Even Better Reading for Non-Weenies

[[email protected]]

Creation itself is evidence.  I do not believe that any random process
could ever have the outcome of life that exists.

Then you don't understand how evolutuion works.

 

[[email protected]]

Everybody in the world, believer or athiest, operate their lives on
faith.  Believers just have a set of guidelines that have been handed
down to them  that are based upon some combination of revelation and
centuries of lessons that man learned the hard way.  Non-believers
must either internally develop their faith or they conform to the
culture around them and just kind of absorb the beliefs of the
culture.

However, make no mistake, just because you do not subscribe to a
formal set of religious principles does not mean you do not operate
your life based upon some sort of faith.  It is impossible to live
life without some set of beliefs that guide you to make a decision
when confronted with a decision where you must act quickly.

I suppose you could say that you have these beliefs but would not
impose them upon others.  I would then say, do you vote?  Do you teach
your children not to lie?  Do you teach your kids to pay ther bills?

Why not just put a child in a bubble and let them develop all their
beliefs without your interference and manipulation?

You just think you are so brilliant that you can develop your own
religion.  And certainly you have.  However you do not realize how
much of your beliefs work, only because of all the groundwork that has
been laid for you and you probably also don't realize how much you
actually do conform to the religious beliefs of the people around you.

Buleg doesn't understand the difference between science and religion.
Religion involves beliefs that you are told are true, and aren't
allowed to question. If you choose to believe something different, you
are heretic,

Science involves beliefs that have been tested against reality. You
are welcome to put forward a different belief; if you can shown that
it fits reality better than the belief - theory - that it supersedes,
you will be a hero. It does happen to be a better way of building a
model of the world.

 

[[email protected]]

Here is a climatologist that does not believe in Global Warming.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

You are a gullible twit. The author is a paid liar for the energy
industries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball

And here is an article of a couple of heretics in the religion of
Global Warming that are going to lose their jobs.

http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/state-climatologists-attacked-for-...

(If this doesn't look like the "scientific" equivalent of burning at
the stake, well - ha)

The link is broken - ""global-warming-doubts" seems to have fallen
off. Try

http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/
state-climatologists-attacked-for-global-warming-doubts

discusses a couple of understandable attempts by US state
administrations to sideline elderly climatologists whose eccentric
views are being given embarassing publicity by fuel industry funded
web-sites - of which The National Center for Policy Analysis’ E-Team
is a blantant example.

As persecution goes, this does fall a little short of burning at the
stake. And there's nothing scientific about it - it all seems to be
purely politics as usual.

 

[[email protected]]

Problem with that is, there was never a problem in the first place.

You'd better find yourself another god. The one that you are listening
to at the moment has been lying to you

The ozonists apparently don't even know where ozone COMES from - it's
the result of O2 being dissociated by a UV photon, stopping the photon.
The ozone is just a side effect of having all that free atomic oxygen
in the air.

O2 - regular gaseous oxygen - absorbs UV light at wavelengths from
70nm to 250nm. O3 - ozone - absorbs from 220nm to 330nm, though the
absorbtion tails off fairly rapidly for wavelengths longer than 290nm

The sun is a black-body radiator, and there's not a lot of 70nm to
250nm photons in the radiation hitting the atmosphere, and quite a lot
more in the 250nm to 290nm (UV-B) range that ozone does absorb.

http://www-sgc.colorado.edu/symposium_archive/2004/final/Keith_Nunn.doc

We do need that ozone to absorb the UV-B radiation.

<snipped subsequent nonsense>

 

[MooseFET]

Then you don't understand how evolutuion works.

You missed an important point. "Creation" may or may not exist. We
firmly believe that the universe does but "creation" is quite a
different matter. The entire universe could be just one of those
things that happens now and then.

Quantum physics says that things don't actually need causes to happen
and that things can come into existence from nothing. The greater the
mass or energy involved, the lower the odds but the odds never hit
zero. Since we would not exist in any of the cases without a
universe, the odds become 100% if you only include the cases with us
to remark on the issue.

 

[[email protected]]

It always made me laugh when they acted so......earnest about the hole
in the ozone layer at the south pole.  Exactly where you would expect to
find one, right there where particles stream down the magnetic pole and
slam in to the atmosphere.  Bet there is one over the northern magnetic
pole too.  Another one of those DUH things the alarmists use to control
those that don't know better.

The ozone hole isn't confined within the Antarctic and Artic circles;
no ozone at the poles is associated with reduced ozone levels closer
to the equator.

Less ozone means more UV-B which means more skin-cancers. The more
common skin cancers are easy to treat, but malignant melanoma is a
killer.

