info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Is there a God, Yes or No?
723 views
Skip to first unread message
The Starmaker
Feb 20, 2016, 6:14:30 PM2/20/16
to
If you ask people
"Is there a God, Yes or No?"
You either going to get
a Yes or No answer.
The answer is either Yes or No.
But...if you ask God the same question..
His answer would be...
"That's a little bit of a hard question to answer."
God would say, "It's not that black and white..."
"Is there a God, Yes or No?"
You either going to get
a Yes or No answer.
The answer is either Yes or No.
But...if you ask God the same question..
His answer would be...
"That's a little bit of a hard question to answer."
God would say, "It's not that black and white..."
Ted&Alice Street
Feb 20, 2016, 7:47:19 PM2/20/16
to
The Starmaker wrote:
> "Is there a God, Yes or No?"
Most emphatically, YES! We call Him the Flying Spaghetti Monster*, and
> "Is there a God, Yes or No?"
you can read about Him here:
http://www.venganza.org/
*Don't let the word "monster" scare you. The FSM is basically a nice
guy, unlike the god described by the Christian bible, who doesn't exist
anyway.
The Starmaker
Feb 20, 2016, 8:04:46 PM2/20/16
to
Italian is God's language.
Norm X
Feb 20, 2016, 9:45:53 PM2/20/16
to
"The Starmaker" wrote
Read the Old Testament. Yahweh (or Jehovah) appeared in a burning bush and
proclaimed "I am what I am". (Popeye said the same.) If you know theology,
you know that one statement is the basis of monotheism in Judaism,
Christianity and Islam and the Bahá'í Faith.
Preceding religions all believed in polytheism.
QUESTION: Why did pose a proposition about God and not gods?Are you some
kind of religious bigot trying to stir up trouble?
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
proclaimed "I am what I am". (Popeye said the same.) If you know theology,
you know that one statement is the basis of monotheism in Judaism,
Christianity and Islam and the Bahá'í Faith.
Preceding religions all believed in polytheism.
QUESTION: Why did pose a proposition about God and not gods?Are you some
kind of religious bigot trying to stir up trouble?
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Norm X
Feb 20, 2016, 10:13:42 PM2/20/16
to
"The Starmaker" wrote
> God would say, "It's not that black and white..."
sum", meaning I doubt, therefor I think, therefor I am. God or the gods are
not on drugs or stupid. He/she/it or they, would agree with Descarte.
Descarte is consistent with "I am what I am". Wise people (God/gods) do not
suffer fools like you. If you think you have been talking to God or speak
for God (he/she or it), you are on drugs or stupid.
Get help soon.
Medieval logic and Theology is a wonderful thing. Study hard.
The Starmaker
Feb 20, 2016, 11:28:30 PM2/20/16
to
Norm X wrote:
>
> "The Starmaker" wrote
>
> > God would say, "It's not that black and white..."
>
> Nonsense begets nonsense (GIGO). Descarte wrote "dubito ergo cogito ergo
> sum", meaning I doubt, therefor I think, therefor I am. God or the gods are
> not on drugs or stupid. He/she/it or they, would agree with Descarte.
> Descarte is consistent with "I am what I am". Wise people (God/gods) do not
> suffer fools like you. If you think you have been talking to God or speak
> for God (he/she or it), you are on drugs or stupid.
>
> Get help soon.
>
> Medieval logic and Theology is a wonderful thing. Study hard.
>
Descarte's quote "I think, therefor I am." is a stupid quote.
>
> "The Starmaker" wrote
>
> > God would say, "It's not that black and white..."
>
> Nonsense begets nonsense (GIGO). Descarte wrote "dubito ergo cogito ergo
> sum", meaning I doubt, therefor I think, therefor I am. God or the gods are
> not on drugs or stupid. He/she/it or they, would agree with Descarte.
> Descarte is consistent with "I am what I am". Wise people (God/gods) do not
> suffer fools like you. If you think you have been talking to God or speak
> for God (he/she or it), you are on drugs or stupid.
>
> Get help soon.
>
> Medieval logic and Theology is a wonderful thing. Study hard.
>
"I think" is the brain part of the physical body....What is "I am"???? No relationship to 'I think'.
There is no "I am".
It's an illusion.
Please stop quoting stupid old tyme quotes that are in error.
Quadibloc
Feb 20, 2016, 11:36:29 PM2/20/16
to
On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 7:45:53 PM UTC-7, Norm X wrote:
> Read the Old Testament. Yahweh (or Jehovah) appeared in a burning bush and
> proclaimed "I am what I am". (Popeye said the same.)
No, you're quoting what Popeye said. God said "I am _that_ I am". Or, rather, He
> Read the Old Testament. Yahweh (or Jehovah) appeared in a burning bush and
> proclaimed "I am what I am". (Popeye said the same.)
said Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, which got _translated_ into "I AM THAT I AM", whatever
that may mean, in the King James Version.
John Savard
Quadibloc
Feb 20, 2016, 11:39:05 PM2/20/16
to
On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 9:28:30 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> There is no "I am".
> It's an illusion.
If it's an illusion, who is it that perceives the illusion and is fooled by it?
> There is no "I am".
> It's an illusion.
And how does one perceive if not for the activity of one's brain?
Descartes was not in error; one's consciousness, the result of one's brain
function, proves that _something_ must exist, and that something includes
oneself.
John Savard
Alie...@gmail.com
Feb 21, 2016, 2:21:58 AM2/21/16
to
On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 3:14:30 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> If you ask people
> "Is there a God
Why should I care?
> If you ask people
> "Is there a God
Mark L. Fergerson
Bast
Feb 21, 2016, 3:42:10 AM2/21/16
to
The Starmaker wrote:
> If you ask people
> "Is there a God, Yes or No?"
> You either going to get
> a Yes or No answer.
>
David DeLaney
Feb 21, 2016, 4:46:26 AM2/21/16
to
On 2016-02-21, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 9:28:30 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
>> There is no "I am".
>
>> It's an illusion.
>
> If it's an illusion, who is it that perceives the illusion and is
> fooled by it?
IT'S ILLUSION
> On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 9:28:30 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
>> There is no "I am".
>
>> It's an illusion.
>
> If it's an illusion, who is it that perceives the illusion and is
> fooled by it?
ALL THE WAY DOWN
YOU FOOL
> And how does one perceive if not for the activity of one's brain?
actually one then the perception doesn't know where to go, but if one has
already coalesced into one, then inputs from sensory nerves also help, even
before they get to the brain. (See: reflexes)
> Descartes was not in error; one's consciousness, the result of one's brain
> function, proves that _something_ must exist, and that something includes
> oneself.
directly; only what our senses tell us, conveyed through the nerves. All
that you see or seem is but a dream within a dream, wrapped in an enigma and
covered with tasty cerebral cortex. Solipsism is _consistent_, but not _useful_
basically.
So if you THINK you're perceiving your consciousness? Nothing says that has
to be correct.
Dave, eppur si useneti
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Ted&Alice Street
Feb 21, 2016, 7:38:49 AM2/21/16
to
The Starmaker
Feb 21, 2016, 2:32:38 PM2/21/16
to
Who is "I"?
"I" doesn't exist..."I" is an illusion...a virtual person.
There is no proof that an "I" exist.
Therefore...I don't think.
The Starmaker
Feb 21, 2016, 2:35:53 PM2/21/16
to
benj wrote:
>
> On 02/20/2016 06:23 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> And the way you know this is? Ah, you've borrowed some "superpowers"
> from HVAC again.
>
> How about acting like you actually know some science and ask Starfaker
> to define exactly what he means by "a God", before you flap your yap
> about it? Ask HVAC to join the conversation and you'll have a perfect
> trio of ignorance and atheist bluster.
somethings are known about God...
like for example, He dosesn't play dice.
but, i'm not sure what language He speaks...
>
> On 02/20/2016 06:23 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > On 2/20/16 5:14 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> If you ask people
> >> "Is there a God, Yes or No?"
> >
> >
> >
> > The concept og gods is an invention on man.
> >> If you ask people
> >> "Is there a God, Yes or No?"
> >
> >
> >
>
> And the way you know this is? Ah, you've borrowed some "superpowers"
> from HVAC again.
>
> How about acting like you actually know some science and ask Starfaker
> to define exactly what he means by "a God", before you flap your yap
> about it? Ask HVAC to join the conversation and you'll have a perfect
> trio of ignorance and atheist bluster.
somethings are known about God...
like for example, He dosesn't play dice.
but, i'm not sure what language He speaks...
The Starmaker
Feb 21, 2016, 3:41:59 PM2/21/16
to
God could be imagining He is God.
God is probably saying right now..."I think, therefore I'm am."
The Starmaker
Feb 21, 2016, 11:20:34 PM2/21/16
to
Now if God were a computer, then He probably thinks he's God..an "I am".
"I think, therefore I am."
If God is imaginary, then that would mean everyone is imaginary.
Quadibloc
Feb 22, 2016, 3:41:54 AM2/22/16
to
On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 2:46:26 AM UTC-7, David DeLaney wrote:
> Well, no. The world is maya, an illusion. We CANNOT perceive anything
> directly; only what our senses tell us, conveyed through the nerves. All
> that you see or seem is but a dream within a dream, wrapped in an enigma and
> covered with tasty cerebral cortex. Solipsism is _consistent_, but not _useful_
> basically.
> So if you THINK you're perceiving your consciousness? Nothing says that has
> to be correct.
It is true that our senses do not show us the world as it truly is.
> Well, no. The world is maya, an illusion. We CANNOT perceive anything
> directly; only what our senses tell us, conveyed through the nerves. All
> that you see or seem is but a dream within a dream, wrapped in an enigma and
> covered with tasty cerebral cortex. Solipsism is _consistent_, but not _useful_
> basically.
> So if you THINK you're perceiving your consciousness? Nothing says that has
> to be correct.
