IT.COM

What's going on with Epik and Rob Monster?

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

MapleDots

Account Closed (Requested)
Impact
13,169
I'm catching the tail end of this, seems to be some kind of controversy...

https://domaingang.com/domain-news/rob-monster-off-twitter-after-christchurch-massacre-controversy/

Must be something odd to evoke this type of a response from one of our members.

Picture0016.png
 
8
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
No, in that post you tried to suggest that in my mind religion was the equivalent of a world ending disease, and that in that scenario the only reasonable option would be extreme measures - such as extermination, special camps etc.

But as usual, you completely misrepresented my previous statements. I'd never said religion is the only bad force in the world, I'd never said that it will kill us all imminently, I'd never said that it needs to be excised with immediate effect. I'd not even claimed that not a single good thing had ever come from religion - Only that the net effect is overwhelmingly negative on society.

So as usual, you adopted an extreme and illogical position, not based on what I had actually said, to try and prove your point.

As I said, you are a dishonest debater, that inserts lies, misrepresentation and finally insults (bigot) into your arguments.

Irrelevant nonsense. Please answer my post on page 66.

Of course, as I've said from the beginning (for examplee on page 63 and 64), containing and inoculating against a Disease is also an option.

Now, instead of more repetitious distractions, maybe you can answer the post from page 66 that you've been running away from:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-66#post-7252690
 
Last edited:
0
•••
0
•••
So which bits do you dispute?

The game you keep playing is to pile on more and more and more and more verbiage.

You demand that I reply to every sentence from you. Yet you refuse to answer anything from me.

I should keep a running total of how many times I have asked you to respond to this post from page 66 only to watch you run away:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-66#post-7252690

You can play this game forever – running away from my posts and posting more verbiage of your own. I'm not going to play.
 
0
•••
The game you keep playing is to pile on more and more and more and more verbiage.

You demand that I reply to every sentence from you. Yet you refuse to answer anything from me.

I should keep a running total of how many times I have asked you to respond to this post from page 66 only to watch you run away:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-66#post-7252690

You can play this game forever – running away from my posts and posting more verbiage of your own. I'm not going to play.

So you can't answer. Fine. Progress.

Now which specific bit from your 2000 word post that you've linked do you want me to answer?
 
0
•••
Now which specific bit from your 2000 word post that you've linked do you want me to answer?

All of it. Bit by bit. Don't worry, I will spoon-feed you.

Let's start at the beginning:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-66#post-7252690

There are 2 points here:

#1

More misquotes from @SlantedPlease point me to the quote where I said all religious people are mentally ill?

What you said was that Religion is / causes Mental Illness. And here is where you said it:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-62#post-7247610

Look at what religion has done to Rob's mind. And you see no issue with this?

Replace God with any other entity and people would consider him seriously mentally ill.

The implication is that Rob is “seriously mentally ill”, and Religion “[did this] to Rob’s mind”. In other words, Religion causes mental illness. That is what you said, is it not?

And

#2

I never said religious people were infectious or diseased in the manner you state.

What’s this then?

If someone you knew had an infectious disease (which religion is) would you kill them or try and cure them?

So you say that religious people have the “infectious disease (which religion is)”. But you “never said religious people were infectious or diseased”? Explain that contradiction please.
 
0
•••
All of it. Bit by bit. Don't worry, I will spoon-feed you.

Let's start at the beginning:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-66#post-7252690

There are 2 points here:

#1



What you said was that Religion is / causes Mental Illness. And here is where you said it:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-62#post-7247610



The implication is that Rob is “seriously mentally ill”, and Religion “[did this] to Rob’s mind”. In other words, Religion causes mental illness. That is what you said, is it not?

And

#2



What’s this then?



So you say that religious people have the “infectious disease (which religion is)”. But you “never said religious people were infectious or diseased”? Explain that contradiction please.

Let's take point 1 first, which I have already addressed.

