Aether Foreshortning at c

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 07:35:10 -0500, HVAC wrote:

On 2/28/2012 8:28 PM, Painius wrote:


When asked if in your opinion, god exists...You can't even give
a yes or no answer? For an OPINION?

That's correct.

Daniel is wrong, you're not an agnostic...You're a politician.

since there is no scientific evidence one way or the other for there
existing a brown dwarf that orbits the Sun way out beyond the Oort
cloud, that may or may not be what knocks a comet toward the Sun every
now and then, what is your opinion regarding the existence of the
brown dwarf?

What? Another strawman?

Analogy. Lost on you, I see.

Brown dwarfs exist. There is evidence for them. So, in my opinion,
they are real. However, there is ZERO evidence for one anywhere
near our solar system. It would have easily been spotted by any
perturbations in Oort cloud or Kuiper belt objects. So my opinion
is that there is no brown dwarf anywhere near our solar system.

FYI... *That* is an honorable answer.

Maybe, except for the bit about perturbations of the Oort cloud, which
is still just a hypothesized spherical cloud around the Solar system.
So much for your being honorable, Mr. theoretical astrophysicist.

Any such opinion either way is arbitrary, since there is no proof nor
hard evidence one way or the other. It has nothing to do with honor
or dishonor, you loon.


Pathetic.

I agree - you are.

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

On 2012-Feb-29 15:23, G=EMC^2 wrote:
On Feb 29, 5:53 pm, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote:
On 2012-Feb-29 07:17, Csaba Farkasescue wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 01:56:54 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
wrote:

I never figured Lucifer for being anti-abortion.

How about anti freedom?

No. Lucifer seems to be one who values freedom, especially during the
first testament eras.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"The trouble with free elections is, you never know who is going to win."
-- Leonid Brezhnev

Like GR Gods do not fit in the QM realm. TreBert

Ha ha! Apparently they're too big.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is
those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively
assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
-- Charles Darwin

On 2012-Feb-29 20:18, Painius wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:33:33 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:
On 2/29/2012 9:53 AM, Painius wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:55:27 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:
On 2/28/2012 2:46 PM, Painius wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 04:24:58 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:
On 2/28/2012 3:04 AM, Painius wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 04:51:32 -0500, wrote:
On 2/26/2012 12:26 PM, Painius wrote:

What are you, retarded?

Those people walk down that aisle because their parents took
them down that aisle when they were kids. And now they take
THEIR kids down that aisle.

That's how long-term cults operate.

I know you have serious issues because of your marvelous Catholic
training, but you should really check into the projection trap you
fall into whenever you discuss these fiery subjects.

All religions are cults.

Atheism is also a cult.

Or, at the very least, "cultish".

How do you figure?

Atheists have their own newsgroup. They have blogs galore where they
can gather together and worship atheism. They proudly flaunt their
atheism on FB and other social networks. They produce newsletters and
mags just for atheists.

So, therefore, any interest is a cult or at the very least "cultish", right?

It's a matter of people gathering together to worship something that
sucks rocks. All the different types of Christianity like Baptists
and Catholics and Presbyterians are "sects". Every religion has
sects. And that includes atheism. Some atheists are like Fidem, who
considers atheism to be a "lack of belief in a deity or deities". Most
atheists live by the more widely accepted "atheism is the rejection of
belief in the existence of a deity or deities". So there are
differences even among atheists, which constitute "sects".

Atheists are faith-based sheep just like
theists.

No.

Sure they are. They may "reject" the belief or they may "lack belief"
or whatever. The fact remains that they do so based upon absolutely
no ground upon which to stand, no proof, no hard evidence, only loose
sand. They base their atheism on faith and faith alone. So they are
all blind, bleating sheep and precisely just like atheists.

Your disagreement does not change the above facts.

At least agnostics have opened their eyes.

I'm an agnostic, Painius.

So then you are an important improvement on atheism. Yes, I know
you're also an atheist. Nobody's perfect.

I don't even
think agnostics have their own newsgroup.

My news server carries alt.agnosticism.

Yes, I thought I remembered one from way back, but the server I'm on
now does not carry it.

