"THIS is my Letter to the World!"

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 07:33:51PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 03:18:01PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:
Well, I'm always trying to reduce ignorance. That ought to go without
saying.


You should try harder.


Oh, I think I'm trying much harder than I should. But this isn't a
perfect world, so I guess we have to make allowences.


So I guess we'll just have to chalk it up to a lack of capability on
your part rather than a lack of effort, then.


Do you imagine that I enjoy all this distracting besides-the-point
back-and-forth?


I assume you must, else you wouldn't do it.

Why, if I'm not
mistaken, women are still underpaid in comparison to men for
equivalent work. Imagine that.


Equal pay for 'equivalent' work is just a catch phrase for overruling
market value and artificially inflating pay in occupations
historically dominated by women.

If you say so it must be trve.


Other way around. It it's true, I must say so.

If you don't want to reveal your sources that's fine. No
need to make a big deal out of it.


Let me ask again. Did you have a point in making the inquiry, or were
you merely trying to remedy yet another area of ignorance?

If you had simply answered the question the first time it was asked
instead of pointlessly arguing and casting aspersions, you and I would
have wasted billions and billions fewer electrons.

And if you didn't ask stupid questions in the first place it would
have wasted even fewer.

This must be some strange value of 'you' with which I am not
intimately familiar.


Know thyself.

If you can't handle discussion in which both parties enjoy equal
status then say so. Be a man. Be honest about your priorities.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
10+ years dispossessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus
theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same.
20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch,
accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assassination by
right-tards, pigs, and their handlers.
= 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 10:59:49PM -0500, Paul F Austin wrote:
There are areas where science has absolutely no competence,
esthetics, morals and justice being examples.

So there is still work to be done!

singing
Science marches bravely onward
Through thick and thin opposition
Bravely assuming everything it can
Despite despotic opposition
To its mundane proclomations
And colorless conclusions
Of prosaic reality
In opposition to all
Fuzzy thinking and political knowing
Which it must be said
Is a poor substitute
For a good theory of whatever
Even if Lady Gaga is more
Popular.
/singing

Sorry.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
10+ years dispossessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus
theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same.
20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch,
accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assassination by
right-tards, pigs, and their handlers.
= 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
On Jan 1, 8:42 am, "Jonathan" wrote:

IF science and religion are abstractly defined in
terms of their chosen methods of gathering data
and their chosen frame of reference with respect
to causation. Then...

1) Science;

a. Methods; tools of modern science
b. Causation; upward (objective reductionism)

2) Religion;

a. Methods; scripture and revelation
b. Causation: downward (subjective holism)

I think it's clear that (1a) is completely correct.
And just as clear (2a) is completely idiotic.
Let's keep what makes sense and toss
the rest.

So in logically /resolving/ the two competing methods
we start with (1a), but we still need to decide
which direction to use for causation, in order to build
the new unified view of reality.

Upward or downward?
Particle physics or system behavior?
............

This nicely sums up what your initial post was about. However, (1b)
works - and works well - for understanding how things work. There has
been some useful work done lately in the (2b) area with things like
chaos theory, but there is no reason to throw out all other science in
order to harmonize science and religion.

.................


Not toss out. But put the two in their proper places.
When the two are used together, that's when the
new ground is broken.

Reality is cyclic in character, output feeds back into
input (non-linear), not linear (cause then effect).
But in any iteration is the starting point so obvious?

The emergent system properties (output/subjective)
best show the underlying patterns of behavior
or fundamental laws. Objective methods are best for
....applying those laws. Emergence for theory
and objective reductionism for building things.

For instance, when designing my stock trading
strategy I began entirely with theory based
on self-organizing systems. Once I derived
the idealized chart pattern...then..I had to
return to the nuts and bolts of classical objective
techniques, learning all the ins-and-outs of trading
rules and so on.

And the reason why I was able to precisely
predict the great stock market crash in advance
was that system was the most complicated
situation possible, countless interacting markets
/combined/ with the least predictable behavior
possible, a rare and complete panic.

