Nerbly wrote:By portraying me as having said that recently, you're being a dick. And you know you're being a dick.

Just because Dicky Bobby isn't going to say naughty words or obsessively stalk you for a couple days (a week, tops) doesn't mean that he won't be an absolute cumstain deep down inside.

Nobody needs Rick Reuben to explain to the board that you have some flip-flopping issues, Nerbles. As soon as you stop obsessing over being (or appearing to be) intelligent, NerblyBear, your EA fortunes will improve. But who gives a shit, anyway? If you really care that much though, just retire the NerblyBear moniker and start over. Perhaps if you used your real name, you'd be less prone to post too hastily.

Best of luck to you, Zach. This post wasn't meant to sound condescending, but maybe I'm being a doucher inadvertently.

Rick Reuben wrote:Our understanding of where we came from is an open question, so there is no sound reason to rule out the possible commingling of human bloodlines with other species. Obviously, with all these demonic bankers running around starving people and confiscating assets, the time is ripe to get cracking on some research that explains what is mentally and physically aberrant about these creatures. Their long history of crimes against humanity leads me to hypothesize that they hate 'ordinary' humans and believe they are entitled to steal, enslave and kill us. There certainly is a lot of cold-blooded stealing, killing, and slavery going on. I'm just looking for answers. What makes these demonic bloodthirsty psychopaths tick?

And you have to admit, the amount of prejudice against this research is a red flag that the trail might be hot. As far as I know, the Truth does not fear investigation. I mean- look at all the people who freak out over this topic- Gramsci, big_dave... they're all total assholes.

I guess Gramsci and big_dave would have us believe that these psychotic freaks are exactly the same as the rest of us. I'd prefer not to believe that. I think most people don't act like these crazed mammon-worshipping lunatics. Why is it accepted as fact that we are all products of the same gene pool?

I'll keep looking. If I have any breaking news on demonic bloodlines, I'll break it here.

Gramsci or big_dave: got any theories about why these people are who they are? big_dave denies they exist. Gramsci pretends to be a socialist, and then refuses to follow the money of capitalism. Where do these people come from? Are they really 'just like us'? Why are we not all like them? Does money make people crazy, or do money-lovers turn the world into a cesspool of crime and greed with their money-lust? Do either of you have anything to contribute to the psychological profiling of the elites?

I think ordinary people do fucked up shit everyday. I know plenty of people who are avaricious, violent, and vengeful they just don't have any money or power. My friend ran into five parked cars the other day because he thought it was funny. I can only imagine the kind of dumb shit he would do if he had tons of money, influence, and was immune from the repercussions of his actions.

I don't think there is any evidence or reason to assume that "elites" are genetically different from the rest of us it's a slippery slope you're treading.

eva03 wrote:I don't think there is any evidence or reason to assume that "elites" are genetically different from the rest of us it's a slippery slope you're treading.

Slippery slope? Bob hit the valley floor a couple of years back.

Well, im gonna be a bitch and not read the entire thread before I post.

"The intelligent design debate is a fun one to have...in a philosophy classroom. Not in a science classroom. The end."

As a philosophy student I find that statement extremely offensive and arrogant... Sure, the intelligent design debate is fun to have in a philosophy classroom... full of retarded monkeys spewing shit around - that must be fun.

Dont get me wrong, its fine to be religious - as long as one is it for personal reasons.

"Gott ist Tot" (God is dead) - that line indicates the end of "onto-theo-logics" in philosophical thinking (if people listened to philosophers, it would be the end in thinking in general). Often the sentence is believed to some sort of victory - that Nietzsche, the self-proclaimed anti-christ succeeded in killing God. That is not the case. In "die fröhliche wissenschaft" (the gay science), it is described as a catastrophy, but also in a describtive way - God is no longer, as a serious being, present in the conscienceness of man and nihilism and meaninglessness is dominant.

The reason why God can not be discussed in the same way as before Gods death, or even before that after Kant, is that God historically changes his/her/its relation to mankind, and from Kant and on, being (almost) completely seperated, as a "Ding an Sich" (thing in itself).

This downfall of God, from a omnipresent perfect being to a "Ding an Sich" and lastly as only an echo, is often seen in the light of the theodice-problem, literally meaning the problem of Gods justice. In its most simple (and most flawed) form, it goes: How can an all-powerfull, all-knowing and all-good allow apparent evil to exist? Well there are to answers: either God isnt all-powerfull etc. at least one of the three God is not, in which case God is not perfect, or: Everything is good all the time always. In both cases to believe in God leads to extreme apathy, either you have to put your trust and prayer and hopes at a less than perfect being, whom might as well be a deamon, or you might as well kill youself, since everything that happens/is the case by definition is good.

God have been dissolved as a giver of meaning. The only way being religious is meaningfull is for ones own personal reasons and happiness - hence it is meaningless to talk about intelligent design.

TheCajunKitchen wrote:Well, im gonna be a bitch and not read the entire thread before I post.

