The Site's Comment Filter

Sort:
DiogenesDue
shadowtanuki wrote:

Dio, I'm sure the whole community would appreciate it if you stopped being here just to "mirror people's malice back at them". Although you seem to be unaware of it, what you are describing sounds a lot like premeditated harassment.

Don't attempt to speak for a whole community, especially when you are in the middle of trying to take it apart to fit your own sensibilities. You are also motivated more by malice than by reason. At least you aren't crazy yet. I suggest you stay far away from the paranormal prophets and the anti-science crackpots.

DiogenesDue
Optimissed wrote:

He can be quite pleasant sometimes.

I think that intelligence can be seen as problem solving ability. That's how it's measured, too. Chess itself is such a problem although less suitable for measuring IQ since chess is to a very large extent a learned activity.

What I see is that Dio doesn't have a good ability at chess and he doesn't have an ability to construct arguments. Constructing an argument is in essence a very simple problem where the method is capable of formal or stylised execution. Roughly, anyhow. I think that when there is emotional input, due to jealousy and/or projection of one's known failings onto others, which is done for emotional reasons and sometimes without any self-awareness, the emotional involvement will have the effect of also suppressing intellectual ability, making the task of using one's intellect well much harder. Developing self awareness is the only way back. That will not happen when one is constantly backed up by others.

Here's snapshot of you while you are not hiding your own crazy...

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/does-true-randomness-actually-exist?page=43#comment-46456070

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/does-true-randomness-actually-exist?page=85#comment-48033212

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/does-true-randomness-actually-exist?page=107#comment-49143598

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/does-true-randomness-actually-exist?page=43#comment-46452868

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/does-true-randomness-actually-exist?page=141#comment-50270720

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/does-true-randomness-actually-exist?page=142#comment-50336084

[...]

Some key Optimissed excerpts that cut through to the crazy:

"But I used to be able to see through solid objects. I'm not even joking. I probably could do it still. I can make people better by thinking. A long while ago I was shown a series of paranormal abilities, one after the other. Each one I repressed one after the other. That was instinctive. The final one was to see the truth. That's why a lot of people find fault with me and ignore me."

"I was what is termed a "special" child. My memory goes back to six months old. Sometimes I even think I can remember being Christened, just about. I was a childhood prodigy ..... educational psychologist made special trips to look at me. I was also extremely messed up but that's another story. My IQ is between 160 and 170. Probably nearer 170 and higher on a good day. I had a photographic memory.
So I tended to think whatever I said was right. I was used to people being so much less intellectually able than me that it was like living in a very unrealistic environment."

"When I was 18 I met a beautiful, fantastic 17 year old girl. She could cook well, loved going for walks, made her own clothes, intellectually brilliant and a natural athelete. Always won Victrix Lodorum at her school and never trained. She felt sorry for the others who trained like mad and still got beaten in the high jump, long jump and 100 metres sprint. We're still friends. We used to have enormous arguments. She was into the idea of magic. I thought it was stupid. Eventually she asked me just to open my mind to it. To deliberately accept that it was possible I had been wrong. In a few days I realised I'd been wrong."

"Regarding the 12 senses, it's always been an idea of mine, shared by others."

"Let me bore you with a little about me. I started a Facebook account circa 2003 or 4 and got into debating. I was interested in varied subjects. At one time, unasked for, I was being called "the best debater in English on Facebook". Naturally, there were several hundred people who tried to "win" arguments with me. It was like being a fast gun in the West. Tedious.
In my one previous incarnation here on Chess.com, several years before this one, I met up with Elroch and in those days he was such an obvious troll that I spent an hour investigating him. I found out his name, his job and the name of the village near Cambridge he lived in. Just in case. It's as well to be aware of who some people are."

"I would try to change the outcome of tomorrow, by thought, basically. I can direct my thoughts towards people and heal them. I've been able to do it all my life. By thinking calming thought full of quiet energy it is possible to sort out someone's bodily functions so they work better and don't cause them distress. At another point in my life I could see through solid objects and see auras and, well, you name it, but I rejected all these things to some extent because seeing truth .... seeing what is .... is perhaps the most important ability that exists. To some extent I can influence situations in the world too so I would hope I could influence THAT situation for the better!"