A simple illustration would be to take a mix of iron and wooden balls, painted
in bright colors. The differences between the different colors are apparent to
our sight, the different bulk materials are hidden.
But that what we sense "goes somewhere", that at the _end_ of the chain, what
we sense hits an "I" - that is _not_ refuted by the fact that what we sense
doesn't correspond to the true nature of the physical world at the _beginning_
of the chain.
The world is a dream within a dream within a dream? That's an indication that
the world is likely not what we think it is. But it doesn't indicate that there
is no dreamer.
If I use a ten foot pole to touch something, it doesn't mean that my hands are
ten feet away from my wrists.
John Savard
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Feb 22, 2016, 9:09:23 AM2/22/16
to
"Yes, NOW there is a God."
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Mr. Man-wai Chang
Feb 22, 2016, 5:27:11 PM2/22/16
to
On 2/22/2016 12:20 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> If God is imaginary, then that would mean everyone is imaginary.
>
But if God did not exist, why would there someone imagining about it? We
>
> If God is imaginary, then that would mean everyone is imaginary.
>
should talking about our parents and grand-parents, ONLY.
Is God just a higher dimension? Could we ants understand the higher
dimension? :)
--
@~@ Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (Fedora release 23) Linux 4.3.5-300.fc23.x86_64
^ ^ 06:12:02 up 6 days 13:06 0 users load average: 1.00 1.01 1.05
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
Mr. Man-wai Chang
Feb 22, 2016, 5:33:25 PM2/22/16
to
--
@~@ Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (Fedora release 23) Linux 4.3.5-300.fc23.x86_64
The Starmaker
Feb 22, 2016, 11:24:20 PM2/22/16
to
Bast
Feb 23, 2016, 3:49:25 PM2/23/16
to
Kevrob
Feb 23, 2016, 4:49:32 PM2/23/16
to
Kevin R
The Starmaker
Feb 23, 2016, 5:12:06 PM2/23/16
to
It is written...God made man in his own...image.
It could've been a hologram image..
God could've created an image of himself...and then made man in his
'own' image.
I bet God is wondering, Who Created Him?
Maybe they forgot to tell Him...
Sylvia Else
Feb 23, 2016, 8:56:28 PM2/23/16
to
not God?
Sylvia.
Alie...@gmail.com
Feb 24, 2016, 12:09:07 AM2/24/16
to
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 2:12:06 PM UTC-8, The Starfaker wrote:
> It is written...God made man in his own...image.
Then...why aren't we...invisible?
> It is written...God made man in his own...image.
Mark L. "Shatner...is...god?" Fergerson
The Starmaker
Feb 24, 2016, 3:04:24 AM2/24/16
to
God exist in both states at the same time.
bil...@m.nu
Feb 24, 2016, 5:18:43 AM2/24/16
to
you will completely understand everything
Sylvia Else
Feb 24, 2016, 7:03:18 AM2/24/16
to
then you'll get the same answer with or without the constraint, making
the constraint redundant.
Essentially, you're proposing to ask people and God different questions,
and then you're remarking on the anticipated difference in the answers.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
Feb 24, 2016, 7:03:50 AM2/24/16
to
Sylvia.
Helmut Wabnig
Feb 24, 2016, 7:12:23 AM2/24/16
to
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 23:03:11 +1100, Sylvia Else
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>On 24/02/2016 7:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21/02/2016 10:14 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> If you ask people
>>>> "Is there a God, Yes or No?"
>>>> You either going to get
>>>> a Yes or No answer.
>>>>
>>>> The answer is either Yes or No.
>>>>
>>>> But...if you ask God the same question..
>>>>
>>>> His answer would be...
>>>>
YES.
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>On 24/02/2016 7:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21/02/2016 10:14 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> If you ask people
>>>> "Is there a God, Yes or No?"
>>>> You either going to get
>>>> a Yes or No answer.
>>>>
>>>> The answer is either Yes or No.
>>>>
>>>> But...if you ask God the same question..
>>>>
>>>> His answer would be...
>>>>
I am here.
Why do you ask, my son?
w.
Jeff-Relf.Me
Feb 24, 2016, 7:31:04 AM2/24/16
to
Mr. Starmaker wrote:
> > > > "Is there a God, Yes or No?"
> >
> > God exist in both states at the same time.
Chritianity's benevolent God is a cheap drug;
a painkiller/aphrodisiac.
Schrödinger doesn't know if his cat is dead or alive;
his ignorance doesn't, can't, alter reality.
Ignorance is not a spatial dimension,
as string theory would have you believe.
Hallucinations are just that, hallucinations,
not "alternate realities/universes",
as pop science would have you believe.
Mr. Man-wai Chang
Feb 24, 2016, 8:23:44 AM2/24/16
to
On 2/24/2016 6:18 PM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>
> because god is in your imagination only, as soon as you realize that
> you will completely understand everything
>
Are you bullying? :)
>
> because god is in your imagination only, as soon as you realize that
> you will completely understand everything
>
BTW, are you guys and gals talking about God, or people using the name
of God to run organizations? They are two completely different things!
--
@~@ Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (Fedora release 23) Linux 4.3.5-300.fc23.x86_64
bil...@m.nu
Feb 25, 2016, 9:53:30 AM2/25/16
to
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 23:03:46 +1100, Sylvia Else
since you could not read three lines up let me help
bil...@m.nu
Feb 25, 2016, 9:55:46 AM2/25/16
to
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 21:23:41 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
<toylet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 2/24/2016 6:18 PM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>>
>> because god is in your imagination only, as soon as you realize that
>> you will completely understand everything
>>
>
>Are you bullying? :)
>
>BTW, are you guys and gals talking about God, or people using the name
>of God to run organizations? They are two completely different things!
I don't talk about fairies, I only counter and crap that I see that
<toylet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 2/24/2016 6:18 PM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>>
>> because god is in your imagination only, as soon as you realize that
>> you will completely understand everything
>>
>
>Are you bullying? :)
>
>BTW, are you guys and gals talking about God, or people using the name
>of God to run organizations? They are two completely different things!
suggest that fairies may be real
Mr. Man-wai Chang
Feb 26, 2016, 3:59:17 AM2/26/16
to
On 2/25/2016 10:55 PM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 21:23:41 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
>>
>> Are you bullying? :)
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 21:23:41 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
>>
>>
>
> I don't talk about fairies, I only counter and crap that I see that
> suggest that fairies may be real
>
Gods and Goddesses are different from fairies! :)
>
> I don't talk about fairies, I only counter and crap that I see that
> suggest that fairies may be real
>
--
@~@ Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (Fedora release 23) Linux 4.3.5-300.fc23.x86_64
Peter Trei
Feb 26, 2016, 9:18:03 AM2/26/16
to
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:59:17 AM UTC-5, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 2/25/2016 10:55 PM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 21:23:41 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
> >>
> >> Are you bullying? :)
> >>
> >
> > I don't talk about fairies, I only counter and crap that I see that
> > suggest that fairies may be real
> >
>
> Gods and Goddesses are different from fairies! :)
How so? The are both products of the human imagination, nothing more.
> On 2/25/2016 10:55 PM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 21:23:41 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
> >>
> >> Are you bullying? :)
> >>
> >
> > I don't talk about fairies, I only counter and crap that I see that
> > suggest that fairies may be real
> >
>
> Gods and Goddesses are different from fairies! :)
pt
The Starmaker
Feb 26, 2016, 11:56:41 AM2/26/16
to
Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>
> On 2/25/2016 10:55 PM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 21:23:41 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
> >>
> >> Are you bullying? :)
> >>
> >
> > I don't talk about fairies, I only counter and crap that I see that
> > suggest that fairies may be real
> >
>
> Gods and Goddesses are different from fairies! :)
wat about abbott and costello meet the invisible man?
>
> On 2/25/2016 10:55 PM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 21:23:41 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
> >>
> >> Are you bullying? :)
> >>
> >
> > I don't talk about fairies, I only counter and crap that I see that
> > suggest that fairies may be real
> >
>
> Gods and Goddesses are different from fairies! :)
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Feb 26, 2016, 1:36:46 PM2/26/16
to
Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6fe07e9c-5731-4cde...@googlegroups.com:
Prove it. Note that if you claim the absence of evidence if evidence,
you will be loudly and proudly proclaiming that you are an idiot,
with deluded fantasies of your own.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
news:6fe07e9c-5731-4cde...@googlegroups.com:
you will be loudly and proudly proclaiming that you are an idiot,
with deluded fantasies of your own.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
bil...@m.nu
Feb 26, 2016, 3:16:53 PM2/26/16
to
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 16:59:14 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
<toylet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 2/25/2016 10:55 PM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 21:23:41 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
>>>
>>> Are you bullying? :)
>>>
>>
>> I don't talk about fairies, I only counter and crap that I see that
>> suggest that fairies may be real
>>
>
>Gods and Goddesses are different from fairies! :)
Nope, not even. They are the exact same thing. they both require the
<toylet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 2/25/2016 10:55 PM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 21:23:41 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
>>>
>>> Are you bullying? :)
>>>
>>
>> I don't talk about fairies, I only counter and crap that I see that
>> suggest that fairies may be real
>>
>
>Gods and Goddesses are different from fairies! :)
same thing, and that is for an ignorant, usually uneducated, mentally
ill, person to believe that fantasy and supernatural are real, if you
believe in either of the two you must believe that both exist.
The Starmaker
Feb 26, 2016, 3:25:13 PM2/26/16
to
I live in Los Angeles, California..
on Santa Monica Blvd there are lots of fairies!
I also understand there are a lot of fairies living in San Francisco...
fairies come from all over...
I won't be surprised if there are a few fairies here somewhere lurking in these newsgroups.
You might even be a fairy...God knows.
