Re: Einstein's Math May Be Compatible With Faster-Than-Light Travel, Mathematicians Say

[HVAC]

On 10/14/2012 10:29 PM, Greysky wrote:
>
> heh - if that were the only problem, I'd be selling these things to your
> kids from Radio Shack by now. Earlier, I said there was no one to talk
> to, remember? well, that wasn't quite true. I did find a few signals
> that did not originate from the earth. Yep, that 's right. Aliens don't
> use radio because they are using variations of what I discovered. I
> learned a few things. Not good things. Your next question is going to be
> to ask what were those things, right? Well, I learned that string theory
> is actually right in that it postulates a multiverse. My technology can
> actually form links between different universes, and there are some
> universes that are much older than ours, and the things living in them
> want to get out, and into a nice younger universe like ours. One that is
> still filled with untapped potential. But, they can't establish a link
> with those universes unless they can convince some gullible fool (or
> greedy researcher) who is already living there to let them link in. That
> is the safety net - you see, you could be living right next to a
> universe that is a paradise, but you can't get there unless there is
> someone already there that will let you establish a link with them and
> let them in.
>
> So, on the one hand, the FTL radio provides a stunning confirmation of
> string theory, on the other hand, alien invasion. Now, I didn't learn
> all this at once. but, over the past 13 years, a bit at a time. This,
> along with other stuff I can't get into, has made me realize, that, the
> simple 'FTL Radio' I envisioned is not possible, and that it represents
> a Pandora's box that maybe should be left alone.


So Painus...You still think I'm wrong when I call Gaysky a kook?

Fuck all! He's receiving messages from another universe!




--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/images/tia_logo_large.jpg

[HVAC]

On 10/15/2012 9:44 AM, greysky wrote:
>
>> What would *you* do with your invention? Walk away and forget it, or
>> allow others to do with it what they will? Remember, once you spill the
>> secret, the thing is no longer under your control. Building a
>> superluminal communicator sounds so harmless - it's just a walkie talkie
>> that works really fast, right? What could be the harm in that... but
>> without getting into specifics, there really are negative consequences
>> to what I invented that the entire world must live with if I decide to
>> go public - and at that point the genii can't be stuffed back into the
>> bottle...
>>
>> G-
>
>
> But yet you post a link with instructions?
>
>>>> www.ftlsite.com
>>>> Learn how to build a FTL radio.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Sure, why not? Life's like that, a little bit ying, a little bit yang.
> Ultimately, I'm not opposed to releasing my ideas


But you JUST said "there really are negative consequences
to what I invented that the entire world must live with if I decide to
go public".

So, as far as I can see, ying and yang are code names for bullshit.


> Harlow, I thought you retired from the net?


My overlords decided I needed to stay for a while longer.


> So what happened - your life too boring without the newsgroups?


I would miss YOU far too much, Gaysky.

[HVAC]

On 10/15/2012 10:57 PM, Gaysky wrote:
>
>>> So, on the one hand, the FTL radio provides a stunning confirmation of
>>> string theory, on the other hand, alien invasion. Now, I didn't learn
>>> all this at once. but, over the past 13 years, a bit at a time. This,
>>> along with other stuff I can't get into, has made me realize, that, the
>>> simple 'FTL Radio' I envisioned is not possible, and that it represents
>>> a Pandora's box that maybe should be left alone.
>>
>>
>> So Painus...You still think I'm wrong when I call Gaysky a kook?
>>
>> Fuck all! He's receiving messages from another universe!
>>
>>

> And you, HVAC, are an asshole in all of them.



That very well may be, Gaysky, but as they say, "Sticks and stones may
break my bones...But at least *I* don't get messages from aliens in
another universe".


Holy mackerel, you're shithouse rat crazy!

[HVAC]

On 10/15/2012 10:54 PM, Greysky wrote:
>
>>>> What would *you* do with your invention? Walk away and forget it, or
>>>> allow others to do with it what they will? Remember, once you spill the
>>>> secret, the thing is no longer under your control. Building a
>>>> superluminal communicator sounds so harmless - it's just a walkie
>>>> talkie
>>>> that works really fast, right? What could be the harm in that... but
>>>> without getting into specifics, there really are negative consequences
>>>> to what I invented that the entire world must live with if I decide to
>>>> go public - and at that point the genii can't be stuffed back into the
>>>> bottle...
>>>>
>>>> G-
>>>
>>>
>>> But yet you post a link with instructions?
>>>
>>>>>> www.ftlsite.com
>>>>>> Learn how to build a FTL radio.
>>>
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> Sure, why not? Life's like that, a little bit ying, a little bit yang.
>>> Ultimately, I'm not opposed to releasing my ideas
>>
>>
>> But you JUST said "there really are negative consequences
>> to what I invented that the entire world must live with if I decide to
>> go public".
>

> Don't be such a fairy, Harlow. There are 'negative consequences' to just
> about everything we do. The guy that invented the Zippo lighter didn't
> let the fact that thousands of fingers would get burned by the flame his
> device produced, did he? Those are consequences humanity was willing to
> deal with. Same with my device. Okay, so it is a magnitude larger -
> worst case scenario is megadeath for everyone.


Then why the fuck are you crying about it?

It was you that says it can't be released to the public, then you post a
link to how to build it. Then you cry at me for pointing this out?

You're just another kook in a long line of kooks.



PS- Have you gotten any FTL messages from the bizarro universe lately?









But the same can be said
> with atomic power. Many might wish the power of the atom had never been
> harnessed, but I think it's been overall a good thing - my smoke
> detector wouldn't work without the 1 micro-curie sample of Americium
> inside it.

>
>
>>
>> So, as far as I can see, ying and yang are code names for bullshit
>

> Your name is a code for bullshit. It doesn't stop you does it?

>>
>>
>>> Harlow, I thought you retired from the net?
>>
>>
>> My overlords decided I needed to stay for a while longer.
>>
>>
>>> So what happened - your life too boring without the newsgroups?
>>
>>
>> I would miss YOU far too much, Gaysky.
>>

> You are mixing me up with your pal Levy. You keep doing that and it'll
> make him start crying.
>
> G-

[HVAC]

On 10/17/2012 3:19 AM, Painius wrote:
>
> Greysky, do you remember how oc and I were once very cautious about
> "letting the cat outta the bag" as regards gravitational energy? If
> humans live long enough, *somebody* is going to realize how powerful
> gravitational energy is and search for ways to exploit it. Oc and I
> are convinced that an energy that has the power to contain the
> majestic out-pushing force of a star, the power to crush a massive
> star and result in a supernova, the inconceivable power to result (in
> the past) in such things as quasars, blazars and other galaxies with
> "active nuclei", such astounding energy, if somehow contained and
> controlled, would make hydrogen and other nuclear bombs look like
> small firecrackers. So we felt it best to be careful about how far
> "out of the box" we would go. I remembered how Einstein felt about
> the usage of his physics to wipe out Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan.


What a load of total horseshit. You two fuckwits were discussing how
best to not let out information that you didn't have... What did you do
then, clap each other on the back, or give each other a reach-A-Round?

Un fucking believable.

[HVAC]

On 10/18/2012 2:48 AM, Gaysky wrote:
>
> Well, in support of your thesis, the fact that I am talking as openly as
> I am about this subject, in full view of whatever government watchdog
> groups there are that troll Usenet looking for problems to solve, and I
> have been left alone, speaks volumes. Why, even HVAC, thinks I am
> "shithouse rat crazy" :-). DARPA probably thinks the same way - I am so
> outside the box I'm invisible. When you come right down to it, I am not
> trying to be 'secretive' on purpose. I think it would be a tragedy if I
> were to leave this world without revealing my technology - We already
> have enough mysteries. Take Coral Castle, for an example.


Are you shitting me?


> I think it is
> a sad thing for humanity that Edward Leedskalnen died without revealing
> how he manipulated multi-ton blocks of rock. Just think how such
> techniques could have revolutionized the building industry, not to
> mention all the spinoff tech that could have been created. Now, its all
> mouldering in a dusty old grave. Such a waste of potential... With me,
> people practice self-censorship, much the same way that they reacted to
> Galileo when he showed people the heavens through his telescope. They
> just dismiss me and walk away. Take for example HVAC's 'shithouse rat'
> reaction to my statement that I am able to receive some limited type of
> information from alternate universes through my device. It does sound
> crazy,


Ya think?


> but does anyone know what the effects of using quantum wormholes
> for communication will be? Yes, it turns out information can cross from
> one brane into another provided the two branes are linked via a
> wormhole. I have slowly characterized the operation of my device over
> the past decade and am still learning new things about what it really is
> and how it works. And, the thing I now know, which I didn't know when I
> started this journey, is that there are very real dangers involved, and
> it isn't the fact of listening to some aliens (some sound like whales,
> but mainly they use forms of digital transmission I can't decode), and I
> admit it has left me feeling somewhat ambivalent towards my own
> brainchild. Yin and Yang: the Good, the Bad, the Ugly, and the Dead...


And the kooks.

[Painius]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 14:21:51 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On 10/17/2012 3:19 AM, Painius wrote:
>>
>> Greysky, do you remember how oc and I were once very cautious about
>> "letting the cat outta the bag" as regards gravitational energy? If
>> humans live long enough, *somebody* is going to realize how powerful
>> gravitational energy is and search for ways to exploit it. Oc and I
>> are convinced that an energy that has the power to contain the
>> majestic out-pushing force of a star, the power to crush a massive
>> star and result in a supernova, the inconceivable power to result (in
>> the past) in such things as quasars, blazars and other galaxies with
>> "active nuclei", such astounding energy, if somehow contained and
>> controlled, would make hydrogen and other nuclear bombs look like
>> small firecrackers. So we felt it best to be careful about how far
>> "out of the box" we would go. I remembered how Einstein felt about
>> the usage of his physics to wipe out Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan.
>
>
>What a load of total horseshit. You two fuckwits were discussing how
>best to not let out information that you didn't have... What did you do
>then, clap each other on the back, or give each other a reach-A-Round?
>
>Un fucking believable.

Who said we didn't have the information? Oh yeah, that's right, you
*assume* we didn't have it.

Study quasars, friend Harlow, and find out what science has to say so
far about "gravitational energy".

Yes, oc and I did study and know a lot of information about grav.
energy, and yes, we did divulge what we know here in alt.astronomy
years ago, just a bit before you came on the scene. So you're welcome
to peruse the archives, because while oc is still staying away from
newsgroups, I am still here, and I will only discuss specific
questions that you may have about grav. energy.

Why? Because I do not fear your skepticism. I rather welcome and
enjoy it, actually.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"You can't wait for inspiration; you have to go after it with a club."

[HVAC]

On 10/20/2012 5:52 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>> What a load of total horseshit. You two fuckwits were discussing how
>> best to not let out information that you didn't have... What did you do
>> then, clap each other on the back, or give each other a reach-A-Round?
>>
>> Un fucking believable.
>
> Who said we didn't have the information? Oh yeah, that's right, you
> *assume* we didn't have it.
>
> Study quasars, friend Harlow, and find out what science has to say so
> far about "gravitational energy".
>
> Yes, oc and I did study and know a lot of information about grav.
> energy, and yes, we did divulge what we know here in alt.astronomy
> years ago, just a bit before you came on the scene. So you're welcome
> to peruse the archives, because while oc is still staying away from
> newsgroups, I am still here, and I will only discuss specific
> questions that you may have about grav. energy.
>
> Why? Because I do not fear your skepticism. I rather welcome and
> enjoy it, actually.

Well, I sure am glad the info didn't get out. We might have had a
terrorist unleash a grav bomb.



PS- Is that the bombs used by your alien friends, the Seans?

LOL

[Painius]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:49:50 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On 10/20/2012 5:52 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>> What a load of total horseshit. You two fuckwits were discussing how
>>> best to not let out information that you didn't have... What did you do
>>> then, clap each other on the back, or give each other a reach-A-Round?
>>>
>>> Un fucking believable.
>>
>> Who said we didn't have the information? Oh yeah, that's right, you
>> *assume* we didn't have it.
>>
>> Study quasars, friend Harlow, and find out what science has to say so
>> far about "gravitational energy".
>>
>> Yes, oc and I did study and know a lot of information about grav.
>> energy, and yes, we did divulge what we know here in alt.astronomy
>> years ago, just a bit before you came on the scene. So you're welcome
>> to peruse the archives, because while oc is still staying away from
>> newsgroups, I am still here, and I will only discuss specific
>> questions that you may have about grav. energy.
>>
>> Why? Because I do not fear your skepticism. I rather welcome and
>> enjoy it, actually.
>
>
>Well, I sure am glad the info didn't get out. We might have had a
>terrorist unleash a grav bomb.
>
>
>
>PS- Is that the bombs used by your alien friends, the Seans?
>
>LOL

LOL right back atcha, botty-brain!

And BTW just FYI, oc and I only know and discussed what we studied
about grav. energy, along of course with a speculation here and there.
Since such knowledge was pretty much all there was, and since that
knowledge did not actually include any manner in which grav energy
could be harnessed and controlled, your fears about terrorists
unleashing such a WMD as a "grav bomb" may be allayed.

And hopefully, by the time our "religious" astronomers (those who are
way too old and who will not recognize realities that go counter to
their dogmatic beliefs) get around to accepting, scientifically
studying, harnessing and controlling grav energy, we will no longer
have need for such words as "terrorist" and "terrorism". Maybe by
then we'll actually become truly "sapient"?

We can only hope. LMBO !

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

"In all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane."

