Why rich smart attractive males avoid marriage? Why religions teach you to get married? Why feminazis prevent consenting females from accepting high paying jobs and escaping patriarchal oppression? Why force and deceit are often more politically correct than consent in getting a mate? What should you do to help your self?
It’s because I seriously contemplate the possibility of God that I don’t have faith in any religions. Who among us, when choosing investments or jobs or occupations or even coca cola from vending machine count merely on faith just because some politicians say so? Only those deep down believing that truth doesn’t matter anyway would count on faith. They are the true atheists.
February 3, 2012
January 13, 2012
Marines that Pee on Talibans end Talibanism than Those Killing Talibans
Spirits are the true self. Our bodies are just tools used by the spirits, the genes, the memes, the religions, to propagate itself.
Kill a taliban, and more bodies will born to replace used bodies.
Pee on Talibans. Spread porn. Hire afganistan hot babes as sex workers, and any Taliban will be over in no time.
That’s why people hate porn so much. Porn exterminate them faster than gun. They’d rather get shot than letting porn spread. What ever they hate, do it, and bigots will be exterminated quickly.
Incoming search terms:
- harem fuck
- powered by phpBB marines
- afghan babes naked
- babes harem
- hot afghan babes
- kızlar haremi
- undressed women
November 1, 2011
Origin of Morality
Sticking a knife to someone will cause him die. People don’t want to die. So they come up with some arrangements. Let’s not kill each other. But people are selfish. So they said, okay, those who kill, we kill. Tada…. We got laws and justice. Then we don’t kill each other. That would be the scientific explanation of morality. Interests of the powerful.
Still… Religious answers maybe more correct than liberal. Religious people know that you need to kill to prevent murder. Liberal that understand evolution theory doesn’t.
Even Dawkins says that we grow out of our nature. Is he out of his damn mind? Our nature is by definition what we are. No we can’t get out of it. See communism… That’s what happen when people stamp out religions too fast.
Religion with all the false reasoning is here first, and used to work. It’ll fade, but I won’t condemn that too quickly.
October 23, 2011
Will science replace religions?
Not very fast.
Religion fulfills a need. A need to be successful at the expense of others and stay politically correct. That is a very important need. Humans’ interest, when it comes to maxing out the number of mates and controlling others are zero sum. We need to trick others and each others. Deceptions, powerful effective deceptions will exist on zero sum game. In fact, deceptions will be so important people would go all the way to deceive one self. Science can answer that, but the answer will be politically incorrect and not mainstream. Hence, there will be religious answers on those.
Science? Not necessarily. There is a reason why science flourish on aspects of life not politically significant first. Things like how fast a ball will move down rather than who should die? Not much latter science start answering questions like should government interfere in economy?
When something is politically significant, humans want to outdone the other. Science is often common knowledge and hence do not give much “edge”. Being scientific means you’re just “equal”. So it’s normal that people want to try new things based on what’s not scientific for a chance to do something better than their peers. It’s called magic. Religion is one such magic.
As of now I see that religious people more successfully reproduce, that according to science, namely evolutionary psychology, is life ultimate goal 
So here religious is “right” in one way namely it prescribe a more effective strategy to breed. Many rich people are also religious.
Most atheists believe that Jacob
stories that Jacob affect the population of sheeps by displaying pattern
in front of those sheeps to be wrong. After all, sheeps pattern are genetic and not affected by what they see. I think the bible is actually
correct here. Pattern displayed affect sheeps’ sexual selection and that
affect their population. In fact, it’s the very thing religious people
are more “advance” than atheists. They are more skilled at controlling
what we see and hence affecting which one of us more successfully reproduce (namely the one like them). I don’t know what a better
question would be. Perhaps there should be another sample.
Many religious group support death penalty while liberal scientists oppose that. Again religion strikes again. In fact, religions may have saved us from communism. Sure scientific economy would also explain that communism sucks. However, 50 years ago it wasn’t that obvious. Fifty years ago the idea that free market lead to prosperity is not science yet for mos people.
The Human MRCA. All humans alive today share a surprisingly recent common ancestor, perhaps even within the last 5,000 years, even for people born on different continents.[13]
Here is another one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
This is one of the idea where religions can be good despite wrong.
