up valuable space & resources. They live, compete, die and get eaten

when summer hadn't arrived yet
people wrapped in layers of cotton is disgusting to me
I have shorts, t-shirt, sandals in winter during precipitation, outdoors on bike 
weird looked-down-on from thick coaters when bright sun.
protection? only from people is what I need. I love elements.

cave dwellers like "Hello" with plastic held to ear, talking with person can't see

Which is most attractive? cars, boats, people, electronics or TV? Sea

ciao


----------



## jonjagger

I hate them too.


----------



## sajs

TheHopeless said:


> Humans freak me out. I don't think we should consider ourselves an "intelligent" or "advanced" species. First world countries make up only a small minority of the world population. The vast majority of humans live in third world countries. I don't care that we have advancements like computers or space shuttles; over 4 billion people have little to no access to education, sanitation, clean water, nutrition or health care. And there are still many tribes of people out there that live just as humans lived ten thousand years ago: Hunter-gatherers.
> 
> Also humans have such weird, backwards beliefs. I mean, what kind of a species hates its own anatomy and enforces laws to hide our natural form? I don't think wearing clothes is a sign of advancement, I think it's a sign of extreme stupidity when 90% of the time we only wear clothes because "oh my god, the human body is inappropriate and disgusting!" I live in a temperate climate and my job doesn't involve blades or welding or anything. I don't need to wear clothes for warmth or protection, but I have to wear clothes in public because humans are retarded.
> 
> Speaking of god, to this day billions of people follow superstitions, strange rituals and religions. I'm not anti-religion or anything; I just think it's weird for a species to have such beliefs in the first place. I mean, what the hell kind of a species like to cut their baby's genitals because it will appease an invisible man in the sky? Humans are still savage, bloodthirsty wild animals under the guise of civilization. Humans hold little value to every other species on Earth, let alone other humans. Humans love to oppress and treat others like crap. People are fickle things with a limit on what they can handle before they flip out and act like rampaging chimpanzees. The only thing keeping most people in line is a government that enforces laws, but that doesn't change our inherent wild animal nature because there will always be people who steal, kill and rape no matter what the law says. And every government is corrupt, so it's not like judicial systems or laws are fair.
> 
> And the things that entertain first world humans is only an indication that we're still savage, wild animals. Why do people love violence in movies? Why do people like zombie movies, or watching people fight, etc. etc.
> 
> And it terrifies me that we do have some big technological advancements, because we're just glorified apes. We're savage, wild animals and we have so many ways to inflict harm on others, to the point where we can destroy the entire world with a few of our nukes. That is really, really scary.
> 
> Why did it have to be the **** genus that developed this way? It couldn't have been orangutans or something? I mean, orangutans are the most peaceful and docile of the great apes. I don't trust chimpanzees, gorillas or humans but I think orangutans would've been able to handle themselves better if they developed civilization. In fact, any docile herbivorous species should've taken our place. Why couldn't rabbits or parrots or something develop civilization instead? Parrots are vastly intelligent and can make tools, and since they're social frugivores, I'm pretty sure a parrot civilization would be a lot more Utopian.


I live in a so called third world country, and we have computers, internet, access to free education, free healthcare, etc (I am not sure about space shuttles).

And a lot of tribes even if they keep their old traditions are probably happier than us (also lot of tribes has a good wealth of knowledge that we the "advanced" people will never understand/appreciate because we got really far from "the roots"), I really admire tribes.

And a lot of people it is living in that position because they let their "leaders" do whatever they want or they are forced. Underdeveloped countries with nuclear weapons but little else.


----------



## Persephone The Dread

Well if the Orangutans developed the same as we did, they'd be basically the same as we are, but yes Humans do have tons of issues imo.


----------



## knightofdespair

Lot of truth here


----------



## LemonBones

hyoomans are crayyy


----------



## twitchy666

*what do you get*

as `communication`? loud bullying threat
voicemails 
the day of paying LINE RENTAL from 2001 2016

THIS IS THIS IS THIS IS THIS IS THIS IS THIS IS THIS IS Ahhhhhhhhhhh... Aaaay...... CAAALLLLL TOOOOOOO YOOOOUUUURRRRR *NUMMB*BER
slamming on door

not once. all day long. 24/7
from day set me up in my own critical mental asylum

please describe anything else


----------



## derpresion

humans are fat and their genitals are gross they need to wear clothes, other than that i cant stand people too, in fact when u make me think i think thats one of rare things y i respect them, they wear clothes, thank to god lolol


----------



## Tone

I would recommend ending procreation and thus evacuating the Earth; regardless if you believe in life after death or not. But how would 7 billion ever all agree to that? There will always be a majority stupid enough to continue procreating, thus ensuring their own imprisonment in a lower-being; some would even make up fake arguments that its not an imprisonment or lower being, because they are programmed to do such, and programmed to make it look like sides of a philosophic debate instead of disinfo covering up the truth about "the celestial error" & physicality. Just because someone is programmed to make something look like it has multiple sides & viewpoints, doesn't mean this is the case. While there are real topics that truly have multiple valid sides, This also is often just tactic to cover up a simple truth, like in this case.


----------



## CNikki

Think everything that should be said was done so by ugh1979. Takes quite a bit of patience to break down the OP's arguments and give in one's own.

I tend to agree that humans generally suck. The only time the human species prospers is if they marry or won the chance of being born into that materialistic/royal inheritance. We're based off of hierarchy and there will always be rules within that said-hierarchy. Anything that conflicts will be fought off until one wins.


----------



## Tone

CNikki said:


> Think everything that should be said was done so by ugh1979. Takes quite a bit of patience to break down the OP's arguments and give in one's own.
> 
> I tend to agree that humans generally suck. The only time the human species prospers is if they marry or won the chance of being born into that materialistic/royal inheritance. We're based off of hierarchy and there will always be rules within that said-hierarchy. Anything that conflicts will be fought off until one wins.


However, note that any minority prospering is fleeting and temporary, thus illusionary. Those prospering can get into accidents or else they get diseases, and if not that they will age, decay and die..

Theres no doubt that the physical universe needs to be terminated. In the past 7 or s billion years, 96% of it has already been destroyed; from our perspective this is the 96% that is dark matter and dark energy, of which there was none just a few billion years ago.

