New Specie of Ape-Man Discovered, Almost Human
Shubee
Evolutionist?
Starblade Enkai
Religion causes blindness.
PD
It's funny how you confuse censorship and derision.
PD
Jens Stueckelberger
Religion is blindness.
Shubee
wrote:
Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." — John Barrow.
"Suppose we loosely define a religion as any discipline whose
foundations rest on an element of faith, irrespective of any element
of reason which may be present. Quantum mechanics for example would be
a religion under this definition. But mathematics would hold the
unique position of being the only branch of theology possessing a
rigorous demonstration of the fact that it should be so classified." —
H. Eves, In Mathematical Circles, Boston: Prindle, Weber and Schmidt,
1969.
Atheism is a religion.
Shubee
Shubee
The link clearly reveals both censorship and derision. Why can't you
see that? Has your love for lying morphed into a willful blindness?
Shubee
tadchem
<snip>
> Atheism is a religion.
I don't believe it.
;-)
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Shubee
Religion without science is lame, science without religion is blind.
Shubee
Alan Morgan
Shubee <e.Sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 2, 12:45=A0pm, Jens Stueckelberger <JStueckelber...@nowhere.org>
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:50:46 -0700, Starblade Enkai wrote:
>> > On Oct 2, 8:30=A0am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> What would be the nearest Latin name equivalent for Angry, Censorious
>> >> Evolutionist?
>>
>> >>http://www.everythingimportant.org/censoriousEvolutionists/
>>
>> > Religion causes blindness.
>>
>
>Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
Even assuming this is true, is the belief that there is no Santa
Claus a religion? Is the belief that Zeus does not exist a relgion?
Doesn't that mean that everyone is a member of an infinite number
of religions at the same time? How on Earth am I supposed to keep
track?
>"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
>unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
>only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
>one." =97 John Barrow.
>
>"Suppose we loosely define a religion as any discipline whose
>foundations rest on an element of faith, irrespective of any element
>of reason which may be present. Quantum mechanics for example would be
>a religion under this definition. But mathematics would hold the
>unique position of being the only branch of theology possessing a
>rigorous demonstration of the fact that it should be so classified." =97
>H. Eves, In Mathematical Circles, Boston: Prindle, Weber and Schmidt,
>1969.
So mathematics both is a religion (and can prove it) and isn't a
relgion? Neat.
I'm not sure why QM is singled out. All of science relies on
philosophical induction, which is unprovable, so all of science is
a religion. Doesn't this seem devalue the meaning of the word?
The belief that the Yankees suck contains an element of faith, but
that doesn't make Red Sox fans the chosen ones.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
jerry warner
Starblade Enkai wrote:
beautiful! you could run for VP!
Sam Wormley
>
> Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
Atheist mean non theist... no more no less
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theist
Many people have differing definitions of the words "theist"
and "atheist". Now you have some knowledge of mine which
is obviously different than yours.
Androcles
"Shubee" <e.Sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ffc5b66-962a-41ab...@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 2, 12:45 pm, Jens Stueckelberger <JStueckelber...@nowhere.org>
wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:50:46 -0700, Starblade Enkai wrote:
> > On Oct 2, 8:30 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> What would be the nearest Latin name equivalent for Angry, Censorious
> >> Evolutionist?
>
> >>http://www.everythingimportant.org/censoriousEvolutionists/
>
> > Religion causes blindness.
>
> Religion is blindness.
Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
Atheism is a religion.
=============================
Is zero positive or negative, Shubert?
It's not positive so it must be negative, right?
Amoral is the belief that there are no mores.
Amorality is a religion.
Shubert would not know the difference between
amoral and immoral.
Shubee
> In article <2ffc5b66-962a-41ab-9330-db53e917c...@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 2, 12:45=A0pm, Jens Stueckelberger <JStueckelber...@nowhere.org>
> >wrote:
> >> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:50:46 -0700, Starblade Enkai wrote:
> >> > On Oct 2, 8:30=A0am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> What would be the nearest Latin name equivalent for Angry, Censorious
> >> >> Evolutionist?
>
> >> >>http://www.everythingimportant.org/censoriousEvolutionists/
>
> >> > Religion causes blindness.
>
>
> >Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
>
> Even assuming this is true,
It's a dictionary definition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
> is the belief that there is no Santa
> Claus a religion?
According to an article that is hosted on the Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory website, the Santa Claus conjecture is
consistent with the laws of physics.
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/ferminews/santa/
Unfortunately, I don't know a precise enough definition of the S Claus
conjecture, or even of the progress made by experimental physicists,
to answer your eternal question with specificity.
> Is the belief that Zeus does not exist a relgion?
Same answer as above.
> >"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
> >unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
> >only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
> >one." --John Barrow.
>
> >"Suppose we loosely define a religion as any discipline whose
> >foundations rest on an element of faith, irrespective of any element
> >of reason which may be present. Quantum mechanics for example would be
> >a religion under this definition. But mathematics would hold the
> >unique position of being the only branch of theology possessing a
> >rigorous demonstration of the fact that it should be so classified." --
> >H. Eves, In Mathematical Circles, Boston: Prindle, Weber and Schmidt,
> >1969.
>
> So mathematics both is a religion (and can prove it) and isn't a
> relgion?
No. According to the definition, mathematics is a religion. It's not
the case that mathematics is not a religion.
> I'm not sure why QM is singled out.
I agree that the reference to QM is irrelevant. It would be far more
meaningful to revise that minor defect with the following improvement:
"Suppose we loosely define a religion as any discipline whose
foundations rest on an element of faith, irrespective of any element
of reason which may be present. Atheism, for example, would be a
religion under this definition. But mathematics would hold the unique
position of being the only branch of theology possessing a rigorous
demonstration of the fact that it should be so classified."
> ...all of science is a religion.
Quantum mechanics is a religion because it makes predictions which are
virtually impossible to test.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/censoriousEvolutionists/
> Doesn't this seem devalue the meaning of the word?
It's axiomatic in David Hilbert's philosophy of physics that every
theory that is the logical implication of a properly formulated
physical theory is physics.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/physics/Hilbert.htm
I think that's Hilbert's definition of physics is brilliant but
virtually all physicists today disagree strongly.
Shubee
Sam Wormley
Traditional religious faiths have three components: a
shared cosmology (a story of the universe and our place in
it), spirituality (personal response to the numinous), and
liturgy (public expressions of celebration and gratitude,
including rites of passage).
Androcles
> On Oct 2, 10:27 pm, amor...@xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Morgan) wrote:
>> In article
>> <2ffc5b66-962a-41ab-9330-db53e917c...@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 2, 12:45=A0pm, Jens Stueckelberger <JStueckelber...@nowhere.org>
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:50:46 -0700, Starblade Enkai wrote:
>> >> > On Oct 2, 8:30=A0am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> What would be the nearest Latin name equivalent for Angry,
>> >> >> Censorious
>> >> >> Evolutionist?
>>
>> >> >>http://www.everythingimportant.org/censoriousEvolutionists/
>>
>> >> > Religion causes blindness.
>>
>> >> Religion is blindness.
>>
>> >Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
>>
>> Even assuming this is true,
>
> It's a dictionary definition:
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
A lack of belief is not a religion, dork.
jmfbahciv
You are confused. The first step of the Scientific Method is
to separate the two.
/BAH
PD
You confused censorship for moderation. Moderation is the *function*
of moderators. Those who fall by the moderator's ax commonly ascribe
this to censorship, as do authors who find their work rejected by
publishers. This, however, is an attempt by the author to exert
control over the moderator's job function, in a manner that is in
direct conflict with that function.
PD
Aatu Koskensilta
> Religion causes blindness.
Right, but we should also recall atheism causes cancer in the baby
seal.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Aatu Koskensilta
Shubee
I am not confused. And I have news for you. Mainstream scientists are
hypocritically inconsistent. They often define science to be only what
is observable and testable and then prostitute themselves by
advocating unobservable and untestable myths with the pretense that
their religion is science.
1. Carl Sagan is clearly being religious in this sermon on the origin
of life:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQrkJchlldA
2. Consider also this lecture by the very religious Stephen Hawking
where the professor says, "The universe can spontaneously create
itself out of nothing."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjBIsp8mS-c
When did physicists ever create nothingness? I'm fairly certain that
the creation of nothingness has never been achieved. Likewise, a state
of nothingness has never been found. It follows logically therefore
that testing has never been done to really see if space, time and
matter can spontaneously pop itself into existence out of nothing.
There is plenty of evidence in the popular media that many mainstream
scientists are deeply religious. I take the least religious road to
science and I am ridiculed for it. I follow David Hilbert's philosophy
of physics:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/physics/Hilbert.htm
http://www.everythingimportant.org/censoriousEvolutionists/
Shubee
Shubee
Thanks for clearing that up. You are obviously willfully blind.