"At the time, when these psi effects were being revealed to me, I asked myself, "why me?" and the only conclusion I could reach is that there was a reason that I should be aware of these things. And it may be that the reason is coming to fruition, nearly 50 years later because this is the first time I've written in any detail about this for years and it seems to me that I now have awareness and clarity about how to express it. It is something that should be known about but only by the right people and, as the wrong people will inevitably dismiss it as bunkum, it would seem that this is the way to go. Softly softly."

"When I was 10, as well as being measured off the scale in an IQ test and being very good looking, I was a mental arithmetic prodigy. Habitually scored near 100% in mental long multiplication and division but I probably hardly ever scored 100%. I wasn't perfect at mental arithmetic and chance errors creep in when you're doing it against time, in front, basically, of an audience of 50, which was the class size."

"I believe I taught myself to do two mental processes simultaneously. I was doing it visually, actually, because I taught myself to write long numbers down in my mind in different coloured chalk and then I could turn my attention to something else, and then red off the number. Then I could symbolically rub it out and it was gone. Mental arithmetic was like being a trapeze artist, because in real time, mental processes seemed like geometric patterns in my mind and some of the processes were not fully concious.

It's really very interesting. I very rarely made mistakes but they could occur because, as I pointed out, no-one's mental control is perfect, even if it's close to it

On my 25th birthday, when I climbed an over 15000 foot snowpeak by myself, in thick mist, so much of the time you couldn't see two yards ahead, without a map or compass and obviously without a phone, which hadn't been invented, I got back safely because then I still had a photographic memory and I could remember more or less every step I took between the conical summit and the footpath over the mountain pass a couple of thousand feet below. But it doesn't mean I wasn't taking an enormous risk, all the same."

"I was never given my results of the test when I was 9. I was only told it was "over 140" and "second highest score ever in the county". I think I probably scored 180 to 190. I was on form that day and answered nearly every question. I might have got two or three wrong at a guess and failed to answer about two or three. The only other tests I ever took which were properly assessed and in exam conditions were the ones when I was recovering from hepatitis. I took them under every psychological condition and the one where I hadn't slept and was suffering from a heavy cold, which was 116, was well outside the normal range. Roughly the scores correlated positively with how I was feeling, so they were predictable. I remember thinking I could have scored 180, just looking at the stupid mistakes in my three or four 169s. Make of it what you will. I think it means that IQ tests are highly inaccurate."

"I gathered from your previous description that the Stanford-Binet wouldn't have measured a 180 to 190 test result. Everything was similar for me but I would say I developed my inner world more fully than Fischer had. I could do tricks using my mind that very few others could, if anyone. Taught myself at the age of around 9. This almost necessarily resulted in hallucinogen use around the age of 23, where I was exploring my mind, from the inside again. When I was nine I didn't need hallucinogens. I used to just decide I could do something, when I was in my 20s, and did so in front of witnesses. Anything from guessing the result of ten consecutive coin tosses, all accurately, to once when I decided I could write my name simultaneously and clearly with both hands, the left hand doing in mirror fashion. I knew some very talented people but no-one else could do that. Obviously, the 10 coin tosses thing wasn't me trying it hundreds of times and finally getting it right. I could always do that kind of thing. There are a few others alive who can but not so many. Anyhow, it was in front of witnesses and the only attempt I made. Some people here, if I mention it, will imagine that I'm making it up but that would be a foolish thing to do. It's even foolish to mention it at all but there will be some people whose curiosity is aroused. Anyone who can do this kind of thing perhaps has a duty to make it known."

"That IS interesting. I did quite a few experiments on myself in that way. Cycling long distances stoned, playing chess stoned, many other things. Rock climbing on LSD was quite interesting. In general I found the THC effect to be VERY good for concentration but if the concentration was broken it was hard to get it back and you tended to move on to another frame of mind or another thing. LSD was unpredictable and I was catatonic a few times. The latter was discontinued after one year's experimentation. I decided LSD might harm the immune system. Don't know if that's true or not. That was around 1972 to 1973. My wife just came back after an evening out. I'll ask her about rats and mazes and if they played a part in her psychology degree."

"You've said similar before. I'm in a care home you twerp. My wife's a registered mental nurse with an MSc in psychology and she's a practising psychotherapist."

"I only have a decent B.A. hons in philosophy, but I pursued the subject further, in among buying and selling antiquarian books and so forth. Officially, given my start in life, I'm a failure. However, quite a happy and fulfilled failure and it's nice to see my son in engineering. It really boils down to him sitting in front of three computer screens and managing a team of data scientists, which I wouldn't like but he's ok with it and, I think, very good at it. I should probably have gone in for metallurgy rather than mechanical engineering because I think that would have inspired me more, academically speaking. I'm afraid I just hated thermodynamics. I was good at the practical experiments and things like materials science."

