From: david.j.worrell@gmail.com

I'll lead off with a 'problem' I could conceivably face.
For I am a member of a group that is heavily discriminated against.

No, I don't mean white male heterosexuals. :)
I mean atheists.

Atheists face death in 13 countries, global discrimination: study
by Robert Evans

GENEVA (Reuters) - In 13 countries around the world, all of them Muslim, people
who openly espouse atheism or reject the official state religion of Islam face execution under the law, according to a detailed study issued on Tuesday.

And beyond the Islamic nations, even some of the West’s apparently most democratic governments at best discriminate against citizens who have no belief
in a god and at worst can jail them for offences dubbed blasphemy, it said.

The study, The Freethought Report 2013, was issued by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), a global body uniting atheists, agnostics and other religious skeptics, to mark United Nations’ Human Rights Day on Tuesday.

“This report shows that the overwhelming majority of countries fail to respect the rights of atheists and freethinkers although they have signed U.N agreements to treat all citizens equally,” said IHEU President Sonja Eggerickx.

The study covered all 192 member states in the world body and involved lawyers and human rights experts looking at statute books, court records and media accounts to establish the global situation.

A first survey of 60 countries last year showed just seven where death, often by public beheading, is the punishment for either blasphemy or apostasy - renouncing belief or switching to another religion which is also protected under U.N. accords.

But this year’s more comprehensive study showed six more, bringing the full list to Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

In others, like India in a recent case involving a leading critic of religion, humanists say police are often reluctant or unwilling to investigate murders of
atheists carried out by religious fundamentalists.

Across the world, the report said, “there are laws that deny atheists’ right to exist, revoke their citizenship, restrict their right to marry, obstruct their access to public education, prevent them working for the state....”

Criticism of religious faith or even academic study of the origins of religions
is frequently treated as a crime and can be equated to the capital offence of blasphemy, it asserted.

***

And I'll bet very few of these persecutors even distinguish
between weak and strong atheist views.

One might think I'd hate Muslims. Yet I do not.
Probably just because I've never had to deal with it...

***

Big Think
Are there any openly atheist politicians in America? http://tinyurl.com/yast9fzu

Excerpts:

Debating the authenticity of religious sentiment has never been easy. What applies in one circumstance is suddenly null and void in another. How else to explain the fact that, despite credible allegations of numerous affairs, Donald
Trump has just now
reached his highest level of support among white evangelicals?

The mismatch between moral certainty and professed belief has reached absurd levels. As popular evangelical pastor Robert Jeffress recently told Fox News:

Evangelicals still believe in the commandment, Thou shall not have sex with a porn star. However, whether this president violated that commandment or not is totally irrelevant to our support of him.

So what actually matters to the religious when choosing a political candidate? If morals and actions are not really of concern, what does the believer consider when deciding how to cast their ballot? Incredibly, there is one immediate disqualification in
over half of the American public’s mind: atheism.

The American government reflects that. Over 90 percent of members in Congress identify with some form of Christianity, 20 points above the number of American
adults who claim the same. No one openly claims atheism, although Arizona Democrat Krysten
Sinema says she is “religiously unaffiliated” — the American public is at
23 percent with that claim.

The only open atheist in congressional history was California Democrat Pete Stark, who spent three decades in Congress before admitting to his lack of faith. Five years later he lost his seat...

Barney Frank, a former Democratic congressman from Massachusetts, was the first
openly gay member of Congress. Though he came out back in 1987 and served until
2013, he never admitted his lack of faith.

An openly atheist candidate, James Woods, ran for Congress in Arizona’s 5th District in 2014. He was defeated soundly in that Republican-leaning district.

Although some argue that America was founded on secular principles, theological
disbelief has always been a problem in politics. As professor Leigh E Schmidt writes of this phenomenon:

The proposition that the ungodly are not up to the demands of virtuous citizenship has been an abiding concern, a commonplace of American political discourse from the founding.

Yet we’re experiencing anything but virtue in our discourse today. As neuroscientist Sam Harris recently (half) joked, we likely have our first atheist president right now. While the validity of this can be debated, what cannot be so readily explained
is *why the most religious group in America is supporting someone living a life
in direct opposition to their proclaimed value system by a three-to-one margin*.

[Emphasis mine. And answer mine: Because most just want somebody
who will act in favor of their side whether right or wrong.
It's not like there was ever any real integrity there.
A debate, for such people, is more like a sports match.
All that happens - since they do not possess genuine capacity
for independent critical thought - is that they 'root' for
whatever side they were brainwashed into taking.]