It can only be clear to everyone that can see that I'm making a
mockery of evolution by arguing for David Hilbert's philosophy of
physics.
Shubee
> Shubee wrote:
>
> > Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
>
> Atheist mean non theist... no more no less
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theist
Strictly speaking, no.
For example:
amoral means:
1. not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality;
neither moral nor immoral.
2. having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or
indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral
person.
Here, the "a-something" means "against" and "opposite of", but also
"in place of".
Atheists are not only against theists but they have their own
religion.
Shubee
Sam Wormley
And the main tenants of the "atheist" religion is documented where?
zzbu...@netscape.net
But, evolution since causes both stooges and apes that's why
optical computers, Adaptive PV Cells, RISC++,
post AT&T fiber optics, post moronic Princeton Robotics,
laser-guided lasers, USB, neo-wind energy, and cruise missiles
were created.
Shubee
Sam Wormley
Gee Eugene... science draws a similar conclusion, i.e., no evidence
for the existence of god or gods or supernatural powers.
PD
Well...
No *scientifically suitable* evidence...
PD
Ah, THAT sounds like a plan.
You could also try to make a mockery of optoelectronics by arguing for
John Rawl's theory of justice.
Or you could try to make a mockery of macroeconomics by arguing for
the French style of cooking.
Shubee, I predict that in 12 months you will make no sense at all,
despite Flurizan.
Shubee
Your statement is grotesquely idiotic. Why are you overlooking the
religion of many hypocritically devout scientists that blindly
denounce the mathematical implications of quantum theory while
simultaneously embracing physicists that vigorously and unabashedly
dignify non-mathematical creation myths and impenetrable physcobabble,
which fail to meet their own definition of science?
http://www.everythingimportant.org/censoriousEvolutionists/
Shubee
zzbu...@netscape.net
Well that's quite impossible, since digital processing, optical
computers,
RISC, Holograms, Fiber Optics, PV Cells, lasers, masers,
Elibraries,
CD, DVD, and post wheel robotics were all mostly invented, since
Hilbert, like most philosophers from the late 19th century, didn't
have
a philosophy of physics, they had a philosophy of set theory.
>
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/physics/Hilbert.htmhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/censoriousEvolutionists/
>
> Shubee- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Shubee
wrote:
> from the late 19th century, didn't have a philosophy of physics
Like PD, you are an expert in all things in which you are totally
ignorant. Read the book:
David Hilbert and the Axiomatization of Physics (1898-1918)
From Grundlagen der Geometrie to Grundlagen der Physik
Series: Archimedes, Vol. 10
Corry, Leo
2004, XVII, 513 p., Hardcover
ISBN: 1-4020-2777-X
About this book
David Hilbert (1862-1943) was the most influential mathematician of
the early twentieth century and, together with Henri Poincaré, the
last mathematical universalist. His main known areas of research and
influence were in pure mathematics (algebra, number theory, geometry,
integral equations and analysis, logic and foundations), but he was
also known to have some interest in physical topics. The latter,
however, was traditionally conceived as comprising only sporadic
incursions into a scientific domain which was essentially foreign to
his mainstream of activity and in which he only made scattered, if
important, contributions.
Based on an extensive use of mainly unpublished archival sources, the
present book presents a totally fresh and comprehensive picture of
Hilbert’s intense, original, well-informed, and highly influential
involvement with physics, that spanned his entire career and that
constituted a truly main focus of interest in his scientific horizon.
His program for axiomatizing physical theories provides the connecting
link with his research in more purely mathematical fields, especially
geometry, and a unifying point of view from which to understand his
physical activities in general. In particular, the now famous dialogue
and interaction between Hilbert and Einstein, leading to the
formulation in 1915 of the generally covariant field-equations of
gravitation, is adequately explored here within the natural context of
Hilbert’s overall scientific world-view.
This book will be of interest to historians of physics and of
mathematics, to historically-minded physicists and mathematicians, and
to philosophers of science.
Written for:
Historians of physics and of mathematics, historically-minded
physicists and mathematicians, philosophers of science
http://www.everythingimportant.org/physics/Hilbert.htm
Shubee
Tonico
> On Oct 2, 12:45 pm, Jens Stueckelberger <JStueckelber...@nowhere.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:50:46 -0700, Starblade Enkai wrote:
> > > On Oct 2, 8:30 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> What would be the nearest Latin name equivalent for Angry, Censorious
> > >> Evolutionist?
>
> > >>http://www.everythingimportant.org/censoriousEvolutionists/
>
> > > Religion causes blindness.
>
> > Religion is blindness.
>
>
> unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
> only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
>
> "Suppose we loosely define a religion as any discipline whose
> foundations rest on an element of faith, irrespective of any element
> of reason which may be present. Quantum mechanics for example would be
> a religion under this definition. But mathematics would hold the
> unique position of being the only branch of theology possessing a
> H. Eves, In Mathematical Circles, Boston: Prindle, Weber and Schmidt,
> 1969.
>
>
> Shubee
************************************************************
It's an old habit, specially among religious fundamentalists, to
"accuse" atheism of being a religion, or a belief.
It seems like many fundies are so ashamed of being believers that they
HAVE to convince themselves, and others, that atheism is the same.
Of course, being religious fundies very unfond of thinking, it is
usually utterly pointless to try to correct them in this.
Oh, well...
Regards
Tonio
Spaceman
> It's an old habit, specially among religious fundamentalists, to
> "accuse" atheism of being a religion, or a belief.
Hmm?
So an athiest does not "believe" that God does not exist?
LOL
Tonico
> Jens Stueckelberger <JStueckelber...@nowhere.org> writes:
> > On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:50:46 -0700, Starblade Enkai wrote:
>
> > > Religion causes blindness.
>
> > Religion is blindness.
>
> Right, and atheism is halitosis.
>
Not since we have toothpaste and mouthwash. Google "Listerine", for
example.
Regards
Tonio
zzbu...@netscape.net
It's impossible to read about geometry, since it's all
hyper-curves of Mercury, rather than readable, for the Geometry
wanks,
of Quantum Crank-Ville.
Shubee
Ah! thou foul and filthy stranger!
What canst thou be after here?
Thou wilt find thyself in danger,
If thou dost not disappear.
Vanish quick, I do advise you!
For we mean to let you know
Good Believers do despise you,
As a dangerous, deadly foe.
Dare you, in the sight of heaven,
Show your foul and filthy pranks?
Can a place to you be given
In the bright angelic ranks?
Go! I say, thou unclean devil!
Go from this delightful place.
Thou are just a foolish rebel,
Thou are just a terrible disgrace.
Because you contribute to the mire,
There will be nothing left of you to trace.
After you are consumed in fire,
You shall terminate in null space.
Shubee
> On Oct 2, 6:54 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Atheism is a religion.
>
> I don't believe it.
>
> ;-)
>
> Tom Davidson
> Richmond, VA
It's not a matter of belief but of logic.
"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." --John Barrow.
"Suppose we loosely define a religion as any discipline whose
foundations rest on an element of faith, irrespective of any element
of reason which may be present. Atheism, for example, would be a
religion under this definition. But mathematics would hold the unique
position of being the only branch of theology possessing a rigorous
demonstration of the fact that it should be so classified."
Shubee
Tonico
> On Oct 2, 7:34 pm, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 2, 6:54 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Atheism is a religion.
>
> > I don't believe it.
>
> > ;-)
>
> > Tom Davidson
> > Richmond, VA
>
> It's not a matter of belief but of logic.
>
> "If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
> unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
> only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
> one." --John Barrow.
**************************************************************
The only John Barrow I know of is the congressman from Georgia, and to
quote the words of a USA congressman as the background for whatever
seems to be a rather unimpressive thing anywhere, leave alone in
sci.math.
I don't see why would anyone define religion as he wrote. I think that
definition is devoid or a very important ingredient: not only is
religion a system of ideas that contains unprovable statement, but it
is mainly a system of ideas AND BELIEFS BASED on unprovable and
unprobable things which are directly against any known logic and
natural law we know anything about so far.
These last things is what we know as religious dogmas of faith, which
are, as said, not only unprovable but also highly unprobable and even
against natural laws as we know them so far: birth of a virgin woman,
angels (?!?) announcing stuff, dead people arising to life again, a
guy walking on water, etc.
I can't see how Mr. Barrow deduces from this (or even from his own
definition) that, according to Goedel, mathematics is the only
religion and even the only one that can prove (!!) that it is one
such!
But again: Mr. Barrow is a congressman, so he surely knows what
talking nonsense is...
