computer simulation
kerravon
to postulate that there was no god. However, something
happened which made me change my mind and believe
that we are living in the equivalent of a computer
simulation, and that God is the computer programmer,
literally in a different dimension, the same way that when
you play a computer game, you are in a different dimension
to the characters in the computer game.
Although I believe that we should use science and evolution
to explain our environment, I believe that the entire 13.7
billion years of the universe's history is entirely faked, and
that this is a virtual reality computer simulation that is only
39 years old.
For more information see www.moatazilla.org
BFN. Paul.
Perplexed in Peoria
"kerravon" <kerr...@w3.to> wrote in message news:1158299249.6...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
But the hypothesis that the universe is a computer simulation
is more than 39 years old. Read Part 1 of Wright's book
"Three Scientists and their Gods". It is about Edward
Fredkin, who seems to be more serious about the hypothesis
than you are.
kerravon
> But the hypothesis that the universe is a computer simulation
> is more than 39 years old. Read Part 1 of Wright's book
> "Three Scientists and their Gods". It is about Edward
> Fredkin, who seems to be more serious about the hypothesis
> than you are.
No, you only THINK the world is more than 39 years old.
Because that's what the archaelogical evidence suggests.
But I believe that all that archaelogical evidence is
completely fabricated, part of the simulation itself.
Think about it. If you had the technology to run a sophisticated
computer simulation, what would YOU do? Would you wait 13.7
billion years for the simulation to "evolve" into the current state?
Or would you place the universe in the state you wanted it to be
in, and just SIMULATE the boring 13.7 billion year history?
Don't you think that it's a hell of a coincidence that we just so
happen to be at the exact point of history that has seen the
invention of the nuclear bomb, and the collapse of communism
which is (probably) about to usher in worldwide freedom? Also
computers have only just been invented, so that we can have
the concept of living in a computer simulation. It's too damn pat.
In a 13.7 billion year history, 1 million years either way is
absolutely nothing. But it would have drastically altered the
simulation. 1 million years earlier the simulation would be
totally crap. 1 million years later and we will have the
technology to download our brains onto our own VR simulation.
I propose that we are already 1 million years (or more) down
the road, and our "descendants" are running this simulation.
Since Sept 11, 2004 we have scientific evidence of the divine.
See www.moatazilla.org
BFN. Paul.
mvil...@gmail.com
Oh lookie, it's a Loki.
Bobby Bryant
"kerravon" <kerr...@w3.to> writes:
> I used to be a hard-core atheist who used Occam's Razor to postulate
> that there was no god. However, something happened which made me
> change my mind and believe that we are living in the equivalent of a
> computer simulation, and that God is the computer programmer,
> literally in a different dimension, the same way that when you play
> a computer game, you are in a different dimension to the characters
> in the computer game.
Are we to guess what happened to make you believe that?
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
kerravon
Bobby Bryant wrote:
> In article <1158299249.6...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "kerravon" <kerr...@w3.to> writes:
> > I used to be a hard-core atheist who used Occam's Razor to postulate
> > that there was no god. However, something happened which made me
> > change my mind and believe that we are living in the equivalent of a
> > computer simulation, and that God is the computer programmer,
> > literally in a different dimension, the same way that when you play
> > a computer game, you are in a different dimension to the characters
> > in the computer game.
>
> Are we to guess what happened to make you believe that?
It's a long story, and there's only a 5-10% chance that you will
believe it anyway (even though a lot of it is
scientifically-verifable).
The details are available at www.moatazilla.org
BFN. Paul.
michael...@worldnet.att.net
kerravon wrote:
> I used to be a hard-core atheist who used Occam's Razor
> to postulate that there was no god. However, something
> happened which made me change my mind and believe
> that we are living in the equivalent of a computer
> simulation, and that God is the computer programmer,
> literally in a different dimension, the same way that when
> you play a computer game, you are in a different dimension
> to the characters in the computer game.
Yes, and if you had lived in the pre-computer era, you would have found
some other rationale.
-- Mike Palmer
kerravon
michael...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
No, it is only computers that have provided the concept
of a complete solution. It gives an explanation for the
lowest levels of matter - the objects are coded in software,
and thus indivisible. And for the first time we have an
explanation for evil in the world. It is "simulated evil",
hopefully it is not "really" happening. We have mental
records of it happening, but hopefully the horrific events
never really took place. They were just designed to get
a reaction from us.
How did you react to the fact that Iraqi women were being
raped by their own government?
BFN. Paul.
Nick Keighley
now I understand- the blue thing up above is the Blue Screen Of Death!
--
Nick Keighley
I hope I'm not programmed in Java.
stew dean
kerravon wrote:
> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>
> > But the hypothesis that the universe is a computer simulation
> > is more than 39 years old. Read Part 1 of Wright's book
> > "Three Scientists and their Gods". It is about Edward
> > Fredkin, who seems to be more serious about the hypothesis
> > than you are.
>
> No, you only THINK the world is more than 39 years old.
> Because that's what the archaelogical evidence suggests.
> But I believe that all that archaelogical evidence is
> completely fabricated, part of the simulation itself.
The BIIG problem with you hypothesis is it's impossible to test in any
way.
The 'universe is a model in a computer' idea is far from new and
thousands come across this each day. Iain Banks included it as a major
point in one of his recent books.
The question is how would this model differ from if it was real? The
simple answer is it wouldnt. But the model would also have to be
infinite or at least vast. It's clear we're not living in a stage set
after all.
So why 39 years? Why not billions of years and why not 10 seconds?
If archaeology is fabricated so could your thoughts - so could anything
at any scale.
Because there is no way to test this hypothesis, no secret doors out
for example, and zero evidence this concept is best put in the -
'possible but no way we could ever find out it it's true' pile along
with a million other such ideas.
> Think about it. If you had the technology to run a sophisticated
> computer simulation, what would YOU do? Would you wait 13.7
> billion years for the simulation to "evolve" into the current state?
> Or would you place the universe in the state you wanted it to be
> in, and just SIMULATE the boring 13.7 billion year history?
I would run the simulation. Why do you think the life bit is the
interesting bit? That's a totally arbitary decision. It may be we are
the boring bit before the interesting bit for the mystery voyeurs. Also
you answer you own question above.
If it is a computer simulation you have to run a simulation to simulate
the 13.7 billion year history.
So according to you you have to run the whole thing anyway!
These kind of ideas don't work if you start trying to make them
concrete, by putting dates and causes behind them. They will always be
'what if' scenarios.
Stew Dean
stew dean
kerravon wrote:
> michael...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> > kerravon wrote:
> > > I used to be a hard-core atheist who used Occam's Razor
> > > to postulate that there was no god. However, something
> > > happened which made me change my mind and believe
> > > that we are living in the equivalent of a computer
> > > simulation, and that God is the computer programmer,
> > > literally in a different dimension, the same way that when
> > > you play a computer game, you are in a different dimension
> > > to the characters in the computer game.
> > > [snip]
> >
> > Yes, and if you had lived in the pre-computer era, you would have found
> > some other rationale.
>
> No, it is only computers that have provided the concept
> of a complete solution. It gives an explanation for the
> lowest levels of matter - the objects are coded in software,
> and thus indivisible.
All software we use at the moment is granular, as it comes down to CPU
instructions and most sequential. If this was a simulation then the
hardware may well be the physical universe, making it indestiguishable
from something real. Computers today are very basic bits of kit that in
100 years time won't exist in any form remotely like what we have.
> And for the first time we have an
> explanation for evil in the world. It is "simulated evil",
> hopefully it is not "really" happening. We have mental
> records of it happening, but hopefully the horrific events
> never really took place. They were just designed to get
> a reaction from us.
That's really assuming we are in some way important to the simulation
and we are not just another part of it like the workings of a star or
gravity. I feel it's highly egotistical and I would say highly like to
be wrong to say that if the universe was a simulation being viewed from
outside that we where the main event and the observers where watching
us at all.
You need to get some perspective on where we are and what we do. No
super intelligent creature will need to place evil events in our
socierty as they would know all about that stuff to the nth degree.
Good and evil are not rocket science.
> How did you react to the fact that Iraqi women were being
> raped by their own government?
How do you react to the fact that we need to drop our C02 consumption
by 70% in the next four years yet some morons still are denying that
global warming exists and feel it's their right to drive big gas
guzzling SUVs?
It's safe to say that you have no idea what is really going on.
Stew Dean
kerravon
stew dean wrote:
> The BIIG problem with you hypothesis is it's impossible to test in any
> way.
It's not possible to test to your satisfaction, that is true.
However, I have been provided with conclusive proof
that there is a God in a different dimension, who can
communicate directly into our brains and manipulate
our bodies, in exactly the same way that a computer
programmer could manipulate his computer simulation.
> So why 39 years? Why not billions of years and why not 10 seconds?
My age.
> If archaeology is fabricated so could your thoughts - so could anything
> at any scale.
True. It's only my theory that this is a virtual reality
computer simulation that I am running.
> Because there is no way to test this hypothesis, no secret doors out
> for example, and zero evidence this concept is best put in the -
> 'possible but no way we could ever find out it it's true' pile along
> with a million other such ideas.
There is now evidence of divine intervention.
> > Think about it. If you had the technology to run a sophisticated
> > computer simulation, what would YOU do? Would you wait 13.7
> > billion years for the simulation to "evolve" into the current state?
> > Or would you place the universe in the state you wanted it to be
> > in, and just SIMULATE the boring 13.7 billion year history?
>
> I would run the simulation. Why do you think the life bit is the
> interesting bit? That's a totally arbitary decision. It may be we are
> the boring bit before the interesting bit for the mystery voyeurs. Also
> you answer you own question above.
Intelligent creatures are interesting.
> If it is a computer simulation you have to run a simulation to simulate
> the 13.7 billion year history.
>
> So according to you you have to run the whole thing anyway!
No, the nature of computer simulations is that you can construct
the whole thing in an instant, including the 13.7 billion year fake
archaelogical evidence.
> These kind of ideas don't work if you start trying to make them
> concrete, by putting dates and causes behind them. They will always be
> 'what if' scenarios.
Since Sept 11, 2004 there is scientifically-verifiable evidence
of the divine. That is what inspired me to come up with this
theory (although I subsequently found out that others had the
theory before me).
BFN. Paul.
kerravon
stew dean wrote:
> That's really assuming we are in some way important to the simulation
> and we are not just another part of it like the workings of a star or
> gravity. I feel it's highly egotistical and I would say highly like to
> be wrong to say that if the universe was a simulation being viewed from
> outside that we where the main event and the observers where watching
> us at all.
It may be egotistical, but it is also true.
> You need to get some perspective on where we are and what we do. No
> super intelligent creature will need to place evil events in our
> socierty as they would know all about that stuff to the nth degree.
The "evil" is an integral part of the evolutionary trail which
has been placed here for us to learn from.
> Good and evil are not rocket science.
It is. The problem is that we are NATURAL SUBJUGATORS.
To overcome this we need a religion which teaches to
FIGHT SUBJUGATION. This was not understood until
Sept 11, 2004.
> > How did you react to the fact that Iraqi women were being
> > raped by their own government?
>
> How do you react to the fact that we need to drop our C02 consumption
> by 70% in the next four years yet some morons still are denying that
> global warming exists and feel it's their right to drive big gas
> guzzling SUVs?
Not long ago it was global cooling everyone was worried about,
the onset of the next ice age.
Regardless, this is no excuse for ignoring the screams of the
Iraqi women as they were being raped by their own government.
How could you sit there and do nothing about it? Didn't your
mother teach you to protect women?
BFN. Paul.
TomS
<1158299249.6...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, kerravon stated..."
>
>I used to be a hard-core atheist who used Occam's Razor
>to postulate that there was no god. However, something
>happened which made me change my mind and believe
>that we are living in the equivalent of a computer
>simulation, and that God is the computer programmer,
>literally in a different dimension, the same way that when
When you say "literally in a different dimension", do
you mean "literally" in the common sense of "figuratively",
or do you mean "literally" literally?
I'd like to know what "in a different dimension" could
possibly mean. Is this different dimension orthogonal
to the "non-different" dimensions? Is this one
dimension the only one that God is in? How does
God's programming pass over from that one dimension
to our "non-different" dimensions?
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"... have a clear idea of what you should expect if your hypothesis is correct,
and what you should observe if your hypothesis is wrong ... If you cannot do
this, then this is an indicator that your hypothesis may be too vague."
RV Clarke & JE Eck: Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers - step 20
kerravon
> >simulation, and that God is the computer programmer,
> >literally in a different dimension, the same way that when
> [...snip...]
>
> When you say "literally in a different dimension", do
> you mean "literally" in the common sense of "figuratively",
> or do you mean "literally" literally?
>
> I'd like to know what "in a different dimension" could
> possibly mean. Is this different dimension orthogonal
> to the "non-different" dimensions? Is this one
> dimension the only one that God is in? How does
> God's programming pass over from that one dimension
> to our "non-different" dimensions?
It is exactly the same as when you play a computer game down
at the arcade. To the characters in the computer game,
everything is "real". They are running around shooting each
other. They literally have their own universe, with 2 or 3
dimensions depending on the game being played. YOU on
the other hand are in a completely different dimension to them.
>From their perspective, you are God.
You usually have rudimentary capability to "communicate"
with one of the characters in the game. You can control him,
if you wish. The characters in the game have rudimentary
"intelligence" built into them. They know how to shoot and
move. Now imagine you give those characters more and more
intelligence, so that they have the ability to explore their
environment. You would have created Earth II.
I believe that is the situation we are currently in, or at least, it
can be modelled on that concept. We can't see God, because
he is not in our 3 dimensions. But he can communicate with us
if he chooses. This whole universe is a sham. It is real to us
because we are inside it, and don't know any better. But I
believe we are in good hands.
BFN. Paul.
stew dean
kerravon wrote:
> stew dean wrote:
>
> > The BIIG problem with you hypothesis is it's impossible to test in any
> > way.
>
> It's not possible to test to your satisfaction, that is true.
> However, I have been provided with conclusive proof
> that there is a God in a different dimension, who can
> communicate directly into our brains and manipulate
> our bodies, in exactly the same way that a computer
> programmer could manipulate his computer simulation.
So what is this proof? It's fairly key to any ongoing discussion.
> > So why 39 years? Why not billions of years and why not 10 seconds?
>
> My age.
Why not my age? As far as I'm concerned you are the illusion, not me.
I suggest you ego is running amock around your head. I'm not going to
get all psychoanalytical on you but the kinds of ideas you are having
are not uncommon but are usualy filtered out as being silly. Thousands
of folks feel they are the center of some kind of show each day but
nearly all think this is a stupid fantasy. A few don't have the
checkig mechanism and let their personal fanatsies leak into reality.
The songs on the radio where not written about you afterall (I say this
because it's a good sign of paranoid schitzophrenia when you think
people on TV, Radio and songs appear to refer to you directly, I don't
think this what's happening in your case but I'm just making sure you
are not a paranoid schitzophrenic).
> > If archaeology is fabricated so could your thoughts - so could anything
> > at any scale.
>
> True. It's only my theory that this is a virtual reality
> computer simulation that I am running.
In scientific terms its' not a theory or even a hypothesis really -
it's a bit of fantasy - not an uncommon one at that. It's up there with
being able to fly and be invisible. Nothing wrong with fantasies as
long as you know where they start and end.
> > Because there is no way to test this hypothesis, no secret doors out
> > for example, and zero evidence this concept is best put in the -
> > 'possible but no way we could ever find out it it's true' pile along
> > with a million other such ideas.
>
> There is now evidence of divine intervention.
You mean no evidence right?
>
> > > Think about it. If you had the technology to run a sophisticated
> > > computer simulation, what would YOU do? Would you wait 13.7
> > > billion years for the simulation to "evolve" into the current state?
> > > Or would you place the universe in the state you wanted it to be
> > > in, and just SIMULATE the boring 13.7 billion year history?
> >
> > I would run the simulation. Why do you think the life bit is the
> > interesting bit? That's a totally arbitary decision. It may be we are
> > the boring bit before the interesting bit for the mystery voyeurs. Also
> > you answer you own question above.
>
> Intelligent creatures are interesting.
Not really an answer - they're interesting to you but for something
more intelligent they'll are more likely, in my view, to be interested
in something more intelligent in the future than us not so advanced
apes who can only process about 5 things at a time.
> > If it is a computer simulation you have to run a simulation to simulate
> > the 13.7 billion year history.
> >
> > So according to you you have to run the whole thing anyway!
>
> No, the nature of computer simulations is that you can construct
> the whole thing in an instant, including the 13.7 billion year fake
> archaelogical evidence.
But how do you construct it? You have to run a simulation to do that.
You could restore a back up copy...
What point you run the simulation from is totally aribitary and would
be invisible to the things in the simulation. It could be 10 seconds
ago, it could be 10,000 years, it could be 200 billion billion years
running back before the big bang.
> > These kind of ideas don't work if you start trying to make them
> > concrete, by putting dates and causes behind them. They will always be
> > 'what if' scenarios.
>
> Since Sept 11, 2004 there is scientifically-verifiable evidence
> of the divine.
Sorry but I don't believe you. I have heard that claim many times and
in each case it's been a persons personal logic with holes you could
drive a jumbo jet through.
>That is what inspired me to come up with this
> theory (although I subsequently found out that others had the
> theory before me).
So what is the evidence? I'm certain there are huge holes in it. If
it's based upon personal experience then it is subjective and outside
of scientific objectivity. So you can discount anacdotal evidence, most
forms of recorded evidence as well and have to come up with something
objective and, most importantly, independenlty viarifiable. A persons
word is worth nothing when it comes to science for very good reasons.
So - like I said - what is this evidence and why has no one bought into
it over the last two years. If you can't prove it to me than it is not
evidence - it's is just anacdotal evidence and worthless in any
discussion.involving science.
Stew Dean
TomS
<1158318058.0...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, kerravon stated..."
I thought so. "Different dimension" is like "aura" or
"animal magnetism".
stew dean
kerravon wrote:
> stew dean wrote:
>
> > The BIIG problem with you hypothesis is it's impossible to test in any
> > way.
>
> It's not possible to test to your satisfaction, that is true.
> However, I have been provided with conclusive proof
> that there is a God in a different dimension, who can
> communicate directly into our brains and manipulate
> our bodies, in exactly the same way that a computer
> programmer could manipulate his computer simulation.
Okay - just read you post. I think your evidence is....
"When I posted my message describing who I was, it was message number
666 (in the bible as the number of the anti-christ) and the date was
Sept 11, 2004. You can verify this yourself as the message is still
online. This combination of 666 and 9/11 stunned me, but I was still
clinging to my atheistic viewpoint that such things are just
coincidences."
And you where right. concidences happen all the time. For example I
recently went out, on a whim, and bought the three albums by Beth Orton
because I had discovered I liked her music. I later found out she was
was born in the same county on the same day (possibly the same ward of
the same hospital). This is just coincidence. I also like Beck and he
wasnt born on the same day.
The use of numbers to prove things is usualy a sign of mild paranoid
schitzophrenia, serously. The brain is set up to see patterns and we
like to link arbitary numbers together.
Anyway let's carry on with your post and see if what else there is..
"I started receiving revelations from God. Unfortunately I can't prove
that this happened"
That's because it didnt happen. Unfortunatly these are also signs of
paranoid schitzophrenia. Voices telling you to do stuff is the proudct
of mental illness.
Have you been particulary distressed or depressed recently - have you
had any major life changing events happen to you - perhaps you havnt
been eating as well as you should or have been spending too much time
by yourself. All these can be contributing factors.
Let's read on.
"I believe the fact that I received revelations means I am the second
coming of Jesus. "
Sorry - that's a slam dunk. Delusions of grandure are also part of the
illness. Now what is probably happening is, due to low self estime and
depression, your brain has started to build in coping mechanisms but,
due to something beyond the normal, it's take a wrong term and you
fantasy checking processes are out of wak.
