Aether Foreshortning at c

On 2/29/2012 11:33 AM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:


Painus made that statement out of anger and frustration.

Even if that's true (and it likely is), that still doesn't justify it.

Normally, he would never threaten anyone.

He's demonstrated that he's not normal on numerous occasions.

But it IS understandable under these conditions.

I don't agree with that.

Allow me to expatiate. What I meant to convey is that I
understand his motivation....I certainly don't condone it.

Personally, nothing anyone says here troubles me except
when a pedophile comes on. Then I lower the boom.





--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:15:26 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:

Paine wrote:
Fidem wrote:

A lack of belief is not based on faith -- it is based on nothing, which
is not what faith is.

If this is true, then you should be able to provide proof or hard
evidence for your statement.

How does one go about proving something that isn't anything at all?

You can't. That's the point. You are just as accountable for your
so-called "something that isn't anything at all" as theists are for
*their* something that also isn't anything at all. But you just deny,
deny, deny, instead of realizing that if you cannot show proof or hard
evidence for YOUR "something that isn't anything at all", then you are
no less accountable than a theist. Your lack of belief is faith-based
just like a theist's belief. Your atheism is based upon FAITH AND
FAITH ALONE. So you are no less a sheep than a theist.

What precisely is "nothing"? There is no good definition for that,
either.

The concept of 0 comes to mind as a great example of "nothing." After
all, one can count a handful of apples, but it's not possible to count
an absence of apples when one's hands are empty (and if you want to
compare apples with oranges, let's see how well this works when
comparing 0 apples with 0 oranges).

The zero (0) is just a symbol that describes "nothing". It is not a
definition for "nothing". You can stop trying, now, because nobody
has ever come up with anything better than "the absence of something"
as a definition for "nothing". If you do come up with something
better than that, you will make history.

Your lack of belief most assuredly is based on faith, simply because
you have "nothing" solid upon which to base your lack of belief any
more than a theist has anything solid upon which to base their belief.

Your choice to use the word "assuredly" indicates uncertainty about your
premise -- your sub-conscious is escaping, be careful!

Oy. There you go again with your idiocy. Straighten out, ewe cute
li'l lamb.

A lack of belief is not something that is solid, and this very absence
of belief is also not fluid, for it literally is nothing. (I suspect
that a Buddhist mindset may be better equipped for grasping this basic
concept objectively.)

No more easily than the concept of infinity, li'l ewe. A lack of
belief's significance is governed by the significance of the belief
itself. If the belief is significant enough to require proof or hard
evidence, then the lack of belief is just as significant and also
requires proof or hard evidence. If said proof is lacking, then both
the believer and the person who lacks belief operate on FAITH AND
FAITH ALONE. Quite sheepishly, I might add.

Just as with the theist's belief, your lack of belief rests upon sand.

If it rests upon something, then it is not in absence. (As for me, I
usually only rest upon sand on hot summer days while at the beach.)

An absence is just as "solid" as a presence. If a rock star is
scheduled to perform, and a huge crowd of fans has congregated in the
football stadium to watch the rock star, what happens when the rock
star doesn't show? Mayhem. An absence can be just as significant as
a presence.

If a belief is significant, especially a belief that is important
enough to *require* proof or hard evidence, then the absence of that
belief is just as important as the belief itself. Without proof or
hard evidence as to the presence or the absence, those who either
believe or lack belief operate on FAITH AND FAITH ALONE.

Bleating sheep, all of 'em.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Unimaginative people find refuge in consistency."

On 2/29/2012 2:02 PM, Painius wrote:


He has never been able to refute my alternative gravitation idea -
never. Nor was there anything he said that could have been refuted.
Nothing about "here we go" is refutable.

You take HVAC's side merely because he is a baa baa black sheep
atheist just like yourself. That makes you as unscientific as he is.

Bleat away, little lamb. Is that your ewe calling? Is Harlow your
ram? He seems to have rammed his imbecilic **** right down your
throat. And you keep cumming back for more.

Bleat away, little lamb. HVAC will slaughter you some day. He likes
to slaughter those who disagree with him. Go ahead. Test it.
Disagree with him, but not right away. Catch him off guard. See if
he doesn't blindly come at you with his sharp-edged words.