*****************************************************************
> "Suppose we loosely define a religion as any discipline whose
> foundations rest on an element of faith, irrespective of any element
> of reason which may be present. Atheism, for example, would be a
> religion under this definition. But mathematics would hold the unique
> position of being the only branch of theology possessing a rigorous
> demonstration of the fact that it should be so classified."
*****************************************************************
The above is, of course, a misquote by H. Eves, which is what Shubee
already wrote in a past post:
"Suppose we loosely define a religion as any discipline whose
foundations rest on an element of faith, irrespective of any element
of reason which may be present. Quantum mechanics for example would be
a religion under this definition. But mathematics would hold the
unique position of being the only branch of theology possessing a
rigorous demonstration of the fact that it should be so classified."
At leas Eves here is enough intellectually honest to point out that we
"loosely" define...etc.
Now, I don't know enough QM, but I don't think it is founded on an
element of faith "irrespective of any element of reason which may be
present". Is it so really? Are there elements of reason to doubt, or
even reject, the foundations of QM?
I can't say, but in Eves's words mathematics would be the only branch
of theology (weird...) that could rigorously prove that it (i.e. QM)
should be so (i.e. a religion) classified.
Anyway, not a word about atheism, and I can't see why Shubee thought
this would be relevant in this thread...
Oh, well.
Regards
Tonio
> Shubee
jmfbahciv
> On Oct 3, 6:47 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>> Shubee wrote:
>>> On Oct 2, 12:45 pm, Jens Stueckelberger <JStueckelber...@nowhere.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:50:46 -0700, Starblade Enkai wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 2, 8:30 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> What would be the nearest Latin name equivalent for Angry, Censorious
>>>>>> Evolutionist?
>>>>>> http://www.everythingimportant.org/censoriousEvolutionists/
>>>>> Religion causes blindness.
>>>> Religion is blindness.
>>> Religion without science is lame, science without religion is blind.
>>> Shubee
>> You are confused. The first step of the Scientific Method is
>> to separate the two.
>
> I am not confused. And I have news for you. Mainstream scientists are
> hypocritically inconsistent. They often define science to be only what
> is observable and testable and then prostitute themselves by
> advocating unobservable and untestable myths with the pretense that
> their religion is science.
>
> 1. Carl Sagan is clearly being religious in this sermon on the origin
> of life:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQrkJchlldA
Carl Sagan got silly in his later years. He lost my respect even
before he was forced to face his mortality.
>
> 2. Consider also this lecture by the very religious Stephen Hawking
> where the professor says, "The universe can spontaneously create
> itself out of nothing."
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjBIsp8mS-c
>
> When did physicists ever create nothingness? I'm fairly certain that
> the creation of nothingness has never been achieved. Likewise, a state
> of nothingness has never been found. It follows logically therefore
> that testing has never been done to really see if space, time and
> matter can spontaneously pop itself into existence out of nothing.
IIRC, "nothing" didn't exist.
>
> There is plenty of evidence in the popular media that many mainstream
> scientists are deeply religious.
So? That's why the first step of the Scientific Method is to
separate what can be studied and what cannot be studied.
>I take the least religious road to
> science and I am ridiculed for it. I follow David Hilbert's philosophy
> of physics:
>
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/physics/Hilbert.htm
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/censoriousEvolutionists/
>
> Shubee
I suggest that you read about the Scientific Method and
its purpose.
/BAH
jerry
Proposition A: There exists a god or gods.
Definition of a theist: a person that believes Proposition A
is true.
An atheist is by definition anyone who isn't a theist. That
doesn't at all mean an atheist believes Proposition A is false.
These are of course the original meanings of the words.
People who write dictionaries sometimes change the meanings
over time.
Spaceman
> Spaceman wrote:
>> Tonico wrote:
>>> It's an old habit, specially among religious fundamentalists, to
>>> "accuse" atheism of being a religion, or a belief.
>>
>> Hmm?
>> So an athiest does not "believe" that God does not exist?
>> LOL
>>
>>
>
> Proposition A: There exists a god or gods.
> Definition of a theist: a person that believes Proposition A
> is true.
> An atheist is by definition anyone who isn't a theist. That
> doesn't at all mean an atheist believes Proposition A is false.
To not believe, you must not believe.
That is a belief.
Cory Albrecht
> On Oct 2, 12:45 pm, Jens Stueckelberger <JStueckelber...@nowhere.org>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:50:46 -0700, Starblade Enkai wrote:
>>> On Oct 2, 8:30 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> What would be the nearest Latin name equivalent for Angry, Censorious
>>>> Evolutionist?
>>>> http://www.everythingimportant.org/censoriousEvolutionists/
>>> Religion causes blindness.
>> Religion is blindness.
>
> Religion without science is lame, science without religion is blind.
More correctly "science without morals is blind". Morals and ethical
systems do not come only from religion.
While I have known precious few declared atheists, all of them have
been very moral people - they tend to demonstrate the "love your
neighbour as yourself" attitude far better than any fundamentalist
Christian I have ever met.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> On Oct 2, 7:34 pm, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 2, 6:54 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Atheism is a religion.
>
> > I don't believe it.
>
> > ;-)
>
> > Tom Davidson
> > Richmond, VA
>
> It's not a matter of belief but of logic.
>
> "If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
> unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
> only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
> one." --John Barrow.
True, but what Goedel forget to prove for the physics cranks,
was that Newton, Leibnitz, and Hamilton were all mathematicians.
Marc Verhaegen
sci.anthropology.paleo
thanks a lot
--marc
_____
Op 05-10-2008 01:28, in artikel
d7c550c8-ee83-42f3...@v28g2000hsv.googlegroups.com,
zzbu...@netscape.net <zzbu...@netscape.net> schreef:
Charles
> On Oct 2, 12:45 pm, Jens Stueckelberger <JStueckelber...@nowhere.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:50:46 -0700, Starblade Enkai wrote:
> > > On Oct 2, 8:30 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> What would be the nearest Latin name equivalent for Angry, Censorious
> > >> Evolutionist?
>
> > >>http://www.everythingimportant.org/censoriousEvolutionists/
>
> > > Religion causes blindness.
>
> > Religion is blindness.
>
>
> unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
> only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
>
> "Suppose we loosely define a religion as any discipline whose
> foundations rest on an element of faith, irrespective of any element
> a religion under this definition. But mathematics would hold the
> unique position of being the only branch of theology possessing a
> H. Eves, In Mathematical Circles, Boston: Prindle, Weber and Schmidt,
> 1969.
>
> Atheism is a religion.
>
> Shubee
Every one has a different definition for "religion" and even the same
person will use different definitions at different times to prove some
point they want to make. This is not a criticism of any individual or
his definition but of the fact that social scientists do not have one
and, hence, have allowed this confusion.
Could it be that they avoid a clear, functional definition because it
would offend the faithful? I think so! Suppose we use an atheist-
science approach and "let the chips fall where they may" . . .
How far does religion go back? We have to assume it goes back at
least a couple hundred thousand years. It must have evolved in us
with speech and language. That means it has to have some evolutionary
function. It is not adequate just to say "it makes us feel good." If
that is all they do, why did we give up the Ancient Egyptian, Greek-
Roman and Mesopotamian religions? They made the people "feel good."
Why did we give up animism and ancestor worship to convert to THEM?
Why did we evolve them in a way that would make us feel "good?"
It is logical to assume they do serve some evolutionary function that
is more important than just "feeling good." If that is indeed the
case, would social scientists be eager to write papers on it to get
tenured? Or would they prefer not to offend believers? In other
words, they are disinclined to even think in that direction.
So, let me propose "atheistic-science" and go after it! (I even have
a web-page dedicated to that kind of science: http://atheistic-science.com
):
We know we are a single species, the human race, and that what divides
us is what we believe. We have different beliefs. Our secular
ideology bonds us weakly into a "world community of nations," but the
bond is weak and the old religions and their whole different world-
views are still there. They divide the world into a Christian-based
society (filled with many Free thinkers!), a Muslim one, a Hindu one
and even an East Asian Marxist one (the inaptly named "communist"
block). All these and Secular Humanism provide a complete world-view
and way-of-thinking to those who live in them and are apart of those
societies.
Are all those ideologies "religions?" Lets refer to them as
Mainstream world-view systems as distinct from religious or secular
"cults" or "faiths." The big ones are where the real action is. It
is among them that natural selection is taking place.
So even though the world is divided, people are not so divided that
have been unable to bind themselves into a few big billion-people
sized societies. That, at least, enables those people within those
societies to live in relative harmony with each other.
If we did not have these world-view belief systems to bind us together
that way, we would still be living in hunting-gathering size groups
which we evolved through millions of years in. We would not be able
to have civilization.
charles
toni...@walla.com
wrote:
**************************************************************
You don't say! Let's try this wonderful syllogism of yours with some
other verbs:
== "to not steal, you must not steal.
