Putin planning to glue together the most powerful superpower coalition in the world
 

Russian President Putin planning to glue together the most powerful superpower coalition in the world - India, China, Russia and Brazil

Russian President Putin is taking a lead role in putting together the most powerful coalition of regional and superpowers in the world. The coalition consists of India, China, Russia and Brazil. This will challenge the superpower supremacy of America as well as the European Union.

this coalition will have an overwhelming influence over the United Nations. Russia and China are permanent members of the security council. India and Brazil are in the process of becoming the same. In terms of population, the coalition will have three quarters of the world population, largest amount of natural resources and largest pool of technical and scientific talent.

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/11/1706084.php

Get ready for the cold war again. At least I hope its not hot.

also....

Putin rattled his sabre more today.

http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2004/11/18/001.html

Russia's defense industry is developing a new nuclear missile system that will be second to none in the world, and the armed forces will have it in their arsenal in the near future, President Vladimir Putin told a meeting of the military top brass Wednesday.

What is he trying to say?

The same thing Bush trying to say by recent plans to nuclearize space

we may be working things out vis a vis decentralized/leaderless political movements but we're second to none when it comes to dealing with centralized states. russia can try what it might but the us will kick it's ass completely if it steps over the line. that wannabee tin horn dictator putin is insane if he thinks he can take us on, china or no china. we handle stuff like this before breakfast, and we do it with gusto, or will that is if bush has the balls to take his eyes off putin's "soul" and stare the bastard down.

- js.

Not sure Js

China army is growing and is intact, aka, no soldiers are loosing their lives for a desperate cause. They are biting their time, waiting, while growing in numbers, also in need of oil. Since the afgan & iraque invasion, it's clear the US is hellbent on securing the oil supply, what will be left for russia & china? India is prolly in the plot because the pakistan is also a lapdog of the Bush adm.

Putin prolly feel that only 1 superpower is a big threath, I sure feel the same way. If it happens, the US will prolly go 'pre'emtive on this one. Wouldn't be surprised but wouldn't be wise either.

you will break your teeth on that !
 

dont want to sound picky ms.
but its "biding their time"
:)
reminds me of a cool old song ..
:WW:

i think he might be trying to say:

You cannot invade Russia, especially not with someone like Putin in power who would press the big red "DO NOT PRESS" button of total annihilation.

MWHAHAAAHAAA...we have new bigger better WMD's !
 

"I am sure that they will be put in service within the next few years and, what is more, they will be developments of the kind that other nuclear powers do not and will not have,"

• will he PUSH the BIG RED SHINY BUTTON ?
• How can he possibly resist the diabolical urge to push the button that could erase his very existence?
• Will his tortured mind give in to its uncontrollable desires? Can he resist the temptation to push the button that, even now, beckons him even closer? Will he succumb to the maddening urge to eradicate history ?
• At the MERE...PUSH...of a SINGLE...BUTTON!
• The beeyootiful SHINY button!
• The jolly CANDY-LIKE button!
• Will he hold out, folks?
• CAN he hold out?

****NEWSFLASH****


Russia has the second largest oil reserves in the world. Saudia Arabia is first.



Also

During the past 50 years, China's oil and gas industries have attained rapid growth.

The country's output of crude oil reached 170 million tons last year from 120,000 tons in 1949, with an average annual growth of 13.8 per cent.

Yield of natural gas reached 35 billion cubic metres in 2003, increasing 15.7 per cent year-on-year.


There was also talk about a pipeline running from Russia to China before the Iraqi War. I don't know what has come out of it.


Saying the US is --US is hellbent on securing the oil supply, what will be left for russia & china?-- Is so wrong I don't know where to start, well I guess the quotes above are the tip of the iceberg.

USA is third on the list. Even tho US mass production was of
5.9 million barrels/day in 2002 It doesn't seem enough for the US population, hence the need to import oil from other countries.

True, but for how long?

China population is growing fast and even tho they produce oil, they too still need to import oil from other countries. Think again if you believe that Russia can supply China, India, Japan, Korea... Why dou you think Japan sent troops to Iraq? to help secure their oil supply, as much as the US.