To ally yourself with the wrong people just because they are also
atheists is asking for big trouble. Atheism does not make you smart.
It just makes you bleat very loud.


THIS is why I've been coming here for so many years!
Painus...That was epic! You've gone right off the tracks.

I love being me.


--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

On 2012-Feb-29 10:33, Painius wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:48:26 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist wrote:
On 2012-Feb-28 15:05, Painius wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 04:29:40 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist wrote:
On 2012-Feb-28 03:28, Painius wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:32:00 +0100, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 04:55:49 -0500
wrote:
On 2/26/2012 12:47 PM, Painius wrote:

Because it is what I need. I accept the monumental significance of
the presence of a deity or deities, but I refuse to believe in or
lack a belief in a deity or deities based upon faith and faith
alone. I need more, and you should, too.

OK then....Let's devise a test. Since YOU are the one wanting proof
of the fact that no god exists, YOU can be the one to devise the test.


So what, in your extremely humble opinion, would constitute proof
that god doesn't exist?

It is matter of question if religious text are true or false.
Since there are many of them, all cannot be true.

That is a very good point. There are many different faiths with
different texts. There are different kinds of atheists, as well.
Nobody really knows who, if anybody, is "right".

Atheism isn't about being right.

And round 'n round we go. Do you lack a belief in a deity or deities?

I'm simply absent of belief in deities or supernatural agents.

And if that is so, you could be correct, or you could be wrong.

What is there to be correct about? This absence of belief is not a
claim that can be right or wrong.

OMG - If your belief is absent, and "god forbid" it turns out that
there *IS* a deity or deities, then you would be WRONG to have been
absent of belief. You don't capisce this? What the hell is wrong
with your logical capacities? You really do seem too smart to be
shoveling this bull****. An atheist may be right or wrong, just as a
theist may be right or wrong. What you're shoveling is brown and
smelly!

Atheists aren't claiming to be right or wrong about the absence of
belief in deities and supernatural agents (that would be a dogmatic
approach), we just don't believe in deities or supernatural agents.

Despite not having ever performed any self-diagnostics on my own logical
capacities (that's a great idea by the way, I'll have to figure out how
I can go about doing this -- you have inspired some deep thinking on
this matter in my near future, thanks), at this point I'm not aware of a
logical error in my observation.

Your metaphoric implication that I'm shovelling feces is incorrect, and
using these filthy types of metaphors serves as an implicit admission by
you that you lack both class and credibility.

Atheism, like any other position that a person can rise to, has the
property of being either right or wrong.

Thusly, in a way, you are correct. Atheism is not *just* about being
right. It is actually about being right... or wrong.

Atheism is not a position.

Of course it is. Your "metaphoric" analogy below is just more of the
brown, smelly stuff you shovel down your own throat.

I challenge you to show me where my metaphor is wrong instead of using
ad hominems to describe it and express your frustrations.

Here's a metaphor that should help clarify atheism for you: SQL
databases have a boolean data type that, when populated, can be either
TRUE or FALSE. But when this data type is NULL it is neither TRUE nor
FALSE -- it represents no position either way. Atheism is the NULL
value in the boolean data type in SQL.

Note: This metaphor has not been refuted.

Nobody can be certain.

Ergo, since nobody can be certain, then either belief or lack of
belief requires faith. Both theism and atheism are faith-based.

That's illogical because an absence of belief is not based on faith.

In this case, the lack of belief most assuredly *IS* based on faith,
and faith alone. Your denial will never make this illogical nor
untrue.

That word "assuredly" indicates that you doubt your own premise.

You wish. I doubt nothing about my own premise. I've been doing this
a long time. I've researched this most of my life. There is no doubt
in my mind that you are a blind, bleating sheep who cannot even seem
to pull your head out of your ass long enough to know when you might
be right or you might be wrong.

I'm an atheist -- I don't wish.

Your use of hostile ad hominems doesn't help your argument and also
serves to confirm that my observation about you doubting your own
premise. Furthermore, this leads me to suspect that you also feel
threatened intellectually.

