Aether Foreshortning at c

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:08:34 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:

On 2/29/2012 9:04 AM, Painius wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 05:37:32 -0500, wrote:

On 2/28/2012 4:43 PM, Painius wrote:


The "stand" that I take is scientific. The scientific method has been
used many times in attempts to show either that a deity or deities
exist or they don't exist.


Please show ANY scientific undertaking to prove that a
deity doesn't exist.


PS- I know you don't have any and just made that up.


The scientific method has not been able to
help us discern that a deity or deities exist or do not exist.


Please show ANY use of the scientific method to prove that
a deity does not exist.


science has thusly found that as of this date and time, there is no
way to say for certain whether or not a deity or deities actually
exist.


Please show ANY evidence that 'science' thusly found that
there is no way to say for certain.


PS- I know you don't have any and just made that up.

Do your own homework, sheep.

Your claim, your homework.

Like you, Dan, I've done my homework. Harlow's crap above is just
that, a load of crap. He wouldn't *be* an atheist if he hadn't
already researched it himself. His flaw is that he has made a poor,
sheepish decision based upon FAITH AND FAITH ALONE. At least you, as
an atheist agnostic, acknowledge the possibilities. You are still a
bit sheepish, because you have decided to reject belief in a deity or
deities, or you simply lack belief in a deity or deities. You have
nothing, NOTHING solid upon which to base that decision. Your only
"saving grace" is that you have opened your eyes and mind to the
possibility that you just might be wrong. Atheists like Harlow don't
even acknowledge that they *can* be right or wrong. They are blind
sheep, bleating their way through life, no better than a theistic
blind sheep who bleats his way through his life.

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

On 2/29/2012 2:35 PM, Painius wrote:


What a boner.


Strange how everyone that disagrees with you either gets
threatened with physical assault or insulted.

You have no shame, FibberVAC.


Hey... *I* didn't threaten to break someone's arm.
Why don't you just apologize and we can move on?

Matter of fact, I will apologize to you. I apologize
for tweaking you and getting you SO riled up that you
threatened to break someone's arm.

Apology accepted?








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

On 2/29/2012 2:37 PM, Painius wrote:


Well, it is what it is.

LOL - the only thing you do in a "master"ful manner is "bating".

Yes, 'round here, you are the master bater, fer sure!


Thanks.


Pleasure.


Rim shot!







--
"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 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?

That's worse than your saying that a bullet wound is proof that a
certain person shot you. Won't hold up in court, little ram.

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

On 2/29/2012 2:35 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:


Ya, and he said that quite a while ago. Before big media came to
the fore and brought forth what we have now....Robots who say exactly
what they are told to say and look exactly how they are told to look.

Tom Jefferson, Lincoln...None would be elected to dog catcher today.

They probably lack the needed sales and marketing skills.


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

And then there was that hat.....








--
"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, Painius wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 19:51:58 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist 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.

You keep claiming that atheism is based on a faith in absence (which is
nonsensical consider what atheism is), so you've been challenged to
provide credible logic or evidence to back this up. So far you have
failed to do this, and all you've had to offer are ad hominems and
seemingly endless repeats of your claim.

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

I was asking you because I have no question about HVAC's honour.

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.

What gives you the impression that anyone's afraid of ad hominems? Ad
hominems serve an important purpose -- they bring clarity to an argument
by making it easier to identify those who lack credibility.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"In the realm of metaphysics, the fact that one feels the need of a
unifying principle does not prove the existence of that principle."
-- Camus

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:33:57 -0500, HVAC wrote:

On 2/28/2012 12:10 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:


I do not have an opinion either way.

How about ghosts? No opinion?

Bigfoot?

Your pathetic argument falls apart adversus solem ne loquitor

Ha ha: quod est callidus

The Jesuit Brothers that taught me at Our Lady Of Eternal Agony
Elementary School would be very upset with me for not knowing
the translation for this. We studied Latin during recess for fun.

The best I can glean is something about skill?

I read it as, "That's clever", but it has been a lifetime since I learned Latin roots.

On 2/29/2012 2:58 PM, Painius wrote:



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


What a friggin drama queen. Painus!...Get a grip.

Humanity? Seriously?











--
"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 13:26:25 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the
non-existent atheist goddess" wrote:

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/

Be aware, though, that heinlein-worshippers might be almost as
good a name for that site. According to them, RAH never wrote a
bad book. The more general opinion is that _The Number of the
Beast_ flagged the point at which his health problems had caused a
serious mental decline, and that it and most subsequent works are
better avoided.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

On 2/29/2012 3:03 PM, Painius wrote:



YOU probably have no opinion as to whether or not you're a kook.

In some ways, yes, I'm eccentric.

That wasn't the question.

You're such a fool, a clown, that you don't even know what question
you asked?

Of being a fool and a clown, I am guilty. There's worse things to be.

My question was if you were a kook. You answered, 'eccentric'.

It wasn't as good of a dodge as, "I have no opinion regarding whether
or not I have an opinion". But it was a nice try.


But I do have to go soon on a job, so have your way with me


That ship left the dock long ago.




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