[HVAC]

On 10/20/2012 9:23 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>> Well, I sure am glad the info didn't get out. We might have had a
>> terrorist unleash a grav bomb.
>>
>>
>>
>> PS- Is that the bombs used by your alien friends, the Seans?
>>
>> LOL
>
> LOL right back atcha, botty-brain!
>
> And BTW just FYI, oc and I only know and discussed what we studied
> about grav. energy, along of course with a speculation here and there.
> Since such knowledge was pretty much all there was, and since that
> knowledge did not actually include any manner in which grav energy
> could be harnessed and controlled, your fears about terrorists
> unleashing such a WMD as a "grav bomb" may be allayed.

Honest to Christ, you don't think you're a kook?

[Painius]

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:35:00 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On 10/20/2012 9:23 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I sure am glad the info didn't get out. We might have had a
>>> terrorist unleash a grav bomb.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> PS- Is that the bombs used by your alien friends, the Seans?
>>>
>>> LOL
>>
>> LOL right back atcha, botty-brain!
>>
>> And BTW just FYI, oc and I only know and discussed what we studied
>> about grav. energy, along of course with a speculation here and there.
>> Since such knowledge was pretty much all there was, and since that
>> knowledge did not actually include any manner in which grav energy
>> could be harnessed and controlled, your fears about terrorists
>> unleashing such a WMD as a "grav bomb" may be allayed.
>
>
>Honest to Christ, you don't think you're a kook?

Who cares what I think? Who cares what you think?

I'm beginning to think it's time to start ignoring you again for
awhile. You're losing your ootspa! LMAO !

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

"If you want to thoroughly know something, teach it to others."

[Malcolm McMahon]

I'm thinking tentacles. All ancient beings from elder dimension that threaten to return to claim our world come with tentacles.

[HVAC]

On 10/22/2012 2:22 AM, Painius wrote:
>
>>>> Well, I sure am glad the info didn't get out. We might have had a
>>>> terrorist unleash a grav bomb.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> PS- Is that the bombs used by your alien friends, the Seans?
>>>>
>>>> LOL
>>>
>>> LOL right back atcha, botty-brain!
>>>
>>> And BTW just FYI, oc and I only know and discussed what we studied
>>> about grav. energy, along of course with a speculation here and there.
>>> Since such knowledge was pretty much all there was, and since that
>>> knowledge did not actually include any manner in which grav energy
>>> could be harnessed and controlled, your fears about terrorists
>>> unleashing such a WMD as a "grav bomb" may be allayed.
>>
>>
>> Honest to Christ, you don't think you're a kook?
>
> Who cares what I think? Who cares what you think?

Certainly it is *I* who cares what YOU think. I have been interested in
why people believe what they believe for almost all of my life. I find
the subject endlessly fascinating. What is MOST fascinating to me is how
people get defensive when I question their long held beliefs. Most of
these people don't even realize that they have no rational way of
defending these beliefs and therefore, for some strange reason, they get
mad at ME for even questioning these kooky ideas. Some ignore me, some
insult me, but ALL have one thing in common...They cannot back up their
claims in any logical manner.

> I'm beginning to think it's time to start ignoring you again for
> awhile. You're losing your ootspa! LMAO !

See above.

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/22/2012 6:47 AM, HVAC wrote:

> Certainly it is *I* who cares what YOU think. I have been interested in
> why people believe what they believe for almost all of my life. I find
> the subject endlessly fascinating. What is MOST fascinating to me is how
> people get defensive when I question their long held beliefs. Most of
> these people don't even realize that they have no rational way of
> defending these beliefs and therefore, for some strange reason, they get
> mad at ME for even questioning these kooky ideas. Some ignore me, some
> insult me, but ALL have one thing in common...They cannot back up their
> claims in any logical manner.

Oh, SURE you "care"! Your job is to create as many "believer's" in your
false world-view as possible.

What is fascinating to ME is the way you PRETEND to be rational, yet
when it (as in I) has been clearly pointed out to you that your ideas
are in error and references provided to establish the point, your
approach isn't logic or reason, but that of the the religious bigot
whereby you stick your fingers in your ears and loudly sing: "LA, La,
La, LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

And then you back up your "case" by calling everyone else "kooks".

Too funny for words! Real high IQ there, ACDC! We are really impressed!

[HVAC]

On 10/22/2012 10:04 AM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
> On 10/22/2012 6:47 AM, HVAC wrote:
>
>> Certainly it is *I* who cares what YOU think. I have been interested in
>> why people believe what they believe for almost all of my life. I find
>> the subject endlessly fascinating. What is MOST fascinating to me is how
>> people get defensive when I question their long held beliefs. Most of
>> these people don't even realize that they have no rational way of
>> defending these beliefs and therefore, for some strange reason, they get
>> mad at ME for even questioning these kooky ideas. Some ignore me, some
>> insult me, but ALL have one thing in common...They cannot back up their
>> claims in any logical manner.
>
> Oh, SURE you "care"! Your job is to create as many "believer's" in your
> false world-view as possible.
>
> What is fascinating to ME is the way you PRETEND to be rational, yet
> when it (as in I) has been clearly pointed out to you that your ideas
> are in error

Please name one. I'll wait right here.

> Too funny for words! Real high IQ there, ACDC! We are really impressed!

"We"?

[Painius]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:25:32 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On 10/22/2012 10:04 AM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>> On 10/22/2012 6:47 AM, HVAC wrote:
>>
>>> Certainly it is *I* who cares what YOU think. I have been interested in
>>> why people believe what they believe for almost all of my life. I find
>>> the subject endlessly fascinating. What is MOST fascinating to me is how
>>> people get defensive when I question their long held beliefs. Most of
>>> these people don't even realize that they have no rational way of
>>> defending these beliefs and therefore, for some strange reason, they get
>>> mad at ME for even questioning these kooky ideas. Some ignore me, some
>>> insult me, but ALL have one thing in common...They cannot back up their
>>> claims in any logical manner.
>>
>> Oh, SURE you "care"! Your job is to create as many "believer's" in your
>> false world-view as possible.
>>
>> What is fascinating to ME is the way you PRETEND to be rational, yet
>> when it (as in I) has been clearly pointed out to you that your ideas
>> are in error
>
>Please name one. I'll wait right here.

Your disbelief in deities.

You've never been able to produce even one objective fact to support
it, so just like a theist, who bases their belief on faith, you base
your disbelief on faith... and faith alone. Some "skeptic" you turned
out to be! LMFAO !

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

"Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to bitch and moan."

[HVAC]

On 10/24/2012 3:21 AM, Painius wrote:
>
>>>
>>> What is fascinating to ME is the way you PRETEND to be rational, yet
>>> when it (as in I) has been clearly pointed out to you that your ideas
>>> are in error
>>
>> Please name one. I'll wait right here.
>
> Your disbelief in deities.

Finish the list....Please submit a list of all nonsensical creatures
that I do not believe in. Here, I'll even start...Bigfoot, ghosts...

You finish the list.

[G=EMC^2]

On Oct 22, 2:22 am, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:35:00 -0400, HVAC <h...@physisist.net> wrote:
> >On 10/20/2012 9:23 PM, Painius wrote:
>
> >>> Well, I sure am glad the info didn't get out. We might have had a
> >>> terrorist unleash a grav bomb.
>
> >>> PS- Is that the bombs used by your alien friends, the Seans?
>
> >>> LOL
>
> >> LOL right back atcha, botty-brain!
>
> >> And BTW just FYI, oc and I only know and discussed what we studied
> >> about grav. energy, along of course with a speculation here and there.
> >> Since such knowledge was pretty much all there was, and since that
> >> knowledge did not actually include any manner in which grav energy
> >> could be harnessed and controlled, your fears about terrorists
> >> unleashing such a WMD as a "grav bomb" may be allayed.
>
> >Honest to Christ, you don't think you're a kook?
>
> Who cares what I think?  Who cares what you think?
>
> I'm beginning to think it's time to start ignoring you again for
> awhile.  You're losing your ootspa!  LMAO !
>
> --
> Indelibly yours,

> Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

> "If you want to thoroughly know something, teach it to others."

Painius its hard to ignor these 3 witless rats they stink up this
group so bad. I relate this with ignoring a bad fart in an elevator.
TreBert

[HVAC]

On 10/24/2012 8:08 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
>
> Painius its hard to ignor these 3 witless rats they stink up this
> group so bad. I relate this with ignoring a bad fart in an elevator.
> TreBert

Bert: Why is it that you get so incensed when I offer some constructive
criticism? I'm doing you a favor.


- "Some call me a terrorist...I consider myself to be a teacher".

[HVAC]

On 10/25/2012 10:07 AM, greysky wrote:
>
> You're right, Cactus. I can understand how upset you are because he
> lied. HVAC *did* promise to leave the newsgroups forever, and he has not
> kept his word.


I didn't lie. I was misquoted.


> Maybe it's because he is afraid of being alone? Why don't
> you tell HVAC that you 'll always be his friend, and never forget him at
> Christmas time, and that you'll always leave a plate of fresh cookies
> for him on the countertop? Better yet, why don't you tell HVAC that
> you'll leave the newsgroups forever with him? But, wishing your best
> friend Harlow to die is really uncalled for. You are going to make him
> start crying...



PS- What's really funny is how few questions it took to reveal you as
the true lunatic and kook you truly are. When you started talking about
receiving alien messages from another dimension, the cat was out the bag
for ALL to see.

But don't be ashamed! Stand up for what you know is right and true!

Tell us more stories about these spooky alien messages.

I'll wait right here and I promise not to laugh.

[Painius]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 07:41:00 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On 10/24/2012 3:21 AM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> What is fascinating to ME is the way you PRETEND to be rational, yet
>>>> when it (as in I) has been clearly pointed out to you that your ideas
>>>> are in error
>>>
>>> Please name one. I'll wait right here.
>>
>> Your disbelief in deities.
>
>
>Finish the list....Please submit a list of all nonsensical creatures
>that I do not believe in. Here, I'll even start...Bigfoot, ghosts...
>
>You finish the list.

You asked that ONE be named, Harlow. And as usual, instead of being
larger than life and admitting that you have absolutely no objective
reason to disbelieve in deities, you don the garb of the tiny insect
and introduce red herrings into the discussion.

The only time people bring up red herrings is when they know they
don't have a single, fuckin' leg to stand on. LMAO !

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 29, 11:34 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 07:41:00 -0400, HVAC <h...@physisist.net> wrote:
> >On 10/24/2012 3:21 AM, Painius wrote:
>
> >>>> What is fascinating to ME is the way you PRETEND to be rational, yet
> >>>> when it (as in I) has been clearly pointed out to you that your ideas
> >>>> are in error
>
> >>> Please name one.  I'll wait right here.
>
> >> Your disbelief in deities.
>
> >Finish the list....Please submit a list of all nonsensical creatures
> >that I do not believe in. Here, I'll even start...Bigfoot, ghosts...
>
> >You finish the list.
>
> You asked that ONE be named, Harlow.  And as usual, instead of being
> larger than life and admitting that you have absolutely no objective
> reason to disbelieve in deities, you don the garb of the tiny insect
> and introduce red herrings into the discussion.
>
> The only time people bring up red herrings is when they know they
> don't have a single, fuckin' leg to stand on.  LMAO !
>
> --
> Indelibly yours,

> Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

> "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."

Perhaps Harlow has lost the use of his legs.

[HVAC]

On 10/30/2012 11:34 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>>> Finish the list....Please submit a list of all nonsensical creatures
>>> that I do not believe in. Here, I'll even start...Bigfoot, ghosts...
>>
>>> You finish the list.
>>
>> You asked that ONE be named, Harlow. And as usual, instead of being
>> larger than life and admitting that you have absolutely no objective
>> reason to disbelieve in deities, you don the garb of the tiny insect
>> and introduce red herrings into the discussion.
>>
>> The only time people bring up red herrings is when they know they
>> don't have a single, fuckin' leg to stand on. LMAO !
>>
>

> Perhaps Harlow has lost the use of his legs.

I've still got my size 12 FOOT. Please note that it's the same one I've
been kicking Bert's, Painus' and your ass with.


Here's my advice. Just do everything that I tell you to do, and believe
everything that I tell you, and all will be just fine.


See how easy?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:41:03 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On 10/30/2012 11:34 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>>> Finish the list....Please submit a list of all nonsensical creatures
>>>> that I do not believe in. Here, I'll even start...Bigfoot, ghosts...
>>>
>>>> You finish the list.
>>>
>>> You asked that ONE be named, Harlow. And as usual, instead of being
>>> larger than life and admitting that you have absolutely no objective
>>> reason to disbelieve in deities, you don the garb of the tiny insect
>>> and introduce red herrings into the discussion.

What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot.

When one has no reason to believe something then one doesn't.

Why is this so hard for these morons to understand?

>>> The only time people bring up red herrings is when they know they
>>> don't have a single, fuckin' leg to stand on. LMAO !

Lie noted.

>> Perhaps Harlow has lost the use of his legs.

Idiot.

>I've still got my size 12 FOOT. Please note that it's the same one I've
>been kicking Bert's, Painus' and your ass with.

We all know they're mid-numbingly stupid, but do they have to be so
in-your-face nasty with it?

[HVAC]

On

>>>>> Finish the list....Please submit a list of all nonsensical creatures
>>>>> that I do not believe in. Here, I'll even start...Bigfoot, ghosts...
>>>>
>>>>> You finish the list.
>>>>
>>>> You asked that ONE be named, Harlow. And as usual, instead of being
>>>> larger than life and admitting that you have absolutely no objective
>>>> reason to disbelieve in deities, you don the garb of the tiny insect
>>>> and introduce red herrings into the discussion.
>
> What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot.
>
> When one has no reason to believe something then one doesn't.

At this point, Painus, due to his sophomoric ego, cannot admit the truth
else he will (at least in HIS mind) lose face. He is so committed to
this foolish 'I neither believe nor disbelieve' stance, that he carries
it to the most ridiculous lengths. With this utterly kooky worldview,
Painus can allow almost ANY burst of kooklogic and put it on the same
stage with what he derisively calls 'mainstream' science.