Normally all that would add up to the very least
predictable situation one could possibly imagine
from an objective view.Yet it took me fifteen minutes
to recognize what was about to happen and make
the /precise/ prediction of the total drop using
nothing more than a one-year chart of the Dow.

Here's why...Complexity Science is all things inverse
from classical reductionist methods. Hence, what's the
absolute most intractable problem from a objective
perspective, is the very simplest problem of all
from a complexity perspective.

The shear complexity of an impending world-wide
economic panic works ...for you from a complexity
view.

Inverse the initial frame of reference, from part
properties to emergent properties, and you
inverse the results, the point of the original post.
And this works with all real world systems.

From stock trading to the concept of God.
And everything in between.



And turning psychology into a mathematically-guided discipline is
something that is likely to prove difficult.


Quite the opposite is true, I find it the easiest to predict panic
driving behavior. As that behavior is NOT dependent upon
the hidden inner mechanisms, and if complex enough, then
the behavior becomes...universal. ALL complex adaptive
systems behave much the same way when at The Edge
of Chaos, at the edge each system displays it's only
two possible future states. Called bifurcating, or pre-images.
Once the two forms, for any given system, are seen then
a child could predict what's about to happen.

When it comes to stock trading, the huge advantage this quote
describes should be easy to see.

"Edge Methodology for Complex Systems Simulation"

"If we have a complex system whose formula is unknown in detail,
one would think it is impossible to determine with any certainty
its ultimate behavior. However, one of the main themes within
the field of Chaos Theory is the universal behavior of complex systems
on the edge of chaos where the main features of the "outward"
behavior are not dependent on their hidden "inward" mechanism."
http://www.calresco.org/milov/ymtemcss.htm



Of course, it would be nice to have something that compels universal
agreement - the way the obvious success of the physical sciences does


It's extraordinarily difficult for classically trained people
to accept a subjective form of mathematics. It just
doesn't 'compute'. You have to really try.


- that would provide ethical guidelines for life. It wouldn't stop
greedy people from robbing banks, but if everyone even just agreed
that one shouldn't choose a husband for one's daughter without her
permission, this would reduce friction between different cultural
groups.

I don't think chaos theory is up for this task, though.

Chaos theory is to Complexity Science as geometry is
to calculus. The trick is in learning how to quantity
highly subjective observations or behavior such as
a panic.

I'd be happy to go through the entire derivation on how
I drew the ideal chart pattern if you like. It took me quite
a while to figure it how. It's quite different from what we've
all grown up with. And what results is simplicity on such
an elegant level,


Jonathan



John Savard


Calresco Themes (*in essay form)
http://calresco.org/themes.htm

Self-Organizing Faq
http://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm

Dynamics of Complex Systems
(full online textbook)
http://www.necsi.org/publications/dcs/

Steinhardt
Director, Princeton Center for Theoretical Physics
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/...cosmology.html

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Dynamics of Complex Systems"

"The study of complex systems in a unified framework has become
recognized in recent years as a new scientific discipline, the ultimate
of interdisciplinary fields. Breaking down the barriers between physics,
chemistry and biology and the so-called soft sciences of psychology,
sociology, economics, and anthropology, this text explores the
universal physical and mathematical principles that govern the
emergence of complex systems from simple components."
http://www.necsi.org/publications/dcs/

That's great, but has nothing to do with "religious philosophy".


The word interdisciplinary doesn't mean anything to you?
Don't you have a single abstract bone in your body?



For instance, an idea, or even a goal is a complex system.
NASA's recent spate of manned space flight goals, judged
by the cold hard mathematics of Complexity Science, flunk
miserably. So badly they don't even deserve a grade at all.

NASA's "goals" are largely politically driven. Always have been, always
will be. Unfortunately, science is currently taking a beating in
politics. Politicians largely ignore science when it disagrees with
their world view. Sounds similar to religion to me...