Peter Trei
Feb 26, 2016, 4:20:58 PM2/26/16
to
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 1:36:46 PM UTC-5, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:6fe07e9c-5731-4cde...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:59:17 AM UTC-5, Mr. Man-wai
> > Chang wrote:
> >> On 2/25/2016 10:55 PM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 21:23:41 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
> >> >>
> >> >> Are you bullying? :)
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I don't talk about fairies, I only counter and crap that I
> >> > see that suggest that fairies may be real
> >> >
> >>
> >> Gods and Goddesses are different from fairies! :)
> >
> > How so? The are both products of the human imagination, nothing
> > more.
> >
> Prove it. Note that if you claim the absence of evidence if evidence,
> you will be loudly and proudly proclaiming that you are an idiot,
> with deluded fantasies of your own.
No, I'm using Occam's Razor.
> Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:6fe07e9c-5731-4cde...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:59:17 AM UTC-5, Mr. Man-wai
> > Chang wrote:
> >> On 2/25/2016 10:55 PM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 21:23:41 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
> >> >>
> >> >> Are you bullying? :)
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I don't talk about fairies, I only counter and crap that I
> >> > see that suggest that fairies may be real
> >> >
> >>
> >> Gods and Goddesses are different from fairies! :)
> >
> > How so? The are both products of the human imagination, nothing
> > more.
> >
> Prove it. Note that if you claim the absence of evidence if evidence,
> you will be loudly and proudly proclaiming that you are an idiot,
> with deluded fantasies of your own.
A simple universe governed by universal laws of physics requires fewer
assumptions than an otherwise identical-looking universe which includes
an invisible, undetectable god.
A god is such an extraordinary concept that the burden is on you to show
extraordinary evidence that its a better explanation than a non-god one.
Where did your god come from, anyway?
pt
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Feb 26, 2016, 5:40:59 PM2/26/16
to
Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:d82bdada-0d00-44ff...@googlegroups.com:
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 1:36:46 PM UTC-5, Gutless
> Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:6fe07e9c-5731-4cde...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 3:59:17 AM UTC-5, Mr. Man-wai
>> > Chang wrote:
>> >> On 2/25/2016 10:55 PM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 21:23:41 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Are you bullying? :)
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't talk about fairies, I only counter and crap that I
>> >> > see that suggest that fairies may be real
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Gods and Goddesses are different from fairies! :)
>> >
>> > How so? The are both products of the human imagination,
>> > nothing more.
>> >
>> Prove it. Note that if you claim the absence of evidence if
>> evidence, you will be loudly and proudly proclaiming that you
>> are an idiot, with deluded fantasies of your own.
>
> No, I'm using Occam's Razor.
>
> A simple universe governed by universal laws of physics requires
> fewer assumptions than an otherwise identical-looking universe
> which includes an invisible, undetectable god.
The existence of quantum physics, well proven by experiments, or,
> A simple universe governed by universal laws of physics requires
> fewer assumptions than an otherwise identical-looking universe
> which includes an invisible, undetectable god.
hell, even relativity, demonstrates how fucking *stupid* you have
to be to believe that Occam's Razor is in any way a scientific
proof, or even evidence. It's a guideline on how to allocated
limited research resources, at best.
>
> A god is such an extraordinary concept that the burden is on you
> to show extraordinary evidence that its a better explanation
> than a non-god one.
Your belief there is no diety is a religious belief, *exactly* the
> A god is such an extraordinary concept that the burden is on you
> to show extraordinary evidence that its a better explanation
> than a non-god one.
same as the belief there is one. An act of faith, pure and simple.
(You, of course, will deny that you believe that, because you're a
coward, and also deny that it is a faith based belief, because you
are weak and stupid.)
>
> Where did your god come from, anyway?
>
I've never claimed to be a theist. Or an atheist, for that matter.
> Where did your god come from, anyway?
>
Your attempt to change the subject to something I've never said is
outright dishonesty. But you knew that. And intended it.
You will now reply as instructed, because you can't help yourself.
Cryptoengineer
Feb 26, 2016, 8:32:45 PM2/26/16
to
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA5BA955B627...@69.16.179.43:
I think you'll have to unpack that a bit.
>> A god is such an extraordinary concept that the burden is on you
>> to show extraordinary evidence that its a better explanation
>> than a non-god one.
>
> Your belief there is no diety is a religious belief, *exactly* the
> same as the belief there is one. An act of faith, pure and simple.
It's a religious beleif in the asme way that not collecting stamps
is a hobby.
pt
news:XnsA5BA955B627...@69.16.179.43:
>> A god is such an extraordinary concept that the burden is on you
>> to show extraordinary evidence that its a better explanation
>> than a non-god one.
>
> Your belief there is no diety is a religious belief, *exactly* the
> same as the belief there is one. An act of faith, pure and simple.
is a hobby.
pt
Robert Carnegie
Feb 26, 2016, 9:30:22 PM2/26/16
to
attention than fairies do. And aren't local. Your
neighbourhood fairy probably just wants to be allowed
to interfere with your livestock (if they're the kind
that do that).
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Feb 26, 2016, 9:52:12 PM2/26/16
to
Cryptoengineer <treif...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA5BAD10584...@216.166.97.131:
You won't understand, being a dumbass. Clearly. Since it's simple,
and have already failed to understand. Plus, I don't give a shit if
you understand it or not, you're not mentally or emtionally capable
of accepting it. Your Faith is too blind for any kind of doubt.
word.
news:XnsA5BAD10584...@216.166.97.131:
and have already failed to understand. Plus, I don't give a shit if
you understand it or not, you're not mentally or emtionally capable
of accepting it. Your Faith is too blind for any kind of doubt.
>
>>> A god is such an extraordinary concept that the burden is on
>>> you to show extraordinary evidence that its a better
>>> explanation than a non-god one.
>>
>> Your belief there is no diety is a religious belief, *exactly*
>> the same as the belief there is one. An act of faith, pure and
>> simple.
>
> It's a religious beleif in the asme way that not collecting
> stamps is a hobby.
>
As instructed, you have parrotted the dogma of your Faith. Word for
>>> A god is such an extraordinary concept that the burden is on
>>> you to show extraordinary evidence that its a better
>>> explanation than a non-god one.
>>
>> Your belief there is no diety is a religious belief, *exactly*
>> the same as the belief there is one. An act of faith, pure and
>> simple.
>
> It's a religious beleif in the asme way that not collecting
> stamps is a hobby.
>
word.
David DeLaney
Feb 26, 2016, 10:46:46 PM2/26/16
to
On 2016-02-27, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> My impression is that gods usually want more of your
> attention than fairies do. And aren't local. Your
> neighbourhood fairy probably just wants to be allowed
> to interfere with your livestock (if they're the kind
> that do that).
Also, as our own Sea Wasp showed so long ago, gods have primal base, which the
> My impression is that gods usually want more of your
> attention than fairies do. And aren't local. Your
> neighbourhood fairy probably just wants to be allowed
> to interfere with your livestock (if they're the kind
> that do that).
lesser Fae in general do not (though they might get primal to spend from being
supported minions of a greater Fae, who are generally at LEAST demigod level,
terrifying implications in their legends and all).
Dave, wrenching things firmly back on-topic
ps: go go gadget WotC!
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Cryptoengineer
Feb 26, 2016, 11:04:14 PM2/26/16
to
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA5BAC007BD7...@69.16.179.42:
pt
The Starmaker
Feb 26, 2016, 11:14:12 PM2/26/16
to
al...@interia.pl wrote:
> do you belive the pussy really exist?
if pussy didn't exist, would you be here?
>
> W dniu niedziela, 21 lutego 2016 00:14:29 UTC+1 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał:
> > If you ask people
> > "Is there a God, Yes or No?"
> > You either going to get
> > a Yes or No answer.
> >
> > The answer is either Yes or No.
> >
> > But...if you ask God the same question..
> >
> > His answer would be...
> >
> >
> > "That's a little bit of a hard question to answer."
> >
> > God would say, "It's not that black and white..."
>
> I have more advanced question:
> W dniu niedziela, 21 lutego 2016 00:14:29 UTC+1 użytkownik The Starmaker napisał:
> > If you ask people
> > "Is there a God, Yes or No?"
> > You either going to get
> > a Yes or No answer.
> >
> > The answer is either Yes or No.
> >
> > But...if you ask God the same question..
> >
> > His answer would be...
> >
> >
> > "That's a little bit of a hard question to answer."
> >
> > God would say, "It's not that black and white..."
>
> do you belive the pussy really exist?
if pussy didn't exist, would you be here?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Feb 27, 2016, 12:01:35 AM2/27/16
to
Cryptoengineer <treif...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA5BAEAB51B...@216.166.97.131:
I know. And so are you. But you don't know that's exactly what
you're doing. And cannot accept it when it's explained to you,
Believer.
news:XnsA5BAEAB51B...@216.166.97.131:
you're doing. And cannot accept it when it's explained to you,
Believer.
bil...@m.nu
Feb 27, 2016, 12:21:57 AM2/27/16
to
I can ignore all of them. that shouold mean something to you, the
reason you have so many different sock puppets is because you dont get
enough attention with one name, let that be a clue, you are a moron
and noone likes you
Alie...@gmail.com
Feb 27, 2016, 12:40:58 AM2/27/16
to
On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 7:46:46 PM UTC-8, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2016-02-27, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > My impression is that gods usually want more of your
> > attention than fairies do. And aren't local. Your
> > neighbourhood fairy probably just wants to be allowed
> > to interfere with your livestock (if they're the kind
> > that do that).
Uh, _Small Gods_. And yes, gods feed on worship (attention) where fairies are, um, less social.
> On 2016-02-27, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > My impression is that gods usually want more of your
> > attention than fairies do. And aren't local. Your
> > neighbourhood fairy probably just wants to be allowed
> > to interfere with your livestock (if they're the kind
> > that do that).
> Also, as our own Sea Wasp showed so long ago, gods have primal base, which
> the lesser Fae in general do not (though they might get primal to spend from
> being supported minions of a greater Fae, who are generally at LEAST demigod
> level, terrifying implications in their legends and all).
