Thiaoouba Prophecy?

It is simply a logical fact that any fiction "can/might" be true. I don't answer for Desmarquet, what he expects is his own business. Each reader of his books has his/her own collections of links to what they understand as "reality", "truth" etc. what they do with what they read is their business not yours and not mine.

You don't even seem to see that you even can't say "Desmarquet is a liar" your claim is not backed up with proof...so is the book...

Please understand that even if the stories about "Mu" and "Atlantis" are true. We will need thousands of years to verify if such a thing can be reached through a very well balanced spiritual/material development. And that is if we deliberately aim at it.

It doesn't seem to me that it is a bad idea anyway, even if there is a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%chance that we might learn to get rid of money and monetary systems, rationality and morality tells me to take the chance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I doubt the author of such a "fiction" is as stupid as you think he is. Another explanation can be that people are researching to either "approve" or "disqualify" the book.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You contradict yourself

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, the author says unto you:

"Jump off of this cliff and there is a 0.00000000000000000000000001%
chance that you might learn to get rid of money and monetary systems."

:m: Will you jump?

 

As long as humans have the innate capacity to believe in that which they cannot affirm, money and monetary systems will remain and endure. The original capitalists, the Assyrians, have proven the enduring nature of capitalism; and it is wealth that provides people with status and legitimacy according to their belief systems. And it is wealth that provides order among the many different belief systems, each of which is competing for legitimacy and often status.

 

Hey that fish looks like an idiot

 

yes, SO?

 

Now that was an intellectual response.

 

What people cannot affirm to you and what you cannot affirm to yourself, is not what others believe in and what you don't believe.

 

So, you think it's worth the chance as long as there is no personal risk to yourself, right?

:m: Peace.

 

More than that, I think it's worth it as long as I can conclude with high probabilities, the chance of gaining a profit. In this case a GREAT profit!

 

Probabilities are determined by applying the frequency and accuracy of past observations to a given hypothesis. When I flip my switch on and my light doesn't come on, I can say that "it is probable that the bulb is burned out." This is because in the past this has been the case. It is also possible that someone broke into my home and unscrewed the bulb, that the bulb unscrewed itself, that a mouse chewed through the wires, that the switch is broken, etc. But these simply aren't as probable as the burned out bulb hypothesis due to past observation.

I would then ask you, what past observations do you use to "conclude" what you do about Desmarquet's fantasies?

 

Which one, of his "fantasies"?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Robanan you sound suspiciously like mr T.J. Chalko himself, who is possibly the biggest fraud in the entire lie of all that is Thiaoouba.

How is it so evident:

1. Great undoubting devotion to the thiaoouba cause.

2. An argument style that is purely rhetorical and lacks all forms of logical consistency.

3. Curt, almost rude remarks on posts a style consistent with what he displays on the Q&A forums of his website.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think maybe GOD has taken them to put them in hell for their sins.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Do you even care that people sometimes get lost? Imagine you have lost a loved one and nobody can "explain" how!
You have no reasons to think that all the stories are just and "only" made by those who love to make mysteries.

I know that "You", at "This" moment cannot test it and you think it's untestable. Why? One could very well test that.

What we know about time is merely a little bit more than what our watches seemengly show. Moreover, Our common "understanding" of "Time" is so feeble that many are starting to believe that what is written in the book is actually "True". Many others are starting to understand that "re-evaluating" and "improving" our common understanding of "Time" is inevitable.

 

1. Great undoubting devotion to the thiaoouba cause or great intrest into learning something new?

2. An argument style that is purely rhetorical and lacks all forms of logical consistency or crude logical reasoning?

3. Curt, almost rude remarks on posts a style consistent with... or using your own words?

 

Many? How many? Where are these declarations? Is there a list of them somewhere? I just want to get a feel for this "many" you speak of...

This is always happening, it's a function of the scientific community. That's what scientists do! My search-fu is weak today, but I'm sure people have been studying and questioning our understanding of time since before this book was written.

 

Imagine as many as would make you feel agitated.

Very good, so Do we know enough to conclude that for example time cannot stop?

 

And true to Desmarquet's style of creating speculations that cannot be tested, so does his cohort Robanan toss out "esoteric" terms and conditions.

The failure of Desmarquet to present a story that is even interesting as fiction is excused to the notion that it must be true because it cannot be disproven. Robanan wants us all to accept his invisible dragon.

Before you know it, Levia and Dina will join him in this discussion group, each presenting their "testimonials" to the veracity of the Thiaoouba Fantasy, a story without any real substance that isn't even passable as fiction.

 

Let's take the fantasy of a system that does not "entrap" individuals into a materialistic monetary system.

please correct me if Im wrong:
*1 In any given system I can "profit" under specific conditions.
*2 When I see that people who meet these conditions frequently "profit". I realize that the probability of me to "profit" -providing that I meet those specific conditions- is higher than the probability of me to profit under conditions, other than those specific ones given in the statement *1.

This model for determining probabilities has always been taken into consideration and was mainily formed for researching situations when a given hypothesis has a randomness factor of measurable and/or understandable proportions. Because of their natural bounds. Such hypothesis are merely good enough for making computer games, nothing more.

When you have red glasses on and consider how you see everything with your red glasses only. You might never understand why, someone who has black glasses on believes he has green glasses on and thinks that you have black glasses on.