"The intelligent design debate is a fun one to have...in a philosophy classroom. Not in a science classroom. The end."

As a philosophy student I find that statement extremely offensive and arrogant... Sure, the intelligent design debate is fun to have in a philosophy classroom... full of retarded monkeys spewing shit around - that must be fun.

Dont get me wrong, its fine to be religious - as long as one is it for personal reasons.

"Gott ist Tot" (God is dead) - that line indicates the end of "onto-theo-logics" in philosophical thinking (if people listened to philosophers, it would be the end in thinking in general). Often the sentence is believed to some sort of victory - that Nietzsche, the self-proclaimed anti-christ succeeded in killing God. That is not the case. In "die fröhliche wissenschaft" (the gay science), it is described as a catastrophy, but also in a describtive way - God is no longer, as a serious being, present in the conscienceness of man and nihilism and meaninglessness is dominant.

The reason why God can not be discussed in the same way as before Gods death, or even before that after Kant, is that God historically changes his/her/its relation to mankind, and from Kant and on, being (almost) completely seperated, as a "Ding an Sich" (thing in itself).

This downfall of God, from a omnipresent perfect being to a "Ding an Sich" and lastly as only an echo, is often seen in the light of the theodice-problem, literally meaning the problem of Gods justice. In its most simple (and most flawed) form, it goes: How can an all-powerfull, all-knowing and all-good allow apparent evil to exist? Well there are to answers: either God isnt all-powerfull etc. at least one of the three God is not, in which case God is not perfect, or: Everything is good all the time always. In both cases to believe in God leads to extreme apathy, either you have to put your trust and prayer and hopes at a less than perfect being, whom might as well be a deamon, or you might as well kill youself, since everything that happens/is the case by definition is good.

God have been dissolved as a giver of meaning. The only way being religious is meaningfull is for ones own personal reasons and happiness - hence it is meaningless to talk about intelligent design.

I won't pull apart your English. It isn't your first language, is it?

I agree with your last paragraph, though. Does it really matter if people are living a lie based on beliefs? Probably not. It does matter when they try to pass it off as science to win over as many converts as they can, making their loony perspective is more legitimate than others.

Rick Reuben wrote:
Gramsci or big_dave: got any theories about why these people are who they are?

Yes. You're projecting onto something that doesn't exist in order to justify a lot of things you're frustrated about in your own life.

No, english isnt my first language. I havnt used it much since high school, so its in bad shape. I am a pretty bad writer when it comes to spelling and grammar in all langauges though - I blame my poor genetics.

I think we agree, ID is stupid and possibly dangerous. My critisism derives from my annoyance of religious people who doesnt seem to notice the consequences of their own believes and ignore the massive amount of ontological/theological thought which already exist and is widely available (from Plato to Nietzsche).

So ID is not only stupid since it is unscientific, but also because ID-theorists isnt well versed in the foundation i.e. religion, theology and ontology - if they were they would know that the foundation isnt able to support such a theory (anymore).

TheCajunKitchen wrote:No, english isnt my first language. I havnt used it much since high school, so its in bad shape. I am a pretty bad writer when it comes to spelling and grammar in all langauges though - I blame my poor genetics.

I think we agree, ID is stupid and possibly dangerous. My critisism derives from my annoyance of religious people who doesnt seem to notice the consequences of their own believes and ignore the massive amount of ontological/theological thought which already exist and is widely available (from Plato to Nietzsche).

So ID is not only stupid since it is unscientific, but also because ID-theorists isnt well versed in the foundation i.e. religion, theology and ontology - if they were they would know that the foundation isnt able to support such a theory (anymore).

Don't apologise about your English. For a 'second language' you haven't used in a while you're doing mighty fine.

"The intelligent design debate is a fun one to have...in a philosophy classroom. Not in a science classroom. The end."

You shouldn't be offended by this. Intelligent Design is more suited to a philosophy classroom as it deals more with theology and personal/institutional beliefs than it does science. In my opinion that doesn't necessarily negate the importance of philosophical study or insult those that pursue it.

In my opinion intelligent design belongs in a history class room or a social sciences lecture. It is a social, political event and not a line of serious philosophical thought.

Unless by "intelligent design" you mean any idea historically that the universe had a specific creators. The term "intelligent design" makes me think of conservative, protestant Christianity from contemporary America and nothing else. Until about fives years ago I had never seen the term used to describe the idea that the universe was purposefully constructed.

"You shouldn't be offended by this. Intelligent Design is more suited to a philosophy classroom as it deals more with theology and personal/institutional beliefs than it does science. In my opinion that doesn't necessarily negate the importance of philosophical study or insult those that pursue it."

i wasnt really offended (im not easily offended), perhaps provocated a bit. My point is that in no philosophy classroom - at least in higher level institutions - would anyone seriously discuss ID (at least thats how it should be). Well, perhaps as part of a history class since its not a new idea - just a new name in different settings.