Take a couple of steps back and view yourself as someone else would. We
all like to make the world better and there are many folks who have
done more for world peace than you have. You have to try and regain a
objective view on yourself and, if you are being sincere, look to get
other poeples opinoins on your situaiton. Being aware that you may
have a problem will enable you to be in charge again. The danger is
you delluions may lead ot activity that is considered to be
anti-social. Go down this path and you'll deeply regret it as it's
mostly one way.
Drink water, get fresh air, cut down on coffee, smoking and high sugar
content food (especialy coke and even diet coke) and don't do anything
that you would consider to be anti-social by others, don't go around
claiming to be the second coming (the world is full of those types of
fools) and find someone who has an understanding of the mind who can
help you. Dont' go into details until you are with someone with
understanding - telling a general doctor that god is talking to you is
not something I would advise.
Essentialy you ego has overrulled you intellect and you need to calmly
work out how to reclaim you personal objectivity and the ability to
think straight.
I hope you dont' just shrug this off. And I assuming this is real.
Stew Dean
kerravon
> > It's not possible to test to your satisfaction, that is true.
> > However, I have been provided with conclusive proof
> > that there is a God in a different dimension, who can
> > communicate directly into our brains and manipulate
> > our bodies, in exactly the same way that a computer
> > programmer could manipulate his computer simulation.
>
> So what is this proof? It's fairly key to any ongoing discussion.
It will take you about 10 minutes to verify the evidence. It
is online. It is the first link at www.moatazilla.org
> > > So why 39 years? Why not billions of years and why not 10 seconds?
> >
> > My age.
>
> Why not my age? As far as I'm concerned you are the illusion, not me.
Because you're not the one who devoted your life to
ending the institutionalized rape of Iraqi women. Only
I had the genetic drive to protect them.
> > True. It's only my theory that this is a virtual reality
> > computer simulation that I am running.
>
> In scientific terms its' not a theory or even a hypothesis really -
> it's a bit of fantasy - not an uncommon one at that. It's up there with
> being able to fly and be invisible. Nothing wrong with fantasies as
> long as you know where they start and end.
It is a model for the universe. A damn good model, that
answers unanswerable questions, such as "what are the
limits of matter" and "why would a benevolent God allow
evil".
> > > Because there is no way to test this hypothesis, no secret doors out
> > > for example, and zero evidence this concept is best put in the -
> > > 'possible but no way we could ever find out it it's true' pile along
> > > with a million other such ideas.
> >
> > There is now evidence of divine intervention.
>
> You mean no evidence right?
No, the evidence is there. But you won't believe it unless
you believe that we should have done everything possible
to protect Iraqi women from being raped by their own
government. Sociopaths won't accept it.
> > Intelligent creatures are interesting.
>
> Not really an answer - they're interesting to you but for something
> more intelligent they'll are more likely, in my view, to be interested
> in something more intelligent in the future than us not so advanced
> apes who can only process about 5 things at a time.
The universe is here for our interest. What would you
prefer to pass the time?
> > > If it is a computer simulation you have to run a simulation to simulate
> > > the 13.7 billion year history.
> > >
> > > So according to you you have to run the whole thing anyway!
> >
> > No, the nature of computer simulations is that you can construct
> > the whole thing in an instant, including the 13.7 billion year fake
> > archaelogical evidence.
>
> But how do you construct it? You have to run a simulation to do that.
> You could restore a back up copy...
You don't need to run a simulation to create the effects of a
simulation. You just build the end product, including the fake
archaelogical evidence.
> What point you run the simulation from is totally aribitary and would
> be invisible to the things in the simulation. It could be 10 seconds
> ago, it could be 10,000 years, it could be 200 billion billion years
> running back before the big bang.
This is true. I'm just going on "most likely".
> > > These kind of ideas don't work if you start trying to make them
> > > concrete, by putting dates and causes behind them. They will always be
> > > 'what if' scenarios.
> >
> > Since Sept 11, 2004 there is scientifically-verifiable evidence
> > of the divine.
>
> Sorry but I don't believe you. I have heard that claim many times and
> in each case it's been a persons personal logic with holes you could
> drive a jumbo jet through.
You can't drive a jumbo jet through this one. It's all laid out
and scientifically verifiable.
> >That is what inspired me to come up with this
> > theory (although I subsequently found out that others had the
> > theory before me).
>
> So what is the evidence? I'm certain there are huge holes in it. If
> it's based upon personal experience then it is subjective and outside
> of scientific objectivity. So you can discount anacdotal evidence, most
> forms of recorded evidence as well and have to come up with something
> objective and, most importantly, independenlty viarifiable. A persons
> word is worth nothing when it comes to science for very good reasons.
The evidence is evidence, and doesn't rely on my anecdotal
experience. But my theory of us living in a computer simulation
with God as the computer programmer only came about due to
anecdotal experience.
> So - like I said - what is this evidence and why has no one bought into
> it over the last two years. If you can't prove it to me than it is not
> evidence - it's is just anacdotal evidence and worthless in any
> discussion.involving science.
Some people have bought into it over the last 2 years.
About 5-10% of people I speak to. I don't speak to a lot
of people.
BFN. Paul.
bullpup
LOKI!!! I call LOKI!!!!
But, of course, the parody rule applies. "P
Boikat
--
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own"
-Adam Savage, Mythbusters-
stew dean
kerravon wrote:
> stew dean wrote:
>
> > That's really assuming we are in some way important to the simulation
> > and we are not just another part of it like the workings of a star or
> > gravity. I feel it's highly egotistical and I would say highly like to
> > be wrong to say that if the universe was a simulation being viewed from
> > outside that we where the main event and the observers where watching
> > us at all.
>
> It may be egotistical, but it is also true.
For something to be true it has to be objective. Truth is not about
personal experiences or coincidences.
> > You need to get some perspective on where we are and what we do. No
> > super intelligent creature will need to place evil events in our
> > socierty as they would know all about that stuff to the nth degree.
>
> The "evil" is an integral part of the evolutionary trail which
> has been placed here for us to learn from.
Paul, this is rubbish.
> > Good and evil are not rocket science.
>
> It is.
Good and bad are relative concepts that have arrisin because of
socierty. We evolved social structures in order to better deal with
our environment - to support and be supported. Good and evil only work
in terms relative to other people. As socierty changes so good and evil
also change and there are moral grey areas.
For example some consider gay margage to be good as it's two people who
love one another making a long term commitment, some consider it bad as
it somehow attacks the family unit and promotes sodomy (which they also
consider to be bad for some reason).
> The problem is that we are NATURAL SUBJUGATORS.
No need to shout. Dude, drop the 'catch phrases' and in futue explain
what you mean. I had to look up subjegators up just so I knew what you
meant. You as saying we naturaly want to subvert and control. I don't
think this is true for myself.
Incidently most religion is based around the control of populations -
so if you're turning to reliigon to prevent opression it's much like
turning to the army to stop all violence.
If you want to help you need to have empathy for your fellow humans and
also get to understand yourself as well.
>
> > > How did you react to the fact that Iraqi women were being
> > > raped by their own government?
> >
> > How do you react to the fact that we need to drop our C02 consumption
> > by 70% in the next four years yet some morons still are denying that
> > global warming exists and feel it's their right to drive big gas
> > guzzling SUVs?
>
> Not long ago it was global cooling everyone was worried about,
> the onset of the next ice age.
Urm - let me think - never.
> Regardless, this is no excuse for ignoring the screams of the
> Iraqi women as they were being raped by their own government.
> How could you sit there and do nothing about it? Didn't your
> mother teach you to protect women?
Easy there - the US government has supported the killing of innocent
women and children - there are no innocent sides here, not white hats
and black hats. Suffering of people takes many different forms and you
shoudl avoid if yoiu can the demonising of mythical enemies. The iraqi
women where not raped by the government but by those who had power
given to them. Be aware that soldiers form all sides have been know to
commit acts as clearly wrong as this - including all conflicts in the
middle east.
Don't focus on one event as you'll miss the big picture and be in
danger of supporting US foreign policy that is in my view, immoral.
Get a varied informatio diet at all costs - read the BBC site, CNN,
independent sites, listent international points of view, to the left,
the right and the middle, listen to comedians and pundits.
Get the big picture otherwise if you do something it's likely to be the
wrong thing.
Stew Dean
>
> BFN. Paul.
kerravon
stew dean wrote:
> Okay - just read you post. I think your evidence is....
>
> "When I posted my message describing who I was, it was message number
> 666 (in the bible as the number of the anti-christ) and the date was
> Sept 11, 2004. You can verify this yourself as the message is still
> online. This combination of 666 and 9/11 stunned me, but I was still
> clinging to my atheistic viewpoint that such things are just
> coincidences."
You also need to see message 666 itself. It is the solution to
world freedom:
I am AGAINST racism.
I am AGAINST sexism.
I am AGAINST religious discrimination.
I am AGAINST dogma.
I am AGAINST subjugation.
I RESPECT INDIVIDUALS who VOLUNTARILY donate to COMPLETE STRANGERS (ie
different race, different sex, different religion) using their OWN
HARD-EARNED MONEY.
I will FIGHT using my BRAIN subjugation of ANY HUMAN.
> And you where right. concidences happen all the time.
This is the result of my life's work. Yes, it was possible that
it was an extraordinary coincidence.
> "I started receiving revelations from God. Unfortunately I can't prove
> that this happened"
>
> That's because it didnt happen.
It did happen. You are being close-minded by being sure
that it didn't happen.
> Voices telling you to do stuff is the proudct
> of mental illness.
It wasn't voices. It came in the form of "random thoughts".
> Have you been particulary distressed or depressed recently - have you
> had any major life changing events happen to you - perhaps you havnt
I devoted my life to finding out how anyone could oppose the
liberation of the Iraqi people from state-slavery and the end
of institutionalized rape. Exactly as you would hope that any
second coming of Jesus would have done.
> Sorry - that's a slam dunk. Delusions of grandure are also part of the
> illness.
Not when they're true.
> Take a couple of steps back and view yourself as someone else would. We
> all like to make the world better and there are many folks who have
> done more for world peace than you have.
That's the whole point. There isn't. It's world freedom, not
world peace, that I'm after. No-one has done more for
world freedom than I have. If they had, they would have done
what I did. They would have been in the Iraqi blogs trying to
find out why not all Iraqi people were happy to see the end of
institutionalized rape, and why so many westerners opposed
it. They weren't there. EVERYONE should have been there.
Everyone should have been trying to make sure that Iraqi
women were never raped by their own government ever again.
I didn't know I was unique until shortly after writing message
666 on Sept 11, 2004 and found that the other people there
didn't even know what had happened, nor did they convert to
the Mu'tazilah sect of Islam in an attempt to save the Muslims
from self-destruction.
You basically need to take a step back and see what I've done.
It is enormous.
BFN. Paul.
stew dean
kerravon wrote:
> stew dean wrote:
>
> > > It's not possible to test to your satisfaction, that is true.
> > > However, I have been provided with conclusive proof
> > > that there is a God in a different dimension, who can
> > > communicate directly into our brains and manipulate
> > > our bodies, in exactly the same way that a computer
> > > programmer could manipulate his computer simulation.
> >
> > So what is this proof? It's fairly key to any ongoing discussion.
>
> It will take you about 10 minutes to verify the evidence. It
> is online. It is the first link at www.moatazilla.org
See my second message. It indicates you are having mental health
issues that you will need to seek help you can trust with.
>
> > > > So why 39 years? Why not billions of years and why not 10 seconds?
> > >
> > > My age.
> >
> > Why not my age? As far as I'm concerned you are the illusion, not me.
>
> Because you're not the one who devoted your life to
> ending the institutionalized rape of Iraqi women. Only
> I had the genetic drive to protect them.
Why Iraqi women - why not women all over the world? Why not the
suffering of children - or the suffering of future generations?
In my view I do more to help more than you appear to be doing.
> > > True. It's only my theory that this is a virtual reality
> > > computer simulation that I am running.
> >
> > In scientific terms its' not a theory or even a hypothesis really -
> > it's a bit of fantasy - not an uncommon one at that. It's up there with
> > being able to fly and be invisible. Nothing wrong with fantasies as
> > long as you know where they start and end.
>
> It is a model for the universe. A damn good model, that
> answers unanswerable questions, such as "what are the
> limits of matter" and "why would a benevolent God allow
> evil".
I don't see how it is. I understand what yoiu are saying but just
think yoiu havnt thought it through.
> > > > Because there is no way to test this hypothesis, no secret doors out
> > > > for example, and zero evidence this concept is best put in the -
> > > > 'possible but no way we could ever find out it it's true' pile along
> > > > with a million other such ideas.
> > >
> > > There is now evidence of divine intervention.
> >
> > You mean no evidence right?
>
> No, the evidence is there. But you won't believe it unless
> you believe that we should have done everything possible
> to protect Iraqi women from being raped by their own
> government. Sociopaths won't accept it.
The world is full of bad people doing bad things. Why the fixation on
Iraqi women? Provide a link to show this is still happening and then
proivde me links to where else it is happening as there are other parts
of the world where rape happens and is left unpunished - for all the
wrong reasons.
Get the big picture.
> > > Intelligent creatures are interesting.
> >
> > Not really an answer - they're interesting to you but for something
> > more intelligent they'll are more likely, in my view, to be interested
> > in something more intelligent in the future than us not so advanced
> > apes who can only process about 5 things at a time.
>
> The universe is here for our interest. What would you
> prefer to pass the time?
In universe terms we are as important as a grain of sand. Understand
this and you can gain humility needed to do good. Feel that you have a
devine right and you will do evil.
The saying goes - good people do good things, bad people do bad but for
good people to do bad things requires reliigon.
> > > > If it is a computer simulation you have to run a simulation to simulate
> > > > the 13.7 billion year history.
> > > >
> > > > So according to you you have to run the whole thing anyway!
> > >
> > > No, the nature of computer simulations is that you can construct
> > > the whole thing in an instant, including the 13.7 billion year fake
> > > archaelogical evidence.
> >
> > But how do you construct it? You have to run a simulation to do that.
> > You could restore a back up copy...
>
> You don't need to run a simulation to create the effects of a
> simulation.
The effects of a simulation result from running a simulation. To reach
the conculstion of a calculation you have to do the calculation!
Think about it.
> You just build the end product, including the fake
> archaelogical evidence.
Which you will need to simulate in order for it to look like it's got a
past. Sort of obvious really.
> > What point you run the simulation from is totally aribitary and would
> > be invisible to the things in the simulation. It could be 10 seconds
> > ago, it could be 10,000 years, it could be 200 billion billion years
> > running back before the big bang.
>
> This is true. I'm just going on "most likely".
The point is there is most likely in this case as you have no idea why
the simulation exists. If it's down to some ego thing then its almost
certainly wrong.
> > > > These kind of ideas don't work if you start trying to make them
> > > > concrete, by putting dates and causes behind them. They will always be
> > > > 'what if' scenarios.
> > >
> > > Since Sept 11, 2004 there is scientifically-verifiable evidence
> > > of the divine.
> >
> > Sorry but I don't believe you. I have heard that claim many times and
> > in each case it's been a persons personal logic with holes you could
> > drive a jumbo jet through.
>
> You can't drive a jumbo jet through this one. It's all laid out
> and scientifically verifiable.
Sorry but that is simply not true. I've looked at your 'evidence' and
it's just a personal delusion of the worng kind and has the only
scientific varifiable aspect of it is that you suffer form the
objective signs of mild paranoid schitzophrenia. The belief you are
the center of the universe, you are the second coming of jesus and that
you understand how the universe works beyond the knowlege of all others
is signs that you are not in control of you own brain any more and you
ego is ruling things.
> > So what is the evidence? I'm certain there are huge holes in it. If
> > it's based upon personal experience then it is subjective and outside
> > of scientific objectivity. So you can discount anacdotal evidence, most
> > forms of recorded evidence as well and have to come up with something
> > objective and, most importantly, independenlty viarifiable. A persons
> > word is worth nothing when it comes to science for very good reasons.
>
> The evidence is evidence, and doesn't rely on my anecdotal
> experience. But my theory of us living in a computer simulation
> with God as the computer programmer only came about due to
> anecdotal experience.
Which is not evidence - but a illogical conclusion you have made based
upon an unstable mental platform.
>
> > So - like I said - what is this evidence and why has no one bought into
> > it over the last two years. If you can't prove it to me than it is not
> > evidence - it's is just anacdotal evidence and worthless in any
> > discussion.involving science.
>
> Some people have bought into it over the last 2 years.
> About 5-10% of people I speak to. I don't speak to a lot
> of people.
Probaby a good think. The whole 'universe as simluation' will appeal
to a lot of folks, but it's not real or provable in anyway. It's not
impossible just, like many other similair ideas, highly improbable.
It's just as likely I am a brain in a jar and you are my dream. I can
probably cobble together evidence of the same kind as yours if I wanted
to, thankfuly I don't.
Stew Dean
kerravon
stew dean wrote:
> > Because you're not the one who devoted your life to
> > ending the institutionalized rape of Iraqi women. Only
> > I had the genetic drive to protect them.
>
> Why Iraqi women - why not women all over the world? Why not the
> suffering of children - or the suffering of future generations?
I want to solve ALL those problems. But we had an opportunity
to solve one particularly nasty problem - the rape of Iraqi women
by their own government. The state-slavery of 27 million Iraqis,
who didn't even have the right to not be raped. It is something
that EVERYONE should have supported, but a majority didn't.
It was VITAL to understand how anyone could ignore the screams
of the Iraqi women as they were being raped by their own
government. Understanding that would explain why some
people rape while others protect. Everyone should have been
trying to understand the problem. But I was the only one doing
so. And it was I who came up with the solution.
> In my view I do more to help more than you appear to be doing.
You can't do more than liberating 27 million people from
state-slavery.
> > It is a model for the universe. A damn good model, that
> > answers unanswerable questions, such as "what are the
> > limits of matter" and "why would a benevolent God allow
> > evil".
>
> I don't see how it is. I understand what yoiu are saying but just
> think yoiu havnt thought it through.
I have thought it through. This is a VR computer simulation.
> > No, the evidence is there. But you won't believe it unless
> > you believe that we should have done everything possible
> > to protect Iraqi women from being raped by their own
> > government. Sociopaths won't accept it.
>
> The world is full of bad people doing bad things.
And it was necessary to understand why we have bad people
in the world. The answer is that we have undesirable genetic
traits, and we need a religion to counteract those traits. That
is what I have done - come up with a scientifically-derived
religion.
> Why the fixation on Iraqi women?
It was the most obvious example of a human rights abuse.
Everyone should be able to agree that raping women is
wrong.
> Provide a link to show this is still happening and then
It isn't anymore! Thanks to the war there has been an
institutional change. Iraqi women are now legally protected
from being raped.
> proivde me links to where else it is happening as there are other parts
> of the world where rape happens and is left unpunished - for all the
> wrong reasons.
The "best technology" we have is to make rape illegal. In Iraq
now, rape is illegal. Exactly as I wanted. Exactly as you should
have wanted top.
> Get the big picture.
I have the big picture. We need to end human rights abuses.
> > The universe is here for our interest. What would you
> > prefer to pass the time?
>
> In universe terms we are as important as a grain of sand. Understand
> this and you can gain humility needed to do good. Feel that you have a
> devine right and you will do evil.
No, I won't do evil, because I have empathy.
> The saying goes - good people do good things, bad people do bad but for
> good people to do bad things requires reliigon.
That depends on the religion. A religion that teaches
"empathy for strangers" and "fight subjugation" is exactly
what we need to stop people from doing bad things (as
is their nature).
> > You don't need to run a simulation to create the effects of a
> > simulation.
>
> The effects of a simulation result from running a simulation. To reach
> the conculstion of a calculation you have to do the calculation!
> Think about it.
I don't even believe that we are the result of evolution. The
evolutionary evidence was just constructed and placed there
for us to find. To make us BELIEVE that there was no God.
So you can't even "do the calculation", because the calculation
doesn't produce the end result you want. You need to plant
the evidence instead.
> > You just build the end product, including the fake
> > archaelogical evidence.
>
> Which you will need to simulate in order for it to look like it's got a
> past. Sort of obvious really.
You don't need to simulate it!!! You simply need to plant
the evidence!!!
> The point is there is most likely in this case as you have no idea why
> the simulation exists. If it's down to some ego thing then its almost
> certainly wrong.