Right, the goals flunk big time. The idea goal would be a balance
between discovery and tangible benefits. Between what's good
for the industry and taxpayers, between the present and future.
And so on. Between the static and chaotic.

When one side calls the shots, a dismal outcome is almost
a mathematical certainty.


Jonathan


s










Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

Uncle Steve wrote on 1/4/2012 in :

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 07:33:51PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 03:18:01PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:
Well, I'm always trying to reduce ignorance. That ought to go
without saying.


You should try harder.


Oh, I think I'm trying much harder than I should. But this isn't a
perfect world, so I guess we have to make allowences.


So I guess we'll just have to chalk it up to a lack of capability on
your part rather than a lack of effort, then.


Do you imagine that I enjoy all this distracting besides-the-point
back-and-forth?


I assume you must, else you wouldn't do it.

Why, if I'm not
mistaken, women are still underpaid in comparison to men for
equivalent work. Imagine that.


Equal pay for 'equivalent' work is just a catch phrase for overruling
market value and artificially inflating pay in occupations
historically dominated by women.

If you say so it must be trve.


Other way around. It it's true, I must say so.

If you don't want to reveal your sources that's fine. No
need to make a big deal out of it.


Let me ask again. Did you have a point in making the inquiry, or were
you merely trying to remedy yet another area of ignorance?

If you had simply answered the question the first time it was asked
instead of pointlessly arguing and casting aspersions, you and I would
have wasted billions and billions fewer electrons.

And if you didn't ask stupid questions in the first place it would
have wasted even fewer.

This must be some strange value of 'you' with which I am not
intimately familiar.


Know thyself.

If you can't handle discussion in which both parties enjoy equal
status then say so. Be a man. Be honest about your priorities.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

What a ********.

Regards,

Uncle Fred

--

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

In short, religious philosophy is based on
observation, reason and logic.


This is a sweeping generalization that does not hold true in all cases.


I was referring to The Vatican. It's the oldest continually existing
institution on Earth, making it a great source. The point was that
the assumption that subjective observations, where 'proof' isn't
really possible, doesn't automatically mean the conclusions are
based on blind faith. It's possible to come to a conclusion through
logic and reason only, without evidence or proof.

Even using "The Vatican" as a specific example, your argument is still
complete and utter B.S.


Why did it take "The Vatican" 400 years to rewrite history on Galileo?


You haven't done your homework on that scandal. Galileo had it
coming, and on scientific grounds. Do you know the true
reason why The Vatican stopped him from teaching?

Galileo was teaching that the proof of the Copernican system
is because of the tides. The Vatican opposed his proof, not
the Copernican system. The Church was in fact the ...source
of the Copernican system since they bankrolled the research
of Copernicus and Galileo.

The Church wanted Galileo to stop teaching it until a better proof
was found. Up until then he was on the steady payroll of The Vatican
and was in fact a scientific 'darling' of the Church because
of the telescope.


"Nevertheless it was a churchman, Nicholas Copernicus, who first
advanced the contrary doctrine that the sun and not the earth
is the centre of our system, round which our planet revolves,
rotating on its own axis. His great work, "De Revolutionibus
orbium coelestium", was published at the earnest solicitation
of two distinguished churchmen, Cardinal Schömberg and
Tiedemann Giese, Bishop of Culm. It was dedicated by
permission to Pope Paul III in order, as Copernicus explained,
that it might be thus protected from the attacks which it was
sure to encounter on the part of the "mathematicians"
(i.e. philosophers) for its apparent contradiction of the
evidence of our senses, and even of common sense."

"That their opposition was grounded, as is constantly assumed,
upon a fear lest men should be enlightened by the diffusion of
scientific truth, it is obviously absurd to maintain. On the contrary,
they were firmly convinced, with Bacon and others, that the
new teaching was radically false and unscientific, while it is now
truly admitted that Galileo himself had no sufficient proof of
what he so vehemently advocated, and Professor Huxley
after examining the case avowed his opinion that the
opponents of Galileo "had rather the best of it".
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm


You do know who Prof Huxley is right?