I read someplace that Euro/Brit "faerie/fairy" and "fey" derive from the ancient Mediterranean Fates. In some versions the Fates weave the fates of men *and* the gods.
> Dave, wrenching things firmly back on-topic
> ps: go go gadget WotC!
Is there a god of information? Of entropy? Oh, wait- all gods are gods of entropy.
Mark L. Fergerson
The Starmaker
Feb 27, 2016, 1:02:01 AM2/27/16
to
if you look at images of faires
it's usually a creature with wings.
It's something that flies in the sky.
There are Atheist that believe in Flying Saucers.
Flying Saucers are simply an updated version of a ...fairy.
Flying Saucers are modern day fairies.
People in the old days believed it fairies...
they replaced faries with flying saucers.
Since there are atheist who believe in flying saucers...it's the exact same thing
as believing in...fairies.
Flying saucers are aliens who travel in a spaceship from another planet.
If you believe in aliens from another planet, then you believe in fairies.
Robert Carnegie
Feb 27, 2016, 5:34:23 AM2/27/16
to
On Saturday, 27 February 2016 05:40:58 UTC, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 7:46:46 PM UTC-8, David DeLaney wrote:
> > On 2016-02-27, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > My impression is that gods usually want more of your
> > > attention than fairies do. And aren't local. Your
> > > neighbourhood fairy probably just wants to be allowed
> > > to interfere with your livestock (if they're the kind
> > > that do that).
>
> Uh, _Small Gods_. And yes, gods feed on worship (attention) where fairies are, um, less social.
>
> > Also, as our own Sea Wasp showed so long ago, gods have primal base, which
> > the lesser Fae in general do not (though they might get primal to spend from
> > being supported minions of a greater Fae, who are generally at LEAST demigod
> > level, terrifying implications in their legends and all).
>
> Real mythology is weirder.
>
> I read someplace that Euro/Brit "faerie/fairy" and "fey" derive from
> the ancient Mediterranean Fates. In some versions the Fates weave the
> fates of men *and* the gods.
Another respected authority claims that if you don't believe
> On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 7:46:46 PM UTC-8, David DeLaney wrote:
> > On 2016-02-27, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > My impression is that gods usually want more of your
> > > attention than fairies do. And aren't local. Your
> > > neighbourhood fairy probably just wants to be allowed
> > > to interfere with your livestock (if they're the kind
> > > that do that).
>
> Uh, _Small Gods_. And yes, gods feed on worship (attention) where fairies are, um, less social.
>
> > Also, as our own Sea Wasp showed so long ago, gods have primal base, which
> > the lesser Fae in general do not (though they might get primal to spend from
> > being supported minions of a greater Fae, who are generally at LEAST demigod
> > level, terrifying implications in their legends and all).
>
> Real mythology is weirder.
>
> I read someplace that Euro/Brit "faerie/fairy" and "fey" derive from
> the ancient Mediterranean Fates. In some versions the Fates weave the
> fates of men *and* the gods.
in fairies, they die.
But according to _Small Gods_ it's much the same with /them/.
J. Clarke
Feb 27, 2016, 5:41:45 AM2/27/16
to
In article <XnsA5BAEAB51B...@216.166.97.131>,
treif...@gmail.com says...
Stamp collecting might in a sense be a fair analogy. Most of us have a
collection of stamps, whether intentional or not. We have old letters
with the stamped envelopes, a few stamps in odd denominations that are
seldom used, etc, which add up to a collection. Now, if an aphilatelist
came around and started pounding on us about how we needed to dispose of
that collection and how wrong-headed we were to keep it, we'd be a bit
miffed at him. Similarly, those of us who don't care about religion get
annoyed when some atheist starts pounding on us about it.
treif...@gmail.com says...
collection of stamps, whether intentional or not. We have old letters
with the stamped envelopes, a few stamps in odd denominations that are
seldom used, etc, which add up to a collection. Now, if an aphilatelist
came around and started pounding on us about how we needed to dispose of
that collection and how wrong-headed we were to keep it, we'd be a bit
miffed at him. Similarly, those of us who don't care about religion get
annoyed when some atheist starts pounding on us about it.
Mr. Man-wai Chang
Feb 27, 2016, 10:38:06 AM2/27/16
to
On 2/27/2016 4:16 AM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>>
>> Gods and Goddesses are different from fairies! :)
>
> Nope, not even. They are the exact same thing. they both require the
> same thing, and that is for an ignorant, usually uneducated, mentally
> ill, person to believe that fantasy and supernatural are real, if you
> believe in either of the two you must believe that both exist.
>
I can only say they are of different classes of power and statues.
>>
>> Gods and Goddesses are different from fairies! :)
>
> Nope, not even. They are the exact same thing. they both require the
> same thing, and that is for an ignorant, usually uneducated, mentally
> ill, person to believe that fantasy and supernatural are real, if you
> believe in either of the two you must believe that both exist.
>
--
@~@ Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (Fedora release 23) Linux 4.3.5-300.fc23.x86_64
Mr. Man-wai Chang
Feb 27, 2016, 10:46:53 AM2/27/16
to
On 2/27/2016 12:56 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> wat about abbott and costello meet the invisible man?
>
It's better not to ignore potential enemies. :)
>
> wat about abbott and costello meet the invisible man?
>
--
@~@ Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (Fedora release 23) Linux 4.3.5-300.fc23.x86_64
The Starmaker
Feb 27, 2016, 11:07:15 AM2/27/16
to
That means, if you ask all Atheist "Are We Alone?" they will all answer Yes, right?
J. Clarke
Feb 27, 2016, 12:00:14 PM2/27/16
to
In article <nasfn6$h5p$1...@dont-email.me>, toylet...@gmail.com says...
value, statues of fairies tend to be Disney souvenirs.
>
> On 2/27/2016 4:16 AM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
> >>
> >> Gods and Goddesses are different from fairies! :)
> >
> > Nope, not even. They are the exact same thing. they both require the
> > same thing, and that is for an ignorant, usually uneducated, mentally
> > ill, person to believe that fantasy and supernatural are real, if you
> > believe in either of the two you must believe that both exist.
> >
>
> I can only say they are of different classes of power and statues.
This is true--statues of gods tend to be ancient artifacts of great
> On 2/27/2016 4:16 AM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
> >>
> >> Gods and Goddesses are different from fairies! :)
> >
> > Nope, not even. They are the exact same thing. they both require the
> > same thing, and that is for an ignorant, usually uneducated, mentally
> > ill, person to believe that fantasy and supernatural are real, if you
> > believe in either of the two you must believe that both exist.
> >
>
> I can only say they are of different classes of power and statues.
value, statues of fairies tend to be Disney souvenirs.
The Starmaker
Feb 27, 2016, 1:02:25 PM2/27/16
to
the majority of people in the
'scientific community' are in fact...Atheist.
And they believe in aliens from another planet exist somewhere...flying around maybe in a flying saucer.
Yet, none exist.
People in the old days
then a few thousand years
pass by and they believed in
flying fairies and
flying witches on a broom stick.
That fairy and witch was replaced in the 50's
with ...flying saucers.
So, Atheist believe in Fairies.
End of story!
Fin.
Kaput.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Feb 27, 2016, 1:21:55 PM2/27/16
to
"J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.313b47674...@news.eternal-september.org:
Due, when J Clarke sounds more sensible than you, you've *lost*.
news:MPG.313b47674...@news.eternal-september.org:
David DeLaney
Feb 28, 2016, 1:12:01 AM2/28/16
to
On 2016-02-27, nu...@bid.nes <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Also, as our own Sea Wasp showed so long ago, gods have primal base, which
>> the lesser Fae in general do not (though they might get primal to spend from
>> being supported minions of a greater Fae, who are generally at LEAST demigod
>> level, terrifying implications in their legends and all).
>
> Real mythology is weirder.
Well, yeah; it doesn't _have_ to make sense the way fiction does. :P
>> Also, as our own Sea Wasp showed so long ago, gods have primal base, which
>> the lesser Fae in general do not (though they might get primal to spend from
>> being supported minions of a greater Fae, who are generally at LEAST demigod
>> level, terrifying implications in their legends and all).
>
> Real mythology is weirder.
>> Dave, wrenching things firmly back on-topic
>
> Is that a torque or ratcheting Topic Wrench?
> Something I've occasionally wondered; is Vulcan just the god of the forge,
> or of technology in general?
example, Knick-Knack at Whateley Academy, or Autochthon, one of the two
surviving Primordials in the Exalted setting.
> Is there a god of information? Of entropy? Oh, wait- all gods are gods of
> entropy.
Evil. Hel might qualify, though I don't think Hades would; Shiva is the
Destroyer in the Hindu supreme trinity.
Information would be Thoth, hands down. Maybe also Athena or her analogs.
Dave, Wee Jas, goddess of truth and testing. Also, Ring says "Happy Fourth of
July!"
Sylvia Else
Feb 28, 2016, 7:33:42 AM2/28/16
to
On 26/02/2016 1:53 AM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 23:03:46 +1100, Sylvia Else
> <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>> On 24/02/2016 9:18 PM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:56:22 +1100, Sylvia Else
>>> <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>>> not God?
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> because god is in your imagination only, as soon as you realize that
>>> you will completely understand everything
>>>
>>
>> I haven't said anything about God.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> since you could not read three lines up let me help
>
>
>>>> Why are people required to comply with the "yes or no" constraint, but
>>>> not God?
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>
That's not about God, that's about the person imposing the constraint.
Sylvia.
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 23:03:46 +1100, Sylvia Else
> <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>> On 24/02/2016 9:18 PM, bil...@m.nu wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:56:22 +1100, Sylvia Else
>>> <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21/02/2016 10:14 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> If you ask people
>>>>> "Is there a God, Yes or No?"
>>>>> You either going to get
>>>>> a Yes or No answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> The answer is either Yes or No.