It's not wrong. It's here to entertain me.
> > You can't drive a jumbo jet through this one. It's all laid out
> > and scientifically verifiable.
>
> Sorry but that is simply not true. I've looked at your 'evidence' and
> it's just a personal delusion of the worng kind and has the only
It's not a delusion, it is scientifically-verifiable that:
1. I am the only person who devoted his life to finding out how
people could turn a blind eye to institutionalized rape, or worse,
to oppose the ending of it.
2. The result of that work came to a climax in message 666 on
Sept 11, a miracle.
3. I was the only person who "loved my enemy" enough to
convert to the Mu'tazilah sect of Islam to help the enemy
escape potential genocide.
These are things that EVERYONE should have been doing.
A massive scientific inquiry is required to find out why all of
humanity failed to protect the Iraqi women.
> > The evidence is evidence, and doesn't rely on my anecdotal
> > experience. But my theory of us living in a computer simulation
> > with God as the computer programmer only came about due to
> > anecdotal experience.
>
> Which is not evidence - but a illogical conclusion you have made based
> upon an unstable mental platform.
It is not an illogical conclusion. It is a logical explanation as to
why evil would exist in this world.
> > Some people have bought into it over the last 2 years.
> > About 5-10% of people I speak to. I don't speak to a lot
> > of people.
>
> Probaby a good think. The whole 'universe as simluation' will appeal
> to a lot of folks, but it's not real or provable in anyway. It's not
> impossible just, like many other similair ideas, highly improbable.
Why do you think it is improbable? It's exactly what you would
do if you had the technology 1 million years from now. The "real"
date is probably billions of years from now.
BFN. Paul.
CreateThis
>I used to be a hard-core atheist who used Occam's Razor
>to postulate that there was no god. However, something
>happened which made me change my mind and believe
>that we are living in the equivalent of a computer
>simulation
I'm guessing a knock on the head combined with the pain pills the
doctor gave you and the liquor you washed them down with.
>..., I believe that the entire 13.7
>billion years of the universe's history is entirely faked, and
>that this is a virtual reality computer simulation that is only
>39 years old.
My dog believes there are little people inside the television. You
two should have a drink sometime.
CT
kerravon
stew dean wrote:
> > > That's really assuming we are in some way important to the simulation
> > > and we are not just another part of it like the workings of a star or
> > > gravity. I feel it's highly egotistical and I would say highly like to
> > > be wrong to say that if the universe was a simulation being viewed from
> > > outside that we where the main event and the observers where watching
> > > us at all.
> >
> > It may be egotistical, but it is also true.
>
> For something to be true it has to be objective. Truth is not about
> personal experiences or coincidences.
No, for something to be scientifically-provable it must be
objective. Personal experience is still truth, albeit unprovable
and unreproducable.
> > > You need to get some perspective on where we are and what we do. No
> > > super intelligent creature will need to place evil events in our
> > > socierty as they would know all about that stuff to the nth degree.
> >
> > The "evil" is an integral part of the evolutionary trail which
> > has been placed here for us to learn from.
>
> Paul, this is rubbish.
It's not rubbish. He who controls his environment gets to
reproduce more.
> Good and bad are relative concepts that have arrisin because of
> socierty. We evolved social structures in order to better deal with
> our environment - to support and be supported. Good and evil only work
> in terms relative to other people. As socierty changes so good and evil
> also change and there are moral grey areas.
No, the right of a woman to not be raped always existed. We
just had backward societies that didn't recognize it.
> For example some consider gay margage to be good as it's two people who
> love one another making a long term commitment, some consider it bad as
> it somehow attacks the family unit and promotes sodomy (which they also
> consider to be bad for some reason).
That is indeed a grey area. Unlike the rape of women.
> > The problem is that we are NATURAL SUBJUGATORS.
>
> No need to shout. Dude, drop the 'catch phrases' and in futue explain
> what you mean. I had to look up subjegators up just so I knew what you
> meant. You as saying we naturaly want to subvert and control. I don't
> think this is true for myself.
You haven't been placed into a situation where there is chaos
and no leader, and everyone is looking around for who the
new leader is going to be. There is a "subjugate or be
subjugated" natural instinct. You've also been taught, one
way or another, to support freedom. Your empathy and
religion (fight subjugation) is overriding your innate instinct
to subjugate.
> Incidently most religion is based around the control of populations -
> so if you're turning to reliigon to prevent opression it's much like
> turning to the army to stop all violence.
That is what is unique about my new religion. It is specifically
designed to make sure the population is NOT controlled, but
instead free. 'fight subjugation" is a pillar.
> If you want to help you need to have empathy for your fellow humans and
> also get to understand yourself as well.
"empathy for strangers" is another pillar.
> > Regardless, this is no excuse for ignoring the screams of the
> > Iraqi women as they were being raped by their own government.
> > How could you sit there and do nothing about it? Didn't your
> > mother teach you to protect women?
>
> Easy there - the US government has supported the killing of innocent
> women and children -
No it doesn't. It is highly illegal to deliberately kill innocent
women and children.
> there are no innocent sides here, not white hats
> and black hats.
There is. The rape of women is a black and white issue.
Saddam raped women. America made it illegal to rape
Iraqi women. A massive institutional change that everyone
should have supported.
> shoudl avoid if yoiu can the demonising of mythical enemies. The iraqi
> women where not raped by the government but by those who had power
> given to them.
They were raped on Saddam's orders.
> Be aware that soldiers form all sides have been know to
> commit acts as clearly wrong as this - including all conflicts in the
> middle east.
Not LEGALLY. In Iraq it was LEGAL for Saddam to rape women.
> Don't focus on one event as you'll miss the big picture and be in
> danger of supporting US foreign policy that is in my view, immoral.
US foreign policy is not immoral. It is you that doesn't see the
big picture. The US is spreading human rights. Every time it
overthrows a dictator it ushers in human rights. This is something
that we should ALL be supporting. I devoted my life to finding
out why anyone would oppose this wonderful US policy.
> Get a varied informatio diet at all costs - read the BBC site, CNN,
> independent sites, listent international points of view, to the left,
> the right and the middle, listen to comedians and pundits.
I get my news from the BBC site and BBC TV.
> Get the big picture otherwise if you do something it's likely to be the
> wrong thing.
Ending institutionalized rape is not the wrong thing. Unless you
can understand this, you won't understand what it is that I have
done.
BFN. Paul.
Vend
kerravon wrote:
> It's not possible to test to your satisfaction, that is true.
> However, I have been provided with conclusive proof
> that there is a God in a different dimension, who can
> communicate directly into our brains and manipulate
> our bodies, in exactly the same way that a computer
> programmer could manipulate his computer simulation.
Let me guess, you meet him just before flying to save your girlfriend
who was falling from a tall building while being shoot by an agent,
right?
Vend
stew dean wrote:
> Drink water, get fresh air, cut down on coffee, smoking and high sugar
> content food (especialy coke and even diet coke)
A little lithium carbonate would also help :)
Richard Smol
kerravon wrote:
> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>
> > But the hypothesis that the universe is a computer simulation
> > is more than 39 years old. Read Part 1 of Wright's book
> > "Three Scientists and their Gods". It is about Edward
> > Fredkin, who seems to be more serious about the hypothesis
> > than you are.
>
> No, you only THINK the world is more than 39 years old.
> Because that's what the archaelogical evidence suggests.
> But I believe that all that archaelogical evidence is
> completely fabricated, part of the simulation itself.
>
> computer simulation, what would YOU do? Would you wait 13.7
> billion years for the simulation to "evolve" into the current state?
> Or would you place the universe in the state you wanted it to be
> in, and just SIMULATE the boring 13.7 billion year history?
Cute, but this makes your hypothesis totally unfalsifiable and thus
useless.
RS
stew dean
kerravon wrote:
> stew dean wrote:
>
> > Okay - just read you post. I think your evidence is....
> >
> > "When I posted my message describing who I was, it was message number
> > 666 (in the bible as the number of the anti-christ) and the date was
> > Sept 11, 2004. You can verify this yourself as the message is still
> > online. This combination of 666 and 9/11 stunned me, but I was still
> > clinging to my atheistic viewpoint that such things are just
> > coincidences."
>
> You also need to see message 666 itself. It is the solution to
> world freedom:
>
> I am AGAINST racism.
> I am AGAINST sexism.
> I am AGAINST religious discrimination.
> I am AGAINST dogma.
> I am AGAINST subjugation.
> I RESPECT INDIVIDUALS who VOLUNTARILY donate to COMPLETE STRANGERS (ie
> different race, different sex, different religion) using their OWN
> HARD-EARNED MONEY.
> I will FIGHT using my BRAIN subjugation of ANY HUMAN.
Same here. I just dont need to make a decloration about it - as a
humanist this is default activity, like many humanists I know.
Sorry dude but wanting to be good is what the majority of humans want
to do, they just often get it wrong because they don't know stuff or
make mistakes, like thinking they are the second coming of Jesus.
> > And you where right. concidences happen all the time.
>
> This is the result of my life's work. Yes, it was possible that
> it was an extraordinary coincidence.
Not even extrodinary - it's 1 in 666 - failry low odds compared to most
coincidences. That number could also be wrongly translated - the number
of the beast, according to the christian bible, may well be 616.
And save the 'result of my life's work'. Ask the average chirstian or
humanist or moral person and oddly its also their life work. You're
not special or unique.
> > "I started receiving revelations from God. Unfortunately I can't prove
> > that this happened"
> >
> > That's because it didnt happen.
>
> It did happen. You are being close-minded by being sure
> that it didn't happen.
I'm fairly certain you thought it happened but it ddnt. The evidence
unfortuanlty is in my favour according to your website. Sorry.
> > Voices telling you to do stuff is the proudct
> > of mental illness.
>
> It wasn't voices. It came in the form of "random thoughts".
Same thing in a milder form. I don't think you're a nut case, just a
bit fuzzy around the edges.
> > Have you been particulary distressed or depressed recently - have you
> > had any major life changing events happen to you - perhaps you havnt
>
> I devoted my life to finding out how anyone could oppose the
> liberation of the Iraqi people from state-slavery and the end
> of institutionalized rape. Exactly as you would hope that any
> second coming of Jesus would have done.
And you think that what the invasion of Iraq by the US was about? I
personaly oppose the needless murder of innocent women and children so
marched with over a million others through the streets of London
against this needless war. There are other places in the world more
oppresive and evil than Iraq was - which comparativley was not as evil
as the US media may have told you. There was not institutaionalised
rape for a start, Sadam was ruthless but he felt what he was doing was
right, just as you do. He was wrong to have those that opposed him
killed and gassed but in the good and bad situation I look Sadam and
look at Bush and I fid Bush's recent actions on par with those of
Sadam.
I suspect you're too close to it to see this.
> > Sorry - that's a slam dunk. Delusions of grandure are also part of the
> > illness.
>
> Not when they're true.
What is more likely - you are delusional or you are the second coming?
>From an outside view all your other confessios support you are
dellusional in a text book case style. I have no reason to think you
delussions are real - you of course will think they are real because
you are delussional. I would say think about it again but I'm not sure
you have the objectivity left to do so.
> > Take a couple of steps back and view yourself as someone else would. We
> > all like to make the world better and there are many folks who have
> > done more for world peace than you have.
>
> That's the whole point. There isn't. It's world freedom, not
> world peace, that I'm after.
There isnt what? Peace and freedom are very very closely linked. If
there is war then there is oppression and fear and innocent people
suffering. War can not be justified in terms of freedom.
> No-one has done more for world freedom than I have.
Except me and millions of others. I'm sorry but you are either
delusisonal or you are bullshitting me. I am not a saint and don't
consider myself a unstoppabel force for good that has radically changed
the world, and you are not either. If you are doing good for you own
ego you are not doing good for the right reasons.
Jesus never said he was the messiah or the only son of god.
I personaly think freedom comes thorugh having a better understanding
of the world, through education, through support of children and
through use fo empathy in creating technology and tools, for example.
It comes through the breaking down of deeply heald historical
differences, through the reduction if arms traiding, through the use of
social change over violent intevention that ultimately leads to
suffering. If you think tanks and plains can free people in a ways
better than the fight of social change over even the same time period
you are deeply mislead Paul.
> If they had, they would have done
> what I did. They would have been in the Iraqi blogs trying to
> find out why not all Iraqi people were happy to see the end of
> institutionalized rape, and why so many westerners opposed
> it. They weren't there. EVERYONE should have been there.
> Everyone should have been trying to make sure that Iraqi
> women were never raped by their own government ever again.
No Paul, You are fixating on one small spec on a pile of shit. You may
clear up this spec only to produce much more. You have to get a bigger
picture.
> I didn't know I was unique until shortly after writing message
> 666 on Sept 11, 2004
666 looks like being meaningless if what I have read is true.
> and found that the other people there
> didn't even know what had happened, nor did they convert to
> the Mu'tazilah sect of Islam in an attempt to save the Muslims
> from self-destruction.
Probably for reasons you dont' understand.
> You basically need to take a step back and see what I've done.
> It is enormous.
No Paul, it's not. Even if you had changed one aspect of the world for
the better, which at the moment it appears you havnt achived,
Even if you had done many good acts for mankind you wouldnt be on here
saying you'd done more then anyone else would you?
Stew Dean
kerravon
Richard Smol wrote:
> > Think about it. If you had the technology to run a sophisticated
> > computer simulation, what would YOU do? Would you wait 13.7
> > billion years for the simulation to "evolve" into the current state?
> > Or would you place the universe in the state you wanted it to be
> > in, and just SIMULATE the boring 13.7 billion year history?
>
> Cute, but this makes your hypothesis totally unfalsifiable and thus
> useless.
It's not useless. It finally gives us a complete model of the
universe. Now we can begin to try to understand the
software.
BFN. Paul.
Richard Smol
Not if you can't provide evidence for your hypothesis and a way to
falsify it.
RS
Dogma Discharge
"CreateThis" <Creat...@yippee.con> wrote in message
news:s37lg25hmi7d5gbih...@4ax.com...
> On 14 Sep 2006 22:47:29 -0700, "kerravon" <kerr...@w3.to> wrote:
>
> My dog believes there are little people inside the television. You
> two should have a drink sometime.
>
*L* I have a cat who goes bonkers when the 'Famous Grouse' adverts are on.
Pretty hilarious stuff.
John Harshman
> I used to be a hard-core atheist who used Occam's Razor
> to postulate that there was no god. However, something
> happened which made me change my mind and believe
> that we are living in the equivalent of a computer
> simulation, and that God is the computer programmer,
> literally in a different dimension, the same way that when
> you play a computer game, you are in a different dimension
> to the characters in the computer game.
>
> Although I believe that we should use science and evolution
> to explain our environment, I believe that the entire 13.7
> billion years of the universe's history is entirely faked, and
> that this is a virtual reality computer simulation that is only
> 39 years old.
>
> For more information see www.moatazilla.org
>
> BFN. Paul.
>
Heretic! The world was created last Thursday, so there's no way your
computer simulation could be more than a week old.
stew dean
kerravon wrote:
> stew dean wrote:
>
> > > Because you're not the one who devoted your life to
> > > ending the institutionalized rape of Iraqi women. Only
> > > I had the genetic drive to protect them.
> >
> > Why Iraqi women - why not women all over the world? Why not the
> > suffering of children - or the suffering of future generations?
>
> I want to solve ALL those problems. But we had an opportunity
> to solve one particularly nasty problem - the rape of Iraqi women
> by their own government. The state-slavery of 27 million Iraqis,
> who didn't even have the right to not be raped. It is something
> that EVERYONE should have supported, but a majority didn't.
And why was this? Doesnt it strike you as odd?
> It was VITAL to understand how anyone could ignore the screams
> of the Iraqi women as they were being raped by their own
> government.
How do you know this happened? It appears that the US army was also
guilty of this as well.
> Understanding that would explain why some
> people rape while others protect. Everyone should have been
> trying to understand the problem. But I was the only one doing
> so. And it was I who came up with the solution.
Which was?
> > In my view I do more to help more than you appear to be doing.
>
> You can't do more than liberating 27 million people from
> state-slavery.
But you didnt do that. It's also not fact that there was
state-slavery, at least not on a scale found in other countries. Why
Iraq?
> > > It is a model for the universe. A damn good model, that
> > > answers unanswerable questions, such as "what are the
> > > limits of matter" and "why would a benevolent God allow
> > > evil".
> >
> > I don't see how it is. I understand what yoiu are saying but just
> > think yoiu havnt thought it through.
>
> I have thought it through. This is a VR computer simulation.
I don't see this. Saying it's a virtual reality simulation is
meaningless.
> > > No, the evidence is there. But you won't believe it unless
> > > you believe that we should have done everything possible
> > > to protect Iraqi women from being raped by their own
> > > government. Sociopaths won't accept it.
> >
> > The world is full of bad people doing bad things.
>
> And it was necessary to understand why we have bad people
> in the world. The answer is that we have undesirable genetic
> traits, and we need a religion to counteract those traits.
Whooooooo there. You're way off target. Genetic traits don't lead to
bad people - anti-social behavour is the product of socierty NOT
genetics. Race is increasingly seen as a cultural thing these days NOT
genetics. Genetically humans are more alike than most species and the
differences within a perceived races is no more or less than that
between races. Genetics is a red herring when it comes down to overal
social success.
I suggest, for moral reasons, you drop the idea that behavour is tied
into genetics.
> That is what I have done - come up with a scientifically-derived
> religion.
A bad understanding of genetics, a beleif that your actions are
sanctioned by god, a almost non existant understanding of science,
dellusions of grandure - these are not a good mix.
All evil people in history considered they where doing good. Be very
careful of what you are looking to do, you could be the problem not the
solution.
> > Why the fixation on Iraqi women?
>
> It was the most obvious example of a human rights abuse.
> Everyone should be able to agree that raping women is
> wrong.
And they do. But I can't see anything you've said that in anyway a
solution.
> > Provide a link to show this is still happening and then
>
> It isn't anymore! Thanks to the war there has been an
> institutional change. Iraqi women are now legally protected
> from being raped.
Doesnt appear to have stopped things..
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1007392006
"Michael said a failure by U.S. commanders to hold soldiers to account
had fostered a climate of impunity among troops"
Looks like the legal cover doesnt quite cover all women. It appears
that the US troops are guilty of the same crimes as the troops under
Sadam.
Meanwhile this kind of activity carries on in places like Sierra Leone,
Demoocratic Republick of Congo and by the UK troops in Kenya.
You did not make rape illegal or stop it happening. What ever victory
you are claiming I see no evidence to see that it is anything related
to you.
> > Get the big picture.
>
> I have the big picture. We need to end human rights abuses.
You do not have the big picture. You think bad behavour is genetic.
You have no idea.
> > > The universe is here for our interest. What would you
> > > prefer to pass the time?
> >
> > In universe terms we are as important as a grain of sand. Understand
> > this and you can gain humility needed to do good. Feel that you have a
> > devine right and you will do evil.
>
> No, I won't do evil, because I have empathy.
You appear not to be able to see youself from outside - this does tend
to indicate a lack of empathy. Why is it I think you are delussional?
If you have empathy you will be able to offer a view on this.
> > The saying goes - good people do good things, bad people do bad but for
> > good people to do bad things requires reliigon.
>
> That depends on the religion. A religion that teaches
> "empathy for strangers" and "fight subjugation" is exactly
> what we need to stop people from doing bad things (as
> is their nature).
What we need is increased awareness of humanity, to avoid the
dehumanising of people. We don't need a religion or a cult. What is
needed is people to be free to think and for there to be no
'absolutes'. What is needed is for people to be responsible and aware
of how the world works. Folks like you going on about computer
simulations that are proved because your post tied into an arbitary
religious number that appears to be wrong and the day of the year on
act of terrorism happened (ignoring others) are not helping in my view.
> > > You don't need to run a simulation to create the effects of a
> > > simulation.
> >
> > The effects of a simulation result from running a simulation. To reach
> > the conculstion of a calculation you have to do the calculation!
> > Think about it.
>
> I don't even believe that we are the result of evolution. The
> evolutionary evidence was just constructed and placed there
> for us to find.
So you would take the objective evidence for evolution as invalid as
you have a fantasy about everything being a computer simulation.
You really havnt looked at this from a different angle have you?
> To make us BELIEVE that there was no God.
Well that worked didnt it! Sorry but that makes no logical sense what
so ever. You are trying to predict the motivations of a omnipotent
entity and are saying that it wants us not to believe in it.
Doesnt sound very plausable does it? Try and see things my way.
> So you can't even "do the calculation", because the calculation
> doesn't produce the end result you want. You need to plant
> the evidence instead.
But evolution does produce the results we see - so why fake it? Even
if there was a god it would have just run evolution to get to where it
wanted, which is not likely to be us. We are not the final goal of
evolution as it has no goal, we are a point on a line that stretches
into the future.
> > > You just build the end product, including the fake
> > > archaelogical evidence.
> >
> > Which you will need to simulate in order for it to look like it's got a
> > past. Sort of obvious really.
>
> You don't need to simulate it!!! You simply need to plant
> the evidence!!!
But for the evidence to work it needs to make logical sense, join up
etc, The only way to do that is to run the simulation otherwise it
won't make sense, it'll be like a set you can see behind when you look
closer. To simulate plate techtonices, errosion, the course of rivers
over millions or years, the layers in an ice core, the rings in a tree
and fo rthem all to be consistent and cross referencing requires you do
all the calculations which means running the simulation!
If you dont' the gaps will be bloody obvious.
> > The point is there is most likely in this case as you have no idea why
> > the simulation exists. If it's down to some ego thing then its almost
> > certainly wrong.
>
> It's not wrong. It's here to entertain me.
No you're here to entertian me. You are just my dream. This is just as
valid and equaly as wrong.
> > > You can't drive a jumbo jet through this one. It's all laid out
> > > and scientifically verifiable.
> >
> > Sorry but that is simply not true. I've looked at your 'evidence' and
> > it's just a personal delusion of the worng kind and has the only
>
> It's not a delusion, it is scientifically-verifiable that:
>
> 1. I am the only person who devoted his life to finding out how
> people could turn a blind eye to institutionalized rape, or worse,
> to oppose the ending of it.
So you've never heard of Amnesty International.? Sorry but you
statement is false beyond doubt.
> 2. The result of that work came to a climax in message 666 on
> Sept 11, a miracle.
Urm no.
> 3. I was the only person who "loved my enemy" enough to
> convert to the Mu'tazilah sect of Islam to help the enemy
> escape potential genocide.
But you didnt, you claim to be the second coming of Jesus. Opps. My
understanding of religion is enough to know the two are inconsistent.
It appears that none of the above is true.
> > > The evidence is evidence, and doesn't rely on my anecdotal
> > > experience. But my theory of us living in a computer simulation
> > > with God as the computer programmer only came about due to
> > > anecdotal experience.
> >
> > Which is not evidence - but a illogical conclusion you have made based
> > upon an unstable mental platform.
>
> It is not an illogical conclusion. It is a logical explanation as to
> why evil would exist in this world.
No evil exist because people do things that are against socierty. They
do these things because they consider that is what they need to do to
do well in life. Those with no money will attempt to solve this and
they will turn to crime, those who consider others to be evil will
often do evil like invade other countries and justify it much as you
have.
Evil exists becose of ignorance, much like you have demonstated to me.
You are part of the problem.
> > > Some people have bought into it over the last 2 years.
> > > About 5-10% of people I speak to. I don't speak to a lot
> > > of people.
> >
> > Probaby a good think. The whole 'universe as simluation' will appeal
> > to a lot of folks, but it's not real or provable in anyway. It's not
> > impossible just, like many other similair ideas, highly improbable.
>
> Why do you think it is improbable? It's exactly what you would
> do if you had the technology 1 million years from now. The "real"
> date is probably billions of years from now.
So we are a simulation in a simulation in a simulation? There is no
way to prove this or disprove it so it is highly improbable given what
we know. I came up with the idea about ten years ago - you can
probably see me talking about it in this news group. I dismissed it
because, ultimately, it makes no difference. I also worked out that it
was easier to run the simulation than fake it, especially if you
consider that time between the obserer and those in the simulation does
not have to be related in any way. The whole of time could be
calculated in an instant then the viewer select which bits to look at,
traveling back and forward much like you view a DVD. It's only our
view that would have the time line. In effect the future has already
happened in this model.
This is as likely as your model.
You can't base things on assumptions or personal views of what you
would do or how you tihnk things will work - they're likely all to be
wrong. You won't be alive in a million years, nor will humans as we
know them.
Stew Dean
wvantwiller
@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> I used to be a hard-core atheist who used Occam's Razor
> to postulate that there was no god. However, something
> happened which made me change my mind and believe
> that we are living in the equivalent of a computer
> simulation, and that God is the computer programmer,
> literally in a different dimension, the same way that when
> you play a computer game, you are in a different dimension
> to the characters in the computer game.
>
> Although I believe that we should use science and evolution
> to explain our environment, I believe that the entire 13.7
> billion years of the universe's history is entirely faked, and
> that this is a virtual reality computer simulation that is only
> 39 years old.
>
> For more information see www.moatazilla.org
>
> BFN. Paul.
>
Prove to us it's not just a simulation that's 10 minutes old, or that
you're not just that very programmer fiddling with a runtime error, first.
Or, is the programmer REQUIRED to start the program at YOUR birth (assuming
you're 39 years old) for some bizzare reason?
.
Josh Miles
> kerravon wrote:
>> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>>
>>> But the hypothesis that the universe is a computer simulation
>>> is more than 39 years old. Read Part 1 of Wright's book
>>> "Three Scientists and their Gods". It is about Edward
>>> Fredkin, who seems to be more serious about the hypothesis
>>> than you are.
>> No, you only THINK the world is more than 39 years old.
>> Because that's what the archaelogical evidence suggests.
>> But I believe that all that archaelogical evidence is
>> completely fabricated, part of the simulation itself.
>
> way.
That's probably the least of his problems.
kerravon
> > You also need to see message 666 itself. It is the solution to
> > world freedom:
> >
> > I am AGAINST racism.
> > I am AGAINST sexism.
> > I am AGAINST religious discrimination.
> > I am AGAINST dogma.
> > I am AGAINST subjugation.
> > I RESPECT INDIVIDUALS who VOLUNTARILY donate to COMPLETE STRANGERS (ie
> > different race, different sex, different religion) using their OWN
> > HARD-EARNED MONEY.
> > I will FIGHT using my BRAIN subjugation of ANY HUMAN.
>
> Same here. I just dont need to make a decloration about it - as a
> humanist this is default activity, like many humanists I know.
No, fighting subjugation is new. That one word, "subjugate" is
the key to understanding the world and conflict. NATO is a
NATURAL alliance of anti-subjugators and non-subjugators
against any potential subjugator. The reason the Europeans
opposed the Iraq war is because they are non-subjugators,
while the US/UK/Australia pro-war people are anti-subjugators.
We are in a TRIBE of ANTI-SUBJUGATORS. The Iraqis have
been taught that they are in the tribe of Arabs, Muslims and
Iraqis, and think they have nothing in common with white,
Christian, Americans. What we have in common with the
pro-liberation Iraqis is that we are in the tribe of anti-subjugators.
This is a worldwide tribe that transcends
race/religion/sex/nationality.
> Sorry dude but wanting to be good is what the majority of humans want
> to do, they just often get it wrong because they don't know stuff or
> make mistakes, like thinking they are the second coming of Jesus.
If the majority of humans wanted to do good, they would have done
everything they could to protect Iraqi women from being raped by
their own government, and to free 27 million Iraqis from state-slavery.
They didn't. They all failed.
> > > And you where right. concidences happen all the time.
> >
> > This is the result of my life's work. Yes, it was possible that
> > it was an extraordinary coincidence.
>
> Not even extrodinary - it's 1 in 666 - failry low odds compared to most
> coincidences.
It is rare for a message to be numbered 666. In the blogs,
the message count rarely reaches that number. In
newsgroups, there isn't even a number. The chances of me
writing a message that is numbered 666 is not even 1 in 666.
And the date was Sept 11 both in Australia and the US. There
is only about a 1 in 1000 chance of that happening.
The solution to the War on Terror coming in message 666 on
Sept 11 is nothing short of a miracle.
> That number could also be wrongly translated - the number
> of the beast, according to the christian bible, may well be 616.
It doesn't matter if the "real" number is 616. It is 666 that is
entrenched in our culture.
> And save the 'result of my life's work'. Ask the average chirstian or
> humanist or moral person and oddly its also their life work. You're
> not special or unique.
I wanted to find out why I wanted to go and rescue women from
being raped, while others actually committed the rapes. This is
something that every Christian and humanist should have been
working on. Trying to isolate the difference between them and a
rapist. They weren't working on the problem. Only I was. I
adopted atheism to clear my head and come up with my own
ideology, which included fighting to liberate people.
> > > "I started receiving revelations from God. Unfortunately I can't prove
> > > that this happened"
> > >
> > > That's because it didnt happen.
> >
> > It did happen. You are being close-minded by being sure
> > that it didn't happen.
>
> I'm fairly certain you thought it happened but it ddnt. The evidence
> unfortuanlty is in my favour according to your website. Sorry.
No, the evidence is in my favour, as per my website. You just
haven't grasped the enormity of what I've done.
> > > Have you been particulary distressed or depressed recently - have you
> > > had any major life changing events happen to you - perhaps you havnt
> >
> > I devoted my life to finding out how anyone could oppose the
> > liberation of the Iraqi people from state-slavery and the end
> > of institutionalized rape. Exactly as you would hope that any
> > second coming of Jesus would have done.
>
> And you think that what the invasion of Iraq by the US was about? I
There were multiple reasons for the Iraq war, one of which was to
liberate the Iraqi people. And it is the reason why YOU should have
supported the Iraq war.
> personaly oppose the needless murder of innocent women and children so
They weren't murdered. There is a price to be paid for freedom.
If you lived under a dictator who could rape your daughter and
there wasn't a damn thing you could do about it, what price would
YOU be willing to pay for your freedom? When the Japanese
were on their way to Australia, bringing with them the concept of
"comfort women", I believe Australia would have sacrificed 90%
of our population rather than become slaves. In the Alamo they
sacrificed 100%. The Iraqis haven't even had to sacrifice 1%.
The Iraqis sacrificed more in their failed uprising in 1991.
> marched with over a million others through the streets of London
> against this needless war.
You marched in favour of state-slavery and institutionalized rape.
Humanity reached a new low.
> There are other places in the world more
> oppresive and evil than Iraq was
There are not many countries where the government rapes its
own citizens. Regardless, that was no reason to ignore the
plight of the Iraqi women.
> - which comparativley was not as evil
> as the US media may have told you. There was not institutaionalised
> rape for a start,
YES THERE WAS!!! Saddam's jails had rape rooms. Saddam
used to order rape. Quite apart from the torture, murder and
mutilation. Take a look at this, and see what you supported:
http://www.benadorassociates.com/media/r9der1.ram
http://www.benadorassociates.com/media/p5osax8.ram
> Sadam was ruthless but he felt what he was doing was
> right, just as you do.
Yes, that is exactly correct. Saddam thought it was right to stay
in power, I thought it was right that everyone should live in freedom.
I am the number 1 supporter of freedom in this world. That's the
difference between me and everyone else. I did everything
possible to protect the Iraqi women from being raped, and to free
the Iraqi slaves. No-one else did what I did. You need to
understand that.
> He was wrong to have those that opposed him
> killed and gassed but in the good and bad situation I look Sadam and
> look at Bush and I fid Bush's recent actions on par with those of
> Sadam.
If you pose moral equivalency between a sadistic dictator like
Saddam and a liberator like Bush, you will never understand what
I have done.
> I suspect you're too close to it to see this.
No, you're too far down the "moral equivalency" road that you can't
see the need to fight evil.
> > > Sorry - that's a slam dunk. Delusions of grandure are also part of the
> > > illness.
> >
> > Not when they're true.
>
> What is more likely - you are delusional or you are the second coming?
My actions show that if anyone on this earth is the second coming,
it is me. A miracle seals the deal.
> War can not be justified in terms of freedom.
Yes it can!!! This is exactly the problem. You are not following
message 666. You are not fighting subjugation. You are
happily living in freedom yourself, and you don't see any need
to let the Iraqis have the same freedom you have. Freedom to
say whatever you want without getting your tongue cut out.
Freedom is worth fighting for. That's why your country didn't
surrender to Nazi Germany.
> > No-one has done more for world freedom than I have.
>
> Except me and millions of others. I'm sorry but you are either
> delusisonal or you are bullshitting me. I am not a saint and don't
> consider myself a unstoppabel force for good that has radically changed
> the world, and you are not either. If you are doing good for you own
> ego you are not doing good for the right reasons.
I was doing good because I wanted to protect Iraqi women from
being raped by their own government out of EMPATHY. I incorrectly
assumed that everyone else felt the same way. It wasn't until the
Iraq war that I found out that not everyone thought the same way
that I did. I needed to find out what the difference between them
and me was.
> Jesus never said he was the messiah or the only son of god.
I didn't do it because I thought I was Jesus. I was an atheist, and
proud that it was an atheist who had figured out the solution, not
a stupid Christian. It was only when the solution (my religion, which
I had derived over my lifetime) came in message 666 on Sept 11
that I suddenly realised that my atheism might be incorrect. The
revelations shortly after sealed the deal.
> I personaly think freedom comes thorugh having a better understanding
> of the world, through education, through support of children and
> through use fo empathy in creating technology and tools, for example.
> It comes through the breaking down of deeply heald historical
> differences, through the reduction if arms traiding, through the use of
> social change over violent intevention that ultimately leads to
> suffering. If you think tanks and plains can free people in a ways
> better than the fight of social change over even the same time period
> you are deeply mislead Paul.
No, you are deeply misled. You can't educate the Iraqi people
when they have a dictator who controls the education process.
There is no way for the Iraqi people to overthrow their
government. It is a technical impossibility. They tried in 1991
and 100,000 people (count them) died without achieving a thing.
They needed our help. You should have offered them help.
Instead, you actively stood in the way of freeing 27 million people
from state-slavery and ending institutionalized rape, torture,
mutilation and murder. You need to appreciate exactly what it
is you have done.
> > If they had, they would have done
> > what I did. They would have been in the Iraqi blogs trying to
> > find out why not all Iraqi people were happy to see the end of
> > institutionalized rape, and why so many westerners opposed
> > it. They weren't there. EVERYONE should have been there.
> > Everyone should have been trying to make sure that Iraqi
> > women were never raped by their own government ever again.
>
> No Paul, You are fixating on one small spec on a pile of shit. You may
> clear up this spec only to produce much more. You have to get a bigger
> picture.
The rape of Iraqi women is a symptom of a bigger problem - the
state-slavery of 27 million people. That is the bigger picture.
The subjugation of 27 million innocent people. Why didn't you
have empathy for these poor slaves?
> > and found that the other people there
> > didn't even know what had happened, nor did they convert to
> > the Mu'tazilah sect of Islam in an attempt to save the Muslims
> > from self-destruction.
>
> Probably for reasons you dont' understand.
Yes, I understand. The Christians are more religious bigots
than they are practicing what Jesus said - "love thy enemy".
I am the ONLY one who truly loved my enemy.
> > You basically need to take a step back and see what I've done.
> > It is enormous.
>
> No Paul, it's not. Even if you had changed one aspect of the world for
> the better, which at the moment it appears you havnt achived,
>
> Even if you had done many good acts for mankind you wouldnt be on here
> saying you'd done more then anyone else would you?
I have isolated the perfect religion. Scientifically-derived. The
ideology that needs to be exported to the Middle East in order
to win the War on Terror. It's not Christianity that needs to be
exported, it is message 666.
BFN. Paul.
Mark VandeWettering
> I used to be a hard-core atheist who used Occam's Razor
> to postulate that there was no god. However, something
> happened which made me change my mind and believe
> that we are living in the equivalent of a computer
> simulation, and that God is the computer programmer,
> literally in a different dimension, the same way that when
> you play a computer game, you are in a different dimension
> to the characters in the computer game.
Let me guess, you saw "The Matrix"....
It was just a movie starring Keanu Reeves. How seriously
do you think you should take it?
Mark
Mike Painter
> I used to be a hard-core atheist who used Occam's Razor
> to postulate that there was no god. However, something
> happened which made me change my mind and believe
> that we are living in the equivalent of a computer
> simulation, and that God is the computer programmer,
> literally in a different dimension, the same way that when
> you play a computer game, you are in a different dimension
> to the characters in the computer game.
>
> to explain our environment, I believe that the entire 13.7
> billion years of the universe's history is entirely faked, and
> that this is a virtual reality computer simulation that is only
> 39 years old.
>
> For more information see www.moatazilla.org
>
> BFN. Paul.
The world was created by Maeve The Cat Last Thursday.
http://web.archive.org/web/19990420141357/http://weber.u.washington.edu/~aexia/thursday.htm
Only the faithful can see her picture.
kerravon
> > I want to solve ALL those problems. But we had an opportunity
> > to solve one particularly nasty problem - the rape of Iraqi women
> > by their own government. The state-slavery of 27 million Iraqis,
> > who didn't even have the right to not be raped. It is something
> > that EVERYONE should have supported, but a majority didn't.
>
> And why was this? Doesnt it strike you as odd?
Yep, absolutely. I was shocked. I thought that 90% of
Australians would support replacing a sadistic dictator
with a democracy. But only 50% did.
> > It was VITAL to understand how anyone could ignore the screams
> > of the Iraqi women as they were being raped by their own
> > government.
>
> How do you know this happened? It appears that the US army was also
> guilty of this as well.
If the US army does it, it is ILLEGAL and the perpetrators
will be CHARGED and JAILED. Under Saddam it was LEGAL
for him to rape Iraqi women. Do you understand the difference
between LEGAL and ILLEGAL?
> > Understanding that would explain why some
> > people rape while others protect. Everyone should have been
> > trying to understand the problem. But I was the only one doing
> > so. And it was I who came up with the solution.
>
> Which was?
To "fight subjugation". Rape is a form of subjugation, and
entirely natural. People have raped throughout history, and
they didn't need to be taught it. It comes naturally. Because
humans are natural subjugators. To overcome this we need
a religion that teaches to fight subjugation, so that we become
protectors rather than criminals. The Europeans have
essentially been taught "don't subjugate", which is why they
neither commit the crime nor protect.
> > > In my view I do more to help more than you appear to be doing.
> >
> > You can't do more than liberating 27 million people from
> > state-slavery.
>
> But you didnt do that.
I did. I voted to send in the security forces at my disposal to
liberate Iraq.
> It's also not fact that there was state-slavery,
Yes there was. The Iraqi people were effectively Saddam's slaves.
They had no rights at all. They had to obey his every command.
He was their master, and punishment for disobedience was
horrific.
> at least not on a scale found in other countries. Why
> Iraq?
Because there was an opportunity to do something about Iraq.
A pretext had been presented. It was a geostrategically sound
move to make. We could liberate Iraq on the back of US
geostrategy.
> > And it was necessary to understand why we have bad people
> > in the world. The answer is that we have undesirable genetic
> > traits, and we need a religion to counteract those traits.
>
> Whooooooo there. You're way off target. Genetic traits don't lead to
> bad people - anti-social behavour is the product of socierty NOT
> genetics.
You're wrong. It's in our nature to be selfish predators. It's
in our nature to subjugate. No-one needs to teach these
things, it comes naturally.
> I suggest, for moral reasons, you drop the idea that behavour is tied
> into genetics.
I'm dealing with the reality. Men rape without having been
taught to rape. Even when they've explicitly been taught
not to rape, they still do it. Nothing teaches a man to rape,
it comes naturally. That is the natural state of humans.
The more we rape, the more we pass on our genes.
> All evil people in history considered they where doing good. Be very
> careful of what you are looking to do, you could be the problem not the
> solution.
I'm ending rape. I'm the solution.
> > > Why the fixation on Iraqi women?
> >
> > It was the most obvious example of a human rights abuse.