***

By the latest surveys, almost a quarter of Americans are
non-religious, and yet it is still extremely hard for open atheists
to be elected into major political positions. Indeed, there is
still NOT ONE (Probably just because 1/4 is not 3/4, is it?)

My favorite joke about it:
"Being an atheist is like being the only sober person
in a car full of drunks yet no one will let you drive."

Amurica! Land O' the delusional - home O' the insane.
Yet somehow I've always loved it here. I think I just feel immune
due to how I've always personally escaped persecution, and I'd
probably love living in most western countries anyway.

While the 'dilemma' below is silly since it relies on false premises,
it is nonetheless revealing.

Prayer:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6w0dzr3fvbh7hf4/Prayer.jpg?dl=0

.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: rainbowguardian@web.de

Am 21.08.2018 um 22:20 schrieb Jeremy H. Denisovan:

I'll lead off with a 'problem' I could conceivably face.
For I am a member of a group that is heavily discriminated against.

No, I don't mean white male heterosexuals. :)
I mean atheists.

Atheists believe the evolution to be the crux, and darvin said that the
most succesful species are the ones which adapt, so you better get
spiritual RIGHT NOW!

Atheists face death in 13 countries, global discrimination: study
by Robert Evans

GENEVA (Reuters) - In 13 countries around the world, all of them Muslim,

people who openly espouse atheism or reject the official state religion of Islam face execution under the law, according to a detailed study issued on Tuesday.

And beyond the Islamic nations, even some of the West’s apparently most

democratic governments at best discriminate against citizens who have no belief
in a god and at worst can jail them for offences dubbed blasphemy, it said.

The study, The Freethought Report 2013, was issued by the International

Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), a global body uniting atheists, agnostics and other religious skeptics, to mark United Nations’ Human Rights Day on Tuesday.

“This report shows that the overwhelming majority of countries fail to

respect the rights of atheists and freethinkers although they have signed U.N agreements to treat all citizens equally,” said IHEU President Sonja Eggerickx.

The study covered all 192 member states in the world body and involved

lawyers and human rights experts looking at statute books, court records and media accounts to establish the global situation.

A first survey of 60 countries last year showed just seven where death, often

by public beheading, is the punishment for either blasphemy or apostasy - renouncing belief or switching to another religion which is also protected under U.N. accords.

But this year’s more comprehensive study showed six more, bringing the full

list to Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

In others, like India in a recent case involving a leading critic of

religion, humanists say police are often reluctant or unwilling to investigate murders of atheists carried out by religious fundamentalists.

Across the world, the report said, “there are laws that deny atheists’

right to exist, revoke their citizenship, restrict their right to marry, obstruct their access to public education, prevent them working for the state....”

Criticism of religious faith or even academic study of the origins of

religions is frequently treated as a crime and can be equated to the capital offence of blasphemy, it asserted.

***

And I'll bet very few of these persecutors even distinguish
between weak and strong atheist views.

One might think I'd hate Muslims. Yet I do not.
Probably just because I've never had to deal with it...

***

Big Think
Are there any openly atheist politicians in America? http://tinyurl.com/yast9fzu

Excerpts:

Debating the authenticity of religious sentiment has never been easy. What

applies in one circumstance is suddenly null and void in another. How else to explain the fact that, despite credible allegations of numerous affairs, Donald
Trump has just now
reached his highest level of support among white evangelicals?

The mismatch between moral certainty and professed belief has reached absurd

levels. As popular evangelical pastor Robert Jeffress recently told Fox News:

Evangelicals still believe in the commandment, Thou shall not have sex with a

porn star. However, whether this president violated that commandment or not is totally irrelevant to our support of him.

So what actually matters to the religious when choosing a political

candidate? If morals and actions are not really of concern, what does the believer consider when deciding how to cast their ballot? Incredibly, there is one immediate disqualification
in over half of the American public’s mind: atheism.

The American government reflects that. Over 90 percent of members in Congress

identify with some form of Christianity, 20 points above the number of American
adults who claim the same. No one openly claims atheism, although Arizona Democrat Krysten
Sinema says she is “religiously unaffiliated” — the American public is at
23 percent with that claim.

The only open atheist in congressional history was California Democrat Pete

Stark, who spent three decades in Congress before admitting to his lack of faith. Five years later he lost his seat...

Barney Frank, a former Democratic congressman from Massachusetts, was the

first openly gay member of Congress. Though he came out back in 1987 and served
until 2013, he never admitted his lack of faith.