As if that was a bad thing.

> Why is this so hard for these morons to understand?

See above. Painus isn't a moron...He's a kook. Bert is a moron.
(no offense guys)

>>>> The only time people bring up red herrings is when they know they
>>>> don't have a single, fuckin' leg to stand on. LMAO !
>
> Lie noted.

Painus doesn't do a lot of lying. Mostly he ducks, dodges and avoids
answering a direct question. That's really even worse that a regular liar.

>>> Perhaps Harlow has lost the use of his legs.
>
> Idiot.

I've still got my BOOT, which I apply liberally to asses.

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 30, 8:45 am, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:41:03 -0400, HVAC <h...@physisist.net> wrote:
> >On 10/30/2012 11:34 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>>> Finish the list....Please submit a list of all nonsensical creatures
> >>>> that I do not believe in. Here, I'll even start...Bigfoot, ghosts...
>
> >>>> You finish the list.
>
> >>> You asked that ONE be named, Harlow.  And as usual, instead of being
> >>> larger than life and admitting that you have absolutely no objective
> >>> reason to disbelieve in deities, you don the garb of the tiny insect
> >>> and introduce red herrings into the discussion.
>
> What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot.
>
> When one has no reason to believe something then one doesn't.
>
> Why  is this so hard for these morons to understand?
>
> >>> The only time people bring up red herrings is when they know they
> >>> don't have a single, fuckin' leg to stand on.  LMAO !
>
> Lie noted.
>
> >> Perhaps Harlow has lost the use of his legs.
>
> Idiot.
>
> >I've still got my size 12 FOOT. Please note that it's the same one I've
> >been kicking Bert's, Painus' and your ass with.
>
> We all know they're mid-numbingly stupid, but do they have to be so
> in-your-face nasty with it?
>

Harlow has never stopped kicking others, starting within his mother
that probably died in the process of passing such a big ZNR rednecked
head from between her fat butt-cheeks.

[HVAC]

On 10/30/2012 12:47 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>>
> Harlow has never stopped kicking others, starting within his mother
> that probably died in the process of passing such a big ZNR rednecked
> head from between her fat butt-cheeks.

Damm....You're weird enough, Goth...But throw in your weird fecal-
fetish, and you bring new meaning to 'creepy'.

[Bill Snyder]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:58:51 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net>
wrote:

>On 10/30/2012 12:47 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>>
>> Harlow has never stopped kicking others, starting within his mother
>> that probably died in the process of passing such a big ZNR rednecked
>> head from between her fat butt-cheeks.
>
>
>Damm....You're weird enough, Goth...But throw in your weird fecal-
>fetish, and you bring new meaning to 'creepy'.

Guess what he finger-paints with, all over the walls of his cell.


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[HVAC]

On 10/30/2012 1:01 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>
>>> Harlow has never stopped kicking others, starting within his mother
>>> that probably died in the process of passing such a big ZNR rednecked
>>> head from between her fat butt-cheeks.
>>
>>
>> Damm....You're weird enough, Goth...But throw in your weird fecal-
>> fetish, and you bring new meaning to 'creepy'.
>
> Guess what he finger-paints with, all over the walls of his cell.

Thanks for putting THAT visual in my head.....

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:35:30 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On
>>>>>> Finish the list....Please submit a list of all nonsensical creatures
>>>>>> that I do not believe in. Here, I'll even start...Bigfoot, ghosts...
>>>>>
>>>>>> You finish the list.
>>>>>
>>>>> You asked that ONE be named, Harlow. And as usual, instead of being
>>>>> larger than life and admitting that you have absolutely no objective
>>>>> reason to disbelieve in deities, you don the garb of the tiny insect
>>>>> and introduce red herrings into the discussion.
>>
>> What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot.
>>
>> When one has no reason to believe something then one doesn't.
>
>At this point, Painus, due to his sophomoric ego, cannot admit the truth
>else he will (at least in HIS mind) lose face. He is so committed to
>this foolish 'I neither believe nor disbelieve' stance, that he carries
>it to the most ridiculous lengths. With this utterly kooky worldview,
>Painus can allow almost ANY burst of kooklogic and put it on the same
>stage with what he derisively calls 'mainstream' science.
>
>As if that was a bad thing.

At its most basic, all "disbelieve" means, is "not to believe". It can
be active or passive.

But in today's dumbed down times, dumbed down people have a dumbed
down vocabulary.

>> Why is this so hard for these morons to understand?
>
>See above. Painus isn't a moron...He's a kook. Bert is a moron.
>(no offense guys)

They're different kinds of stupidity. What makes Painius a moron isn't
what makes Bert one.

For example, his transparent dishonesty which he shouldn't expect to
fool anybody.

>>>>> The only time people bring up red herrings is when they know they
>>>>> don't have a single, fuckin' leg to stand on. LMAO !
>>
>> Lie noted.
>
>Painus doesn't do a lot of lying. Mostly he ducks, dodges and avoids
>answering a direct question. That's really even worse that a regular liar.

Calling it a red herring was a lie - because it wasn't.

I've had a recent loonie whom I asked why he expected people who
didn't have a god in their worldview except as merely somebody else's
religious belief, should even give it a thought let alone presume it
to wonder if it created everything.

And he pretended I hadn't answered the question. Coupled with
falsehoods about why I hadn't.

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Oct 24, 12:21 am, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:25:32 -0400, HVAC <h...@physisist.net> wrote:

> >On 10/22/2012 10:04 AM, bjac...@teranews.com wrote:
> >> On 10/22/2012 6:47 AM, HVAC wrote:
>
> >>> Certainly it is *I* who cares what YOU think. I have been interested in
> >>> why people believe what they believe for almost all of my life. I find
> >>> the subject endlessly fascinating. What is MOST fascinating to me is how
> >>> people get defensive when I question their long held beliefs. Most of
> >>> these people don't even realize that they have no rational way of
> >>> defending these beliefs and therefore, for some strange reason, they get
> >>> mad at ME for even questioning these kooky ideas. Some ignore me, some
> >>> insult me, but ALL have one thing in common...They cannot back up their
> >>> claims in any logical manner.
>
> >> Oh, SURE you "care"! Your job is to create as many "believer's" in your
> >> false world-view as possible.
>
> >> What is fascinating to ME is the way you PRETEND to be rational, yet
> >> when it (as in I) has been clearly pointed out to you that your ideas
> >> are in error
>
> >Please name one.  I'll wait right here.
>
> Your disbelief in deities.

Please explain how that idea is in error.

> You've never been able to produce even one objective fact to support
> it, so just like a theist, who bases their belief on faith, you base
> your disbelief on faith... and faith alone.

As I've pointed out many times, that statement is in error.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Bill Snyder]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:21:59 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net>
wrote:

>On 10/30/2012 1:01 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>>
>>>> Harlow has never stopped kicking others, starting within his mother
>>>> that probably died in the process of passing such a big ZNR rednecked
>>>> head from between her fat butt-cheeks.
>>>
>>>
>>> Damm....You're weird enough, Goth...But throw in your weird fecal-
>>> fetish, and you bring new meaning to 'creepy'.
>>
>> Guess what he finger-paints with, all over the walls of his cell.
>
>
>
>Thanks for putting THAT visual in my head.....

Then don't even think about how often he has chocolate fudge.

[HVAC]

On 10/30/2012 1:34 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>>
>> See above. Painus isn't a moron...He's a kook. Bert is a moron.
>> (no offense guys)
>
> They're different kinds of stupidity. What makes Painius a moron isn't
> what makes Bert one.
>
> For example, his transparent dishonesty which he shouldn't expect to
> fool anybody.

Well, this is a great subject for debate. Bert Vs. Painus in a
kook/stupidity competition. This is right up my alley!

In the 'Flat Out Stupid' category, Bert wins hands down. By his own
admission, he didn't quite graduate 4th grade. He is pretty much stuck
on stupid.

In the 'Mental Gymnastics' category, I give the Gold to Painus. He can
twist bullshit around so it (at least in his own mind) makes sense.

>> Painus doesn't do a lot of lying. Mostly he ducks, dodges and avoids
>> answering a direct question. That's really even worse that a regular liar.
>
> Calling it a red herring was a lie - because it wasn't.

I'm sure Painus will have a very different outlook on that.
Remember, he DID win the Gold in 'Mental Gymnastics'.

> I've had a recent loonie whom I asked why he expected people who
> didn't have a god in their worldview except as merely somebody else's
> religious belief, should even give it a thought let alone presume it
> to wonder if it created everything.
>
> And he pretended I hadn't answered the question. Coupled with
> falsehoods about why I hadn't.

Kooks are so much fun!

[HVAC]

On 10/30/2012 1:56 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>
>>>> Damm....You're weird enough, Goth...But throw in your weird fecal-
>>>> fetish, and you bring new meaning to 'creepy'.
>>>
>>> Guess what he finger-paints with, all over the walls of his cell.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for putting THAT visual in my head.....
>
> Then don't even think about how often he has chocolate fudge.

Awwwwww

[Christopher A. Lee]

Most believers can't apply logic to their beliefs, nor externalise
them to understand how others see them - a subconscious defence
mechanism takes over and blocks this out rather than let people have
honest reasons not to treat them as the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth.

[HVAC]

On 10/30/2012 3:22 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>> Kooks are so much fun!
>
> Most believers can't apply logic to their beliefs, nor externalise
> them to understand how others see them - a subconscious defence
> mechanism takes over and blocks this out rather than let people have
> honest reasons not to treat them as the truth, the whole truth and
> nothing but the truth.

Logic can only take you so far in any religious/paranormal debate.
You're bound to lose because there has to be a disconnect between
logic and faith.... You have to believe in magic.

[Painius]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:45:28 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
<chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:41:03 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:
>
>>On 10/30/2012 11:34 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Finish the list....Please submit a list of all nonsensical creatures
>>>>> that I do not believe in. Here, I'll even start...Bigfoot, ghosts...
>>>>
>>>>> You finish the list.
>>>>
>>>> You asked that ONE be named, Harlow. And as usual, instead of being
>>>> larger than life and admitting that you have absolutely no objective
>>>> reason to disbelieve in deities, you don the garb of the tiny insect
>>>> and introduce red herrings into the discussion.
>
>What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot.
>
>When one has no reason to believe something then one doesn't.
>
>Why is this so hard for these morons to understand?
>
>>>> The only time people bring up red herrings is when they know they
>>>> don't have a single, fuckin' leg to stand on. LMAO !
>

>Lie noted. . . .

Crissie, you're still so afraid of me that you won't respond to me
directly. That speaks volumes about your inadequacies. Try
responding to me directly just once. I promise you - I can only kill
you with words.

Your problem is that you, like believers, have no objective evidence
to support your atheism. So you wave your hands in the air and try to
scare others, when the reality is that YOU are the fearful one.

Man up, baby girl! LMBO !

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

"Either this thread is dead or my watch has stopped."

[Painius]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:35:30 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

> . . .

> I've still got my BOOT, which I apply liberally to asses.

More like you apply it liberally to your mouth.

LMFBO !

--
Indelibly yours,

[Painius]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:47:57 -0700 (PDT), "nu...@bid.nes"
<alie...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 24, 12:21 am, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:25:32 -0400, HVAC <h...@physisist.net> wrote:
>> >On 10/22/2012 10:04 AM, bjac...@teranews.com wrote:
>> >> On 10/22/2012 6:47 AM, HVAC wrote:
>>
>> >>> Certainly it is *I* who cares what YOU think. I have been interested in
>> >>> why people believe what they believe for almost all of my life. I find
>> >>> the subject endlessly fascinating. What is MOST fascinating to me is how
>> >>> people get defensive when I question their long held beliefs. Most of
>> >>> these people don't even realize that they have no rational way of
>> >>> defending these beliefs and therefore, for some strange reason, they get
>> >>> mad at ME for even questioning these kooky ideas. Some ignore me, some
>> >>> insult me, but ALL have one thing in common...They cannot back up their
>> >>> claims in any logical manner.
>>
>> >> Oh, SURE you "care"! Your job is to create as many "believer's" in your
>> >> false world-view as possible.
>>
>> >> What is fascinating to ME is the way you PRETEND to be rational, yet
>> >> when it (as in I) has been clearly pointed out to you that your ideas
>> >> are in error
>>
>> >Please name one.  I'll wait right here.
>>
>> Your disbelief in deities.
>
> Please explain how that idea is in error.

Please see below...

>> You've never been able to produce even one objective fact to support
>> it, so just like a theist, who bases their belief on faith, you base
>> your disbelief on faith... and faith alone.
>
> As I've pointed out many times, that statement is in error.

Yes, you have Mark, but you have never stated why it is in error. You
never come up with a single, solitary objective fact in evidence to
support anything - not theism nor atheism.

Those who are "believers" are blind sheep who base their theism on
faith and faith alone. There are no objective facts in evidence to
support their theism.

Those who are atheists are also blind sheep who base their atheism on
faith and faith alone. There are no objective facts in evidence to
support their atheism.

It is probable that one, either theism or atheism, is correct;
however, there is no objective way to tell *which* of them is correct.
So to be either a theist or an atheist is a grand "leap of faith".

You are free to point out that my statements are in error. This time,
it would be excellent if you could try to articulate why.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

[Painius]

And the elevator seems to be "stuck". LOL !

--
Indelibly yours,

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:30:38 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On 10/30/2012 3:22 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>
>>> Kooks are so much fun!
>>
>> Most believers can't apply logic to their beliefs, nor externalise
>> them to understand how others see them - a subconscious defence
>> mechanism takes over and blocks this out rather than let people have
>> honest reasons not to treat them as the truth, the whole truth and
>> nothing but the truth.
>
>Logic can only take you so far in any religious/paranormal debate.
>You're bound to lose because there has to be a disconnect between
>logic and faith.... You have to believe in magic.

