| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"SmartyPants" |
| Date: |
18 Sep 2006 12:13:22 PM |
| Object: |
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
A cool list by Kal Nasser:
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN
10- You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by
other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of
your god.
9- You feel insulted and "de-humanized" when scientists say that people
evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the
Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8- You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a
Trinity god.
7- Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed
to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God
slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus", and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua", including women,
children, and trees!
6- You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about
gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the
Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got
killed and came back to life and ascended into the sky.
5- You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in
the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years),
but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by
pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the
Earth is a couple of generations old.
4- You believe that the entire population of this planet, with the
exception of those who share your beliefs, even including large sects
of Christians, will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering.
And yet you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving".
3- While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have
failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the
floor speaking in "tongues" is all the evidence you need to prove
Christianity.
2- You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered
prayers. And you consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And
you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
(Which begs the question: If it's all the will of God, why the hell
pray in the first place?)
And the Top Sign that you are a Christian:
1- Most Atheists and Agnostics know a hell of a lot more about the
Bible, Christianity, and church history than you do. (Which might be an
indication of the very reason that you are still a Christian).
I love these sorts of things.
.
|
|
| User: "magilla" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
24 Sep 2006 08:06:46 PM |
|
|
Pangur Ban wrote:
"magilla" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1159127479.588871.315460@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
magilla wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
"snip" for bandwidth
I would bet that nothing would
satisfy you, because your mind is closed on the matter.
On the contrary, nothing would satisfy me because my mind is open.
My, are you truly saying that your mind is so open that nothing stays in
it - therefore nothing would satisfy you?
Why didn't you just say you were empty-headed? It would have saved
bandwidth.
Pang
Um, is that at me, or Tuco?
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
24 Sep 2006 08:41:24 PM |
|
|
"magilla" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1159146406.404067.29420@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
Pangur Ban wrote:
"magilla" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1159127479.588871.315460@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
magilla wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with
this:
"snip" for bandwidth
I would bet that nothing would
satisfy you, because your mind is closed on the matter.
On the contrary, nothing would satisfy me because my mind is open.
My, are you truly saying that your mind is so open that nothing stays
in it - therefore nothing would satisfy you?
Why didn't you just say you were empty-headed? It would have saved
bandwidth.
Pang
Um, is that at me, or Tuco?
Chris
If I counted the >'s correctly, there are four in front of the original
comment to which I added my nonsense. Looking at the top I see ">> >>
magilla wrote:". Doesn't that mean someone named Magilla wrote the
comment to which I replied? I am still learning about posts and all the
's and such. Sorry.
Pang - still with TIC (tongue in cheek)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
28 Sep 2006 12:42:47 AM |
|
|
magilla wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
magilla wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And
you have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their
fantasies. At least their fantasies have a promise of a better
return for them if they are right.
It's a scientific result from a scientific test that has yielded
repeated results. Therefore it is not a fantasy, it is a fact. But
you go on believing your magicgod stories. Science won't toss you
into a lake of fire (whatever *that* is) for non-belief.
And what scientific test are you talking about?
Sigh. I forgot, you're an uneducatable Christian.
Wrong.
On the evidence of your posts, he's a lot more right than wrong.
I would like to know how your proof of the 4.55 billion figure
satisfies the requirements of the Scientific Method. Aren't those
suppossed to be the rules scientist-worshiping fools like yourself
live by?
Do your own homework. Look up "radiometric dating". Or just cry about
it, like Jesus would.
Impressive word. But does it work?
Yes.
Can it be proven to work?
Depends on your standard of proof.
Exactly.
I would bet that nothing would
satisfy you, because your mind is closed on the matter.
On the contrary, nothing would satisfy me because my mind is open. For
the sake of arguement, let's say that Radiometric Dating can be proven
to work for items whose age is known to be 10,000 years.
Just because it works up to 10,000 years, it doesn't mean it will work
to 4.55 billion years. Biiiig difference.
There is ample evidence that these dating systems work. They are
corroborated by things like ice core samples and tree ring data. They
are also internally consistent. If you are testing a method, the first
thing you look for is consistency. If the method is unreliable, it
yields different results for the same sample. Radiometric dating yields
identical answers on the same sample. You also want independent
confirmation of your results. Those, as I mentioned, are provided by
methods having nothing to to with radiometric methods.
There are two things you should test for: Accuracy and Consistency.
Depending on the situation, Consistency could be more important than
Accuracy.
Of course you want independent confirmation of your results. That's
exactly why it can't be proven to be accurate or consistent to 4.55
billion years. There is not independent confirmation that something is
4.55 billion years old. Instead of mindlessly repeating principles of
the scientific method, you should try to actually apply them. What a
fucking hypocrite! You remind me of fake "sunday morning" christians.
I believe this will go over your head, but I will give it a try:
In general, if you want to test the Accuracy and Consistency of a
model, you would have to test it over the whole range of possible
values of the variables. If the range of possible values is from A to
B, then testing it over a range from A to C, where C is less than B,
does not provide you for a valid test, specially if C is signinficantly
less than B.
Specifically speaking about this test, recorded history is somewhere in
the range of 10,000 years, so independent tests can only be performed
up to that time. For this case, A=0, B=4.55 billion, C=10,000. I
think even someone like you can understand that there is a huge
difference between 10,000 and 4.55 billion.
To deny the validity of radiometric methods after the thorough testing
they've received is not the mark of an open mind. It is perverse.
As already shown, it is impossible to thoroughly test it. To "think"
otherwise is not the mark of a scientific mind, but that of a moron.
Just to give you an idea, proportionally speaking, the difference
between 4.55 billion years and 10,000 years, is similar to the
difference between being able to see from LA to New York and being able
to see to the tip of your nose.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, of course.
Obiously you don't understand the principles involved. You should try
to understand what Inductive Logic is, and more importantly, specially
its weaknesses.
If I was to travel from LA to New York, I wouldn't reach any
conclussion as to the weather in New York based on what I see at the
tip of my nose, would you?
Why do you think non sequiturs support your position? Why don't you
present me with particulars concerning radiometric methods. Are rates
of decay changing all of a sudden? Has there been a rash of nuclear
submarines exploding recently? Do you see how stupid your position is?
You don't consider Logic to be important, do you?
However, just
to make sure, I would say that there are many, many types of
radiometric dating, one of the most reliable being isochron dating. You
might read up on that. Isochron dating can be done with many different
isotopes, and it works independently of the initial concentrations of
the isotopes. Those many different forms of isochron dating yield
remarkably similar results for the age of the planet.
If you
had a brain woth 2 cents, you would know that it is impossible to prove
that something is or isn't 4.55 billion years old.
Well, it isn't about "proof", since geology (and science in general)
don't deal in proof. We deal in evidence, and all the evidence points
to a 4.6 billion year old planet.