It's a long read but here's an article from the Centre for Research on Globalisation.

From

What is truly odd about this oil securing is that, it almost leaves no place to develop alternative solutions for oil consumption. There are plenty solutions that can replace the oil based economy, that would be environment friendly, but of course, researching and putting this initiative forward would costs millions, hek, billions of $$$ for that matter... But it seems more profitable to spend those billions of $ on war that is leading nowhere fast.

The USA is not number 3 when it comes to the Largest Oil Reserves of the World, the USA may be number 3 when it comes to Oil Production.

Sorry, I will not read junk from some anti-American conspiracy theory site.

Some other articles from there:

Media Cover-up of US War Crimes in Iraq

A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah

The Collapse of the WTC on 9/11: The Melting of Steel Components Refuted

US massacres civilians in Fallujah

"How I Stole Your Election" by George W. Bush

Kerry Won... Here are the Facts

Grand Theft Election

they are not theories :N:

Not may be, it is.

This article has credibility reguardless from the site I took it from. This site is not anti-American, it's anti globalization and anti-war. There are no conspiracy theory there, only good, shoking articles. Must have shoked the hell out of ya for you to label it Junk. I wouldn't dismiss it so quickly, i'd atleast give it a chance for so many reasons. And about the US wanting to secure the oil supply, don't need to take the info out of a conspiracy theory site, just take it out from the US department of energy website.

From

"the SPR provides the President with a powerful response option should a disruption in commercial oil supplies threaten the U.S. economy."

Wonder what that means? What would be a powerful response option should disruption happen the US oil supply? A war?


What's wrong with these articles? It happened and was caught on tape.

Fallujah shooting a 'war crime'
U.S. probes shooting at Fallujah mosque



From

The Facts are there, the city is being leveled, innocents are dying, children lost limbs due to the incessent bombing... And these childrens will grow up HATING americans and spread their hatred upon others, have no doubt.

You forgot to mentionned that this article is classified under the section, humor.

He might still win if the ballots are recounted in Ohio and Florida. Nader and more than half the citizen those states are asking for a recount. Seems they don't like that purple map.

Atlast, someone is asking the right question, not referring to your's truly. I wouldn't dismiss this so quickly. The NYT wrote an article about the subject, was the WTC really a terrorist act? CNN aired a week ago some footage that can make one question him/herself. Some ppl saw on this footage a building collapse prior the collaps of both WTC. It's on tape.

Lol @ Sinner. You need to learn to let rambling retards alone.

waht the fuck ?

:ick:

reminds me of a cool old song ..

Are you ashamed of your handicap albed?

hmmm

I suppose it would add a little to that Russian ring if his first name was "Vladimir" and not "Alex"...

Propagandists use a variety of propaganda techniques to influence opinions and to avoid the truth.



Sure War could be one of a thousand ideas they have. But War with who? OH MY GOD!!! Canada is the largest exporter of oil to the USA.....They are going to invade CANADA EH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RUN

It is easy for you and others sitting in their nice warm chair drinking coffee to call a Young American soldier whos life is at risk every second of the day a War Criminal.


It is a War, and it seems the terrorist there are doing most of the killing when it comes to the innocents. Grow up hating Americans? Just like in Japan you mean? Nope that never happened, or maybe Germany...hhhmmm nope, How about South Korea.....no again. Well I am sure some did but it never started another War.


Nope, I never forgot to mention it. I left it out.

Kerry did concede for a reason. I doubt he conceded because he thought he was going to win.


and some people have seen UFO's land in their backyard and some people have seen BigFoot walking around in the woods.....Their have been many news articles on these events....doesn't make it true.

it passes the time when there is nothing else to do.....