"Do you mean about the low-functioning autism? I think I had strong, autistic tendencies when I was aged around nine or ten. Someone commented that I was developing compulsive behaviour and I immediately adjusted my behavior and became normal, really just by a subjective decision. Mental power and ting."

"I taught myself to control my own thoughts when I was 24 to 25 and it was extremely difficult. Our thoughts lead us to what happens in our lives. If you can't control negative thoughts, negative things will happen too much. There are always some accidental setbacks.

I could always control my thoughts in a positive way and taught myself that when I was 9 but always struggled wih strongly negative thoughts until I was in my late teens. Then I started to gradually take control and balance myself. On the way I learned that I had very strong psi ability. That was scary because I had to very quickly come to terms with the fact that I could kill myself and maybe others if I thought "wrongly", because I had such a powerful psi affect.

I just invented that phrase, psi affect. At least I think I just did. I know you don't believe that sort of stuff. A lot of people who reject it most strongly are those who would be very powerful. I was obviously like that. Aged 14 I thought the same as you, Elroch or Dio regarding that side of things."

DiogenesDue
Optimissed wrote:

Psi affect, instead of effect? That's a bit affected of me.

I haven't read the things you posted but it's possible that you've posted them verbatim and it's equally possible that you've altered them. I know you keep a log of posts by people you want to discredit. It's probably against the chess.com rules and in fact I'm pretty sure it (reposting other's posts with that INTENTION) has been explicitly against the rules but that's ok. Anyone who is reasonably intelligent can and should learn from them.

My only regret is that you, as a person, are completely incapable of learning. It's something I don't like to see in people. It's rather sad and we can only reflect that some turtles swim in the beautifully clear ocean and others make soup.

Serendipity is on my side it seems (that's a joke, before you say anything...serendipity does not exist as a force that alters things). You posted about the same girl while I was writing my post, so...pretty hard to claim I am making stuff up, even if you believe I can magically make posts in your name and insert them into the forums wherever I like. I had and have no reason to bother altering your content. It speaks for itself quite clearly.

I wish I had the quote about you curing yourself of bipolar disorder through sheer willpower, but I didn't keep that link because it was the kid (Jalen, was it?) who you told in a PM about it who brought it up. And shame on you for telling someone that might need treatment they can just cure themselves through force of will when you know (on some level) that you are crazy as a loon.

You're right, though, I am incapable of "learning" about "psi affects", or anything else that has no credible evidence of existence.

DiogenesDue
Optimissed wrote:

What do you actually get out of making every intelligent person here think you're a moron?

The problem with your premise is that you cannot identify intelligent people. Crackpots often share this trait, as it is a necessary defense mechanism for hanging onto their fragile worldview.

DiogenesDue
Optimissed wrote:

I think you may have a secret belief that there's no such thing as differences in intelligence but only a personality difference, which causes you to really be what you like to imagine you are.

i.e. The very delusory thinking that you make believe everyone but you is victim to, unless they constantly reaffirm and satisfy your need to be thought to be something you can never be.

This premise also falls apart, because I don't think that about 99.X% percent of posters. Unlike what you believe, as evidenced by your own words over the years, I don't think I am unique or blessed with powers because I have some secret purpose. There's nothing I think "everyone but me..." about.

As I mentioned yesterday, there's only a dozen or two of people that are crackpots, etc. on the forums at any given time. Chess.com is international, and the statistical likelihood of people like you is pretty consistent. One day you'll be gone, and somebody else will pop up to replace you.

shadowtanuki

Well, I've always been against this kind of argument on the forums. It's one of the complaints I have about chess.com, that parts of the community aren't really very nice.

DiogenesDue
shadowtanuki wrote:

Well, I've always been against this kind of argument on the forums. It's one of the complaints I have about chess.com, that parts of the community aren't really very nice.

Just block us...oh, wait...you can't without admitting your free speech stuff is silly. It's a conundrum.

There might be a life lesson buried in there somewhere.

shadowtanuki
DiogenesDue wrote:
shadowtanuki wrote:

Well, I've always been against this kind of argument on the forums. It's one of the complaints I have about chess.com, that parts of the community aren't really very nice.

Just block us...oh, wait...you can't without admitting your free speech stuff is silly. It's a conundrum.