On the topic of being mentally unwell, I only referred to Rob and his wider behaviour (which was what caused this thread to be created).

I said :

Replace God with any other entity and people would consider him seriously mentally ill.

Please point me to the quote where I said all religious people are mentally ill? Oh wait, you can't. Technically I didn't even say Rob was.

I'm not sure what else to say. I never claimed religion always caused mental illness. I never even said Rob was mentally ill. As usual, this wa your personal inference.

I simply said that if you "replaced God with any other entity" his behaviour would make people question his sanity.

The point was clearly that by holding up his faith, he seems to get a free pass to act insane.

However, it's clear when you look at some recent terrorist incidents, religion can push people down a very unhealthy mental path. Would you not agree?
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Shall I move on to point 2?
 
0
•••
I never claimed religion always caused mental illness. I never even said Rob was mentally ill.

Is it fair to characterize your view in the following way?

Religion SOMETIMES causes mental illness

Or are you now prepared to say that Religion is not and does not cause mental illness?

For the purpose of my argument, I don't think it matters whether you believe that Religion always causes mental illness – or only sometimes. Likewise, I think it would be splitting hairs, in this context, to distinguish between something that causes mental illness or a disease (like HIV) and the mental illness or disease that is caused (like full blown AIDS). But if you think that distinction is critical, you can make it.

What's important is that you state your opinion in a way that you think fairly characterizes it. If that contradicts something you said earlier, then that's fine. People are allowed to speak hastily and retract or revise what they said before. My principal goal has always been for you to do that.

I simply said that if you "replaced God with any other entity" his behaviour would make people question his sanity.

The point was clearly that by holding up his faith, he seems to get a free pass to act insane.

Is this a fair representation of your views?

- Religious people "act insane".
- The only reason they are not labeled "insane" is because Religion gets a free pass.

Do you believe only SOME religious people "act insane"? Or do you believe that ALL religious people "act insane" – by virtue of talking about an imaginary being (God) who governs events, performs miracles, reads thoughts, and speaks telepathically to tell people what to do and believe.

If someone acts insane, and the only reason they are not labeled as "insane" is because of an unjustifiable social custom that allows Religion to be seen as sane, then isn't that person really insane? What do you think? I think the answer would be YES.

Do you believe Rob "acts insane"? Yes / No

Do you believe Religion deserves the "free pass", or should someone who "acts insane" due to religion be judged insane? If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it must be a duck, right?

Do you believe Rob is insane? Yes / No. I've seen you emphasize that you never actually called him insane. But that's not the same thing as saying that he's sane. I think you're back pedaling from what you said earlier. Come on, don't you really believe Rob "acts insane" and gets a "free pass" due to Religion and that this means what it seems to mean?
 
Last edited:
0
•••
0
•••
Is it fair to characterize your view in the following way?

Religion SOMETIMES causes mental illness

Or are you now prepared to say that Religion is not and does not cause mental illness?


My view is that religion sometimes causes mental illness and can exasperate mental illness in people that are prone to it. This can range from mild (such as depression brought on by shame caused by religious teachings) or more rarely extreme (such as people that end up slaughtering innocent children without batting an eyelid, because that's what they think God wants).

I think it would be rediculous to try and claim that religion has never caused mental illness. I have a friend who is gay that grew up in a very religious household. He suffered for years with depression and anxiety related to a huge internal conflict between what he had been told was morally right and his natural feelings of attraction. This is a very common phenomenon.

For the purpose of my argument, I don't think it matters whether you believe that Religion always causes mental illness – or only sometimes. Likewise, I think it would be splitting hairs, in this context, to distinguish between something that causes mental illness or a disease (like HIV) and the mental illness or disease that is caused (like full blown AIDS). But if you think that distinction is critical, you can make it.

