|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Jun 26, 2017 17:59:37 GMT
More than anything else, it was the absurd "global warming" thing that did it. I realized that it is not about real science. It is about thought control. And since they are undoubtedly lying about it, doesn't it make one wonder as to what else they may be lying about? www.globalwarminghoax.com/page.php?8Good point ErJen, everyone should realise that it's really Nibiru causing global warming and killing fish with its magnetic rays. You can "log out" now and read my post.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2017 17:59:43 GMT
What you really meant. And the reason is "because it reveals facts that I find emotionally unpleasant and don't wish to believe in." If I ever need you to edit my writings, I'll let you know. Whatever you say, puppet.
|
|
vernuf
Sophomore
@vernuf
Posts: 310
Likes: 34
|
Post by vernuf on Jun 26, 2017 21:58:29 GMT
I'm sure they're terrified of a scientific illiterate like yourself.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 26, 2017 22:06:01 GMT
I'm sure they're terrified of a scientific illiterate like yourself. Hey, illiteracy is a conspiracy to keep natural genius' down, if you read you have to read gangster science, youtube videos spell it out for you.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 27, 2017 7:32:05 GMT
I'm sure they're terrified of a scientific illiterate like yourself. Attack the post, not the poster. Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 27, 2017 7:56:25 GMT
More than anything else, it was the absurd "global warming" thing that did it. I realized that it is not about real science. It is about thought control. And since they are undoubtedly lying about it, doesn't it make one wonder as to what else they may be lying about? www.globalwarminghoax.com/page.php?8Is this Al Capone science or John Dillinger? There's quite a difference and I know how you like to be precise in these things.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 27, 2017 9:46:02 GMT
More than anything else, it was the absurd "global warming" thing that did it. I realized that it is not about real science. It is about thought control. And since they are undoubtedly lying about it, doesn't it make one wonder as to what else they may be lying about? www.globalwarminghoax.com/page.php?8Is this Al Capone science or John Dillinger? There's quite a difference and I know how you like to be precise in these things. Al Capone, definitely. John Dillinger was an independent. Under J. Edgar Hoover the FBI vigorously pursued the independent criminals like Dillinger but they left organized crime alone. Hoover even denied that organized crime existed; in much the same way that you deny the existence of certain entities.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 27, 2017 9:57:55 GMT
Al Capone, definitely. John Dillinger was an independent. I know what you mean, but actually Dillinger ran with a gang of his own, which included such figures as Baby Face Nelson: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dillinger_Gang Hoover had a lot of issues (perhaps one being his illicit boyfriend Clyde Tolson). Since you mention his example, you ought to remember his obsession with an alleged communist conspiracy against the United States; this led to thick files accumulating on such dangerous and threatening figures as Albert Einstein and Charlie Chaplin while, as you say, the Syndicate and Mafia grew largely unchecked and unacknowledged for decades. Conspiracies can be distracting things alright, can't they? As a soft atheist I simply lack belief in the deliberate supernatural as Cause. If you have seen my active denial of the existence of 'certain entities' then please quote me.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 27, 2017 10:04:59 GMT
Al Capone, definitely. John Dillinger was an independent. I know what you mean, but actually Dillinger ran with a gang of his own, which included such figures as Baby Face Nelson: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dillinger_Gang Hoover had a lot of issues (perhaps one being his boyfriend Clyde Tolson). Since you mention his example, you ought to remember his obsession with an alleged communist conspiracy against the United States; this led to thick files accumulating on such dangerous figures as Albert Einstein and Charlie Chaplin while, as you say the Syndicate and Mafia grew largely unchecked for decades. Conspiracies can be distracting things alright, can't they? As a soft atheist I simply lack belief in the deliberate supernatural as Cause. If you have seen my active denial of the existence of 'certain entities' then please quote me. You, a soft atheist? What a load. You make offensive cracks about "invisible sky god" and the like, and you call that being a soft atheist? And yes, Hoover was obsessed. He even kept files on those he pretended to be friends with. Of course, every gay man is sick by definition, but he was sicker than most.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 27, 2017 10:12:42 GMT
You, a soft atheist? What a load. You make offensive cracks about "invisible sky god" and the like, and you call that being a soft atheist? Please quote where I have used that phrase. But even if I ever had, that still not necessarily mean that I deny such an entity exists. But I think you really know that. Incidentally, if your god is not invisible, and not in the sky (i.e. there as part of 'everywhere') where is it to be unambiguously seen then? (Toast and coffee granules don't count.) You are entitled to your opinions, though homophobia is not an attractive trait - and more and more dated in these enlightened times too (unless you live in Russia, an Islamic state or one of the fundamentalist Christian states of Africa, of course?) And from your statement can one assume that lesbians are somehow less objectionable?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 27, 2017 10:23:57 GMT
You, a soft atheist? What a load. You make offensive cracks about "invisible sky god" and the like, and you call that being a soft atheist? Please quote where I have used that phrase. But even if I ever had, that still not necessarily mean that I deny such an entity exists. But I think you really know that. Incidentally, if your god is not invisible, and not in the sky (i.e. there as part of 'everywhere') where is it to be unambiguously seen then? (Toast and coffee granules don't count.) You are entitled to your opinions, though homophobia is not an attractive trait - and more and more dated in these enlightened times too (unless you live in Russia, an Islamic state or one of the fundamentalist Christian states of Africa, of course?) And from your statement can one assume that lesbians are somehow less objectionable? Homophobia doesn't exist. It's a political term used to vilify those who developed normally and are repelled by the filthy perversion of homosexuality. And thanks for giving me a chance to post a link to this thread which understandably was not replied to by you and the other ungodly that infest this board. For those sincerely wondering about the nature of God, the video makes it easier to understand. To your kind who have locked yourselves into dull 3D materialism, it won't mean a thing. imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/32648/3d-prison-blues