Anyone with an understanding of basic mathematics and a small telescope
could do the same observations performed by Galileo. This is the exact
sort of "observation, reason and logic" that you're asserting is the
foundation of "religious philosophy".
This would have show that Galileo
was right all along. If "The Vatican" operated based on "observation,
reason and logic", history wouldn't have played out as it did.


I was talking about the philosophy of the Vatican, not the politics
or various idiots that came and went. I don't expect you to defend
science by pointing out it's worst examples.

I mean if Hitler believed in science, not God, does that
mean all of science is evil?

It should be obvious that a subject like our ultimate creation
cannot be scientifically proven. Unless you somehow can
see beyond the big bang?

The only way is reason and logic.


Jonathan


s








Vatican Rewrites History On Galileo

Galileo is *the* textbook example of the complete lack of "observation,
reason and logic" at "The Vatican".

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 05:14:08PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 07:32:38PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 03:19:52PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:
Science does not require the falsification of negative propositions.

Actually, yes, it does. You don't understand science very well, do
you?

Not that proposition.


Yes, that proposition.


Look. I might assert that the Earth's moon is
a hologram generated by hyper-sophisticated machinery, capable of
simulating physical reality sufficiently to accommodate lunar probes
and primitive moon landings by 20th century technology, and then ask
you to disprove my assertions. Your question amounts to the same
thing. No sane person is going to allow you to make that kind of
set-up and then get down to work to disprove your idiot assertions.


I've made no assertions. You have. Put up or admit you have no proof
and that you're basing it on 'faith'.


There is an implied assertion in asking someone to prove that 'god'
doesn't exist.


Nonsense.


To ask that question at all, you must first assume
that 'god' exists.


Really? Why? Are your logical faculties so deranged?

One more time - An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So you are just wasting my time with your pointless questions. Not
only that, but you deny your own position in the discussion.

Well assume all you want, but manufacturing the
conditions of your premise and then asking someone to disprove your
assumptsion is a little like a right-tard wasting people's time with
the abortion debate.


My only 'assumption' is that you have no proof for your assertions,
which makes them the same as any other fundamentalist religionist;
purely based on faith.

Ok, so in other words you are unable to discuss matters intelligently
with people who disagree with you. Have fun speaking with people
who'll kiss your ass and put up with your PR bull****.

Actually, you answer comes as something of a surprise as I thought you
might make some sort of pointless excursion towards illustrating how
or why religious people claim to know certain things as contrasted to
the way I use the verb 'know', as in my previous message above.


You've asserted an absolute claim based on no evidence. I'm still
waiting for you to trot out said evidence.

Note that an absence of evidence FOR something is not the same as
evidence of an absence OF something....

As above, so below.

Indeed.

Next.


You keep running away, Stevie. The only people you're making a
convincing case with is your co-religionists.

You may as well declare victory and move on the the next sucker. As
they say, your dog don't hunt.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
10+ years dispossessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus
theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same.
20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch,
accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assassination by
right-tards, pigs, and their handlers.
= 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 08:35:14PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 05:14:08PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 07:32:38PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 03:19:52PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:
Science does not require the falsification of negative propositions.

Actually, yes, it does. You don't understand science very well, do
you?

Not that proposition.


Yes, that proposition.


Look. I might assert that the Earth's moon is
a hologram generated by hyper-sophisticated machinery, capable of
simulating physical reality sufficiently to accommodate lunar probes
and primitive moon landings by 20th century technology, and then ask
you to disprove my assertions. Your question amounts to the same
thing. No sane person is going to allow you to make that kind of
set-up and then get down to work to disprove your idiot assertions.


I've made no assertions. You have. Put up or admit you have no proof
and that you're basing it on 'faith'.


There is an implied assertion in asking someone to prove that 'god'
doesn't exist.


Nonsense.


To ask that question at all, you must first assume
that 'god' exists.


Really? Why? Are your logical faculties so deranged?