You'd laugh on the other side of you sun-burnt face if you found that
kind of change in a wart or mole.

 

[MooseFET]

If an omnipotent deciever exists, the above and an infinite number
of other claims become untestable and unfalsifiable. The problem
is that the exact same logic can be used to "prove" anything.

No:
In a universe with a deceptive god, nothing can ever be proven. This
god would also be meddling with the functioning of your brain to make
it so that logic would not work. You would believe that a bogus
argument was completely correct etc. You would perhaps not even be
able to read the next paragraph where I prove this argument.

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

It is an odd sort of "evidence" that leads one person to
believe that your invisible friend up in the sky ...

Who ever said anything about an "invisible friend up in the
sky"? That's closer to the Santa Clause model of "God."

I'm talking about the original essence that MADE the sky out of its
own substance; IOW, it's everything, and everywhere, including inside
yourself; just denying it doesn't make it not be.

But, if you're not interested, I should stop nagging. You're free
to believe anything you want; but nobody can tell me I didn't feel
my root chakra open, and the resulting flow of Kundalini. I _know_
that was real, to the same degree of confidence that I _know_ that
my shit comes out of my asshole. (which, BTW, is where god lives
inside you - the demons hid her away someplace where no one will
ever look, i.e., your own ass. >:->

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

I asked for that privilege already, but you won't let it go.

So why do you keep reading my crap and responding? _You_ could
let it go, but you seem not to want to.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 19:49:39 +0000, me wrote:

OK, you don't believe in anything greater than yourself, and you
already know everything there is to know about the Universe.

So tell me, what exactly made some piles of atoms decide to locally
reverse entropy and make cells? Inquiring minds want to know.

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 19:49:39 +0000, me wrote:

OK, you don't believe in anything greater than yourself, and you
already know everything there is to know about the Universe.

So tell me, what exactly made some piles of atoms decide to locally
reverse entropy and make cells? Inquiring minds want to know.

Good Luck!
Rich

He is only allowed to attack your silly beliefs. His silly beliefs
(er - I mean totally scientific, objective and well thought out
beliefs) are not open to scrutiny.

 

[Don Klipstein]

In <ceb1de97-3896-44a4-ae3e-6039ddba404e@b30g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

You'd better find yourself another god. The one that you are listening
to at the moment has been lying to you


O2 - regular gaseous oxygen - absorbs UV light at wavelengths from
70nm to 250nm. O3 - ozone - absorbs from 220nm to 330nm, though the
absorbtion tails off fairly rapidly for wavelengths longer than 290nm

The sun is a black-body radiator, and there's not a lot of 70nm to
250nm photons in the radiation hitting the atmosphere, and quite a lot
more in the 250nm to 290nm (UV-B) range that ozone does absorb.

http://www-sgc.colorado.edu/symposium_archive/2004/final/Keith_Nunn.doc

We do need that ozone to absorb the UV-B radiation.

I just want to let it be known that transparency of gaseous 02 to UV
gets good when wavelength gets much past 200 nm. Wavelengths much longer
than 220 nm don't have much chance of producing ozone if there is already
much ozone in the way.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 19:49:39 +0000, me wrote:

OK, you don't believe in anything greater than yourself, and you
already know everything there is to know about the Universe.

So tell me, what exactly made some piles of atoms decide to locally
reverse entropy and make cells? Inquiring minds want to know.

The particular piles of atoms where "entropy reversed" were part of a
larger pile of atoms, and the entropy of the whole system did not
reverse.

Evolution is all about exploiting random flucuations - the first very
crude replicating molecules represented nothing more than random
fluctuations in some kind of primordial soup, but once something fell
together that could replicate, the survival of the fittest took over
and here we are.

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

I expressed no beliefs. I simply asked you whether you have a
single shred of actual evidence that your invisible friend up
in the sky exists.

I've tried to explain, but you reject my answer because it conflicts
with your faith. "Atheists" are even more dogmatic than most fundies.

What I'm trying to explain is that there is no such thing as an "invisible
friend up in the sky" - that's your terminology; evidently you're not
ready to take on any larger concepts.

Oh, well, some people can't heal in their present form.

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

For the best information, visit:
http://www.godchecker.com/

PS: When did god(tm) start channeling to you?

He hasn't - the channelers on his website do it for him.
You can read about it here:
http://www.godchannel.com/channelers.html

But you insist that it couldn't possibly be true, because it conflicts
with your dogma. You consistently try to refute something that you refuse
to even read, a lot like the warmingists and their ilk.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[[email protected]]

I expressed no beliefs.  I simply asked you whether you have a
single shred of actual evidence that your invisible friend up
in the sky exists.