For me to believe something, it has to be proven, otherwise I might
think it's true, but not "beyond reasonable doubt".
Then you must doubt gravity, cell theory, antenna theory, semiconductor
theory....the list goes on.
You obviously know nothing of how science really works. If you want
proof, stick to math.
I hope to someday reach your level of advancement.
Advanced stupidity.
Just for the sake of argument, let's say it's 4.55 billion years old.
Then according to you, it suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
Well, no. The planet coalesced from dust and rock in the solar system.
Things don't come from nothing.
And where did all this stuff come from?
The hairy butt of a giant space mongoose. We're all made of mongoose
*****.
Prove it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
19 Sep 2006 09:15:53 AM |
|
|
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And you
have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their fantasies. At
least their fantasies have a promise of a better return for them if
they are right.
It's a scientific result from a scientific test that has yielded repeated
results. Therefore it is not a fantasy, it is a fact. But you go on
believing your magicgod stories. Science won't toss you into a lake of
fire (whatever *that* is) for non-belief.
And what scientific test are you talking about?
I would like to know how your proof of the 4.55 billion figure
satisfies the requirements of the Scientific Method. Aren't those
suppossed to be the rules scientist-worshiping fools like yourself live
by?
that very same 'scientific method' gave you the computer and the
Internet you are now using to denounce science with ....... moron !
Since you know so much, what happened 4.55 billion years ago when
Mother Earth was born? From GrandMother Earth, I suppose?
We don't know, exactly. But it was probably similar to this.
It's a miracle! Uncle Vic has admitted that he doesn't know!
You know, but you are also not sure. Interesting.
--
Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity
.............. and I'm not sure about the Universe ..........
- A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
19 Sep 2006 09:53:47 PM |
|
|
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And you
have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their fantasies. At
least their fantasies have a promise of a better return for them if
they are right.
It's a scientific result from a scientific test that has yielded repeated
results. Therefore it is not a fantasy, it is a fact. But you go on
believing your magicgod stories. Science won't toss you into a lake of
fire (whatever *that* is) for non-belief.
And what scientific test are you talking about?
I would like to know how your proof of the 4.55 billion figure
satisfies the requirements of the Scientific Method. Aren't those
suppossed to be the rules scientist-worshiping fools like yourself live
by?
that very same 'scientific method' gave you the computer and the
Internet you are now using to denounce science with ....... moron !
I denounce blind followers of scientists, and to a lesser degree, blind
faith in science.
Do I need to explain to you why both the above are undesirable? If I
do, then you are a idiot.
Since you know so much, what happened 4.55 billion years ago when
Mother Earth was born? From GrandMother Earth, I suppose?
We don't know, exactly. But it was probably similar to this.
It's a miracle! Uncle Vic has admitted that he doesn't know!
You know, but you are also not sure. Interesting.
--
Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity
............. and I'm not sure about the Universe ..........
- A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
19 Sep 2006 09:59:02 PM |
|
|
On 19 Sep 2006 19:53:47 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158720827.334343.248170@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And you
have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their fantasies. At
least their fantasies have a promise of a better return for them if
they are right.
It's a scientific result from a scientific test that has yielded repeated
results. Therefore it is not a fantasy, it is a fact. But you go on
believing your magicgod stories. Science won't toss you into a lake of
fire (whatever *that* is) for non-belief.
And what scientific test are you talking about?
I would like to know how your proof of the 4.55 billion figure
satisfies the requirements of the Scientific Method. Aren't those
suppossed to be the rules scientist-worshiping fools like yourself live
by?
that very same 'scientific method' gave you the computer and the
Internet you are now using to denounce science with ....... moron !
I denounce blind followers of scientists, and to a lesser degree, blind
faith in science.
Do I need to explain to you why both the above are undesirable? If I
do, then you are a idiot.
Accepting the discoveries that scientists made is not blind faith.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
19 Sep 2006 10:02:48 PM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006 19:53:47 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158720827.334343.248170@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And you
have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their fantasies. At
least their fantasies have a promise of a better return for them if
they are right.
It's a scientific result from a scientific test that has yielded repeated
results. Therefore it is not a fantasy, it is a fact. But you go on
believing your magicgod stories. Science won't toss you into a lake of
fire (whatever *that* is) for non-belief.
And what scientific test are you talking about?
I would like to know how your proof of the 4.55 billion figure
satisfies the requirements of the Scientific Method. Aren't those
suppossed to be the rules scientist-worshiping fools like yourself live
by?
that very same 'scientific method' gave you the computer and the
Internet you are now using to denounce science with ....... moron !
I denounce blind followers of scientists, and to a lesser degree, blind
faith in science.
Do I need to explain to you why both the above are undesirable? If I
do, then you are a idiot.
Accepting the discoveries that scientists made is not blind faith.
Claims and discoveries are not the same thing.
And even in the case of "discoveries" made when the scientist's
intention are to find the truth, mistakes are made occassionally.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
19 Sep 2006 10:05:53 PM |
|
|
On 19 Sep 2006 20:02:48 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158721368.877022.81370@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006 19:53:47 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158720827.334343.248170@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And you
have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their fantasies. At
least their fantasies have a promise of a better return for them if
they are right.
It's a scientific result from a scientific test that has yielded repeated
results. Therefore it is not a fantasy, it is a fact. But you go on
believing your magicgod stories. Science won't toss you into a lake of
fire (whatever *that* is) for non-belief.
And what scientific test are you talking about?
I would like to know how your proof of the 4.55 billion figure
satisfies the requirements of the Scientific Method. Aren't those
suppossed to be the rules scientist-worshiping fools like yourself live
by?
that very same 'scientific method' gave you the computer and the
Internet you are now using to denounce science with ....... moron !
I denounce blind followers of scientists, and to a lesser degree, blind
faith in science.
Do I need to explain to you why both the above are undesirable? If I
do, then you are a idiot.
Accepting the discoveries that scientists made is not blind faith.
Claims and discoveries are not the same thing.
And even in the case of "discoveries" made when the scientist's
intention are to find the truth, mistakes are made occassionally.
That is why scientists check each other's work. Your implication that
there is blind faith in science is not supported by the evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
19 Sep 2006 10:16:45 PM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006 20:02:48 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158721368.877022.81370@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006 19:53:47 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158720827.334343.248170@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And you
have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their fantasies. At
least their fantasies have a promise of a better return for them if
they are right.
It's a scientific result from a scientific test that has yielded repeated
results. Therefore it is not a fantasy, it is a fact. But you go on
believing your magicgod stories. Science won't toss you into a lake of
fire (whatever *that* is) for non-belief.
And what scientific test are you talking about?
I would like to know how your proof of the 4.55 billion figure
satisfies the requirements of the Scientific Method. Aren't those
suppossed to be the rules scientist-worshiping fools like yourself live
by?
that very same 'scientific method' gave you the computer and the
Internet you are now using to denounce science with ....... moron !