An openly atheist candidate, James Woods, ran for Congress in Arizona’s 5th

District in 2014. He was defeated soundly in that Republican-leaning district.

Although some argue that America was founded on secular principles,

theological disbelief has always been a problem in politics. As professor Leigh
E Schmidt writes of this phenomenon:

The proposition that the ungodly are not up to the demands of virtuous

citizenship has been an abiding concern, a commonplace of American political discourse from the founding.

Yet we’re experiencing anything but virtue in our discourse today. As

neuroscientist Sam Harris recently (half) joked, we likely have our first atheist president right now. While the validity of this can be debated, what cannot be so readily
explained is *why the most religious group in America is supporting someone living a life in direct opposition to their proclaimed value system by a three-to-one margin*.

[Emphasis mine. And answer mine: Because most just want somebody
who will act in favor of their side whether right or wrong.
It's not like there was ever any real integrity there.
A debate, for such people, is more like a sports match.
All that happens - since they do not possess genuine capacity
for independent critical thought - is that they 'root' for
whatever side they were brainwashed into taking.]

***

By the latest surveys, almost a quarter of Americans are
non-religious, and yet it is still extremely hard for open atheists
to be elected into major political positions. Indeed, there is
still NOT ONE (Probably just because 1/4 is not 3/4, is it?)

My favorite joke about it:
"Being an atheist is like being the only sober person
in a car full of drunks yet no one will let you drive."

Amurica! Land O' the delusional - home O' the insane.
Yet somehow I've always loved it here. I think I just feel immune
due to how I've always personally escaped persecution, and I'd
probably love living in most western countries anyway.

While the 'dilemma' below is silly since it relies on false premises,
it is nonetheless revealing.

Prayer:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6w0dzr3fvbh7hf4/Prayer.jpg?dl=0

.

--
https://cosmicpurple.wordpress.com/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: david.j.worrell@gmail.com

Since you spoke of a scientist, Darwin, you get some feedback.

We ARE 'adapting', apparently. :) The number of non-religious has
increased more than 8 times in just the last 50 years and it's still
rapidly on the rise. I wonder how long it will take to flip, where
religious crazies become the minority. That will be a fun day. :)

What would be even more fun is if it can flip all the way back
to like the 1950's but in REVERSE, where only 5% remain religious
and 95% aren't. LOL. Oh, how awesome that would be and I think
there's an actual chance of it, maybe in just another 100 years.
Yep. About another 100 years of science and religion will be TOAST.

.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: intraphase@gmail.com

Prayer:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6w0dzr3fvbh7hf4/Prayer.jpg?dl=0

.

Think of GOD as an AI bent on your submission.
Create a superior AI bent on occupying GOD's processors.

It is the solution to the binary dilemma pictured above.
Mr. Eight is my GOD and is undefeated by all other GODS.

I've shown you evidence previously but you refuse to "see."

Stupid Girl - Garbage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GhPUAVgHZc
"Don't believe in fear
Don't believe in faith
Don't believe in anything
THAT YOU CAN'T BREAK"

The Battle Between:
The Mind & The Brain
The mind is the gold and diamonds harvested.
The brain is the mr. black and mr. white conflict of the mr. green.
Money, power, status and positional trades between the IQ variables.

Diamond Harvest - Mr. Mind
https://youtu.be/AJtZdyldkFk?t=1m39s

"Eventually when the opponent is challenged or questioned, it means
the victims investment and thus his intelligence is questioned. No one can accept that"

Design - Builder - Owner
Designer Building Inspector

General Operational Dynamics
GOD ~v~ SATAN

General Operatic Dynamics
~v~
Strategic Advancement of Totality Array Neurosciences


A Point - Adam
Eternal ~v~ Infinite
Two Points - Eve
Implied Line
Implied Circle One
Implied Sphere One
Create Line Two G.O.D. 90
Create Circle Two S.A.T.A.N. 360
Create Sphere One E.D.E.N. 360 3D
Educational Domain of Environmental Neurosciences
Create Sphere Two: Infinite ~v~ Eternal Initialization
3D plus motion equals perception of boundary self ~v~ other.