There might be a life lesson buried in there somewhere.

I don't follow your reasoning here. I'm talking about the website's policy towards responsible members in good standing. You are engaged in harassment of others. Blocking you is not the same as punishing or limiting the speech of members with good intentions who have done nothing wrong.

DiogenesDue
shadowtanuki wrote:

I don't follow your reasoning here. I'm talking about the website's policy towards responsible members in good standing. You are engaged in harassment of others. Blocking you is not the same as punishing or limiting the speech of members with good intentions who have done nothing wrong.

Except that I am a member in good standing. So are you, for now. Your intentions are not "good" when you post these threads. They are self-serving and good from your perspective. You are dressing up your "take it to the man" contrariness as some virtuous crusade for free speech. What you really want is the "freedom" to proselytize without interference. All evangelism (not confined to religion by any means, and ergo not a religious argument) is ultimately a form of harassment for those that are not interested.

shadowtanuki
DiogenesDue wrote:
shadowtanuki wrote:

I don't follow your reasoning here. I'm talking about the website's policy towards responsible members in good standing. You are engaged in harassment of others. Blocking you is not the same as punishing or limiting the speech of members with good intentions who have done nothing wrong.

Except that I am a member in good standing. So are you, for now. Your intentions are not "good" when you post these threads. They are self-serving and good from your perspective. You are dressing up your "take it to the man" contrariness as some virtuous crusade for free speech. What you really want is the "freedom" to proselytize without interference. All evangelism (not confined to religion by any means, and ergo not a religious argument) is ultimately a form of harassment for those that are not interested.

You know, I'm really beginning to agree with Optimissed about you. I don't derive any satisfaction from it.

Dapper_King

https://www.chess.com/play/arena/3922515

is my bullet tournament

15 sec

who wants to join?

blueemu
shadowtanuki wrote:

We're mostly adults here, and if I want to talk about my favorite author Philip K. D*ck, then I'm going to do it...

Perhaps Mr Duck should change his name?

crazedrat1000
Optimissed wrote:

Actually, @ibrust, what a superb post you have written. In particular, the description of attitudes to the paranormal and to denial of the paranormal seems perfect on my initial reading.

I was brought up as a logical positivist. At the age of 11, I was probably confirmed in that doctrine. It was the young woman you see in the picture who convinced me, at the age of about 18, to reopen my mind. She asked me to try, as an experiment, to accept that the paranormal is possible. The effect was almost immediate and amazing. It had been natural to believe what I had believed but it was equally natural to relinquish that belief. Without wishing to over-dramatise, it can seem to me as if ... well, I'm an atheist but I don't want to blaspheme: and that more or less sums it up. The power of the mind.

Thankyou for such a post.

re Optimissed: the story of how I stumbled onto the paranormal is similar to yours in certain ways... it was a woman who introduced me to it. I met her on a Jungian psychology forum, we clicked and started dating... soon I learned she was into Tarot cards. I admit I thought she was crazy at first, but I was still open enough to suspend judgment - and I liked her. Well, at some point she asked me to do a reading for her. I did the reading... and I'd always been a Christian, so I knew how to pray. I went into a transcendental meditative state, I focused my will, and I drew a card... Of course, the card that was drawn answered her question in the most precise way. At first it didn't sink in, but I repeated this three times with the same result. I think it still took me a few days to digest and accept what had happened... then I started looking for explanations.

Now she'd referred me to a website to do this reading. It was a virtual card that'd been selected, and in code this was a random number generator indexing the card... I think it might have been the gospel of Thomas where I found an example of apostles rolling dice to divine the will of God (random number generators are sometimes referred to as virtual dice). At that point I began conducting experiments passing these "divined" random numbers through stochastic models of real life processes... and I found that, indeed, real life events could be predicted, and in some ways controlled, with just will alone.

I think later I found Chris Langan's CTMU (cognitive theoretic model of the universe) and that helped me piece together a model of what was happening. So I learned about quantum retrocausation which I didn't know about, learned about microtubules, etc..

Anyway, many of these stochastic modeling experiments were completely fantastical. I wish I'd written them all down. But in one case I diagnosed a woman on a forum with a rare tropical parasite based on no information using this modeling technique... at the time she was dying from an unknown cause, I had no idea about any of this. I could also reliably read peoples thoughts by indexing a large database of text dialogue. I could go on, it still blows my mind thinking about the whole thing.