Perhaps the dark matter and dark energy is the process by which True-God is correcting this error. If this were the case, at the level of where the correction could be applied, a few minutes might be a billion years on our level. A hell of a situation, literally. This time differential prevents immediate destruction of this universe, from our perspective.


----------



## Tone

As far as im concern any truly intelligent person -- not robotic intelligence of just being able to do math or music well, or learn things well, but true organic original intellectual capacity -- would conclude that the physical world is of poor living conditions and makes no logical sense to be of any value, and thus is more of an 'entrapment matrix' than a 'learning, growing & experiencing classroom' as dissociative newagers would claim.

It is interesting to note that out of the four great categories of spiritual belief: Atheism, Religion, New Age & Gnostic; that the first three account for 99.9999+% of people and the latter is a minuscule minority. Did someone or something make sure of that ? Just a Question.


----------



## Tone

TheHopeless said:


> Speaking of god, to this day billions of people follow superstitions, strange rituals and religions. I'm not anti-religion or anything; I just think it's weird for a species to have such beliefs in the first place. I mean, what the hell kind of a species like to cut their baby's genitals because it will appease an invisible man in the sky? Humans are still savage, bloodthirsty wild animals under the guise of civilization.


Thats by design for its practical evil and sinister use it has as a control and fear mechanism. It also covers up Gnostic Truth; that this reality was created by evil and is in the process of being terminated by Good. If everyone knew what this reality was they would voluntarily cease procreation as a first attempt to evacuate/escape back to True-Reality. Of course it probably would work very well, the consciousnesses would find themselves somewhere else with no memory of what they learned, on some other habitable planet of the dark & evil physicality matrix.

This reality is physical gas and rock balls that orbit physical stars in space and operate on the physics chemistry & etc that they do. how can anyone not see through this dumb ****? I mean come on. Physical balls that orbit nuclear fusion reactors who eventually give rise to life that procreates its self for no reason? Give me a break, This isn't the right dimension of reality.


----------



## bloodymary

sajs said:


> I live in a so called third world country, and we have computers, internet, access to free education, free healthcare, etc (I am not sure about space shuttles).
> 
> And a lot of tribes even if they keep their old traditions are probably happier than us (also lot of tribes has a good wealth of knowledge that we the "advanced" people will never understand/appreciate because we got really far from "the roots"), I really admire tribes.
> 
> And a lot of people it is living in that position because they let their "leaders" do whatever they want or they are forced. Underdeveloped countries with nuclear weapons but little else.


Argentina is far from a poor country, I think he had worse places in mind. Don´t wish to come where I live.

I agree with OP people are bloodthirsty monsters.


----------



## ugh1979

Tone said:


> However, note that any minority prospering is fleeting and temporary, thus illusionary. Those prospering can get into accidents or else they get diseases, and if not that they will age, decay and die.


Just because something is finite doesn't mean it's an illusion. Our species existence is arguably finite so does that mean it's also an illusion?



> Theres no doubt that the physical universe needs to be terminated.


"Needs"? Why does it "need" to be? Are you really calling for end of all existence? :?



> In the past 7 or s billion years, 96% of it has already been destroyed; from our perspective this is the 96% that is dark matter and dark energy, of which there was none just a few billion years ago/


You are either getting confused or really don't know what you are talking about. In fact due to the law of conservation of energy it's not been destroyed at all. Also, where are you getting the idea that dark energy and dark matter are just a few billions years old? :?



> Perhaps the dark matter and dark energy is the process by which True-God is correcting this error. If this were the case, at the level of where the correction could be applied, a few minutes might be a billion years on our level. A hell of a situation, literally. This time differential prevents immediate destruction of this universe, from our perspective.


No offence intended, but I think you need to go and learn about cosmology and physics as what you are saying in simply nonsensical.


----------



## ugh1979

Tone said:


> As far as im concern any truly intelligent person -- not robotic intelligence of just being able to do math or music well, or learn things well, but true organic original intellectual capacity -- would conclude that the physical world is of poor living conditions and makes no logical sense to be of any value, and thus is more of an 'entrapment matrix' than a 'learning, growing & experiencing classroom' as dissociative newagers would claim.


The physical world is of immensely varied living conditions, each one subjective to the species need or person's opinion of them.

If one of the huge number of people say they have good living conditions who are you to say they don't? Also, why don't you think there isn't any value in having good living conditions?

Someone could be stuck in an 'entrapment matrix' (i'm guessing about what you mean by that), but could just as well be in a 'learning, growing & experiencing classroom'. There's no argument members of ours species have/can experienced either/both.



> It is interesting to note that out of the four great categories of spiritual belief: Atheism, Religion, New Age & Gnostic; that the first three account for 99.9999+% of people and the latter is a minuscule minority. Did someone or something make sure of that ? Just a Question.


To the contrary, nobody is gnostic in terms of actually having knowledge of things which they can't demonstrate to be true. Also, you missed out a large demographic, apatheists.


----------



## ugh1979

Tone said:


> Thats by design for its practical evil and sinister use it has as a control and fear mechanism. It also covers up Gnostic Truth; that this reality was created by evil and is in the process of being terminated by Good. If everyone knew what this reality was they would voluntarily cease procreation as a first attempt to evacuate/escape back to True-Reality. Of course it probably would work very well, the consciousnesses would find themselves somewhere else with no memory of what they learned, on some other habitable planet of the dark & evil physicality matrix.
> 
> This reality is physical gas and rock balls that orbit physical stars in space and operate on the physics chemistry & etc that they do. how can anyone not see through this dumb ****? I mean come on. Physical balls that orbit nuclear fusion reactors who eventually give rise to life that procreates its self for no reason? Give me a break, This isn't the right dimension of reality.


Yeah you definitely need an education on cosmology, physics and I now see biology.

You sound like a 'Gnostic truther'/cult follower with your claims that we should stop procreating as some way of getting to some fantastical "True-reality". :roll

Please get your head out the clouds and come back to the real world, because there is zero reason to believe what you are claiming.


----------



## Tone

ugh1979 said:


> No offence intended, but I think you need to go and learn about cosmology and physics as what you are saying in simply nonsensical.


