|
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Jun 6, 4:35*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 6/6/2011 3:40 PM, HVAC wrote: On 6/6/2011 1:54 PM, John Smith wrote: Even if I concede that is what Einstein meant, (I don't) all that does is move the goalpost...Who created the creator? To me, anyone who is capable of free thought and is intellectually honest will admit that they just don't know the answer to the question of what started everything. To say 'god did it', is just giving up. Your constant attempts to work the edges, to peel up the logic and reason is dishonest. You can say THAT and then post THIS with a straight face? Einstein simply, in looking at the structure(s), laws and principals which he sees, and is overwhelmed at the mind and intelligence it would take to create such Of course you have a cite for this....Right? and that such is the only reason conceivable for its' existence ... I know of no comments or text of his which ventures to understand "the creation of the creator", or claim he has a theory on where the creators mind comes from, of from what it is formed. Of course he never said that...You did. So who created YOUR creator? He is simply forced into accepting things as they are, appear, and what proofs exist in these observations ... and why he was brought to allow for intelligent design. You know, I'd ask for a cite (I know you don't have one) but really who gives a **** what some dead physicist's religious views were? I'm more interested in why YOU believe in god, why YOU believe in intelligent design, and why YOU believe in ether. Well? The religion of atheism, and a specific definition of "atheism" encompasses the denial of a creator, an intelligence which designed and constructed all which we see, keeps those who have found a religious belief in atheism of allowing for anything, other than accident, chance, luck and spontaneous generation I'd say, accident, chance, luck and time...Lots and lots of time. ... obviously, Einstein refused to make the leap of faith into that/those principle(s.) To make any progress in any direction, one must first see the reality and truths of what lie before their senses, to refuse simply because "you can't believe what your eyes and senses tell you, is a religious belief in and of itself! I look around with eyes open and I see absolutely zero evidence for and gods. If you have evidence for these mythical creatures, bring it forth. If not, you're merely reciting fairy tales. Yes, we are already quite familiar with your rants, opinions, personal attacks, off the wall comments, fantasies, visions, etc. I am sure you will have something of importance to post in the future ... Don't hold your breath. |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/6/2011 7:24 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jun 6, 4:38 pm, John wrote: On 6/6/2011 2:27 PM, Government Shill #2 wrote: ... -- "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." Albert Einstein Yes, hard to picture the creator-God bothering himself with communications, at least with most ... -- Regards, JS The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it s an instrument for the people to restrain the government. -- Patrick Henry Communicating by way of those category 5+ storms, 9+ earthquakes and mega volcanoes seems to get my attention. GW and AGW just seems to be the icing on the cake. btw; Our Eden has been shrinking as it cools, as well as losing mass. If you are speaking of the earth losing mass, how could it possibly do so? All I am aware of is the earth gaining mass though cosmic dust, asteroids, meteoroids, comets, etc. which end up falling prey to our gravity which constantly "collects" more mass! And, the more mass it collects, the faster it is able to collect more (greater gravity.) I am aware of no mass being able to escape the gravitational well of earth, other than our spacecraft ... http://www.wanttoknow.info/ http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” -- Regards, JS “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” -- Patrick Henry |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/6/2011 9:48 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
... Below, in your avoidance of the question. God doesn't play dice, obviously the rules and laws over our portion of the universe are very fixed and rigid ... although in some far flung corner they may differ ... only God would know, at this time. But, as to Einstein, we have watched quacks hunt and attempt to interpret, expand, etc. his words to allow various "fudge factors" which he never intended ... usually with attempts to move discussions into religious areas and begin debate on such books as the bible ... most always the sign of the unethical and immature. Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by Michaelson and Morley, or not? Diety? Same circle? Again? Isn't "deity" the equivalent of "God?" You are a compete loon whose absorption with religion has driven you nuts! Einstein acknowledges a creator, I don't see much difference between the powers of a creator and the powers of a God (or, deity, for that matter), as far as the difference in powers/abilities go, I have no interest. It just has NO bearing on the discussion of hard physics. Now, as to external beliefs in the interactions of such a creator or God with humans, A RELIGION, I don't care of your relationship, nor, even if you have one, real or false, or not! And, what the hell powers you ascribe to "God", or not, matters not, to me or this discussion -- but here your moronic text keeps circling! You jump in here with a total focus on matters of religion (bible, Jesus, catholic, jew, etc., etc., etc.) and attempt every trick you can to put words into someones mouth, attempt to determine what religious beliefs they have, etc., and even go so are as to postulate that this is valid in what we were chatting about before you stuck your religious-focused-arse in here! Gee, do we see that strawman arguments are your weapon of choice? ROFLOL In any public forum I have entered, you would be thrown out on your religious focused arse! It is generally accepted only morons would be so crass and full-of-themselves, and that you would BE EXPECTED to holster your personal beliefs and rants from such ... and carry on in a sane manner with the use of logic. How many times must you be told that religious arguments are immaterial here? That your belief, or not, in a personal God has NO relevance here, nor anyone elses'! You are the only one who is unaware of your insanity, or the delusion that your actions are not insane, fix it! How are you now attempting to bend what I have stated? The ether will have the properties we find, when we are able to find them ... The Michaelson-Morley experiment assumed that the earth rotation and properties who NOT influence their experiment, I pointed out that there is good reason that is false, and that their experiment may have failed from its' very design, re-look at the SHORT text of the URL I gave you, it is not overwhelming! If you are a child, grow-up, if you are that petty an adult, GIVE UP! You need to maintain focus on the proofs you have to offer, and the lack of them, and not depend on religion and personal attacks to prove your logic and reason ... if you have no experts, no scholars, no scientists which hold your beliefs, and have put their works to paper, provide your own paper! Do something other than maintaining a focus on religion, personal opinions, guesses, visions, rants, personal attacks, strawman arguments, etc. Regards, JS -- Regards, JS “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” -- Patrick Henry |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
John Smith wrote:
On 6/6/2011 1:52 PM, Keith Willshaw wrote: John Smith wrote: On 6/6/2011 10:44 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote: John Smith wrote: Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by Michaelson and Morley, or not? I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent creator a strong possibility! His very words define this ... but, everyone should read them, his words, for themselves, as the notion of "thinking for someone else" is hazardous, at best ... I agree everyone should read his words. Here they are. In 1927 "I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God. " In 1945 "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being." In 1954 "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. " Shortly before he died "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." Keith Yes, here you come with your religious obfuscations, beliefs, denials, acceptances, etc., again! I made no personal statement of belief at all. I don't remember anyone mentioning such things as Jesus, church, mormon, catholic, jehovah witnesses, protestants, miracles, doctorine, the great flood, angels, jews, etc. On that we can agree, I have not posted on such issues. In our discussion, God = Creator = Intelligent Design = structure = logic = etc. That would be your belief system I take it. For some reason, your hatred or wish to attack religion makes it central to your life and beliefs, and you attempt to inject it into any discussion that exists here and have us participate with you ... I made no such attack, YOU raised the issue of the beliefs of Albert Einstein, I merely reported them. You start off on tangents of primitive legends and childish persuasions, and wish to start discussing biblical beliefs! I did no such thing and frankly have no interest in discussing biblical issues. Since you have injected these things and claim to have a knowledge of them and that your ideas on them have bearing on what we discuss, you develop them, you explain how, you develop text around them ... You are projecting I fear. To me, your moronic blathering is nothing more than an insane background noise which is annoying ... if others wish to engage you in this, have at it ... I have no time for whatever you think you are doing. I simply have no interest ... you do, or you wouldn't not maintain such central focus to it ... Me thinks you do protest too much. Keith Personal opinion, beliefs, fantasies, off the wall comments, personal attacks, defensive posturing, etc. Are things best avoided, you may want to consider taking such advice. I simply took you at your word when you said that the best way to understand Einstein's beliefs was to read what he wrote. Was I mistaken in this ? Did you want to post any accepted explorations of current science? Not especially Keith |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 09:55:42 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John Smith : On 6/6/2011 9:53 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 10:47:24 -0700, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by John : On 6/5/2011 9:43 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: ... Yeah; it's called "college". Maybe if you'd attended and taken a few physics classes you'd know what your quote meant. Einstein also said (regarding QM) "God