There is no debate - they're crackpots who bring their beliefs up
where they are inappropriate and neither wanted nor needed.

At which point it becomes all about "put up or shut up". After all,
who are they trying to convince? Themselves? Or an involuntary
audience of those who don't share their beliefs?

They also come up against the natural tendency for those with a better
grasp on reality to correct their mistakes - but they are so locked
into their fantasies they imagine we're the ones who are wrong.

They can't explain why, and definitely not in the we can explain their
error.

Which is where they start using personal lies as ad hominems rather
than address explanations.

And where they move on from being kooks and crackpots to becoming
morons and liars.

[HVAC]

On 10/30/2012 4:15 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>> As I've pointed out many times, that statement is in error.
>
> Yes, you have Mark, but you have never stated why it is in error. You
> never come up with a single, solitary objective fact in evidence to
> support anything - not theism nor atheism.
>
> Those who are "believers" are blind sheep who base their theism on
> faith and faith alone. There are no objective facts in evidence to
> support their theism.
>
> Those who are atheists are also blind sheep who base their atheism on
> faith and faith alone. There are no objective facts in evidence to
> support their atheism.
>
> It is probable that one, either theism or atheism, is correct;
> however, there is no objective way to tell *which* of them is correct.
> So to be either a theist or an atheist is a grand "leap of faith".
>
> You are free to point out that my statements are in error. This time,
> it would be excellent if you could try to articulate why.

There it is...The Painus/Obama policy that all ideas are equal...No
matter how fucking stupid they are.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:40:22 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On 10/30/2012 4:15 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>> As I've pointed out many times, that statement is in error.
>>
>> Yes, you have Mark, but you have never stated why it is in error. You
>> never come up with a single, solitary objective fact in evidence to
>> support anything - not theism nor atheism.
>>
>> Those who are "believers" are blind sheep who base their theism on
>> faith and faith alone. There are no objective facts in evidence to
>> support their theism.
>>
>> Those who are atheists are also blind sheep who base their atheism on
>> faith and faith alone. There are no objective facts in evidence to
>> support their atheism.

Lies noted.

The proven serial liar has had it explained over and over again that
not believing in his god is no different than not believing in the
king of the elves.

And that when none has no reason to believe something then one
doesn't.

So what does he imagine he achieves by lying about atheists, to
atheists?

>> It is probable that one, either theism or atheism, is correct;
>> however, there is no objective way to tell *which* of them is correct.
>> So to be either a theist or an atheist is a grand "leap of faith".

He just can't stop lying, can he?

>> You are free to point out that my statements are in error. This time,
>> it would be excellent if you could try to articulate why.

Done over and over again.

Why does he pretend otherwise?

>There it is...The Painus/Obama policy that all ideas are equal...No
>matter how fucking stupid they are.

And you wonder why I realised long ago that he is a moron.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

[Jeff-R...@Oct.30{6.23.PM.Seattle.2012}]
Painius has taken the "grand leap of faith" which says:
It's IMPOSSIBLE to know if "God" (i.e. nature) exists or not.

Nature made you, Painus.

Speaking of God, you belong to tribes/religions of verious sizes.
Had you no "tribe", you'd have no "religion", they are the same.

[Painius]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:40:22 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On 10/30/2012 4:15 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>> As I've pointed out many times, that statement is in error.
>>
>> Yes, you have Mark, but you have never stated why it is in error. You
>> never come up with a single, solitary objective fact in evidence to
>> support anything - not theism nor atheism.
>>
>> Those who are "believers" are blind sheep who base their theism on
>> faith and faith alone. There are no objective facts in evidence to
>> support their theism.
>>
>> Those who are atheists are also blind sheep who base their atheism on
>> faith and faith alone. There are no objective facts in evidence to
>> support their atheism.
>>
>> It is probable that one, either theism or atheism, is correct;
>> however, there is no objective way to tell *which* of them is correct.
>> So to be either a theist or an atheist is a grand "leap of faith".
>>
>> You are free to point out that my statements are in error. This time,
>> it would be excellent if you could try to articulate why.
>
>
>There it is...The Painus/Obama policy that all ideas are equal...No
>matter how fucking stupid they are.

And just like all the others, you are unable to come up with one,
single, solitary objective fact to support your disbelief in any god,
Harlow. That makes you a blind sheep, too.

LMFBO !

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

"Habits are chains, too weak to be felt, too strong to be broken."

[Painius]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:14:51 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
<chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:40:22 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:
>
>>On 10/30/2012 4:15 PM, Painius wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I've pointed out many times, that statement is in error.
>>>
>>> Yes, you have Mark, but you have never stated why it is in error. You
>>> never come up with a single, solitary objective fact in evidence to
>>> support anything - not theism nor atheism.
>>>
>>> Those who are "believers" are blind sheep who base their theism on
>>> faith and faith alone. There are no objective facts in evidence to
>>> support their theism.
>>>
>>> Those who are atheists are also blind sheep who base their atheism on
>>> faith and faith alone. There are no objective facts in evidence to
>>> support their atheism.
>
>Lies noted.

If it really is a lie that there are no objective facts in evidence to
support your fearful, faithful atheism, Li'l Chrissie, then by all
means name one objective fact that supports atheism.

But you won't, because you can't, twerpy worm!

LMFAO !

Atheism is no better than theism - they both suck because they are
both utterly faith-based.

baaaa - baaaa - li'l blind sheepists.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

[Painius]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:23:26 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:

>?[Jeff-R...@Oct.30{6.23.PM.Seattle.2012}]

I don't belong to any religion. Those who speak of Nature as God are
hedonists, usually pagans.

In a sense, Nature got me started. I was lucky. I was the result of
one out of billions of sperm that penetrated an ovum that just
happened to be available that month. Then Mom kept me warm and
toasty, although quite wet. I was "made" by that experience and all
the experiences that followed.

Nature didn't "make" me - Life did.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

[HVAC]

On 10/31/2012 4:45 AM, Painius wrote:
>
>> There it is...The Painus/Obama policy that all ideas are equal...No
>> matter how fucking stupid they are.
>
> And just like all the others, you are unable to come up with one,
> single, solitary objective fact to support your disbelief in any god,
> Harlow. That makes you a blind sheep, too.

I don't believe in lots of things. I'll list a few things that I don't
believe in and that you DO believe in...

Ghosts- Harlow doesn't believe, Painus does believe.

ESP- Harlow doesn't believe, Painus does believe.

Life after death- Harlow doesn't believe, Painus does believe.

FTL travel- Harlow doesn't believe, Painus does believe.

Gay capture Hypothesis- Harlow doesn't believe, Painus does believe.

God- Harlow doesn't believe, Painus does believe.

Bigfoot- Harlow doesn't believe, Painus does believe.



And many, many more.

[Malcolm McMahon]

Do you believe in _all_ gods, because if you don't believe in all the gods anyone every believed in, and can't find one fact to disbelieve in each of them, then how is your position different?

[Painius]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:20:07 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On 10/31/2012 4:45 AM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>> There it is...The Painus/Obama policy that all ideas are equal...No
>>> matter how fucking stupid they are.
>>
>> And just like all the others, you are unable to come up with one,
>> single, solitary objective fact to support your disbelief in any god,
>> Harlow. That makes you a blind sheep, too.
>
>
>I don't believe in lots of things. I'll list a few things that I don't
>believe in and that you DO believe in...
>
>Ghosts- Harlow doesn't believe, Painus does believe.
>
>ESP- Harlow doesn't believe, Painus does believe.
>
>Life after death- Harlow doesn't believe, Painus does believe.
>
>FTL travel- Harlow doesn't believe, Painus does believe.
>
>Gay capture Hypothesis- Harlow doesn't believe, Painus does believe.
>
>God- Harlow doesn't believe, Painus does believe.
>
>Bigfoot- Harlow doesn't believe, Painus does believe.
>
>
>
>And many, many more.

Harlow certainly believes in many, many red herrings!

LMBO!

[HVAC]

On 10/31/2012 12:53 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>> I don't believe in lots of things. I'll list a few things that I don't
>> believe in and that you DO believe in...
>>
>> Ghosts- Harlow doesn't believe, Painus does believe.
>>
>> ESP- Harlow doesn't believe, Painus does believe.
>>
>> Life after death- Harlow doesn't believe, Painus does believe.
>>
>> FTL travel- Harlow doesn't believe, Painus does believe.
>>
>> Gay capture Hypothesis- Harlow doesn't believe, Painus does believe.
>>
>> God- Harlow doesn't believe, Painus does believe.
>>
>> Bigfoot- Harlow doesn't believe, Painus does believe.
>>
>>
>>
>> And many, many more.
>
> Harlow certainly believes in many, many red herrings!

Once again, rather than refute my argument or even apologize to me,
Painus chooses to attempt to change the subject.

All you Painus supporters out there...Here is your hero.

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Oct 30, 1:15 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:47:57 -0700 (PDT), "n...@bid.nes"

I'll fix that, then.

> You never come up with a single, solitary objective fact in evidence to
> support anything - not theism nor atheism.

No, I haven't; I have none. That's partly why I'm an apatheist.

> Those who are "believers" are blind sheep who base their theism on
> faith and faith alone.

Yep.

> There are no objective facts in evidence to support their theism.

That's what "faith" means.

> Those who are atheists are also blind sheep who base their atheism on
> faith and faith alone.  There are no objective facts in evidence to
> support their atheism.

That's the error; we agree that to believe something exists, absent
direct evidence that it does (to have faith in it), requires one to
actively make the choice to hold that belief.

You are apparently assuming that to be an atheist, one must actively
choose to believe that the thing in question does not exist despite
the lack of direct evidence that it doesn't.

But one may merely decline to take that action, to make the choice
to believe, regardless of the absence of data confirming or falsifying
the belief.

I blame the language. "I do not believe in X" is ambiguous. You're
reading it as "I do (not believe) in X", but it also reads as "I (do
not) believe in X". The first version represents the active choice to
believe in not-X where the second represents no choice to believe in
X.

> ...to be either a theist or an atheist is a grand "leap of faith".

That's your assumption in a nutshell...

> You are free to point out that my statements are in error.  This time,
> it would be excellent if you could try to articulate why.

...and I hope I've been clear.


Mark L. Fergerson

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Oct 31, 2:06 am, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:23:26 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:

> >?[Jeff-Relf...@Oct.30{6.23.PM.Seattle.2012}]

> >Painius has taken the "grand leap of faith" which says:
> >It's IMPOSSIBLE to know if "God" (i.e. nature) exists or not.
>
> >Nature made you, Painus.
>
> >  Speaking of God, you belong to tribes/religions of verious sizes.
> >  Had you no "tribe", you'd have no "religion", they are the same.

Is the deadbeat dad of the Internet still on about that?

That attitude is what's wrong with the world. You "belong to" this
or that group, so it's okay to parse you according to "friend/foe", to
side with you or to go for your throat at opportunity. Them vs us,
"fur us or agin us".

Fuck that.

All six and some change billion of us are no more than fourteenth
(or so) cousins. There are no strangers, only relatives you haven't
met yet.

Belief systems are optional, mitochondrial DNA isn't.

> I don't belong to any religion.  Those who speak of Nature as God are
> hedonists, usually pagans.

They seem to have a lot of fun...

> In a sense, Nature got me started.  I was lucky.  I was the result of
> one out of billions of sperm that penetrated an ovum that just
> happened to be available that month.  Then Mom kept me warm and
> toasty, although quite wet.  I was "made" by that experience and all
> the experiences that followed.
>
> Nature didn't "make" me - Life did.

Relf is a determinist yet he won't hold a job so that he can avoid
paying child support. Ignore him.


Mark L. Fergerson

[HVAC]

On 10/31/2012 1:44 PM, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>
>> ...to be either a theist or an atheist is a grand "leap of faith".
>
> That's your assumption in a nutshell...
>
>> You are free to point out that my statements are in error. This time,
>> it would be excellent if you could try to articulate why.
>
> ...and I hope I've been clear.
>
>
> Mark L. Fergerson

You have. It won't matter.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:44:20 -0700 (PDT), "nu...@bid.nes"
<alie...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 30, 1:15 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:

>> There are no objective facts in evidence to support their theism.
>
> That's what "faith" means.
>
>> Those who are atheists are also blind sheep who base their atheism on
>> faith and faith alone.  There are no objective facts in evidence to
>> support their atheism.
>
> That's the error; we agree that to believe something exists, absent
>direct evidence that it does (to have faith in it), requires one to
>actively make the choice to hold that belief.

Pain-in-arse knows it wasn't true, because it has been explained to
him over and over again.

> You are apparently assuming that to be an atheist, one must actively
>choose to believe that the thing in question does not exist despite
>the lack of direct evidence that it doesn't.

When one has no reason to believe something then one doesn't.

That's all.

> But one may merely decline to take that action, to make the choice
>to believe, regardless of the absence of data confirming or falsifying
>the belief.
>
> I blame the language. "I do not believe in X" is ambiguous. You're
>reading it as "I do (not believe) in X", but it also reads as "I (do
>not) believe in X". The first version represents the active choice to
>believe in not-X where the second represents no choice to believe in
>X.

It's not ambiguous - all it says is that one doesn't do something and
nothing more than that.

>> ...to be either a theist or an atheist is a grand "leap of faith".
>
> That's your assumption in a nutshell...

And it was a deliberate lie.

>> You are free to point out that my statements are in error.  This time,
>> it would be excellent if you could try to articulate why.
>
> ...and I hope I've been clear.

You have.
>
> Mark L. Fergerson

[Big Dog]

On 10/31/2012 1:12 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

>
> When one has no reason to believe something then one doesn't.
>

Who's "one" here?