You should try something less irritating, like plucking your nose hairs maybe.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin



LOL @ muti's photochop

albeds loves us and can't get enough abuse
maybe hes a sadomasochist :SP:

I'd like to see you stand up and say the same for a young German member of the SS. It doesn't matter whether they are young, or whether they are not happy being where they are and that every other Iraqi would happily cut their throats if he had the chance. Killing injured enemy soldiers or leaving them to die is a war crime. The Iraqis, frankly, are committing war crimes too, but first they are not an organized army and they don't have the means to fight the Americans out in the open, so the same standards do not apply to them. If it weren't for the civilian casualties, I'd be happy to see both the Iraqi guerillas and the American soldiers killing each other, until noone was left. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen.

First, both the Iraqi interim government and the U.S. occupying forces are quick at covering up collateral damage that was caused by their side, second there are independent sources that claim there were thousands of civilian deaths in Fallujah.

And for the record, Germans don't particularly like Americans - or why do you thing our chancellor Gerhard "America can kiss mine and Jacque's asses" Schroeder won the last election? Ever since George Bush became president, anti-Americanism became really en-vogue in most of Europe. I don't think the Japanese can stand you very much either, - but then again the Japanese can't really stand anyone except for the Japanese.

The difference between Iraq and Germany in 1945 is that it was pretty undeniable that the Germans had been the bad guys, we started the war, we "solved" the Jew problem and all our neighbours hated us, - even the Austrians because *they* never had any part in anything. Iraq on the other hand didn't start the war. The other Arab countries, the Europeans and most of the world media is telling them, that they are the victims. And if you read the press here or elsewhere, you will read about the American crimes against Iraq and you will read that Al-Sarkawi beheaded half a dozen Iraqi soldiers and that it is all America's fault. The Iraqis are going to hate you, the rest of the world will make sure of that.

A Nazi sympathizer eh? Don't pick on Sinner too much, he's got similiar ideas about the "jewish problem".



The laws of war apply to everyone equally reguardless of your bias and ignorance. The insurgents are organized and they've admitted it themselves.



So you snakes won't be able to take over the world then, damn!



There's nothing more reliable than "independent sources" is there? Why I bet you'd be willing to stake you life on them, so if less than 2,000 dead civilians are found you'll kill yourself right?



While hatred is a pretty easy thing to spread the macho culture of the mid-east looks down on sniveling cowards probably more than americans so europeans won't be nearly as influential as they'd like.

Not really a Nazi sympathizer, - there were actually times when I would have considered myself a communist.

There is no law that binds nations, - there are treaties that bind nations, treaties like the Geneva convention and the several Hague conventions that the U.S. ratified if I'm not mistaken. And a guerilla fighter and the soldier of a proper state committing crimes are entirely different things. You may call it hypocrisy, but that's the way it is.

Taking over the world through military means is an anachronistic concept.

No. I will call it a lie and continue to claim there were more than 2,000 civilian deaths. That is called ignorance, - something the average American should be quite familiar with, the only difference being that I choose to be in that state rather than being forced into that state by my lack of ability to inform myself.


I wouldn't want Europe to gain that kind of influence. It's about giving these countries the choice between an imperialistic U.S. of A., the neo-stalinist Putin and the moderate EU. We are already seeing that terrorism is concentrating on the U.S. and Russia what more should we wish for?

I am playing advocatus diaboli here, but really, watching the U.S. screw itself in Iraq is kind of entertaining.

So like most passive anal retentive liberals you just "consider yourself" or "support" whatever suits your particlar crusade, just like you do with your votes and support on any issue. Make a choice you wishy washy fuk, your just like that asshole on game day that won't pick a Team to support until one team is clearly going to win, then brags about how he was supporting the winning Team all along.


Congrats...Your a Hypocrite. A truely biased and ignorant hypocrite at that. Only a giant ass of a hypocrite would try and pass off this kind of complete and utter bullshit. Only someone so completely consumed with hatred of another would attempt such a pathetic reason to excuse murder. Your damn right its hypocrisy and thank god it isn't the "way it is" for those of us in touch with reality.