I denounce blind followers of scientists, and to a lesser degree, blind
faith in science.
Do I need to explain to you why both the above are undesirable? If I
do, then you are a idiot.
Accepting the discoveries that scientists made is not blind faith.
Claims and discoveries are not the same thing.
And even in the case of "discoveries" made when the scientist's
intention are to find the truth, mistakes are made occassionally.
That is why scientists check each other's work. Your implication that
there is blind faith in science is not supported by the evidence.
I see you have blind faith, but are well meaning, so:
Has it crossed your mind that at some time in the past, present, or
future, 2 or more scientist could have had, have, or will have, a
vested interest in "proving" some pre-determined result? If your
answer is yes, then THAT'S WHAT THE ***** I'M TALKING ABOUT. If your
answer is no, then you obviously have blind faith in scientists, but
feel free to try to convince me otherwise.
It looks like you are in the US. Have you ever wondered why is it that
one year milk is good for you, and the next it's bad, and then it's
good for you again the next year, and so on. And similarly for may
products. If your answer is yes, then what conclussions have you
reached from such wonderment? If not, then why not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
20 Sep 2006 06:46:05 PM |
|
|
On 19 Sep 2006 20:16:45 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158722205.629982.144490@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006 20:02:48 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158721368.877022.81370@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006 19:53:47 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158720827.334343.248170@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And you
have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their fantasies. At
least their fantasies have a promise of a better return for them if
they are right.
It's a scientific result from a scientific test that has yielded repeated
results. Therefore it is not a fantasy, it is a fact. But you go on
believing your magicgod stories. Science won't toss you into a lake of
fire (whatever *that* is) for non-belief.
And what scientific test are you talking about?
I would like to know how your proof of the 4.55 billion figure
satisfies the requirements of the Scientific Method. Aren't those
suppossed to be the rules scientist-worshiping fools like yourself live
by?
that very same 'scientific method' gave you the computer and the
Internet you are now using to denounce science with ....... moron !
I denounce blind followers of scientists, and to a lesser degree, blind
faith in science.
Do I need to explain to you why both the above are undesirable? If I
do, then you are a idiot.
Accepting the discoveries that scientists made is not blind faith.
Claims and discoveries are not the same thing.
And even in the case of "discoveries" made when the scientist's
intention are to find the truth, mistakes are made occassionally.
That is why scientists check each other's work. Your implication that
there is blind faith in science is not supported by the evidence.
I see you have blind faith, but are well meaning, so:
Has it crossed your mind that at some time in the past, present, or
future, 2 or more scientist could have had, have, or will have, a
vested interest in "proving" some pre-determined result? If your
answer is yes, then THAT'S WHAT THE ***** I'M TALKING ABOUT. If your
answer is no, then you obviously have blind faith in scientists, but
feel free to try to convince me otherwise.
Who cares if a couple of scientists have a vested interest? You don't
seem to understand that your accusation is that all scientists have
decided to join the conspiracy when the system is rigged to make certain
that all it takes is a couple of scientists to disprove the consensus,
to disprove a fraud.
It looks like you are in the US. Have you ever wondered why is it that
one year milk is good for you, and the next it's bad, and then it's
good for you again the next year, and so on. And similarly for may
products. If your answer is yes, then what conclussions have you
reached from such wonderment? If not, then why not?
Journalists, particularly those poorly educated in science, have a
tendency, along with people with vested interests, to make simplistic
descriptions of scientific discoveries when the discoveries themselves
are not nearly as simplistic as you imagine. If we had decent science
education in the US we wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with
this.
Of course, there are also liars, like the tobacco companies, who refused
to admit that their products caused serious health problems for their
users, or George W Bush, who refuses to admit that human activity is
affecting the climate. That isn't science. That's just lies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
20 Sep 2006 08:37:19 PM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006 20:16:45 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158722205.629982.144490@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006 20:02:48 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158721368.877022.81370@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006 19:53:47 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158720827.334343.248170@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And you
have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their fantasies. At
least their fantasies have a promise of a better return for them if
they are right.
It's a scientific result from a scientific test that has yielded repeated
results. Therefore it is not a fantasy, it is a fact. But you go on
believing your magicgod stories. Science won't toss you into a lake of
fire (whatever *that* is) for non-belief.
And what scientific test are you talking about?
I would like to know how your proof of the 4.55 billion figure
satisfies the requirements of the Scientific Method. Aren't those
suppossed to be the rules scientist-worshiping fools like yourself live
by?
that very same 'scientific method' gave you the computer and the
Internet you are now using to denounce science with ....... moron !
I denounce blind followers of scientists, and to a lesser degree, blind
faith in science.
Do I need to explain to you why both the above are undesirable? If I
do, then you are a idiot.
Accepting the discoveries that scientists made is not blind faith.
Claims and discoveries are not the same thing.
And even in the case of "discoveries" made when the scientist's
intention are to find the truth, mistakes are made occassionally.
That is why scientists check each other's work. Your implication that
there is blind faith in science is not supported by the evidence.
I see you have blind faith, but are well meaning, so:
Has it crossed your mind that at some time in the past, present, or
future, 2 or more scientist could have had, have, or will have, a
vested interest in "proving" some pre-determined result? If your
answer is yes, then THAT'S WHAT THE ***** I'M TALKING ABOUT. If your
answer is no, then you obviously have blind faith in scientists, but
feel free to try to convince me otherwise.
Who cares if a couple of scientists have a vested interest? You don't
seem to understand that your accusation is that all scientists have
decided to join the conspiracy when the system is rigged to make certain
that all it takes is a couple of scientists to disprove the consensus,
to disprove a fraud.
I don't understand my accusation!!!!!! What conspiracy are you talking
about? Is it mentioned in the latest Michael Moore or Oliver Stone
movie?
How long do you think any 2 scientists who go against a universal
consensus would retain their jobs?
It looks like you are in the US. Have you ever wondered why is it that
one year milk is good for you, and the next it's bad, and then it's
good for you again the next year, and so on. And similarly for may
products. If your answer is yes, then what conclussions have you
reached from such wonderment? If not, then why not?
Journalists, particularly those poorly educated in science, have a
tendency, along with people with vested interests, to make simplistic
descriptions of scientific discoveries when the discoveries themselves
are not nearly as simplistic as you imagine. If we had decent science
education in the US we wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with
this.
"..people with vested interests...", and of course, according to you,
all scientitsts are above such things.
Of course, there are also liars, like the tobacco companies, who refused
to admit that their products caused serious health problems for their
users, or George W Bush, who refuses to admit that human activity is
affecting the climate. That isn't science. That's just lies.