Your
conclusion that my statement cannot be "made" illogical or untrue is not
supported by anything, particularly atheism itself.

Which statement? Your statement that my statement is illogical? or
your statement of denial?

This is what you wrote: "In this case, the lack of belief most
assuredly *IS* based on faith, and faith alone. Your denial will never
make this illogical nor untrue."

Again, your conclusion that my statement cannot be made illogical or
untrue is not supported by anything, particularly atheism.

What that means, at a very basic level, is that your conclusion lacks a
valid premise.

Your statement that my statement is
illogical is based firmly on the loose sand of your atheism. Your
statement of denial is based firmly upon your argumentative neurotic
mental state. It would kick your ass to the Moon if you turned out to
be wrong. So no amount of logic or reason would sway you.

Atheism does not contain "loose sand." It also is not loose, tight,
wavy, straight or gay, bright or dark, fast or slow, made in China, etc.

In the context of neuroticism: Atheism is boundless by its mere absence
of belief in deities and supernatural agents. (That's not neurotic,
that's profound.)

Also, a neurotic mental state is anything but firm, so you've
contradicted yourself with the use of big words (I suspect that you find
my apparent antidisestablishmentarianisticisms offensive).

Your claim that my being wrong "would kick my ass to the Moon" is
inconsistent with who I am, particularly due to the fact that other
atheists have, on occasion, pointed out logical errors I've made, and
for which I gladly accepted these errors without any ass kicking because
this is imperative to progressing in a genuine and credible manner. It
was not a matter of being "swayed," rather it was a matter of learning.

I approach life with the following ideal because it is honourable:

* "If you challenge my ideas, and present to me my errors, then,
upon the honour of my character, constructively I shall build."
* -- Fidem Turbare (January 22, 2012)

Source: http://www.fidemturbare.com/more.html

So far, your constant deluge of ad hominem attacks and other such
shenanigans has not contributed in a useful nor helpful manner. You're
always welcome to smarten up and bring sensibility to the table, but so
far your recent threats of harm against me mean that you've only been
digging your own hole deeper.

You are right, and there's no changing that. You are the blackest of
sheep. Have you any wool? Bleat away, blind ewe, bleat away.

Your metaphoric ad hominem attacks don't help your argument.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking.
There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked
solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.

On 2/29/2012 3:26 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:


Your attempts to divide what appears to you to be an alliance is not
going to succeed because there is no such alliance among atheists (I
suspect that you already understand this because you've been trying very
hard on a subtle level to make it appear that such an alliance exists,
which leads me to also have no doubt that this is a major point of
frustration for you since attacking an alliance that doesn't even exist
can be a major undertaking). To get atheists to agree on many major
issues would usually be about as easy as herding cats, which is
generally considered to be an impossibility (interestingly, this may be
something that many atheists would agree on).

The author, Robert Heinlein, would absolutely agree with you regarding
the futility of herding cats...But you probably knew that.









--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

On 2012-Feb-29 12:22, HVAC wrote:
On 2/29/2012 1:07 PM, HVAC wrote:
On 2/29/2012 12:19 PM, Painius wrote:
And 'round 'n 'round we go. You keep bleating like a sheep, and I
keep tryin' to ope yer eyes. You base the atheism part of your
agnosticism on FAITH AND FAITH ALONE, and unless you can provide proof
or hard evidence for your lack of belief in a deity or deities, then
you will stay a part of the bleating flock.

And here I thought agnostics were a lot smarter than that.

And then there's me who thinks that *I* am god........

What the **** would THAT be? 'Mono' theistic?

How about Itheistic? That's a keeper.

I can imagine young children pointing and laughing as they exclaim "Hey,
look, there goes another Itheist!"

Do you mean "I" as the Roman Numeral for "one," or in the context of
egocentricity meaning "self?"

(If you write up a definition for Urban Dictionary, please post a link
in a reply to this message.)

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"A Christian has to be Adolf Hitler to be called militant. All an
atheist has to do is write a book."
-- Tommy Holland

On 2012-Feb-29 13:06, HVAC wrote:
On 2/29/2012 11:33 AM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:

Painus made that statement out of anger and frustration.

Even if that's true (and it likely is), that still doesn't justify it.