That's a robbery"
== To not pray, you must not pray.
That's a prayer"
== To not kill, you must not kill.
That's a killing"
Really ingenious, ain't it!??
Regards
Tonio
Spaceman
>> That is a belief.-
>
> **************************************************************
>
> You don't say! Let's try this wonderful syllogism of yours with some
> other verbs:
>
> == "to not steal, you must not steal.
> That's a robbery"
Wrong.
You did not steal.
No robbery.
You apparently do not know the meaning of of the word
"steal" if you say such.
> == To not pray, you must not pray.
> That's a prayer"
Wrong
Not praying is just simply, not praying.
Apparently you do not know the meaning of the word "praying"
to say such.
> == To not kill, you must not kill.
> That's a killing"
No again,
If you have not killed, you have not killed.
And again, you must not know the meaning of the word kill
to say such.
> Really ingenious, ain't it!??
No,
It is your ignorance of the meaning of the word.
belief and that closely follows the above thoughts you say
follow my statement but yet do not follow it for real.
Apparently you would also say that if you refused
to make a choice, that would mean you did not make
that choice to not make that choice.
:)
Your choosing to not make a choice about belief,
is a choice to believe that you don't believe.
HA HA!
You worship "no god" and your belief system proves it!
LOL
:)
Marc Verhaegen
--marc
_______
Op 05-10-2008 22:12, in artikel
52d4dfd0-da73-4202...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com,
toni...@walla.com <toni...@walla.com> schreef:
Androcles
<toni...@walla.com> wrote in message
news:52d4dfd0-da73-4202...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
**************************************************************
Regards
Tonio
============================================
"Spaceman" isn't the sharpest knife in the kitchen drawer.
I believe I do not believe in any god. That's a belief I do not
believe, and I do not believe I even said that. (Instead, I wrote it.)
Shubee
> On Oct 3, 10:19 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
> > unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
> > only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
> > one." --John Barrow.
>
Naturally. You are not a mathematician.
Shubee
Tonico
*************************************************************
Hehe...that one was funny, because by now you should know that I am a
mathematician. You must have confused things: YOU are not a
mathematician, remember?
Anyway, pretty boring and lame way to dodge the questions and avoid
the debate.
Oh, well.
Regards
Tonio
Tonico
wrote:
***********************************************************
Yeah...those "HA HA" and "LOL" at the end of your post really put
things into perpective.
Regards
Tonio
Shubee
> On Oct 6, 5:00 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 4, 4:36 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 3, 10:19 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
> > > > unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
> > > > only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
> > > > one." --John Barrow.
>
> > > I don't see why would anyone define religion as he wrote.
>
> > Naturally. You are not a mathematician.
>
> > Shubee
>
> mathematician. You must have confused things: YOU are not a
> mathematician, remember?
Who can believe that you are a mathematician?
I quoted a valid application of Godel's theorem:
"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." -- John Barrow
You completely missed the relevance of that quote as if you never
heard of Godel's theorem. Instead, you whine about the author in an
idiotic way and prove that you don't appreciate the statement:
"The only John Barrow I know of is the congressman from Georgia, and
to
quote the words of a USA congressman as the background for whatever
seems to be a rather unimpressive thing anywhere, leave alone in
sci.math."
Isn't it more likely that the author is John D. Barrow
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Barrow ),
the English cosmologist, theoretical physicist, and mathematician that
has authored or co-authored the 86 math and physics books listed at
amazon.com?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=John%20D.%20Barrow
A quick internet search reveals that John Barrow's statement, which
you regard as unworthy to be quoted, is also attributed to Bertrand
Russell:
http://prism-perfect.net/author/bertrand-russell
That tells me John D. Barrow might not have credited his source
properly and that your protest is pure ignorance. And everything else
you wrote was just more of the same -- you ignorantly whining about
your complete misunderstanding of my arguments.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/physics/Hilbert.htm
Tonico
>
> A quick internet search reveals that John Barrow's statement, which
> you regard as unworthy to be quoted, is also attributed to Bertrand
> Russell:http://prism-perfect.net/author/bertrand-russell
>
> That tells me John D. Barrow might not have credited his source
> properly and that your protest is pure ignorance.
***********************************************************
No. That tells that YOU didn't credit the source proprly. Don't put
the blame on others.
And in spite of being a great fan of Bertie Ruseell, I still think
that assumed definition of religion is a rather simplistic one, but it
really doesn't matter: you, as usual, did NOT address my arguments and
and preferred to talk nonsnese about marginal stuff (J. Barrow was NOT
the gist of the discussion...did you notice?), and OTOH, you went
straight to ad hominems and insulting.
Pretty poor display from you...as usual. Keep targeted on Hilbert.
Regards
Tonio
Shubee
> > you regard as unworthy to be quoted, is also attributed to Bertrand
> > Russell: http://prism-perfect.net/author/bertrand-russell
>
> > That tells me John D. Barrow might not have credited his source
> > properly and that your protest is pure ignorance.
>
> ***********************************************************
>
> No. That tells that YOU didn't credit the source proprly.
Don't be an ignoramus.
> I still think that assumed definition of religion is a rather
> simplistic one,
Your non-mathematical thinking is irrelevant. According to David
Hilbert's philosophy of physics, I am free to specify any consistent
definition or axiom set I prefer and thereby create any model universe
I want. As part of the universe of my creation, I chose a respectable
definition according to mathematicians:
"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." --Bertrand Russell
"Suppose we loosely define a religion as any discipline whose
foundations rest on an element of faith, irrespective of any element
of reason which may be present. [Atheism], for example, would be a
religion under this definition. But mathematics would hold the unique
position of being the only branch of theology possessing a rigorous
demonstration of the fact that it should be so classified." --H. Eves,
In Mathematical Circles, Boston: Prindle, Weber and Schmidt, 1969.
Your whining that I argued that it would be logically correct to
replace "Quantum mechanics" with the word "Atheism" in the given
mathematically consistent illustration, after I first quoted H. Eves
correctly, is retarded. Atheism satisfies the quoted definition of
religion. You're obviously just a religious bigot that is angered by a
mathematical argument.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/physics/Hilbert.htm
stric...@gmail.com
>
I think the quote, whether from Barrow or Russell, is very meaningful.
Of course, that presupposes a certain level of cognizance.
Eric Gisse
Holy hell. Do you ever shut up about Hilbert?
stric...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Holey honesty, it's Eric
PD
Well, this is rich.
Shubee posts to sci.physics and then declares that the physics as
practiced by physicists is not really physics, as it does not conform
to his notion of physical philosophy. Then he cites a mathematician to
back himself up, and deems mathematicians to be the proper role
models.
Then a mathematician tells Shubee he doesn't know what he's talking
about, and Shubee declares this person not a mathematician either.
I think Shubee should proceed directly to the philosophy of physics
according to angels, and find an angel who is willing to testify that
Shubee's ideas about both physics and mathematics are correct. Of
course, it will take some arrangement for Shubee and the appropriate
angel to meet.
PD
stric...@gmail.com
That is one angle of looking at it. Judging from your prior angles,
it is not reliable.
Benj
> Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
> Atheism is a religion.
> =============================
> Is zero positive or negative, Shubert?
> It's not positive so it must be negative, right?
>
> Amoral is the belief that there are no mores.
> Amorality is a religion.
> Shubert would not know the difference between
> amoral and immoral.
Andro is right about atheists being amoral. To be immoral would mean
that one would be going directly against the mores as defined by some
religion. If one is an a-theist, it means that they do not believe in
ANY of the morality of ANY religion. This means that all acts are
equally "moral" to them. They cannot do "evil" or be "unethical"
because they do not believe that mores are anything more than a fairy
tale. All acts no matter how considered to be vile by other religions
are "neutral" to them. Thus any "punishment" for "immorality" has to
be imposed upon them by others which is one reason they seek to
"smash" all other religions.
Now Andro is using the cute argument of "zero" to say that atheism
isn't a religion. On the mathematical level it makes sense, in that
mathematics is "provably" BOTH a religion and not a religion at the
same time so it has been said.
But mathematics doesn't change the meaning of the English language,
does it? Sure it may define it's own terms in ways that English does
not, but that is ONLY WITHIN it's own system. Hence mathematical terms
cannot be used to define itself. It simply begs the question.
So if we examine the meaning of atheism OUTSIDE of the religion of
mathematics, [I suggest Websters here] we find it means: 1a. a
disbelief in the existence of Deity. 1b. the doctrine that there is no
Deity. 2. Ungodlyness, Wickedness.