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 27, 2017 10:29:12 GMT
Homophobia doesn't exist. It's a political term used to vilify those who developed normally and are repelled by the filthy perversion of homosexuality. As already said you are entitled to your opinions. But they are wrong and do you no favours. So you can't point to where your god is to be seen unambiguously after all, then? That's a shame. Incidentally in so far as the fourth dimension is time, outside of which your god apparently is, I am not sure of the relevance of your link, unless it is to show how much The Simpsons religious college is worth exploring and means to you. There are, btw at least 3 or 4 dimensions further, the proposition of which can be established by mathematics.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 27, 2017 10:34:33 GMT
Homophobia doesn't exist. It's a political term used to vilify those who developed normally and are repelled by the filthy perversion of homosexuality. As already said you are entitled to your opinions. But they are wrong and do you no favours. So you can't point to where your god is to be seen unambiguously after all, then? That's a shame. You're institutionalized in the prison, aren't you? You don't want anything beyond it, do you?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 27, 2017 10:36:38 GMT
As already said you are entitled to your opinions. But they are wrong and do you no favours. So you can't point to where your god is to be seen unambiguously after all, then? That's a shame. You're institutionalized in the prison, aren't you? You don't want anything beyond it, do you?
What I wanted is to see your god shown unambiguously since, apparently, calling it 'invisible' is an insult. Otherwise how can one tell the difference between a real and fake god? Is that a problem?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 27, 2017 10:46:05 GMT
You're institutionalized in the prison, aren't you? You don't want anything beyond it, do you?
What I wanted is to see your god shown unambiguously. Otherwise how can one tell the difference between a real and fake god? Is that a problem?
The difference is that the fake gods were frequently seen. People fell into corruption, and much like yourself they demanded gods they could see, and they were obliged. In ancient times a great variety of them were worshipped. They were real beings, but fake gods. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 27, 2017 10:50:08 GMT
What I wanted is to see your god shown unambiguously. Otherwise how can one tell the difference between a real and fake god? Is that a problem?
The difference is that the fake gods were frequently seen. People fell into corruption, and much like yourself they demanded gods they could see, and they were obliged. In ancient times a great variety of them were worshipped. They were real beings, but fake gods. Hope that helps. Er... so only that which is invisible must be real, and believed in, then? How does one 'see' a fake god (as opposed to its representation in statues & etc) anyway?
And, even so, didn't the Xian god appear quite often back in the day? Showing its backside to Moses, pottering around the middle east for a short time in human form, and so on?
Does this evasion mean I can't be shown anything today?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 27, 2017 10:59:56 GMT
The difference is that the fake gods were frequently seen. People fell into corruption, and much like yourself they demanded gods they could see, and they were obliged. In ancient times a great variety of them were worshipped. They were real beings, but fake gods. Hope that helps. Er... so only that which is invisible must be real, and believed in, then? How does one 'see' a fake god (as opposed to its representation in statues & etc) anyway?
And, even so, didn't the Xian god appear quite often back in the day? Showing its backside to Moses, pottering around the middle east for a short time in human form, and so on?
Does this evasion mean I can't be shown anything today?
Did you write this? Isn't it a little silly trying to convince others that higher dimensions exist, and yet consciousness is incapable of existing beyond the 3rd dimension? Isn't that a little close-minded?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 27, 2017 11:22:08 GMT
Er... so only that which is invisible must be real, and believed in, then? How does one 'see' a fake god (as opposed to its representation in statues & etc) anyway?
And, even so, didn't the Xian god appear quite often back in the day? Showing its backside to Moses, pottering around the middle east for a short time in human form, and so on?
Does this evasion mean I can't be shown anything today?
Did you write this? Yes; and evasion noted. Not when the existence of other dimensions can be predicted and explained by mathematics in order to preserve consistency in nature, my friend. And it is better to speak of further dimensions rather than 'higher ones'. I hope that helps.
Have you found that unambiguous not-fake god of yours yet?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 27, 2017 11:26:10 GMT
Yes; and evasion noted. Not when the existence of other dimensions can be predicted and explained by mathematics in order to preserve consistency in nature, my friend. And it is better to speak of further dimensions rather than 'higher ones'. I hope that helps.
Have you found that unambiguous not-fake god of yours yet?
Are you suggesting the existence of lower ones?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 27, 2017 11:37:11 GMT
Yes; and evasion noted. Not when the existence of other dimensions can be predicted and explained by mathematics in order to preserve consistency in nature, my friend. And it is better to speak of further dimensions rather than 'higher ones'. I hope that helps.
Have you found that unambiguous not-fake god of yours yet?
Are you suggesting the existence of lower ones?
*Sigh* as already suggested, Erjen there are no 'higher' or 'lower' dimensions in mathematics such as string theory, just different aspects of reality, more or less complex. Did you not read the quote from last time?
And I have no need to 'suggest' the existence of such dimensions as height, depth etc (aassuming that these are what you think of as 'lower') since these are readily perceived.
Found that unambiguous god yet?
|
|