No offense taken, since *youre incorrect* instead of correct

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

I never made any cosmological claim except that dark matter and energy started half way into our current universe and is increasing -- *the rest of what I said is NOT in the realm of cosmology, so you therefore cannot reply to me and be all like "wrong, go get an education in cosmology" -- that doesnt make any sense*,

WTF? you have to be extremely scatter brained and dissociative to have made this reply to me, because you cant tell a simple difference between first saying something cosmological, THEN, NEXT, going OUTSIDE the realm of the science of cosmology with the rest of my post -- how could you have missed that, you have dementia or something???????

ad hominem is not invalid, if its actually true !!!! Who the hell cant separate the difference between a cosmological statement, then followed by statements OUTSIDE cosmology, and group the two together as if they are all cosmology statements??? HOWWWWWW


----------



## Tone

This guy is insane -- let me give you an analogy -- this is like if I made a scientific statement about how old the Earth is, THEN NEXT, made a spiritual claim about the age having a meaning, and as a result; him grouping the two together as both being geology. Youd have to be insane to do such a thing.

how about this one:

Suppose i *first* make a *scientific claim* about extinction events that occurred; then *secondly* i make a *philosophic* statement that has nothing to do with the science of extinction level events in the geological record in the direct sense of its study....

Then someone quotes me, groups the two SEPARATE things together, pretends they are one, and claims I made mistakes in Paleontology, because he has *so much brain fog, he cant separate a **Paleontology statement that is then followed by a philosophical statement *-- so he therefore uses the latter to say I need an education in Paleontology. Whos the one really replying with nonsense??

*Heres the BEST one of all, the PERFECT analogy for ugh1979 did:*

*Lets say I talk about the weather and say that radar and reports shows its going to rain; then i say rain causes a sense of rejuvenation and cleansing and more out of body experiences happen during rain -- then someone quotes me and claims I need an education in meteorology because their dumb *** grouped my statement about the forecast with my statement about how more OBEs occur when it rains

ugh1979 -- youve been exposed for fraud.

*no ones ever going to pull fraud on me, in any thread ever. Every single reply to any post I made can be debunked and shown why its fraud, at a 100% rate. I simply dont have motive, time and energy to do this with every single reply however. But just as I defeated & exposed ugh1979, and the other guy in the Krat-thread; I could do with EVERY reply to any post i make. But i do not have the energy and will for this.


----------



## ugh1979

Tone said:


> No offense taken, since *youre incorrect* instead of correct
> 
> http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/
> 
> I never made any cosmological claim except that dark matter and energy started half way into our current universe and is increasing


Can you cite a passage or passages from that source which substantiates what you are saying? You've clearly misunderstood. Dark energy and dark matter emerged very early in the chronology of our universe, although it's true dark energy could be why it's still inflating and doing so at an increasing rate.



> -- *the rest of what I said is NOT in the realm of cosmology, so you therefore cannot reply to me and be all like "wrong, go get an education in cosmology" -- that doesnt make any sense*
> 
> ]WTF? you have to be extremely scatter brained and dissociative to have made this reply to me, because you cant tell a simple difference between first saying something cosmological, THEN, NEXT, going OUTSIDE the realm of the science of cosmology with the rest of my post -- how could you have missed that, you have dementia or something???????
> 
> ad hominem is not invalid, if its actually true !!!! Who the hell cant separate the difference between a cosmological statement, then followed by statements OUTSIDE cosmology, and group the two together as if they are all cosmology statements??? HOWWWWWW


You said, "Perhaps the dark matter and dark energy is the process by which True-God is correcting this error." That's a claim which has a cosmological component hence why I suggested you go and learn about it since it's arguably fallacious. Calling them a 'true-god's error correcting' is nonsensical.

You were using cosmological claims to try and substantial your theological claims, so it's relevant I address both at the same time.

You again in later posts referred to certain scientific fields and expressed what is a clear ignorance of them, while obviously maintaining a theological argument that the scientific answers were "dumb" in comparison, so again, I can and should address both areas in my response.


----------



## ugh1979

Tone said:


> This guy is insane -- let me give you an analogy -- this is like if I made a scientific statement about how old the Earth is, THEN NEXT, made a spiritual claim about the age having a meaning, and as a result; him grouping the two together as both being geology. Youd have to be insane to do such a thing.
> 
> how about this one:
> 
> Suppose i *first* make a *scientific claim* about extinction events that occurred; then *secondly* i make a *philosophic* statement that has nothing to do with the science of extinction level events in the geological record in the direct sense of its study....
> 
> Then someone quotes me, groups the two SEPARATE things together, pretends they are one, and claims I made mistakes in Paleontology, because he has *so much brain fog, he cant separate a **Paleontology statement that is then followed by a philosophical statement *-- so he therefore uses the latter to say I need an education in Paleontology. Whos the one really replying with nonsense??
> 
> *Heres the BEST one of all, the PERFECT analogy for ugh1979 did:*
> 
> *Lets say I talk about the weather and say that radar and reports shows its going to rain; then i say rain causes a sense of rejuvenation and cleansing and more out of body experiences happen during rain -- then someone quotes me and claims I need an education in meteorology because their dumb *** grouped my statement about the forecast with my statement about how more OBEs occur when it rains*


*

Those are just inane straw man arguments anyone reading this will see straight through. See my above post where I clearly explain how you were trying to use cosmology to substantiate the theological arguments/positions I was responding to.




ugh1979 -- youve been exposed for fraud.

Click to expand...

Feel free to try and show how. 




no ones ever going to pull fraud on me, in any thread ever. Every single reply to any post I made can be debunked and shown why its fraud, at a 100% rate. I simply dont have motive, time and energy to do this with every single reply however. But just as I defeated & exposed ugh1979, and the other guy in the Krat-thread; I could do with EVERY reply to any post i make. But i do not have the energy and will for this.

Click to expand...

Oh big man eh? :roll (What an embarrassingly arrogant thing to say)

That's a very bold statement to make around here. There are many people in these sub-forums who are more than capable of taking your arguments apart and exposing the errancies of them. I've been here a long time and see people like you come and go all time. I can bet you can't stand the heat. 