So all the strained assertions that atheism has nothing to do with
denying God are obviously BS. And there is a reason for this. Leftists
have atheism as part of their doctrine. They strongly wish to make
Atheism the state religion of any country they subvert. But since in
America, a state religion is forbidden by law, they use Andro's clever
argument about "no religion" not being a religion itself, to try to
ban all other religions and cleverly insert atheism as the state
religion. [as was the de facto case in the former USSR] They use the
somewhat bogus argument of "separation of church and state" to pull
this off.
All of these arguments are lies and a direct attack upon "freedom of
religion" which says that the state may NOT implement a state religion
be it atheism or any other and that each PERSON should be free to
practice THEIR religion as they see fit. So the bottom line is that
atheists are legally free to go around telling each other there is no
God and they are not subject to any morality thereby, but they are not
permitted to tell any other religion that they may not practice their
beliefs even if they work in government! Note that this does NOT mean
that the state may support any particular religion (as it now does
quite often in regard to atheism) unless it also supports all
religions in the same manner.
While the English definition of Atheism as "wickedness" clearly COULD
be true, it obviously isn't ALWAYS true as atheists are also by
definition amoral. But the fact that atheism is a system of belief
about one or more deities, is clearly a truth that makes it a
religion. [They all hold the unprovable believe that none of them
exist] Here Andro, lets return to Webster's again [Yeah I know you are
a stranger to it's pages since it's so much more convenient to make up
your own definitions of words] Religion: "4. a cause, principle, or
system of belief, held to ardor and faith." If that doesn't describe
the atheists hanging here you included, then we might as well throw
the dictionary out and let you and your liberal pals define for us
what words mean at any given moment.
And you are still a moron Andro, but it's OK because it's the basis of
your faith!
stric...@gmail.com
>
No religion or non-religion can claim a monopoly on morality.
hanson
something that Ben Jacoby didn't want hear so...
>
the normally rational Jew "Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
And you are still a moron, Andro, but it's OK
because it's the basis of your faith!
>
ahahaha... now, Jacoby, you have demonstrated with
stereotypical Jewish intelligence that
***Jews create Anti-Semitism**,
all by themselves, like you just did, by saying that faiths,
other then your own, is practiced by morons....
>
... much like your brother-in-faith Bob Kolker has done here
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/803ce61b6d51437e?hl=en
wherein he, the Jew
::BK:: urges in news:2rfqqdF...@uni-berlin.de on 09-23-04,
::BK:: "to put all Xians into asylums for their belief in Christianity".
>
So, Ben, can you see what you did?
Can you fathom: *No Jews ... No Anti-Semitism*?
ahahahaha... But you must have been taught, that
if you cannot look down on others then you are not
Jewish... ahahahaha... "Trust me" -- "Go figure"...
since the superiority of being Jewish is so eloquently
demonstrated here by another brother-in-faith of yours:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-bVIcRTwYg
"oye-weh!" but thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson
Shubee
> On Oct 5, 10:00 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 4, 4:36 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 3, 10:19 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
> > > > unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
> > > > only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
> > > > one." --John Barrow.
>
> > > I don't see why would anyone define religion as he wrote.
>
> > Naturally. You are not a mathematician.
>
> Well, this is rich.
> Shubee posts to sci.physics and then declares that the physics as
> practiced by physicists is not really physics, as it does not conform
> to his notion of physical philosophy.
That's a very dishonest characterization. I argue that physicists have
a religion beyond physics that they market exactly like seductive
temple prostitutes sell pantheism.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/a5d6ead2ddf675d3
> Then he cites a mathematician to
> back himself up, and deems mathematicians to be the proper role
> models.
> Then a mathematician tells Shubee he doesn't know what he's talking
> about, and Shubee declares this person not a mathematician either.
I don't expect a prostitute to understand my argument but that didn't
stop you from practicing your profession. You need to find a more
honorable occupation.
Anyone that doesn't recognize Godel's theorem and dismisses a valid
application of it by Bertrand Russell, believing it was written by a
congressman from Georgia, is not a mathematician.
Shubee
PD
> On Oct 6, 1:38 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 5, 10:00 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 4, 4:36 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 3, 10:19 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
> > > > > unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not
> > > > > only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
> > > > > one." --John Barrow.
>
> > > > I don't see why would anyone define religion as he wrote.
>
> > > Naturally. You are not a mathematician.
>
> > Well, this is rich.
> > Shubee posts to sci.physics and then declares that the physics as
> > practiced by physicists is not really physics, as it does not conform
> > to his notion of physical philosophy.
>
> That's a very dishonest characterization. I argue that physicists have
> a religion beyond physics that they market exactly like seductive
> temple prostitutes sell pantheism.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/a5d6ead2ddf675d3
And you argue that the religious fervor should be directed instead to
mathematicians, who you regard as being nearly divine, nearly angelic,
and you suggest that any worship of Einstein should instead be worship
of Hilbert. You are opposed to a "religion beyond physics" but have no
problem whatsoever with a religion beyond mathematics. You are pitting
your Baal against another's Osiris.
Shubee
This is all a surprise to me. Why should you be burning with
uncontrollable rage as you descend into your self-made pit of
irreversible insanity just because I can prove everything I say with
mathematical perfection?
"It startled him even more when just after he was awarded the Galactic
Institute's Prize for Extreme Cleverness he got lynched by a rampaging
mob of respectable physicists who had finally realized that the one
thing they really couldn't stand was a smart-ass." --The Inventor of
the Infinite Improbability Drive, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
(1979).
stric...@gmail.com
The days of smart physicists like Schroedinger, Maxwell and Planck are
gone. Nowadays we have managerial physicists whose main purpose is
maintaining their scientific facade in order to keep their jobs and
nothing more. Every once in a while they pile up more babble on their
house of cards to make it look like it is advancing.
Shubee
> The days of smart physicists like Schroedinger, Maxwell and Planck are
> gone. Nowadays we have managerial physicists whose main purpose is
> maintaining their scientific facade in order to keep their jobs and
> nothing more. Every once in a while they pile up more babble on their
> house of cards to make it look like it is advancing.
It seems that physicists would have had plenty of free time to
axiomatize everything they know about physics, considering the
stagnation of advance in physics over the last 50 or so years.
Instead, physicists have just been playing makebelieve and only
pretending that physics is advancing.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/physics/Hilbert.htm
PD
I'm sure you think that physicists have lots of free time to do what
you want them to do, according to your priorities and your agenda.
Yet you seem to be more intent on complaining about their failure to
do so, rather than just doing it yourself.
How's your manuscript going? Why are you wasting time here whining,
when you could be working on smoothing the rough spots you admit are
present in your present work?
PD
Shubee
> On Oct 7, 8:33 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 7, 7:49 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > The days of smart physicists like Schroedinger, Maxwell and Planck are
> > > gone. Nowadays we have managerial physicists whose main purpose is
> > > maintaining their scientific facade in order to keep their jobs and
> > > nothing more. Every once in a while they pile up more babble on their
> > > house of cards to make it look like it is advancing.
>
> > It seems that physicists would have had plenty of free time to
> > axiomatize everything they know about physics, considering the
> > stagnation of advance in physics over the last 50 or so years.
>
> > Instead, physicists have just been playing makebelieve and only
> > pretending that physics is advancing.
>
> I'm sure you think that physicists have lots of free time to do what
> you want them to do, according to your priorities and your agenda.
It would be in the best interest of science if physicists were to give
up prostitution and accept David Hilbert's philosophy of physics.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/physics/Hilbert.htm
> Yet you seem to be more intent on complaining about their failure to
> do so, rather than just doing it yourself.
I can't do everything by myself. This thread is about how angry,
censorious evolutionists are censoring my application of Hilbert's
philosophy to the creation-evolution debate.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/censoriousEvolutionists/
> How's your manuscript going? Why are you wasting time here whining,
> when you could be working on smoothing the rough spots you admit are
> present in your present work?
My name is Shubert and I have many great unfinished symphonies. My
current composition and research is focused on quantum creationism. My
purpose in posting to general science newsgroups and forums that
specialize in the creation-evolution debate is so that I can measure
the power of my theories. I figure that if can turn seemingly mature
scientists into irrational, whimpering idiots, then I know that I have
a valid point.
I thank you for the many times that you have confirmed my approach to
science.
Shubee
PD
> On Oct 7, 8:38 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 8:33 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 7, 7:49 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > The days of smart physicists like Schroedinger, Maxwell and Planck are
> > > > gone. Nowadays we have managerial physicists whose main purpose is
> > > > maintaining their scientific facade in order to keep their jobs and
> > > > nothing more. Every once in a while they pile up more babble on their
> > > > house of cards to make it look like it is advancing.
>
> > > It seems that physicists would have had plenty of free time to
> > > axiomatize everything they know about physics, considering the
> > > stagnation of advance in physics over the last 50 or so years.