One more time - An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


So you are just wasting my time with your pointless questions.


No, I'm just asking for your PROOF of what you have asserted. Failing
that, I await your admission that you have none other than 'faith'.

Bull****. You're shilling for faith because you're a brainwashed
moron. And that's your problem. No one else is responsible for your
committal to religious ideology. Just you.

Not
only that, but you deny your own position in the discussion.


Poppycock. Apparently your only 'defense' of your assertion is to
constitute twisting and outright lies. So be it.

You're only going to convince morons that a projection of your own
rhetorical shortcomings magically absolves you of the responsibility
of your own ideological convictions. It must suck to be so weak that
you can't even stand behind your own thoughts and opinions.

Well assume all you want, but manufacturing the
conditions of your premise and then asking someone to disprove your
assumptsion is a little like a right-tard wasting people's time with
the abortion debate.


My only 'assumption' is that you have no proof for your assertions,
which makes them the same as any other fundamentalist religionist;
purely based on faith.

Ok, so in other words you are unable to discuss matters intelligently
with people who disagree with you.


This appears to be the outcome in this case, presumably stemming from
the poor quality of the person disagreeing with me.

If you had a clue you wouldn't be sitting on your fat ass pretending
to be arguing your position when in fact you are engaging in PR spin-
doctoring. Again, it must suck to be so weak as to make one unable to
handle the real world as it is.

Have fun speaking with people
who'll kiss your ass and put up with your PR bull****.


Which "PR bull****" would that be?

So, can you PROVE your claim or not? Yes or no?

I'm sure all the morons on Usenet are impress with your rhetorical prowess.

Actually, you answer comes as something of a surprise as I thought you
might make some sort of pointless excursion towards illustrating how
or why religious people claim to know certain things as contrasted to
the way I use the verb 'know', as in my previous message above.


You've asserted an absolute claim based on no evidence. I'm still
waiting for you to trot out said evidence.

Note that an absence of evidence FOR something is not the same as
evidence of an absence OF something....

As above, so below.

Indeed.

Next.


You keep running away, Stevie. The only people you're making a
convincing case with is your co-religionists.

You may as well declare victory and move on the the next sucker. As
they say, your dog don't hunt.


And your dog is apparently stuffed.

Can you offer any proof for your assertion? Yes or no?

As much as you might find it amusing to insist that your opponents are
required to address and answer stupid questions, those of us with more
than half a brain are not so encumbered. If I were you, I wouldn't be
asking someone to prove that 'god' doesn't exist as it is a
meaningless question as stated. For one thing, it assumes that there
is some reason to presuppose that 'god' exists, and does so without
one shred of evidence.

It is much better to ask what people mean when they use the term 'god'
in speech or writing. So, Fred, what do you mean when you use the
term 'god' and 'exists' in the same sentence? I recognize the
futility of imagining that you'll supply an honest response to this
question. As we know, religious people behave very differently when
someone is watching, as opposed to times when you feel you are not
observed.

The real problem here, which you seem desperate to conceal, is that
'god' in colloquial use is a word without a proper definition. That
is, when people use the term they may be making reference to any of
several distinct and contradictory meanings, but invariably they fall
back on the 'supreme being' definition when called on it. This
follows from the idea that some people hold that their calling in life
is to manifest 'god's' will on Earth through the mechanics of their
actions and faith. In doing so, they recapitulate the agency of their
will to a fictional concept and deny personal responsibility for
their actions. Never mind people who have a 'god complex', such as
doctors with an inflated sense of their own importance.

This is not to say some stupid and credulous individuals don't believe
in a supreme deity owing to their inability to conceive natural
phenomenon in rational terms. But the point to be made here is that
'god' isn't the simple concept you right-tards make it out to be, and
your insistence in proof of non-existence is merely one way that you
confuse the issues. I imagine you think that all the distortion and
misdirection is helpful in brainwashing your children so they will be
largely unable to think clearly about religion and its real-world
costs.