>>>>>
>>>>> But...if you ask God the same question..
>>>>>
>>>>> His answer would be...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "That's a little bit of a hard question to answer."
>>>>>
>>>>> God would say, "It's not that black and white..."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why are people required to comply with the "yes or no" constraint, but
>>>> On 21/02/2016 10:14 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> If you ask people
>>>>> "Is there a God, Yes or No?"
>>>>> You either going to get
>>>>> a Yes or No answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> The answer is either Yes or No.
>>>>>
>>>>> But...if you ask God the same question..
>>>>>
>>>>> His answer would be...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "That's a little bit of a hard question to answer."
>>>>>
>>>>> God would say, "It's not that black and white..."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> not God?
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> because god is in your imagination only, as soon as you realize that
>>> you will completely understand everything
>>>
>>
>> I haven't said anything about God.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> since you could not read three lines up let me help
>
>
>>>> Why are people required to comply with the "yes or no" constraint, but
>>>> not God?
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>
That's not about God, that's about the person imposing the constraint.
Sylvia.
William December Starr
Feb 28, 2016, 8:55:31 AM2/28/16
to
In article <6fe07e9c-5731-4cde...@googlegroups.com>,
Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> said:
> Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>
>> Gods and Goddesses are different from fairies! :)
>
> How so? The are both products of the human imagination, nothing more.
Isn't that a bit like:
"One is different from two."
"How so? They are both positive integers, nothing more."
?
-- wds
Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> said:
> Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>
>> Gods and Goddesses are different from fairies! :)
>
> How so? The are both products of the human imagination, nothing more.
"One is different from two."
"How so? They are both positive integers, nothing more."
?
-- wds
William December Starr
Feb 28, 2016, 9:03:06 AM2/28/16
to
In article <d82bdada-0d00-44ff...@googlegroups.com>,
All Occam can rely upon is "Reality seems to in general favor
explanations that require fewer assumptions."
-- wds
Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> said:
> No, I'm using Occam's Razor.
>
> A simple universe governed by universal laws of physics requires
> fewer assumptions than an otherwise identical-looking universe
> which includes an invisible, undetectable god.
Yes it does, but does that prove anything?
> No, I'm using Occam's Razor.
>
> A simple universe governed by universal laws of physics requires
> fewer assumptions than an otherwise identical-looking universe
> which includes an invisible, undetectable god.
All Occam can rely upon is "Reality seems to in general favor
explanations that require fewer assumptions."
-- wds
Cryptoengineer
Feb 28, 2016, 11:27:44 AM2/28/16
to
wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in news:nauumn$9c9$1
@panix2.panix.com:
Yes, it's a guideline as to what explanation to adopt as a working
hyphothesis, barring new evidence.
Terry was attacking my with the 'your atheism is a religious
belief <evil chuckle>' argument. This is untrue - given
persuasive evidence, I'd say 'I was wrong, and I now believe'.
If I actually held atheism as a religious belief, I'd
maintain that even the face of evidence.
pt
@panix2.panix.com:
hyphothesis, barring new evidence.
Terry was attacking my with the 'your atheism is a religious
belief <evil chuckle>' argument. This is untrue - given
persuasive evidence, I'd say 'I was wrong, and I now believe'.
If I actually held atheism as a religious belief, I'd
maintain that even the face of evidence.
pt
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Feb 28, 2016, 12:03:49 PM2/28/16
to
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 10:27:39 -0600, Cryptoengineer
<treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in news:nauumn$9c9$1
>@panix2.panix.com:
>
>> In article <d82bdada-0d00-44ff...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> No, I'm using Occam's Razor.
>>>
>>> A simple universe governed by universal laws of physics requires
>>> fewer assumptions than an otherwise identical-looking universe
>>> which includes an invisible, undetectable god.
>>
>> Yes it does, but does that prove anything?
>>
>> All Occam can rely upon is "Reality seems to in general favor
>> explanations that require fewer assumptions."
>
>Yes, it's a guideline as to what explanation to adopt as a working
>hyphothesis, barring new evidence.
>
>Terry was attacking my with the 'your atheism is a religious
>belief <evil chuckle>' argument. This is untrue - given
>persuasive evidence, I'd say 'I was wrong, and I now believe'.
I'd go further than that - there's no need for belief when you have
<treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in news:nauumn$9c9$1
>@panix2.panix.com:
>
>> In article <d82bdada-0d00-44ff...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> No, I'm using Occam's Razor.
>>>
>>> A simple universe governed by universal laws of physics requires
>>> fewer assumptions than an otherwise identical-looking universe
>>> which includes an invisible, undetectable god.
>>
>> Yes it does, but does that prove anything?
>>
>> All Occam can rely upon is "Reality seems to in general favor
>> explanations that require fewer assumptions."
>
>Yes, it's a guideline as to what explanation to adopt as a working
>hyphothesis, barring new evidence.
>
>Terry was attacking my with the 'your atheism is a religious
>belief <evil chuckle>' argument. This is untrue - given
>persuasive evidence, I'd say 'I was wrong, and I now believe'.
evidence.
>If I actually held atheism as a religious belief, I'd
>maintain that even the face of evidence.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
You're only young once, but you can remain immature indefinitely.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Feb 28, 2016, 1:08:04 PM2/28/16
to
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:03:46 +0000, Jaimie Vandenbergh
<jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 10:27:39 -0600, Cryptoengineer
><treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in news:nauumn$9c9$1
>>@panix2.panix.com:
>>
>>> In article <d82bdada-0d00-44ff...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>> No, I'm using Occam's Razor.
>>>>
>>>> A simple universe governed by universal laws of physics requires
>>>> fewer assumptions than an otherwise identical-looking universe
>>>> which includes an invisible, undetectable god.
>>>
>>> Yes it does, but does that prove anything?
>>>
>>> All Occam can rely upon is "Reality seems to in general favor
>>> explanations that require fewer assumptions."
>>
>>Yes, it's a guideline as to what explanation to adopt as a working
>>hyphothesis, barring new evidence.
>>
>>Terry was attacking my with the 'your atheism is a religious
>>belief <evil chuckle>' argument. This is untrue - given
>>persuasive evidence, I'd say 'I was wrong, and I now believe'.
>
>I'd go further than that - there's no need for belief when you have
>evidence.
According to the technical vocabulary I learned in my junior-year
<jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 10:27:39 -0600, Cryptoengineer
><treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in news:nauumn$9c9$1
>>@panix2.panix.com:
>>
>>> In article <d82bdada-0d00-44ff...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>> No, I'm using Occam's Razor.
>>>>
>>>> A simple universe governed by universal laws of physics requires
>>>> fewer assumptions than an otherwise identical-looking universe
>>>> which includes an invisible, undetectable god.
>>>
>>> Yes it does, but does that prove anything?
>>>
>>> All Occam can rely upon is "Reality seems to in general favor
>>> explanations that require fewer assumptions."
>>
>>Yes, it's a guideline as to what explanation to adopt as a working
>>hyphothesis, barring new evidence.
>>
>>Terry was attacking my with the 'your atheism is a religious
>>belief <evil chuckle>' argument. This is untrue - given
>>persuasive evidence, I'd say 'I was wrong, and I now believe'.
>
>I'd go further than that - there's no need for belief when you have
>evidence.
religion seminar at Princeton, you mean "there's no need for faith
when you have evidence."
"Belief" is the term for accepting something as true, and falls into
four categories:
Justified true belief -- you have evidence and you're right.
Unjustified true belief -- you have no evidence but you're right
anyway.
Justified false belief -- you have evidence but it's misleading or
incomplete and you're wrong.
Unjustified false belief -- You have no evidence and you're wrong.
Belief may or may not be affected by evidence; if I believe my toaster
is busted, as evidenced by its failure to work, I may change my belief
when I see new evidence, such as noticing that it's not plugged in, or
I may still think it's busted and that that's why someone unplugged
it. (This belief can be tested, of course, where religious belief
often can't.)
"Faith" is belief where evidence, whether present or not, is
irrelevant.
>>If I actually held atheism as a religious belief, I'd
>>maintain that even the face of evidence.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Feb 28, 2016, 1:28:57 PM2/28/16
to
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 13:08:28 -0500, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
I believe you're right. This sort of correctness is why I buy your
books, you know.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
When one door closes another door opens; but we so often look so
long and so regretfully upon the closed door, that we do not see
the ones which open for us. - Alexander Graham Bell
books, you know.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
When one door closes another door opens; but we so often look so
long and so regretfully upon the closed door, that we do not see
the ones which open for us. - Alexander Graham Bell
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Feb 28, 2016, 4:26:18 PM2/28/16
to
> In article <d82bdada-0d00-44ff...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> No, I'm using Occam's Razor.
>>
>> A simple universe governed by universal laws of physics requires
>> fewer assumptions than an otherwise identical-looking universe
>> which includes an invisible, undetectable god.
>
> Yes it does, but does that prove anything?
It proves that some people adopt atheism as their Faith, and are just
> Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> No, I'm using Occam's Razor.
>>
>> A simple universe governed by universal laws of physics requires
>> fewer assumptions than an otherwise identical-looking universe
>> which includes an invisible, undetectable god.
>
> Yes it does, but does that prove anything?
as unable to reexamine their beliefs as the most ardent
fundamentalist.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Feb 28, 2016, 4:27:49 PM2/28/16
to
Cryptoengineer <treif...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA5BC74A1AE...@216.166.97.131:
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in
> news:nauumn$9c9$1 @panix2.panix.com:
>
>> In article
>> <d82bdada-0d00-44ff...@googlegroups.com>, Peter
>> Trei <pete...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> No, I'm using Occam's Razor.
>>>
>>> A simple universe governed by universal laws of physics
>>> requires fewer assumptions than an otherwise identical-looking
>>> universe which includes an invisible, undetectable god.
>>
>> Yes it does, but does that prove anything?