If by this you mean "anybody" or "everybody", then it is a factually
incorrect statement.

If by "doesn't", you instead meant "preferably wouldn't" or "shouldn't",
then it no longer becomes a true or false statement but a subjective
opinion, attached to a personal value.

As an example of this, let's take the metacomment:
If someone knows precisely what they mean to say, then they say it.

[Painius]

Thank you for that, Mark! Your math logic was certainly clear,
although your "language" does not reach non-faithful proportions.

"Epic" proportions would be reached if you *could* actually come up
with an objective fact in evidence that would support one concept or
the other.

As an "apatheist", you take no interest in whether or not a god
exists, and further you take no interest in whether or not to believe
in a god, whether or not to disbelieve in a god.

You probably receive some flack, as i do, for this
"middle-of-the-road" position. Theists may call you "atheist" and
atheists may call you "theist", and both may call you "hypocrite" if
you take any interest at all in their arguments.

Neither theists nor atheists seem to be able to understand that there
are "other" choices that a person may make. Your choice is "apathy";
my choice is "full and true skepticism".

An atheist, to be sure, is skeptical about theism. However, true and
"full" skepticism must consider the availability of objective facts in
evidence for *any and all* positions. Do you have any objective facts
to support your apatheism?

If someone were to ask you if you believe or disbelieve in a god, do
you just tell them in so many words that you are apathetic toward the
whole subject? If so, how do you personally support your apathy?

You call my words an "assumption", however it is obvious to me that my
words ring true. If "faith" is not the only conclusion to draw when
there are no objective facts in evidence to support one's belief or
disbelief, then what are the other conclusions/assumptions that can be
made? Atheists and theists are skeptical of one another, but neither
is skeptical about their own atheism or theism. And I think they
*should* be skeptical, since there are no objective facts in evidence
to support their atheism nor their theism.

Some atheists consider me an agnostic, but that is not true, either.
So here is what I am not, and why...

Not a theist, because I don't know if any god should be believed in,
since there is no objective evidence to support such belief,

Not an atheist, because I don't know if it is right to lack a belief
in a god or gods, since there is no objective evidence to support such
a lack of belief,

Not an agnostic, because while an agnostic will admit to not knowing
whether or not a deity exists, that is not the same as admitting to
not knowing whether or not to believe, whether or not to disbelieve,
so the agnostic will still make the choice to be a theist or an
atheist (theistic agnostic or atheistic agnostic).

Not an apatheist, for rather obvious reasons. <g>

To me, it is still right to say, "I don't know whether or not to
believe - whether or not to disbelieve." There simply are no
objective facts in evidence to support such a choice. This makes both
theists *and* atheists "leapers of faith".

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

"UseNet does not change; we change."

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:25:28 -0500, Big Dog <big.fi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 10/31/2012 1:12 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>>
>> When one has no reason to believe something then one doesn't.
>
>Who's "one" here?
>
>If by this you mean "anybody" or "everybody", then it is a factually
>incorrect statement.

No.

Because you can't turn belief on or off on a whim, like a light
switch.

Try believing in Harry Potter and you'll see what I mean.

Or if you are theist, try not believing for a day.

Would it be genuine?

And the reasons theists believe, aren't the rationalisations they give
but the fact they were taught to in their earliest years before they
could think for themselves.

>If by "doesn't", you instead meant "preferably wouldn't" or "shouldn't",
>then it no longer becomes a true or false statement but a subjective
>opinion, attached to a personal value.

I meant exactly what I said.

>As an example of this, let's take the metacomment:
>
>If someone knows precisely what they mean to say, then they say it.

Argument by bad analogy.

[Big Dog]

On 10/31/2012 2:09 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:25:28 -0500, Big Dog <big.fi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/31/2012 1:12 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> When one has no reason to believe something then one doesn't.
>>
>> Who's "one" here?
>>
>> If by this you mean "anybody" or "everybody", then it is a factually
>> incorrect statement.
>
> No.
>
> Because you can't turn belief on or off on a whim, like a light
> switch.

Again, who's "you" here? If by this you mean "anybody" or "everybody",
then it is a factually incorrect statement. If you mean "I" and are
making a personal statement, then I have no contest with the statement.
If you mean "I, and therefore everyone else as well," then I simply tip
a hat to your extremely arrogant and self-centered projection.

>
> Try believing in Harry Potter and you'll see what I mean.
>
> Or if you are theist, try not believing for a day.
>
> Would it be genuine?
>
> And the reasons theists believe, aren't the rationalisations they give
> but the fact they were taught to in their earliest years before they
> could think for themselves.

Which points to the factual error I pointed to in the previous post, in
that this description makes no account for people who were raised by
atheists and later became believers.

>
>> If by "doesn't", you instead meant "preferably wouldn't" or "shouldn't",
>> then it no longer becomes a true or false statement but a subjective
>> opinion, attached to a personal value.
>
> I meant exactly what I said.

In which case it is factually incorrect.

>
>> As an example of this, let's take the metacomment:
>>
>> If someone knows precisely what they mean to say, then they say it.
>
> Argument by bad analogy.
>

It's not an argument. It's an example.

[HVAC]

On 10/31/2012 3:40 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>
> Which points to the factual error I pointed to in the previous post, in
> that this description makes no account for people who were raised by
> atheists and later became believers.

Those are the biggest tards of them all. Similar to the pinheads who
join any other cult.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:40:29 -0500, Big Dog <big.fi...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 10/31/2012 2:09 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:25:28 -0500, Big Dog <big.fi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/31/2012 1:12 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> When one has no reason to believe something then one doesn't.
>>>
>>> Who's "one" here?
>>>
>>> If by this you mean "anybody" or "everybody", then it is a factually
>>> incorrect statement.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Because you can't turn belief on or off on a whim, like a light
>> switch.
>
>Again, who's "you" here? If by this you mean "anybody" or "everybody",
>then it is a factually incorrect statement. If you mean "I" and are
>making a personal statement, then I have no contest with the statement.
>If you mean "I, and therefore everyone else as well," then I simply tip
>a hat to your extremely arrogant and self-centered projection.
>
>>
>> Try believing in Harry Potter and you'll see what I mean.
>>
>> Or if you are theist, try not believing for a day.
>>
>> Would it be genuine?

Couldn't answer this?

>> And the reasons theists believe, aren't the rationalisations they give
>> but the fact they were taught to in their earliest years before they
>> could think for themselves.
>
>Which points to the factual error I pointed to in the previous post, in
>that this description makes no account for people who were raised by
>atheists and later became believers.

What "factual error"?

Their reason is usually going through the motions to get the girl and
a combination of immersion and reinforcement over the years taking its
toll.

Because to an atheist it would be like suddenly believing in Harry
Potter.

Because atheists don't see gods in the same light theists do, they're
like pixies, leprechauns etc.

Now how about some examples of children raised in a theism-free
environment who later became theists?

>>> If by "doesn't", you instead meant "preferably wouldn't" or "shouldn't",
>>> then it no longer becomes a true or false statement but a subjective
>>> opinion, attached to a personal value.
>>
>> I meant exactly what I said.
>
>In which case it is factually incorrect.

Just because you say so?

No, it isn't.

Give me reasons why people believe.

That aren't rationalisations based on what they already believe, like
"because the Bible sez".

And then explain why when one has no reason to believe, one can end up
believing.

Instead of falsely accusing me of factual errors.

>>> As an example of this, let's take the metacomment:
>>>
>>> If someone knows precisely what they mean to say, then they say it.
>>
>> Argument by bad analogy.
>>
>
>It's not an argument. It's an example.

Methinks you need to learn what the word "reason" means.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:04:35 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On 10/31/2012 3:40 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>>
>> Which points to the factual error I pointed to in the previous post, in
>> that this description makes no account for people who were raised by
>> atheists and later became believers.

Yes, it does.

They have reasons, but they are not intellectual ones.

>Those are the biggest tards of them all. Similar to the pinheads who
>join any other cult.

It occasionally happens - like an elderly friend who died recently,
who was the father of The Mostest Importantest Person In My Life.

He's from India, was raised as a Hindu before becoming functionally
atheist and went through the motions of conversion in his early
twenties to marry a Catholic - and finally genuinely converted about
thirty years later due to immersion and reinforcement.

He was (and his daughter is) among the very few believers I've met who
understood what it means to an atheist to be one - which isn't what
theists who can't think outside the box, imagine.

Anyway, that was his reason for being theist.

Not "because Jesus died for my sins" or any of the other stuff that
presumes one is already theist in order to believe that.

Which are actually rationalisations in terns of what is already part
of their belief system, and aren't reasons why they believe.

In my own case, I was not raised theist, at a time when it was
possible to grow up in a theism-free environment - England before
everybody had TV and the family had a big vacuum tube console radio so
we listened to what my parents did, or we didn't listen at all.

[Father Haskell]

On Oct 20, 5:52 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Study quasars, friend Harlow, and find out what science has to say so
> far about "gravitational energy".

Except it's a force.

[Big Dog]

On 10/31/2012 4:06 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:04:35 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/31/2012 3:40 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>>>
>>> Which points to the factual error I pointed to in the previous post, in
>>> that this description makes no account for people who were raised by
>>> atheists and later became believers.
>
> Yes, it does.
>
> They have reasons, but they are not intellectual ones.

So you say. And your proof that they all have a) reasons, and b)
non-intellectual reasons, is what, exactly?

>
>> Those are the biggest tards of them all. Similar to the pinheads who
>> join any other cult.
>
> It occasionally happens - like an elderly friend who died recently,
> who was the father of The Mostest Importantest Person In My Life.
>
> He's from India, was raised as a Hindu before becoming functionally
> atheist and went through the motions of conversion in his early
> twenties to marry a Catholic - and finally genuinely converted about
> thirty years later due to immersion and reinforcement.
>
> He was (and his daughter is) among the very few believers I've met who
> understood what it means to an atheist to be one - which isn't what
> theists who can't think outside the box, imagine.
>
> Anyway, that was his reason for being theist.

Thanks for the single-case anecdote. Are you insinuating that every
other case is similar and traceable to the same reason as this
single-case anecdote?

>
> Not "because Jesus died for my sins" or any of the other stuff that
> presumes one is already theist in order to believe that.
>
> Which are actually rationalisations in terns of what is already part
> of their belief system, and aren't reasons why they believe.
>
> In my own case, I was not raised theist, at a time when it was
> possible to grow up in a theism-free environment - England before
> everybody had TV and the family had a big vacuum tube console radio so
> we listened to what my parents did, or we didn't listen at all.

Who the fuck asked about you? You already stated your position.
"When one doesn't have reason to believe, one doesn't." I'm looking for
proof by contrapositive: "When one believes, one necessarily has a
reason." Or any proof of your statement, which you claim to be factually
true in each and every case. To which you have cited two examples, both
near and dear to you. Way to go, champ.

[Big Dog]

The one stated in the (now two back) previous post. I thought I said that.

>
> Their reason is usually going through the motions to get the girl and
> a combination of immersion and reinforcement over the years taking its
> toll.

Really? So no single person, let alone female, raised by atheists has
ever become a believer? Prove that.

>
> Because to an atheist it would be like suddenly believing in Harry
> Potter.
>
> Because atheists don't see gods in the same light theists do, they're
> like pixies, leprechauns etc.
>
> Now how about some examples of children raised in a theism-free
> environment who later became theists?

Sure. I know someone who was raised by atheists, is a woman, single, in
her fifties, who became a theist in the last ten years simply because
she got curious and started reading books by theological philosophers.

This single example discounts your claim that this never happens.

>
>>>> If by "doesn't", you instead meant "preferably wouldn't" or "shouldn't",
>>>> then it no longer becomes a true or false statement but a subjective
>>>> opinion, attached to a personal value.
>>>
>>> I meant exactly what I said.
>>
>> In which case it is factually incorrect.
>
> Just because you say so?
>
> No, it isn't.
>
> Give me reasons why people believe.

You're not listening, bozo.

You stated, when one does NOT have reason to believe, one does NOT
believe. Which is the statement I said is factually incorrect.

Now, think about what you're asking.

>
> That aren't rationalisations based on what they already believe, like
> "because the Bible sez".
>
> And then explain why when one has no reason to believe, one can end up
> believing.

Oh, for no reason.
Just act of choice, result of free exploration.

See the nonsense of your last statement? (Why = provide reason; having
reason is what's being contested; figure it out.)

>
> Instead of falsely accusing me of factual errors.

It's not a false accusation. If you think it is, PROVE your statement is
true, by whatever logical method you'd like to use.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:26:08 -0500, Big Dog <big.fi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 10/31/2012 4:06 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:04:35 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/31/2012 3:40 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Which points to the factual error I pointed to in the previous post, in
>>>> that this description makes no account for people who were raised by
>>>> atheists and later became believers.
>>
>> Yes, it does.
>>
>> They have reasons, but they are not intellectual ones.
>
>So you say. And your proof that they all have a) reasons, and b)
>non-intellectual reasons, is what, exactly?

I just said "reasons", imbecile.

And that when one has no reason to believe something then one doesn't.

Did you try believing in Harry Potter?

Or if you're some kind of theist, did you try to stop believing?

>>> Those are the biggest tards of them all. Similar to the pinheads who
>>> join any other cult.
>>
>> It occasionally happens - like an elderly friend who died recently,
>> who was the father of The Mostest Importantest Person In My Life.
>>
>> He's from India, was raised as a Hindu before becoming functionally
>> atheist and went through the motions of conversion in his early
>> twenties to marry a Catholic - and finally genuinely converted about
>> thirty years later due to immersion and reinforcement.
>>
>> He was (and his daughter is) among the very few believers I've met who
>> understood what it means to an atheist to be one - which isn't what
>> theists who can't think outside the box, imagine.
>>
>> Anyway, that was his reason for being theist.
>
>Thanks for the single-case anecdote. Are you insinuating that every
>other case is similar and traceable to the same reason as this
>single-case anecdote?

