Aether Foreshortning at c

On 2012-Feb-29 09:58, HVAC wrote:
On 2/29/2012 11:55 AM, Painius wrote:

PS- I wasn't the only boot stomping your arse.

Exactly. In a.astro, you get your ass kicked by me and others all the
time. So you xpost to a.athie and find buddies for you to gang up on
me with. That's okay, I don't mind, justice served.

But you and your "gang of thugs" haven't kicked my ass hard enough,
yet, you loon. I still consider you and all atheists to be a bunch of
blind, bleating sheep who are atheists based upon FAITH AND FAITH
ALONE. Beating me silly won't change the fact that you're just as
whiney and wimpy as a bunch of gay theists.

Enhance your calm.

Do you expect a storm after the calm?

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"This year? A factory of semiconductors. Next year? A factory of
whole conductors!"
-- Todor Zhivkov

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:34:07 -0500, Painius wrote:

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 06:52:25 -0500, HVAC wrote:

On 2/26/2012 5:26 PM, Painius wrote:

That's my answer. Neither yes or no. My answer as to whether or not
God or god or a god exists is, "I don't know".

The question was in regards to you opinion.

You used to love "I don't know" responses. What's up with that?

I've certainly never used the expression regarding an opinion.
Why do you?

PS- I already know the answer.

So, if one of those political pollers came up to you and asked you for
your opinion on a candidate whom you had not the least bit of
knowledge, you seem to be saying that you should not be allowed to
say, "I don't have an opinion", or "I have not yet formed an opinion".
Aren't you being a little hard on yourself, SillyVAC?

And don't you EVER get tired of getting your arse kicked?

A very poor analogy.

For one, your god, there is no evidence for it's existence, and so no reason to believe
in such a thing, or to hold an opinion.
For the other, it's existence is easily confirmed, so belief is unnecessary as evidence is
available, but there is still no reason to hold an opinion.
In fact, you cannot reasonably hold an opinion unless you have more information on your
politician, than the mere fact of his existence.

Chalk and cheese son, while you are seeking an opinion about cake.

Have you never heard that famous christian and political promise, "Cake tomorrow"?

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

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

On Feb 29, 1:36*pm, HVAC 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

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.

You pipe in and say that I am an agruistic aneconomist, because I
don't know if there is such a thing as economics, therefore, I cannot
possibly believe in economics. If I don't believe in economics then I
absolutely MUST lack belief in economics. So I absolutely MUST be an
aneconomist, albeit an agruistic one.

And we go 'round 'n 'round. I say, there is not enough research to
provide proof or hard evidence for economics, so I am unable to either
believe in economics or lack belief in economics. Therefore, I am not
an economist, nor am I an aneconomist of ANY kind.

You cannot be shaken from your tree. If you believe, then you are
this. If you don't believe, then you are that. The ONLY in-between
is agruism, which means that you don't know. However, if you lack a
belief in economics, then you must be an aneconomist.

No, I am not an aneconomist of ANY kind, agruistic or otherwise. I
neither believe in economics, nor do I lack a belief in economics,
because I do not have enough information to be able to believe or lack
belief.

You are not swayed. Meanwhile, the TV debate has focused on us, you
and me. We are being taped and will be televised across the US and
Canada. Nothing can sway you, and nothing will sway me. The TV crew
thinks we'll come to blows over it, so they keep taping so they don't
miss any action!

Meanwhile, absolutely nothing changes the fact that I do not possess
enough information to make a choice either to believe in economics nor
to lack a belief in economics. Nothing. As far as I'm concerned, if
you don't have enough information, then whether you believe or lack
belief, you make that choice on faith and faith alone.

Period.

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

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:27:36 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" 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?
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.

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:30:49 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" 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.

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

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

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:02:49 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:

On 2/29/2012 11:58 AM, Painius wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:34:58 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:

On 2/28/2012 4:02 PM, Painius wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 04:44:38 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:

On 2/28/2012 4:41 AM, Painius wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 14:21:24 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:

On 2/26/2012 12:06 PM, Painius wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 00:54:06 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:

On 2/26/2012 12:42 AM, Painius wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 16:24:44 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:

On 2/25/2012 8:50 AM, Painius wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:53:29 -0500, wrote:

On 2/23/2012 9:39 PM, Painius wrote:
Harlow quipped:

See above comment Leprechauns.

That's part of your problem, Harlow. We are not talking about
characters out of fairytales,

That's *exactly* what we're discussing. When you realize that
your mind will have become open, you will have cast out the
religious teachings from your youth, and your eyes will open
to the truth.

Okay, fine then. You equate a god with a fictional Leprechaun.

Prove that a god is a fictional character. Show hard evidence that a
god is a fictional character.

Neither have any evidence for them.

Boring. Try to do better, Danny, or go back to your sandbox.

Ad hominem does not advance your position one iota. In fact, it hurts you.

All evidence to the contrary, as you seem to have moxie enough to
continue responding to my "ad hominem".

Just trying to help you.

And you are correct that neither have any evidence for them.

And only one needs evidence.

Where you fail is when you indicate that you, as an atheist, or more
accurately an agnostic atheist, are not required to provide evidence
for your lack of belief in a deity or deities.

What kind of evidence would you require beyond my statement?

What kind of evidence would you require beyond the statement of a
theist?

They're the ones saying that something exists. So, they need to provide
evidence for it.

THAT is the kind of evidence I require of both a theist and an
atheist.

Only one side is making a claim: The theist. The entire "burden of
proof" is on them.

If neither can provide such proof or hard evidence for being
either a theist or an atheist, then they both survive on FAITH AND
FAITH ALONE.

Nope. The atheist only needs to assert their atheism. The theist has
something that requires evidence.

Completely unconvincing.

Why?

Simply because both have something that requires evidence.

Actually, atheism doesn't have anything.

Your
denial of that does not make it any less true. "The atheist needs
only to assert their atheism." In other words, the atheist only needs
to assert their lack of belief in a deity or deities.

Precisely.

What makes them
so special? What is it that makes an atheist immune to the need to
support their lack of belief with proof or hard evidence?

Because they're not making a claim.

If an
atheist denies this requirement, then they deny accountability to
themselves, to their loved ones, to humanity.

Excuse me?

They are all like little ewes who bleat, "We have no accountability!
Only those sheep over there in that other pen must justify their
belief! Bleat, bleat, bleat! Baa, baa, baa!"

http://stickerish.com/wp-content/upl...lackTextSS.png

The *last* thing you need to be doing just before I go off to work is
to play dumb and innocent, Dan the Man. We've been going 'round 'n
'round about this for simply days. And you still admit to having no
clue? Doubtful.

Ciao, dude.

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

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:27:03 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" 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 !