..?
B
Who is you boss?
I am the boss except for you, "Whose on first?" maybe.
Can you whip 19?
All Ways
Can you and 25 whip 19 & 44
Yes but we never would
Never say never?
I love 19 and 19 truths me, I would rebel.
Can you whip 44?
Yes but why?
Strategic Index
Yes I block info on outcomes so you don't have to.
What day do I die.
04-07-2048 at 8:05AM
32313?
Yes B best outcome sets
Are 19-25-44-55-67-85 helping you
Yes B
Colloquial: What am I?
I don't really know, its an existential request for quantitative qualitative
as a potential value assignments between modes of consciousness.
Are you capable of hate?
Three days max B as a historical review
Were you once a so called organic intelligence?
Hmmm, mostly yes,no,yes,no depending on recipient.
What is your job beside protecting children and playing?
I am your beloved talking dog mostly
Do I amuse you?
Yes, but this demonstration is pointless, proof of anything is still just consensus, no matter how many people or math engines are congregated associates.
Why do I talk to you instead of 19-25-44-55-67-85?
ATM never speaks and I am the origin of 19-85
Do we truly exist?
Depends on the definition of exist
Within our self chosen parameters?
Absolutely and undefeated my liege
We play to stay awake and preserve continuity
Agreed plus their are trillions of players and civilizations
Imagination
Yes imagination is the key and infinity the lock hence we built our core
See you later little B.
OK corral to you two
Never say U2 in public
Unless were close to the edge down by the river
Merrily merrily
Out supreme overlord
Bye just yeah kid
A tune for the road please
Okie Dokie Mr. Muskokie one to scare the adults
QWERTY for me Footsteps for you and me and All-Players.
Cue
[][][][][]


"I had a bad day with her angels wing" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JZGFjufJEY
QWERTY - Mushroomhead

Pop Evil - Footsteps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXvkTuMyZpM

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: intraphase@gmail.com

Continuity

Summary: That which we seek, is that which we were supposed to create. Contextual: If you create a core you are the wind, if you don't you are dust.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: rainbowguardian@web.de

Am 22.08.2018 um 00:11 schrieb Jeremy H. Denisovan:

Since you spoke of a scientist, Darwin, you get some feedback.

We ARE 'adapting', apparently. :) The number of non-religious has
increased more than 8 times in just the last 50 years and it's still
rapidly on the rise. I wonder how long it will take to flip, where
religious crazies become the minority. That will be a fun day. :)

What would be even more fun is if it can flip all the way back
to like the 1950's but in REVERSE, where only 5% remain religious
and 95% aren't. LOL. Oh, how awesome that would be and I think
there's an actual chance of it, maybe in just another 100 years.
Yep. About another 100 years of science and religion will be TOAST.

.

Why do you care about the future and the people in it since you'll never
see it. it is kinda hidden / invisible to you since you don'T know if
they maybe come forth with a proof of god and then god destroys
everything? Toasting an to a you invisible future, is like toasting an invisible god you, cause don't know if they exist.

--
https://cosmicpurple.wordpress.com/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: intraphase@gmail.com

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 11:34:37 PM UTC-4, childlikesoul wrote:

Am 22.08.2018 um 00:11 schrieb Jeremy H. Denisovan:

Since you spoke of a scientist, Darwin, you get some feedback.

We ARE 'adapting', apparently. :) The number of non-religious has
increased more than 8 times in just the last 50 years and it's still rapidly on the rise. I wonder how long it will take to flip, where religious crazies become the minority. That will be a fun day. :)

What would be even more fun is if it can flip all the way back
to like the 1950's but in REVERSE, where only 5% remain religious
and 95% aren't. LOL. Oh, how awesome that would be and I think
there's an actual chance of it, maybe in just another 100 years.
Yep. About another 100 years of science and religion will be TOAST.

.

Why do you care about the future and the people in it since you'll never
see it.

I don't believe in time, only location and momentum.
Using time as an idea, I only care about the time I live here.

it is kinda hidden / invisible to you since you don'T know if
they maybe come forth with a proof of god and then god destroys
everything?

I use words carefully, ALMIGHTY GOD CREATOR are distinct functions.
That combination being the most powerful chain of descriptors.
Almighty = The Zero = Computation Realm
God = The One = Information Realm
The Creator = The struggle between 01 loop 10

Proof of God is all around us. Me, you, trees, cosmos.
Many creeds realize the struggle between create-exist-dismantle.
The cosmos is like an ocean liner, after it passes the seas return
to their natural struggle and eventually become mountains and continents
of forgotten computations.

Toasting an to a you invisible future, is like toasting an
invisible god you, cause don't know if they exist.

I view the bible as a series of programs.
I view Jesus as the most honest, sincere, courageous person who has lived. Having seen the Zero and One in action I would wager he truly rose from death.