>>
>> All Occam can rely upon is "Reality seems to in general favor
>> explanations that require fewer assumptions."
>
> Yes, it's a guideline as to what explanation to adopt as a
> working hyphothesis, barring new evidence.
Since there is no hypothesis, and no evidence, _and neither is even
possible_, it's a clueless misapplication of a misunderstood
principle.
humanity, has ever lost their faith or changed their beliefs?
And you call the believers irrational?
news:XnsA5BC74A1AE...@216.166.97.131:
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in
> news:nauumn$9c9$1 @panix2.panix.com:
>
>> In article
>> <d82bdada-0d00-44ff...@googlegroups.com>, Peter
>> Trei <pete...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> No, I'm using Occam's Razor.
>>>
>>> A simple universe governed by universal laws of physics
>>> requires fewer assumptions than an otherwise identical-looking
>>> universe which includes an invisible, undetectable god.
>>
>> Yes it does, but does that prove anything?
>>
>> All Occam can rely upon is "Reality seems to in general favor
>> explanations that require fewer assumptions."
>
> Yes, it's a guideline as to what explanation to adopt as a
> working hyphothesis, barring new evidence.
possible_, it's a clueless misapplication of a misunderstood
principle.
>
> Terry was attacking my with the 'your atheism is a religious
> belief <evil chuckle>' argument. This is untrue - given
> persuasive evidence, I'd say 'I was wrong, and I now believe'.
No, you wouldn't, ever. And you know it.
> Terry was attacking my with the 'your atheism is a religious
> belief <evil chuckle>' argument. This is untrue - given
> persuasive evidence, I'd say 'I was wrong, and I now believe'.
>
> If I actually held atheism as a religious belief, I'd
> maintain that even the face of evidence.
>
So your claim is that no one, ever, in the entire history of
> If I actually held atheism as a religious belief, I'd
> maintain that even the face of evidence.
>
humanity, has ever lost their faith or changed their beliefs?
And you call the believers irrational?
The Starmaker
Feb 28, 2016, 11:08:29 PM2/28/16
to
Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>
> On 2/22/2016 12:20 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > If God is imaginary, then that would mean everyone is imaginary.
> >
>
> But if God did not exist, why would there someone imagining about it? We
> should talking about our parents and grand-parents, ONLY.
>
> Is God just a higher dimension? Could we ants understand the higher
> dimension? :)
God is not in the highest dimension....He is in the lowest dimension.
>
> On 2/22/2016 12:20 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > If God is imaginary, then that would mean everyone is imaginary.
> >
>
> But if God did not exist, why would there someone imagining about it? We
> should talking about our parents and grand-parents, ONLY.
>
> Is God just a higher dimension? Could we ants understand the higher
> dimension? :)
God is not in the highest dimension....He is in the lowest dimension.
Mr. Man-wai Chang
Feb 29, 2016, 6:15:56 AM2/29/16
to
On 2/29/2016 12:08 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> God is not in the highest dimension....He is in the lowest dimension.
>
You talking about heaven and hell? You have your freedom to define your
>
> God is not in the highest dimension....He is in the lowest dimension.
>
"G" "O" "D". So do others! Everything should be fine, until you and
others start to compete for natural resources and sex partners.
--
@~@ Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (Fedora release 23) Linux 4.3.5-300.fc23.x86_64
Peter Trei
Feb 29, 2016, 11:05:39 AM2/29/16
to
On Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 4:27:49 PM UTC-5, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Cryptoengineer <treif...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA5BC74A1AE...@216.166.97.131:
>
> > wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in
> > news:nauumn$9c9$1 @panix2.panix.com:
> >
> >> In article
> >> <d82bdada-0d00-44ff...@googlegroups.com>, Peter
> >> Trei <pete...@gmail.com> said:
> >>
> >>> No, I'm using Occam's Razor.
> >>>
> >>> A simple universe governed by universal laws of physics
> >>> requires fewer assumptions than an otherwise identical-looking
> >>> universe which includes an invisible, undetectable god.
> >>
> >> Yes it does, but does that prove anything?
> >>
> >> All Occam can rely upon is "Reality seems to in general favor
> >> explanations that require fewer assumptions."
> >
> > Yes, it's a guideline as to what explanation to adopt as a
> > working hyphothesis, barring new evidence.
>
> Since there is no hypothesis, and no evidence, _and neither is even
> possible_, it's a clueless misapplication of a misunderstood
> principle.
> >
> > Terry was attacking my with the 'your atheism is a religious
> > belief <evil chuckle>' argument. This is untrue - given
> > persuasive evidence, I'd say 'I was wrong, and I now believe'.
>
> No, you wouldn't, ever. And you know it.
You make that claim on the basis of Faith, not reason.
> Cryptoengineer <treif...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA5BC74A1AE...@216.166.97.131:
>
> > wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in
> > news:nauumn$9c9$1 @panix2.panix.com:
> >
> >> In article
> >> <d82bdada-0d00-44ff...@googlegroups.com>, Peter
> >> Trei <pete...@gmail.com> said:
> >>
> >>> No, I'm using Occam's Razor.
> >>>
> >>> A simple universe governed by universal laws of physics
> >>> requires fewer assumptions than an otherwise identical-looking
> >>> universe which includes an invisible, undetectable god.
> >>
> >> Yes it does, but does that prove anything?
> >>
> >> All Occam can rely upon is "Reality seems to in general favor
> >> explanations that require fewer assumptions."
> >
> > Yes, it's a guideline as to what explanation to adopt as a
> > working hyphothesis, barring new evidence.
>
> Since there is no hypothesis, and no evidence, _and neither is even
> possible_, it's a clueless misapplication of a misunderstood
> principle.
> >
> > Terry was attacking my with the 'your atheism is a religious
> > belief <evil chuckle>' argument. This is untrue - given
> > persuasive evidence, I'd say 'I was wrong, and I now believe'.
>
> No, you wouldn't, ever. And you know it.
pt
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Feb 29, 2016, 12:03:12 PM2/29/16
to
Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:18588935-f904-4b96...@googlegroups.com:
flopping on my hook, utterly unable to free yourself.
But you knew that.
The Starmaker
Feb 29, 2016, 2:04:33 PM2/29/16
to
Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>
> On 2/29/2016 12:08 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > God is not in the highest dimension....He is in the lowest dimension.
> >
>
> You talking about heaven and hell?
No. I'm not talking about heaven and hell...
>
> On 2/29/2016 12:08 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > God is not in the highest dimension....He is in the lowest dimension.
> >
>
> You talking about heaven and hell?
I'm talking about the lowest dimension...the dimension that ants and
people are in.
God didn't make the planet Mars for a place to hangout at...
He made the planet earth to hangout in.
Mr. Man-wai Chang
Mar 1, 2016, 6:08:14 AM3/1/16
to
On 3/1/2016 3:04 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> No. I'm not talking about heaven and hell...
>
> I'm talking about the lowest dimension...the dimension that ants and
> people are in.
>
Why can't God exists at the highest dimensions? Because you don't wanna
>
> No. I'm not talking about heaven and hell...
>
> I'm talking about the lowest dimension...the dimension that ants and
> people are in.
>
feel threatened by something mightier than you? :)
> God didn't make the planet Mars for a place to hangout at...
> He made the planet earth to hangout in.
more likely, climate change. :)
--
@~@ Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ 19:00:01 up 19 min 0 users load average: 1.00 1.03 0.82
The Starmaker
Mar 1, 2016, 5:11:48 PM3/1/16
to
Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>
> On 3/1/2016 3:04 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > No. I'm not talking about heaven and hell...
> >
> > I'm talking about the lowest dimension...the dimension that ants and
> > people are in.
> >
>
> Why can't God exists at the highest dimensions? Because you don't wanna
> feel threatened by something mightier than you? :)
What higher dimension are you refering to???
>
> On 3/1/2016 3:04 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > No. I'm not talking about heaven and hell...
> >
> > I'm talking about the lowest dimension...the dimension that ants and
> > people are in.
> >
>
> Why can't God exists at the highest dimensions? Because you don't wanna
> feel threatened by something mightier than you? :)
Mr. Man-wai Chang
Mar 2, 2016, 8:58:40 AM3/2/16
to
On 3/2/2016 6:11 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> Why can't God exists at the highest dimensions? Because you don't wanna
>> feel threatened by something mightier than you? :)
>
> What higher dimension are you refering to???
>
I cannot tell... I am living on the ground, not up there. Find and ask
>>
>> Why can't God exists at the highest dimensions? Because you don't wanna
>> feel threatened by something mightier than you? :)
>
> What higher dimension are you refering to???
>
God! :)
--
@~@ Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (Fedora release 23) Linux 4.4.2-301.fc23.x86_64
Mr. Man-wai Chang
Mar 2, 2016, 11:08:37 AM3/2/16
to
On 2/28/2016 1:00 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> This is true--statues of gods tend to be ancient artifacts of great
> value, statues of fairies tend to be Disney souvenirs.
>
God is about hope, not miseries! :)
>
> This is true--statues of gods tend to be ancient artifacts of great
> value, statues of fairies tend to be Disney souvenirs.
>
--
@~@ Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ 00:03:01 up 1 day 1:18 0 users load average: 1.01 1.03 1.05
Jeanne Douglas
Mar 2, 2016, 7:27:41 PM3/2/16
to
In article <nb6rck$nmp$1...@dont-email.me>,
--
JD
"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14
> On 3/2/2016 6:11 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >> Why can't God exists at the highest dimensions? Because you don't wanna
> >> feel threatened by something mightier than you? :)
> >
> > What higher dimension are you refering to???
> >
>
> I cannot tell... I am living on the ground, not up there. Find and ask
> God! :)
What god? What evidence do you have that it exists?
> >>
> >> Why can't God exists at the highest dimensions? Because you don't wanna
> >> feel threatened by something mightier than you? :)
> >
> > What higher dimension are you refering to???