>
> > > Instead, physicists have just been playing makebelieve and only
> > > pretending that physics is advancing.
>
> > I'm sure you think that physicists have lots of free time to do what
> > you want them to do, according to your priorities and your agenda.
>
> It would be in the best interest of science if physicists were to give
> up prostitution and accept David Hilbert's philosophy of physics.
Well, of course you think so. As this is your priority and your
agenda, this is not surprising. The trick is getting anyone to heed
you.
>
> > Yet you seem to be more intent on complaining about their failure to
> > do so, rather than just doing it yourself.
>
> I can't do everything by myself.
You can't axiomatize physics? Why not?
> This thread is about how angry,
> censorious evolutionists are censoring my application of Hilbert's
> philosophy to the creation-evolution debate.
>
The creation/evolution debate has no bearing on physics. You have
posted an off-topic post on sci.physics.
>
> > How's your manuscript going? Why are you wasting time here whining,
> > when you could be working on smoothing the rough spots you admit are
> > present in your present work?
>
> My name is Shubert and I have many great unfinished symphonies.
You could consider finishing one. There isn't a single composer that
ever achieved notoriety or recognition for having a collection of
unfinished symphonies.
> My
> current composition and research is focused on quantum creationism. My
> purpose in posting to general science newsgroups and forums that
> specialize in the creation-evolution debate is so that I can measure
> the power of my theories. I figure that if can turn seemingly mature
> scientists into irrational, whimpering idiots, then I know that I have
> a valid point.
This is an extraordinary presumption that is common to cranks.
"If I were wrong, they would ignore me. If they respond with ridicule,
then I must be upsetting them, and this is an indication that I am
right."
This delusional self-rationalization is common among those who are
rapidly losing their grip on reality, but it isn't until they start
hearing voices or set fire to the drapes that they realize their in
mental trouble.
>
> I thank you for the many times that you have confirmed my approach to
> science.
Oh, I've not confirmed anything for you. You are perfectly capable of
rationalizing outcomes all by yourself.
PD
[Mr.] Lynn Kurtz
<spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
>jerry wrote:
>> Spaceman wrote:
>>> Tonico wrote:
>>>> It's an old habit, specially among religious fundamentalists, to
>>>> "accuse" atheism of being a religion, or a belief.
>>>
>>> Hmm?
>>> So an athiest does not "believe" that God does not exist?
>>> LOL
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Proposition A: There exists a god or gods.
>> Definition of a theist: a person that believes Proposition A
>> is true.
>> An atheist is by definition anyone who isn't a theist. That
>> doesn't at all mean an atheist believes Proposition A is false.
>
>To not believe, you must not believe.
>That is a belief.
>
Person 1: "There is a God."
Person 2: "Maybe so, maybe not; I don't wish to guess."
--Lynn
Shubee
> On Oct 7, 10:40 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 7, 8:38 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 7, 8:33 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > It seems that physicists would have had plenty of free time to
> > > > axiomatize everything they know about physics, considering the
> > > > stagnation of advance in physics over the last 50 or so years.
>
> > > > Instead, physicists have just been playing makebelieve and only
> > > > pretending that physics is advancing.
>
> > > I'm sure you think that physicists have lots of free time to do what
> > > you want them to do, according to your priorities and your agenda.
>
> > It would be in the best interest of science if physicists were to give
> > up prostitution and accept David Hilbert's philosophy of physics.
>
> Well, of course you think so. As this is your priority and your
> agenda, this is not surprising. The trick is getting anyone to heed
> you.
The importance of axiomatizing physics is obvious to mathematicians.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/physics/Hilbert.htm
> > > Yet you seem to be more intent on complaining about their failure to
> > > do so, rather than just doing it yourself.
>
> > I can't do everything by myself.
>
> You can't axiomatize physics? Why not?
I am very proud of my very successful axiomatization of special
relativity. I have achieved my goal. It wasn't easy to remove from
special relativity everything that is confused, unnecessary and not
amenable to experimental verification.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> > This thread is about how angry,
> > censorious evolutionists are censoring my application of Hilbert's
> > philosophy to the creation-evolution debate.
>
> The creation/evolution debate has no bearing on physics. You have
> posted an off-topic post on sci.physics.
The first axiom of quantum creationism is pure physics.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/censoriousEvolutionists/
> > > How's your manuscript going? Why are you wasting time here whining,
> > > when you could be working on smoothing the rough spots you admit are
> > > present in your present work?
>
> > My name is Shubert and I have many great unfinished symphonies.
>
> You could consider finishing one.
I have finished my first revolutionary symphony long ago. It was my
first volume on the many-worlds interpretation of Bible prophecy.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/eschatology (also available in
pdf).
> > My
> > current composition and research is focused on quantum creationism. My
> > purpose in posting to general science newsgroups and forums that
> > specialize in the creation-evolution debate is so that I can measure
> > the power of my theories. I figure that if can turn seemingly mature
> > scientists into irrational, whimpering idiots, then I know that I have
> > a valid point.
>
> This is an extraordinary presumption that is common to cranks.
> "If I were wrong, they would ignore me. If they respond with ridicule,
> then I must be upsetting them, and this is an indication that I am
> right."
> This delusional self-rationalization is common among those who are
> rapidly losing their grip on reality, but it isn't until they start
> hearing voices or set fire to the drapes that they realize their in
> mental trouble.
This thread contains a very simple proof that I am right on a point of
fact and that you are an ignorant bigot. Fortunately, the prominent
English cosmologist, theoretical physicist, and mathematician John
Barrow ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Barrow ), plagiarized
Bertrand Russell's wonderful statement:
"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Gödel taught us that mathematics is not
only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
one." --Bertrand Russell. http://prism-perfect.net/author/bertrand-russell
In my efforts to axiomatize the creation-evolution debate and to
illuminate the prominent role of atheism in it, I used Russell's
statement to prove that atheism is a religion. Immediately, the
pretending mathematician Tonio attacked the famous logician
indirectly, thinking that the plagiarist author John Barrow was an
unimpressive congressman from Georgia:
"Mr. Barrow is a congressman, so he surely knows what talking nonsense
is..."
You also, not recognizing a legitimate application of Godel's theorem,
condemned me and sided with Tonio, the pretending, make-believe,
sarcastic mathematician. All you have is bigotry, ignorance, pretense
and sarcasm. You don't have a single particle of truth to justify your
lame accusations.
Shubee
stric...@gmail.com
> You have posted an off-topic post on sci.physics.
>
Well PD, if it is off-topic, then it's outside your field of
expertise...
Which means everything coming out of your mouth is pure garbage...
PD, wear a bib.
PD
> On Oct 7, 12:36 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You have posted an off-topic post on sci.physics.
>
> Well PD, if it is off-topic, then it's outside your field of
> expertise...
What makes you say that? What do you think my areas of expertise are?
And, while we're at it, what is YOUR area of expertise?
PD
> On Oct 7, 11:36 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 10:40 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 7, 8:38 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 7, 8:33 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > It seems that physicists would have had plenty of free time to
> > > > > axiomatize everything they know about physics, considering the
> > > > > stagnation of advance in physics over the last 50 or so years.
>
> > > > > Instead, physicists have just been playing makebelieve and only
> > > > > pretending that physics is advancing.
>
> > > > I'm sure you think that physicists have lots of free time to do what
> > > > you want them to do, according to your priorities and your agenda.
>
> > > It would be in the best interest of science if physicists were to give
> > > up prostitution and accept David Hilbert's philosophy of physics.
>
> > Well, of course you think so. As this is your priority and your
> > agenda, this is not surprising. The trick is getting anyone to heed
> > you.
>
> The importance of axiomatizing physics is obvious to mathematicians.
Which is of course not so compelling to physicists. You may also find
that it isn't so important to mathematicians as you think, despite
your willingness to have Hilbert speak for all mathematicians.
>
> > > > Yet you seem to be more intent on complaining about their failure to
> > > > do so, rather than just doing it yourself.
>
> > > I can't do everything by myself.
>
> > You can't axiomatize physics? Why not?
>
> I am very proud of my very successful axiomatization of special
> relativity. I have achieved my goal.
Then publish it. Someplace other than a personal web site. What are
you afraid of?
> It wasn't easy to remove from
> special relativity everything that is confused, unnecessary and not
> amenable to experimental verification.
>
> > > This thread is about how angry,
> > > censorious evolutionists are censoring my application of Hilbert's
> > > philosophy to the creation-evolution debate.
>
> > The creation/evolution debate has no bearing on physics. You have
> > posted an off-topic post on sci.physics.
>
> The first axiom of quantum creationism is pure physics.
That doesn't make creation/evolution a topic for physics.