I think science have limitation. Politically incorrect science tend to be hidden. Hence a “double wrong” may need to show up to get things correct again. That’s something religions provide. Religions allow people to achieve things they do not understand how yet based on what used to work.
Yes the need for proof is also a limitation. Before the truth come up with proof, religious bigotry have spread around the globe and by popular demand snuff off all proofs.
For religions to flourish they must have been “right” on some facts that are important on our life. Important imply disprovable obviously.
http://freemarketforever.com/2011/10/22/set-context-science-vs-religion-done-which-one-is-more-accurate-on-disprovable-facts-science-or-religions/
Incoming search terms:
- Guardian of the Harem
Jesus taught us not to judge
That means if we see evil committed we shouldn’t judge that as evil and condemn it. We should see that as awesome technique and learn to do it too. That’s the path to salvation.
I think that’s the essence of all religions, how to be successful, at the expense of others, while staying politically correct.
Jacob sheeps, a middle way to interpret religion
http://bible.org/seriespage/jacob-gets-laban%E2%80%99s-goat-genesis-3025-3116
Most atheists believe that Jacob
stories that Jacob affect the population of sheeps by displaying pattern
in front of those sheeps to be wrong. After all, sheeps pattern are genetic and not affected by what they see.
Christians believe that God created a miracle on this case.
I think what’s true is somewhere between. I think the bible is actually
correct here. Pattern displayed affect sheeps’ sexual selection and that
affect their population. In fact, it’s the very thing religious people
are more “advance” than atheists. They are more skilled at controlling
what we see and hence affecting which one of us more successfully reproduce (namely the one like them). I don’t know what a better
question would be. Perhaps there should be another sample.
Many religious group support death penalty while liberal scientists oppose that. Again religion strikes again. In fact, religions may have saved us from communism. Sure scientific economy would also explain that communism sucks. However, 50 years ago it wasn’t that obvious.
This is one of the idea where religions can be good (for one’s self at the expense of others) despite wrong.
Why do I call improving ones’ own success at the expense of others’ good? That’s what most people consider evil. The truth is, the scientifically correct but politically incorrect truth that most of us don’t want to know is that some very important aspects of life is zero sum game. Hence, there is no such thing is “good” without hurting others on those aspects. When you get more some will get less. You have to screw people to be successful. And that’s as good as it gets.
Let’s look at women and power, for example. When one man get more of those, the other will always lose. It’s zero sum. And that’s where religions kick in. Religions always deal with power and women. Deception is necessary to win. And hence religions fill that niche.
October 22, 2011
Ah I get it. I think religion is a MASK of politically incorrect (and hence important) science
Look at typical science. Balls fall at 9.8m/s^2. Sure. That’s accurate. That’s science. That’s also not important. Who care? Does it move your emotion to realize what the acceleration of ball is? Did your ancestors more successfully reproduce because they know what the balls acceleration is? Did you jerk off in front of E=mc^2?
Now look at religions. Who should be our king? What will bring you to heaven or hell? This guy have sex outside marriage, should we kill him?
The reasoning may be inaccurate. However, the issue is definitely IMPORTANT. It moves our mind and it moves our heart. Head roles and kids are breed based on who died. People need an answer.
Can science answer such question?
Yes. Of course. Some people knows what to do on that situation and they know great algorithm to accomplish it. In a word, they put it down to science. Those people are politicians, businessmen, and to a certain extend us.
Here is a problem.
When a question is important, will the answer be politically correct?
There are 2 parts. The first one is when we are in cooperative mode. In this case science again will prevail over religion. Economic theory have replaced bible to explain the raise and sink of the world’s economy.
What about the politically incorrect ones? Guess what? Because it’s important, actually, science have answered that long before. However, answers to politically incorrect aspects of life will never be mainstream science.
It’s so easy for those who understand it to manipulate those who don’t. Some aspects of life is zero sum game. Think about it. Say you want a pretty girl. Say you want a lot. For every single girl you get in your life, that’s one less girl for others. There is a science on getting girls. However, that science won’t be mainstream.
There is a science to be in power. That science also won’t be mainstream.
Imagine a dictator killing large number of people. Why would you do that ask someone asked? So I can be king. Ups. Wrong politically incorrect answer, though most accurate. That kind of answer need a mask. That mask is religion. Because those people are heretic, the tyrant says.