The evidence is the universe. Since man has been in existence man has
universally accepted their world around them as evidence for God. That
is not to say that the self evidence of the world will lead man to a
consistent set of beliefs as to who or what God is, but I think every
culture, forever, has realized that their existence cannot be
rationalized in any other manner except the existence of God (or
perhaps of gods).

I would say that athiesm is a relatively recent phenomenon. It does
not show any real enlightenment at all. I can see where a person
could easily reject the dogmas of any given religious system, but
complete rejection of God (or gods) is not rational at all.

I can offer no evidence to add to what you experience every single
day.



 >You have ducked the question again and

again, just as you hav ducked the question of whether you are
bearing false witness about whether Hitler was a Christian,
and thus are disobeying your Lord's commandments.

Why do you attempt to shame me with a lame attempt to claim I broke
one of the ten commandments? What held beliefs or principles can I
shame you with. (Oh yeah - as an athiest you have no moral obligation
to any higher authority, so there is no means of trying to get you to
evaluate your actions relative to some "higher" principle that you
hold. You live in a world where you can condemn me for my
inconsistancies, but, you, being so brilliant, have no set of
principles to which I can compare your statements to. That does give
an athiest a rather nice advantage.

 If you are
right and he exists, he will be asking you the same question
when you meet him.  How will you answer?   Will you tell him
that he is wrong and that the ten commandments don't apply
to you?

I will answer him that based upon my readings of what Hitler said to
his closest friends I came to the conclusion that Hitler despised
Christianity. I will also say that I understood that Hitler held some
level of respect for Jesus "The rebel" but any attempt to explain or
advance the works of Jesus, especially as conducted by Saint Paul,
where categorically rejected by Hitler.

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

I asked you a direct question using YOUR terminology. Twice.
Why won't you answer?

I have at least twice, but you evidently reject my source out of hand,
without even deigining to read it.

And I've been trying to just let it go - from where comes your obsession
to continue to harp on me?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[[email protected]]

For all you know, he/she/it will ask him "Is Gino's cheesesteak *really*
better than Pats's...?"

Ha!

I was in Philly just a few months ago and went to Gino's. Didn't try
Pats. Ginos was pretty good, but what's wuth the canned mushrooms?

 

[Don Klipstein]

In <2865d9f0-68f4-4f21-9e18-6b8bacf6927e@g61g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,

I was in Philly just a few months ago and went to Gino's. Didn't try
Pats. Ginos was pretty good, but what's wuth the canned mushrooms?

Canned mushrooms of types with higher usage in Philly in their
cheesesteaks are tasty and a bit filling and have low calorie density.

In most reputable places in Philadelphia to get a cheesesteak (a kind
of sandwich of "submarine style"), mushrooms are optional - mostly an
option that requires at least OK by the customer.
Heck, my "day job" is in a shop of a "hoagie" chain (Hoagies are
another Philadelphia-specific variant of "submarine sandwiches", though
most places that sell hoagies also sell cheesesteaks including where I
have my day job) where canned mushrooms are not only added only on
customer request but also 50 cents extra!

And what does that have to do with electronics? Closest I can think of
now is for the LED taillight on my delivery vehicle, and the LED headlight
that I sometimes tape onto my helmet that I wear at least 99.7% of the
time that I am driving any vehicle ever used by me for delivering
sandwiches (and also worn for 99.9% of my commutes on such or similar
vehicles accounting for a majority of my commutes - namely bicyles!).

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[[email protected]]

If the above was an accurate depiction, he would have been happy to
say that he has no evidence and believes by faith.

The original point was that there is a lot of so called science that
is in reality matters of faith. Global warming being one of them.
There is no conclusive proof that the earth is going to burn up, or
flood out, or that the polar bears are going to go extinct. There is
no scientific proof that fossil fuel emmissions is the primary cause
of any temperature increase that may or may not exist. There is no
conclusive evidence the climate is on a course to fall outside the
boundries of "normal" as defined by thousands or millions of years of
earths history.

The original point is that these things are discussed by "scientific"
people as science, when in reality they are matters of faith, just as
a Christians belief on god is a matter of faith.

Yes, I do admit that my belief in God is a matter of faith. It is
faith based upon evidence that makes sense to me. If it were
universally accepted eveidence then all rational people would believe
in God, and they do not.

Just as with global warming, if the evidence were rock solid, then all
reasonable people would believe in global warming, and they don't

All reasonable people believe in calculus, and thermodynamics, and
kinematic physics and material science theories. We sent men to the
moon with these scientfic theories. They can be reporduced and
wittnessed. That is true science.

My original point is that are a lot of so called scientific people who
try to advance ideas in the name of science that actually cannot pass
the proof test by a standard any greater than the existance of God
test.