doesn't play dice"; do you imagine that means he believed in an actual deity? Your desire to constantly be in error is strong, young Skywalker ... Three (al least) replies to a single out-of context quote; must have struck a nerve. Interesting, you demonstrate how the improper use of logic usually results in the wrong conclusion(s) being drawn ... will keep your example in mind. Thanks. Any time I can demonstrate faulty logic such as yours I'm happy to do so. -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 09:57:53 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John Smith : On 6/6/2011 9:50 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: ... light are EM radiation are both governed by the same laws and physics, are are the same phenomenon, of differing frequencies. Yes. So? Do you imagine light can't propagate through a vacuum? It can't propagate though "nothing", now what properties are you giving your "vacuum?" Apparently you do so believe. Join Warhol, and HAND. I am not prepared to discuss the supernatural/magical properties you ascribe to a vacuum or nothing I ascribe no such properties to the vacuum; the properties are those of EM radiation, which requires no medium for propagation; in fact, any such medium, from air to glass, slows the apparent velocity of such radiation. Only in a vacuum is it equal to c. You seem to consistently miss this point. ... this would be better dealt with in a religious NG. -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 10:05:20 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John Smith : On 6/6/2011 10:02 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 11:42:09 -0700, the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by John : On 6/5/2011 11:38 AM, HVAC wrote: ... Who gives a flying fandango **** what Einstein thought about god? The fact is that god, much like the ether that you love so much, has zero value to any computations. They can both be treated EXACTLY as if they do not exist at all. That's a hint-and-a-half for your ass. ... The only fact here is that your theory of spontaneous generation fails in the most minor of analysis What "theory of spontaneous generation" is that? I assume you're not referring to the notion of the instantaneous appearance of multicellular life directly from non-living matter, since that was debunked by science (Pasteur) over a century ago. ... hence, the reason for Einsteins logic. Einstein was referring to the beginning of the universe (what we call the Big Bang), not the start of life. Your religious beliefs involving the particular leap of faith you take has been noted, already ... What "leap of faith" is that? Acceptance of evidence and the laws of science? Have you come up with something new? Have you? I think when Einstein proposes the requirement of the gravitational ether as being necessary to his theory of relativity and the very propagation/transmission of light, to be science and obeying the laws of the universe ... I find you simply doing obfuscation. And, attempting to off on tangents ... and in circles. Perhaps you should read his words again so you could begin to understand that the "gravitational ether" was a convenient way to think of the deformation of spacetime by matter and energy, not a physical medium such as was demonstrated to be nonexistent by Michaelson and Morley (and others). And this is neither a tangent nor a circle; it's the heart of the matter. -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 13:40:24 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by HVAC : On 6/6/2011 1:02 PM, John Smith wrote: Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by Michaelson and Morley, or not? I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent creator a strong possibility! Even if I concede that is what Einstein meant, (I don't) all that does is move the goalpost...Who created the creator? To me, anyone who is capable of free thought and is intellectually honest will admit that they just don't know the answer to the question of what started everything. To say 'god did it', is just giving up. Correct. And unlike organized religion, science has no problem with admitting lack of knowledge, or with research to discover reality. -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 11:05:28 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John Smith : On 6/6/2011 10:44 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote: John Smith wrote: Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by Michaelson and Morley, or not? I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent creator a strong possibility! His very words define this ... but, everyone should read them, his words, for themselves, as the notion of "thinking for someone else" is hazardous, at best ... I agree everyone should read his words. Here they are. In 1927 "I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God. " In 1945 "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being." In 1954 "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. " Shortly before he died "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." Yes, here you come with your religious obfuscations, beliefs, denials, acceptances, etc., again! He refuted your assertion, which was specifically about Einstein's religious beliefs ("I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent creator a strong possibility!"). And no amount of complaining about it will change that. Deal with it. snip -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com