> >
>
> I cannot tell... I am living on the ground, not up there. Find and ask
> God! :)
--
JD
"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14
Sylvia Else
Mar 2, 2016, 7:30:07 PM3/2/16
to
On 24/02/2016 11:31 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>
> Chritianity's benevolent God is a cheap drug;
> a painkiller/aphrodisiac.
>
> Schrödinger doesn't know if his cat is dead or alive;
> his ignorance doesn't, can't, alter reality.
>
> Ignorance is not a spatial dimension,
> as string theory would have you believe.
>
> Hallucinations are just that, hallucinations,
> not "alternate realities/universes",
> as pop science would have you believe.
>
>
You do realise that formatted text in Usenet marks you out as a crank,
and many people won't go beyond seeing that the text is formatted before
closing the posting?
Sylvia.
>
>
> Mr. Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > "Is there a God, Yes or No?"
> > >
> > > God exist in both states at the same time.
>
> Mr. Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > "Is there a God, Yes or No?"
> > >
>
> Chritianity's benevolent God is a cheap drug;
> a painkiller/aphrodisiac.
>
> Schrödinger doesn't know if his cat is dead or alive;
> his ignorance doesn't, can't, alter reality.
>
> Ignorance is not a spatial dimension,
> as string theory would have you believe.
>
> Hallucinations are just that, hallucinations,
> not "alternate realities/universes",
> as pop science would have you believe.
>
>
You do realise that formatted text in Usenet marks you out as a crank,
and many people won't go beyond seeing that the text is formatted before
closing the posting?
Sylvia.
Jeff-Relf.Me
Mar 2, 2016, 8:18:30 PM3/2/16
to
You (Sylvia Else) told me (Jeff Relf):
> You do realise that formatted text[?!] in Usenet
<h2><PRE Style='Font-Family: OCR A, monospace !important;'>
It's very, very simple.
WikiPedia and CraigsList allow Lightweight Markup Language (LML):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_markup_language
You might want to look up the word "crank" because
I don't think you're using it correctly.
No matter, feel free to ignore me, my feelings won't be hurt.
> You do realise that formatted text[?!] in Usenet
> marks you out as a crank, and many people won't go beyond
> seeing that the text is formatted before closing the posting?
The HMTL markup I post is just:
> seeing that the text is formatted before closing the posting?
<h2><PRE Style='Font-Family: OCR A, monospace !important;'>
It's very, very simple.
WikiPedia and CraigsList allow Lightweight Markup Language (LML):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_markup_language
You might want to look up the word "crank" because
I don't think you're using it correctly.
No matter, feel free to ignore me, my feelings won't be hurt.
The Starmaker
Mar 2, 2016, 9:34:25 PM3/2/16
to
Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>
> In article <nb6rck$nmp$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 3/2/2016 6:11 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Why can't God exists at the highest dimensions? Because you don't wanna
> > >> feel threatened by something mightier than you? :)
> > >
> > > What higher dimension are you refering to???
> > >
> >
> > I cannot tell... I am living on the ground, not up there. Find and ask
> > God! :)
>
> What god? What evidence do you have that it exists?
You don't think God is stupid enough to leave evidence around, do you?
>
> In article <nb6rck$nmp$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 3/2/2016 6:11 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Why can't God exists at the highest dimensions? Because you don't wanna
> > >> feel threatened by something mightier than you? :)
> > >
> > > What higher dimension are you refering to???
> > >
> >
> > I cannot tell... I am living on the ground, not up there. Find and ask
> > God! :)
>
> What god? What evidence do you have that it exists?
At the last minute God took Himslef out of the equation.
He said "Oops, I left the cigarette lighter on the table..."
Chrysi Cat
Mar 2, 2016, 10:18:19 PM3/2/16
to
On 3/2/2016 6:18 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
<snip>
>
> It's very, very simple.
> WikiPedia and CraigsList allow Lightweight Markup Language (LML):
>
Neither of which are _Usenet_.
Usenet is mainly consumed by people who still use ASCII-only newsreaders
(personally, my Thunderbird is *capable* of more, but there are people
in here on PINE!).
Thus, you _do not format anything_.
If you want to use ellipsis, you use three separate periods.
If you want to use an en-dash, you use two separate hyphens.
And you're gonna get plonked by more people than will ever open another
posting of yours if you don't follow those rules *always*.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
<snip>
>
> It's very, very simple.
> WikiPedia and CraigsList allow Lightweight Markup Language (LML):
>
Usenet is mainly consumed by people who still use ASCII-only newsreaders
(personally, my Thunderbird is *capable* of more, but there are people
in here on PINE!).
Thus, you _do not format anything_.
If you want to use ellipsis, you use three separate periods.
If you want to use an en-dash, you use two separate hyphens.
And you're gonna get plonked by more people than will ever open another
posting of yours if you don't follow those rules *always*.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Jeff-Relf.Me
Mar 2, 2016, 10:54:20 PM3/2/16
to
You (Chrysi Cat) replied (to me):
"Content-Type: text/html".
You want something else ? Go fuck yourself, I don't care.
> > The HMTL markup I post is just:
> >
> > <h2><PRE Style='Font-Family: OCR A, monospace !important;'>
> >
> >
> > <h2><PRE Style='Font-Family: OCR A, monospace !important;'>
> >
> > It's very, very simple.
> > WikiPedia and CraigsList allow Lightweight Markup Language (LML):
>
> Neither of which are _Usenet_.
>
> Usenet is mainly consumed by people who still use ASCII-only newsreaders
> (personally, my Thunderbird is *capable* of more, but there are people
> in here on PINE!).
Usenet allows for it, same as email, to wit, my:
> > WikiPedia and CraigsList allow Lightweight Markup Language (LML):
>
> Neither of which are _Usenet_.
>
> Usenet is mainly consumed by people who still use ASCII-only newsreaders
> (personally, my Thunderbird is *capable* of more, but there are people
> in here on PINE!).
"Content-Type: text/html".
You want something else ? Go fuck yourself, I don't care.
Mike Duffy
Mar 2, 2016, 11:55:49 PM3/2/16
to
On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 11:30:01 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:
> You do realise that formatted text in Usenet marks you out as a crank,
> and many people won't go beyond seeing that the text is formatted before
> closing the posting?
Does posting in form of a rhyme,
> You do realise that formatted text in Usenet marks you out as a crank,
> and many people won't go beyond seeing that the text is formatted before
> closing the posting?
As I'm wont to do time to time,
Constitute crankness,
When done in frankness,
Or is it a kook paradigm?
--
http://mduffy.x10host.com/index.htm
Greg Goss
Mar 3, 2016, 1:15:02 AM3/3/16
to
Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:
>You (Sylvia Else) told me (Jeff Relf):
>> You do realise that formatted text[?!] in Usenet
>> marks you out as a crank, and many people won't go beyond
>> seeing that the text is formatted before closing the posting?
>
>The HMTL markup I post is just:
>
> <h2><PRE Style='Font-Family: OCR A, monospace !important;'>
>
>It's very, very simple.
In my newsreader, it was formatted as an icon of my default web
>You (Sylvia Else) told me (Jeff Relf):
>> You do realise that formatted text[?!] in Usenet
>> marks you out as a crank, and many people won't go beyond
>> seeing that the text is formatted before closing the posting?
>
>The HMTL markup I post is just:
>
> <h2><PRE Style='Font-Family: OCR A, monospace !important;'>
>
>It's very, very simple.
browser. Like Sylvia says, I ignored it and went on to the next post.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Jeff-Relf.Me
Mar 3, 2016, 2:35:16 AM3/3/16
to
You (Greg Goss) replied (to me):
but it doesn't let you assign CSS rules to its
user interface and/or to the content of emails/posts.
Unlike Thunderbird,
your can't write (JavaScript) extensions for it.
It doesn't understand the basic rules of emails and posts;
it can't mix fonts. You get one font, and that's it.
No UTF-8 (Unicode), no fixed-width guarantee.
It's a reflection of your lack of communication skills.
You don't care about my posts,
I don't care about yours... problem solved.
> > The HMTL markup I post is just:
> >
> > <h2><PRE Style='Font-Family: OCR A, monospace !important;'>
> >
> > It's very, very simple.
>
> In my newsreader [[Forte Agent]],
> >
> > <h2><PRE Style='Font-Family: OCR A, monospace !important;'>
> >
> > It's very, very simple.
>
> it was formatted as an icon of my default web browser.
> Like Sylvia says, I ignored it and went on to the next post.
Forte Agent is simpler than Mozilla Thunderbird,
> Like Sylvia says, I ignored it and went on to the next post.
but it doesn't let you assign CSS rules to its
user interface and/or to the content of emails/posts.
Unlike Thunderbird,
your can't write (JavaScript) extensions for it.
It doesn't understand the basic rules of emails and posts;
it can't mix fonts. You get one font, and that's it.
No UTF-8 (Unicode), no fixed-width guarantee.
It's a reflection of your lack of communication skills.
You don't care about my posts,
I don't care about yours... problem solved.
Jeanne Douglas
Mar 3, 2016, 2:36:39 AM3/3/16
to
In article <Jeff-Relf.Me@Mar.2{7.54P.Seattle.2016}>, Jeff-Relf.Me <@.>
wrote:
> You (Chrysi Cat) replied (to me):
> > > The HMTL markup I post is just:
> > >
> > > <h2><PRE Style='Font-Family: OCR A, monospace !important;'>
> > >
> > > It's very, very simple.
> > > WikiPedia and CraigsList allow Lightweight Markup Language (LML):
> >
> > Neither of which are _Usenet_.
> >
> > Usenet is mainly consumed by people who still use ASCII-only newsreaders
> > (personally, my Thunderbird is *capable* of more, but there are people
> > in here on PINE!).
>
> Usenet allows for it, same as email, to wit, my:
But most people use newsreaders that cannot read anything but ASCII.