So declare yourself the 'winner' of the discussion and move on to the
next sucker.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
10+ years dispossessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus
theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same.
20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch,
accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assassination by
right-tards, pigs, and their handlers.
= 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Uncle Steve wrote on 1/6/2012 in :

On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 08:35:14PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 05:14:08PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 07:32:38PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 03:19:52PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:
Science does not require the falsification of negative
propositions.
Actually, yes, it does. You don't understand science very well, do
you?

Not that proposition.


Yes, that proposition.


Look. I might assert that the Earth's moon is
a hologram generated by hyper-sophisticated machinery, capable of
simulating physical reality sufficiently to accommodate lunar probes
and primitive moon landings by 20th century technology, and then ask
you to disprove my assertions. Your question amounts to the same
thing. No sane person is going to allow you to make that kind of
set-up and then get down to work to disprove your idiot assertions.


I've made no assertions. You have. Put up or admit you have no proof
and that you're basing it on 'faith'.


There is an implied assertion in asking someone to prove that 'god'
doesn't exist.


Nonsense.


To ask that question at all, you must first assume
that 'god' exists.


Really? Why? Are your logical faculties so deranged?

One more time - An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


So you are just wasting my time with your pointless questions.


No, I'm just asking for your PROOF of what you have asserted. Failing
that, I await your admission that you have none other than 'faith'.

Bull****. You're shilling for faith because you're a brainwashed
moron. And that's your problem. No one else is responsible for your
committal to religious ideology. Just you.

Not
only that, but you deny your own position in the discussion.


Poppycock. Apparently your only 'defense' of your assertion is to
constitute twisting and outright lies. So be it.

You're only going to convince morons that a projection of your own
rhetorical shortcomings magically absolves you of the responsibility
of your own ideological convictions. It must suck to be so weak that
you can't even stand behind your own thoughts and opinions.

Well assume all you want, but manufacturing the
conditions of your premise and then asking someone to disprove your
assumptsion is a little like a right-tard wasting people's time with
the abortion debate.


My only 'assumption' is that you have no proof for your assertions,
which makes them the same as any other fundamentalist religionist;
purely based on faith.

Ok, so in other words you are unable to discuss matters intelligently
with people who disagree with you.


This appears to be the outcome in this case, presumably stemming from
the poor quality of the person disagreeing with me.

If you had a clue you wouldn't be sitting on your fat ass pretending
to be arguing your position when in fact you are engaging in PR spin-
doctoring. Again, it must suck to be so weak as to make one unable to
handle the real world as it is.

Have fun speaking with people
who'll kiss your ass and put up with your PR bull****.


Which "PR bull****" would that be?

So, can you PROVE your claim or not? Yes or no?

I'm sure all the morons on Usenet are impress with your rhetorical prowess.

Actually, you answer comes as something of a surprise as I
thought you might make some sort of pointless excursion towards
illustrating how or why religious people claim to know certain
things as contrasted to the way I use the verb 'know', as in my
previous message above.

You've asserted an absolute claim based on no evidence. I'm still
waiting for you to trot out said evidence.

Note that an absence of evidence FOR something is not the same as
evidence of an absence OF something....

As above, so below.

Indeed.

Next.


You keep running away, Stevie. The only people you're making a
convincing case with is your co-religionists.

You may as well declare victory and move on the the next sucker. As
they say, your dog don't hunt.


And your dog is apparently stuffed.

Can you offer any proof for your assertion? Yes or no?

As much as you might find it amusing to insist that your opponents are
required to address and answer stupid questions, those of us with more
than half a brain are not so encumbered. If I were you, I wouldn't be
asking someone to prove that 'god' doesn't exist as it is a
meaningless question as stated. For one thing, it assumes that there
is some reason to presuppose that 'god' exists, and does so without
one shred of evidence.

It is much better to ask what people mean when they use the term 'god'
in speech or writing. So, Fred, what do you mean when you use the
term 'god' and 'exists' in the same sentence? I recognize the
futility of imagining that you'll supply an honest response to this
question. As we know, religious people behave very differently when
someone is watching, as opposed to times when you feel you are not
observed.