I'm wary of giving complete control of my position to a metaphor. The HIV - AIDS one is problematic because whilst HIV untreated always leads to AIDS, I wouldn't say that religion always leads to mental illness. Equally, whilst I maintain religion is bad for society, I've never said that religion can't bring some benefits to an individual. Equally, some of the negative effects of religion on an individual may never actually be recognised by the individual in question - eg. Ignorance is bliss.

But I do still believe that the combined impact of religion is awful.

This is why I continue to fight so hard against your reductionistic approach.

Is this a fair representation of your views?

- Religious people "act insane".
- The only reason they are not labeled "insane" is because Religion gets a free pass.


Insane is too much of an emotionally charged term, so not.

I would say religious people hold illogical views that can make them act in illogical ways. But that doesn't mean non-religious people don't also have the ability to act illogically.

I would then say, the only reason the illogical views are not labelled as illogical is because religion gets a free pass. People would ordinarily challenge illogical thought processes, but on matters of religion people are wary to (for a multitude of reasons).

Do you believe only SOME religious people "act insane"? Or do you believe that ALL religious people "act insane" – by virtue of talking about an imaginary being (God) who governs events, performs miracles, reads thoughts, and speaks telepathically to tell people what to do and believe.

Replace insane with illogically, and I'd broadly accept the second position. The extent to which they act illogically will normally correlate with the strength of their religious tendencies.

If someone acts insane, and the only reason they are not labeled as "insane" is because of an unjustifiable social custom that allows Religion to be seen as sane, then isn't that person really insane? What do you think? I think the answer would be YES.

Replace insane with illogical and sane with logical, and I'd accept that statement.

Do you believe Rob "acts insane"? Yes / No

I'd say Rob does not act based on evidence and conducts himself in a manner that is abhorrent to most people. Closest to your wording I can get would be "Rob acts in an appalling manner and exhibits behaviour that any civilised society should be worried about. To me he appears paranoid, obsessed with patterns and symbology and generally shows signs of someone that is mentally unwell". I wouldn't use the word insane myself, as it implies a lack of control, and I think he still has that.

But that is of course my unprofessional opinion and I can't say how much of this is caused by his religion or his political leanings.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
My view is that religion sometimes causes mental illness and can exasperate mental illness in people that are prone to it.

OK. If religion sometimes causes or exacerbates mental illness, then we would expect the incidence of mental illness to be higher in a religious versus a non-religious population – all other factors being equal.

Do you agree with that statement?

Logically, if mental illness of the same kinds and with the same severity occurs at the same rates in both religious and non-religious populations, then that would prove (or at least strongly indicate) that religion does not cause or exacerbate mental illness.

Do you agree with that?

I’m not aware of any scientific study that shows a higher incidence of mental illness among religious versus non-religious people. Are you? But I assume scientists have studied this question. My working assumption is that studies exist and have not shown a causal connection between Religion and Mental Illness. If you can cite evidence, then I’m certainly willing to consider that hypothesis.

If the studies DON’T show a causal connection between Religion and Mental Illness, then how would you interpret that? I can see a few options:

(A) Conclude that the hypothesis – that Religion sometimes causes or exacerbates mental illness – is actually untrue.

(B) Consider a second hypothesis – that Religion has simultaneous negative and positive effects that cancel each other out. Perhaps your original hypothesis (that Religion sometimes causes or exacerbates mental illness) is true, but at the same time perhaps Religion prevents or alleviates mental illness. Perhaps what is poison for some people is medicine for others.

(C) Allege that scientists are biased towards Religion. This could be an instance of scientists giving religion a “free pass” and declining to diagnose mental illness as mental illness when the patient is overtly religious. I personally find this unlikely. Scientists and doctors tend to be more objective than that. In any case, their bias is likely NOT in favor of religion.

Assuming you aren’t (for the time being at least) able to cite a scientific study showing a causal connection between Religion and Mental Illness, if we end up with no study that supports your hypothesis (that Religion sometimes causes / exacerbates Mental Illness), how would you interpret the inconclusive or contradictory results?