My newsreader lets me choose the font I see, which is Georgia (I really
like the way it looks and how easy it is for me to read). If I get
messages with a lot of gibberish in them, that person is gonna get
kill-filed for being annoying and rude.
wrote:
> You (Chrysi Cat) replied (to me):
> > > The HMTL markup I post is just:
> > >
> > > <h2><PRE Style='Font-Family: OCR A, monospace !important;'>
> > >
> > > It's very, very simple.
> > > WikiPedia and CraigsList allow Lightweight Markup Language (LML):
> >
> > Neither of which are _Usenet_.
> >
> > Usenet is mainly consumed by people who still use ASCII-only newsreaders
> > (personally, my Thunderbird is *capable* of more, but there are people
> > in here on PINE!).
>
> Usenet allows for it, same as email, to wit, my:
My newsreader lets me choose the font I see, which is Georgia (I really
like the way it looks and how easy it is for me to read). If I get
messages with a lot of gibberish in them, that person is gonna get
kill-filed for being annoying and rude.
Sylvia Else
Mar 3, 2016, 2:45:23 AM3/3/16
to
the formatting so I don't actually have enough information to form a view.
I'm saying that the formatting *marks* you as a crank.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
Mar 3, 2016, 2:46:05 AM3/3/16
to
Sylvia.
The Starmaker
Mar 3, 2016, 3:40:04 AM3/3/16
to
The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> >
> > In article <nb6rck$nmp$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 3/2/2016 6:11 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Why can't God exists at the highest dimensions? Because you don't wanna
> > > >> feel threatened by something mightier than you? :)
> > > >
> > > > What higher dimension are you refering to???
> > > >
> > >
> > > I cannot tell... I am living on the ground, not up there. Find and ask
> > > God! :)
> >
> > What god? What evidence do you have that it exists?
another person who sees a thousands trees but no forest...
>
> Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> >
> > In article <nb6rck$nmp$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 3/2/2016 6:11 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Why can't God exists at the highest dimensions? Because you don't wanna
> > > >> feel threatened by something mightier than you? :)
> > > >
> > > > What higher dimension are you refering to???
> > > >
> > >
> > > I cannot tell... I am living on the ground, not up there. Find and ask
> > > God! :)
> >
> > What god? What evidence do you have that it exists?
Look at your clock Jeanne, can you imagine the face of the clockmaker???
Greg Goss
Mar 3, 2016, 10:38:35 AM3/3/16
to
Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:
>You (Greg Goss) replied (to me):
>You (Greg Goss) replied (to me):
>> In my newsreader [[Forte Agent]],
>> it was formatted as an icon of my default web browser.
>> Like Sylvia says, I ignored it and went on to the next post.
>
>Forte Agent is simpler than Mozilla Thunderbird,
>but it doesn't let you assign CSS rules to its
>user interface and/or to the content of emails/posts.
>
>> it was formatted as an icon of my default web browser.
>> Like Sylvia says, I ignored it and went on to the next post.
>
>Forte Agent is simpler than Mozilla Thunderbird,
>but it doesn't let you assign CSS rules to its
>user interface and/or to the content of emails/posts.
>
>It doesn't understand the basic rules of emails and posts;
It does understand the basic rules of posts. For every newsgroup
where I have ever hung out in, the basic rule is "seven bit clean"
posts. We put up with accented letters because the world is a big
place. Formatting for the hell of it has always been frowned upon,
just as it is being frowned upon now.
Just because you CAN, doesn't make it a basic rule. The residents
make the basic rules.
>It's a reflection of your lack of communication skills.
places where people play by the same basic rules of communication as I
use. By insisting on changing the local rules of communication,
you're demonstrating lack of skill at communication.
>You don't care about my posts,
>I don't care about yours... problem solved.
nothing but a browser icon, I might.
chrisv
Mar 3, 2016, 10:59:13 AM3/3/16
to
Greg Goss wrote:
> Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:
*plonk*
> Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:
*plonk*
Peter Trei
Mar 3, 2016, 12:53:02 PM3/3/16
to
of common courtesy. (you've only been using Usenet since 2012, right?)
This isn't the World Wide Web. It's Usenet, which predates the web
by over a decade It also predates UTF-8, and HTML. Many of the regulars
have been here for 30+ years.
It uses different conventions and different protocols than the WWW.
One of the things it does not use is HTML markup or CSS.
I don't care if you've compiled your own modified Mozilla. Your use
of HTML, etc on Usenet is an error, a mistake which you need to correct.
pt
Jeff-Relf.Me
Mar 3, 2016, 1:14:44 PM3/3/16
to
Forte Agent can't mix fonts.
You get _one_ font; that's it.
even if yours isn't, Greg Goss.
You don't understand the value of markup languages,
Unicode, CSS rules, and all that.
I make no demands of you, you can't alter me.
You're a simple person, living in the past.
I don't need to see your posts,
you don't need to see mine.
You get _one_ font; that's it.
No UTF-8 (Unicode), no fixed-width guarantee.
My needs are greater than that,
even if yours isn't, Greg Goss.
You don't understand the value of markup languages,
Unicode, CSS rules, and all that.
I make no demands of you, you can't alter me.
You're a simple person, living in the past.
I don't need to see your posts,
you don't need to see mine.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Mar 3, 2016, 1:52:13 PM3/3/16
to
My theory is that you deliberately use an incomprehesible method of
posting because you know full well you have nothing to say, but are
too stupid and narcissitic to not say it.
You're more a loser for choosing to be a loser than for being a
retard, but you're a loser, either way.
Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote in news:Jeff-Relf.Me@Mar.2
{11.35P.Seattle.2016}:
posting because you know full well you have nothing to say, but are
too stupid and narcissitic to not say it.
You're more a loser for choosing to be a loser than for being a
retard, but you're a loser, either way.
Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote in news:Jeff-Relf.Me@Mar.2
{11.35P.Seattle.2016}:
Jeff-Relf.Me
Mar 3, 2016, 2:03:20 PM3/3/16
to
You (Terry Austin) are as illiterate as your newsreader, xNews.
I don't need you, you don't need me.
I don't need you, you don't need me.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Mar 3, 2016, 5:21:09 PM3/3/16
to
"Chrysi Cat" amok-crossposted to 5(!) newsgroups, across alt.ALL and the Big
8(!), without Followup-To:
> Usenet is mainly consumed by people who still use ASCII-only newsreaders
> (personally, my Thunderbird is *capable* of more, but there are people
> in here on PINE!).
Their problem. There are locales and fonts supporting UTF-8 and other non-
ASCII encodings even on the text console. A newsreader that does not
support MIME in the 21st century is officially borked now. See below.
> Thus, you _do not format anything_.
Incorrect. Text can be formatted *bold*, /italic/ and _underlined_ as
decent newsreaders would support some kind of highlighting, with the
specified marks and meanings being the common and therefore best supported
ones. For example, you mentioned Thunderbird which supports that minimum
markup in plain-text messages.
> If you want to use ellipsis, you use three separate periods.
>
> If you want to use an en-dash, you use two separate hyphens.
Your half-knowledge is decades out of date. The first version of the
Unicode standard has been published in 1991 CE, non-ASCII encodings and
character sets had been standardized and implemented before, and MIME (1996)
supports encodings such as ISO-8859-1 and UTF-8 whose character sets include
the proper typographical marks (e.g., EN DASH “–” and HORIZONTAL ELLIPSIS
“…”, respectively). Keyboard drivers like XKB also support typing those
characters directly. It is no longer necessary or useful to insist on US-
ASCII. In fact, MIME support is required nowadays; see also RFC 5536, §
2.3.
As for the Thunderbird example, it recognizes when you type characters that
cannot be encoded with US-ASCII, and suggests to encode the message with
UTF-8 instead. Other newsreaders, like KNode can automatically use and
declare the minimum required encoding for typed text. For example, this
message will be encoded using UTF-8.
> And you're gonna get plonked by more people than will ever open another
> posting of yours if you don't follow those rules *always*.
Incorrect. However, posting multipart messages (for example, a section
using HTML as part of a multi-part message) to non-binary newsgroups might
have the described effect. HTML support in a newsreader is neither required
nor desired.
X-Post trimmed to the Big 8; F'up2 poster
PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."
(from: WolframAlpha)
8(!), without Followup-To:
> Usenet is mainly consumed by people who still use ASCII-only newsreaders
> (personally, my Thunderbird is *capable* of more, but there are people
> in here on PINE!).
ASCII encodings even on the text console. A newsreader that does not
support MIME in the 21st century is officially borked now. See below.
> Thus, you _do not format anything_.
decent newsreaders would support some kind of highlighting, with the
specified marks and meanings being the common and therefore best supported
ones. For example, you mentioned Thunderbird which supports that minimum
markup in plain-text messages.
> If you want to use ellipsis, you use three separate periods.
>
> If you want to use an en-dash, you use two separate hyphens.
Unicode standard has been published in 1991 CE, non-ASCII encodings and
character sets had been standardized and implemented before, and MIME (1996)
supports encodings such as ISO-8859-1 and UTF-8 whose character sets include
the proper typographical marks (e.g., EN DASH “–” and HORIZONTAL ELLIPSIS
“…”, respectively). Keyboard drivers like XKB also support typing those
characters directly. It is no longer necessary or useful to insist on US-
ASCII. In fact, MIME support is required nowadays; see also RFC 5536, §
2.3.
As for the Thunderbird example, it recognizes when you type characters that
cannot be encoded with US-ASCII, and suggests to encode the message with
UTF-8 instead. Other newsreaders, like KNode can automatically use and
declare the minimum required encoding for typed text. For example, this
message will be encoded using UTF-8.
> And you're gonna get plonked by more people than will ever open another
> posting of yours if you don't follow those rules *always*.
using HTML as part of a multi-part message) to non-binary newsgroups might
have the described effect. HTML support in a newsreader is neither required
nor desired.
X-Post trimmed to the Big 8; F'up2 poster
PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."
(from: WolframAlpha)
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages