Quote from: S.Boxx on November 23, 2014, 12:51:21 AM

@ BADecker

Please don't take this wrong, but you are abusing personal boundaries by trying to push your personal beliefs on other people. I am not a doctor, but you seem to be displaying many symptoms of schizophrenia. I am not trying to joke or ridicule you, but do you hear voices in your head? Maybe Jesus or God may be helping you out a little. I am concerned that you may need a good mental health evaluation. Please don't get so upset if the whole world doesn't believe in a magical man that lives in the clouds. You can't let yourself get so upset because people won't do what you want them to. I'm talking about acceptance. You have to accept every person, place, thing or situation for what it is. You are not the director of the play. If you seek true love and peace in your life, acceptance is the answer.

Thanks, S.Boxx

Thanks, Boxx, for your kind words, for your trust in what I have been saying and the way I say it, and for your concern about my mental health. I would have responded like this sooner, but weekends are so hectic most of the time.

As can be readily seen in this forum, people often discuss many topics. People often have many opinions. Sometimes they back their opinions up. Sometimes they don't. So, I want to thank you again, that you think my points are real-world relevant enough that you might want to stop me from expressing them. I don't know why you would want to do this. Perhaps it is that people really don't want to hear something that makes sense, right? The fact that people go to all kinds of goofy sci-fi movies - or watch them on TV - suggests that they might not want the truth, right?

I know not everybody believes in some "magical man that lives in the clouds." Yet quite a few in this forum want to believe in magical scientists that spout all kinds of things as truth that are not... at least by any real evidence that they have to back it up.

Take evolution, for example. The commenter called the joint wants to twist the ideas of evolution into something that isn't commonly understood among folks, just to hide some of the truths about how foolish of an idea evolution is. I mean, who has a time viewer that can take a peek back to see what really happened. Nobody! And when you are dealing with something as complex as the formation of life and species, there's simply no way of outguessing what really happened. Yet that is what modern evolution promoters seem to be trying to do. Just look at all the textbooks that suggest over many pages that evolution is a fact, even though they formally mention in an obscure line or two that it isn't known to be fact for sure.

And look at my comment above yours - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg9625147#msg9625147. Some joker by the name of Nick Szabo is credited with reaffirming some statement by another joker named Richard Dawkins, that death is more probable than life. How silly. Everybody knows that you can't have death except that you have life first. And everybody can see that there are gigantic numbers of living things that are alive, that haven't died yet.

Do people really want to believe death is more probable than life, when they can see all the living things around them that have not, yet, died? How foolish. Can't folks see that death only exists among the things that were living and are not living any more? This makes death and life probability equal among dead things. Life is way more probable because there is so much more of it that death hasn't, yet, affected. What's with the head games? Are they really trying to suggest that life and death have something to do with probability, when we all can see that death only follows in things that are living?

Your little comment about me has me a little worried about YOU. Come on down off your fictional delusions. Wake up and smell the coffee. Of course, if "they" are paying you to test me, I can understand. A person's got to earn a living. In that case, I welcome all the comments about me you want to make. We wouldn't want you to starve, now, would we?