(A)
(B)
(C)
(D) Some other interpretation?


Like you, I know people who have suffered from shame or guilt in connection with Religion. I also know people who have suffered from depression, drug abuse, panic attacks, etc. without religion – either in a period of “withdrawal” following a loss of faith or in a period of drifting unanchored prior to “finding God”. Since anecdotal evidence exists to support both the Religion = Poison and Religion = Medicine position, I think we need scientific, statistical evidence. We can’t rely on anecdotes because we can cherry pick anecdotes in support of each of 2 contradictory ideas.


Equally, whilst I maintain religion is bad for society, I've never said that religion can't bring some benefits to an individual.

Well, I’m glad you acknowledge that Religion can be beneficial to an individual. Based on some of your prior comments, going back to page 61, it seemed like you saw Religion as 100% detrimental and without any benefit or necessity whatsoever:

Religion is a poison, to both the individual mind and humanity.

Religion has throughout human history been a hinderence to creativity, discovery and rational thought.

Religion, is a danger to society, very much throughout history

If someone you knew had an infectious disease (which religion is) would you kill them or try and cure them?

But I have no wish to hold you to a bad opinion – such as Religion is 100% detrimental and has no benefit – if you say you don’t believe that. Either I misinterpreted your opinion, or else you changed your mind. Either way, the end result is a more reasonable viewpoint, which is what I’ve been hoping for.

Since you believe that Religion can be good for 1 person, do you see any reason why Religion couldn’t be good for multiple people? Perhaps scattered individuals in a big diverse society? Or perhaps a cluster of individuals within a unified tribe? In other words, can religion benefit society too?

It seems to me that if religion can benefit 1 person, we should expect that religion can also benefit a small unified tribe or perhaps a big diverse society.


But I do still believe that the combined impact of religion is awful.

That’s fine, but it depends on HOW you believe it. Would you say that you believe this dogmatically, in such a way that no counterarguments and evidence will convince you otherwise? Or are you prepared to admit that you might be wrong and to follow wherever reasoning and empirical evidence may lead?

For my part, I’m willing to believe whatever the facts show. And in the absence of conclusive evidence, I would refrain from making broad generalizations one way or the other – neither Religion = Poison nor Religion = Medicine.

I’ve said that Religion is a mixed bag, since I see both its negative and its positive effects. Unless I see conclusive evidence, I don’t pretend to know which effect, if any, preponderates.

Moreover, it may not be as simple as looking at a net effect of benefits minus harms. Some medicines benefit 1 class of patients but poison others. Theoretically, at least, it may be that Religion is beneficial for some people and harmful for others.

Or – even more plausibly, it seems to me – it may be that Religion of a certain kind was beneficial for societies at some point in the past and may be less beneficial today. That seems like a reasonable hypothesis, if you allow for the fact that some religious beliefs are better or worse than others. Or if you allow for the cohesive effects of a worldview (any worldview) to bind people together in (first) a tribe and (later) a concept of humanity that transcends ethnicity, language, and borders such as “christendom” or “Islam” or "people of the book" (Jews + Christians + Muslims).

That is more or less my hunch. I suspect that religion is both helpful and harmful, depending on the person, the society, the historical circumstances – and depending on the particular belief.


Insane is too much of an emotionally charged term, so not.

I would say religious people hold illogical views that can make them act in illogical ways. But that doesn't mean non-religious people don't also have the ability to act illogically.

Personally, I’ve seen plenty of religious people act based on faith and dogma and not rationally. But I’ve also seen plenty of religious people act rationally. And I’ve seen plenty of non-religious people act based on dogma and faith.

“Illogical” is probably not the right word, since logic refers to a reasoning process. A view, by itself, can’t be logical. Only an inference between ideas can be logical or illogical.

So I would restate what you said by substituting the word “untrue” or “unreasonable” for “illogical” – as follows:

“religious people hold untrue views that can make them act in unreasonable ways.”