> > Everyone should be able to agree that raping women is
> > wrong.
>
> And they do. But I can't see anything you've said that in anyway a
> solution.
Fight subjugation. Join the tribe of anti-subjugators. Reply "yes"
to:
I pledge allegiance to use my brain to fight subjugation of my species
- do you?
> > > Provide a link to show this is still happening and then
> >
> > It isn't anymore! Thanks to the war there has been an
> > institutional change. Iraqi women are now legally protected
> > from being raped.
>
> Doesnt appear to have stopped things..
> http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1007392006
>
> "Michael said a failure by U.S. commanders to hold soldiers to account
> had fostered a climate of impunity among troops"
>
> Looks like the legal cover doesnt quite cover all women. It appears
> that the US troops are guilty of the same crimes as the troops under
> Sadam.
There are a SMALL number of US troops BREAKING THE LAW.
The FACT is that Iraqi women now have full legal protection of
their rights. They can report a rape to the police. Under Saddam,
if you were raped on Saddam's orders, you couldn't report the
crime to the police. Can't you see the difference?
> Meanwhile this kind of activity carries on in places like Sierra Leone,
> Demoocratic Republick of Congo and by the UK troops in Kenya.
NOT LEGALLY!!!
> You did not make rape illegal or stop it happening.
Yes I did.
> What ever victory
> you are claiming I see no evidence to see that it is anything related
> to you.
I supported the Iraq war. Not only did I support it, but I devoted
my life to finding out why others didn't support it. It is due to a
tribal mentality. They view Iraq as a single entity with Saddam
as its legitimate leader. Whereas I view people as individuals,
and I am in the tribe of anti-subjugators, which transcends
race/religion/sex/nationality, and I knew that members of my
tribe were waiting in Iraq for me to free them. You can see them
now, in the Iraqi blogs. They are so happy that I freed them.
Here is one of them:
http://www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
You would have left these people in chains. You failed humanity.
> > No, I won't do evil, because I have empathy.
>
> You appear not to be able to see youself from outside - this does tend
> to indicate a lack of empathy. Why is it I think you are delussional?
> If you have empathy you will be able to offer a view on this.
You think I am delusional because many people make such
claims, and they do not sound believable, and they usually
come from fruitcakes. It is difficult for you to believe that
one of a long list of claims is actually real. This is the
exception, but unless you can understand what I've done
(which is verifiable), there's no chance you will believe me.
> > That depends on the religion. A religion that teaches
> > "empathy for strangers" and "fight subjugation" is exactly
> > what we need to stop people from doing bad things (as
> > is their nature).
>
> What we need is increased awareness of humanity, to avoid the
> dehumanising of people. We don't need a religion or a cult.
Yes we do. We need to directly counter our genetic
tendencies. The only way to do that is with religion/ideology.
Airy-fairy things like "increased awareness of humanity" are
a round-about way of trying to achieve the same thing. It is
not good enough.
> What is
> needed is people to be free to think and for there to be no
> 'absolutes'.
There are absolutes. Rape is wrong.
> What is needed is for people to be responsible and aware
> of how the world works. Folks like you going on about computer
> simulations that are proved because your post tied into an arbitary
> religious number that appears to be wrong and the day of the year on
> act of terrorism happened (ignoring others) are not helping in my view.
It is my message 666 that is helping. It will usher in world
freedom. It is basically what the US is already exporting,
but they don't have the words to describe it. They are
just vaguely exporting "freedom". The Iraqis have been
taught that "freedom" is "independence from Britain".
That is not what freedom is. They had far more freedom
under the British than under Saddam.
> > I don't even believe that we are the result of evolution. The
> > evolutionary evidence was just constructed and placed there
> > for us to find.
>
> So you would take the objective evidence for evolution as invalid as
> you have a fantasy about everything being a computer simulation.
>
> You really havnt looked at this from a different angle have you?
I came FROM the different angle! I used to believe in
evolution, as I simply refused to believe there was a God,
given the evil that existed in the world. There was no
other explanation. Now there is.
> > To make us BELIEVE that there was no God.
>
> Well that worked didnt it! Sorry but that makes no logical sense what
> so ever. You are trying to predict the motivations of a omnipotent
> entity and are saying that it wants us not to believe in it.
>
> Doesnt sound very plausable does it? Try and see things my way.
It does sound plausible. How would YOU construct a computer
simulation? Would you make yourself known and force everyone
to obey you, or would you give them total freedom by making them
think that they don't need to answer to a higher being, they're all
just an abberation of physics? Basically the world is set up the
way I would want it set up.
> > So you can't even "do the calculation", because the calculation
> > doesn't produce the end result you want. You need to plant
> > the evidence instead.
>
> But evolution does produce the results we see - so why fake it? Even
You don't know that evolution produces the results we see.
I doubt it.
> if there was a god it would have just run evolution to get to where it
> wanted, which is not likely to be us. We are not the final goal of
> evolution as it has no goal, we are a point on a line that stretches
> into the future.
That's only your theory. I believe we are indeed the final
goal, and that this universe exists for our enjoyment.
> > You don't need to simulate it!!! You simply need to plant
> > the evidence!!!
>
> But for the evidence to work it needs to make logical sense, join up
> etc,
Yes, it needs to APPEAR as if it joins up. There needs to be
sufficient fossil records for you to BELIEVE that evolution
occurred. I don't believe it did.
> The only way to do that is to run the simulation otherwise it
> won't make sense, it'll be like a set you can see behind when you look
> closer. To simulate plate techtonices, errosion, the course of rivers
> over millions or years, the layers in an ice core, the rings in a tree
> and fo rthem all to be consistent and cross referencing requires you do
> all the calculations which means running the simulation!
>
> If you dont' the gaps will be bloody obvious.
This is a problem for the computer programmer to do.
Construct a model with no discernable gaps. There are
multiple ways of doing this, the end result is all that
matters.
> > > The point is there is most likely in this case as you have no idea why
> > > the simulation exists. If it's down to some ego thing then its almost
> > > certainly wrong.
> >
> > It's not wrong. It's here to entertain me.
>
> No you're here to entertian me. You are just my dream. This is just as
> valid and equaly as wrong.
You're not the one protecting people's human rights.
> > 1. I am the only person who devoted his life to finding out how
> > people could turn a blind eye to institutionalized rape, or worse,
> > to oppose the ending of it.
>
> So you've never heard of Amnesty International.? Sorry but you
> statement is false beyond doubt.
Amnesty International opposed letting the US end institutionalized
rape in Iraq. And they made no attempt to find out why they and
others took such a HORRIFIC stance.
> > 2. The result of that work came to a climax in message 666 on
> > Sept 11, a miracle.
>
> Urm no.
Yes, that is scientifically verifiable. The message is still online.
> > 3. I was the only person who "loved my enemy" enough to
> > convert to the Mu'tazilah sect of Islam to help the enemy
> > escape potential genocide.
>
> But you didnt, you claim to be the second coming of Jesus. Opps. My
> understanding of religion is enough to know the two are inconsistent.
You're wrong. The second coming of Jesus has converted to
Islam in an attempt to save the Muslims from the deep hole
they have dug for themselves.
> It appears that none of the above is true.
They are all true.
> > It is not an illogical conclusion. It is a logical explanation as to
> > why evil would exist in this world.
>
> No evil exist because people do things that are against socierty. They
> do these things because they consider that is what they need to do to
> do well in life. Those with no money will attempt to solve this and
> they will turn to crime,
Yes, we are genetically selfish. But I believe (hope) that the
evil that is perpetrated against innocent people is actually
being simulated.
> those who consider others to be evil will
> often do evil like invade other countries and justify it much as you
> have.
This is where you're falling down. It is not evil to LIBERATE
another country from state-slavery. It is the ultimate act of
benevolence. It is exactly what God wants. I thought there
was no God, so I was doing it in lieu of God doing it. Using
science.
> Evil exists becose of ignorance, much like you have demonstated to me.
> You are part of the problem.
No, I am the solution.
> > Why do you think it is improbable? It's exactly what you would
> > do if you had the technology 1 million years from now. The "real"
> > date is probably billions of years from now.
>
> So we are a simulation in a simulation in a simulation?
Potentially. Potentially the level above us is not the "real"
God but merely creatures with sophisticated computers,
who may not have any knowledge about the "real" God
either.
> There is no
> way to prove this or disprove it so it is highly improbable given what
> we know.
It's not improbable at all. The chances of us being here exactly
when computers were invented, but not to have the technology
to download our brains onto silicon on our own are very remote.
BFN. Paul.
jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us
kerravon wrote:
> stew dean wrote:
>
> > way.
>
> However, I have been provided with conclusive proof
> that there is a God in a different dimension, who can
> communicate directly into our brains and manipulate
> our bodies, in exactly the same way that a computer
> programmer could manipulate his computer simulation.
>
>
> My age.
So, it's a mid-life crisis!
I had one of those, when I was 34. You'll get over it. You'll turn 40,
the world won't end and you'll move on. It's like death... it happens
to all of us, if you live long enough.
Look at the bright side, you're too old to consider suicide. If you
were going to kill yourself, you've already wasted so much of your
life, there isn't really any point to ending it, now.
Cheer up! This is the first day of the rest of your life.
JTG 9/15/06
kerravon
Richard Smol wrote:
Just because we have no way to test the hypothesis, doesn't mean
it is useless. It provides a tool for us to talk about a potential way
that the universe has been designed. It is a GREAT concept. It
doesn't even require the "supernatural", merely an ordinary
computer programmer. It is a great way of looking at the universe,
even if it is not actually true.
What is true is that this universe fits the MODEL of a computer
simulation, with a God in another dimension to us which is why
he can't be detected. However, as of Sept 11, 2004, we now
have hard evidence of his existence. Even if most people
prefer to stick their head in the sand.
BFN. Paul.
kerravon
> Prove to us it's not just a simulation that's 10 minutes old, or that
I can't prove that.
> you're not just that very programmer fiddling with a runtime error, first.
I believe I am the programmer running the VR computer
simulation.
> Or, is the programmer REQUIRED to start the program at YOUR birth (assuming
> you're 39 years old) for some bizzare reason?
It's what I would have done if I had the computer technology.
To make me appreciate a world where women aren't raped.
BFN. Paul.
kerravon
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> Let me guess, you saw "The Matrix"....
>
> It was just a movie starring Keanu Reeves. How seriously
> do you think you should take it?
When I saw the movie, I didn't even consider the
possibility that it might actually be true. It wasn't
until I received revelations and was forced to come
up with a theory to explain where God was. But I
don't think it is remotely like "The Matrix". I don't
believe our bodies exist outside this universe.
BFN. Paul.
Turner
What exactly did you even do to end rape in Iraq???
stew dean
kerravon wrote:
> stew dean wrote:
>
> > > You also need to see message 666 itself. It is the solution to
> > > world freedom:
> > >
> > > I am AGAINST racism.
> > > I am AGAINST sexism.
> > > I am AGAINST religious discrimination.
> > > I am AGAINST dogma.
> > > I am AGAINST subjugation.
> > > I RESPECT INDIVIDUALS who VOLUNTARILY donate to COMPLETE STRANGERS (ie
> > > different race, different sex, different religion) using their OWN
> > > HARD-EARNED MONEY.
> > > I will FIGHT using my BRAIN subjugation of ANY HUMAN.
> >
> > Same here. I just dont need to make a decloration about it - as a
> > humanist this is default activity, like many humanists I know.
>
> No, fighting subjugation is new.
In not meaning of the word is this true. I'll ignore the rest as the
first assumption is false.
<snip>
> > Sorry dude but wanting to be good is what the majority of humans want
> > to do, they just often get it wrong because they don't know stuff or
> > make mistakes, like thinking they are the second coming of Jesus.
>
> If the majority of humans wanted to do good, they would have done
> everything they could to protect Iraqi women from being raped by
> their own government, and to free 27 million Iraqis from state-slavery.
> They didn't. They all failed.
So they would have prioritised the iraqi women over the larger groups
of women suffering? You have no idea.
>
> > > > And you where right. concidences happen all the time.
> > >
> > > This is the result of my life's work. Yes, it was possible that
> > > it was an extraordinary coincidence.
> >
> > Not even extrodinary - it's 1 in 666 - failry low odds compared to most
> > coincidences.
>
> It is rare for a message to be numbered 666.
Or 616,
> And the date was Sept 11 both in Australia and the US. There
> is only about a 1 in 1000 chance of that happening.
But it has no relevance. September 11th is a much hyped terrorist
attack on america which has been played up more than other terrorist
attacks. In terms of loss of life 9/11 has much smaller numbers than,
say, innocent people killed in the attack of the US on Iraq. It's worth
getting things in perspective.
> The solution to the War on Terror coming in message 666 on
> Sept 11 is nothing short of a miracle.
There was no solution. You hanvt come up with anything. Rape being
illegal would have happened if you had said nothing and done nothing.
That's fairly obvious.
>
> > That number could also be wrongly translated - the number
> > of the beast, according to the christian bible, may well be 616.
>
> It doesn't matter if the "real" number is 616. It is 666 that is
> entrenched in our culture.
And? It's an arbitary figure. You could have chosen different numbers
as having meaning - you just chose ones that hat significance to you
and others. The message it's self appears to be unremarkable but you
have amplified it in you head as something remarkable. More fool you.
> > And save the 'result of my life's work'. Ask the average chirstian or
> > humanist or moral person and oddly its also their life work. You're
> > not special or unique.
>
> I wanted to find out why I wanted to go and rescue women from
> being raped, while others actually committed the rapes.
Becaues you want to do good and where out raged. Nothing new.
> This is
> something that every Christian and humanist should have been
> working on.
Why? There are thousands of other more valid things to be working on.
You don't appear to get this. And you came up with no solution. That's
something that I better stress yet again. No solution dude.
> > > > "I started receiving revelations from God. Unfortunately I can't prove
> > > > that this happened"
> > > >
> > > > That's because it didnt happen.
> > >
> > > It did happen. You are being close-minded by being sure
> > > that it didn't happen.
> >
> > I'm fairly certain you thought it happened but it ddnt. The evidence
> > unfortuanlty is in my favour according to your website. Sorry.
>
> No, the evidence is in my favour, as per my website.
There is no evidence here, there is a coincidence and there is evidence
that you are a mild parnoid schtzophrenic in a very objective and text
book way. Delusions of grandure, the numerology, the claims of uniqe
acts and the claiming of responsibility for things that have nothing to
do with you.
> You just
> haven't grasped the enormity of what I've done.
What is it you did do - you hanvt said.
> > > > Have you been particulary distressed or depressed recently - have you
> > > > had any major life changing events happen to you - perhaps you havnt
> > >
> > > I devoted my life to finding out how anyone could oppose the
> > > liberation of the Iraqi people from state-slavery and the end
> > > of institutionalized rape. Exactly as you would hope that any
> > > second coming of Jesus would have done.
> >
> > And you think that what the invasion of Iraq by the US was about? I
>
> There were multiple reasons for the Iraq war, one of which was to
> liberate the Iraqi people. And it is the reason why YOU should have
> supported the Iraq war.
I could see the bigger picture, the invasion did not lead to liberation
for many, in fact for many death and rape was the result. This carries
on and freedom is held in check by out of control US troops and an
unstable power struggle.
I am not suprised by what happened and is why I did not suppor the Iraq
war. Would the Iraq people have been better off under Sadam? It's
hard to say, you appear to have bought the false idea that it was a
country enslaved that needed freeing from a dictator. It wasnt quite
like that.
> > personaly oppose the needless murder of innocent women and children so
>
> They weren't murdered. There is a price to be paid for freedom.
So it's not murder if you don't mean the bomb to land on them. Right.
Sorry but it was not a price that the people of Iraq wanted to pay.
Sorry but I'm begining to see you are quite an evil person.
<snip>
> > marched with over a million others through the streets of London
> > against this needless war.
>
> You marched in favour of state-slavery and institutionalized rape.
> Humanity reached a new low.
No - I marched against murder and rape that comes with war and against
the fascist invasion of the US in order to support it's world postiion
that I could see would and so far has, failed.
Ask yourself why did the US invade Iraq - was it because Sadam was
ignoring human rights? No, that is the surface reason. Sadam is gent
compared to many others you'll see on the Amnesity International site.
The invasion, which had nothing to do with terrorism or any threat to
the US, was about the contiued power of the US. You are not fighting
subjugation you are promoting it!
> > There are other places in the world more
> > oppresive and evil than Iraq was
>
> There are not many countries where the government rapes its
> own citizens.
Oh yes there is. Amnesty International.
> Regardless, that was no reason to ignore the
> plight of the Iraqi women.
It wasnt ignored and other acts do not go ignored. You just don't know
about them whilst others are working on fighting for freedom and human
rights.
> > - which comparativley was not as evil
> > as the US media may have told you. There was not institutaionalised
> > rape for a start,
>
> YES THERE WAS!!! Saddam's jails had rape rooms.
Just like the US prisons afterwards? What exactly are you saying -
it's bad for Saddam's men to rape prisioner but not US soldiers?
> > Sadam was ruthless but he felt what he was doing was
> > right, just as you do.
>
> Yes, that is exactly correct. Saddam thought it was right to stay
> in power, I thought it was right that everyone should live in freedom.
> I am the number 1 supporter of freedom in this world.
Sorry but by supporting the fascist regime of Bush's administration you
are running counter to freedom. You don't appear to understand that
using war to free people is like using a napalm to light a candle on a
birthday cake.
> That's the difference between me and everyone else. I did everything
> possible to protect the Iraqi women from being raped, and to free
> the Iraqi slaves. No-one else did what I did. You need to
> understand that.
I don't understand it because, objectively, not a word of this is true.
Your views are not consistant with wanting freedom and you don't appear
to have done anything. If anything you are supporting US oppression.
Don't you wonder why there is ongoing conflict in Iraq? Doesnt that
strike you as odd? You appear to be closing your ears and eyes to the
fact you supported an unjust, illegal peice of miltary action. Don't
give me that 'freeing the slaves' bullshit again.
> > He was wrong to have those that opposed him
> > killed and gassed but in the good and bad situation I look Sadam and
> > look at Bush and I fid Bush's recent actions on par with those of
> > Sadam.
>
> If you pose moral equivalency between a sadistic dictator like
> Saddam and a liberator like Bush, you will never understand what
> I have done.
Bush is not a liberator. The majority of the world do not view him as a
liberator and the US troops where not welcomed universaly. Then
there's the case of the US supporting the terrorist activity of Israel
- sorry I forgot it's not terrorism if you use gun ships and have an
army.
> > I suspect you're too close to it to see this.
>
> No, you're too far down the "moral equivalency" road that you can't
> see the need to fight evil.
I do - that's why I'm arguing against you supporting what I consider to
be evil - that is the actions of Bush.
>
> > > > Sorry - that's a slam dunk. Delusions of grandure are also part of the
> > > > illness.
> > >
> > > Not when they're true.
> >
> > What is more likely - you are delusional or you are the second coming?
>
> My actions show that if anyone on this earth is the second coming,
> it is me. A miracle seals the deal.
You're a paranoid schitzophrenic that supports fascist power and the
use of weapons to over throw regimes (there are much more effective way
but require longer term planning and more use of politics). Even
claiming you are more holy than others whilst supporting war?!?! I
mean you're no force for freedom - I see you as increasing the obvious.
>
> > War can not be justified in terms of freedom.
>
> Yes it can!!!
Is this the five minute arguement? I stand by what I say.
> This is exactly the problem. You are not following
> message 666. You are not fighting subjugation.
But I am - that of the US. I like the US and have family there, I just
think the current administration are right wing arseholes with fascist
tendencies and a lust for power - something YOU are supporting.
I appear to be doing a better job of fighting subjugation and all that
stuff about racism etc than you and I am not a messiah. Perhaps you
should ask others 'what would Jesus do' as you don't appear to be
getting the idea of being good and humble.
> You are
> happily living in freedom yourself, and you don't see any need
> to let the Iraqis have the same freedom you have.
Oh I do - that's why I marched against the war. There where political
engines in action that could have resolved the problem but where
blasted apart by the action of the US and the UK.