To say nobody can debunk your claims/show them to be fraudulent, but you don't have the energy or time to do so is simply laughable. :lol

It's noted you ignored most of what I was asking you and just focused on some confused idea about mixing topics. Such lame attempts to avoid answering questions is what is called deflecting, and it's almost always a sign of a poor argument.*


----------



## Tone

ugh1979 said:


> Those are just inane straw man arguments anyone reading this will see straight through. See my above post where I clearly explain how you were trying to use cosmology to substantiate the theological arguments/positions I was responding to.
> 
> Feel free to try and show how.
> 
> Oh big man eh? :roll (What an embarrassingly arrogant thing to say)
> 
> That's a very bold statement to make around here. There are many people in these sub-forums who are more than capable of taking your arguments apart and exposing the errancies of them. I've been here a long time and see people like you come and go all time. I can bet you can't stand the heat.
> 
> To say nobody can debunk your claims/show them to be fraudulent, but you don't have the energy or time to do so is simply laughable. :lol
> 
> It's noted you ignored most of what I was asking you and just focused on some confused idea about mixing topics. Such lame attempts to avoid answering questions is what is called deflecting, and it's almost always a sign of a poor argument.


I can use it and claim it as a hypothesis and that can be separate from the fact that its correct dark matter and dark energy came out of nowhere at some point way-after the big bang and is increasing. Feel free to reject the hypothesis and believe that its just a coincidence that everything here supports evolution and life; and that this is not an evil universe currently under destruction.

The only way you can get away with such a thought is if there were "zillions" of universes and this one by chance had all the constants right for life to form and evolve by mere brute-force method; so to speak. Perhaps you will be surprised when you either have an NDE or die and see what happens; in the meantime im wishing you well; so you dont confuse this statement with me wanting you to die.

Also those "Straw man" arguments and so-called rules of debates are false - they were MADE UP by people who THINK they have logical rules to debates that make sense. I dont consider them valid under many circumstances. I dont have the motive and mental-energy to go on to explain why many of the rules of debate are actually erroneous and with flaws, especially in particular contexts. But feel free to latch on to the rules of debate as your mini bible which you think will act as a defense for your errors.


----------



## Tone

Can i just be a complete retard, then everytime someone calls me out on being a retard, i can simply cite the rules of debating to defend myself being a retard? LOL!!


----------



## Tone

hey ugh1979 let me ask you a question -- what do you think about humanity and life on this planet?

what do you think of the concept of small balls circling larger nuclear-fusion burning balls and on the small balls evolve life which has short life-spans, is constantly striving for survival, and then procreates so their offspring can then do the same, and then their offspring, and so on, and so on, until and intelligent species with high consciousness evolves, who are then not only entrapped in fragile physical bodies of extreme limitations, but which simply age and die, then their offspring age and die, then their offspring age and die???

what you think about that system of life & reality?

Seems to me.. Nihilism was an observation instead of a philosophic opinion. You, or someone else can go ahead and call that my opinion or viewpoint,

but then again, someone could also claim the statement "Child rape is bad" as being an opinion; or "mass random murder is bad" as being an opinion technically. But please, come on; we all know murder and rape is bad and we all know this world is completely nihilistic in its nature. Its just common sense evident.

So whatchu think, eh? you like this planet and system. Is it cool to procreate those who in turn procreate, who in turn procreate and so on, endlessly to know ends, while in the meantime all 196 nations on Earth are Authoritarian Collectivist and everything is based upon darkness and rather than light.

If you could, for a minute, stop being a robot and use your common sense perception, perhaps you could start so see through this false-reality for what it really is. THis is an entrapment for divine beings. Of course not every human is a divine being inside of a human body -- must people are empty shells with no sentient consciousness, and thus are easily programmed to generate false PsyOps Debates.......

One of the most powerful forms of PsyOps Disinformation is to take a simple evident truth; and make it look like there is still a debate with multiple sides, different viewpoints, different perceptions and such. Definitely in the top five most powerful disinfo-methods. People who do this are not even aware they are engaging in disinformation and truly believe in evident establish truths as being established with multiple sides.

Of course, there are certain topics & philosophies where multiple sides and perceptions DO exist and a debate really IS valid. But these are mixed in with established truths. Like in the case of the physical creation being a lower entrapment that needs to be evacuated & terminated. Thats a truth, but an evil force that wants this reality to continue is going to make up fake-arguments that there is "another way of looking at things" so they can keep their matrix alive.

Wouldn't you pretend something established is instead still up for debate, if you were a psychopath and had a motive to cover something up? sure you would. Its done for everything from: the smallest social issues to the entire gnostic status of our situation as physical beings. Its a technique that is more powerful than brute force opposition point. Works really well in man made global warming and it surely would work well for the issue of The Celestial Error

The Physical Universe its self, the Big Bang, is in ERROR and never should have occurred. It is a false virtual reality entrapment and not every person you see is an embodied divine being trapped here. In

https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Celestial+Error

http://www.rense.com/general92/collaps.htm

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/mistic/mistic_08.htm


----------



## ugh1979

Tone said:


> I can use it and claim it as a hypothesis and that can be separate from the fact that its correct dark matter and dark energy came out of nowhere at some point way-after the big bang and is increasing.


'Some point'? Does that mean very soon after (which is correct), or in the last 20% of the age of the universe which is what you claimed earlier?

Also, saying it came out of 'nowhere' is errant. Do you think everything came out of 'nowhere'? If dark energy and dark matter emerged in the universe 'at some point', why couldn't they have come from the universe rather than 'nowhere'?



> Feel free to reject the hypothesis and believe that its just a coincidence that everything here supports evolution and life; and that this is not an evil universe currently under destruction.
> 
> The only way you can get away with such a thought is if there were "zillions" of universes and this one by chance had all the constants right for life to form and evolve by mere brute-force method; so to speak. Perhaps you will be surprised when you either have an NDE or die and see what happens; in the meantime im wishing you well; so you dont confuse this statement with me wanting you to die.


Stable universes are the only ones that endure and enduring stable conditions in patches of those universes could indeed give rise to life. To think it only happened once on one planet in one universe is absurd.

Saying it's too unlikely for the conditions that give rise to life on earth to be coincidental is simply ignorant of the number of chances there undoubtedly are in the universe/hypothetical multiverse.

Also, thinking the universe is inherently 'evil' makes the error of being anthropomorphic towards a system that undoubtedly has no capacity for such moralistic concepts or even emotion.

The universe is however indifferent to us. Our existence or not is irrelevant.