Idiot.

You refute me by demonstrating how somebody can believe something when
there is no reason whatsoever to do so.

>> Not "because Jesus died for my sins" or any of the other stuff that
>> presumes one is already theist in order to believe that.
>>
>> Which are actually rationalisations in terns of what is already part
>> of their belief system, and aren't reasons why they believe.
>>
>> In my own case, I was not raised theist, at a time when it was
>> possible to grow up in a theism-free environment - England before
>> everybody had TV and the family had a big vacuum tube console radio so
>> we listened to what my parents did, or we didn't listen at all.
>
>Who the fuck asked about you? You already stated your position.
>"When one doesn't have reason to believe, one doesn't." I'm looking for
>proof by contrapositive: "When one believes, one necessarily has a
>reason." Or any proof of your statement, which you claim to be factually
>true in each and every case. To which you have cited two examples, both
>near and dear to you. Way to go, champ.

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T TURN BELIEF ON OR OFF LIKE A LIGHT SWITCH, imbecile.

[Big Dog]

On 10/31/2012 4:35 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:26:08 -0500, Big Dog <big.fi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/31/2012 4:06 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:04:35 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/31/2012 3:40 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Which points to the factual error I pointed to in the previous post, in
>>>>> that this description makes no account for people who were raised by
>>>>> atheists and later became believers.
>>>
>>> Yes, it does.
>>>
>>> They have reasons, but they are not intellectual ones.
>>
>> So you say. And your proof that they all have a) reasons, and b)
>> non-intellectual reasons, is what, exactly?
>
> I just said "reasons", imbecile.

You said they have reasons, but that those reasons are not intellectual
ones.

Prove that a) all believers have reasons for believing.
Prove that b) all those reasons that believers have for believing are
also non-intellectual reasons.

>
> And that when one has no reason to believe something then one doesn't.

That's the claim I say is factually incorrect. It would be wise to cite
it as proof of the claim. Wouldn't you agree?

>
> Did you try believing in Harry Potter?

Yes. What does that have to do with how believers came to be believers?

Note that it has no bearing on what happens to *atheists* when they try
to believe in Harry Potter.

This is why I asked the original question about what you meant by "one",
and whether you were referring to yourself or to everyone, atheist and
theist alike, without exception.

>
> Or if you're some kind of theist, did you try to stop believing?
>
>>>> Those are the biggest tards of them all. Similar to the pinheads who
>>>> join any other cult.
>>>
>>> It occasionally happens - like an elderly friend who died recently,
>>> who was the father of The Mostest Importantest Person In My Life.
>>>
>>> He's from India, was raised as a Hindu before becoming functionally
>>> atheist and went through the motions of conversion in his early
>>> twenties to marry a Catholic - and finally genuinely converted about
>>> thirty years later due to immersion and reinforcement.
>>>
>>> He was (and his daughter is) among the very few believers I've met who
>>> understood what it means to an atheist to be one - which isn't what
>>> theists who can't think outside the box, imagine.
>>>
>>> Anyway, that was his reason for being theist.
>>
>> Thanks for the single-case anecdote. Are you insinuating that every
>> other case is similar and traceable to the same reason as this
>> single-case anecdote?
>
> Idiot.
>
> You refute me by demonstrating how somebody can believe something when
> there is no reason whatsoever to do so.

I don't need to provide you a "how". A how would be providing a reason,
when what is required is an observed example of someone who believes
WITHOUT a reason for believing. I've given you an example.

>>> Not "because Jesus died for my sins" or any of the other stuff that
>>> presumes one is already theist in order to believe that.
>>>
>>> Which are actually rationalisations in terns of what is already part
>>> of their belief system, and aren't reasons why they believe.
>>>
>>> In my own case, I was not raised theist, at a time when it was
>>> possible to grow up in a theism-free environment - England before
>>> everybody had TV and the family had a big vacuum tube console radio so
>>> we listened to what my parents did, or we didn't listen at all.
>>
>> Who the fuck asked about you? You already stated your position.
>> "When one doesn't have reason to believe, one doesn't." I'm looking for
>> proof by contrapositive: "When one believes, one necessarily has a
>> reason." Or any proof of your statement, which you claim to be factually
>> true in each and every case. To which you have cited two examples, both
>> near and dear to you. Way to go, champ.
>
> BECAUSE YOU CAN'T TURN BELIEF ON OR OFF LIKE A LIGHT SWITCH, imbecile.
>

Maybe YOU can't. In which case, the "YOU" in the above sentence is
really "I".
Or maybe you are making that statement about ME personally, in which
case you haven't got a fucking clue what I can or cannot do, bucko.
And extending the case of ME to someone else, we can quickly arrive at
the conclusion that you haven't got a fucking clue what most people can
or cannot do, bucko.

I see you're having a tough time with either logical proof or
observational evidence other than personal anecdote. Which is purely an
observation about you and nobody else, I assure you.

[Big Dog]

On 10/31/2012 4:47 PM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/31/2012 4:35 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

>>
>> And that when one has no reason to believe something then one doesn't.
>
> That's the claim I say is factually incorrect. It would be wise to cite
> it as proof of the claim. Wouldn't you agree?
>

My apologies for a typo in a quickly typed response. It should read: It
wouldn't be wise to cite it as proof of the claim.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:34:12 -0500, Big Dog <big.fi...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 10/31/2012 3:42 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:40:29 -0500, Big Dog <big.fi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/31/2012 2:09 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:25:28 -0500, Big Dog <big.fi...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/31/2012 1:12 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When one has no reason to believe something then one doesn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who's "one" here?
>>>>>
>>>>> If by this you mean "anybody" or "everybody", then it is a factually
>>>>> incorrect statement.
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> Because you can't turn belief on or off on a whim, like a light
>>>> switch.
>>>
>>> Again, who's "you" here? If by this you mean "anybody" or "everybody",
>>> then it is a factually incorrect statement. If you mean "I" and are
>>> making a personal statement, then I have no contest with the statement.
>>> If you mean "I, and therefore everyone else as well," then I simply tip
>>> a hat to your extremely arrogant and self-centered projection.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Try believing in Harry Potter and you'll see what I mean.
>>>>
>>>> Or if you are theist, try not believing for a day.
>>>>
>>>> Would it be genuine?
>>
>> Couldn't answer this?

Well?

>>>> And the reasons theists believe, aren't the rationalisations they give
>>>> but the fact they were taught to in their earliest years before they
>>>> could think for themselves.
>>>
>>> Which points to the factual error I pointed to in the previous post, in
>>> that this description makes no account for people who were raised by
>>> atheists and later became believers.
>>
>> What "factual error"?
>
>The one stated in the (now two back) previous post. I thought I said that.

You don't refute things by calling them factual errors - just because
you say so.

You give counter-examples, or logical reasons why they are errors -
not by analogies unless and until you show an exact equivalence.

You have to show me exactly why I am wrong when I point out that when

one has no reason to believe something then one doesn't.

Did you try believing Harry Potter was real, and was this belief
genuine?

Did you try (if you are theist) not believing, and was this absence of
belief genuine?

>> Their reason is usually going through the motions to get the girl and
>> a combination of immersion and reinforcement over the years taking its
>> toll.
>
>Really? So no single person, let alone female, raised by atheists has
>ever become a believer? Prove that.

Where did I say that, liar who puts words in people's mouths the
didn't say?

>> Because to an atheist it would be like suddenly believing in Harry
>> Potter.
>>
>> Because atheists don't see gods in the same light theists do, they're
>> like pixies, leprechauns etc.

Well?

>> Now how about some examples of children raised in a theism-free
>> environment who later became theists?
>
>Sure. I know someone who was raised by atheists, is a woman, single, in
>her fifties, who became a theist in the last ten years simply because
>she got curious and started reading books by theological philosophers.

So that was her reason, imbecile.

But was she raised in a theism-free environment?

Or was the seed planted by theist grandparents, baby-sitters, teachers
etc?

And what were the arguments used by the theist philosophers that
convinced her?

>This single example discounts your claim that this never happens.

A claim I never made, liar.

>>>>> If by "doesn't", you instead meant "preferably wouldn't" or "shouldn't",
>>>>> then it no longer becomes a true or false statement but a subjective
>>>>> opinion, attached to a personal value.
>>>>
>>>> I meant exactly what I said.
>>>
>>> In which case it is factually incorrect.
>>
>> Just because you say so?
>>
>> No, it isn't.
>>
>> Give me reasons why people believe.
>
>You're not listening, bozo.

Stop lying, bozo.

And address what I actually said instead of demanding I back up
something you made up.

>You stated, when one does NOT have reason to believe, one does NOT
>believe. Which is the statement I said is factually incorrect.

And you were lying.

Your "counter-example" gave a reason - that she was convinced by
theological philosophers.

Which I find unlikely, because they can't think outside the box and
invariably use a combination of presumptions only theists have, and
blatant fallacies like the argument from ignorance - "I have no idea
how the universe originated therefore it must have been a god that I
don't already believe in".

If you imagine one of them has anything that stands up to the
slightest scrutiny, feel free to provide it.

>Now, think about what you're asking.

Now, think.

Period.

> That aren't rationalisations based on what they already believe, like
>> "because the Bible sez".
>>
>> And then explain why when one has no reason to believe, one can end up
>> believing.
>
>Oh, for no reason.
>Just act of choice, result of free exploration.

Do you honestly imagine you can turn belief on or off like a light
switch?

"Today I don't believe in Zeus, tomorrow I will, the next day I won't
again".

>See the nonsense of your last statement? (Why = provide reason; having
>reason is what's being contested; figure it out.)

What "nonsense", imbecile?

>> Instead of falsely accusing me of factual errors.
>
>It's not a false accusation. If you think it is, PROVE your statement is
>true, by whatever logical method you'd like to use.

Asked and answered several times, imbecile.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:47:28 -0500, Big Dog <big.fi...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 10/31/2012 4:35 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:26:08 -0500, Big Dog <big.fi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/31/2012 4:06 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:04:35 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/31/2012 3:40 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which points to the factual error I pointed to in the previous post, in
>>>>>> that this description makes no account for people who were raised by
>>>>>> atheists and later became believers.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it does.
>>>>
>>>> They have reasons, but they are not intellectual ones.
>>>
>>> So you say. And your proof that they all have a) reasons, and b)
>>> non-intellectual reasons, is what, exactly?
>>
>> I just said "reasons", imbecile.
>
>You said they have reasons, but that those reasons are not intellectual
>ones.
>
>Prove that a) all believers have reasons for believing.

Learn to read for comprehension.

>Prove that b) all those reasons that believers have for believing are
>also non-intellectual reasons.

Learn to read for comprehension.

>>
>> And that when one has no reason to believe something then one doesn't.
>
>That's the claim I say is factually incorrect. It would be wise to cite
>it as proof of the claim. Wouldn't you agree?
>
>>
>> Did you try believing in Harry Potter?
>
>Yes. What does that have to do with how believers came to be believers?

Idiot.

Was this belief genuine?

>Note that it has no bearing on what happens to *atheists* when they try
>to believe in Harry Potter.

So what?

>This is why I asked the original question about what you meant by "one",
>and whether you were referring to yourself or to everyone, atheist and
>theist alike, without exception.

Anybody, imbecile.

It's simply how the brain works.

>> Or if you're some kind of theist, did you try to stop believing?

Well?

>>>>> Those are the biggest tards of them all. Similar to the pinheads who
>>>>> join any other cult.
>>>>
>>>> It occasionally happens - like an elderly friend who died recently,
>>>> who was the father of The Mostest Importantest Person In My Life.
>>>>
>>>> He's from India, was raised as a Hindu before becoming functionally
>>>> atheist and went through the motions of conversion in his early
>>>> twenties to marry a Catholic - and finally genuinely converted about
>>>> thirty years later due to immersion and reinforcement.
>>>>
>>>> He was (and his daughter is) among the very few believers I've met who
>>>> understood what it means to an atheist to be one - which isn't what
>>>> theists who can't think outside the box, imagine.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, that was his reason for being theist.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the single-case anecdote. Are you insinuating that every
>>> other case is similar and traceable to the same reason as this
>>> single-case anecdote?
>>
>> Idiot.
>>
>> You refute me by demonstrating how somebody can believe something when
>> there is no reason whatsoever to do so.
>
>I don't need to provide you a "how". A how would be providing a reason,
>when what is required is an observed example of someone who believes
>WITHOUT a reason for believing. I've given you an example.

Where, liar?

>>>> Not "because Jesus died for my sins" or any of the other stuff that
>>>> presumes one is already theist in order to believe that.
>>>>
>>>> Which are actually rationalisations in terns of what is already part
>>>> of their belief system, and aren't reasons why they believe.
>>>>
>>>> In my own case, I was not raised theist, at a time when it was
>>>> possible to grow up in a theism-free environment - England before
>>>> everybody had TV and the family had a big vacuum tube console radio so
>>>> we listened to what my parents did, or we didn't listen at all.
>>>
>>> Who the fuck asked about you? You already stated your position.
>>> "When one doesn't have reason to believe, one doesn't." I'm looking for
>>> proof by contrapositive: "When one believes, one necessarily has a
>>> reason." Or any proof of your statement, which you claim to be factually
>>> true in each and every case. To which you have cited two examples, both
>>> near and dear to you. Way to go, champ.
>>
>> BECAUSE YOU CAN'T TURN BELIEF ON OR OFF LIKE A LIGHT SWITCH, imbecile.
>>
>
>Maybe YOU can't. In which case, the "YOU" in the above sentence is
>really "I".