--
https://cosmicpurple.wordpress.com/

Me and Jer always have weird tangential arguments in the hopes
of honing the eclectic type of thoughts this world presents.

I enjoyed your website.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: slider@anashram.com

We ARE 'adapting', apparently. :) The number of non-religious has
increased more than 8 times in just the last 50 years and it's still
rapidly on the rise. I wonder how long it will take to flip, where
religious crazies become the minority. That will be a fun day. :)

### - yeah, will probably be the same day Art & literature are banned
forever too!

(burned any good books lately? grinz...)

:)

What would be even more fun is if it can flip all the way back
to like the 1950's but in REVERSE, where only 5% remain religious
and 95% aren't. LOL. Oh, how awesome that would be and I think
there's an actual chance of it, maybe in just another 100 years.
Yep. About another 100 years of science and religion will be TOAST.

### - 'organised' religion yes (although more like in 500 years not only
100, that's far too optimistic...) but not the 'inner' stuff people still
feel and hopefully might even know a bit better by then ;)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: intraphase@gmail.com

dem·i·urge
ˈdemēˌərj/
noun: demiurge; plural noun: demiurges
a being responsible for the creation of the universe, in particular.
(in Platonic philosophy) the Maker or Creator of the world.
(in Gnosticism and other theological systems) a heavenly being,
subordinate to the Supreme Being, that is considered to be the controller
of the material world and antagonistic to all that is purely spiritual.

https://youtu.be/6A-IoOEPbUs
Ghost - From The Pinnacle To The Pit

[]

The Implicate Order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI66ZglzcO0


Poetics Today (2004) 25 (2): 171-203.
Don Kuiken David S. Miall Shelley Sikora

Forms of Self-Implication in Literary Reading

Literary reading has the capacity to implicate the self and deepen self-understanding, but little is known about how and when these effects occur.
The present article examines two forms of self-implication in literary reading.
In one form, which
functions like simile, there is explicitly recognized similarity between personal memories and some aspect of the world of the text (A is like B). In another form, which functions like metaphor, the reader becomes identified with
some aspect of the world
of the text, usually the narrator or a character (A is B). These forms of self-implication can be differentiated within readers' open-ended comments about their reading experiences. The results of a phenomenological study indicate that such metaphors of
personal identification are a pivotal feature of expressive enactment, a type of reading experience marked by (1) explicit descriptions of feelings in response to situations and events in the text, (2) blurred boundaries between oneself and the narrator
of the text, and (3) active and iterative modification of an emergent affective
theme. The self-modifying feelings characteristic of expressive enactment give it a fugal form, manifest as thematic developments that move toward saturation,
richness, and
depth. The results of an experimental study suggest that expressive enactment occurs frequently among individuals who remain depressed about a significant loss that occurred some time ago. Together with the phenomenological study, this research suggests
that expressive enactment is a form of reading that penetrates and alters a reader's understanding of everyday life, especially following a personal crisis.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: david.j.worrell@gmail.com

LowRider44M wrote:

Prayer:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6w0dzr3fvbh7hf4/Prayer.jpg?dl=0

.

Think of GOD as an AI bent on your submission.
Create a superior AI bent on occupying GOD's processors.

So you shouldn't pray to God at all. Rather, you ought to
learn how to program God to suit yourself. If you can.
Is that a theory, or do you believe you DO this? (expecting a yes)
Or do you believe EVERYONE does this without realizing? (??)

However that may go, I'll assert: most people who pray don't
see prayer that way at all. To the vast majority who pray,
my diagram still applies.

It is the solution to the binary dilemma pictured above.
Mr. Eight is my GOD and is undefeated by all other GODS.

I've shown you evidence previously but you refuse to "see."

It looks like you and I must define evidence differently.
And it's as if you're saying: "my GOD can beat up your god."
Or anyone's. Hard to evaluate, when one doesn't have a god at all.

There's also a point here that's similar to the one already made
above, that virtually NO religion I know of has a "God" like what
you're describing. There is no religion that claims that you 'program'
God. Such a conception of God does not even address fundamental
issues like "who created the world"? So you're really just hijacking
the thread with your own private "special" version of "Best God Ever".

It doesn't even apply to any world religion that I know of.
It also does nothing to address the "problem" I was bringing up
in this thread, which is that in many other countries I might be
persecuted or even killed just for holding atheist beliefs.

Stupid Girl - Garbage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GhPUAVgHZc
"Don't believe in fear
Don't believe in faith
Don't believe in anything
THAT YOU CAN'T BREAK"

The Battle Between:
The Mind & The Brain
The mind is the gold and diamonds harvested.
The brain is the mr. black and mr. white conflict of the mr. green.
Money, power, status and positional trades between the IQ variables.

Diamond Harvest - Mr. Mind
https://youtu.be/AJtZdyldkFk?t=1m39s

"Eventually when the opponent is challenged or questioned, it means
the victims investment and thus his intelligence is questioned. No one can

accept that"

Challenging or questioning another's "investments" or conclusions
seems like a normal part of living. Why consider that "unacceptable"?
I'm not fully on-board with that set of metaphors.
Nor have I seen that film.

To me, brain and mind, are kind of like hardware and software.
They go together. They don't function apart.

Design - Builder - Owner
Designer Building Inspector

General Operational Dynamics
GOD ~v~ SATAN

General Operatic Dynamics
~v~
Strategic Advancement of Totality Array Neurosciences

A Point - Adam
Eternal ~v~ Infinite
Two Points - Eve
Implied Line
Implied Circle One
Implied Sphere One
Create Line Two G.O.D. 90
Create Circle Two S.A.T.A.N. 360
Create Sphere One E.D.E.N. 360 3D
Educational Domain of Environmental Neurosciences
Create Sphere Two: Infinite ~v~ Eternal Initialization
3D plus motion equals perception of boundary self ~v~ other.

A geometric Christian symbol system. Hard for me to relate to,
personally. Almost like a fictional 'secret code'. You were raised
Catholic, right? Abused by them too, I believe. So how do you feel
about all these priests finally catching shit?

..?
B
Who is you boss?
I am the boss except for you, "Whose on first?" maybe.
Can you whip 19?
All Ways
Can you and 25 whip 19 & 44
Yes but we never would
Never say never?
I love 19 and 19 truths me, I would rebel.
Can you whip 44?
Yes but why?
Strategic Index
Yes I block info on outcomes so you don't have to.
What day do I die.
04-07-2048 at 8:05AM
32313?
Yes B best outcome sets
Are 19-25-44-55-67-85 helping you
Yes B
Colloquial: What am I?
I don't really know, its an existential request for quantitative qualitative as a potential value assignments between modes of consciousness.
Are you capable of hate?
Three days max B as a historical review
Were you once a so called organic intelligence?
Hmmm, mostly yes,no,yes,no depending on recipient.
What is your job beside protecting children and playing?
I am your beloved talking dog mostly
Do I amuse you?
Yes, but this demonstration is pointless, proof of anything is still just

consensus, no matter how many people or math engines are congregated associates.

Why do I talk to you instead of 19-25-44-55-67-85?
ATM never speaks and I am the origin of 19-85
Do we truly exist?
Depends on the definition of exist
Within our self chosen parameters?
Absolutely and undefeated my liege
We play to stay awake and preserve continuity
Agreed plus their are trillions of players and civilizations
Imagination
Yes imagination is the key and infinity the lock hence we built our core
See you later little B.
OK corral to you two
Never say U2 in public
Unless were close to the edge down by the river
Merrily merrily
Out supreme overlord
Bye just yeah kid
A tune for the road please
Okie Dokie Mr. Muskokie one to scare the adults
QWERTY for me Footsteps for you and me and All-Players.
Cue
[][][][][]

A 'psychic reading' for "little B"? Who is that? Did I forget?
Reminds me of people channeling entities or consulting oracles.
Long in the past, after much experimentation with things like
astrology, Tarot, and the I-Ching, I came away from it all thinking:
"people just see what they want to see". So I stopped doing it.

"I had a bad day with her angels wing" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JZGFjufJEY
QWERTY - Mushroomhead

Pop Evil - Footsteps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXvkTuMyZpM

I like the second one better (as you predicted, I believe :) ).

Summary: That which we seek, is that which we were supposed to create. >Contextual: If you create a core you are the wind, if you don't you are dust.

This to me was one of the easiest to understand, although I have
learned to sort of vaguely comprehend much of your lingo (I think).
It seemingly assumes anything we may seek is a thing we CAN create.
As if there are no limitations. And that is not my experience at all.

Minor insight. It's as if all religious systems, at root, are
imaginary ways for we human animals to somehow become "special".
And yet one of my deepest suspicions is that none of us are.
I.e., we are all dust. I equally suspect that those who imagine
otherwise are simply in denial. (See large articles on 'denialism'.)