Everybody who doesn't agree with you is a liar; is that how it works?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
20 Sep 2006 08:45:08 PM |
|
|
On 20 Sep 2006 18:37:19 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158802639.564108.55210@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006 20:16:45 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158722205.629982.144490@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006 20:02:48 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158721368.877022.81370@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
....
Claims and discoveries are not the same thing.
And even in the case of "discoveries" made when the scientist's
intention are to find the truth, mistakes are made occassionally.
That is why scientists check each other's work. Your implication that
there is blind faith in science is not supported by the evidence.
I see you have blind faith, but are well meaning, so:
Has it crossed your mind that at some time in the past, present, or
future, 2 or more scientist could have had, have, or will have, a
vested interest in "proving" some pre-determined result? If your
answer is yes, then THAT'S WHAT THE ***** I'M TALKING ABOUT. If your
answer is no, then you obviously have blind faith in scientists, but
feel free to try to convince me otherwise.
Who cares if a couple of scientists have a vested interest? You don't
seem to understand that your accusation is that all scientists have
decided to join the conspiracy when the system is rigged to make certain
that all it takes is a couple of scientists to disprove the consensus,
to disprove a fraud.
I don't understand my accusation!!!!!! What conspiracy are you talking
about? Is it mentioned in the latest Michael Moore or Oliver Stone
movie?
How long do you think any 2 scientists who go against a universal
consensus would retain their jobs?
You still describe science falsely. Why don't you look at a good example
that shows what happens when two scientists go up against the
establishment:
<http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/>
The press release is a good place to start:
<http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/press.html>
So, yes, my conclusion is that you don't understand how science works at
all and that you would rather _defame_ scientists than learn that your
misperceptions about science are wrong.
It looks like you are in the US. Have you ever wondered why is it that
one year milk is good for you, and the next it's bad, and then it's
good for you again the next year, and so on. And similarly for may
products. If your answer is yes, then what conclussions have you
reached from such wonderment? If not, then why not?
Journalists, particularly those poorly educated in science, have a
tendency, along with people with vested interests, to make simplistic
descriptions of scientific discoveries when the discoveries themselves
are not nearly as simplistic as you imagine. If we had decent science
education in the US we wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with
this.
"..people with vested interests...", and of course, according to you,
all scientitsts are above such things.
I've never said that. You are presenting a false, defaming model of
science. I've said that the system catches cheats, if only because of
self-interest.
Of course, there are also liars, like the tobacco companies, who refused
to admit that their products caused serious health problems for their
users, or George W Bush, who refuses to admit that human activity is
affecting the climate. That isn't science. That's just lies.
Everybody who doesn't agree with you is a liar; is that how it works?
No. It is true that you are a liar and that you disagree with me, but
you would be a liar whether you were discussing this with me or not.
Learn about science before your ignorant lies continue to defame
scientists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
20 Sep 2006 09:17:18 PM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
On 20 Sep 2006 18:37:19 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158802639.564108.55210@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006 20:16:45 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158722205.629982.144490@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006 20:02:48 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158721368.877022.81370@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
...
Claims and discoveries are not the same thing.
And even in the case of "discoveries" made when the scientist's
intention are to find the truth, mistakes are made occassionally.
That is why scientists check each other's work. Your implication that
there is blind faith in science is not supported by the evidence.
I see you have blind faith, but are well meaning, so:
Has it crossed your mind that at some time in the past, present, or
future, 2 or more scientist could have had, have, or will have, a
vested interest in "proving" some pre-determined result? If your
answer is yes, then THAT'S WHAT THE ***** I'M TALKING ABOUT. If your
answer is no, then you obviously have blind faith in scientists, but
feel free to try to convince me otherwise.
Who cares if a couple of scientists have a vested interest? You don't
seem to understand that your accusation is that all scientists have
decided to join the conspiracy when the system is rigged to make certain
that all it takes is a couple of scientists to disprove the consensus,
to disprove a fraud.
I don't understand my accusation!!!!!! What conspiracy are you talking
about? Is it mentioned in the latest Michael Moore or Oliver Stone
movie?
How long do you think any 2 scientists who go against a universal
consensus would retain their jobs?
You still describe science falsely. Why don't you look at a good example
that shows what happens when two scientists go up against the
establishment:
<http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/>
The press release is a good place to start:
<http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/press.html>
I haven't read the links, but for the sake of argument let's say that
only good things happened to these 2 guys. Is this your "proof" that
EVERYTIME 2 scientist go against the status quo, all ends well?
So, yes, my conclusion is that you don't understand how science works at
all and that you would rather _defame_ scientists than learn that your
misperceptions about science are wrong.
How have I defamed scientists? Ah, yes, I dare not blindly believe
everything I am told!! How dare I!! Who the ***** do I think I am?!!!
It looks like you are in the US. Have you ever wondered why is it that
one year milk is good for you, and the next it's bad, and then it's
good for you again the next year, and so on. And similarly for may
products. If your answer is yes, then what conclussions have you
reached from such wonderment? If not, then why not?
Journalists, particularly those poorly educated in science, have a
tendency, along with people with vested interests, to make simplistic
descriptions of scientific discoveries when the discoveries themselves
are not nearly as simplistic as you imagine. If we had decent science
education in the US we wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with
this.
"..people with vested interests...", and of course, according to you,
all scientitsts are above such things.
I've never said that. You are presenting a false, defaming model of
science. I've said that the system catches cheats, if only because of
self-interest.
An WHO runs this "system"? I suppose if W sets up a system to look for
corruption within his administration, you would think that when this
"system" doesn't come up with any evidence of corruption, that
everything is allright?
Let's make it simple for you: Who guards the guardians?
Try substituting thought for faith once in a while, and you might be
able to make something of yourself, and not have to rely on welfare.
Of course, there are also liars, like the tobacco companies, who refused
to admit that their products caused serious health problems for their
users, or George W Bush, who refuses to admit that human activity is
affecting the climate. That isn't science. That's just lies.
Everybody who doesn't agree with you is a liar; is that how it works?
No. It is true that you are a liar and that you disagree with me, but
you would be a liar whether you were discussing this with me or not.
Learn about science before your ignorant lies continue to defame
scientists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
20 Sep 2006 09:43:53 PM |
|
|
On 20 Sep 2006 19:17:18 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158805038.096143.77140@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 20 Sep 2006 18:37:19 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158802639.564108.55210@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006 20:16:45 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158722205.629982.144490@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006 20:02:48 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158721368.877022.81370@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
...
Claims and discoveries are not the same thing.
And even in the case of "discoveries" made when the scientist's
intention are to find the truth, mistakes are made occassionally.
That is why scientists check each other's work. Your implication that
there is blind faith in science is not supported by the evidence.