CAN YOU, IMBECILE?

>Or maybe you are making that statement about ME personally, in which
>case you haven't got a fucking clue what I can or cannot do, bucko.

Turning belief on or off like a light switch for no reason and
genuinely believing it, is a sign of mental illness.

>And extending the case of ME to someone else, we can quickly arrive at
>the conclusion that you haven't got a fucking clue what most people can
>or cannot do, bucko.

Project much, imbecile?

>I see you're having a tough time with either logical proof or
>observational evidence other than personal anecdote. Which is purely an
>observation about you and nobody else, I assure you.

Lies noted.

Now provide counter-examples of people believing FOR NO REASON.

So far you are zero for two.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

[Jeff-R...@Oct.31{3.46.PM.Seattle.2012}]
Are you related to Brad Guth, Mr. Fer Fergerson ?
I ask because you both judge without knowing.

It's not a crime to have less income.
I don't get any "welfare". I qualify, I just don't ask for it.

My ex divorced me to marry a guy who'd give her more kids;
after two, I was done... thank you very much.

She's rich, her house/neighborhood is amazing.
She could come after me for child support, but she doesn't.

[Big Dog]

Both the questions are about me personally, which would simply be
another anecdote, which would prove nothing about anyone other than for
you (based on your answer to those questions) and for me (based on my
answer to those questions).

>
>>>>> And the reasons theists believe, aren't the rationalisations they give
>>>>> but the fact they were taught to in their earliest years before they
>>>>> could think for themselves.
>>>>
>>>> Which points to the factual error I pointed to in the previous post, in
>>>> that this description makes no account for people who were raised by
>>>> atheists and later became believers.
>>>
>>> What "factual error"?
>>
>> The one stated in the (now two back) previous post. I thought I said that.
>
> You don't refute things by calling them factual errors - just because
> you say so.
>
> You give counter-examples, or logical reasons why they are errors -
> not by analogies unless and until you show an exact equivalence.

I did. I gave you an example of someone I know who was raised by
atheists, is single and female, and who came to be a believer for no
particular reason.

This exception is an observational disproof of the contrary rule which
you claim applies generally.

You claim it is true in general and for everyone. Prove it.

>
> You have to show me exactly why I am wrong when I point out that when
> one has no reason to believe something then one doesn't.
>
> Did you try believing Harry Potter was real, and was this belief
> genuine?
>
> Did you try (if you are theist) not believing, and was this absence of
> belief genuine?

I already addressed this. What does my answer plus your answer to those
questions prove about fucking EVERYONE ELSE?

>
>>> Their reason is usually going through the motions to get the girl and
>>> a combination of immersion and reinforcement over the years taking its
>>> toll.
>>
>> Really? So no single person, let alone female, raised by atheists has
>> ever become a believer? Prove that.
>
> Where did I say that, liar who puts words in people's mouths the
> didn't say?

I asked a question, I didn't make a statement. A question cannot be a
lie. Or are you dense that way?

I asked you for proof that EVERYONE has a reason, and so far all you've
provided in support of that wild-ass general assertion is a personal
anecdote, plus some statement that "usually" applies to some other people.

>
>>> Because to an atheist it would be like suddenly believing in Harry
>>> Potter.
>>>
>>> Because atheists don't see gods in the same light theists do, they're
>>> like pixies, leprechauns etc.
>
> Well?

Who the fuck cares what rule applies to atheists and atheists only (as
though you even speak for that whole class). Your statement was about
EVERYONE (or so you claim), whether they are theist or atheist.

>
>>> Now how about some examples of children raised in a theism-free
>>> environment who later became theists?
>>
>> Sure. I know someone who was raised by atheists, is a woman, single, in
>> her fifties, who became a theist in the last ten years simply because
>> she got curious and started reading books by theological philosophers.
>
> So that was her reason, imbecile.

How is free choice and free exploration a reason?

Or are you now claiming that NOTHING happens without some reason, and
you are willing to now acknowledge that the original statement was
trivial to the point of uselessness.

Let's see if I recall right, it was something to the effect of:
If one does not have a reason to believe, then one doesn't.

So while the sentence may be true, it applies in no case, as we'll see
below.

>

> But was she raised in a theism-free environment?
>
> Or was the seed planted by theist grandparents, baby-sitters, teachers
> etc?

Well, if you're going to suppose that someone might be a theist today
because they once met someone one afternoon who mentioned that they go
to church, and that's the reason, then I suppose you are free to grasp
at any fucking straw you'd like.

But let's consider whether it is traceable as a *sufficient* reason.
After all, I'd wager that you may have met someone who one afternoon
mentioned that he goes to church. And yet this was not a sufficient
reason to turn you into a theist. But somehow, this same circumstance in
someone else can be cited as sufficient reason for them to now be a
believer?

In which case, EVERYONE has a reason to believe, because EVERYONE has at
one point been at least in peripheral contact with a believer.

>
> And what were the arguments used by the theist philosophers that
> convinced her?
>
>> This single example discounts your claim that this never happens.
>
> A claim I never made, liar.

You said, if one has no reason to believe, then one doesn't.
The claim is that it is NEVER the case that if one has no reason to
believe, then one doesn't believe.

Now, it may be true that you believe that EVERYONE has been exposed to
someone who may influence, in which case EVERYONE has traceable reason
to believe. In which case your statement is true, but trivial as it
applies to no one.

I'm happy to leave it at that: that you made a statement that is true
but applies nowhere.

>
>>>>>> If by "doesn't", you instead meant "preferably wouldn't" or "shouldn't",
>>>>>> then it no longer becomes a true or false statement but a subjective
>>>>>> opinion, attached to a personal value.
>>>>>
>>>>> I meant exactly what I said.
>>>>
>>>> In which case it is factually incorrect.
>>>
>>> Just because you say so?
>>>
>>> No, it isn't.
>>>
>>> Give me reasons why people believe.
>>
>> You're not listening, bozo.
>
> Stop lying, bozo.
>
> And address what I actually said instead of demanding I back up
> something you made up.
>
>> You stated, when one does NOT have reason to believe, one does NOT
>> believe. Which is the statement I said is factually incorrect.
>
> And you were lying.
>
> Your "counter-example" gave a reason - that she was convinced by
> theological philosophers.

Heck no. Are you convinced by everything you read?
She said she made a CHOICE after free exploration. Not forced by
sufficient cause. Certainly not by the supposed causes you cited.

>
> Which I find unlikely, because they can't think outside the box and
> invariably use a combination of presumptions only theists have, and
> blatant fallacies like the argument from ignorance - "I have no idea
> how the universe originated therefore it must have been a god that I
> don't already believe in".
>
> If you imagine one of them has anything that stands up to the
> slightest scrutiny, feel free to provide it.

Anything WHAT? Like a REASON? Don't be an idiot now. The case in
contention is whether there are people who believe WITHOUT a reason, and
you keep asking about whether their reasons stand up to scrutiny. Are
you dense?

>
>> Now, think about what you're asking.
>
> Now, think.
>
> Period.
>
>> That aren't rationalisations based on what they already believe, like
>>> "because the Bible sez".
>>>
>>> And then explain why when one has no reason to believe, one can end up
>>> believing.
>>
>> Oh, for no reason.
>> Just act of choice, result of free exploration.
>
> Do you honestly imagine you can turn belief on or off like a light
> switch?

Are you asking that question about ME personally, or are you asking
whether someone else can do that?

Yes, I can obviously imagine things you cannot imagine. Imagine that!

>
> "Today I don't believe in Zeus, tomorrow I will, the next day I won't
> again".
>
>
>> See the nonsense of your last statement? (Why = provide reason; having
>> reason is what's being contested; figure it out.)
>
> What "nonsense", imbecile?
>
>>> Instead of falsely accusing me of factual errors.
>>
>> It's not a false accusation. If you think it is, PROVE your statement is
>> true, by whatever logical method you'd like to use.
>
> Asked and answered several times, imbecile.
>

I don't think so. You've provided NO proof that EVERYONE who has
believes has that belief traceable to a sufficient cause. What you have
provided is an anecdote, an expression of incredulity about an
observational counter-example, and a question apparently to me
personally about whether *I* personally can turn on belief like a light
switch.

Do you know what logical proof entails? It is a demonstration that
counterexamples are IMPOSSIBLE or NONEXISTENT. Have you provided that
demonstration?

Again, I will simply reiterate that any extrapolation you make about
OTHER PEOPLE based on the way YOUR OWN MIND works is extreme hubris and
foolish arrogance. Any buttressing you might get by getting support from
ONE OTHER PERSON who happens to provide the same answers you would
provide, proves nothing. I'm sure your intensely logical mind can fathom
that.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:48:29 -0500, Big Dog <big.fi...@gmail.com>

No, moron - they are to try and get you to think about it.

Your refusal demonstrates that you _do_ get the point but can't admit
it.

And learn the difference between example and anecdote.

The examples were for HVAC.

[Painius]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:49:26 -0500, Big Dog <big.fi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Yes, I did wonder about that.

O! to be young again like you and Chrissie. In this discussion you
(meaning you, yourself, and you) have apparently requested a precision
of meaning that...

a) is not usually found on UseNet, and

b) young Chrissie is fully incapable of understanding, so he reverts
to his usual loud, boisterous and decidedly ignorant method of
communication.

Just sayin'.

LOL !

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

"UseNet does not change; we change. [tinw]"

[Mahipal]

On Oct 31, 6:48 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/31/2012 5:01 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>

> > On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:34:12 -0500, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
[trim, it sucks to reread same content over and over and again]

> >> The one stated in the (now two back) previous post. I thought I said that.
>
> > You don't refute things by calling them factual errors - just because
> > you say so.
>
> > You give counter-examples, or logical reasons why they are errors -
> > not by analogies unless and until you show an exact equivalence.
>
> I did. I gave you an example of someone I know who was raised by
> atheists, is single and female, and who came to be a believer for no
> particular reason.

Like Lee already asked somewhere in a thought long long ago, did this
She have a BabySitter, watch TV, read a book, or go to School maybe?
Did She see how many Holidays there are from School if you just
happened to be Jewish? Suddenly a Belief Light goes off and on and off
and on... Oy Vey... how many more Holidays could I earn if I just
Believed. G-d. I can fake that, said the Third Grader to her or him
Self. You bet your Catholic anointed Charlie Sheen as Harper Ass! I
can't stop this feeling.... deep inside of me... Girl you just don't
realize... what Media -- Social or Otherwise -- has done to me... Huga
Shaga... What a great song!

Sorry... USA Kids, from Kindergarten and upwards, not necessarily
onwards, know this Holidays stuff well and dream relishing Holidays
from School and Teachers. So I apologize to those lucky enough to go
to School Elsewhere. YSMV as YMMV.

[Trim, since we can access past posts for readability if not
needability]

Enjo(y)...
--
Mahipal
http://mahipal7638.files.wordpress.com/

[Painius]

I will not be quick to disagree; however, gravitation is a force under
Newton's physics, and under Einstein's physics gravitation becomes an
"effect", not a force.

Gravitation is the effect of mass upon space. Mass distorts (curves)
space; the more the mass, the more the distortion effect. I've yet to
have anybody clearly explain just how a mere "effect" is able to
contain the huge, majestic amount of out-pushing force of a star.
Nobody seems to know how a mere effect is able to produce super- and
hypernovas under certain circumstances.

How can gravitation *not* be a force?

Some scientists, the one's who've thoroughly studied quasars and other
galaxies with very active nuclei, have come to see gravitation as a
type of energy. Of course, that does not do anything to help the
general theory of relativity, so considering there to be such a thing
as "gravitational energy" has not yet met with great popularity among
astronomers.

Still, it's very interesting to study the subject and see where it
might go.

[Painius]

Jeff and I go way back. He thinks I'm "Darla" the extraterrestrial
whale. LOL !

[Big Dog]

On 10/31/2012 5:09 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:47:28 -0500, Big Dog <big.fi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/31/2012 4:35 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:26:08 -0500, Big Dog <big.fi...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/31/2012 4:06 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:04:35 -0400, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/31/2012 3:40 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which points to the factual error I pointed to in the previous post, in
>>>>>>> that this description makes no account for people who were raised by
>>>>>>> atheists and later became believers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it does.
>>>>>
>>>>> They have reasons, but they are not intellectual ones.
>>>>
>>>> So you say. And your proof that they all have a) reasons, and b)
>>>> non-intellectual reasons, is what, exactly?
>>>
>>> I just said "reasons", imbecile.
>>
>> You said they have reasons, but that those reasons are not intellectual
>> ones.
>>
>> Prove that a) all believers have reasons for believing.
>
> Learn to read for comprehension.

Is the sentence "They have reasons, but they are not intellectual ones"
not a statement that all believers have reasons for believing?

>
>> Prove that b) all those reasons that believers have for believing are
>> also non-intellectual reasons.
>
> Learn to read for comprehension.

Is the sentence "They have reasons, but they are not intellectual ones"
not a statement that the reasons believers have for believing are all
non-intellectual ones?

I'm asking you to prove your statement that all believers "have reasons,
but they are not intellectual ones". Prove it.

>>>
>>> And that when one has no reason to believe something then one doesn't.
>>
>> That's the claim I say is factually incorrect. It would be wise to cite
>> it as proof of the claim. Wouldn't you agree?
>>
>>>
>>> Did you try believing in Harry Potter?
>>
>> Yes. What does that have to do with how believers came to be believers?
>
> Idiot.
>
> Was this belief genuine?

What does ANYTHING about you or me as anecdotes prove about people in
general?

>
>> Note that it has no bearing on what happens to *atheists* when they try
>> to believe in Harry Potter.
>
> So what?
>
>> This is why I asked the original question about what you meant by "one",
>> and whether you were referring to yourself or to everyone, atheist and
>> theist alike, without exception.
>
> Anybody, imbecile.