Regarding NDEs, out of body experiences etc, i'm familiar with them, and read about them often. The biggest experiment ever of them concluded last year found no evidence to suggest anything paranormal. I've had many an OBE myself but I firmly believe they are entirely subjective/hallucination based and are just essentially a quasi-dream state.



> Also those "Straw man" arguments and so-called rules of debates are false - they were MADE UP by people who THINK they have logical rules to debates that make sense. I dont consider them valid under many circumstances. I dont have the motive and mental-energy to go on to explain why many of the rules of debate are actually erroneous and with flaws, especially in particular contexts. But feel free to latch on to the rules of debate as your mini bible which you think will act as a defense for your errors.


What a bizarre and delusional reply. :? The fact you think logical fallacies and established good practice on how to debate etc don't apply to you is just laughable, and says a lot about how you will fair in them. Again, making such a ridiculous claim then saying you don't have the energy to defend it is lame, and could be considered trolling.

If you are going to make a contentious claim, at please least display the bravery and intelligence to substantiate and defend it. Otherwise people will rightfully just dismiss you and you will potentially indirectly undermine any further argument you make.


----------



## Tone

ugh1979 said:


> Those are just inane straw man arguments anyone reading this will see straight through. See my above post where I clearly explain how you were trying to use cosmology to substantiate the theological arguments/positions I was responding to.
> 
> Feel free to try and show how.
> 
> Oh big man eh? :roll (What an embarrassingly arrogant thing to say)
> 
> That's a very bold statement to make around here. There are many people in these sub-forums who are more than capable of taking your arguments apart and exposing the errancies of them. I've been here a long time and see people like you come and go all time. I can bet you can't stand the heat.
> 
> To say nobody can debunk your claims/show them to be fraudulent, but you don't have the energy or time to do so is simply laughable. :lol
> 
> It's noted you ignored most of what I was asking you and just focused on some confused idea about mixing topics. Such lame attempts to avoid answering questions is what is called deflecting, and it's almost always a sign of a poor argument.


wait a minute -- why are you asking me to show you how you did fraud when i ALREADY DID SO in my previous posts -- I showed that you mixed up my scientific statements with my spiritual statements, and then tried to say I need to go get a better science education -- thats technically fraud, because you took my non scientific statements and mixed them in with my sci ones, then said im bad at sci

If I type the phrase "Toaster Strudel" at the end of my posts, would you then try to claim i need to go get a better education in science because toaster strudels are not a part of cosmology? because to a less extreme and clownish level, thats exactly what you did

So i expose you for that fraud, then you reply to me and ask me to expose you for fraud, when i ALREADY DID SO.

You must be some sort of troll robot or something -- you cant just do absurd things like that and except it to be valid. You cant lump separate topics together then say Im bad at the one topic... You cant read my thread that exposes you for fraud, then in the very next reply, tell me to expose you for fraud when i already did so -- youre definitely some sort of sociopathic troll or something.,

this is their M.O. .. they love saying 2 + 2 = 5 and just doing all kinds of clownish ****, then try to make it look like they are an intelligent debater. I can see through you -- im not stupid, I know about the tactics where someone will engage in debate but then insert super-clownish things in their posts, for example passing over my post ALREADY showing your fraud, then telling me to show your fraud, when i had JUST DONE SO.

Thats called Chaos Posting. What you are doing is a form of Psychological Warfare called Chaos Posting, A classic example of Chaos Troll Posting is if I show you how you did something wrong, then in very very next post, you ask me to show you the same wrongs, thati had ALREADY JUST SHOWN

Yeah , youre definitely some sort of sociopath whos programmed to use these dumb PsyOps tactics that anyone should be able to see through

Ive dealt with people like you my whole time on the internet; You and your Morton's Forks, Choas Posting, Reversing Cause and Effect, etc etc all these tactics that are done.

We can see through your darkness, We know that you quote people and ask them to do what they had already just done as a form of total chaos to try to just anger the person. Youre tolling, you have dark energy, and all my replies to you have defeated you silly dark tactics.

Answer me Honestly. Are you a sociopath? Do you feel empathy for other people at all? Can you pinpoint your center-of-consciousness? In otherwords, where do you feel your ego, the "I AM" in your body? WHere is it localized to? I find that Organic Portals cant answer this question, because they dont actually have a sentient consciousness. ...

so answer me... where do you feel your consciousness localized in your body?? can you answer this simple question??

In case you missed my other posts, scroll up and read the previous 3 I had made right before this one.

ANd if you dont stop doing extra-clownish things, like mixing up two topics as one, and asking me a question i already answered in the quote very boxes you used to reply to me

One more question for you, why are you here, what is your interests? do you have true social anxiety? Dont tell me youre gonna have trouble answering this one as well, or take extra time to make something up. seriously, are you here only to pretend you are a rational debator that insert these crazy non-rational things in all your writings, like a turd in a punchbowl??


----------



## ugh1979

tone said:


> can i just be a complete retard, then everytime someone calls me out on being a retard, i can simply cite the rules of debating to defend myself being a retard? Lol!!


QFP :grin2:


----------



## ugh1979

Tone said:


> hey ugh1979 let me ask you a question -- what do you think about humanity and life on this planet?


Are you looking for a sentence or a dissertation on this vastly open ended question? :?



> what do you think of the concept of small balls circling larger nuclear-fusion burning balls and on the small balls evolve life which has short life-spans, is constantly striving for survival, and then procreates so their offspring can then do the same, and then their offspring, and so on, and so on, until and intelligent species with high consciousness evolves, who are then not only entrapped in fragile physical bodies of extreme limitations, but which simply age and die, then their offspring age and die, then their offspring age and die???
> 
> what you think about that system of life & reality?


It's a crude approximation of a small part of the universe we are familiar with. What do you mean what do I think about it?



> Seems to me.. Nihilism was an observation instead of a philosophic opinion. You, or someone else can go ahead and call that my opinion or viewpoint,


I have no idea if you are a nihilist so wouldn't. What broad philosophical umbrella do you fall under?



> but then again, someone could also claim the statement "Child rape is bad" as being an opinion; or "mass random murder is bad" as being an opinion technically. But please, come on; we all know murder and rape is bad and we all know this world is completely nihilistic in its nature. Its just common sense evident.


Nihilism rejects moral principles, so how can a nihilist say anything is 'bad'? :?