>
> > > > How's your manuscript going? Why are you wasting time here whining,
> > > > when you could be working on smoothing the rough spots you admit are
> > > > present in your present work?
>
> > > My name is Shubert and I have many great unfinished symphonies.
>
> > You could consider finishing one.
>
> I have finished my first revolutionary symphony long ago. It was my
> first volume on the many-worlds interpretation of Bible prophecy.
Have you published it? Anywhere other than your web site, I mean.
>
> > > My
> > > current composition and research is focused on quantum creationism. My
> > > purpose in posting to general science newsgroups and forums that
> > > specialize in the creation-evolution debate is so that I can measure
> > > the power of my theories. I figure that if can turn seemingly mature
> > > scientists into irrational, whimpering idiots, then I know that I have
> > > a valid point.
>
> > This is an extraordinary presumption that is common to cranks.
> > "If I were wrong, they would ignore me. If they respond with ridicule,
> > then I must be upsetting them, and this is an indication that I am
> > right."
> > This delusional self-rationalization is common among those who are
> > rapidly losing their grip on reality, but it isn't until they start
> > hearing voices or set fire to the drapes that they realize their in
> > mental trouble.
>
> This thread contains a very simple proof that I am right on a point of
> fact and that you are an ignorant bigot.
A bigot in what way?
> Fortunately, the prominent
> English cosmologist, theoretical physicist, and mathematician John
> Barrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Barrow), plagiarized
> Bertrand Russell's wonderful statement:
>
> "If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
> unprovable statements, then Gödel taught us that mathematics is not
> only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be
> one." --Bertrand Russell.http://prism-perfect.net/author/bertrand-russell
>
> In my efforts to axiomatize the creation-evolution debate and to
> illuminate the prominent role of atheism in it, I used Russell's
> statement to prove that atheism is a religion. Immediately, the
> pretending mathematician Tonio attacked the famous logician
> indirectly, thinking that the plagiarist author John Barrow was an
> unimpressive congressman from Georgia:
>
> "Mr. Barrow is a congressman, so he surely knows what talking nonsense
> is..."
>
> You also, not recognizing a legitimate application of Godel's theorem,
> condemned me and sided with Tonio, the pretending, make-believe,
> sarcastic mathematician.
I didn't side with Tonio at all. I mocked your statement that he was
not a mathematician, all on my own.
You have apparently made the presumption that if you have many
detractors, then the detractors must all be allies. I think you will
find this is not a mathematically or logically sound conclusion. It
may be that you are simply an outcast of your own making, and you are
capable of turning just about anyone against you.
> All you have is bigotry, ignorance, pretense
> and sarcasm. You don't have a single particle of truth to justify your
> lame accusations.
What accusations to you attribute to me?
PD
Eric Gisse
> On Oct 7, 11:36 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 10:40 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 7, 8:38 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 7, 8:33 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > It seems that physicists would have had plenty of free time to
> > > > > axiomatize everything they know about physics, considering the
> > > > > stagnation of advance in physics over the last 50 or so years.
>
> > > > > Instead, physicists have just been playing makebelieve and only
> > > > > pretending that physics is advancing.
>
> > > > I'm sure you think that physicists have lots of free time to do what
> > > > you want them to do, according to your priorities and your agenda.
>
> > > It would be in the best interest of science if physicists were to give
> > > up prostitution and accept David Hilbert's philosophy of physics.
>
> > Well, of course you think so. As this is your priority and your
> > agenda, this is not surprising. The trick is getting anyone to heed
> > you.
>
>
> > > > Yet you seem to be more intent on complaining about their failure to
> > > > do so, rather than just doing it yourself.
>
> > > I can't do everything by myself.
>
> > You can't axiomatize physics? Why not?
>
> I am very proud of my very successful axiomatization of special
> relativity.
Why? Minkowski - A MATHEMATICIAN - axiomized special relativity a
century ago. You are a bit more than a day late and a dollar short.
Your presentation is confused and has no intersection with experiment
or modern physics.
I've been telling you this for years and you are curiously unwilling
to discuss it.
> I have achieved my goal.
If being a Grade A USENET crank and a failure of a mathematician was
the goal, spot on!
> It wasn't easy to remove from
> special relativity everything that is confused, unnecessary and not
> amenable to experimental verification.http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
That's because there is nothing in special relativity that falls under
that heading. On the other hand, there is *lots* in your presentation
that qualifies.
Squeeze more blood from stone, shooby.
[...]
Eric Gisse
> On Oct 7, 2:22 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Oct 7, 12:36 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You have posted an off-topic post on sci.physics.
>
> > Well PD, if it is off-topic, then it's outside your field of
> > expertise...
>
> What makes you say that? What do you think my areas of expertise are?
>
> And, while we're at it, what is YOUR area of expertise?
I'm leaning towards "trolling my betters from a VA computer lab to
fill my the gaps in my empty life."
Shubee
> On Oct 7, 1:30 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The importance of axiomatizing physics is obvious to mathematicians.
>
> Which is of course not so compelling to physicists.
I understand very well that prostitutes have other priorities.
> > I am very proud of my very successful axiomatization of special
> > relativity. I have achieved my goal.
>
> Then publish it. Someplace other than a personal web site.
If I want to promote everythingimportant.org by giving away my insight
for free, what is that to you? Do I advise you that you need to start
charging your colleagues for the generous way that you prostitute
yourself for their benefit?
> > > The creation/evolution debate has no bearing on physics. You have
> > > posted an off-topic post on sci.physics.
>
> > The first axiom of quantum creationism is pure physics.
>
> That doesn't make creation/evolution a topic for physics.
A debate on the physics of http://www.everythingimportant.org/censoriousEvolutionists
belongs in sci.physics.
> > All you have is bigotry, ignorance, pretense and sarcasm.
> > You don't have a single particle of truth to justify your
> > lame accusations.
>
> What accusations to you attribute to me?
You lie and malign incessantly. Everything you spew is from your
bigotry, ignorance, pretense and sarcasm.
Shubee
Spaceman
> On Oct 7, 2:22 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 12:36 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You have posted an off-topic post on sci.physics.
>>
>> Well PD, if it is off-topic, then it's outside your field of
>> expertise...
>
>
> What makes you say that? What do you think my areas of expertise are?
You are a physics con man.
Everyone knows that.
You even think wavelengths "physically" change just because you
are moving.
LOL
Sheesh.
PD
> On Oct 7, 5:45 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 7, 1:30 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The importance of axiomatizing physics is obvious to mathematicians.
>
> > Which is of course not so compelling to physicists.
>
> I understand very well that prostitutes have other priorities.
And so why are you telling prostitutes that it's in their best
interest to axiomatize physics?
>
> > > I am very proud of my very successful axiomatization of special
> > > relativity. I have achieved my goal.
>
> > Then publish it. Someplace other than a personal web site.
>
> If I want to promote everythingimportant.org by giving away my insight
> for free, what is that to you? Do I advise you that you need to start
> charging your colleagues for the generous way that you prostitute
> yourself for their benefit?
You are certainly free to self-publish. Self-publication is always a
viable resort for authors who are frustrated at not being able to
publish elsewhere. You can also use a staple gun and post it up on
telephone poles next to railroad tracks, if you like.
>
> > > > The creation/evolution debate has no bearing on physics. You have
> > > > posted an off-topic post on sci.physics.
>
> > > The first axiom of quantum creationism is pure physics.
>
> > That doesn't make creation/evolution a topic for physics.
>
> A debate on the physics of [xxx]
> belongs in sci.physics.
Sorry, but I disagree. Appending the word "physics" to any topic that
you want to promote does not make it about physics. If you were to
post a statement, "Place the physics fat-side up in a 350 degree oven,
and roast the physics for two hours, basting with the juices
regularly," to sci.physics, it would be off-topic.
>
> > > All you have is bigotry, ignorance, pretense and sarcasm.
> > > You don't have a single particle of truth to justify your
> > > lame accusations.
>
> > What accusations to you attribute to me?
>
> You lie and malign incessantly. Everything you spew is from your
> bigotry, ignorance, pretense and sarcasm.
Malign, yes. There is nothing wrong with it, when it is deserved.
Sarcasm? Absolutely.
Lie? Where have I lied? Bigotry? Where is the bigotry? Pretense? Where
is the pretense?
PD
stric...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
How about if being a crook was your goal? I don't think it was your
goal though. You must have always been a crook. Let me see that
thesis of yours. I'm sure I can find many instances of dishonesty
there.
stric...@gmail.com
Stew PD, you have always been intellectually inferior, and what you
lacked you made up for in lying and pretense.
PD
>
> Stew PD, you have always been intellectually inferior, and what you
> lacked you made up for in lying and pretense.