But the way the person acts is reasonable IF you accept their views as true. Their actions are only unreasonable to an outside observer who regards the religious person’s views as false. So maybe it would be better to replace “unreasonable” with “bad”:

“religious people hold untrue views that can make them act in bad ways.”

Does that seem like a fair way to modify your statement, without sacrificing the meaning of your opinion?

From my vantage point, I would regard the modified statement as true. Yet, at the same time, I acknowledge that a religious person would apply exactly the same statement to me. They regard my atheism as untrue. And they regard the way I act as “bad”.

So aren’t we really looking at the perfectly ordinary case of human disagreement? Group 1 regards the beliefs of Group 2 as false and the actions of Group 2 as bad. Meanwhile, Group 2 regards the beliefs of Group 1 as false and the actions of Group 2 as bad.

I see nothing special about Religion. It’s just another case of people believing untrue things and sometimes acting badly. I see exactly the same problems – untrue beliefs and bad behavior – to the same degree with non-religious people and non-religious societies.

So it seems you don’t regard religion itself as a mental illness. But you do believe – either as dogma or as a hypothesis, I’m not sure – that Religion sometimes causes / exacerbates Mental Illness. That can be decided based on the evidence, one way or another.

At this point, we have no evidence. Maybe you can cite a scientific study.


Do you believe Rob "acts insane"? Yes / No

I'd say Rob does not act based on evidence and conducts himself in a manner that is abhorrent to most people. Closest to your wording I can get would be "Rob acts in an appalling manner and exhibits behaviour that any civilised society should be worried about. To me he appears paranoid, obsessed with patterns and symbology and generally shows signs of someone that is mentally unwell". I wouldn't use the word insane myself, as it implies a lack of control, and I think he still has that.

It seems to me that what you really believe about Rob is this:

“He holds untrue views that can make someone act in bad ways.”

Or would you prefer to make a more extreme statement? You say that he’s not insane. So your present assessment is a lot milder than what you had said before:

Look at what religion has done to Rob's mind. And you see no issue with this?

Replace God with any other entity and people would consider him seriously mentally ill.

But I’m not going to criticize you for toning that down or walking it back. After all, that’s what I’ve been hoping for. Kudos for doing it:

But that is of course my unprofessional opinion and I can't say how much of this is caused by his religion or his political leanings.

In other words, some of Rob’s statements and behavior – which struck you as bordering on mental illness – might come from Religion, and some might come from political leanings. It sounds like you’re also saying this:

“Politics sometimes causes or exacerbates mental illness.”

So it’s not just Religion. Any strong opinion or dogmatic ideology can have the same effect – whether religious or non-religious.

Would you agree?
 
Last edited:
1
•••
what was the "issue of the whole struggle"
he had to die for?


wars are not for the people but for the
EGOs of the leaders of the nations

if you believe in a loving god
who made all humans equally
of his image

how can you think of a justified war?

its all human sick mind made BS

religion
same
as war "issues"

nobody wants to die
for whatever reason
in a war

they were all forced
by law
and society

same is true for their "enemies"

With all due respect, the enlightened people I know have no desire for war, in any scenario, and value all lives and would happily coexist peacefully with others who wish them no harm. People who are wise to propaganda, and who are able to discern truth from nonsense, will also have the tools with which to objectively assess whether they are being manipulated into fulfilling an agenda. And yes, that happened in Germany in a very big way last century. And those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. As such, I am a fan of accurate history, and sometimes we have to look extra to find it.

upload_2019-5-28_19-45-12.png
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Alll this banter about religion among hardened atheists reminds me of this meme.

upload_2019-5-28_20-9-0.png


Ironically, most atheists I know have their own religion except in their religion they are their own God. In modern times, guys like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris Christopher Hitchens are their pastors. I meet them all the time and love them all the same. Generations before had their go-to guys as well, e.g. Bertrand Russell, Charles Darwin, Nietzsche, Sartre, etc.