I see you have blind faith, but are well meaning, so:
Has it crossed your mind that at some time in the past, present, or
future, 2 or more scientist could have had, have, or will have, a
vested interest in "proving" some pre-determined result? If your
answer is yes, then THAT'S WHAT THE ***** I'M TALKING ABOUT. If your
answer is no, then you obviously have blind faith in scientists, but
feel free to try to convince me otherwise.
Who cares if a couple of scientists have a vested interest? You don't
seem to understand that your accusation is that all scientists have
decided to join the conspiracy when the system is rigged to make certain
that all it takes is a couple of scientists to disprove the consensus,
to disprove a fraud.
I don't understand my accusation!!!!!! What conspiracy are you talking
about? Is it mentioned in the latest Michael Moore or Oliver Stone
movie?
How long do you think any 2 scientists who go against a universal
consensus would retain their jobs?
You still describe science falsely. Why don't you look at a good example
that shows what happens when two scientists go up against the
establishment:
<http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/>
The press release is a good place to start:
<http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/press.html>
I haven't read the links, but for the sake of argument let's say that
only good things happened to these 2 guys. Is this your "proof" that
EVERYTIME 2 scientist go against the status quo, all ends well?
I realize that for someone who hates science, a Nobel Prize has no
meaning to you, but to most people, it is a great honor. Your
religiously inspired ignorance should be an embarrassment to you.
You are the one who has implied, repeatedly that defenders of the status
quo will always keep their lies protected. I have provided an example to
show that your defamatory claim is false.
So, yes, my conclusion is that you don't understand how science works at
all and that you would rather _defame_ scientists than learn that your
misperceptions about science are wrong.
How have I defamed scientists? Ah, yes, I dare not blindly believe
everything I am told!! How dare I!! Who the ***** do I think I am?!!!
I don't blindly believe everything I am told, but I don't blindly reject
everything about science as you do. That is how you defame.
It looks like you are in the US. Have you ever wondered why is it that
one year milk is good for you, and the next it's bad, and then it's
good for you again the next year, and so on. And similarly for may
products. If your answer is yes, then what conclussions have you
reached from such wonderment? If not, then why not?
Journalists, particularly those poorly educated in science, have a
tendency, along with people with vested interests, to make simplistic
descriptions of scientific discoveries when the discoveries themselves
are not nearly as simplistic as you imagine. If we had decent science
education in the US we wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with
this.
"..people with vested interests...", and of course, according to you,
all scientitsts are above such things.
I've never said that. You are presenting a false, defaming model of
science. I've said that the system catches cheats, if only because of
self-interest.
An WHO runs this "system"? I suppose if W sets up a system to look for
corruption within his administration, you would think that when this
"system" doesn't come up with any evidence of corruption, that
everything is allright?
There is no 'who' to run the system. There are lots of people involved,
many with conflicting goals and desires. Even if all of science were
done only for self-interest, science would be self-correcting. You
falsely and without any supporting evidence claim that it is not
corrected.
Let's make it simple for you: Who guards the guardians?
What guardians? Science is not some hierarchy with a Grand Leader. Your
ignorance is astounding. If you knew something about science, you would
not be telling such defamatory lies.
Try substituting thought for faith once in a while, and you might be
able to make something of yourself, and not have to rely on welfare.
Your accusation is wrong, of course, but it seems to be telling about
you.
Of course, there are also liars, like the tobacco companies, who refused
to admit that their products caused serious health problems for their
users, or George W Bush, who refuses to admit that human activity is
affecting the climate. That isn't science. That's just lies.
Everybody who doesn't agree with you is a liar; is that how it works?
No. It is true that you are a liar and that you disagree with me, but
you would be a liar whether you were discussing this with me or not.
Learn about science before your ignorant lies continue to defame
scientists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
20 Sep 2006 10:22:26 PM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
On 20 Sep 2006 19:17:18 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158805038.096143.77140@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 20 Sep 2006 18:37:19 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158802639.564108.55210@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006 20:16:45 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158722205.629982.144490@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006 20:02:48 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158721368.877022.81370@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
...
Claims and discoveries are not the same thing.
And even in the case of "discoveries" made when the scientist's
intention are to find the truth, mistakes are made occassionally.
That is why scientists check each other's work. Your implication that
there is blind faith in science is not supported by the evidence.
I see you have blind faith, but are well meaning, so:
Has it crossed your mind that at some time in the past, present, or
future, 2 or more scientist could have had, have, or will have, a
vested interest in "proving" some pre-determined result? If your
answer is yes, then THAT'S WHAT THE ***** I'M TALKING ABOUT. If your
answer is no, then you obviously have blind faith in scientists, but
feel free to try to convince me otherwise.
Who cares if a couple of scientists have a vested interest? You don't
seem to understand that your accusation is that all scientists have
decided to join the conspiracy when the system is rigged to make certain
that all it takes is a couple of scientists to disprove the consensus,
to disprove a fraud.
I don't understand my accusation!!!!!! What conspiracy are you talking
about? Is it mentioned in the latest Michael Moore or Oliver Stone
movie?
How long do you think any 2 scientists who go against a universal
consensus would retain their jobs?
You still describe science falsely. Why don't you look at a good example
that shows what happens when two scientists go up against the
establishment:
<http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/>
The press release is a good place to start:
<http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/press.html>
I haven't read the links, but for the sake of argument let's say that
only good things happened to these 2 guys. Is this your "proof" that
EVERYTIME 2 scientist go against the status quo, all ends well?
I realize that for someone who hates science, a Nobel Prize has no
meaning to you, but to most people, it is a great honor. Your
religiously inspired ignorance should be an embarrassment to you.
Where did I say I hate Science? Are you really this stupid?
That's a retorical question; I have dealt enough with you to safely
conclude that you actually believe the lies or nonsense you post.
Here is your "thought" process:
1) Look for his statement where he stated that he hates Science.
2) If found, great!
Else
He obviously implied it!
I like your system of thought! Reality doesn't seem to be a problem,
unlike other not so advanced systems of thought who lack this feature.
You are the one who has implied, repeatedly that defenders of the status
quo will always keep their lies protected. I have provided an example to
show that your defamatory claim is false.
Well, if, as you say, somebody is a "defender" of the status quo, and
he has lies to protect, don't you think that he will do what he needs
to do to defend the status quo and protect the lies?
Here is where another "advanced" feature of your system of thought come
in handy:
3) When reality catches up, Ignore it!
That's how I know there's no chance in hell you will actually address
the question.
So, yes, my conclusion is that you don't understand how science works at
all and that you would rather _defame_ scientists than learn that your
misperceptions about science are wrong.
How have I defamed scientists? Ah, yes, I dare not blindly believe
everything I am told!! How dare I!! Who the ***** do I think I am?!!!
I don't blindly believe everything I am told, but I don't blindly reject
everything about science as you do. That is how you defame.
And where did I say that?