Intellectually inferior to what?
I'm not saying that I don't have intellectual superiors, mind you. I
just wonder who you had in mind, and how you arrived at that
conclusion.
Or whether you're just heckling for the hell of it.
PD
PD
>
> Stew PD, you have always been intellectually inferior, and what you
> lacked you made up for in lying and pretense.
Intellectually inferior to what?
stric...@gmail.com
At least you did not disagree with the lying and pretense.
Intellectually inferior because you cannot see things in different
angles. Like SR for example, you cannot see the aspect where it is
completely wrong. And reality, you cannot grasp what reality really
is. It does not take much to see your intellectual inferiority. Now
there is nothing wrong with that, but its combination with deceit and
pretense makes it a bad combination.
Shubee
> On Oct 7, 8:42 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 7, 5:45 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 7, 1:30 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The importance of axiomatizing physics is obvious to mathematicians.
>
> > > Which is of course not so compelling to physicists.
>
> > I understand very well that prostitutes have other priorities.
>
> And so why are you telling prostitutes that it's in their best
> interest to axiomatize physics?
I said, "It would be in the best interest of science if physicists
were to give up prostitution and accept David Hilbert's philosophy of
physics." Obviously, your personal choice for yourself is to continue
being a prostitute. That's perfectly understandable. You are incapable
of defending physics myths or axiomatizing any part of physics.
> > A debate on the physics of http://www.everythingimportant.org/censoriousEvolutionists/
> > belongs in sci.physics.
>
> Sorry, but I disagree.
That's only because you believe strongly that sci.physics is to be
reserved for hypocrisy and prostitution.
> > > > All you have is bigotry, ignorance, pretense and sarcasm.
> > > > You don't have a single particle of truth to justify your
> > > > lame accusations.
>
> > > What accusations to you attribute to me?
>
> > You lie and malign incessantly. Everything you spew is from your
> > bigotry, ignorance, pretense and sarcasm.
>
> Malign, yes. There is nothing wrong with it
Thanks for confessing that so honestly. Will you now stop professing
that you are a Christian? Malign means "to speak harmful untruths
about".
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/malign
Shubee
PD
> On Oct 8, 7:59 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 7, 8:42 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 7, 5:45 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 7, 1:30 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > The importance of axiomatizing physics is obvious to mathematicians.
>
> > > > Which is of course not so compelling to physicists.
>
> > > I understand very well that prostitutes have other priorities.
>
> > And so why are you telling prostitutes that it's in their best
> > interest to axiomatize physics?
>
> I said, "It would be in the best interest of science if physicists
> were to give up prostitution and accept David Hilbert's philosophy of
> physics." Obviously, your personal choice for yourself is to continue
> being a prostitute. That's perfectly understandable. You are incapable
> of defending physics myths or axiomatizing any part of physics.
>
> > > belongs in sci.physics.
>
> > Sorry, but I disagree.
>
> That's only because you believe strongly that sci.physics is to be
> reserved for hypocrisy and prostitution.
>
> > > > > All you have is bigotry, ignorance, pretense and sarcasm.
> > > > > You don't have a single particle of truth to justify your
> > > > > lame accusations.
>
> > > > What accusations to you attribute to me?
>
> > > You lie and malign incessantly. Everything you spew is from your
> > > bigotry, ignorance, pretense and sarcasm.
>
> > Malign, yes. There is nothing wrong with it
>
> Thanks for confessing that so honestly. Will you now stop professing
> that you are a Christian? Malign means "to speak harmful untruths
> about".http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/malign
Ah, actually, I'll confess to not knowing the definition of "malign".
I confess to speakingly mockingly to to you.
Since you have called physicists prostitutes, do you not consider that
maligning?
PD
Shubee
>
> Ah, actually, I'll confess to not knowing the definition of "malign".
Then maybe it's possible that you only believe you know what it means
to be a true Christian but perhaps you misunderstand that also?
> Since you have called physicists prostitutes, do you not consider that
> maligning?
It is a fitting metaphor for individuals and associations that
prostitute themselves. If you want to argue that you were always a
degenerate and that you never had a conscience to violate in the first
place, then we can start there. You are still a prostitute by debasing
yourself habitually and for repeatedly rejecting all conceivable
minimal standards for civility, decency and scientific integrity.
Shubee
iqgo...@gmail.com
>
> > Ah, actually, I'll confess to not knowing the definition of "malign".
>
> Then maybe it's possible that you only believe you know what it means
> to be a true Christian but perhaps you misunderstand that also?
>
> > Since you have called physicists prostitutes, do you not consider that
> > maligning?
>
> It is a fitting metaphor for individuals and associations that
> prostitute themselves. If you want to argue that you were always a
> degenerate and that you never had a conscience to violate in the first
> place, then we can start there. You are still a prostitute by debasing
> yourself habitually and for repeatedly rejecting all conceivable
> minimal standards for civility, decency and scientific integrity.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree completely. Crooks masquerading as physicists, Eric, PD, Dirk
and their dogs Doug and Dono. They cannot see the meltdown coming to
physics.
PD
> On Oct 8, 9:12 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 8, 8:05 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Stew PD, you have always been intellectually inferior, and what you
> > > lacked you made up for in lying and pretense.
>
> > Intellectually inferior to what?
> > I'm not saying that I don't have intellectual superiors, mind you. I
> > just wonder who you had in mind, and how you arrived at that
> > conclusion.
> > Or whether you're just heckling for the hell of it.
>
> > PD
>
> At least you did not disagree with the lying and pretense.
>
> Intellectually inferior because you cannot see things in different
> angles.
Intellectually inferior to what? "Inferior" is a comparative term.
Compared to what?
> Like SR for example, you cannot see the aspect where it is
> completely wrong.
In science, wrongness means disagreement with experimental data. There
isn't a single repeatable experiment that shows disagreement with
relativity, as far as I know. If you think that wrongness means a
conflict with intuition, no, that is not a suitable metric in science.
PD
I think I'll just let your two paragraphs above speak for themselves.
PD
Marc Verhaegen
--marc
_____
Op 08-10-2008 15:05, in artikel
81e8d5ba-b6c6-4a60...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com,
stric...@gmail.com <stric...@gmail.com> schreef:
Shubee
I disagree with you again Dr. Paul A. Draper. http://www-hep.uta.edu/hep/draper/Draper.html
I believe that we can make the foregoing clearer by examining your
bold hypocrisy in the light of Ockham's razor. Fact 1: (and please
correct me if I'm wrong): You hypocritically profess to be a
Christian. Fact 2: If you are a transparent hypocrite in regard to the
minimal standards of Christian civility and decency, then Ockham's
razor stipulates with great certainty that you should be considered
equally hypocritical in your lack of scientific integrity.
http://www-hep.uta.edu/hep/draper/Draper.html
Shubee
PD
> On Oct 8, 1:07 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 8, 11:11 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 8, 10:10 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Then maybe it's possible that you only believe you know what it means
> > > to be a true Christian but perhaps you misunderstand that also?
>
> > > > Since you have called physicists prostitutes, do you not consider that
> > > > maligning?
>
> > > It is a fitting metaphor for individuals and associations that
> > > prostitute themselves. If you want to argue that you were always a
> > > degenerate and that you never had a conscience to violate in the first
> > > place, then we can start there. You are still a prostitute by debasing
> > > yourself habitually and for repeatedly rejecting all conceivable
> > > minimal standards for civility, decency and scientific integrity.
>
> > I think I'll just let your two paragraphs above speak for themselves.
>
> > PD
>
> I believe that we can make the foregoing clearer by examining your
> bold hypocrisy in the light of Ockham's razor. Fact 1: (and please
> correct me if I'm wrong): You hypocritically profess to be a
> Christian. Fact 2: If you are a transparent hypocrite in regard to the
> minimal standards of Christian civility and decency, then Ockham's
> razor stipulates with great certainty that you should be considered
> equally hypocritical in your lack of scientific integrity.
>
> http://www-hep.uta.edu/hep/draper/Draper.html
>
> Shubee
You're right. We'll add this paragraph to the pile and let the three
of them speak for themselves.
PD
Shubee
> please stop sending this to sci.anthropology.paleo
What would be the nearest Latin name equivalent for Angry, Censorious
Evolutionist?
http://www.everythingimportant.org/censoriousEvolutionists/
What would be the nearest Latin name equivalent for Angry, Censorious
Creationist?
Shubee
Shubee
> What would be the nearest Latin name equivalent for Angry, Censorious
> Evolutionist?
>
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/censoriousEvolutionists/
Next question:
What would be the nearest Latin name equivalent for Angry, Censorious
Fundamentalist?
http://www.everythingimportant.org/censoriousFundamentalists/
Shubee