The fact you actually think that a soldier who commits a war crime should be held accountable because, lets face it...he is an American, that was in a foriegn land under orders from his government, but the guerillas that are targeting, kidnapping, beheading innocent civilians and soldiers alike should be excused for their war crimes because they are not of a "proper state"???? <--Liberal rhetoric for, Because YOU personally don't SUPPORT what America's doing in Iraq so instead of murdering criminals these heroes are in your twisted realm of reality "FREEDOM FIGHTERS".

Murder is murder you moronic retard, a war crime is a war crime regardless who commits it. Theres no difference, only your sick and twisted perception. This ludicrous reasoning speaks volumes for your obvious lack of sanity and connection with reality.


Need I mention any further what an anal hate filled, insane little person would admit that young men, women and children dying in Iraq is "entertaining" and brings them some kind of sick pleasure. Bush winning the election really sent your pyschopathic ass over the edge.

don't sugar-coat it, jc - just come right out and tell him how you feel.

The term "international law" sure turns up a lot of search results for something that doesn't exist.



How could I call it hypocrisy when you say they're both committing crimes? How could you call it hypocrisy? Seems you're saying they're both subject to laws.



That is called lying. That's some impressive bullshit twisting but it's not going to fool anyone with a trace of integrity, it'll just make you look the fool.



Wish they forget your support for a brutal dictator that killed millions of them.



I hope getting your jollies that way keeps you from torturing puppies or whatever else you get off on.

strange, i always thought the stuckup conservative fuks where the anal ones..

i am sure you can make it fit bill for either..

if you cant comment without making some personal slur..stfu

You don't make the rules you bong sucking monkey molester.

Why don't you comment on the topic instead of the people discussing it.

Forget it; way over your head no doubt.

your posts remind me of a peice of dogshit that i have step around on the pavement
thats about the only input i see from you in this forum..
why do ppl have to stoop to childish name calling..
especialy to new members.

damn conservative egomaniacs..
if your heads where anymore up your asses you would be licking your own eyeballs..
:f:
of course i think..
its about time other countries got together
to oppose the monopoly on world power that
gives the US and israel the right do what they like
in the middle-east...
its far from entertaining though..more like an embarrasing
attempt to persuade the western world there is some sort of war going on..
if anything ..one they have created
by targeting muslims and deciding
their holy sites are good places to invade and occupy over the last century or so..

In a certain rationally thinking being vs. religiously motivated lunatic sense you are right. I consider myself and support whatever I deem best for me. I don't believe in the greater cause.

I thought I had made it clear which team I chose to support.

Actually, that is what I think. A guerrilla is basically a criminal, a criminal with a cause maybe, but still a criminal. A soldier committing a war crime is completely different, he must be dealt with as an example. Soldiers must abide by the laws, guerrillas are beyond the reach of the law, they may be prosecuted or killed by the law but the only ones whose judgement they must accept are the people they claim to fight for.

You really believe that equality stuff they teach you at school? Murder is not murder. One murderer will be executed the other one gets a medal. It's not about what motivates the killing or under what circumstances it happened. It's about how the public and those who are in power perceive the killing. There is no greater justice beyond human justice and that - I am afraid - is totally biased. In the end, it's just about who gets to tell the story. Live with it.

Why do you think, people like watching pictures of war in the news? Because they want to be informed? They could have that information without seeing death and destruction. Truth is, it thrills them, it gives them those little adrenalin kicks that others get from playing the latest ego shooter or watching action movies. Men are entertained by watching death and destruction. I don't know which one of the terrorists said “you love life, we love death”, but he was wrong. Everybody loves death.

Okay, back to the topic. Do you honestly believe there would be any law under which Russia would be prosecuted if it chose to nuke Chechnia? The U.N. can't do anything because Russia is a permanent member of the security council.

Yes they are both subject to laws but for the same crimes, they will not be judged in the same manner. People will forget the deeds of somebody like Al-Sarkawi fairly quickly or make up legends in which he was not as guilty as he might have been but they tend to remember the war crimes committed by a foreign soldier for a long, long time.