It looks like you are in the US. Have you ever wondered why is it that
one year milk is good for you, and the next it's bad, and then it's
good for you again the next year, and so on. And similarly for may
products. If your answer is yes, then what conclussions have you
reached from such wonderment? If not, then why not?
Journalists, particularly those poorly educated in science, have a
tendency, along with people with vested interests, to make simplistic
descriptions of scientific discoveries when the discoveries themselves
are not nearly as simplistic as you imagine. If we had decent science
education in the US we wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with
this.
"..people with vested interests...", and of course, according to you,
all scientitsts are above such things.
I've never said that. You are presenting a false, defaming model of
science. I've said that the system catches cheats, if only because of
self-interest.
An WHO runs this "system"? I suppose if W sets up a system to look for
corruption within his administration, you would think that when this
"system" doesn't come up with any evidence of corruption, that
everything is allright?
There is no 'who' to run the system. There are lots of people involved,
many with conflicting goals and desires. Even if all of science were
done only for self-interest, science would be self-correcting. You
falsely and without any supporting evidence claim that it is not
corrected.
So you would accept W's system of corruption catching in his
administration?
Let's make it simple for you: Who guards the guardians?
What guardians? Science is not some hierarchy with a Grand Leader. Your
ignorance is astounding. If you knew something about science, you would
not be telling such defamatory lies.
It's an expression, you poor fool!
If you can't understand it, and you obviously don't (sadly, I don't
think you are pretending not to understand), then it explains a lot.
Try substituting thought for faith once in a while, and you might be
able to make something of yourself, and not have to rely on welfare.
Your accusation is wrong, of course, but it seems to be telling about
you.
Of course, there are also liars, like the tobacco companies, who refused
to admit that their products caused serious health problems for their
users, or George W Bush, who refuses to admit that human activity is
affecting the climate. That isn't science. That's just lies.
Everybody who doesn't agree with you is a liar; is that how it works?
No. It is true that you are a liar and that you disagree with me, but
you would be a liar whether you were discussing this with me or not.
Learn about science before your ignorant lies continue to defame
scientists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
21 Sep 2006 07:20:47 PM |
|
|
On 20 Sep 2006 20:22:26 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158808946.792619.228880@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 20 Sep 2006 19:17:18 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158805038.096143.77140@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
....
You still describe science falsely. Why don't you look at a good example
that shows what happens when two scientists go up against the
establishment:
<http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/>
The press release is a good place to start:
<http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/press.html>
I haven't read the links, but for the sake of argument let's say that
only good things happened to these 2 guys. Is this your "proof" that
EVERYTIME 2 scientist go against the status quo, all ends well?
I realize that for someone who hates science, a Nobel Prize has no
meaning to you, but to most people, it is a great honor. Your
religiously inspired ignorance should be an embarrassment to you.
Where did I say I hate Science? Are you really this stupid?
In your words. In your false claims. In your dishonest attempts to
defame all scientists. If you are willing to imply that all scientists
are dishonest, it can only be because you hate science.
That's a retorical question; I have dealt enough with you to safely
conclude that you actually believe the lies or nonsense you post.
Here is your "thought" process:
1) Look for his statement where he stated that he hates Science.
2) If found, great!
Else
He obviously implied it!
I like your system of thought! Reality doesn't seem to be a problem,
unlike other not so advanced systems of thought who lack this feature.
Meaningless insults are not remotely the same thing as engaging in a
proper argument. If you decide to discuss the issue at hand, let me
know.
You are the one who has implied, repeatedly that defenders of the status
quo will always keep their lies protected. I have provided an example to
show that your defamatory claim is false.
Well, if, as you say, somebody is a "defender" of the status quo, and
he has lies to protect, don't you think that he will do what he needs
to do to defend the status quo and protect the lies?
You are the one who has asserted, without any evidence to back it up,
that there are lies to protect. If you have some evidence, produce it,
until then, you are just another pathetic liar who is trying to defend
the false doctrines of his religion by defaming science.
Here is where another "advanced" feature of your system of thought come
in handy:
3) When reality catches up, Ignore it!
That's how I know there's no chance in hell you will actually address
the question.
I have addressed it. You merely assert possibilities without a shred of
evidence.
So, yes, my conclusion is that you don't understand how science works at
all and that you would rather _defame_ scientists than learn that your
misperceptions about science are wrong.
How have I defamed scientists? Ah, yes, I dare not blindly believe
everything I am told!! How dare I!! Who the ***** do I think I am?!!!
I don't blindly believe everything I am told, but I don't blindly reject
everything about science as you do. That is how you defame.
And where did I say that?
Don't you even read your own work? You have repeatedly implied that all
scientists are liars defending a false status quo, yet you have not a
shred of evidence to support any claim that any scientists are lying.
....
I've never said that. You are presenting a false, defaming model of
science. I've said that the system catches cheats, if only because of
self-interest.
An WHO runs this "system"? I suppose if W sets up a system to look for
corruption within his administration, you would think that when this
"system" doesn't come up with any evidence of corruption, that
everything is allright?
There is no 'who' to run the system. There are lots of people involved,
many with conflicting goals and desires. Even if all of science were
done only for self-interest, science would be self-correcting. You
falsely and without any supporting evidence claim that it is not
corrected.
So you would accept W's system of corruption catching in his
administration?
Your response makes no sense.
Let's make it simple for you: Who guards the guardians?
What guardians? Science is not some hierarchy with a Grand Leader. Your
ignorance is astounding. If you knew something about science, you would
not be telling such defamatory lies.
It's an expression, you poor fool!
I know the expression. I am pointing out to you that your rhetorical
question is wrongly stated here.
If you can't understand it, and you obviously don't (sadly, I don't
think you are pretending not to understand), then it explains a lot.
I understand that you are a religious zealot looking for an excuse to
attack science.
....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
22 Sep 2006 11:40:14 PM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
On 20 Sep 2006 20:22:26 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158808946.792619.228880@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 20 Sep 2006 19:17:18 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158805038.096143.77140@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
...
You still describe science falsely. Why don't you look at a good example
that shows what happens when two scientists go up against the
establishment:
<http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/>
The press release is a good place to start:
<http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/press.html>
I haven't read the links, but for the sake of argument let's say that
only good things happened to these 2 guys. Is this your "proof" that
EVERYTIME 2 scientist go against the status quo, all ends well?
I realize that for someone who hates science, a Nobel Prize has no
meaning to you, but to most people, it is a great honor. Your
religiously inspired ignorance should be an embarrassment to you.
Where did I say I hate Science? Are you really this stupid?
In your words. In your false claims. In your dishonest attempts to
defame all scientists. If you are willing to imply that all scientists
are dishonest, it can only be because you hate science.
You used "method 2" of your system of thought. Very predictable.
That's a retorical question; I have dealt enough with you to safely
conclude that you actually believe the lies or nonsense you post.