The real problem here, which you seem desperate to conceal, is that
'god' in colloquial use is a word without a proper definition. That
is, when people use the term they may be making reference to any of
several distinct and contradictory meanings, but invariably they fall
back on the 'supreme being' definition when called on it. This
follows from the idea that some people hold that their calling in life
is to manifest 'god's' will on Earth through the mechanics of their
actions and faith. In doing so, they recapitulate the agency of their
will to a fictional concept and deny personal responsibility for
their actions. Never mind people who have a 'god complex', such as
doctors with an inflated sense of their own importance.

This is not to say some stupid and credulous individuals don't believe
in a supreme deity owing to their inability to conceive natural
phenomenon in rational terms. But the point to be made here is that
'god' isn't the simple concept you right-tards make it out to be, and
your insistence in proof of non-existence is merely one way that you
confuse the issues. I imagine you think that all the distortion and
misdirection is helpful in brainwashing your children so they will be
largely unable to think clearly about religion and its real-world
costs.

So declare yourself the 'winner' of the discussion and move on to the
next sucker.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

What a ********

--

On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 03:58:36PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 08:35:14PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 05:14:08PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 07:32:38PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:

On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 03:19:52PM -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Uncle Steve wrote:
Science does not require the falsification of negative propositions.

Actually, yes, it does. You don't understand science very well, do
you?

Not that proposition.


Yes, that proposition.


Look. I might assert that the Earth's moon is
a hologram generated by hyper-sophisticated machinery, capable of
simulating physical reality sufficiently to accommodate lunar probes
and primitive moon landings by 20th century technology, and then ask
you to disprove my assertions. Your question amounts to the same
thing. No sane person is going to allow you to make that kind of
set-up and then get down to work to disprove your idiot assertions.


I've made no assertions. You have. Put up or admit you have no proof
and that you're basing it on 'faith'.


There is an implied assertion in asking someone to prove that 'god'
doesn't exist.


Nonsense.


To ask that question at all, you must first assume
that 'god' exists.


Really? Why? Are your logical faculties so deranged?

One more time - An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


So you are just wasting my time with your pointless questions.


No, I'm just asking for your PROOF of what you have asserted. Failing
that, I await your admission that you have none other than 'faith'.

Bull****. You're shilling for faith because you're a brainwashed
moron. And that's your problem. No one else is responsible for your
committal to religious ideology. Just you.


No, I'm am 'shilling' AGAINST faith as an argument, including YOUR
faith. That's why I keep asking you for PROOF of your assertions.
Thanks for the fine example of how you religious fundamentalists are
unable to think outside your own hidebound dogmas.

Not
only that, but you deny your own position in the discussion.


Poppycock. Apparently your only 'defense' of your assertion is to
constitute twisting and outright lies. So be it.

You're only going to convince morons that a projection of your own
rhetorical shortcomings magically absolves you of the responsibility
of your own ideological convictions. It must suck to be so weak that
you can't even stand behind your own thoughts and opinions.


What are you gibbering about now? YOU are the one making assertions
and then proving unable to offer any proof for them. Just like every
other religious zealot.

Well assume all you want, but manufacturing the
conditions of your premise and then asking someone to disprove your
assumptsion is a little like a right-tard wasting people's time with
the abortion debate.


My only 'assumption' is that you have no proof for your assertions,
which makes them the same as any other fundamentalist religionist;
purely based on faith.

Ok, so in other words you are unable to discuss matters intelligently
with people who disagree with you.


This appears to be the outcome in this case, presumably stemming from
the poor quality of the person disagreeing with me.

If you had a clue you wouldn't be sitting on your fat ass pretending
to be arguing your position when in fact you are engaging in PR spin-
doctoring. Again, it must suck to be so weak as to make one unable to
handle the real world as it is.


What really sucks is to be a religious zealot like you, who, when
called on his assertions devolves into insult as his only tactic.