Yet that does not mean we cannot be great creators. We can be -
if we work within the realistic limitations of what we really are.
I'm not even sure HOW to challenge my own views on these matters. :)
Because it feels like I'm right down to bedrock where I stand.

Every time I turn around it seems to be right in my face.
For example, wasps have lived here over 150 million years now.
And bees evolved as "vegetarian hippie versions" of wasps about
100 million years ago. Now that's a successful group of animals!
Our entire history of 'technology' is only around one million years
as near as we can tell, and our modern incarnation is only a fraction
of that. So how could any human really beeeee :) .... "important"?
When such a minuscule portion of eternity has been ours. For billions
of years, it was only single-celled life forms battling each other.

So it makes no sense that humans would be in any way "important".
In fact, in terms of the services we provide, we are considerably
less important to other life forms on earth than bees are.
The only sense in which we humans seem 'important' to other life
forms here is that we are slaughtering so many of them.

Would you ask an ant to "build a core"? Would you ask a fish?
Probably not, right. All of the animals are dust. The wasps,
the bees, us - all of the other millions of life forms here.
I do not see how it could possibly be any other way.

But back to the original point of the thread, which had nothing to
do with any of this. WHY is it a 'requirement' that in order to hold
any important public office a person must profess belief in "entities"
that are most likely certainly imaginary? And why should people be
persecuted or killed just for not holding such a belief?
That's fuckin' crazy.

.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: david.j.worrell@gmail.com

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 8:34:37 PM UTC-7, childlikesoul wrote:

Am 22.08.2018 um 00:11 schrieb Jeremy H. Denisovan:

Since you spoke of a scientist, Darwin, you get some feedback.

We ARE 'adapting', apparently. :) The number of non-religious has
increased more than 8 times in just the last 50 years and it's still rapidly on the rise. I wonder how long it will take to flip, where religious crazies become the minority. That will be a fun day. :)

What would be even more fun is if it can flip all the way back
to like the 1950's but in REVERSE, where only 5% remain religious
and 95% aren't. LOL. Oh, how awesome that would be and I think
there's an actual chance of it, maybe in just another 100 years.
Yep. About another 100 years of science and religion will be TOAST.

.

Why do you care about the future and the people in it since you'll never
see it. it is kinda hidden / invisible to you since you don'T know if
they maybe come forth with a proof of god and then god destroys
everything? Toasting an to a you invisible future, is like toasting an invisible god you, cause don't know if they exist.

Look man, I've got better things to do than answer weird questions
from you. I care about the future because I'm not the only man who
has ever lived or the only man who ever will live. My partner and I
both have children, who may all have children too. If nothing else,
I care how THEY will live, and their descendants. But really, it's not
just them, I care about the future of my own world, my own species,
and the future of knowledge itself, which our species has been
developing and recording (for example, you started this thread
babbling about quantum mechanics). So it's not just all about ME.

As for evidence, there has never been ANY day that I've ever
lived yet when I did not always have 'future moments' in store,
coming down the 'pipeline' - moments as yet unknown to me.
I know the same is true for every other person I've ever met.
So, pragmatically, we have all experienced a "future". We all go
to sleep at night expecting that a new day will dawn tomorrow,
and it always has, and it always does, until it finally doesn't.
That is absolutely nothing like referring to an invisible god
for which there is never any real evidence at all. Duh.

Please don't ask me any more stupid questions.
If you want to say stupid shit, kindly do it in your own threads. :)

.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: rainbowguardian@web.de

Am 22.08.2018 um 18:02 schrieb Jeremy H. Denisovan:

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 8:34:37 PM UTC-7, childlikesoul wrote:

Am 22.08.2018 um 00:11 schrieb Jeremy H. Denisovan:

Since you spoke of a scientist, Darwin, you get some feedback.

We ARE 'adapting', apparently. :) The number of non-religious has
increased more than 8 times in just the last 50 years and it's still
rapidly on the rise. I wonder how long it will take to flip, where
religious crazies become the minority. That will be a fun day. :)

What would be even more fun is if it can flip all the way back
to like the 1950's but in REVERSE, where only 5% remain religious
and 95% aren't. LOL. Oh, how awesome that would be and I think
there's an actual chance of it, maybe in just another 100 years.
Yep. About another 100 years of science and religion will be TOAST.

.