Don't get me wrong, Dan, I still do not identify with agnostics. And
yet I consider them a very important step up from atheism or theism.

Atheism doesn't answer a question regarding knowledge (or lack thereof).
You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. If you don't
know, you're agnostic. If you don't believe, you're atheist.

Get it?

No, I guess I don't. Show me, Daniel. Show where it says that there
are three kinds of agnostics. I neither believe nor do I lack belief
in a deity or deities. You say that is impossible, yet here I am
before you, living proof that it is not impossible.

You are simply lying.

I simply do not
know enough to either believe or lack belief in a deity or deities.

You either believe or you don't. There's no other option.

Let's go to a debate, shall we?

The high school down the road from us has welcomed the debating team
from another school to visit and to challenge their own debating team.
The visiting high school decides to come and to debate "economics"
with our local school. During the debate, there are two types of
people discussed: The "economist" and the "aneconomist". They define
the economist as someone who believes in economics. The aneconomist
is defined as someone who lacks a belief in economics.

As for myself, I know absolutely nothing about economics. So when the
TV announcer (did I mention that the debate was being televised?), the
TV announcer shoves a mike in my face and asks me, "Are you an
economist or an aneconomist?"

I say, "I don't know enough about economics, so I neither believe in
economics, nor do I lack belief in economics. I am neither an
economist, nor am I an aneconomist.
[snip]

With this premise you've contradicted yourself because it's not possible
to have a belief and lack a belief in the same thing at the same time,
hence there's no point in examining the remainder of your theory which
is most likely based on this impossibility.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Don't pity the dead, pity the living."
-- Albus Dumbledore

On 2012-Feb-29 20:35, Painius wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:27:36 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist wrote:
On 2012-Feb-28 15:44, Painius wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 04:21:39 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:
On 2/28/2012 4:15 AM, Painius wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 14:10:07 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:
On 2/26/2012 10:49 AM, Painius wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 07:39:39 -0500, wrote:
On 2/25/2012 7:19 PM, Painius wrote:

That's a lot of bull, and you know it! HVAC has done more than
profess to be an atheist. He has professed beyond any shadow of doubt
that NOT ONLY does he lack a belief in deities and supernatural
agents, he has expressed succinctly that he specifically does not
believe that a god exists.

Yes. That's my opinion.

So what say you? In your opinion, does god exist?

You may ask me this a hundred, a thousand, a billion times, and my
answer will be:

Until proof or hard evidence can be provided for or against the
existence of God, a god, a deity or deities, then my answer is, "I
just don't know."

I just don't know, HarpVAC. I just don't know.

And I refuse to be sheepish about it and believe or lack belief based
upon FAITH AND FAITH ALONE.

I don't know, Harlow. I just don't know.

Then you're an agnostic.

You really *don't* know what an agnostic is, do you.

An agnostic is one that doesn't know.


An agnostic might answer "I don't know". But they take a position.

Just as you are.

The theist agnostic takes the position that a deity or deity exists.

Not really. They don't know if a deity or deities exists but they
believe in them.

The atheist agnostic or agnostic atheist takes the position that a
deity or deities do no exist.

Not really. They don't know if a deity or deities exists and they do
not believe in them.

There is no middle ground for an
agnostic.

Therefore, I am not an agnostic, I assure you.

Here's an easy way to figure it out: Answer the following questions:

"Do you know if deities exist?"
"Do you believe in deities?"

If the answer to the former question is anything other than "yes",
you're an agnostic.

If the answer to the latter question is anything other than "yes",
you're an atheist.

If you answer both questions with anything other than "yes", then you're
an agnostic atheist.

Please stop calling me that which I am certain I am not.

Sorry, but whether you believe it or not, you're an agnostic.


Now, do you believe in deities?

I don't know if deities exist or not, so I neither believe nor
disbelieve nor lack belief in deities.

So, no, you do not /believe/ in deities. You are not a theist.

I tire of these crap circles.

I feel like freekin' Nixon...

"I am not a CROOK."

I'll tell you what I am, Dan. I am done for now, because I must leave
on a job very soon.

Don't come back. Your threats (the ones you made in another branch in
this thread) are not welcome in any reasonable society.

