If life gives you lemons...

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

60 years ago i didn't think the computer would be made. Just you wait.

It's not worth waiting that long at all. Not even if it was just 20 years that they would find a cure.

how do you know you will not reincarnate into some shitty lifeform then? (hint: all lifeforms suck)

[MozartLink]

60 years ago i didn't think the computer would be made. Just you wait.

It's not worth waiting that long at all. Not even if it was just 20 years that they would find a cure.

how do you know you will not reincarnate into some shitty lifeform then? (hint: all lifeforms suck)

As I said before, I am an atheist and science has disproven all gods in the past. We used to believe in Thor the god of thunder. But he was disproven through science since we now know how thunder works. This scientific trend of disproving gods has continued throughout all time until now where we have almost disproven the existence of the main God. There is far more evidence supporting atheism than there is evidence supporting anything supernatural. As a matter of fact, all evidence supporting the supernatural was all just being mispointed towards the supernatural when it should of been pointed towards the natural world instead. Therefore, this is the reason why we should be much more inclined to view atheism as being much more likely true. There are two intelligent atheists named Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins who have basically refuted the existence of God entirely and have given support for how the universe really came into existence and such.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

As I said before, I am an atheist and science has disproven all gods in the past. We used to believe in Thor the god of thunder. But he was disproven through science since we now know how thunder works. This scientific trend of disproving gods has continued throughout all time until now where we have almost disproven the existence of the main God. There is far more evidence supporting atheism than there is evidence supporting anything supernatural. As a matter of fact, all evidence supporting the supernatural was all just being mispointed towards the supernatural when it should of been pointed towards the natural world instead. Therefore, this is the reason why we should be much more inclined to view atheism as being much more likely true. There are two intelligent atheists named Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins who have basically refuted the existence of God entirely and have given support for how the universe really came into existence and such.

What on earth does this have to do with God, religion, or Thor? If anything your post proves the supernatural, at least in terms of telepathy because as you were typig I was thinking of thor, richard dawkings, and I imagined myself having a talk with him, and explaining to him that I was not some religious zealot, that he was, that maybe he couldn't handle the truth not me. What I said to him was how is the belief that you just "spring into existence" then all of a sudden become non-existent for all of eternity scientific? Has nothing to do with god religion the concept of reincarnation is independent as a philosophy. I do not claim to know what creature you will be, but how do you know you won't become a shitty lifeform (humans are quite shitty lifeforms btw.)

[MozartLink]

As I said before, I am an atheist and science has disproven all gods in the past. We used to believe in Thor the god of thunder. But he was disproven through science since we now know how thunder works. This scientific trend of disproving gods has continued throughout all time until now where we have almost disproven the existence of the main God. There is far more evidence supporting atheism than there is evidence supporting anything supernatural. As a matter of fact, all evidence supporting the supernatural was all just being mispointed towards the supernatural when it should of been pointed towards the natural world instead. Therefore, this is the reason why we should be much more inclined to view atheism as being much more likely true. There are two intelligent atheists named Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins who have basically refuted the existence of God entirely and have given support for how the universe really came into existence and such.

What on earth does this have to do with God, religion, or Thor? If anything your post proves the supernatural, at least in terms of telepathy because as you were typig I was thinking of thor, richard dawkings, and I imagined myself having a talk with him, and explaining to him that I was not some religious zealot, that he was, that maybe he couldn't handle the truth not me. What I said to him was how is the belief that you just "spring into existence" then all of a sudden become non-existent for all of eternity? Has nothing to do with god religion the concept of reincarnation is independent as a philosophy. I do not claim to know what creature you will be, but how do you know you won't become a shitty lifeform (humans are quite shitty lifeforms btw.)

That was relevant to what you said because that also ties into reincarnation which is also something that has been refuted and disproved by Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

As I said before, I am an atheist and science has disproven all gods in the past. We used to believe in Thor the god of thunder. But he was disproven through science since we now know how thunder works. This scientific trend of disproving gods has continued throughout all time until now where we have almost disproven the existence of the main God. There is far more evidence supporting atheism than there is evidence supporting anything supernatural. As a matter of fact, all evidence supporting the supernatural was all just being mispointed towards the supernatural when it should of been pointed towards the natural world instead. Therefore, this is the reason why we should be much more inclined to view atheism as being much more likely true. There are two intelligent atheists named Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins who have basically refuted the existence of God entirely and have given support for how the universe really came into existence and such.