Just because there is no objective meaning to life doesn't mean there can't be subjective meaning to it for us. Do you think no meaning is valid unless it's objective?



> So whatchu think, eh? you like this planet and system. Is it cool to procreate those who in turn procreate, who in turn procreate and so on, endlessly to know ends, while in the meantime all 196 nations on Earth are Authoritarian Collectivist and everything is based upon darkness and rather than light.


I do like this planet and system in general, but of course it's not a utopia and there is much to be done to improve it, for some more than others. I'm not sure where you get the idea that "everything is based upon darkness and rather than light". What does that even mean?



> If you could, for a minute, stop being a robot and use your common sense perception, perhaps you could start so see through this false-reality for what it really is. THis is an entrapment for divine beings. Of course not every human is a divine being inside of a human body -- must people are empty shells with no sentient consciousness, and thus are easily programmed to generate false PsyOps Debates.......


Making such lofty totally unsubstantiated supernatural divinity invoking claims is far from common sense. It's delusional.

Do you think you are a 'divine being' and others are just 'empty shells with no sentient consciousness'? Also, who are they being programmed by?



> One of the most powerful forms of PsyOps Disinformation is to take a simple evident truth; and make it look like there is still a debate with multiple sides, different viewpoints, different perceptions and such. Definitely in the top five most powerful disinfo-methods. People who do this are not even aware they are engaging in disinformation and truly believe in evident establish truths as being established with multiple sides.


It's true the media/internet and various other information sources are awash with pseudo-scientific/fantastical/biased/conspiracy theory nonsense which is why one needs to establish the legitimacy of the source rather than being credulous and just believing what they like the sound of regardless of the quality of the evidence for it.



> Of course, there are certain topics & philosophies where multiple sides and perceptions DO exist and a debate really IS valid. But these are mixed in with established truths. Like in the case of the physical creation being a lower entrapment that needs to be evacuated & terminated. Thats a truth, but an evil force that wants this reality to continue is going to make up fake-arguments that there is "another way of looking at things" so they can keep their matrix alive.


Can you cite any credible evidence to back up the absurd claim you just made? If it's 'established' like you say you should have no problem.



> Wouldn't you pretend something established is instead still up for debate, if you were a psychopath and had a motive to cover something up? sure you would. Its done for everything from: the smallest social issues to the entire gnostic status of our situation as physical beings. Its a technique that is more powerful than brute force opposition point. Works really well in man made global warming and it surely would work well for the issue of The Celestial Error


Once something has enough credible evidence for its existence than it becomes established/factual. That's not to say it can't be amended or overturned in light of better credible evidence, but that's fine.

I'm not sure what your stance is about man made global warming from what you just said; do you believe it to be established as true or not?

Regarding the 'Celestial Error', as someone who is well read across a vast range of academic subjects I can assure you it's certainly not established.



> The Physical Universe its self, the Big Bang, is in ERROR and never should have occurred. It is a false virtual reality entrapment and not every person you see is an embodied divine being trapped here. In
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Celestial+Error
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general92/collaps.htm
> 
> http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/mistic/mistic_08.htm


Wow you really need to scrape the bottom of the Google barrel to dig that kind of nonsense up. :lol As I though, it's extremely obscure. What drivel! Feel free to keep trying to defend it, but try doing it backed up with credible evidence rather than 2bit bible and blog articles please. Otherwise you're just being credulous.


----------



## ugh1979

Tone said:


> wait a minute -- why are you asking me to show you how you did fraud when i ALREADY DID SO in my previous posts -- I showed that you mixed up my scientific statements with my spiritual statements, and then tried to say I need to go get a better science education -- thats technically fraud, because you took my non scientific statements and mixed them in with my sci ones, then said im bad at sci
> 
> If I type the phrase "Toaster Strudel" at the end of my posts, would you then try to claim i need to go get a better education in science because toaster strudels are not a part of cosmology? because to a less extreme and clownish level, thats exactly what you did
> 
> So i expose you for that fraud, then you reply to me and ask me to expose you for fraud, when i ALREADY DID SO.
> 
> You must be some sort of troll robot or something -- you cant just do absurd things like that and except it to be valid. You cant lump separate topics together then say Im bad at the one topic... You cant read my thread that exposes you for fraud, then in the very next reply, tell me to expose you for fraud when i already did so -- youre definitely some sort of sociopathic troll or something.,
> 
> this is their M.O. .. they love saying 2 + 2 = 5 and just doing all kinds of clownish ****, then try to make it look like they are an intelligent debater. I can see through you -- im not stupid, I know about the tactics where someone will engage in debate but then insert super-clownish things in their posts, for example passing over my post ALREADY showing your fraud, then telling me to show your fraud, when i had JUST DONE SO.


Did you even read my reply? I explained exactly how you were using scientific arguments in context of theological ones. That much will be as obvious to the audience as it is to me. If you disagree with that counter reply you need to then counter it. You can't just pretend it doesn't exist. :lol Welcome to a debate.

As I already said as well, you making contentious posts then saying you don't want to defend them as you don't "have the energy" is what could be deemed trolling. I'm happy to defend my arguments ad infinitum and ignore your juvenile calling and lame attempts at deflecting. I'll just keep highlighting the fallacies of your arguments. 



> Thats called Chaos Posting. What you are doing is a form of Psychological Warfare called Chaos Posting, A classic example of Chaos Troll Posting is if I show you how you did something wrong, then in very very next post, you ask me to show you the same wrongs, thati had ALREADY JUST SHOWN


"Chaos Posting"? You've just made that term up. Also, saying a debate is "Psychological Warfare" is a bit over dramatic. :roll

I like how you forgot what you called it first time and change it to "Chaos Troll Posting" in your next sentence. :lol You ignoring my counter reply is far more in line with trolling. Trolls are well known for not defending what they say, usually because they can't.



> Yeah , youre definitely some sort of sociopath whos programmed to use these dumb PsyOps tactics that anyone should be able to see through


Yeah if "dumb PsyOps tactics" are another name for effective debating techniques.

Are you really calling me a sociopath based on me not agreeing with what you have said? :roll



> Ive dealt with people like you my whole time on the internet; You and your Morton's Forks, Choas Posting, Reversing Cause and Effect, etc etc all these tactics that are done.