Have fun speaking with people
who'll kiss your ass and put up with your PR bull****.


Which "PR bull****" would that be?

So, can you PROVE your claim or not? Yes or no?

I'm sure all the morons on Usenet are impress with your rhetorical prowess.


Is that a 'yes' or a 'no'? Why are you afraid to answer the question?

Actually, you answer comes as something of a surprise as I thought you
might make some sort of pointless excursion towards illustrating how
or why religious people claim to know certain things as contrasted to
the way I use the verb 'know', as in my previous message above.


You've asserted an absolute claim based on no evidence. I'm still
waiting for you to trot out said evidence.

Note that an absence of evidence FOR something is not the same as
evidence of an absence OF something....

As above, so below.

Indeed.

Next.


You keep running away, Stevie. The only people you're making a
convincing case with is your co-religionists.

You may as well declare victory and move on the the next sucker. As
they say, your dog don't hunt.


And your dog is apparently stuffed.

Can you offer any proof for your assertion? Yes or no?

As much as you might find it amusing to insist that your opponents are
required to address and answer stupid questions, those of us with more
than half a brain are not so encumbered. If I were you, I wouldn't be
asking someone to prove that 'god' doesn't exist as it is a
meaningless question as stated. For one thing, it assumes that there
is some reason to presuppose that 'god' exists, and does so without
one shred of evidence.


Nonsense. It's pathetic that this is the only 'argument' you can come
up with. YOU made specific claims. YOU act as if you're not the same
as other folks making claims based on faith. So where's your proof?


It is much better to ask what people mean when they use the term 'god'
in speech or writing. So, Fred, what do you mean when you use the
term 'god' and 'exists' in the same sentence?


That would rather depend on the remainder of the sentence, now
wouldn't it?


I recognize the
futility of imagining that you'll supply an honest response to this
question. As we know, religious people behave very differently when
someone is watching, as opposed to times when you feel you are not
observed.


Hell, you won't even answer a simple yes/no question and now you're
bawling your eyes out from all the smoke you're trying to raise over
the whichness of the why?


The real problem here, which you seem desperate to conceal, is that
'god' in colloquial use is a word without a proper definition. That
is, when people use the term they may be making reference to any of
several distinct and contradictory meanings, but invariably they fall
back on the 'supreme being' definition when called on it. This
follows from the idea that some people hold that their calling in life
is to manifest 'god's' will on Earth through the mechanics of their
actions and faith. In doing so, they recapitulate the agency of their
will to a fictional concept and deny personal responsibility for
their actions. Never mind people who have a 'god complex', such as
doctors with an inflated sense of their own importance.

This is not to say some stupid and credulous individuals don't believe
in a supreme deity owing to their inability to conceive natural
phenomenon in rational terms. But the point to be made here is that
'god' isn't the simple concept you right-tards make it out to be, and
your insistence in proof of non-existence is merely one way that you
confuse the issues. I imagine you think that all the distortion and
misdirection is helpful in brainwashing your children so they will be
largely unable to think clearly about religion and its real-world
costs.

So declare yourself the 'winner' of the discussion and move on to the
next sucker.


Now that you've raved away through all that, I'll simply point out
that I tend to use the word "deities" when I ask the question, not
'god' as you try to misdirect things.

Might I suggest you learn to read and then buy yourself a nice
dictionary?

But you keep stroking yourself, Stevie. I'm sure SOMEONE must be
convinced...

I know what the problem is. You're hoping to get your very own entry
in my active killfile. Nice try, but it won't work. The killfile is
for people who deserve killfiling. You're just an annoying git who
tries too hard to be an annoying git.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
10+ years dispossessed and made to reside in a ghetto-gulag, plus
theft of intellectual property and sabotage of same.
20+ years denial of service by police and the judicial branch,
accompanied by state-sponsored attacks and character assassination by
right-tards, pigs, and their handlers.
= 30 years false sense of security from The Charter of Rights and Freedoms