What on earth does this have to do with God, religion, or Thor? If anything your post proves the supernatural, at least in terms of telepathy because as you were typig I was thinking of thor, richard dawkings, and I imagined myself having a talk with him, and explaining to him that I was not some religious zealot, that he was, that maybe he couldn't handle the truth not me. What I said to him was how is the belief that you just "spring into existence" then all of a sudden become non-existent for all of eternity? Has nothing to do with god religion the concept of reincarnation is independent as a philosophy. I do not claim to know what creature you will be, but how do you know you won't become a shitty lifeform (humans are quite shitty lifeforms btw.)

That was relevant to what you said because that also ties into reincarnation which is also something that has been refuted and disproved by Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins.

Reincarnation in what sense? Disproved in what way? Did they die themselves? Kill their friends?

If you honestly believe that when you die, you will cease to exist for all of eternity, you should kill yourself now. What's holding you back? Rationality. Same reasons Christians don't kill their babies as well, because they are rational and don't really believe in heaven. Your heaven is the belief in relief from your existence. Sad part is if you do die youll probably just come back as some religious kid or atheist non the wiser, perpetuating the same old set of beliefs, believing that when you die you'll get the good stuff, clueless as to you already having killed yourself for the same reason.

[MozartLink]

I will not kill myself just yet since I am living for a possible full recovery from this anhedonia first. But if I can't recover, then I will kill myself. Also, I am not someone mean or cruel. Therefore, please have full empathy, respect, and compassion towards me and don't be mean or cruel to me. I was never such towards you in the first place. I am not saying that you or anyone else are being mean or cruel towards me. I am just simply bringing this up just in case.

As for reincarnation, that can either be something supernatural or can be something considered scientific. The supernatural has been disproved. So I obviously do not believe in that. As for the scientific version which says that reality is a computer simulation and that we might respawn in another life, that has been disproved as well. All versions of reincarnation have been disproved. As for your question, science answers all that which you are asking. So you are just going to have to read up on that. As for disproof of reincarnation, you are just going to have to read up on science here as well.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

I will not kill myself just yet since I am living for a possible full recovery from this anhedonia first. But if I can't recover, then I will kill myself. Also, I am not someone mean or cruel. Therefore, please have full empathy, respect, and compassion towards me and don't be mean or cruel to me. I was never such towards you in the first place. I am not saying that you or anyone else are being mean or cruel towards me. I am just simply bringing this up just in case.

As for reincarnation, that can either be something supernatural or can be something considered scientific. The supernatural has been disproved. So I obviously do not believe in that. As for the scientific version which says that reality is a computer simulation and that we might respawn in another life, that has been disproved as well. All versions of reincarnation have been disproved. As for your question, science answers all that which you are asking. So you are just going to have to read up on that. As for disproof of reincarnation, you are just going to have to read up on science here as well.

Really now. Science disproved that we are in a computer simulation? How did science accomplish this mighty feat?

The supernatural has been disproved? How can someone disprove something that has no consistent definition? That's why it's called "supernatural." If it could be explained, it would cease to be "super"natural and just be "natural".

There is nothing to read up on. Your assertions are ridiculous. Science has never "disproved" reincarnation and never will. Perhaps what you mean to say is that there is no evidence of genetic memory or memory of past lives. However there is evidence of some memory of past lives. However, remembering past lives is not an essential part of reincarnation. The sad part is, most people have no way of knowing that they were reincarnated, so their collective lunacy continues.

[MozartLink]

I will not kill myself just yet since I am living for a possible full recovery from this anhedonia first. But if I can't recover, then I will kill myself. Also, I am not someone mean or cruel. Therefore, please have full empathy, respect, and compassion towards me and don't be mean or cruel to me. I was never such towards you in the first place. I am not saying that you or anyone else are being mean or cruel towards me. I am just simply bringing this up just in case.

As for reincarnation, that can either be something supernatural or can be something considered scientific. The supernatural has been disproved. So I obviously do not believe in that. As for the scientific version which says that reality is a computer simulation and that we might respawn in another life, that has been disproved as well. All versions of reincarnation have been disproved. As for your question, science answers all that which you are asking. So you are just going to have to read up on that. As for disproof of reincarnation, you are just going to have to read up on science here as well.

Really now. Science disproved that we are in a computer simulation? How did science accomplish this mighty feat?

The supernatural has been disproved? How can someone disprove something that has no consistent definition? That's why it's called "supernatural." If it could be explained, it would cease to be "super"natural and just be "natural".

There is nothing to read up on. Your assertions are ridiculous. Science has never "disproved" reincarnation and never will. Perhaps what you mean to say is that there is no evidence of genetic memory or memory of past lives. However there is evidence of some memory of past lives. However, remembering past lives is not an essential part of reincarnation. The sad part is, most people have no way of knowing that they were reincarnated, so their collective lunacy continues.