I've dealt with people like you my whole time on the internet as well, and find it very entertaining and worthwhile highlighting the fallacies of their claims. 

Can you give me an example of a piece of "Morton's Fork" reasoning I've given you?

Can you cite me a definition of "Chaos posting"?

Can you cite me a definition of "Reversing Cause and Effect" and quote an example of my doing it?

When you make such accusations of me, then you need to learn you will be challenged on it. Saying you "don't have the energy" is more or less akin to admitting you can't btw.



> We can see through your darkness, We know that you quote people and ask them to do what they had already just done as a form of total chaos to try to just anger the person. Youre tolling, you have dark energy, and all my replies to you have defeated you silly dark tactics.


Is that not a quote from Star Wars? :lol

So are you really now saying my disagreeing with you on this subject is my "darkness" and I have "dark energy"?

You keep making absurd accusations and claims and if you don't start displaying the intellectual integrity to substantiate them then it's you who is the troll.



> Answer me Honestly. Are you a sociopath?


No, are you?



> Do you feel empathy for other people at all?


Yes, do you?



> Can you pinpoint your center-of-consciousness? In otherwords, where do you feel your ego, the "I AM" in your body? WHere is it localized to? I find that Organic Portals cant answer this question, because they dont actually have a sentient consciousness.


I feel my consciousness is localised in my brain. What's an "Organic Portal"?



> so answer me... where do you feel your consciousness localized in your body?? can you answer this simple question??


Yes I just did. That's a very easy question. Do you have anything better to ask me?

How about you return the favour by answering any of the questions I asked you?



> In case you missed my other posts, scroll up and read the previous 3 I had made right before this one.


In case yo missed anything i've said or asked of you, start at my first reply and re-read them.



> ANd if you dont stop doing extra-clownish things, like mixing up two topics as one, and asking me a question i already answered in the quote very boxes you used to reply to me


What's "extra-clownish" is missing my counter-argument which clearly explained how I didn't. You seem to have totally missed this.



> One more question for you, why are you here, what is your interests?


I enjoy discussing and debating science, philosophy and religion. Hence why I frequent certain sub-forums here. I have many other interests as well but don't discuss them on this board.

Why are you here?



> do you have true social anxiety?


I used to have SA problems, but not really anymore.



> Dont tell me youre gonna have trouble answering this one as well, or take extra time to make something up.


I've had no trouble answering anything you've said. You on the other hand have blatantly ignored much of what i've asked you.

Do you want me to repeat my questions to you?



> seriously, are you here only to pretend you are a rational debator that insert these crazy non-rational things in all your writings, like a turd in a punchbowl??


I don't need to pretend I am a rational debater. I am a rational debater. There are people here and elsewhere who commend me on it, several of whom i'm sure are enjoying reading my responses to you. 



>


:lol


----------



## Tone

ugh1979 said:


> Did you even read my reply? I explained exactly how you were using scientific arguments in context of theological ones. That much will be as obvious to the audience as it is to me. If you disagree with that counter reply you need to then counter it. You can't just pretend it doesn't exist. :lol Welcome to a debate.
> 
> As I already said as well, you making contentious posts then saying you don't want to defend them as you don't "have the energy" is what could be deemed trolling. I'm happy to defend my arguments ad infinitum and ignore your juvenile calling and lame attempts at deflecting. I'll just keep highlighting the fallacies of your arguments.
> 
> "Chaos Posting"? You've just made that term up. Also, saying a debate is "Psychological Warfare" is a bit over dramatic. :roll
> 
> I like how you forgot what you called it first time and change it to "Chaos Troll Posting" in your next sentence. :lol You ignoring my counter reply is far more in line with trolling. Trolls are well known for not defending what they say, usually because they can't.
> 
> Yeah if "dumb PsyOps tactics" are another name for effective debating techniques.
> 
> Are you really calling me a sociopath based on me not agreeing with what you have said? :roll
> 
> I've dealt with people like you my whole time on the internet as well, and find it very entertaining and worthwhile highlighting the fallacies of their claims.
> 
> Can you give me an example of a piece of "Morton's Fork" reasoning I've given you?
> 
> Can you cite me a definition of "Chaos posting"?
> 
> Can you cite me a definition of "Reversing Cause and Effect" and quote an example of my doing it?
> 
> When you make such accusations of me, then you need to learn you will be challenged on it. Saying you "don't have the energy" is more or less akin to admitting you can't btw.
> 
> Is that not a quote from Star Wars? :lol
> 
> So are you really now saying my disagreeing with you on this subject is my "darkness" and I have "dark energy"?
> 
> You keep making absurd accusations and claims and if you don't start displaying the intellectual integrity to substantiate them then it's you who is the troll.
> 
> No, are you?
> 
> Yes, do you?
> 
> I feel my consciousness is localised in my brain. What's an "Organic Portal"?
> 
> Yes I just did. That's a very easy question. Do you have anything better to ask me?
> 
> How about you return the favour by answering any of the questions I asked you?
> 
> In case yo missed anything i've said or asked of you, start at my first reply and re-read them.
> 
> What's "extra-clownish" is missing my counter-argument which clearly explained how I didn't. You seem to have totally missed this.
> 
> I enjoy discussing and debating science, philosophy and religion. Hence why I frequent certain sub-forums here. I have many other interests as well but don't discuss them on this board.
> 
> Why are you here?
> 
> I used to have SA problems, but not really anymore.
> 
> I've had no trouble answering anything you've said. You on the other hand have blatantly ignored much of what i've asked you.
> 
> Do you want me to repeat my questions to you?
> 
> I don't need to pretend I am a rational debater. I am a rational debater. There are people here and elsewhere who commend me on it, several of whom i'm sure are enjoying reading my responses to you.
> 
> :lol


I cannot prove what I said and im alleging that the introduction and increase of Dark Matter and Dark Energy is God Destroying this universe, which was created in-error. This is a Gnostic Concept that is unproven. It perhaps does not even qualify as a hypothesis, as a hypothesis is more of an educated assumption based on some initial indicator that is far stronger than any indicators that dark energy and dark matter is associated with God destroying this universe on a plane where a few minutes is a billion years from our perspective

However , i see you are into being a skeptic , so your only JUST LUCKY you replied to a topic i cant prove at all, nor even call a hypothesis. it was sheer LUCK ... if youd ever like to discuss the fact that 9/11 was a staged False Flag Operation or that UFOs is a real phenomena with hundreds of military, intelligence, radar operators and other whistle blowers, sometime in another thread, then ill really kick your *** good and hard


----------



## ugh1979

Tone said:


> I cannot prove what I said and im alleging that the introduction and increase of Dark Matter and Dark Energy is God Destroying this universe, which was created in-error. This is a Gnostic Concept that is unproven. It perhaps does not even qualify as a hypothesis, as a hypothesis is more of an educated assumption based on some initial indicator that is far stronger than any indicators that dark energy and dark matter is associated with God destroying this universe on a plane where a few minutes is a billion years from our perspective


So you admit that due to lack of any academic evidence it's not even a hypothesis? :? So it's just a fantastical belief then, no different to someone who claims invisible pink unicorns are out to destroy the universe and numerous other similar absurd assertions.