If I choose which truth to believe, it is not a lie. I can build my own little reality just by choosing which sources are trustworthy and which are not. In this reality, everything that I say is true and everything that you say is a lie. The only question is, whether my little reality is plausible enough to convince enough others. It's sort of an Orwellian scenario but by choosing whose stories to believe, people can change what is commonly accepted as the truth.
If I would say, there were n-thousand deaths as Al-Jazeera (or whatever other source I would come up with) reported it, you could say no, there weren't because Fox News reported something else. I would say you source isn't trustworthy, you would say mine isn't and you would have no way of proving to me and others what you believe is the truth.

We didn't support Saddam Hussein, the U.S. did during the cold war. We did not support the war on Iraq either because we did forsee what would happen. It's plausible, many people will believe it, ergo it's true.

I'm way past torturing puppies.

i think you have me mixed up with someone else..
anyway i havent even posted in that thread unlike you and albed..
hang on i must go read it :f:
ffs..i dont even know who this reid chick is..

but anyway i am sure you could get me on much lamer topics i have posted about
wich is beside the point and doesnt effect what ever i might post here..sif i give a shit anyway..you know you could call me anything

its much more effective if you try it on every new person on the forum that turns up because you know how ppl will react most of the time..
ie. find a subject on the forum peeps are passionate about (eg.napster)
start a thread bashing it (eg NAPSTERSMAPSTER#x)
call them theives ..etc

you have the seniority no doubt there...
(you are one of the few ppl that ofcourse stick in ones memory from that blur that was the napster forum)
how long you been doing this shit ?

but as much as it may annoy you.. i must say i always have liked you & your posts no matter how venomous they may get sometimes
your posts when you dont vicimize and sterotype
carry a lot more weight imo..but thats just my opinion


anyway i believe this place is pretty good at moderating itself...if a new conservative member was getting attacked by us wishy washy lefties, i would expect you to jump in and say lay off on the personal attack to get your point across..too
i didnt mean to take this off topic..my apologies to the others posting in this thread

on entertainment
 

97% of news is usualy a mix of something tragic ,avoidable ,sad ..ect
how entertained by all this comes down to how people deal with that on a personal level...often a sense of humour helps to blot out some of the real bad stuff othertimes you can find yourself really empathizing with what ever has happened..this thing has many variables..
people get comfortable with how they deal with things..far from pyschopathic
its probably healthier to have sense of humor or
empathizing without connecting too emotionaly
when objectifying it people
protect themselves from it by putting it all at a distance from themselves. This allows them to see the other people as things or objects that can be treated without having to consider their feelings..all well and good but imoleads people into negitive belief systems wich induce stress..sickness..etc

nearly all of us came away from our TV's on 911 shocked and bewildered
was it entertainment ?
an extreme example but it was riveting television..the 1990 gulf war..people didnt leave their TV's for days watching that..same with the recent invasion
hell.. i even remember JFK assasination stopping regular programming that day to cover that
big world events tend to get lots of airplay

International human rights laws are already in existance so Russia's veto wouldn't matter and it's the people committing the crimes that are prosecuted not a whole country. Slobodan Milosevic has found out about international laws, why haven't you?



The truth can't contradict itself. You can claim lies are true but your credibility drops each time you go on record and soon you'll be ignored as just another slimeball.

Slobodan Milosevic picked the wrong people to fuck with. And Russia never gave much for human rights. Chechnia is only one example for that.

There are two mistakes in your reasoning:
First, you seem to assume that you can identify any lie. You cannot. Most information you receive, can not be verified by yourself. If it appears likely enough, you will just believe it. And if you wait just long enough, most of the information won't even be physically verifiable. For all we know, the ancient cultures of Rome, Egypt or Greece may have been made up by someone else. Since that does not appear likely, we believe what historical documents and artifacts tell us about Rome, Egypt and Greece.
Second, you seem to believe that people prefer the truth over a good lie. They don't. Lies can often be much easier to understand and to accept as the truth. Why do you think people believe in God? Do we have any proof that he exists? No. Does it seem even likely that he exists, according to science? No. So - logically - God is most probably a lie. Yet so many people firmly believe that there is a God. They do so for many reasons but basically it is just convenient for them if there is a God, a form of higher justice, a legitimation for their own actions and a deeper meaning of life.
People choose a reality that appears likely they call it truth and call anyone who refuses it a liar.