> Freedom to
> say whatever you want without getting your tongue cut out.
> Freedom is worth fighting for. That's why your country didn't
> surrender to Nazi Germany.
Defence is one thing - attacking with no justification is another.
> > > No-one has done more for world freedom than I have.
> >
> > Except me and millions of others. I'm sorry but you are either
> > delusisonal or you are bullshitting me. I am not a saint and don't
> > consider myself a unstoppabel force for good that has radically changed
> > the world, and you are not either. If you are doing good for you own
> > ego you are not doing good for the right reasons.
>
> I was doing good because I wanted to protect Iraqi women from
> being raped by their own government out of EMPATHY.
Nice - what did you do again?
> I incorrectly
> assumed that everyone else felt the same way. It wasn't until the
> Iraq war that I found out that not everyone thought the same way
> that I did. I needed to find out what the difference between them
> and me was.
Well apart from the hundreds who where already working on the problem
you don't appear ot be aware of many where trying to solve the big
problem.
> > Jesus never said he was the messiah or the only son of god.
>
> I didn't do it because I thought I was Jesus.
What did you do again? You posted a message?
> > I personaly think freedom comes thorugh having a better understanding
> > of the world, through education, through support of children and
> > through use fo empathy in creating technology and tools, for example.
> > It comes through the breaking down of deeply heald historical
> > differences, through the reduction if arms traiding, through the use of
> > social change over violent intevention that ultimately leads to
> > suffering. If you think tanks and plains can free people in a ways
> > better than the fight of social change over even the same time period
> > you are deeply mislead Paul.
>
> No, you are deeply misled. You can't educate the Iraqi people
> when they have a dictator who controls the education process.
Very true - never said things where easy but I consider there would
have been options that would have lead to a stable country and the
people of Iraq overthrowing the govermnet themselves AND keeping a
secular govenment to avoid civil war and continued suffering of women
and children.
> There is no way for the Iraqi people to overthrow their
> government. It is a technical impossibility. They tried in 1991
> and 100,000 people (count them) died without achieving a thing.
> They needed our help.
And we should have provided it instead of saying 'out of the way -
we're blowing your country apart before failing to put it back together
again'.
> You should have offered them help.
> Instead, you actively stood in the way of freeing 27 million people
> from state-slavery and ending institutionalized rape, torture,
> mutilation and murder.
No I stood in the way of war not in the ongoing solution to the
problems in Iraq. I support the fight for freedom through Amnesty
International.
> You need to appreciate exactly what it
> is you have done.
I do appreciate exactly what I did and stand by it 100% especially
having followed the whole thing unfold in a very unsprising way. I
spoke to my MP, marched, argued with others and continued to support
those who are anti war. I do this with a clean conscoius and renewed
vigor
Again I ask you why did the US invade Iraq?
> > > If they had, they would have done
> > > what I did. They would have been in the Iraqi blogs trying to
> > > find out why not all Iraqi people were happy to see the end of
> > > institutionalized rape, and why so many westerners opposed
> > > it. They weren't there. EVERYONE should have been there.
> > > Everyone should have been trying to make sure that Iraqi
> > > women were never raped by their own government ever again.
> >
> > No Paul, You are fixating on one small spec on a pile of shit. You may
> > clear up this spec only to produce much more. You have to get a bigger
> > picture.
>
> The rape of Iraqi women is a symptom of a bigger problem - the
> state-slavery of 27 million people.
Was it state slavery? Really? No.
> > > and found that the other people there
> > > didn't even know what had happened, nor did they convert to
> > > the Mu'tazilah sect of Islam in an attempt to save the Muslims
> > > from self-destruction.
> >
> > Probably for reasons you dont' understand.
>
> Yes, I understand. The Christians are more religious bigots
> than they are practicing what Jesus said - "love thy enemy".
> I am the ONLY one who truly loved my enemy.
By blowing them to crap. You hypocrit.
> > > You basically need to take a step back and see what I've done.
> > > It is enormous.
> >
> > No Paul, it's not. Even if you had changed one aspect of the world for
> > the better, which at the moment it appears you havnt achived,
> >
> > Even if you had done many good acts for mankind you wouldnt be on here
> > saying you'd done more then anyone else would you?
>
> I have isolated the perfect religion. Scientifically-derived.
The perfect reliigon is no religion although, as a humanist, I support
reliigous freedom providing it does not affect the freedom of others.
Science and religion are not related and trying to mix them ends up
with a mess.
> The ideology that needs to be exported to the Middle East in order
> to win the War on Terror. It's not Christianity that needs to be
> exported, it is message 666.
Which is essentialy humanism which you appera to be ignoring in you
support for war.
Let me be clear - I am for human rights and against oppression - and
this is why I am anti war as a way of achiving these aims.
Stew Dean
stew dean
Turner wrote:
> What exactly did you even do to end rape in Iraq???
I was wondering that. He claimed to have converted to Islam - but then
claims to be the second coming of Jesus. He's very confused. He keeps
on about posting a message on the internet - as if that can make a
difference. He also claims to have pointed out that rape should be
illegal in Iraq - as if everyone else had somehow overlooked this.
Maybe he shoudl tell them about murder and theft as well.
Stew Dean
CreateThis
>wvantwiller wrote:
>
>> Prove to us it's not just a simulation that's 10 minutes old, or that
>
>I can't prove that.
>
>> you're not just that very programmer fiddling with a runtime error, first.
>
>I believe I am the programmer running the VR computer
>simulation.
Of course - the nutcase always believes himself to be a central figure
in the nutcase fantasy. For instance, reincarnationists always
believe they were Cleopatra or King Tut in a previous life and not
just one of the faceless Egyptian schlubs who got crushed pushing a
20-ton rock up a pyramid. It's your nutcase fantasy, after all - what
would be the point if you didn't get a starring role?
CT
Turner
Yes, he seems to be under the impression that he has done more in the
name of freedom than anyone else ever, yet all I can gather of what
he's done from what he's written is that he voted to support the war in
Iraq.
Definitely a contender for the Nobel Peace Prize.
CreateThis
>... You just
>haven't grasped the enormity of what I've done.
As enormous as you think it is, there may not be room for two hands on
it.
CT
Puppet_Sock
[snip guy who has watched _The Matrix_ and thinks he's the first person
to discover the implications]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis
It is commonly called "last Thursday-ism" here. And there are
*many* variation on this scheme. For example: You have pulled,
seemingly out of your ass, the time 39 years for the age of the
universe. Well, how do you know that the universe has existed
for the time you remember? How do you know that you were not
started last Thursday with the memories in place that you now
have. Indeed, how do you know that all those geology and
astronomy things you have the memory of hearing about are
in fact there?
How do you know the simulation extends any farther than a few
inches past the end of your nose?
How do you know your existence is even continuous? Maybe
the Great Coder only runs the portions of the simulation that
he finds interesting? Maybe God likes Thursdays from 4:07 PM
to 4:08 PM, and just "fast forwards" the rest of the week to
"save batteries" or whatever? As soon as you start thinking
about such notions as Omphalos, you realize why it's named
for what it is named for. Namely, it's named for navel gazing.
It is an entirely useless notion.
Socks
Inez
> It is rare for a message to be numbered 666. In the blogs,
> the message count rarely reaches that number. In
> newsgroups, there isn't even a number. The chances of me
> writing a message that is numbered 666 is not even 1 in 666.
>
> And the date was Sept 11 both in Australia and the US. There
> is only about a 1 in 1000 chance of that happening.
Your theory is that there are 1000 days per year?
> The solution to the War on Terror coming in message 666 on
> Sept 11 is nothing short of a miracle.
>
That's a pretty low quality miracle you've got there.
Yesterday I was playing bridge with my boyfriend and his parents. I
was dealt a hand with 26 points, and my boyfriend had the missing ace I
needed to complete my slam. I believe this is a rather larger miracle
than yours which makes me the 3rd coming of Jesus Christ.
Desertphile
kerravon wrote:
> I used to be a hard-core atheist who used Occam's Razor
Idiot.
> to postulate that there was no god. However, something
> happened which made me change my mind and believe
> that we are living in the equivalent of a computer
> simulation, and that God is the computer programmer,
> literally in a different dimension, the same way that when
> you play a computer game, you are in a different dimension
> to the characters in the computer game.
>
> Although I believe that we should use science and evolution
> to explain our environment, I believe that the entire 13.7
> billion years of the universe's history is entirely faked, and
> that this is a virtual reality computer simulation that is only
> 39 years old.
The lunatic professor Frank Tipler got there before you.
On the troll scale of from 0 to 1,000 I give your attempt a "16." You
really need to try harder if you wish to make people believe you are
insane.
Desertphile
Bobby Bryant wrote:
> In article <1158299249.6...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "kerravon" <kerr...@w3.to> writes:
> > I used to be a hard-core atheist who used Occam's Razor to postulate
> > that there was no god. However, something happened which made me
> > change my mind and believe that we are living in the equivalent of a
> > computer simulation, and that God is the computer programmer,
> > literally in a different dimension, the same way that when you play
> > a computer game, you are in a different dimension to the characters
> > in the computer game.
> Are we to guess what happened to make you believe that?
A mighty blow to the head?
A prolonged feaver?
Desertphile
kerravon wrote:
> stew dean wrote:
>
> >
> > "When I posted my message describing who I was, it was message number
> > 666 (in the bible as the number of the anti-christ) and the date was
> > Sept 11, 2004. You can verify this yourself as the message is still
> > online. This combination of 666 and 9/11 stunned me, but I was still
> > clinging to my atheistic viewpoint that such things are just
> > coincidences."
> You also need to see message 666 itself. It is the solution to
> world freedom:
Unfortunately for your schizophrenia, the oldest copies of "Revelation"
state "the number of the beast" is 636, not 666. Maybe you should go
back and read message number 636, eh?
Desertphile
Vend wrote:
> stew dean wrote:
> > Drink water, get fresh air, cut down on coffee, smoking and high sugar
> > content food (especialy coke and even diet coke)
> A little lithium carbonate would also help :)
"Nurse, three quarts of chlorpromazine, stat! It's an emergency!"
Desertphile
> kerravon wrote:
> > This is the result of my life's work. Yes, it was possible that
> > it was an extraordinary coincidence.
> Not even extrodinary - it's 1 in 666 - failry low odds compared to most
> coincidences. That number could also be wrongly translated - the number
> of the beast, according to the christian bible, may well be 616.
The third-century version of "Revelation" has the number "616." The
fourth-century version uses "636." It wasn't until the 600s that "666"
was being used as the coded number for Nero.
> And save the 'result of my life's work'. Ask the average chirstian or
> humanist or moral person and oddly its also their life work. You're
> not special or unique.
Almost all people are not special or unique, damn them.
Inez
13 is also a scary number, he might want to check that post as well.
Also the number 3, because the trinity has got to be a lot more holy
than the number of the beast. On the other hand, 42 is the answer to
life, the universe, and everything, and there are 7 deadly sins as well
as 7 brides for 7 brothers, which makes 14 spouses. Further, we know
that 2 is company, and a stitch in time saves 9. Just my 2 cents.
Desertphile
Turner wrote:
> What exactly did you even do to end rape in Iraq???
He made a web page and then posted to talk.origins
Golly, that sure was heroic!
Desertphile
> stew dean wrote:
>
> > > I want to solve ALL those problems. But we had an opportunity
> > > to solve one particularly nasty problem - the rape of Iraqi women
> > > by their own government. The state-slavery of 27 million Iraqis,
> > > who didn't even have the right to not be raped. It is something
> > > that EVERYONE should have supported, but a majority didn't.
> >
> > And why was this? Doesnt it strike you as odd?
> Yep, absolutely. I was shocked. I thought that 90% of
> Australians would support replacing a sadistic dictator
> with a democracy.
Er, and exactly when is that going to happen?
Inez
kerravon wrote:
> wvantwiller wrote:
>
> > Prove to us it's not just a simulation that's 10 minutes old, or that
>
> I can't prove that.
>
> > you're not just that very programmer fiddling with a runtime error, first.
>
> I believe I am the programmer running the VR computer
> simulation.
Simulate me a banana split appearing on my desk and I might just
believe you.
> > Or, is the programmer REQUIRED to start the program at YOUR birth (assuming
> > you're 39 years old) for some bizzare reason?
>
> It's what I would have done if I had the computer technology.
> To make me appreciate a world where women aren't raped.
Really? So I got to be raped so you could feel sorry for me? I feel
so honored to be part of your character building system, it just makes
the whole experience seem worthwhile.
Desertphile
stew dean wrote:
> Turner wrote:
> > What exactly did you even do to end rape in Iraq???
> I was wondering that. He claimed to have converted to Islam - but then
> claims to be the second coming of Jesus. He's very confused. He keeps
> on about posting a message on the internet - as if that can make a
> difference. He also claims to have pointed out that rape should be
> illegal in Iraq - as if everyone else had somehow overlooked this.
He appears to be ill, or he is pretending to be--- perhaps for the
"fun" of it. I have my doubts that he really is schizophrenic like he
is letting on.
> Maybe he shoudl tell them about murder and theft as well.
And tell that to Bush2 and the Bush2 Regime while he's at it.
> Stew Dean
CreateThis
>... we had an opportunity
>to solve one particularly nasty problem - the rape of Iraqi women
>by their own government. The state-slavery of 27 million Iraqis,
>who didn't even have the right to not be raped. It is something
>that EVERYONE should have supported, but a majority didn't.
We were never asked to support that. We were asked to support a war
against a nutcase with imaginary links to Al Qaeda and WMDs. Only
after those trumped up excuses were exposed for lies were we offered
the Plan B Lie: "we did it because he's a bad man".
CT
Occidental
QUOTE
Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the
regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other
countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead
of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the
world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition
forces and the will of the United Nations.
To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a
series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he
agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.
He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for
all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by
his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.
snip
Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq
continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and
that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of
political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to
arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by
beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape.
Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence
of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world
by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.
snip
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and
unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons
of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support
for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do
by U.N. Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its
civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and
others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.
END QUOTE
Remarks by the President in Address to the United Nations General
Assembly, September 12, 2002
Nic
kerravon wrote:
> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>
> > But the hypothesis that the universe is a computer simulation
> > is more than 39 years old. Read Part 1 of Wright's book
> > "Three Scientists and their Gods". It is about Edward
> > Fredkin, who seems to be more serious about the hypothesis
> > than you are.
>
> No, you only THINK the world is more than 39 years old.
> Because that's what the archaelogical evidence suggests.
> But I believe that all that archaelogical evidence is
> completely fabricated, part of the simulation itself.
>
> Think about it. If you had the technology to run a sophisticated
> computer simulation, what would YOU do? Would you wait 13.7
> billion years for the simulation to "evolve" into the current state?
> Or would you place the universe in the state you wanted it to be
> in, and just SIMULATE the boring 13.7 billion year history?
>
> happen to be at the exact point of history that has seen the
> invention of the nuclear bomb, and the collapse of communism
> which is (probably) about to usher in worldwide freedom? Also
> computers have only just been invented, so that we can have
> the concept of living in a computer simulation. It's too damn pat.
It *is* too damn pat.
In a typical year I run across 3 things that are too damn pat. What am
I supposed to do? If you set the threshold of statistical significance
too high, there wouldn't be any scientific conclusions. If you set it
low enough to get some conclusions, then maybe 3 times a year you are
going to make a fool of yourself.
> In a 13.7 billion year history, 1 million years either way is
> absolutely nothing. But it would have drastically altered the
> simulation. 1 million years earlier the simulation would be
> totally crap. 1 million years later and we will have the
> technology to download our brains onto our own VR simulation.
> I propose that we are already 1 million years (or more) down
> the road, and our "descendants" are running this simulation.
>
> Since Sept 11, 2004 we have scientific evidence of the divine.
> See www.moatazilla.org
>
> BFN. Paul.
Therion Ware
<jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"kerravon" <kerr...@w3.to> wrote in message news:1158299249.6...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> I used to be a hard-core atheist who used Occam's Razor
>> to postulate that there was no god. However, something
>> happened which made me change my mind and believe
>> that we are living in the equivalent of a computer
>> simulation, and that God is the computer programmer,
>> literally in a different dimension, the same way that when
>> you play a computer game, you are in a different dimension
>> to the characters in the computer game.
>>
>> Although I believe that we should use science and evolution
>> to explain our environment, I believe that the entire 13.7
>> billion years of the universe's history is entirely faked, and
>> that this is a virtual reality computer simulation that is only
>> 39 years old.
>>
>> For more information see www.moatazilla.org
>
>But the hypothesis that the universe is a computer simulation
>is more than 39 years old. Read Part 1 of Wright's book
>"Three Scientists and their Gods". It is about Edward
>Fredkin, who seems to be more serious about the hypothesis
>than you are.
It got a more recent revival
The original paper presenting the Simulation Argument:
Are You Living In a Computer Simulation?
Nick Bostrom. Philosophical Quarterly, 2003, Vol. 53, No. 211, pp.
243-255. [html] [pdf] (An earlier draft was circulated in 2001.)
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
--
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
attrib: Pauline Réage. Cine To DVD? http://www.video2cd.co.uk
Therion Ware
wrote:
>
>kerravon wrote:
>> Richard Smol wrote:
>>
>> > > Think about it. If you had the technology to run a sophisticated
>> > > computer simulation, what would YOU do? Would you wait 13.7
>> > > billion years for the simulation to "evolve" into the current state?
>> > > Or would you place the universe in the state you wanted it to be
>> > > in, and just SIMULATE the boring 13.7 billion year history?
>> >
>> > Cute, but this makes your hypothesis totally unfalsifiable and thus
>> > useless.
>>
>> It's not useless. It finally gives us a complete model of the
>> universe. Now we can begin to try to understand the
>> software.
>
>Not if you can't provide evidence for your hypothesis and a way to
>falsify it.
At http://www.simulation-argument.com/faq.html Nick Bostrum who
popularised the argument has this to say about that:
9. Isn’t the simulation-hypothesis untestable?
There are clearly possible observations that would show that we are in
a simulation. For example, the simulators could make a “window” pop up
in front of you with the text “YOU ARE LIVING IN A COMPUTER
SIMULATION. CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION.” Or they could uplift you
into their level of reality.
We could also obtain strong indirect evidence, such as one day
observing that we ourselves have created the appropriate kind of
computer simulations. If we were to learn more about the probability
of survival for human-like species, that could also be relevant
information. For instance, if we learnt that the existential risks we
will be confronting are so large that we should expect practically
every advanced civilization to succumb to them, that would reduce the
probability of the simulation-hypothesis. One can think of a large
number of other possible pieces of observational evidence, as well as
more indirect theoretical results, that would either increase or
decrease the probability of the hypothesis. So in this sense, the
simulation-hypothesis is clearly testable.
The simulation-hypothesis is not testable in the sense that we have
the practical capability to go out and perform an experiment that
could conclusively refute the hypothesis. But most theoretical science
is untestable in this sense, so this is not a very useful criterion
for whether something is worth taking seriously.
The Simulation argument is best seen as an empirically grounded
probabilistic consistency constraint, rather than as a scientific
hypothesis with a concomitant program of direct experimental
investigation.
Occidental
Therion Ware wrote:
> There are clearly possible observations that would show that we are in
> a simulation. For example, the simulators could make a "window" pop up
> in front of you with the text "YOU ARE LIVING IN A COMPUTER
> SIMULATION. CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION." Or they could uplift you
> into their level of reality.
You could argue that ghosts, poltergeist and UFOs are bugs in the
program; all software has bugs, even software written by God.
> We could also obtain strong indirect evidence, such as one day
> observing that we ourselves have created the appropriate kind of
> computer simulations.
This was the theme in an early SF novel that explored simulated
realities - Counterfeit World (aka Simulachron-3) written by Daniel F.
Galouye in 1964, anyone remember it?
> If we were to learn more about the probability
> of survival for human-like species, that could also be relevant
> information. For instance, if we learnt that the existential risks we
> will be confronting are so large that we should expect practically
> every advanced civilization to succumb to them, that would reduce the
> probability of the simulation-hypothesis. One can think of a large
> number of other possible pieces of observational evidence, as well as
> more indirect theoretical results, that would either increase or
> decrease the probability of the hypothesis. So in this sense, the
> simulation-hypothesis is clearly testable.
