Aether Foreshortning at c

On 2/29/2012 3:22 PM, Painius wrote:


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.


Wow.













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

On 2/29/2012 1:35 PM, Painius wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:23:29 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:

On 2/29/2012 9:19 AM, 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,

Still wrong, no matter how many times you repeat it.

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.

Sure. Here's my hard evidence that I lack belief in a deity or deities:

I lack belief in a deity or deities.

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

Most are smarter than you.

I freely acknowledge that possibility. And yet, how smart is it to
say that one's lack of belief in a deity or deities is hard evidence
for one's lack of belief in a deity or deities?

Now you're just trolling.

Good day, sir.

On 2012-Feb-29 13:10, Painius wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:15:26 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist 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.

Accountable, why? How? There's no faith involved in atheism, it's
merely an absence of belief in deities and supernatural agents.

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.

You're clearly out of your league here (as evidenced by what you think a
concept is). My metaphor explains how 0 is a concept.

[snip - nonsense about idiocy]
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

Yes, because "infinity" is a concept.

Your name calling doesn't help your argument.

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.

Absence of belief in deities and supernatural agents is only significant
to those who are trying to attack it, but in order to attack they must
first be able to make it fit into something that can be attacked.

Your implicit ad hominem attack doesn't help your argument.

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.

That's a different kind of absence because it's tied to an expectation;
also, deities and supernatural agents aren't schedules.

Now if you are building a straw man that will be used to compare deities
with rock stars, the fundamental flaw with this is that rock stars
actually exist (regardless of how high many of them are).

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.

Your conclusion is illogical partly because it is based on a premise
that applies to schedules for rock stars (who might be high), and
because it incorrectly assumes that proof or hard evidence is required
not to believe in deities or supernatural agents.

Bleating sheep, all of 'em.

Your ad hominem attacks don't help your argument.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Communism is like one big phone company."
-- Lenny Bruce

On 2012-Feb-29 13:52, HVAC wrote:
On 2/29/2012 3:22 PM, Painius wrote:

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.

Wow.

I wonder if he's trying to be sexist? Do you think he might have me
pegged as one of those irrational man-hating feminist extremists?

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full."
-- Henry Kissinger

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 13:07:05 -0500, 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?

That would be your cover up of one neurosis with another neurosis?

Anyone who states they are a "god" suffers from delusions of grandeur,
if I'm not mistaken. You outwardly bloat your ego while inwardly you
harbor feelings that you are inept, incompetent, unworthy, inadequate
and unable to put two words together without giving yourself away.

Not to worry, though, because you gave yourself away long ago. I
believe one description would be that you constantly "overcompensate".
You have an inferiority complex that's covered up by a superiority
complex. But all that's just a guess.

Most likely, the correct technical term for you would be "crazy as a
loon".

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

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:22:58 -0500, 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.

Ickyistic works better for you.

On 2/29/2012 3:31 PM, DanielSan wrote:


Gnostic is an old word for a type of theist.

Theist is what describes someone that /believes/ in a deity (deism is a
specific type of theism).

I am not any kind of
theist.

Then you're an atheist.

I'm sure I made that clear. Are you stupid? or just trolling
again.

You're the one claiming that you're not an agnostic or an atheist.
Therefore, you must be a gnostic theist.

Painus is a believer. 18 months ago he was pro-ID. Specifically,
he went on and on as he did here with an irreducible complexity
argument. After I blew THAT out of the water, he pretty much shut
up about ID, but he still holds notions that are clearly religious
in nature.

Even this 'I have no opinion' crap is a disguise. He knows he has
no rational argument so he tries to save face rather than examine
his own thoughts.




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

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 13:08:52 -0500, HVAC wrote:

On 2/29/2012 12:23 PM, Painius wrote:


It's funny to watch you go down with the ship.

You start with an attitude of arrogance, then end with frustration
and insults. Truly an example of strange human behavior.

Behavior you have exhibited often in alt.astronomy.

You can beat me, slug me, kick me, and shoot me. None of that will
change the fact that you're a blind, bleating sheep like all the rest
of your atheist and theist friends and enemies.

You're funny. You let this **** GET to you?

It's been slow today. It'll pick back up, soon.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:27:35 -0500, Painius wrote:

I DO NOT CLAIM TO BE A THEIST.


Well, not intentionally perhaps, but your speech/writing patterns, and arguments, tell a
different story

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.


You rock!








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