The Philosopher king and the Drama queen.

The dialogue of The Fool and the Ren!

The Fool: That is because you have alot of theolgin teaching who taking advantage of the Big Bang theory to assert good. But science doesn't even say that, its says he universe was a singulare concentration. That is all matter in one ball. Not non-existent. No-body else in the world things that. In only in the US because of the high rate of Religious fundemenalism which is most likely directly related to the Low educational success rate. Becuse theology doesn't make Rational sense. They are corrupting the children minds Ren and this is a realiy. America is going to have to face eventually.

Ren: You know, I did study theology, but some years ago. My theological studies waned to a stop sometime around 2007 or so. I have since been far more into physics.

Ren: I never averred that the "Big Bang Theory asserts good." Wtf is that, it doesn't make any sense.

The Fool: we should even be taking about such that it was orignal a thread about post-modernism. Its you who took the conversation to Kant and then to science. You made it wierd. Like I said I think your definition or not in tune with most people, so you think you are having the conversation with me but you are talking about something completly different. I notice that keeps happening.

Ren: As far as a singularity is concerned -- whether there was "existence" during this singularity

The Fool: it has always mean to be one condenced solid mass Ren. People, particlurly Theologians have been distorting the truth. THERE IS NO ACTUAL SCIENTFIC INFORMATION SAYING THAT MATTER DIDNT EXIST. Its been Made up Ren. Its a myth Go look for your self in any GENUINE aka direct and non-corrupted source. The is nothing and there has been nothing about non-existence. its was a metaphore meaning in comparison of how we see our universe today.

Ren: I suppose it depends what you figure "existence" is. Is it anything at all? If one atom exists, does that mean that we have the reality as we know it now?

The Fool: non-existence DOESN"T EXIST. That is not a double negative like -1 X -1= 1 Its 0 X 0=0

We have all of existence, rationally equivalent to the Universe we're referencing?

What exist exist, what IS IS, The universe is suppose to refer to ALL that exist. Science took that meaning and changed it too only meaning phyiscal reality(sense informaton) and then theology stepped only to take avantage of The big bang. But remember Thre is NO Universe in the original BIble. IN the bible God just created the earth and the sun. They are twisting the word to keep up with modernization. ITs FAKE.

I mean, that's all I'm saying.

Last, to approach your "corruption" jazz.

Here's how I see that. Religion, it has been used like so many other things to corrupt, abuse, and distract.

The Fool: You are right Ren But it hasnt' changed at all Ren. Its the same, its still currupt Ren notice How Osama wasn't Muslim after he did a Majore crime, its the same with Hitler Ren. They purposly erase that out of History.

In
However, there will always be things like that.
The Fool: no Ren its not other things, its the same thing, it alway politics and Religion, its the same.

On the other hand, religion still has the potential to foster (somewhat/mostly) functional moral system and give a general understanding of reality.

The Fool: Ren it has alway been bad, always, Look at all of the countries that didnt' have secularization, there people are suffering Ren, the are suffering because its irrational.

Religion tell us that we are evile and weak and immoral by nature. But this cause people to actually believe that and then they become evil because they belief that garbage. This justifies people to do hanous crimes and then its okay because they can just say its in there immoral Human Nature and as God for forgiveness. That is one of the major source of creating evil people Red. We are not all bad, I am not religious and I have very strong moral. Think of it you have to already know what is good in heart. Before you could understand the word moral, or The good. Or it would just sound like nonsense. We have to get out of this subjective garbage if we are going to progress, as Humanity. If God is Good. He will be there when we get there whether you believe in him or not. Just think do you think God as good will send most of the world to eternal Hell for not even being able to belief in him, Think about that most of the population in the world is asian. Who are hardly Christian, in fact they are the least religios, they tend to be more traditional but not God believing. do you think god is and has been harming all those people. No way.
What is there is a good God and judges you on actaully being Good in nature not a book at all. what are you going to do.?

but there is alot of work to be done for the good of humanity NOW! While you are alive, in this world.
This world is for sure, you are here now. But the next one isn't make sure you do good for people now.

The Fool: You are a good person at heart Ren I could tell. I respect that alot.

Is the humor in this post based on the fact that readers cannot distinguish which one is the Philosopher King and which one is the Drama Queen?

At 4/5/2012 3:42:53 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Is the humor in this post based on the fact that readers cannot distinguish which one is the Philosopher King and which one is the Drama Queen?

The Fool: No its to test the integraty of those who respond.

I think that, regardless of content, we can all agree the premise behind this thread is a pretty d!ck move by Fool.

At 4/5/2012 9:21:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
I think that, regardless of content, we can all agree the premise behind this thread is a pretty d!ck move by Fool.

The Fool: I will agree with you. However what you justification. Tell me about my reasons?

At 4/5/2012 10:10:12 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

At 4/5/2012 9:21:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
I think that, regardless of content, we can all agree the premise behind this thread is a pretty d!ck move by Fool.

The Fool: I will agree with you. However what you justification. Tell me about my reasons?

Making a thread specific to a user in order to call them out while quote-mining conversations is, regardless of your intentions, a d!ck move.