If the world is a simulation on a Von Neumann-type serial machine, then
time cannot be continuous, and there is no such thing as continuous
motion. This should have empirical consequences.
Maybe QM is a kludge to prevent us discovering that we are in a
simulation, or to make the simulation work at the micro level.
If I don't post again it means the the Great Programmer in the Sky has
written me out of the simulation because I got too near the truth..
kerravon
Turner wrote:
> What exactly did you even do to end rape in Iraq???
I have supported my government sending troops to Iraq,
and spent my time psychoanalyzing the anti-war to find
why on earth they didn't just ignore institutionalized rape
in Iraq, they actively campaigned for the continuation of
it. It was crucial to understand "what went wrong" with
most of the world, so that we can work on fixing it.
I also financially supported the Iraqi bloggers so that they
could bring their message of being happy about being
liberated to the world.
These are things that EVERYONE should have been doing,
but I was the ONLY one doing. There were only about 100
people who even bothered to turn up to the Iraqi blogs.
Disgusting.
BFN. Paul.
CreateThis
>
>Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>
>> Let me guess, you saw "The Matrix"....
>>
>> It was just a movie starring Keanu Reeves. How seriously
>> do you think you should take it?
>
>When I saw the movie, I didn't even consider the
>possibility that it might actually be true. It wasn't
>until I received revelations and was forced to come
>up with a theory to explain where God was. But I
>don't think it is remotely like "The Matrix". I don't
>believe our bodies exist outside this universe.
>
>BFN. Paul.
Is it just me or does this guy sound like It's A Miracle taking half
his meds? Is the only difference between all of them just their
dosage?
CT
kerravon
> > I did. I voted to send in the security forces at my disposal to
> > liberate Iraq.
>
> At _your_ disposal?
Yes, as a citizen of a democratic country I have paid
for and trained a security force, which is available for
me to use if I can convince the public to use it. I devoted
my life to convincing the public to use it.
> > I'm dealing with the reality. Men rape without having been
> > taught to rape. Even when they've explicitly been taught
> > not to rape, they still do it. Nothing teaches a man to rape,
> > it comes naturally. That is the natural state of humans.
> > The more we rape, the more we pass on our genes.
>
> Not neccesarily, because other men who don't rape will want to kill
> the rapist. Not a good survival trait. Humans depend on group
> cooperation to raise young.
Yes, that comes down to in-group/out-group psychology.
There are those in the in-group who we protect, and those
in the out-group who we rape. The trick is to include the
whole world in the in-group, by elimination of racism,
religious bigotry, nationalism and other forms of aggregation.
> > I pledge allegiance to use my brain to fight subjugation of my species
> > - do you?
>
> Yup.
That's great! We are allies! So you supported the liberation
of Iraq?
> > > > > The point is there is most likely in this case as you have no idea why
> > > > > the simulation exists. If it's down to some ego thing then its almost
> > > > > certainly wrong.
> > > >
> > > > It's not wrong. It's here to entertain me.
>
> Sounds monstrously arrogant to me.
It is not surprising that someone is running the VR
simulation.
> > > No you're here to entertian me. You are just my dream. This is just as
> > > valid and equaly as wrong.
> >
> > You're not the one protecting people's human rights.
>
> You were not the one spending a miserable night last winter pulling
> a toboggan through snow to get an injured skier back to the ambulance,
> I was. This of course, proves nothing aout your protection of human
> rights..
We all have our jobs to do. But there was nothing more
important to do in this world than liberating 27 million people
from state-slavery in one fell swoop. And finding out why
anyone would turn a blind eye to state-slavery that included
institutionalized rape. It was the challenge of our time. I
rose to the challenge. No-one else bothered.
> > Amnesty International opposed letting the US end institutionalized
> > rape in Iraq. And they made no attempt to find out why they and
> > others took such a HORRIFIC stance.
>
> This is the only test? Why, in your opinion, did Amnesty oppose the
> invasion?
Because they oppose the use of violence more than they
oppose horrific human rights abuses. Whereas I treated
it exactly the same as a policeman using force to stop a
rapist. There is a time to use force. When human rights
are being abused, it is time to use force. When people are
enslaved, it is time to use force. When the Japanese are
about to invade Australia and bring with them the concept
of "comfort women", it's time to use force. It's all the same.
Freedom is worth fighting for.
> > > > 2. The result of that work came to a climax in message 666 on
> > > > Sept 11, a miracle.
> > >
> > > Urm no.
> >
> > Yes, that is scientifically verifiable. The message is still online.
>
> We are disputing the miracle, not the post.
> How many posts other "666" were there on sep. 11 2004 in all the
> millions of newsgroups and forums on the net?
I don't know. But they didn't contain the solution to the War
on Terror. A scientifically-derived religion/ideology that needs
to be exported to the Middle East in order to win the War on
Terror.
> > You're wrong. The second coming of Jesus has converted to
> > Islam in an attempt to save the Muslims from the deep hole
> > they have dug for themselves.
>
> If you belive Jesus was the messiah you are not a muslim. So you
> did not convert, you just pretended.
When the US goes and liberates people, it is not following
Jesus's "turn the other cheek", it is follow Mohammed's
"spread your religion by the sword". The US/UK/Australia
are the true Muslims. I'm part of that.
> > This is where you're falling down. It is not evil to LIBERATE
> > another country from state-slavery. It is the ultimate act of
> > benevolence. It is exactly what God wants. I thought there
> > was no God, so I was doing it in lieu of God doing it. Using
> > science.
>
> If you trample other human rights to do it, I would argue that you're
> evil. Ends justifying means is shaky.
We should take the LEAST WORST OPTION. And the least
worst option is not to leave people in state-slavery including
institutionalized rape. The least worst option is to pay a
once-off cost for freedom. If your daughter were being raped
on Saddam's orders, would you want someone to come and
rescue her?
> > It's not improbable at all. The chances of us being here exactly
> > when computers were invented, but not to have the technology
> > to download our brains onto silicon on our own are very remote.
>
> I'd like to see the probablity calculation of that one.
1 million years in 13.7 billion years. Or even 1000 years in
13.7 billion years.
BFN. Paul.
kerravon
Desertphile wrote:
> > Yep, absolutely. I was shocked. I thought that 90% of
> > Australians would support replacing a sadistic dictator
> > with a democracy.
>
> Er, and exactly when is that going to happen?
To those who live in reality, who can distinguish between
democracy and dictatorship, it has already happened.
For those who have devolved into a bizarre moral
equivalency where even institutionalized rape doesn't
affect them, it hasn't happened.
BFN. Paul.
Free Lunch
"kerravon" <kerr...@w3.to> wrote in
<1158364643.6...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
Democracy is more than elections in the midst of an occupation. The US
won the war against the nation of Iraq almost immediately after the
invasion. It has failed to secure the occupation. That failure came
because neither George W Bush nor Donald Rumsfeld could be bothered to
do their jobs right.
kerravon
CreateThis wrote:
You shouldn't have needed to be asked to support a war to
end the Iraqi holocaust. YOU should have been the one
DEMANDING that the Iraqi holocaust be ended. YOU should
have been the one caring about Iraqi women being raped by
their own government. And you should have written a letter
like this to your government, regarding Iran (next):
http://antisubjugator.blogspot.com/2005/05/declaration-of-war-on-iran.html
Why didn't you? Didn't your mother teach you to protect women?
What is your religion? You need a better religion. Try message
666 on Sept 11. Try Mu'tazilah.
BFN. Paul.
kerravon
stew dean wrote:
> > > Same here. I just dont need to make a decloration about it - as a
> > > humanist this is default activity, like many humanists I know.
> >
> > No, fighting subjugation is new.
>
> In not meaning of the word is this true. I'll ignore the rest as the
> first assumption is false.
I don't know what you're talking about. "fight subjugation" is
a new concept. This is what needs to be taught to children
to turn them into protectors of women instead of raping
women.
> > If the majority of humans wanted to do good, they would have done
> > everything they could to protect Iraqi women from being raped by
> > their own government, and to free 27 million Iraqis from state-slavery.
> > They didn't. They all failed.
>
> So they would have prioritised the iraqi women over the larger groups
> of women suffering? You have no idea.
They would have welcomed the opportunity to free the Iraqi
women. And would have sought to find out why 90% of
Europeans were seemingly sociopaths who didn't give a
damn about Iraqi women being raped by their own
government. Just because other women are suffering does
not mean the Iraqi women should be forced to join in the
suffering. What sort of logic is that? You either fix everything
instantaneously or nothing at all???
> > And the date was Sept 11 both in Australia and the US. There
> > is only about a 1 in 1000 chance of that happening.
>
> But it has no relevance. September 11th is a much hyped terrorist
> attack on america which has been played up more than other terrorist
> attacks. In terms of loss of life 9/11 has much smaller numbers than,
> say, innocent people killed in the attack of the US on Iraq. It's worth
> getting things in perspective.
Sept 11 is the most infamous date in history. 666 is the most
infamous number in Anglophone culture. This is the combination
that occurred, miraculously.
> > The solution to the War on Terror coming in message 666 on
> > Sept 11 is nothing short of a miracle.
>
> There was no solution. You hanvt come up with anything. Rape being
> illegal would have happened if you had said nothing and done nothing.
> That's fairly obvious.
I have come up with something. I've come up with the ideology
that everyone should get behind. Bush wants to say that he
wants to export "Christian values" to the Middle East. But he
can't say that or he'll appear to be a religious bigot. And he is
wrong. As an atheist, I wanted the same thing. It's not Christian
values that need to be exported, it is message 666. These are
the same values that we found from the Iraqi bloggers after we
liberated them.
> And? It's an arbitary figure. You could have chosen different numbers
> as having meaning - you just chose ones that hat significance to you
> and others. The message it's self appears to be unremarkable but you
> have amplified it in you head as something remarkable. More fool you.
You won't believe it is a miracle unless you understand the
significance of the message. It is the solution to world freedom.
Every person in the world needs to have message 666 drummed
into them.
> > I wanted to find out why I wanted to go and rescue women from
> > being raped, while others actually committed the rapes.
>
> Becaues you want to do good and where out raged. Nothing new.
What is new is that I am in a TRIBE of ANTI-SUBJUGATORS.
THAT is what ties US/UK/Australia together. It is not the fact
that we speak English, it is the fact that we believe in fighting
subjugation, as brothers. The people in the Middle East have
been taught a very different set of "brotherhood", based on
race and religion. Our brotherhood is based on freedom.
But "freedom" is too vague, it needed to be defined so that
the Iraqis could understand. Some Iraqis thought that
"freedom" meant "revolt" and started breaking the law. But
"freedom" actually means "not subjugated".
> > This is
> > something that every Christian and humanist should have been
> > working on.
>
> Why? There are thousands of other more valid things to be working on.
> You don't appear to get this. And you came up with no solution. That's
> something that I better stress yet again. No solution dude.
No, there were not thousands of more valid things to be working
on. There was nothing of higher priority than getting people
behind the liberation of Iraq, so that we can continue to liberate
the rest of the world. If people aren't even willing to liberate the
people of a country suffering from institutionalized rape, then
they're even less likely to support the liberation of a less severe
dictatorship.
Everyone has a right to live under a rational, humanist,
non-subjugating government. It is a human right. We should
protect that human right.
> > You just
> > haven't grasped the enormity of what I've done.
>
> What is it you did do - you hanvt said.
I have lived an optimal life to try to liberate the world. Ever
since I was a child I wanted to use NATO to liberate Eastern
Europe, if only they weren't behind the Soviet nuclear shield.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union I expected Russia to
join with us to liberate the rest of the world. They didn't join
with us. I needed to find out why. I spent a lot of time
questioning a Russian to try to find out why they weren't on
our side. It was only with the Iraq war that I finally had an
opportunity to find out what the difference between all of us
was. And that difference is a TRIBAL MENTALITY. You are
tribal on your nation-state, whereas I am tribal on
anti-subjugation.
> > There were multiple reasons for the Iraq war, one of which was to
> > liberate the Iraqi people. And it is the reason why YOU should have
> > supported the Iraq war.
>
> I could see the bigger picture, the invasion did not lead to liberation
> for many, in fact for many death and rape was the result. This carries
> on and freedom is held in check by out of control US troops and an
> unstable power struggle.
>
> I am not suprised by what happened and is why I did not suppor the Iraq
> war. Would the Iraq people have been better off under Sadam? It's
> hard to say, you appear to have bought the false idea that it was a
> country enslaved that needed freeing from a dictator. It wasnt quite
> like that.
It was exactly like that. Yes, there is a once-off cost of the war.
It's a lot less bloody than a revolution. As I have said before, if
it were your daughter being raped by Saddam, what price would
you have been willing to pay so that your country would be free
and you had a government that protected your daughter instead
of raping her?
> > They weren't murdered. There is a price to be paid for freedom.
>
> So it's not murder if you don't mean the bomb to land on them. Right.
Correct.
> Sorry but it was not a price that the people of Iraq wanted to pay.
That's not true. The Iraqi people don't speak with one voice.
It is racist for you to think that they do. Some wanted to be
freed, some didn't. I support the ones who yearned for freedom.
Fellow anti-subjugators.
> Sorry but I'm begining to see you are quite an evil person.
There's nothing evil about ending a holocaust. It's an obligation.
> > You marched in favour of state-slavery and institutionalized rape.
> > Humanity reached a new low.
>
> No - I marched against murder and rape that comes with war and against
> the fascist invasion of the US in order to support it's world postiion
> that I could see would and so far has, failed.
The murder and rape were already happening - BY THE
GOVERNMENT!!! It doesn't get more insidious than that.
You marched in support of murder, rape, torture and
mutilation BY THE GOVERNMENT. The US is not fascist
to put an end to this institutionalized horror.
> Ask yourself why did the US invade Iraq - was it because Sadam was
> ignoring human rights? No, that is the surface reason. Sadam is gent
> compared to many others you'll see on the Amnesity International site.
> The invasion, which had nothing to do with terrorism or any threat to
> the US, was about the contiued power of the US. You are not fighting
> subjugation you are promoting it!
You have constructed an Orwellian world. The Iraqi people are
no longer subjugated. The US is an anti-subjugator power. As
I am. Ending subjugation (ie bringing freedom) was one of the
reasons for the invasion, and it should have been YOUR main
reason. You failed humanity. You failed to protect your fellow
man. Read this from a US soldier:
http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2004/06/why-we-fight.html
> > > There are other places in the world more
> > > oppresive and evil than Iraq was
> >
> > There are not many countries where the government rapes its
> > own citizens.
>
> Oh yes there is. Amnesty International.
Then they should also be toppled. No reason to not start with
Iraq. Iraq had an enemy government as well, so you can kill
two birds with one stone.
> > Regardless, that was no reason to ignore the
> > plight of the Iraqi women.
>
> It wasnt ignored and other acts do not go ignored. You just don't know
> about them whilst others are working on fighting for freedom and human
> rights.
No, they're not fighting for freedom and human rights. If they were,
they would have done what I did, and find out why people weren't
supporting the Iraq war.
> > > - which comparativley was not as evil
> > > as the US media may have told you. There was not institutaionalised
> > > rape for a start,
> >
> > YES THERE WAS!!! Saddam's jails had rape rooms.
>
> Just like the US prisons afterwards? What exactly are you saying -
> it's bad for Saddam's men to rape prisioner but not US soldiers?
It is ILLEGAL for the US soldiers to rape people. If they do so
they will be CHARGED and JAILED. Under Saddam it was LEGAL
for him to rape people. Do you understand the difference between
LEGAL and ILLEGAL?
> > Yes, that is exactly correct. Saddam thought it was right to stay
> > in power, I thought it was right that everyone should live in freedom.
> > I am the number 1 supporter of freedom in this world.
>
> Sorry but by supporting the fascist regime of Bush's administration you
> are running counter to freedom.
No, that's your Orwellian world kicking in again, where you can't
even recognize freedom when it's staring you in the face. The
Iraqi bloggers recognize freedom. You should read their website.
http://www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
Go right back to the early entries.
> You don't appear to understand that
> using war to free people is like using a napalm to light a candle on a
> birthday cake.
No, you're the one who doesn't understand. When a woman is
being raped, you call the police. When a government is doing
the rapes, you call the military.
> > That's the difference between me and everyone else. I did everything
> > possible to protect the Iraqi women from being raped, and to free
> > the Iraqi slaves. No-one else did what I did. You need to
> > understand that.
>
> I don't understand it because, objectively, not a word of this is true.
> Your views are not consistant with wanting freedom and you don't appear
> to have done anything. If anything you are supporting US oppression.
> Don't you wonder why there is ongoing conflict in Iraq? Doesnt that
> strike you as odd? You appear to be closing your ears and eyes to the
> fact you supported an unjust, illegal peice of miltary action. Don't
> give me that 'freeing the slaves' bullshit again.
It's not bullshit, it is reality. Freeing the slaves is exactly what
we did.
The US is not oppressing anyone, except in your Orwellian mindset.
There's an ongoing conflict in Iraq because of religious bigotry. The
Sunni think they are going to be subjugated by the Shiites (as the
Sunni did to the Shiite before). We need to explain to them that in a
democracy, no-one is subjugated. That we're not pro-Shiite, we're
anti-subjugation. This is the key.
> Bush is not a liberator.
He is.
> The majority of the world do not view him as a
> liberator
You're correct. THIS is EXACTLY the problem. Finding out WHY
people are so screwed up.
> and the US troops where not welcomed universaly.
Yes. Iraqi opinion was divided. I expected 90% of Iraqis to be
overjoyed at being freed, but instead only half were. It was
crucial to understand what the difference was between the
half who felt liberated and the half who felt humiliated. Solving
that dilemma would set the stage for future liberations. That
is the problem I set about solving. It is the problem that
EVERYONE should have been solving.
> Then
> there's the case of the US supporting the terrorist activity of Israel
> - sorry I forgot it's not terrorism if you use gun ships and have an
> army.
It's not terrorism if you aren't deliberately targetting innocent
civilians to make a political point. It's just war. You're on the
wrong side of the War on Terror.
> > > I suspect you're too close to it to see this.
> >
> > No, you're too far down the "moral equivalency" road that you can't
> > see the need to fight evil.
>
> I do - that's why I'm arguing against you supporting what I consider to
> be evil - that is the actions of Bush.
It is amazing that something as ridiculous as Orwell posited could
actually be true. Actually swapping the definition of good and evil.
> > My actions show that if anyone on this earth is the second coming,
> > it is me. A miracle seals the deal.
>
> You're a paranoid schitzophrenic that supports fascist power and the
It's not fascist, it is anti-fascist. You're the one who supported
the fascist Saddam.
> use of weapons to over throw regimes (there are much more effective way
> but require longer term planning and more use of politics). Even
You've had 27 years to find another way of toppling Saddam's
regime. 27 years of rape. After 27 years of rape, it was time
to use the only method that actually works.
> claiming you are more holy than others whilst supporting war?!?! I
> mean you're no force for freedom - I see you as increasing the obvious.
War (force) to end human rights abuses is exactly a holy thing
to do. This is the lesson. And I am exactly a force for freedom.
> > This is exactly the problem. You are not following
> > message 666. You are not fighting subjugation.
>
> But I am - that of the US. I like the US and have family there, I just
> think the current administration are right wing arseholes with fascist
> tendencies and a lust for power - something YOU are supporting.
No, you are living in an Orwellian world, where subjugation
is anti-subjugation and anti-subjugation is subjugation.
> I appear to be doing a better job of fighting subjugation and all that
> stuff about racism etc than you
No you're not.
> and I am not a messiah. Perhaps you
> should ask others 'what would Jesus do' as you don't appear to be
> getting the idea of being good and humble.
This is exactly the problem with Christianity. No concept of
fighting for freedom. Mohammed brought the concept of
"jihad". That is the lesson for the world. The need for a
jihad. I rejected Jesus and Christianity precisely because
it didn't say when to fight, and from personal experience, I
could see that pacifism simply didn't work. It led to gross
human rights abuses.