For most people, we just don’t know. We can only know only if work really hard to learn.
Let’s examine the story of Jacob.
It’s in the bible. http://bible.org/seriespage/jacob-gets-laban%E2%80%99s-goat-genesis-3025-3116 Atheists believe that it’s simply untrue because it’s simply doesn’t work. Christians believe that it’s true but due to God’s intervention (miracle). I think it’s true and scientifically. It’s science, but it’s hidden because it’s politically incorrect. That is why most atheists simply think it’s false. Christians, even though have the wrong reason, reach the correct conclusion. Affecting what you see does affect the outcome.
I believe that behind every religion, there is a truth. But that’s the catch. The truth is behind. The front are just camouflage.
Incoming search terms:
- pretty asians
- pretty asian girl
- pretty asian girls
- powered by phpBB ups locations
- religion is a mask
Set Context: Science vs. Religion Done Which one is more accurate on disprovable facts, science or religions?
Science? Not necessarily. There is a reason why science flourish on aspects of life not politically significant first. Things like how fast a ball will move down rather than who should die? Not much latter science start answering questions like should government interfere in economy?
When something is politically significant, humans want to outdone the other. Science is often common knowledge and hence do not give much “edge”. Being scientific means you’re just “equal”. So it’s normal that people want to try new things based on what’s not scientific for a chance to do something better than their peers. It’s called magic. Religion is one such magic.
As of now I see that religious people more successfully reproduce, that according to science, namely evolutionary psychology, is life ultimate goal So here religious is “right” in one way namely it prescribe a more effective strategy to breed. Many rich people are also religious.
Most atheists believe that Jacob
stories that Jacob affect the population of sheeps by displaying pattern
in front of those sheeps to be wrong. After all, sheeps pattern are genetic and not affected by what they see. I think the bible is actually
correct here. Pattern displayed affect sheeps’ sexual selection and that
affect their population. In fact, it’s the very thing religious people
are more “advance” than atheists. They are more skilled at controlling
what we see and hence affecting which one of us more successfully reproduce (namely the one like them). I don’t know what a better
question would be. Perhaps there should be another sample.
Many religious group support death penalty while liberal scientists oppose that. Again religion strikes again. In fact, religions may have saved us from communism. Sure scientific economy would also explain that communism sucks. However, 50 years ago it wasn’t that obvious.
The Human MRCA. All humans alive today share a surprisingly recent common ancestor, perhaps even within the last 5,000 years, even for people born on different continents.[13]
Here is another one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
This is one of the idea where religions can be good despite wrong.
I think science have limitation. Politically incorrect science tend to be hidden. Hence a “double wrong” may need to show up to get things correct again. That’s something religions provide. Religions allow people to achieve things they do not understand how yet based on what used to work.
For religions to flourish they must have been “right” on some facts that are important on our life. Important imply disprovable obviously. Hence the question. What would be a better question then?
October 19, 2011
What would it take for an atheist to be a believer?
I once went to Benny Hinn. I saw people are rising from the chairs and the deaf hear.
For a while I was moved.
I then asked whether I can have more details on those who are cured so I can verify whether they really are cured or not.
They said I should ask the administrator.
I didn’t dig further because I was busy.
However, I see that 20-20 did some analysis and show that most of those “cured” people remain sick. What we have is just either fraud or blatant ignorance. Which explains religion.
In fact, here is the punch line. If those people are indeed cured by Benny Hinn, I bet we have tons of testimonies, statistic, etc. of all those people cured.
The same would go for religions. If God is really there and care about us, I bet we would have had far stronger proof. I bet Raelians will have shown us iPhone 25. These lack of evidence is indeed a strong evidence for atheism. If God exist and He cared that we believe him, we would never have needed faith.
Now to answer the question, just look at Benny Hinn again. If we have more documented testimonies that he’s not a fraud, then I think I would believe.
If during near death experience people can read numbers that they could not possibly have read, then I would believe.
Still religion can correctly predict and guide people’s life to the better (for themselves/often at the expense of others). It’s how we evolve. What works, rather than what’s true, is what reproduce and what’s common. So yea, religions are worth studying. Something is there. Most likely not God as we know it.
I want to believe. Please give me something worth believing.