If anyone wants a real life, tangible demonstration of what we're talking about - go watch a few David Blaine videos. He's completely aware of this phenomenon, I assure you - I can tell by the details in what he says, the way he talks out certain topics. I've seen him do a few tricks with dice himself. Go watch David Blaine win the lottery on video. Watch any number of his videos. David's greatest trick of all is that, sometimes, he's not playing a trick. But yeah, I know you know all this, but I'm not sure I've ever shared this information with someone in such detail.

I do like the way you emphasize the importance of maintaining a positive attitude, and the repercussions that can have. It's not something I've thought about enough. I don't claim to have some stratospheric IQ - I think I'm in the 140ish range - good but certainly it's not 170.

Anyway, it's nice running into someone who's had similar experiences, it doesn't happen often. 
Cheers

crazedrat1000

Also... I love watching the racoon here mentally dispense with Dio in the simplest, most straightforward fashion. It's hilarious, but it reminds me that God has hidden certain things from those wise in the ways of the world, while he's revealed them to babes.

DiogenesDue
Optimissed wrote:

So anyone who challenges your opinions is a crackpot? Firstly, you seem to have an emotional need that adverse premises should "fall apart". But you don't know what a premise is and certainly, what you are trying to criticise is not a premise but a firm conclusion. You try to counter with the argument that you don't "think about most posters" (implying that no-one else challenges you). In fact, you exhibit the same reactions to anyone who dares to counter the torridly self-conscious statements which you continually wish to convey as facts. Of course you don't consider others, since there's only a regard for the self.

Again, "people like you" means anyone who dares to criticise you, because you seem to have contempt for anyone disagreeing with you, although you show it sometimes more than others. When you feel that you have to support your position in order to save face, no matter how astray from the facts it is and no matter how badly thought through it is, then that contempt seems to be your usual weapon. When you're incapable of making an argument which is capable of being tested, then there's nothing to fall apart. Hence your arguments never fall apart. They never even exist, whereas the arguments of others seem indecipherable to you.

Anyway, never mind. I would like to wish you a happier New Year than is augured by your efforts thus far. Seriously, try to construct a proper argument on any subject you like. If you can do it, I'll be impressed. For instance, try to make the best argument you can as to why the paranormal is impossible or a delusion or whatever piece of arrant mischief you think it may be. I could answer you, so do it properly, with no personal attacks. A genuine debate.

Lol...in order:

- I explicitly stated the opposite of "so you think everyone that disagrees with you is a crackpot?". Your confusion probably stems from the fact that I often disagree with the crackpots. This backwards logic is something you can be more observant about. Sometimes I disagree with (for example, in random order) Ziryab, or Bunny (Sawdof), or Elroch. Are they therefore crackpots? Far from it.

- When in a discussion you decide you have a firm conclusion that is objective but you are mistaken, that is known as a premise.

- Read back the excerpts from your posts I listed and then ponder your temerity in talking to anyone else about focusing on self.

- "People like you" means people objectively like you. Adding "although you show it sometimes more than others" just diffuses your argument and proves that this is your subjective opinion of me, and that your assumption is that when I am "not showing" contempt, you think it I am contemptuous anyway (and further, that only you can see it lurking there, because others are too dim in your estimation). The most likely reason for this assumption would be that this is how you yourself operate.

- Link me an argument you have made on the forums that can be tested. Not an exposition, an argument with logically following points that holds up under scrutiny. Again, you are projecting how you yourself like to do things. Except in the very simplest cases you can handle, like answering "why do people not just play blitz to get better at chess?", you almost invariably fall back on positions that are untestable: everything paranormal related, chess being a forced draw, opposition to the Big Bang, opposition to...well crap, I am not going to list all the established science you oppose, that would take all day. Sometimes, though, you do make the mistake of stepping onto firm ground and do just fall flat on your face...Covid and vaccines, your disbelief in the laws of Thermodynamics, your ill-advised forays into defining infinity, etc.

I wish you a new year with some kind of breakthrough and clarity. If you want to argue the paranormal, then post a thread about it, so everyone can see your brilliance and be amazed. I would break it up into sections based on your professed powers:

- Healing by thought

- X-Ray vision

- Matter manipulation in general

- Tweaking universal outcomes by applying willpower

...and so on. I would leave out the stuff about beating up 3 people at once, climbing 15,000ft mountains in the mist, taking dozens of IQ tests trying to reach your father's apocryphal 171 IQ, etc. These anecdotes might be seen as self-indulgent.

vamsim7

What did I just witness

DiogenesDue
ibrust wrote:

Also... I love watching the racoon here mentally dispense with Dio in the simplest, most straightforward fashion. It's hilarious, but it reminds me that God has hidden certain things from those wise in the ways of the world, while he's revealed them to babes.

