Posts from Forum

Good morning, B100dy (good gloomy trolling)! :)

It's become quite boring in the Forum after your last outburst. Regarding the photos posted by ariputra, what would I like to say? 1 of them is 100% fake, because I saw a movie about it and about the scandal surrounding it - there was a damaged reputation of "National Geographic" and a little bit of Photoshop (the author confessed and repented:rolleyes:), I can look for a link if you want. I won't say anything about the rest, but I suspect something similar, although in principle I am not a supporter of the "theory": "there were never any giants, because there were none and could not be:eek: :cool: !!!!!111". If you provide adequate links to the authenticity of at least one of the other photos, then who knows, I might believe it...:rolleyes:

No offense, but I honestly don't understand what you're writing about.

Ihtiandr
Pascal turned out to be not a foolish fellow — he cleverly deceived the priests. I think there is a good interpretation of his wager. This caught my eye immediately, but I was too lazy to write about it, so as not to start a religious debate. In a nutshell, any mathematician understands that Pascal's equations need to be somewhat expanded and the probabilities evaluated more precisely. So, if God exists, THEN even in the case of unbelief, He guarantees eternal life for the soul, and likewise with the salvation of the soul — live according to your conscience, your soul will be pure. Therefore, that variable will have to be removed from the second pan of the scale. Then we make an assessment: there is no evidence of God's existence, so the probability estimate for case 2 is infinitesimally small, while case 1 approaches 100. As a result, we have 1) a number close to 100 multiplied by the rewards, and 2) an infinitesimally small number multiplied by the costs. So this cunning Pascal wrote a wager that defines an educated person.

Don't insult Pascal; he's not two-faced, as you wrote about him. And I respect him a lot.

Where is the hint of hypocrisy?
He made an interesting bet, which, for priests and the uneducated masses, showed what they wanted to see. And for the educated, it showed what he really wanted to convey.
Or are you one of the former? =)

This isn't a hint; it's a direct accusation, because, in your opinion, he writes one thing but means something completely different. This is called duplicity, a clearly negative trait. I would appreciate it if you would be more polite when addressing the great scholar.

You should familiarize yourself with the interpretation of the word "hypocrisy".

But I have no problem with interpretation; you can verify this yourself if you wish:
duality
hypocrisy
insincerity
Antonyms:
frankness
straightforwardness
sincerity

Regarding the photo with skeletons, it's 100% Photoshop, and there's no need to prove it. If these skeletons exist, they should be not only in the photo but also present elsewhere, at least in archaeological museums or other scientific repositories, similar to the remains of mammoths or prehistoric reptiles – dinosaurs. Oh yes, this fact is being hidden from humanity because it was these giants who launched poor elephants into orbit.

But I'm good at interpreting things; you can check it yourself.

Then I have some bad news for you.

Really? (What a pity! Which ones?)

Since I shouldn't believe in the existence of Australia, I also don't plan to believe in five-meter-tall giants or a Jewish conspiracy.

Ment
I was writing a post, but then I deleted it. I'll rewrite it exactly after your reply, but why do you say it's hypocrisy?

Whether you call it hypocrisy or insincerity, Blaise Pascal's biography shows that he lacked these unpleasant qualities.

I'm not talking about synonyms for this word; what specifically in Pascal's biography indicates a lack of these qualities?

:) //////////////