Thanks you for describing, in much better words than I can, the Bush adm :)

:con: :con: :con: :con:

Oh please, spare me the bleeding heart crap. It's war. What I saw is no different than an IDF shooting an unarmed palestinian. The guy shot and killed a man and it was taped for the whole world to see on how, some coalition members, deals with insurgents.

There is a BIG difference between being at war with another country and being the invading force. Kinda like Israel and Palestine. A lot of palestinian kids grow up to hate the 'occupying force' aka the jewish state and the IDF soldiers. Same thing will happen in Iraq, it's no different.




Wonder why? Does it have to do with the "use a variety of propaganda techniques to influence opinions and to avoid the truth."?

Are you opposed to a recount?

Doesn't make it false either.

I can identify nutcases and disreputable media organizations easily enough through their lack of ethical standards and compare them to people and organizations who value their reputation and adhere to high standards as well as simple logic and my own experience of what lying lowlifes are like and do quite well in identifying lies.




You seem to assume I know as little as you. I know more than enough than to even consider they could be made up.




What people claim to believe and what they actually do believe are often two different things. Compare their behaviour in supposed privacy to their public rhetoric to find out their true beliefs or offer a reward and see if they change their professed beliefs or even consider that they might be like you and lie to others for their own benefit.

Truth and reality aren't matters of opinion, they have established defintions and standards of proof. You can claim otherwise but you've already begun demonstrating what your opinion is worth.

Let's analyze that: You define ethical standards (ethical standards are not absolute!), everybody who suffices these arbitrary standards tells the truth.
You use your personal experience (something highly subjective, also far from absolute), to identify liars - you have some profile and if somebody fits that profile (the way he talks, the way he looks, you will most likely be unable to identify what exactly is so suspicious about him), he has to be a liar.
You claim to use logic, I doubt that. I will give you an example: Your neighbour says an flying saucer landed in his backyard last night. You look outside and you see the backyard the way you remember it from yesterday without any kind of UFO. And nobody else saw or heard anything either. What does logic tell you here? Logic tells you that either your neighbour doesn't tell the truth or that the UFO simply landed while nobody else was looking. The second possibility may seem less probable than the first according to your experience but logic itself will not prefer one possibility over another. In order to use logic to identify truth, you would at least need some other truth (and not just any truth - 'cogito ergo sum' is not sufficient) to start with, but you are judging based on your own experience - and your experience has nothing to do with the absolute truth, it is based on what you see and on what you remember and on what you WANT to remember.

And the fact that you do not even consider the possibility just proves that you blindly rely on information you received from sources that you could not verify, like "It's on the internet, so it must be true!" which is - and you can actually use logic to prove that - not true.

You don't seem to understand what I was aiming at. What people believe has nothing to do with the truth. Given the choice people will believe the sound lie, if the alternative was the unlikely and uncomfortable truth. In the UFO example from above, let us consider the following as the truth: Last night, there was an UFO in your neighbours backyard, and nobody noticed it, except for him. You won't believe the truth, it doesn't fit in your own reality, you will believe that your neighbour lied and you will call him a liar. And you will add elements of your neighbour to the profile of a liar that is based on your experience. You will be unable to reliably identify any further truth just because your liar-profile has been corrupted by your inability to see this one truth.

There is an absolute truth, there is an absolute reality. You will never be able to see it, - unless there is a god and you are dead.

Gregorio, since you're new here, allow me to help you out and save you some time.

Your epistemological arguments, as applied to the P2P Zone's poster-child for homeland insecurity, are entirely futile. Below are a few excerpts from The Book of Albedisms:

Also, you should realize that since most of albed's responses have the approximate form and content of the average Lichtenstein canvas or daily Peanuts comic strip, they tend to draw the lazy eye and attention span past denser and more difficult or complex material which may require creative thought, or, indeed, thought. Compare this tendency with the definitions above and you'll quickly realize that albed has an unbeatable, built-in appeal to his own audience... himself.