At 4/5/2012 10:12:48 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 4/5/2012 10:10:12 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

At 4/5/2012 9:21:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
I think that, regardless of content, we can all agree the premise behind this thread is a pretty d!ck move by Fool.

The Fool: I will agree with you. However what you justification. Tell me about my reasons?

Making a thread specific to a user in order to call them out while quote-mining conversations is, regardless of your intentions, a d!ck move.

The Fool: no actually it was because we were going on about this topic in another thread that was about post-modernism. So I made this thread to continue to cover what was not part of the other forum. Mabye you should ask before assuming.

At 4/5/2012 10:39:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

At 4/5/2012 10:12:48 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 4/5/2012 10:10:12 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

At 4/5/2012 9:21:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
I think that, regardless of content, we can all agree the premise behind this thread is a pretty d!ck move by Fool.

The Fool: I will agree with you. However what you justification. Tell me about my reasons?

Making a thread specific to a user in order to call them out while quote-mining conversations is, regardless of your intentions, a d!ck move.

The Fool: no actually it was because we were going on about this topic in another thread that was about post-modernism. So I made this thread to continue to cover what was not part of the other forum. Mabye you should ask before assuming.

You can write a thread on a topic without specifically calling a person out with a derogatory phrase like "drama queen."

That would be a non d!ck thing to do.

This is a dedicating a thread to a single user, not a topic.

At 4/5/2012 10:42:13 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 4/5/2012 10:39:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

At 4/5/2012 10:12:48 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 4/5/2012 10:10:12 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

At 4/5/2012 9:21:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
I think that, regardless of content, we can all agree the premise behind this thread is a pretty d!ck move by Fool.

The Fool: I will agree with you. However what you justification. Tell me about my reasons?

Making a thread specific to a user in order to call them out while quote-mining conversations is, regardless of your intentions, a d!ck move.

The Fool: no actually it was because we were going on about this topic in another thread that was about post-modernism. So I made this thread to continue to cover what was not part of the other forum. Mabye you should ask before assuming.

You can write a thread on a topic without specifically calling a person out with a derogatory phrase like "drama queen."

That would be a non d!ck thing to do.

This is a dedicating a thread to a single user, not a topic.

The Fool: That was a Joke, humour as Kleptin was able to recognize. Me and Ren joke like that back and forth. I mean I am a Fool. After all. You really seem to have dick on your mind.

At 4/5/2012 10:48:03 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: That was a Joke, humour as Kleptin was able to recognize. Me and Ren joke like that back and forth. I mean I am a Fool. After all. You really seem to have dick on your mind.

The humour I detected was most certainly unintended. Everyone here knows what your intentions were and I'm not going to allow you to back out of that.

You named yourself "fool" to have something to hide behind. If you ever say anything insightful, you can point at it as irony or sarcasm, or even modesty. If you ever truly act like a fool, you can say it simply serves as a warning.

That behavior strikes me as showing a severe lack of integrity on your part.

I also don't understand why you feel the need to need to include "The Fool:" as part of your response, as if though you were trying to transcribe an actual, formal, philosophical discourse. You realize that we're amateurs yelling at each other over the internet, and not actual philosophers, right?

I'd respect you a little more if you took your participation in this forum a little less seriously.

At 4/6/2012 12:06:05 PM, Kleptin wrote:

At 4/5/2012 10:48:03 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: That was a Joke, humour as Kleptin was able to recognize. Me and Ren joke like that back and forth. I mean I am a Fool. After all. You really seem to have dick on your mind.

The humour I detected was most certainly unintended. Everyone here knows what your intentions were and I'm not going to allow you to back out of that.

The Fool: I am completly aware that you were being derogatorive, that was part of the sacarsm. I am a step ahead of you.

You named yourself "fool" to have something to hide behind. If you ever say anything insightful, you can point at it as irony or sarcasm, or even modesty. If you ever truly act like a fool, you can say it simply serves as a warning.

The Fool: I am sure there are an undefiniable amount of possible reasons why people may think that why I am The Fool. I think the reason is because I am an actual Fool.

That behavior strikes me as showing a severe lack of integrity on your part.

The Fool: You havent havent shown why my behavior lacks integrity, you just might be Fooled. <(:D)

I also don't understand why you feel the need to need to include "The Fool:" as part of your response, as if though you were trying to transcribe an actual, formal, philosophical discourse.

The Fool: if you don't understand, how could you could you legitimatly saying anything rational in its direction. I must be Fooling myself.

You realize that we're amateurs yelling at each other over the internet, and not actual philosophers, right?

I'd respect you a little more if you took your participation in this forum a little less seriously.

The Fool: You mean more Foolishly. <(:0)
<(8D)

Okey dokey, we're done here...

At 4/6/2012 4:32:27 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Okey dokey, we're done here...

The Fool: I talk with Ren throught private messages all the time. I let him know that I respect him as a person. Lets face it, you can in here with a grudge, you had no Idea what you were talking about, and you over stepped you bounds or possible knowledge. You have no good reason to support anytihing you said. What do you want me to do for you?
<(8\)

It also say right above you post.

The Fool: You are a good person at heart Ren I could tell. I respect that alot.