Prove it. Asking ME a question about how I respond, adding it to your
own response to those questions, is not a proof that it applies to
anybody. You should know that.

>
> It's simply how the brain works.
>
>>> Or if you're some kind of theist, did you try to stop believing?
>
> Well?

What the fuck would it prove?

>
>>>>>> Those are the biggest tards of them all. Similar to the pinheads who
>>>>>> join any other cult.
>>>>>
>>>>> It occasionally happens - like an elderly friend who died recently,
>>>>> who was the father of The Mostest Importantest Person In My Life.
>>>>>
>>>>> He's from India, was raised as a Hindu before becoming functionally
>>>>> atheist and went through the motions of conversion in his early
>>>>> twenties to marry a Catholic - and finally genuinely converted about
>>>>> thirty years later due to immersion and reinforcement.
>>>>>
>>>>> He was (and his daughter is) among the very few believers I've met who
>>>>> understood what it means to an atheist to be one - which isn't what
>>>>> theists who can't think outside the box, imagine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, that was his reason for being theist.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the single-case anecdote. Are you insinuating that every
>>>> other case is similar and traceable to the same reason as this
>>>> single-case anecdote?
>>>
>>> Idiot.
>>>
>>> You refute me by demonstrating how somebody can believe something when
>>> there is no reason whatsoever to do so.
>>
>> I don't need to provide you a "how". A how would be providing a reason,
>> when what is required is an observed example of someone who believes
>> WITHOUT a reason for believing. I've given you an example.
>
> Where, liar?

The example of the woman who had no more influence than you did, no more
reason than you (or I had) and yet she is a believer.

>
>>>>> Not "because Jesus died for my sins" or any of the other stuff that
>>>>> presumes one is already theist in order to believe that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which are actually rationalisations in terns of what is already part
>>>>> of their belief system, and aren't reasons why they believe.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my own case, I was not raised theist, at a time when it was
>>>>> possible to grow up in a theism-free environment - England before
>>>>> everybody had TV and the family had a big vacuum tube console radio so
>>>>> we listened to what my parents did, or we didn't listen at all.
>>>>
>>>> Who the fuck asked about you? You already stated your position.
>>>> "When one doesn't have reason to believe, one doesn't." I'm looking for
>>>> proof by contrapositive: "When one believes, one necessarily has a
>>>> reason." Or any proof of your statement, which you claim to be factually
>>>> true in each and every case. To which you have cited two examples, both
>>>> near and dear to you. Way to go, champ.
>>>
>>> BECAUSE YOU CAN'T TURN BELIEF ON OR OFF LIKE A LIGHT SWITCH, imbecile.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe YOU can't. In which case, the "YOU" in the above sentence is
>> really "I".
>
> CAN YOU, IMBECILE?
>
>> Or maybe you are making that statement about ME personally, in which
>> case you haven't got a fucking clue what I can or cannot do, bucko.
>
> Turning belief on or off like a light switch for no reason and
> genuinely believing it, is a sign of mental illness.

Aha. So those who do not conform with your pattern of thinking are
mentally ill by definition.

>
>> And extending the case of ME to someone else, we can quickly arrive at
>> the conclusion that you haven't got a fucking clue what most people can
>> or cannot do, bucko.
>
> Project much, imbecile?

Oh, so you DO claim to know what EVERYONE can and cannot do, bucko?

>
>> I see you're having a tough time with either logical proof or
>> observational evidence other than personal anecdote. Which is purely an
>> observation about you and nobody else, I assure you.
>
> Lies noted.
>
> Now provide counter-examples of people believing FOR NO REASON.
>
> So far you are zero for two.
>

I gave you an example.

Let's summarize.

You've said that those who have no reason to believe, do not believe.

This is possibly an empty statement, in that nobody is alive that does
not have reason to believe.

But let's suppose that it is not empty, and examine the circumstances
which you say are reasons why people believe.

The logical equivalent of the statement above is that everyone who
believes, has a discernible reason for believing.

You say a believer may have met someone peripherally or read something
or came in contact with religion in some marginal way, and if this
happened, then this is the traceable reason why they are a believer. And
yet this is true for atheists, as well, for many of them have read the
bible (read things), met people or who were raised by people or who were
otherwise exposed to people who exhibited their faith, and who drive by
churches every day of their lives, and yet this is not sufficient reason
to make those atheists believers. Thus the circumstances which you claim
are the reasons why believers are believers cannot be cited as
sufficient reason. So the exhibition of believers who have had NO MORE
REASONS than you for being believers, cannot have their belief
attributed to those reasons. Thus, simply pointing to someone who has
had NO MORE REASON than you have had to believe, and yet believes for no
DISCERNIBLE reason, is an observation that disproves your claim.

Since you are certainly aware of this logical gap, you then asked me
some questions about whether I personally can think in a certain way
regarding Harry Potter and then a hypothetical question about IF I were
a believer would I be able to do something or other. As though my
answers to those questions would be demonstration of ANYTHING about
people at large.

Then you proposed that anyone who does NOT think the way that YOU would
answer those questions is mentally ill by definition.

I'd say that your attempts to support your contention are wickedly lame,
mildly amusing, indicative of your poorly considered position, and on
top of that bordering on emotional hysteria.

[Big Dog]

I've thought about it. I've furthermore thought that my answers to those
questions have NOTHING whatsoever to do with other people at large would
say. So that further consideration makes my answers immaterial to the
question at hand, which is your claim that you say applies to everyone
whatsoever.

>
> Your refusal demonstrates that you _do_ get the point but can't admit
> it.
>
> And learn the difference between example and anecdote.

There are many anecdotes that might indicate that mammals all have four
legs and a tail. Dogs, cats, tigers, sheep, cows, elephants, deer,
bears.... I could go on. You could even ask me whether, if I had a pet
squirrel, would that mammal have four legs and a tail? This would still
not be proof that all mammals have four legs and a tail and in fact that
would be a rather stupid claim to make. As is your claim.

[Big Dog]

On 10/31/2012 6:18 PM, Mahipal wrote:
> On Oct 31, 6:48 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/31/2012 5:01 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:34:12 -0500, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
> [trim, it sucks to reread same content over and over and again]
>
>>>> The one stated in the (now two back) previous post. I thought I said that.
>>
>>> You don't refute things by calling them factual errors - just because
>>> you say so.
>>
>>> You give counter-examples, or logical reasons why they are errors -
>>> not by analogies unless and until you show an exact equivalence.
>>
>> I did. I gave you an example of someone I know who was raised by
>> atheists, is single and female, and who came to be a believer for no
>> particular reason.
>
> Like Lee already asked somewhere in a thought long long ago, did this
> She have a BabySitter, watch TV, read a book, or go to School maybe?

And did Lee have a babysitter, watch TV, read a book, or go to School?
Did those causative forces turn him into a believer?

If someone ends up Republican, can we cite having a babysitter, watching
TV, reading a book, or going to School the reasons for being Republican?
If so, does this mean that Democrats are democrats because they never
had a babysitter, never watched TV, never read a book, or never went to
School?

[Big Dog]

On 10/31/2012 3:04 PM, HVAC wrote:
> On 10/31/2012 3:40 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>>
>> Which points to the factual error I pointed to in the previous post, in
>> that this description makes no account for people who were raised by
>> atheists and later became believers.
>
>
> Those are the biggest tards of them all. Similar to the pinheads who
> join any other cult.
>

As in, "those who behave a way that I could not fathom, are pinheads and
retards by definition," I'm guessing.

You're welcome to that self-aggrandizing definition.

[Big Dog]

On 10/31/2012 4:06 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

>
> In my own case, I was not raised theist, at a time when it was
> possible to grow up in a theism-free environment - England before
> everybody had TV and the family had a big vacuum tube console radio so
> we listened to what my parents did, or we didn't listen at all.
>

Really? A theism-free environment.
So I presume you had no teachers in school who were theists, you did not
walk by any churches on the way to school, and you had no friends who
went to church. You did not read any books in which theism was
mentioned, or if it did and you had no idea what it meant, then you were
told to just ignore that part of the reading. You had no relatives who
visited who were believers. You never read any part of the Bible, even
as an adult (like some of the others who did so later in life and became
believers). You never read any books on theology, even as an adult (like
some of the others who did so later in life and became believers). You
do not associate with anyone now who is a believer and who might
represent a possible theistic influence.

Well, in that case, I'd say you've let a peculiarly monastic lifestyle.

[Big Dog]

On 10/31/2012 6:08 PM, Painius wrote:

>
> O! to be young again like you and Chrissie. In this discussion you
> (meaning you, yourself, and you) have apparently requested a precision
> of meaning that...
>
> a) is not usually found on UseNet, and
>
> b) young Chrissie is fully incapable of understanding, so he reverts
> to his usual loud, boisterous and decidedly ignorant method of
> communication.
>

Christopher Lee is not likely young. He was raised in a home with no TV
and only a single tube-amp radio, he says.

So if he's young, he was raised in style strikingly like the Amish.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 20:06:09 -0500, Big Dog <big.fi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 10/31/2012 6:08 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>>
>> O! to be young again like you and Chrissie. In this discussion you
>> (meaning you, yourself, and you) have apparently requested a precision
>> of meaning that...
>>
>> a) is not usually found on UseNet, and
>>
>> b) young Chrissie is fully incapable of understanding, so he reverts
>> to his usual loud, boisterous and decidedly ignorant method of
>> communication.

Lies noted.

>Christopher Lee is not likely young. He was raised in a home with no TV
>and only a single tube-amp radio, he says.

Learn to read for comprehension, imbecile.

>So if he's young, he was raised in style strikingly like the Amish.

Idiot.

[Painius]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 19:18:14 -0500, Big Dog <big.fi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 10/31/2012 6:18 PM, Mahipal wrote:
>> On Oct 31, 6:48 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/31/2012 5:01 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:34:12 -0500, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>> [trim, it sucks to reread same content over and over and again]
>>
>>>>> The one stated in the (now two back) previous post. I thought I said that.
>>>
>>>> You don't refute things by calling them factual errors - just because
>>>> you say so.
>>>
>>>> You give counter-examples, or logical reasons why they are errors -
>>>> not by analogies unless and until you show an exact equivalence.
>>>
>>> I did. I gave you an example of someone I know who was raised by
>>> atheists, is single and female, and who came to be a believer for no
>>> particular reason.
>>
>> Like Lee already asked somewhere in a thought long long ago, did this
>> She have a BabySitter, watch TV, read a book, or go to School maybe?
>
>And did Lee have a babysitter, watch TV, read a book, or go to School?
>Did those causative forces turn him into a believer?
>
>If someone ends up Republican, can we cite having a babysitter, watching
>TV, reading a book, or going to School the reasons for being Republican?
>If so, does this mean that Democrats are democrats because they never
>had a babysitter, never watched TV, never read a book, or never went to
>School?

Just a peripheral observation...

Democrats are democrats because they have not yet learned to read with
understanding. When a person learns to read with understanding, they
automatically become a republican. lol

[HVAC]

On 10/31/2012 8:53 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>
>> Those are the biggest tards of them all. Similar to the pinheads who
>> join any other cult.
>>
>
> As in, "those who behave a way that I could not fathom, are pinheads and
> retards by definition," I'm guessing.
>
> You're welcome to that self-aggrandizing definition.

Your opinion means nothing to me. My statement stands.










--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/images/tia_logo_large.jpg

[Mahipal]

On Oct 31, 11:13 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 19:18:14 -0500, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 10/31/2012 6:18 PM, Mahipal wrote:
> >> On Oct 31, 6:48 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 10/31/2012 5:01 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
> >>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:34:12 -0500, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >> [trim, it sucks to reread same content over and over and again]
>
> >>>>> The one stated in the (now two back) previous post. I thought I said that.
>
> >>>> You don't refute things by calling them factual errors - just because
> >>>> you say so.
>
> >>>> You give counter-examples, or logical reasons why they are errors -
> >>>> not by analogies unless and until you show an exact equivalence.
>
> >>> I did. I gave you an example of someone I know who was raised by
> >>> atheists, is single and female, and who came to be a believer for no
> >>> particular reason.
>
> >> Like Lee already asked somewhere in a thought long long ago, did this
> >> She have a BabySitter, watch TV, read a book, or go to School maybe?
>
> >And did Lee have a babysitter, watch TV, read a book, or go to School?
> >Did those causative forces turn him into a believer?

Sure, if the causative forces were applied in sufficient magnitude.

>
> >If someone ends up Republican, can we cite having a babysitter, watching
> >TV, reading a book, or going to School the reasons for being Republican?
> >If so, does this mean that Democrats are democrats because they never
> >had a babysitter, never watched TV, never read a book, or never went to
> >School?

Being R or D (again sorry International Usenet and only USA issues)
has nothing to do with Belief. I can drive up, as soon as my license
is reinstated, and declare myself R or D or Independent. As easily as
I can go back the next week and change declaration to an alternate one
of R I D. I do keep wondering who is keeping track? I know The Man is
keeping track. But for what purpose?

Separation of State and Religion. Heard of it? Well, it's only a Paper
Thing really. So Belief issues are not a concern for the State. State
just wants your money and 100% of it would do quite nicely for the
State. IRS address here.

> Just a peripheral observation...
>
> Democrats are democrats because they have not yet learned to read with
> understanding.  When a person learns to read with understanding, they
> automatically become a republican. lol

D when you have no money to be taxed.
R when you have money you don't want to pay taxes on.
I when you believe you are Intelligent above Political Manipulation.

If R are representative of "When a person learns to read with
understanding," G-d save The Queen!

> --
> Indelibly yours,
> Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

> "UseNet does not change; we change. [tinw]"