Here is your "thought" process:
1) Look for his statement where he stated that he hates Science.
2) If found, great!
Else
He obviously implied it!
I like your system of thought! Reality doesn't seem to be a problem,
unlike other not so advanced systems of thought who lack this feature.
Meaningless insults are not remotely the same thing as engaging in a
proper argument. If you decide to discuss the issue at hand, let me
know.
You are the one who has implied, repeatedly that defenders of the status
quo will always keep their lies protected. I have provided an example to
show that your defamatory claim is false.
Well, if, as you say, somebody is a "defender" of the status quo, and
he has lies to protect, don't you think that he will do what he needs
to do to defend the status quo and protect the lies?
You are the one who has asserted, without any evidence to back it up,
that there are lies to protect. If you have some evidence, produce it,
until then, you are just another pathetic liar who is trying to defend
the false doctrines of his religion by defaming science.
I must be a heretic, eh?
Don't you wish they brought back the fires?
Burn the heretic!
Here is where another "advanced" feature of your system of thought come
in handy:
3) When reality catches up, Ignore it!
That's how I know there's no chance in hell you will actually address
the question.
I have addressed it. You merely assert possibilities without a shred of
evidence.
So, yes, my conclusion is that you don't understand how science works at
all and that you would rather _defame_ scientists than learn that your
misperceptions about science are wrong.
How have I defamed scientists? Ah, yes, I dare not blindly believe
everything I am told!! How dare I!! Who the ***** do I think I am?!!!
I don't blindly believe everything I am told, but I don't blindly reject
everything about science as you do. That is how you defame.
And where did I say that?
Don't you even read your own work? You have repeatedly implied that all
scientists are liars defending a false status quo, yet you have not a
shred of evidence to support any claim that any scientists are lying.
Method 2 again? It's definitely your favorite.
...
I've never said that. You are presenting a false, defaming model of
science. I've said that the system catches cheats, if only because of
self-interest.
An WHO runs this "system"? I suppose if W sets up a system to look for
corruption within his administration, you would think that when this
"system" doesn't come up with any evidence of corruption, that
everything is allright?
There is no 'who' to run the system. There are lots of people involved,
many with conflicting goals and desires. Even if all of science were
done only for self-interest, science would be self-correcting. You
falsely and without any supporting evidence claim that it is not
corrected.
So you would accept W's system of corruption catching in his
administration?
Your response makes no sense.
Didn't you say you knew what "Who guards the guardians?" means?
Let's make it simple for you: Who guards the guardians?
What guardians? Science is not some hierarchy with a Grand Leader. Your
ignorance is astounding. If you knew something about science, you would
not be telling such defamatory lies.
It's an expression, you poor fool!
I know the expression. I am pointing out to you that your rhetorical
question is wrongly stated here.
If you can't understand it, and you obviously don't (sadly, I don't
think you are pretending not to understand), then it explains a lot.
I understand that you are a religious zealot looking for an excuse to
attack science.
And the Holy Church Of Science must be defended against the
non-believers! Those evil ones must be persecuted and erradicated off
the face of the earth, right?
...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
23 Sep 2006 11:24:35 AM |
|
|
On 22 Sep 2006 21:40:14 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158986414.178561.248110@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 20 Sep 2006 20:22:26 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158808946.792619.228880@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
....
Where did I say I hate Science? Are you really this stupid?
In your words. In your false claims. In your dishonest attempts to
defame all scientists. If you are willing to imply that all scientists
are dishonest, it can only be because you hate science.
You used "method 2" of your system of thought. Very predictable.
Do you think that claim has some meaning?
Well, if, as you say, somebody is a "defender" of the status quo, and
he has lies to protect, don't you think that he will do what he needs
to do to defend the status quo and protect the lies?
You are the one who has asserted, without any evidence to back it up,
that there are lies to protect. If you have some evidence, produce it,
until then, you are just another pathetic liar who is trying to defend
the false doctrines of his religion by defaming science.
I must be a heretic, eh?
No, just ignorant, but proud to remain ignorant.
Don't you wish they brought back the fires?
Burn the heretic!
How silly. Your proud ignorance is just more nonsense sold by some
self-described Christians and other religious zealots. Obviously,
civilization cannot give into your ignorant claims, but your foolishness
isn't such a threat that we need to equate you to bin Laden, either.
....
I don't blindly believe everything I am told, but I don't blindly reject
everything about science as you do. That is how you defame.
And where did I say that?
Don't you even read your own work? You have repeatedly implied that all
scientists are liars defending a false status quo, yet you have not a
shred of evidence to support any claim that any scientists are lying.
Method 2 again? It's definitely your favorite.
More meaningless assertions from you.
...
There is no 'who' to run the system. There are lots of people involved,
many with conflicting goals and desires. Even if all of science were
done only for self-interest, science would be self-correcting. You
falsely and without any supporting evidence claim that it is not
corrected.
So you would accept W's system of corruption catching in his
administration?
Your response makes no sense.
Didn't you say you knew what "Who guards the guardians?" means?
Yes, I did. That was why I objected to your erroneous attempt to equate
corruption in government to science.
Let's make it simple for you: Who guards the guardians?
What guardians? Science is not some hierarchy with a Grand Leader. Your
ignorance is astounding. If you knew something about science, you would
not be telling such defamatory lies.
It's an expression, you poor fool!
I know the expression. I am pointing out to you that your rhetorical
question is wrongly stated here.
If you can't understand it, and you obviously don't (sadly, I don't
think you are pretending not to understand), then it explains a lot.
I understand that you are a religious zealot looking for an excuse to
attack science.
And the Holy Church Of Science must be defended against the
non-believers! Those evil ones must be persecuted and erradicated off
the face of the earth, right?
Science is not a church. You know that. Science is testable. If you
would bother to learn something about science, you could test anything
that scientists tell us, but you don't and you won't. You force yourself
to defame science just because you _know_ you are the one lying. You
_know_ that science is testable. You _know_ that your claims are
contrary to reality.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
19 Sep 2006 11:05:50 PM |
|
|
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006 20:02:48 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158721368.877022.81370@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006 19:53:47 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158720827.334343.248170@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And you
have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their fantasies. At
least their fantasies have a promise of a better return for them if
they are right.
It's a scientific result from a scientific test that has yielded repeated
results. Therefore it is not a fantasy, it is a fact. But you go on
believing your magicgod stories. Science won't toss you into a lake of
fire (whatever *that* is) for non-belief.
And what scientific test are you talking about?
I would like to know how your proof of the 4.55 billion figure
satisfies the requirements of the Scientific Method. Aren't those
suppossed to be the rules scientist-worshiping fools like yourself live
by?
that very same 'scientific method' gave you the computer and the
Internet you are now using to denounce science with ....... moron !