It's clear you have a poor understanding of dark matter as if it was removed galaxies wouldn't exist and of course then neither would we. Dark matter is a necessary element for universes like ours to exist. What makes you think it's destroying it?

Dark energy is more mysterious but i'm willing to bet it's fundamentally needed for our universe to exist as it is rather than being something which will destroy it. It's potentially even the fundamental source of everything.

You appear to have some archaic anthropomorphic concept of the universe with the so called 'dark' elements equating to something 'evil' and destructive. It's like trying to say your shadow is 'evil'. :roll



> However , i see you are into being a skeptic , so your only JUST LUCKY you replied to a topic i cant prove at all, nor even call a hypothesis. it was sheer LUCK ... if youd ever like to discuss the fact that 9/11 was a staged False Flag Operation or that UFOs is a real phenomena with hundreds of military, intelligence, radar operators and other whistle blowers, sometime in another thread, then ill really kick your *** good and hard


Yeah lucky me! :lol

Feel free to make a conspiracy theory post and let's see how you get on. I'm betting you continue debating in the style you have here and just ignore/deflect direct questions asked of you.

I'm loving the 'tough guy' attitude btw. [Cringe]

Anyway, I'll dig out my tinfoil hat in hopeful preparation...


----------



## twitchy666

*Loathe & Fear*

Everything is fascinating, beautiful & valuable that isn't a human!

Metal, plastic, chemicals, fast, tasty, useful. Liquids. Animals

Only work & being ousted from it was when I learned that 95% of everything you need must be provided by people, or made by them. They make mistakes. 
Galaxy of errors produced them. Humans are errors. They keep respawning

Electronics & laws are supposed to be good; humans cause all the faults.

Scientists should design a future without mucky humans


----------



## twitchy666

*My family have always been strangers*

Only right now I come to that conclusion

only time to meet was father's funeral this week.

Bunch of fools. My parents. Only recognisable for intelligence was my dead brother and all his friends. Like all the friends I've generated.
Every face (known or not) are slowly turning, staring at me.. no need for doctor torch "hellooo.. you OK??" same for all phone

So they are socially-powered deities.

Not the scientific, mathematical philosopher they didn't expect. Bullying hemisphere vs clued-up hemisphere

ie. football... clinqueglass baffoon eyes hair face dressup skin 'n' bones
vs brain type with different use of eyes


----------



## Scrab22

Clothes I assume are a mask of the body, in order to prevent lustful acts, and put a bigger focus on the face (the personality's core), and let the clothes show your personality. If everyone were nude, it'd make a devastating change in our social approaches. While some of us and others can live and be rational while nude, I wouldn't count on the majority, and especially not count on the future generations. The greater the generation, the less it considered what the older generations had in mind.

As for religious acts, there is a reason behind everything.
For example, cutting a baby's genitals prevents sexual acts, especially masturbating. Masturbation, while it's natural and a harmless act, can lead to an increased sexual drive and increased sexual selection, causing a declining "peace" relationship between males and females for instance. The ideas behind such rituals are to maintain a balanced society. But since we're partly biological, the elements of chaos and exceptions always find a way to activate.

The idea of a religion and a government is good, but you can not make evil disappear. You can only contain it, be it clothes, laws, or ritual acts to keep people occupied from free will for instance, which are not a bad thing when it comes to the idea of balancing a people. Free will is good for the individual, not necessarily for relationships, as people can with time turn selfish and only pleasure-fulfillers.

It always falls for what you're fighting for - pleasures, survival, ego, and whether you're fighting the right person or group, and how much weight of redemption you consider for each confrontation.


----------



## RockNroses

Yes, humans are nothing but animals controlled by fear, fear of god, government, death, social rejection etc ...It's disgusting how most humans do things only out of fear, makes you question how would we act if we were actually free


----------



## twitchy666

*Guns exist*

because there is is hate of humans

we like to get rid of 'em

less so hunting animals for defence

good tool against people


----------



## twitchy666

*arguments*

not everyone is the same

criticism

on my mind so clearly: wrapping up society in a nutshell

*TV* show: comparing all food around a cheaper price. This makes sense. Avoiding the poshest or overcharged... logos, branding, exciting adverts extract revenue. Watching people's mouths close-up. Chatting, laughing, eating indulgently.. Lips!!! Is that
so exciting? Seems like humans never ate any food before. Eureka triumphant spasmodic ecstasy. Yoghurt, cheese... who needs advice about food?

Unable to choose it yourself? TV religion? We need that? Kiss, hug, lick your TV? What's it for? Broken eyes? Can't see when you go out? Need TV to help, by showing you the fantasy you never expected? Can't DIY. Your visual deity? No life without TV?

Lovely eating together. bit nervous about being watched. Most of life eating alone since 25 being left behind.

funny considering my taste as a sense almost on a level priority to eyes sometimes. Experiments are my life. I like giving advice. I am not a TV. bok choi


----------



## Dave411

There are definitely some scary humans on this earth and imo the scariest come from developed countries. I think all humans are a little crazy just cause of the magnitude of our situation. Living in a mysterious universe that never ends on a spinning ball of rock will drive anyone a little mad if they think about it. I can see why religion is as old as history. As far as all the negatives in society and our trivial interest in general, i imagine the whole country stopping what they're doing at the same time and looking around them and seeing how little and insignificant everything is compared the big pic.


----------