Therefore, if you're really into providing stimulus for other people's masturbation, I know of some much better looking guys than albed who have webcams and will drop the tiresome quasi-intellectual pretense altogether. Barring that, you might just want to stick to communication with the adults here.

:) What if it was him who provided the stimulus and me who had no interest in communicating with adults? Discussions with people who basically share the same opinion can be quite boring, discussions with somebody whose opinion has a solid base on a completely different set of values are really tiresome, especially if you have to translate everything that you want to say. And most of all, it feels good to talk to someone who does not pick on all the little errors in your argumentation. After all, I came here because I thought it was a P2P forum.

It is :ND:

Try the underground, if you dare ;)

Welcome gregorio!
:WW:

Ramona you dirty old fart, aren't there enough gay chatrooms on the internet for you to do that on? At least post a recent pic for the guy; from your repeated jabs at Ann Coulter's thinness I suspect you've become rather chubby as well as aged.

Ann Coulter has to be thin - whoever heard of a fat dominatrix?

You don't get around much do you knife?

I don't define ethical standards anywhere in this thread. Oops! Forgot that your reality is what you choose to believe.



In combination with the other things I've mentioned.



No I don't have some profile and never said I did. That 'reality is what you choose' crap is already getting annoying. Try choosing one that doesn't falsify what I've said.



Your reality sure has me doing a lot of things here. Do I need to participate in this thread at all?



If that were true I'd believe space aliens built the pyramids and other ridiculous information I've received. I've discarded plenty of information so I hope you'll acknowledge that I don't blindly rely on it.



Like I said before, you're assuming what people say about their beliefs is the truth. If you study psychology you'll find scientific studies showing that on certain subjects, particularly religion, many people lie about their true beliefs. So they're likely not as weak minded and irrational as you assume. You're also once again deciding what I would do in your hypothetical circumstances. You just can't help yourself can you?



No need to get all pompous here. I'd challenge you to produce a proof but there's no telling what bullshit you'll make up. Reality is the universe we exist in, truth is the mental model of reality. There is only one of each.

tell us all about it albed

are flour jokes frowned upon? just say the safe word at any time :D

and hi gregorio, welcome to the asylum, where views seldom change and logic means little. but we have alot of fun with it. :tu: right albed?

But you do have ethical standards, don't you?
It's a subconscious type of thing really.
It's not about discarding some information. It's about questioning all information and being ready to accept that most of the information you previously believed may turn out to be false or at least very unreliable at some point. Once you have seen that, you can either continue questioning what you believe to be true right now - or you can choose to continue believing.

Did you find any of these scientific studies or do you just believe in their existence? What you actually say is that people don't really believe in God. Independent of whether there are studies trying to prove that or not, given the role religion has played in our history and still plays, I don't find that very likely.

Yes, that's the fun thing about hypothetical situations.

You think, therefore you are. That is the one fundamental truth you can absolutely be sure of. What else do you know? Nothing. What you remember from your past could be fake. Maybe it was a dream. Maybe you are delusional. Maybe all your memories are the result of some sort of conditioning. What you see, what you hear, everything you perceive maybe fake too. Maybe you are under the influence of drugs.
So, what do you actually know about reality or the truth? Nothing. You can assume that what you remember was really the way you remembered it. You can assume what you see is some glimpse of reality.
But consider this, you are meeting an old friend from school, you talk about a particular event of which either of you has a slightly different memory. You have to admit that stuff like that happens occasionally, - how will you ever find out that your memory serves you right?
Given all this, do you really think, you know the truth or reality? Isn't it possible that you are wrong and I am right?

And I am going to tell you, you are wrong. I am right. And I'm not going to prove it to you, because I can't, as well as you can't prove the opposite. But I can argue that my explanation of the world is much more plausible than yours and therefore we should agree that it is true until somebody comes up with a better explanation.