I denounce blind followers of scientists, and to a lesser degree, blind
faith in science.
Do I need to explain to you why both the above are undesirable? If I
do, then you are a idiot.
Accepting the discoveries that scientists made is not blind faith.
Claims and discoveries are not the same thing.
And even in the case of "discoveries" made when the scientist's
intention are to find the truth, mistakes are made occassionally.
That is why scientists check each other's work. Your implication that
there is blind faith in science is not supported by the evidence.
I see you have blind faith, but are well meaning, so:
Has it crossed your mind that at some time in the past, present, or
future, 2 or more scientist could have had, have, or will have, a
vested interest in "proving" some pre-determined result? If your
answer is yes, then THAT'S WHAT THE ***** I'M TALKING ABOUT.
I don't think so, and I don't think you know WHAT THE ***** YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT.
Let's look at it point by point.
First, its ridiculous to talk about two or more scientists having a
vested interest in the future blah blah, because it's irrelevant.
Now what happens if some scientists have, or have had a vested interest
in "proving" some pre-determined result? They may publish something in
which they claim to have proved it. If their claim is important, other
scientists will try and replicate the results. If they are replicated,
they stand. If not, then they are questioned and probably rejected,
polywater and cold fusion being two examples.
Sometimes there is fraud and/or deceit involved. Here is an example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554422.stm
Scientific careers are ended over such things.
Science polices itself. That's why people have faith in it. We know that
experimental results will be verified and that predictions will be
tested. We also know that people with credentials are doing the work,
and have the training and socialization to maintain scientific standards.
Now contrast that with creationism. Every charlatan claiming any sort of
credentials can weigh in as though he were an expert. It doesn't matter
if they have a master's degree in civil engineering, they can weigh in
on matters of biology along with Nobel prize winners. They do no
testable experimentation and their crazy theories have no predictive or
explanatory value. They are simply "Just So" stories and not nearly as
well written as Kipling's.
The problem is that some literalist fundamentalists put all their faith
in these pseudoscientists. They have no way of refuting the real
science, so all they can do is project their ideas of religious faith in
an idea onto science and scientists. It's inappropriate, wrongheaded,
and ultimately wrong.
If your
answer is no, then you obviously have blind faith in scientists, but
feel free to try to convince me otherwise.
It looks like you are in the US. Have you ever wondered why is it that
one year milk is good for you, and the next it's bad, and then it's
good for you again the next year, and so on. And similarly for may
products. If your answer is yes, then what conclussions have you
reached from such wonderment? If not, then why not?
Same thing with caffeine. Science refines its results and improves its
experimental and statistical techniques. There's a lot we don't know
about these simple foods, and a lot we don't know about the genetics of
their physiology. So the results may vary. It takes time to tease out
what is actually going on. We don't know enough yet, and will have to
put up with this until we do.
Science deals in uncertainty and ignorance. You expect this sort of
thing. Religion does not. Don't confuse the two domains.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN |
19 Sep 2006 11:23:33 PM |
|
|
cactus wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006 20:02:48 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158721368.877022.81370@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006 19:53:47 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Tuco Ramirez" <tucodrat@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1158720827.334343.248170@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Masked Avenger wrote:
Tuco Ramirez wrote:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tuco Ramirez
(tucodrat@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Of course, you KNOW that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. And you
have the nerve of critizicing the other nuts for their fantasies. At
least their fantasies have a promise of a better return for them if
they are right.
It's a scientific result from a scientific test that has yielded repeated
results. Therefore it is not a fantasy, it is a fact. But you go on
believing your magicgod stories. Science won't toss you into a lake of
fire (whatever *that* is) for non-belief.
And what scientific test are you talking about?
I would like to know how your proof of the 4.55 billion figure
satisfies the requirements of the Scientific Method. Aren't those
suppossed to be the rules scientist-worshiping fools like yourself live
by?
that very same 'scientific method' gave you the computer and the
Internet you are now using to denounce science with ....... moron !
I denounce blind followers of scientists, and to a lesser degree, blind
faith in science.
Do I need to explain to you why both the above are undesirable? If I
do, then you are a idiot.
Accepting the discoveries that scientists made is not blind faith.
Claims and discoveries are not the same thing.
And even in the case of "discoveries" made when the scientist's
intention are to find the truth, mistakes are made occassionally.
That is why scientists check each other's work. Your implication that
there is blind faith in science is not supported by the evidence.
I see you have blind faith, but are well meaning, so:
Has it crossed your mind that at some time in the past, present, or
future, 2 or more scientist could have had, have, or will have, a
vested interest in "proving" some pre-determined result? If your
answer is yes, then THAT'S WHAT THE ***** I'M TALKING ABOUT.
I don't think so, and I don't think you know WHAT THE ***** YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT.
Let's look at it point by point.
First, its ridiculous to talk about two or more scientists having a
vested interest in the future blah blah, because it's irrelevant.
Congratulation! You are not blessed with much reading comprehension,
leaving you plenty of room for "interpretation" of what you read.
Now what happens if some scientists have, or have had a vested interest
in "proving" some pre-determined result? They may publish something in
which they claim to have proved it. If their claim is important, other
scientists will try and replicate the results. If they are replicated,
they stand. If not, then they are questioned and probably rejected,
polywater and cold fusion being two examples.
Sometimes there is fraud and/or deceit involved. Here is an example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554422.stm
Scientific careers are ended over such things.
Or not.
Science polices itself.
If you think that trusting anybody or anything that policies itself is
wise, then you are not very bright.
That's why people have faith in it.
Big mistake. Faith in ANYTHING is dangerous.
You keep mentioning Science when you really mean scientists. They are
NOT the same thing.
I trust Science up to the point where it is usable. There are things
beyond the grasp of science, regardless of whether you like it or not.
I have much lesser trust in scientists, for they have human weaknesses.
We know that
experimental results will be verified and that predictions will be
tested. We also know that people with credentials are doing the work,
and have the training and socialization to maintain scientific standards.
Do you think that only people with "credentials" know what they are
doing?
Do you think that all people with "credentials" are honest?
Now contrast that with creationism. Every charlatan claiming any sort of
credentials can weigh in as though he were an expert. It doesn't matter
if they have a master's degree in civil engineering, they can weigh in
on matters of biology along with Nobel prize winners. They do no
testable experimentation and their crazy theories have no predictive or
explanatory value. They are simply "Just So" stories and not nearly as
well written as Kipling's.
The problem is that some literalist fundamentalists put all their faith
in these pseudoscientists. They have no way of refuting the real
science, so all they can do is project their ideas of religious faith in
an idea onto science and scientists. It's inappropriate, wrongheaded,
and ultimately wrong.
If your
answer is no, then you obviously have blind faith in scientists, but
feel free to try to convince me otherwise.
It looks like you are in the US. Have you ever won | | | | | | | | |