Yes, that is actually what I meant. But as for reincarnation or anything supernatural, I just simply do not believe in any of that no matter what. So we can just completely set this off to the side since I think it would be pointless talking about it.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

I will not kill myself just yet since I am living for a possible full recovery from this anhedonia first. But if I can't recover, then I will kill myself. Also, I am not someone mean or cruel. Therefore, please have full empathy, respect, and compassion towards me and don't be mean or cruel to me. I was never such towards you in the first place. I am not saying that you or anyone else are being mean or cruel towards me. I am just simply bringing this up just in case.

As for reincarnation, that can either be something supernatural or can be something considered scientific. The supernatural has been disproved. So I obviously do not believe in that. As for the scientific version which says that reality is a computer simulation and that we might respawn in another life, that has been disproved as well. All versions of reincarnation have been disproved. As for your question, science answers all that which you are asking. So you are just going to have to read up on that. As for disproof of reincarnation, you are just going to have to read up on science here as well.

Really now. Science disproved that we are in a computer simulation? How did science accomplish this mighty feat?

The supernatural has been disproved? How can someone disprove something that has no consistent definition? That's why it's called "supernatural." If it could be explained, it would cease to be "super"natural and just be "natural".

There is nothing to read up on. Your assertions are ridiculous. Science has never "disproved" reincarnation and never will. Perhaps what you mean to say is that there is no evidence of genetic memory or memory of past lives. However there is evidence of some memory of past lives. However, remembering past lives is not an essential part of reincarnation. The sad part is, most people have no way of knowing that they were reincarnated, so their collective lunacy continues.

Yes, that is actually what I meant. But as for reincarnation or anything supernatural, I just simply do not believe in any of that no matter what. So we can just completely set this off to the side since I think it would be pointless talking about it.

The only thing supernatural is believing that all of a sudden, life springs into existence without cause or reason, then, without cause or reason, disobeys the laws of inertia and suddenly ceases to exist for all of infinity, also violating the laws of mathematical infinity never being attained.

[MozartLink]

I know that Lawrence Krauss has stated this. But he would not be so stupid to state as such without any good reasons why. Therefore, he has all the very convincing reasons backing this claim up and you are just going to have to find that and read up on that. It is Something from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss. He states that nothing is actually not nothing at all. It is very complicated and I cannot explain it all here.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

I know that Lawrence Krauss has stated this. But he would not be so stupid to state as such without any good reasons why. Therefore, he has all the very convincing reasons backing this claim up and you are just going to have to find that and read up on that. It is Something from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss. He states that nothing is actually not nothing at all. It is very complicated and I cannot explain it all here.

ill see if it is online as i cannot afford books atm

[MozartLink]

I know that Lawrence Krauss has stated this. But he would not be so stupid to state as such without any good reasons why. Therefore, he has all the very convincing reasons backing this claim up and you are just going to have to find that and read up on that. It is Something from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss. He states that nothing is actually not nothing at all. It is very complicated and I cannot explain it all here.

ill see if it is online as i cannot afford books atm

It is on youtube.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

I know that Lawrence Krauss has stated this. But he would not be so stupid to state as such without any good reasons why. Therefore, he has all the very convincing reasons backing this claim up and you are just going to have to find that and read up on that. It is Something from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss. He states that nothing is actually not nothing at all. It is very complicated and I cannot explain it all here.

ill see if it is online as i cannot afford books atm

It is on youtube.

Kay I watched it I remember reading about him before. His theories are interesting, some of it is goofy though. Also his video has nothing to do with the topic of reincarnation whatsoever. How on earth did you come to such absurd conclusions claiming that it disproved reincarnation?

Some of the goofy things is that he says a closed universe you can see a light show the back of your head? How can this be? Simply if the gravitational forces were high it would slow down and retract on itself, nowhere does it say the edges would form some kind of dimensional terrasact loop allowing light to go around the edges and see the back of its origin.

Second goofy thing he says is that dark energy/matter is nothing. How is energy with detectable mass and temperature nothing? Ridiculous, and laughable.

Third goofy thing he says is that he knows exactly how many protons and neutrons there are in the universe. he says "he can't explain this" of course he can't. He later proves why he can't prove or explain this because he says galaxies at the edge of the universe might be superluminal and not-measurable. If the universe was certainly 13.5 billion years old perhaps all galaxies could be accounted for but it's a bit like measuring how many jelly beans are in a jar by glancing by eye or telescope.