It's okay for you to cast aspersions on me by calling me crazy, but
it's not okay for me to joke around with you about breaking something?

It wasn't an aspersion, it was a statement based in fact that you cannot
truthfully deny. You may perceive it as an aspersion, but that doesn't
make it so given the publicly accessible context of usenet.

You are too funny. Sheep usually are quite funny. I will be back.

And if you continue to be a sheep, I'll be right there to let you
know.

Bleat on, Fiddy.

Your ad hominem attacks don't help your position.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Only two things in life are infinite; the Universe, and human stupidity
(and I'm not so sure about the Universe)."
-- Dr. Albert Einstein

On 2012-Feb-29 20:39, Painius wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:30:49 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist wrote:
On 2012-Feb-28 15:55, Painius wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 04:36:20 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist wrote:
On 2012-Feb-28 04:19, Painius wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 06:01:12 -0500, wrote:
On 2/26/2012 1:49 PM, Painius wrote:

So what say you? In your opinion, does god exist?

You may ask me this a hundred, a thousand, a billion times, and my
answer will be:

Until proof or hard evidence can be provided for or against the
existence of God, a god, a deity or deities, then my answer is, "I
just don't know."

I just don't know, HarpVAC. I just don't know.

So is it that you have no opinion on whether or not god
exists, or is it that you have no opinion on whether or
not you have an opinion...Or not?

See? I'm asking your OPINION. There is no car who's color
we can check. We're dealing with something that isn't real
like the car is.

There's nothing to check.

Nothing at all.........

Fine. Now please be kind enough to tell me what your proof or hard
evidence is for those statements.

What? You can't? Then they are faith-based statements.

Your conclusion is illogical because it's based on a missing premise.

uh-uh. It's as simple as I put it. There is nothing missing, or you
would have pointed out exactly what is missing instead of throwing
mud. Ergo, you are the one who waxes illogic.

I pointed out the logical flaw in your argument, and I did so without
"throwing mud" or attacking your character (I attacked your conclusion).

You, on the other hand, resort to making threats of bodily harm (in a
different branch of this thread), so claiming that someone else "waxes
illogic" doesn't come across as credible.

By the way, those threats are not welcome in any reasonable society and
so I encourage you to leave alt.atheism and never return.

Riiight.

Your agreement is noted.

I joke with you about breaking something, as if I could even if I

Threats of bodily harm are a serious matter, and are not something that
normal people joke about. The fact that you think your own threats are
a joking matter may be an indication of your psychopathic nature.

wanted to, and you think I'm going to leave you forever? You're too
much fun. Remember what Uncle Ahnold said in _Terminator_?

I'll be back.

I only encouraged you to leave, which is obviously not the same as
assuming that you actually are leaving. Your inability to comprehend
what others are communicating is disappointing.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche

On 2012-Feb-29 20:03, palsing wrote:
On Feb 29, 1:36 pm, wrote:

By all accounts, Lincoln was just flat-out ugly.

Lincoln once said...

"If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this one?"

\Paul A

Ha ha! Nice quote. Did he ever say anything about his hat?

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall
deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so
whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose,
thus you allow him to make war at pleasure."
-- Abraham Lincoln

On 2012-Feb-29 21:02, Painius wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:27:03 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist wrote:
On 2012-Feb-28 08:01, Painius wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:50:08 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist wrote:
On 2012-Feb-26 14:33, Painius wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 23:54:59 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist wrote:
On 2012-Feb-25 12:03, Painius wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:52:23 -0500, wrote:
On 2/24/2012 1:19 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:

You, Harlow, are an atheist.

Correct. I do not believe in gods, ghosts, nor space aliens as do you.
[snip]

But haven't you seen the hundreds (if not thousands) of photographs of
Bill Clinton shaking hands with space aliens?

Seriously though, I think it's important to point out that most space
aliens don't qualify as deities or supernatural agents (you must be
referring to the ones who do).

A belief in something for which no evidence exists is religion.

So the corollary is that to believe there are no deities is a
religious belief?

To believe that there are no deities is a "belief."

Why is it not a "religious belief"? It still has to do with
"deities", so it is obvious to me that it is a religious belief.