Normally, he would never threaten anyone.

He's demonstrated that he's not normal on numerous occasions.

But it IS understandable under these conditions.

I don't agree with that.

Allow me to expatiate. What I meant to convey is that I
understand his motivation....I certainly don't condone it.

You've clarified some insight about him that wasn't immediately obvious
to me, so I no longer "don't agree" with you.

Personally, nothing anyone says here troubles me except
when a pedophile comes on. Then I lower the boom.

That's better than reasonable (too bad English doesn't have a word for
this).

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"If life was fair, Elvis [Prestley] would be alive and all the
impersonators would be dead."
-- Johnny Carson

On Feb 29, 3:22*pm, Painius wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 19:51:58 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent









atheist goddess" wrote:
On 2012-Feb-28 16:20, Painius wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:50:23 -0500, *wrote:
On 2/28/2012 9:18 AM, Painius wrote:

When I say that I neither believe nor lack belief in a deity or
deities, I state the truth.

No. Not really. Answering both yes and no to a question is
what a politician does...NOT a truth-teller.

You are disingenuous and without honor.

I've never claimed otherwise.

However, I do not answer "yes" and "no" to the question. *The truth
that I honor is that there is no way to know the answer to the
question, absolutely no way. *No scientific way. *No honorable way.. No
way. *That's *not* a politics-like yes and no, DipstickVAC.

What evidence do you have to support this claim that an unknown quantity
cannot be proven using a reliable realistic methodology such as the
scientific method?

How does honour factor in to proving/disproving facts/fiction?

Your use of ad hominemistic name calling doesn't help your argument.

Fidem, I must leave soon on a job, so briefly:

I do not understand your need for evidence. *Unless you are just sort
of PKB-ing the fact that I need evidence from you for your lack of
belief in a deity or deities. *All I know is that there has been no
proof nor hard evidence uncovered by science nor any other methodical
manner for nor against the existence of a deity or deities.

As for honor/honour, it was Harlow who brought that in, so you'll have
to ask him.

And why is it that you sheep are so afraid of ad hominem? *It's only
words, Fidem. *If words hurt you so much, then you should stick to
romance novels and leave UseNet alone.

Just a suggestion. *No offense.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Unimaginative people find refuge in consistency."

Does heaven come from the aether" Does hell come out of Fusion.
Heaven in aether energy,and hell from the heat of fusion. TreBert

On 2012-Feb-29 13:17, HVAC wrote:
On 2/29/2012 3:26 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:

Your attempts to divide what appears to you to be an alliance is not
going to succeed because there is no such alliance among atheists (I
suspect that you already understand this because you've been trying very
hard on a subtle level to make it appear that such an alliance exists,
which leads me to also have no doubt that this is a major point of
frustration for you since attacking an alliance that doesn't even exist
can be a major undertaking). To get atheists to agree on many major
issues would usually be about as easy as herding cats, which is
generally considered to be an impossibility (interestingly, this may be
something that many atheists would agree on).

The author, Robert Heinlein, would absolutely agree with you regarding
the futility of herding cats...But you probably knew that.

No, I did not actually. I'm not familiar with that author, but he's now
on my list of authors to read.

This web site seems interesting: http://www.heinleinsociety.org/

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Dogs have owners; cats have staff."
-- Don Kresch

On 2/29/2012 2:15 PM, Painius wrote:


I see this subject really pushes your buttons. It must be very
important to you whether or not you are read and followed. You
shouldn't really let the likes of me push your buttons like that. It
means that you allow me to control you.


I believe they call that 'projection'.


Apparently the term space-time offends you. Very well. Here's a
NEW definition that does not include the term space-time.

"What is being distorted by any mass is the unbounded 4 dimensional
expanse that contains all material objects in the universe".

(This should be good.)


If I write it, it will be good.


Now, tell us please, exactly what is it about that "unbounded
4-dimensional expanse" that is distorted? What does that expanse
contain, or what is it comprised of, that is or can be distorted?

I was gonna go with space-time, but I figured you'd blow an aneurism.

Here's from the dictionary: Note that I blocked out the part that
applies to you near the bottom.



space (sps)
n.