Just because someone believes in a Creator, certainly does not make them insane. Indeed, some of the smartest people in history knew for certain that there is a Creator. ICYMI, Isaac Newton spent more time as a theologian than he spent as a physicist writing more than 1.3 billion words on theology topics. This is under-stated in the secular textbooks about his life. Science is not incompatible with faith.

upload_2019-5-28_20-14-29.png


Just because someone believes that he or she is accountable to a Creator, does not mean that they are incapable of having a thriving enterprise that provides a great product or service. For example, Chick Fil A is a privately held company. They are rather (in)famously Christian in their ownership. Even HuffPo acknowledges that their business is outperforming their peers in the chicken business:

upload_2019-5-28_20-22-49.png


At the end of the day, the continuing pattern and evidence is that people use Epik.com, Anonymize.com and BitMitigate.com, because we have a good product, at fair prices, and because we have capable people who are committed to helping customers to succeed while helping the industry to thrive.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
so you don't see the boat is sinking as well?
so why then should there be people outside of the boat?

Frank - I am not sure if you missed it, but in that comic, the "boat" is actually a submarine (Deutsch: unterseeboot oder U-Boot). The parts that are above water are indeed nothing much.

137090_3261998c6b42739c37e3803f0eec136e.png


The hidden/implied message is that most of the power the cross is below the surface, not visible to the casual observer. Indeed! :)

Interestingly, the Greek word used to describe "God power" is "dunamis". It is used 120 times in the New Testament. The words dynamo and dynamite derive from this word.
 
1
•••
At 46,000+ views, I believe it is the most active thread on NamePros for all of 2019.

Yes, it's both the most active thread (by reply count) and most viewed thread (by view count) so far in 2019. In reality, it probably has a lot more than 46,000 views. We cache pretty heavily, but views only get counted when all levels of caching fail and the view request hits the backend. Based on measurements I made last year, it's not unusual for popular threads to have double the stated view count.
 
1
•••
Frank - I am not sure if you missed it, but in that comic, the "boat" is actually a submarine (Deutsch: unterseeboot oder U-Boot). The parts that are above water are indeed nothing much.

137090_3261998c6b42739c37e3803f0eec136e.png


The hidden/implied message is that most of the power the cross is below the surface, not visible to the casual observer. Indeed! :)

Interestingly, the Greek word used to describe "God power" is "dunamis". It is used 120 times in the New Testament. The words dynamo and dynamite derive from this word.

oops it's not a boat
it's an u-boat

sorry
I missed it

[sarcasm]
 
Last edited:
0
•••
0
•••
With all due respect, the enlightened people I know have no desire for war, in any scenario, and value all lives and would happily coexist peacefully with others who wish them no harm. People who are wise to propaganda, and who are able to discern truth from nonsense, will also have the tools with which to objectively assess whether they are being manipulated into fulfilling an agenda. And yes, that happened in Germany in a very big way last century. And those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. As such, I am a fan of accurate history, and sometimes we have to look extra to find it.

Show attachment 120114


the point you try not to understand is:

you use the propaganda of one man
who is miss-using the trust of another man
who was abused
by sick people


to promote your ideas
and your company epik.com
 
0
•••
Yes, it's both the most active thread (by reply count) and most viewed thread (by view count) so far in 2019. In reality, it probably has a lot more than 46,000 views. We cache pretty heavily, but views only get counted when all levels of caching fail and the view request hits the backend. Based on measurements I made last year, it's not unusual for popular threads to have double the stated view count.

Page for page I bet it probably has the most verbiage than any other topic. :xf.laugh:
 
0
•••
Isaac Newton spent more time as a theologian than he spent as a physicist writing more than 1.3 billion words on theology topics. This is under-stated in the secular textbooks about his life. Science is not incompatible with faith.