It's an anti-theistic belief, and I didn't want to exclude the
anti-religious category. If you wish to consider anti-theism to be a
religious or anti-religious belief, go right ahead for it's of no
concern to me.

Good. Now all you need do is stop denying that the "lack of belief"
in deities is a religious lack of belief. It is a religious lack of
belief that is just as strongly required to be supported by proof
and/or hard evidence as any other religious belief or lack thereof.

Since atheism is merely an "absence of belief in deities and
supernatural agents," there is no religious component to it. There is
also nothing to deny because atheism, which depends on nothing, does not
need to be defended.

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa !

What language is that? I don't understand your response.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"There is a road to freedom. Its milestones are Obedience, Endeavor,
Honesty, Order, Cleanliness, Sobriety, Truthfulness, Sacrifice, and love
of the Fatherland."
-- Adolf Hitler

On 2012-Feb-29 14:26, HVAC wrote:
On 2/29/2012 2:30 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:

I did die a coupla times, tho'.

And you're dying a bit regarding this subject.

Your saying so only breathes more life into it, GoddessVAC.

Please confine your insults to me.

Yes indeed, focus is important.

You know, I've been dealing with Paine for a couple of years now
and I've schooled him on many subjects, but I've NEVER seen him
get himself worked into such a state.

It's very difficult for egotistical people to accept and learn when
someone points out logical flaws in their statements, and it's
particularly frustrating for them when their own arguments are used
against them. With Painius (I assume this is who you mean by "Paine")
this appears to be a frequent occurrence (I suspect this is due to a
subconscious curiosity based on a desire to progress that is the result
of a survival instinct trying to undo long-term brainwashing), which I
hope is an indication for him to eventually develop at least a partial
sense of true impartiality, for I feel that this would help him greatly.

You rock!

Thank you, I appreciate that very much, particularly because I also have
developed a great deal of respect for you due to the value included in
many of your contributions.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"This is the epitaph I want on my tomb: Here lies one of the most
intelligent animals who ever appeared on the face of the earth."
-- Benito Mussolini

On 2/29/2012 9:02 PM, Painius wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:27:03 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist wrote:

On 2012-Feb-28 08:01, Painius wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:50:08 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist wrote:
On 2012-Feb-26 14:33, Painius wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 23:54:59 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist wrote:
On 2012-Feb-25 12:03, Painius wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:52:23 -0500, wrote:
On 2/24/2012 1:19 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:

You, Harlow, are an atheist.

Correct. I do not believe in gods, ghosts, nor space aliens as do you.
[snip]

But haven't you seen the hundreds (if not thousands) of photographs of
Bill Clinton shaking hands with space aliens?

Seriously though, I think it's important to point out that most space
aliens don't qualify as deities or supernatural agents (you must be
referring to the ones who do).

A belief in something for which no evidence exists is religion.

So the corollary is that to believe there are no deities is a
religious belief?

To believe that there are no deities is a "belief."

Why is it not a "religious belief"? It still has to do with
"deities", so it is obvious to me that it is a religious belief.

It's an anti-theistic belief, and I didn't want to exclude the
anti-religious category. If you wish to consider anti-theism to be a
religious or anti-religious belief, go right ahead for it's of no
concern to me.

Good. Now all you need do is stop denying that the "lack of belief"
in deities is a religious lack of belief. It is a religious lack of
belief that is just as strongly required to be supported by proof
and/or hard evidence as any other religious belief or lack thereof.

Since atheism is merely an "absence of belief in deities and
supernatural agents," there is no religious component to it. There is
also nothing to deny because atheism, which depends on nothing, does not
need to be defended.

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa !

Stop bleating, little sheep.

On 2/29/2012 4:26 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:


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/

As an adolescent I read many of Heinlein's books.
They changed my life.

His writing forces the reader to re-examine those beliefs that
he or she holds most dear. Sci-fi has always been a platform of
new ideas and new philosophies.

Stranger In A Strange Land is probably his best known work, but
others such as Citizen Of The Galaxy which examines slavery, and
Time Enough For Love which examines the various lives of a thousand
year old man, are fantastic reads.

Painus may benefit from reading these works. Heinlein's characters
struggle with their beliefs, much as he does.




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