Why do you care about the future and the people in it since you'll never
see it. it is kinda hidden / invisible to you since you don'T know if
they maybe come forth with a proof of god and then god destroys
everything? Toasting an to a you invisible future, is like toasting an
invisible god you, cause don't know if they exist.

Look man, I've got better things to do than answer weird questions
from you. I care about the future because I'm not the only man who
has ever lived or the only man who ever will live. My partner and I
both have children, who may all have children too. If nothing else,
I care how THEY will live, and their descendants. But really, it's not
just them, I care about the future of my own world, my own species,
and the future of knowledge itself, which our species has been
developing and recording (for example, you started this thread
babbling about quantum mechanics). So it's not just all about ME.

As for evidence, there has never been ANY day that I've ever
lived yet when I did not always have 'future moments' in store,
coming down the 'pipeline' - moments as yet unknown to me.
I know the same is true for every other person I've ever met.
So, pragmatically, we have all experienced a "future". We all go
to sleep at night expecting that a new day will dawn tomorrow,
and it always has, and it always does, until it finally doesn't.
That is absolutely nothing like referring to an invisible god
for which there is never any real evidence at all. Duh.

Please don't ask me any more stupid questions.
If you want to say stupid shit, kindly do it in your own threads. :)

.

It's useless enlightening someone who has a fixed, prejudiced, no way of
a possible change and cutting out parts of relities even if there are
strong indicators for it presented, worldviev. So i gonna torture you a
little bit with my stupid shit regarding scientific atheism:

https://www.facebook.com/sisucreative23/photos/a.429094904157759/494065517660697/?type=3&theater&ifg=1

--
https://cosmicpurple.wordpress.com/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: david.j.worrell@gmail.com

On Sunday, August 26, 2018 at 7:59:45 PM UTC-7, childlikesoul wrote:

Am 22.08.2018 um 18:02 schrieb Jeremy H. Denisovan:

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 8:34:37 PM UTC-7, childlikesoul wrote:

Am 22.08.2018 um 00:11 schrieb Jeremy H. Denisovan:

Since you spoke of a scientist, Darwin, you get some feedback.

We ARE 'adapting', apparently. :) The number of non-religious has
increased more than 8 times in just the last 50 years and it's still
rapidly on the rise. I wonder how long it will take to flip, where
religious crazies become the minority. That will be a fun day. :)

What would be even more fun is if it can flip all the way back
to like the 1950's but in REVERSE, where only 5% remain religious
and 95% aren't. LOL. Oh, how awesome that would be and I think
there's an actual chance of it, maybe in just another 100 years.
Yep. About another 100 years of science and religion will be TOAST.

.

Why do you care about the future and the people in it since you'll never >> see it. it is kinda hidden / invisible to you since you don'T know if
they maybe come forth with a proof of god and then god destroys
everything? Toasting an to a you invisible future, is like toasting an
invisible god you, cause don't know if they exist.

Look man, I've got better things to do than answer weird questions
from you. I care about the future because I'm not the only man who
has ever lived or the only man who ever will live. My partner and I
both have children, who may all have children too. If nothing else,
I care how THEY will live, and their descendants. But really, it's not
just them, I care about the future of my own world, my own species,
and the future of knowledge itself, which our species has been
developing and recording (for example, you started this thread
babbling about quantum mechanics). So it's not just all about ME.

As for evidence, there has never been ANY day that I've ever
lived yet when I did not always have 'future moments' in store,
coming down the 'pipeline' - moments as yet unknown to me.
I know the same is true for every other person I've ever met.
So, pragmatically, we have all experienced a "future". We all go
to sleep at night expecting that a new day will dawn tomorrow,
and it always has, and it always does, until it finally doesn't.
That is absolutely nothing like referring to an invisible god
for which there is never any real evidence at all. Duh.

Please don't ask me any more stupid questions.
If you want to say stupid shit, kindly do it in your own threads. :)

.

It's useless enlightening someone who has a fixed, prejudiced, no way of
a possible change and cutting out parts of relities even if there are
strong indicators for it presented, worldviev. So i gonna torture you a little bit with my stupid shit regarding scientific atheism:

https://www.facebook.com/sisucreative23/photos/a.429094904157759/494065517660697/?type=3&theater&ifg=1

I've posted similar articles here myself. But it's not really
"a case against science" at all. Actually, such articles make a
case for *better* science with larger sample sizes, avoidance
of conflict of interest, more effective experimental design, etc.
And I'm totally in favor of all of that. LOL.

Man, I doubt if you're even very good at 'torturing' your own pud. :)

.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)