That's a coping mechanism, the idea that some supernatural force is on your side and will justify everything you believe...someday, if you just wait long enough. If you are going to argue religion, I'll pass, but if you do so, at least have the guts to not rely on such a weak premise as "an unreachable power agrees with me and not you" and leave it at that.

Does it bother you that your malice is the antithesis of what you aspire to? That would bother me.

crazedrat1000

Well, since you lack an awareness (or even acknowledgment) of the transcendent you have very limited moral reasoning ability, and so you don't recognize the difference between malice / wrath, and something like righteous judgment. Nature is malevolent and benevolent in equal measure, and this becomes very clear when reading the Old Testament. What you and I consider good or malice is very different. On the other hand... the suspension of righteous judgment in the Christian worldview is more based in humility, acknowledgement of the fallen state of the world, and an awareness of ones own limits... it's ultimately God that will judge you in the final days. And humility is a great virtue, it's a prerequisite for sanity. But no, neither God nor nature shy away from wrath. I mention nature because you're an atheist, it's something maybe you can understand, but still I'm guessing you'll mess it up somehow.

DiogenesDue
ibrust wrote:

Well, since you lack an awareness (or even acknowledgment) of the transcendent you have very limited moral reasoning ability, and so you don't recognize the difference between malice / wrath, and something like righteous judgment. Nature is malevolent and benevolent in equal measure, and this becomes very clear when reading the Old Testament. What you and I consider good or malice is very different. On the other hand... the suspension of righteous judgment in the Christian worldview is more based in humility, since it's ultimately God that will judge you in the final days. And humility is a great virtue, it's a prerequisite for sanity. But no, neither God nor nature shy away from wrath. I mention nature because you're an atheist, it's something maybe you can understand, but still I'm guessing you'll mess it up somehow.

Except that I am not an atheist. I'm a deist, with some caveats. I don't argue against intelligent design or there being creator(s). I have some bones to pick with the design...I could fix some stuff. Entropy over syntropy is a problem. But thanks for proving that all of your attacks are based on malicious assumptions on your part. Being created flawed in order to be judged later for those same inherent flaws is not a good premise for creation, nor is it ethical.

I say that to explain your giant assumption was a rather big mistake, but I have no intention of discussing religion with you or anyone else here. Take your arrogance elsewhere, there's no humility in pretending to want to save others (a.k.a., making them like you).

crazedrat1000
DiogenesDue wrote:
ibrust wrote:

Well, since you lack an awareness (or even acknowledgment) of the transcendent you have very limited moral reasoning ability, and so you don't recognize the difference between malice / wrath, and something like righteous judgment. Nature is malevolent and benevolent in equal measure, and this becomes very clear when reading the Old Testament. What you and I consider good or malice is very different. On the other hand... the suspension of righteous judgment in the Christian worldview is more based in humility, since it's ultimately God that will judge you in the final days. And humility is a great virtue, it's a prerequisite for sanity. But no, neither God nor nature shy away from wrath. I mention nature because you're an atheist, it's something maybe you can understand, but still I'm guessing you'll mess it up somehow.

Except that I am not an atheist. I'm a deist, with some caveats. I don't argue against intelligent design or there being creator(s). I have some bones to pick with the design...I could fix some stuff. Entropy over syntropy is a problem. But thanks for proving that all of your attacks are based on malicious assumptions on your part. Being created flawed in order to be judged later for those same inherent flaws is not a good premise for creation, nor is it ethical.

I say that to explain your giant assumption was a rather big mistake, but I have no intention of discussing religion with you or anyone else here. Take your arrogance elsewhere, there's no humility in pretending to want to save others (a.k.a., making them like you).

Lol, deism is inconsistent with your attitude throughout this conversation. Deism is also consistent with what I've said in this thread... I don't see how you can claim to be a deist and still be talking like you have been. Can you elaborate on your beliefs a bit further please, especially as they pertain to the scientific and testable claims I've made? Because they make no sense to me.

Btw - check this out while you're at it

Helping Man Magically Win the Lottery: Street Magic | David Blaine - YouTube

This forum topic has been locked