:CM:

That's absolutely priceless. Actually, in my opinion, the epithet 'weak minded and irrational' pretty much applies by definition to anyone who believes there's a big invisible man in the sky who's going to judge them when they die, but aside from that, since one of the basic tenets of most religions is thou shall not bear false witness, if they further lie about their beliefs, we have at best 'many' raging hypocrites here, if not candidates for reality therapy.

Also, if they lie about their beliefs, it would be pretty obviously weak minded and irrational of these supposed 'scientific studies' to subsequently qualify the veracity of their claim that they are liars, but aren't lying about lying, as some sort of viable statistic.

If you've 'studied psychology' you probably already know all about wish fulfillment, and your belief that such 'scientific studies' even exist is exactly that.

But of course it's entirely reasonable for you to invoke phrases such as 'scientific studies' when you're really only referring to unsubstantiated opinions and half-baked speculations to support this idea that you have a greater ability to discern the truth than anyone else. After all, that basic contention couldn't possibly get any more ludicrous even if you tried.

So you've decided to join my audience after all and attempt to provide masturbation stimulous along with tiresome quasi-intellectual pretense.

It sure isn't stimulating to me; try talking dirty.




If someone's lying about a professed belief that prohibits lying then it's a perfectly rational and reinforcing indication that that person doesn't really believe what they've professed. duh

Also, like I posted before, and you didn't understand, to learn the truth you study people's behaviour free from peer pressure and contrast it with their professed beliefs. If someone switches religions or privately violates basic tenents of a professed religion it's strong evidence that their true beliefs aren't what they've claimed.

I personally know plenty of people who pay lip service (not what you're thinking) to their religion, attend the functions and go through the rituals, and are no more religious than I am.

...and since you claim that these seemingly fluffy little bits of offhand pseudo-knowledge are based on scientific studies, no doubt by reputable organizations judged by you as adhering to such high standards, you'll now have no trouble at all producing evidence of them, as I'm sure they must be lying around on your desk at this very moment, artifacts testifying to your vast, ongoing and rigorous research of human psychology.

If you can't produce them on the other hand, and let us judge for ourselves whether they are reputable and scientific, I'm afraid you'll have to be labeled just another low-life liar by your own criteria.

Wow! You're even more of a fan than I thought. I've actually got 2 dozen minimized pages on my desktop along with a couple locked up ones from chasing psychology links. Still interesting and still plenty to learn. I'll keep an eye out for studies.

Actually I noticed I've branched out into social sciences too. I get this way.

Wow, you're going to 'keep an eye out' for studies? Curious that you would have to spend all day 'chasing psychology links' to support something you stated as fact. I guess the above was merely 'hypothetical'--or maybe a 'guess'--or maybe some sort of precognitive prophecy! Maybe you're just one of those people who thinks if such studies don't exist then someone ought to create them to help their argument appear valid.

Don't feel bad, a lot of novices mistake scientism for true science like that, especially if they're not particularly bright or have some kind of impulsive agenda obliterating their objectivity.

But I have little doubt that if you google it hard enough you can find something to support any lying burst of gas that was designed to create the illusion that you were actually in possession of some superior form of knowledge. As quite possibly your biggest fan, I can't wait to see what you might come up with, but my money is actually on you making a few more snide and beside the point comments and then slinking off like you never really got your ass handed to you at your own petty game.

Nag, nag, nag....you are the worst masturbation stimulus on the internet.

Yeah, a search for "religion, lying and statistics" would certainly turn up those pages, unfortunately the words lie or lying are only mentioned three times in a very oblique way that neither has anything to do with your argument that 'many people lie about their beliefs', nor is anything but purely speculatory rhetoric appraising the meaning of statistics with a preconceived distinction that the nature of a person's god concept plays a role in the meaning of religion, qualifications that are nowhere to be found in the data being approached, and hardly represent 'scientific studies.'

How weak and embarassing for you.

Opinion.


I don't even know wtf that is.

If this is what you consider science, it's no wonder your view of the world is so damned comical.