I don't doubt that Newton wrote about theology. But that word count isn't remotely plausible.

Typing 100 words per minute
x 60 minutes per hour
x 24 hours per day
x 365 days per year
= 52,560,000 words per year

So it would take 24.7 years of continuous typing to reach 1.3 billion words on any subject – without sleep, without food, without mathematics, without heading the Royal Society, etc.
 
0
•••
I don't doubt that Newton wrote about theology. But that word count isn't remotely plausible.

Typing 100 words per minute
x 60 minutes per hour
x 24 hours per day
x 365 days per year
= 52,560,000 words per year

So it would take 24.7 years of continuous typing to reach 1.3 billion words on any subject – without sleep, without food, without mathematics, without heading the Royal Society, etc.

Typo there -- it is 1.3 million words. I did link the reference:

upload_2019-5-29_15-27-14.png

The point still stands but good catch on the typo. Newton was one of the smartest guys in the last 1000 years and was convinced of the existence of a Creator.

I have actually read some of his books on prophecy interpretation. I have one of his classics in one of my libraries. You can get it online, e.g. here.

To be clear, I am not saying that he was a Christian. I am saying he acknowledged a Creator.
 
0
•••
I don't doubt that Newton wrote about theology. But that word count isn't remotely plausible.

Typing 100 words per minute
x 60 minutes per hour
x 24 hours per day
x 365 days per year
= 52,560,000 words per year

So it would take 24.7 years of continuous typing to reach 1.3 billion words on any subject – without sleep, without food, without mathematics, without heading the Royal Society, etc.

Typo there -- it is 1.3 million words. I did link the reference:

Show attachment 120217
The point still stands but good catch on the typo. Newton was one of the smartest guys in the last 1000 years and was convinced of the existence of a Creator.

I have actually read some of his books on prophecy interpretation. I have one of his classics in one of my libraries. You can get it online, e.g. here.

To be clear, I am not saying that he was a Christian. I am saying he acknowledged a Creator.

Rob's first reaction:

- You are fired!

(realizes that can't do that anymore)

- Ok, typo and off just by 3 zeros :) here is the reference :)
 
1
•••
Rob's first reaction:

- You are fired!

(realizes that can't do that anymore)

- Ok, typo and off just by 3 zeros :) here is the reference :)

To be fair, it was a single character typo, the source is referenced, and the implication of the statement is the same. As for Joseph, as always, he is sovereign. He is a unique guy with unique talents. In the right role, he is an absolute tour de force. And yes, he has profound attention to detail. Could he have given me a private heads-up about the typo? Yes. Would that have been more tactful? Perhaps. Regardless, I think Joseph is a great guy and the domain industry is better for having him. I will be interested to see what he does next.
 
1
•••
To be fair, it was a single character typo, the source is referenced, and the implication of the statement is the same. As for Joseph, as always, he is sovereign. He is a unique guy with unique talents. In the right role, he is an absolute tour de force. And yes, he has profound attention to detail. Could he have given me a private heads-up about the typo? Yes. Would that have been more tactful? Perhaps. Regardless, I think Joseph is a great guy and the domain industry is better for having him. I will be interested to see what he does next.

It was 100% intended as joke )

Joseph is a great guy. I love when someone actually uses logic in his/her argumentation and he is a rare example of doing it regularly.
 
2
•••
To be clear, I am not saying that he was a Christian. I am saying he acknowledged a Creator.

why shouldn't there be a creator
something must have created it...
( or not )

but the problem is the childish approach
of a father - human-like creator

that's sheer nonsense

and the biggest nonsense is the evil counterpart
of the god guy

and the uttermost nonsense is the evil that will come
because of you or me or they
are not following the rules of that human-like creator

if you can believe in a human kind of godfather
who needed not to be created as he has been there forever

I see no problem with believing in an
ever existing self recreating universe

that created itself - a perfect creator
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Back