If theres one thing you should learn from his lecture it's that life is not special, your experiences are not unique or special. I am anehedonic like you are, if anything his lecture tells me that reincarnation is highly probably for you.

Something to think about is that if the universe is expanding uniformly, it is like the galaxies are part of a grid, the grid is expanding but the galaxies are not. If the galaxies are not expanding, then are the galaxies stable, no? New research implies the universe is not expanding uniformly, and there is a center to the universe. http://www.universetoday.com/19509/the- ... uniformly/

[MozartLink]

The thing is, I don't think you or anyone else are in the position to question Lawrence Krauss or Richard Dawkins from the perspective of a greater intellect. We would only be worthy of being an audience asking him questions and him kindly answering them. They have studied up on things far more than you or anyone else.

As for the part about reincarnation, I just simply don't believe it. I don't believe in anything supernatural either. They say that once you become an atheist, then it is too late and you can never become a religious believer again and that you can never believe in anything supernatural ever again either. There might very well be a few exceptions. But those are only the few exceptions and there are many atheists who remain atheists their entire lives.

The truth is, I wish I was never an atheist. Then at least I would have hope, comfort, and a sense of superiority over this mocking inferior life of suffering, absence of pleasure, and mortality knowing that I would get the afterlife of eternal pleasure I wanted. If I were to live such a perfect blissful afterlife, then I could mock this life I am living in return by saying to it: "Haha, you can't make me suffer anymore and you can't take away my pleasure anymore." But unfortunately, that will never happen and this life will always remain the dominate entity mocking me and taking the one and only true good life I wanted to live.

I am also well aware of the fact that our experiences and such are not unique. I am well aware that there are many people with anhedonia and depression who have found reason to accept and move on in life anyway. However, pleasure to me is the only good thing in life there is. So people with anhedonia and depression are only fooling themselves into perceiving them and their lives as being still good and worthy through just bland neutral thoughts alone. They are nothing more than just thoughts without our feelings of pleasure to breathe transcending and profound life into us and our lives.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

The thing is, I don't think you or anyone else are in the position to question Lawrence Krauss or Richard Dawkins from the perspective of a greater intellect. We would only be worthy of being an audience asking him questions and him kindly answering them. They have studied up on things far more than you or anyone else.

As for the part about reincarnation, I just simply don't believe it. I don't believe in anything supernatural either. They say that once you become an atheist, then it is too late and you can never become a religious believer again and that you can never believe in anything supernatural ever again either. There might very well be a few exceptions. But those are only the few exceptions and there are many atheists who remain atheists their entire lives.

The truth is, I wish I was never an atheist. Then at least I would have hope, comfort, and a sense of superiority over this mocking inferior life of suffering, absence of pleasure, and mortality knowing that I would get the afterlife of eternal pleasure I wanted. If I were to live such a perfect blissful afterlife, then I could mock this life I am living in return by saying to it: "Haha, you can't make me suffer anymore and you can't take away my pleasure anymore." But unfortunately, that will never happen and this life will always remain the dominate entity mocking me and taking the one and only true good life I wanted to live.

I am also well aware of the fact that our experiences and such are not unique. I am well aware that there are many people with anhedonia and depression who have found reason to accept and move on in life anyway. However, pleasure to me is the only good thing in life there is. So people with anhedonia and depression are only fooling themselves into perceiving them and their lives as being still good and worthy through just bland neutral thoughts alone. They are nothing more than just thoughts without our feelings of pleasure to breathe transcending and profound life into us and our lives.

I am not totally anhedonic. I do feel great and intense sensual and orgasmic pleasure when I fantasize putting a long, smooth, double barrel steel shotgun into my mouth and slowly pulling the trigger. It excites me greatly. Mysteries are fun. Such a dark mystery. To discover what does or doesn't happen next! I already know though, reincarnation. But before I do, I will catch a brief moment of my headless body splurting up blood and twitching around. This arouses me greatly. The intense excitement, the uncertainty, the heart beating till the very end, slowly edging to the very heavy pull...

What is so supernatural about reincarnation? Reincarnation is just life arising. Life already arises. The whole lecture teaches something arising from nothing. Life already arises. Why does this seem mystical to you?

What I simply don't believe is you. I bet you are just a troll trying to get me to commit suicide. How do I know you are really anhedonic and not just planting thoughts in my head? You never told me your personal diary, just a couple of basic words about you with no description of any kind.

Why do you worship Krauss and Dawkins? I am the Greatest and Most Powerfulest and Highest Levelest of All Time. Dawkins has a funny face and looks like my ex. Nothing to worship there, but only to giggle. I question all, I respect no man. To science is to question.