> > You are
> > happily living in freedom yourself, and you don't see any need
> > to let the Iraqis have the same freedom you have.
>
> Oh I do - that's why I marched against the war. There where political
> engines in action that could have resolved the problem but where
> blasted apart by the action of the US and the UK.
There was nothing that was going to solve the problem except
war. You had 27 years to find another solution. You've got
maybe a year left to find an alternative solution to liberate Iran.
> > Freedom to
> > say whatever you want without getting your tongue cut out.
> > Freedom is worth fighting for. That's why your country didn't
> > surrender to Nazi Germany.
>
> Defence is one thing - attacking with no justification is another.
There IS justification. It's exactly the same fight for freedom.
Saddam was oppressing my allies, members of my tribe,
the anti-subjugators. I wanted him stopped.
> > I was doing good because I wanted to protect Iraqi women from
> > being raped by their own government out of EMPATHY.
>
> Nice - what did you do again?
Everything I possibly could to get more countries and people
to support the Iraq war so that the Iraqi women would never
lose their human rights ever again.
> > I incorrectly
> > assumed that everyone else felt the same way. It wasn't until the
> > Iraq war that I found out that not everyone thought the same way
> > that I did. I needed to find out what the difference between them
> > and me was.
>
> Well apart from the hundreds who where already working on the problem
> you don't appear ot be aware of many where trying to solve the big
> problem.
No-one was working on the big problem except me. Finding out
why only half of the Iraqis were happy to be freed, and only half
of the Australians were happy to free them.
> > No, you are deeply misled. You can't educate the Iraqi people
> > when they have a dictator who controls the education process.
>
> Very true - never said things where easy but I consider there would
> have been options that would have lead to a stable country and the
> people of Iraq overthrowing the govermnet themselves
It is technically impossible to overthrow a modern military. You
get the same slaughter you got in WWI. The Iraqis tried in 1991
and 100,000 people died for your amusement. We've had enough
revolutions, it's time for the professional military to change the
balance of power.
> AND keeping a
> secular govenment to avoid civil war and continued suffering of women
> and children.
Yes, you are right that we should be aiming for a secular
government. More specifically, a RATIONAL government.
But that is a bridge too far at this point in world history. We
need to let the Iraqis run with it for a while to see if they come
to that conclusion by themselves, with the aid of a modern
education and freedom of speech.
> > There is no way for the Iraqi people to overthrow their
> > government. It is a technical impossibility. They tried in 1991
> > and 100,000 people (count them) died without achieving a thing.
> > They needed our help.
>
> And we should have provided it instead of saying 'out of the way -
> we're blowing your country apart before failing to put it back together
> again'.
We did provide the help. The civilians did indeed need to get
out of the way. We weren't blowing up their country, we were
blowing up their military.
> > You should have offered them help.
> > Instead, you actively stood in the way of freeing 27 million people
> > from state-slavery and ending institutionalized rape, torture,
> > mutilation and murder.
>
> No I stood in the way of war not in the ongoing solution to the
> problems in Iraq. I support the fight for freedom through Amnesty
> International.
In other words, you supported doing precisely nothing to end the
rape, murder, mutilation and torture. Just like Amnesty.
> > You need to appreciate exactly what it
> > is you have done.
>
> I do appreciate exactly what I did and stand by it 100% especially
> having followed the whole thing unfold in a very unsprising way. I
> spoke to my MP, marched, argued with others and continued to support
> those who are anti war. I do this with a clean conscoius and renewed
> vigor
Instead of asking the Nazis how they could have burned 6 million
Jews, you should ask yourself how you could have supported the
institutionalized rape of Iraqi women. There's no difference.
> Again I ask you why did the US invade Iraq?
There were multiple reasons, not just one. The main reason was
to take out an enemy. But the main reason why *I* wanted the
war and why *YOU* should have wanted the war, was to end the
institutionalized rape of Iraqi women.
> > The rape of Iraqi women is a symptom of a bigger problem - the
> > state-slavery of 27 million people.
>
> Was it state slavery? Really? No.
Yes it was. The 27 million Iraqis had to obey Saddam or risk
HORRIFIC punishment. They were exactly slaves. Except in
your Orwellian world.
> > Yes, I understand. The Christians are more religious bigots
> > than they are practicing what Jesus said - "love thy enemy".
> > I am the ONLY one who truly loved my enemy.
>
> By blowing them to crap. You hypocrit.
I'm not blowing them up, I'm liberating them. I've also joined
Islam so that I can help reform it from within. As EVERYONE
should have done.
> > I have isolated the perfect religion. Scientifically-derived.
>
> The perfect reliigon is no religion although, as a humanist, I support
> reliigous freedom providing it does not affect the freedom of others.
> Science and religion are not related and trying to mix them ends up
> with a mess.
No, it is possible to find out the undesirable genetic traits of
humans and counteract them. That is what I have done. The
end result is a scientific religion. It's not a mess, it's exactly
what is required to fix the world.
> > The ideology that needs to be exported to the Middle East in order
> > to win the War on Terror. It's not Christianity that needs to be
> > exported, it is message 666.
>
> Which is essentialy humanism
Yes, it is mainly humanism. It's a more specific set of directions.
> which you appera to be ignoring in you
> support for war.
The humanism I support is a constant struggle to fix the world,
by e.g. not just being a non-racist, but being an anti-racist.
And not just being a non-subjugator, but being an anti-subjugator.
> Let me be clear - I am for human rights and against oppression - and
> this is why I am anti war as a way of achiving these aims.
No, you are not for human rights and against oppression. You
stood in support of Saddam's cruel regime. You may as well
have stood in support of Adolf Hitler. There's no difference.
Except Hitler didn't rape women. Saddam did.
BFN. Paul.
kerravon
Inez wrote:
> > And the date was Sept 11 both in Australia and the US. There
> > is only about a 1 in 1000 chance of that happening.
>
> Your theory is that there are 1000 days per year?
There is only something like 8 hours overlap between the
US and Australia, for my message to have been Sept 11
in both countries.
> > The solution to the War on Terror coming in message 666 on
> > Sept 11 is nothing short of a miracle.
> >
> That's a pretty low quality miracle you've got there.
No it isn't. It's the first evidence of the divine in human history.
BFN. Paul.
kerravon
Free Lunch wrote:
> >To those who live in reality, who can distinguish between
> >democracy and dictatorship, it has already happened.
> >For those who have devolved into a bizarre moral
> >equivalency where even institutionalized rape doesn't
> >affect them, it hasn't happened.
>
> Democracy is more than elections in the midst of an occupation. The US
An occupation is irrelevant to democracy. The elections
were free and fair. The Iraqi people have their freedom.
> won the war against the nation of Iraq almost immediately after the
> invasion. It has failed to secure the occupation. That failure came
> because neither George W Bush nor Donald Rumsfeld could be bothered to
> do their jobs right.
They are doing their jobs right. They are using the least amount
of force required to achieve certain military effects, so that we
can see how the Iraqi people react, so that we can understand
them. It was crucial to do this, so that we can learn about human
nature. The good news is that I have derived all the answers.
BFN. Paul.
kerravon
Anders Halling wrote:
> Unfortuneately brain tumors have also been shown to cause revelations
> like this some times. Please please get a check up. :(
I've already had that checkup. Everything is normal.
This is the real thing. The evidence is all there,
scientifically-verifiable. If only you can understand it.
BFN. Paul.
kerravon
Desertphile wrote:
> The third-century version of "Revelation" has the number "616." The
> fourth-century version uses "636." It wasn't until the 600s that "666"
> was being used as the coded number for Nero.
666 is what is entrenched in our culture. It is the only number
that I would recognize as significant.
BFN. Paul.
kerravon
Inez wrote:
> > I believe I am the programmer running the VR computer
> > simulation.
>
> Simulate me a banana split appearing on my desk and I might just
> believe you.
The part of me that is inside this universe doesn't have
supernatural powers. Just a single scientifically-verifiable
miracle. Plus my life's history.
> > It's what I would have done if I had the computer technology.
> > To make me appreciate a world where women aren't raped.
>
> Really? So I got to be raped so you could feel sorry for me? I feel
It is so that I would react to the simulated rape.
> so honored to be part of your character building system, it just makes
> the whole experience seem worthwhile.
I sincerely hope these evil things aren't happening, and they
are just being faked. Regardless, I must necessarily work
from the position that they could be really happening, and am
working to bring an end to them.
BFN. Paul.
kerravon
CreateThis wrote:
> Of course - the nutcase always believes himself to be a central figure
> in the nutcase fantasy. For instance, reincarnationists always
> believe they were Cleopatra or King Tut in a previous life and not
> just one of the faceless Egyptian schlubs who got crushed pushing a
> 20-ton rock up a pyramid. It's your nutcase fantasy, after all - what
> would be the point if you didn't get a starring role?
In this case we have the scientifically-verifiable evidence that
I was the ONLY one who set about trying to fix this world,
concentrating on liberating people from state-slavery and
bringing them their human rights. You need to ask yourself
why I was the only one who cared. The facts don't lie.
BFN. Paul.
bullpup
Just unplug the damned computer.
Boikat
kerravon
Desertphile wrote:
You don't need to be heroic, you just needed to follow
the OPTIMUM path through life to liberate the world.
You needed to use your brain. If you had used your
brain you would have noticed that our militaries are
under civilian control, and the battle is thus to get the
civilians to agree to the use of force. And you would
have noticed that the Republicans in America are the
people who are most likely to liberate countries, and
you would have done everything possible to get a tiny
sliver of the American population to vote Republican
so that the Republicans would win.
And you would have investigated what it was about the
pro-war that made them want to liberate others. And
not only would you answer "yes" to the below question,
you would have DERIVED the question, to present to
others, so that they could understand (and hence
potentially agree) what was happening.
I pledge allegiance to use my brain to fight subjugation
of my species - do you?
BFN. Paul.
Nic
I like it because it is 029A in hex. Once knew someone who lived at
59A, which is nearly the same.
> BFN. Paul.
Desertphile
kerravon wrote:
> Turner wrote:
>
> > What exactly did you even do to end rape in Iraq???
>
> I have supported my government sending troops to Iraq,
Or in other words, you are part of the problem and not part of the
solution. Sad, that.
Desertphile
kerravon wrote:
> Desertphile wrote:
>
> > > Yep, absolutely. I was shocked. I thought that 90% of
> > > Australians would support replacing a sadistic dictator
> > > with a democracy.
> >
> > Er, and exactly when is that going to happen?
>
> To those who live in reality, who can distinguish between
> democracy and dictatorship, it has already happened.
You mean anyone who is delusional, insane, or seriously fucked up in
the head will believe that Iraq is now a "democracy." Not even the USA
is; there are maybe four democracies in the entire world, and Iraq
ain't one of 'em.
Desertphile
So, even though you know damn well that the Bible says "616" and not
"666," you are so egomaniacal and neurotic that you are comfortable
with believing that which you know is false.
Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously?
By the way, I do not for even an instant believe that you are the
mentally ill lunatic you are pretending to be: I think you are a
"troll," pretending to be crazy. Just what the fuck you "get" from such
behavior (you and other "trolls") does, and always has, mystified me.
dkomo
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>
>
>>Let me guess, you saw "The Matrix"....
>>
>>It was just a movie starring Keanu Reeves. How seriously
>>do you think you should take it?
>
>
> When I saw the movie, I didn't even consider the
> possibility that it might actually be true. It wasn't
> until I received revelations and was forced to come
> up with a theory to explain where God was. But I
> don't think it is remotely like "The Matrix". I don't
> believe our bodies exist outside this universe.
>
> BFN. Paul.
>
You are nothing but a fucking troll. Grow up and get a life.
BFN dickhead.
Desertphile
Yes, I voted against the Republican Party at every chance I got, and I
shall continue to do so until America is once again free; I also
protested against the Bush2 Regime, and I picketed against the demonic,
unholy, demon-infested smirking satanic Bush2 when he visited
California. *THAT* is just one tiny way to oppose the subjugation of
humanity.... but there are also far greater means of doing so---- such
as demanding that every member of the Bush2 Regime, and every human
being who actually voted for the evil bastards, be hanged by the neck
until very, very dead. Liberty and justice demands no less.
kerravon
Desertphile wrote:
> > 666 is what is entrenched in our culture. It is the only number
> > that I would recognize as significant.
>
> So, even though you know damn well that the Bible says "616" and not
That is debatable. I certainly didn't know that at the time that
I wrote message 666. 666 was the only number I knew of as
evil.
> "666," you are so egomaniacal and neurotic that you are comfortable
> with believing that which you know is false.
It is not false that 666 is what is entrenched in our culture.
> Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously?
The facts are there.
> By the way, I do not for even an instant believe that you are the
> mentally ill lunatic you are pretending to be: I think you are a
> "troll," pretending to be crazy. Just what the fuck you "get" from such
> behavior (you and other "trolls") does, and always has, mystified me.
I'm neither a troll nor mentally ill. I have the solution to world
freedom. But since you're on the wrong side of the War on
Terror, you are unable to see that.
BFN. Paul.
kerravon
Desertphile wrote:
> Yes, I voted against the Republican Party at every chance I got, and I
> shall continue to do so until America is once again free; I also
America is free. You're just so full of left-wing alternative
reality that you have constructed an Orwellian world where
America is not free, when it is in fact the leader of the free
world and is doing more than any other nation on the planet
to spread that freedom to others who aren't so fortunate.
> protested against the Bush2 Regime, and I picketed against the demonic,
> unholy, demon-infested smirking satanic Bush2 when he visited
> California. *THAT* is just one tiny way to oppose the subjugation of
> humanity....
Bush is not subjugating humanity. He is an anti-subjugator.
You are living in an Orwellian world, thanks to the left-wing
media.
> but there are also far greater means of doing so---- such
> as demanding that every member of the Bush2 Regime, and every human
> being who actually voted for the evil bastards, be hanged by the neck
> until very, very dead. Liberty and justice demands no less.
You are on the extreme loony left-wing, where voting for Bush
requires the death penalty. We have nothing to discuss.
BFN. Paul.
Free Lunch
"kerravon" <kerr...@w3.to> wrote in
<1158369009....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>:
>
>Free Lunch wrote:
>
>> >To those who live in reality, who can distinguish between
>> >democracy and dictatorship, it has already happened.
>> >For those who have devolved into a bizarre moral
>> >equivalency where even institutionalized rape doesn't
>> >affect them, it hasn't happened.
>>
>> Democracy is more than elections in the midst of an occupation. The US
>
>An occupation is irrelevant to democracy.
Democracies are more than elections. Stalin had elections. He claimed
that
>The elections were free and fair. The Iraqi people have their freedom.
Do they? They don't have a trustworthy police force or a reliable
military. Hundreds have died this week. The economy is still screwed up.
What does freedom mean, aside from a vapid Republican talking point, in
this context?
>> won the war against the nation of Iraq almost immediately after the
>> invasion. It has failed to secure the occupation. That failure came
>> because neither George W Bush nor Donald Rumsfeld could be bothered to
>> do their jobs right.
>
>They are doing their jobs right. They are using the least amount
>of force required to achieve certain military effects, so that we
>can see how the Iraqi people react, so that we can understand
>them. It was crucial to do this, so that we can learn about human
>nature. The good news is that I have derived all the answers.
I'm glad you know it, because Bush and Rumsfeld don't have a clue. They
have totally blown it. Could you bring them up to speed.
>BFN. Paul.
kerravon
Free Lunch wrote:
> >> Democracy is more than elections in the midst of an occupation. The US
> >
> >An occupation is irrelevant to democracy.
>
> Democracies are more than elections. Stalin had elections. He claimed
> that
Stalin didn't have free and fair elections, nor did he have the
associated freedom of speech. The Iraqis have all this.
> >The elections were free and fair. The Iraqi people have their freedom.
>
> Do they? They don't have a trustworthy police force or a reliable
> military.
There are growing pangs in the Iraqi security forces, but the
rule of law strengthens every day. Iraqis have legal protection
of their human rights.
> Hundreds have died this week.
It is very difficult to stop individuals from breaking the law.
> The economy is still screwed up.
That has nothing to do with Iraq being free.
> What does freedom mean, aside from a vapid Republican talking point, in
> this context?
It means "not subjugated". That is why the Shiite were able to
gather in millions for their religious festival, something which
they weren't able to do under Saddam. There is no fear of
them overthrowing the government, because they ARE the
government. The government represents them.
It also means the Iraqis are free to start blogs. How can you
not be overjoyed at seeing free Iraqis freely expressing their
personal views? It is a dream come true. You should read
them.
> >They are doing their jobs right. They are using the least amount
> >of force required to achieve certain military effects, so that we
> >can see how the Iraqi people react, so that we can understand
> >them. It was crucial to do this, so that we can learn about human
> >nature. The good news is that I have derived all the answers.
>
> I'm glad you know it, because Bush and Rumsfeld don't have a clue. They
> have totally blown it. Could you bring them up to speed.
It is NOT blown. Bush and Rumsfeld have set the stage for
more liberations using a light force. Wars of liberation are
different from wars of conquest, and we need the military to
reflect the fact that we're not trying to conquer anyone.
The sectarian violence has no military effect. The current
strategy of training up the Iraqis to take over the job is
entirely sound.
The only thing they are missing is a psyop, to explain to the
Sunni that under a democracy, they will not be subjugated.
And that we don't support the tribe of Shiites, we support the
tribe of anti-subjugators. By a mere behaviour change, they
can get our protection, instead of our enmity.
I've already written to the US and UK psyops departments,
giving them this:
http://antisubjugator.blogspot.com/2005/06/tribal-mentality.html
but I didn't get anywhere. I'm doing my best to spread the
solution.
BFN. Paul.
CreateThis
Try some bran.
CT
CreateThis
Did they tell you that?
CT
bullpup
"CreateThis" <Creat...@yippee.con> wrote in message
news:up0ng21b5cpd69ih7...@4ax.com...
Or running a debug routine.
Boikat
Ymir
"kerravon" <kerr...@w3.to> wrote:
> I used to be a hard-core atheist who used Occam's Razor
> to postulate that there was no god. However, something
> happened which made me change my mind and believe
> that we are living in the equivalent of a computer
> simulation, and that God is the computer programmer,
> literally in a different dimension, the same way that when
> you play a computer game, you are in a different dimension
> to the characters in the computer game.
Yeah, I used to be one of those hard-core atheists with an Occam's Razor
and all that too, but then something happened to me too, only it was a
different thing.
See, I've always seen these sort of featureless blotches in my eyes that
follow me around wherever I go. So one day I ask my doctor about them
and he says that they're all in my head and that maybe they'll go away
if I just go back on my pills and lay off the hairspray and the
listerine.
Now, personally, I've always been sort of suspicious about my doctor. I
think that he thinks that if he sells me enough thorazine he'll get rich
and get to have sex with Paris Hilton, but I've got an open mind so I
decide to meet him half way.
So I switch to aqua veva, and guess what? THE BLOTCHES are still there!
So anyways, I decide that maybe instead of trying to make them go away I
should maybe listen to what they have to say, so I ask them 'what is the
meaning of life', and they look at me and reply in a resounding voice
that only someone absolutely certain of themselves could have that the
meaning of life is four quatloos.
Now this seemed like a fairly strange answer since quatloos are
meaningless, but I've got an open mind so I get to thinking about it and
soon I'm thinking about it all the time -- and then it suddenly hits me!
If I'm always thinking about the four quatloos, how can consciousness
possibly be caused by anything else? After all, if I weren't thinking
about the four quatloos, then what would I be thinking about? Absolutely
nothing! So it's pretty obvious to me now that the four quatloos are the
answer to everything.
Now I know that scientists don't believe this and tell me that its all
just a bunch of neurons not working right in my brain, but we all know
that scientists are really just in it for the money. They want to get
rich selling their story to hollywood and then maybe have sex with Paris
Hilton. So who are you going to trust? them or the four quatloos.
So now here's a serious question for you Karravon: What makes your story
about the computer simulation any more plausible than my story above?
I've got four quatloos that says you can't tell me.
André
--
use rot thirteen to email
ntvfnnx (at) tznvy.pbz