The Bible encourages questioning

[Tiassa]

You're demonstrating a lack of comprehension

Did God make you write that post?

By personal belief, no. By theology, if God has such knowledge and such will as described in the Bible, then yes. Why don't you take a direct whack at the questions: Is God limited in his knowledge? Is God's will limited by that limitation of knowledge?

The only way that you would believe that God is good is to make people puppets of God.

Um ... I'm hoping that's rhetorical. After all, there is another way: consistency in behavior. If God says it's good this way, then why is it also good in its direct opposite? For instance, if thou shall not kill, then why is it good to kill when one thinks God says so, as we see in the Old Testament?

You submit this either by saying that God should have made people internally unable to choose anything that would cause harm, or have no capability of harm exist in the first place.

It's a natural result of the scope of God's knowledge. It's a classic conundrum that comes up especially when one holds by theories of the Devil. But even though non-Catholics don't use the terms "Perfect Knowledge" and "Immutable Will", they still use the concepts. Or, as the questions go that you have yet to answer, Is God limited in His knowledge? Is his will limited by that limited knowledge?

Maybe God should have made the entire world like a modern playground, with rounded corners and soft plastic so we would never be able to hurt ourselves or others--certainly not billions of progeny down one's lineage.

Why not? It's as pointless as the current racket. So, why did God create humankind? And all of creation?

However, you must accept that people hurting other people is a fact of life, and if a religion is going to be honest, it has to deal with this.

I tend to agree. Let me know when Christianity gets around to dealing with it. After all, as we saw with the example of King David sending a man to die, as we discussed in our recent misogyny exchange? After all, the offense was against God, apparently; this is not dealing with hurting other people. Jesus says? Forgiveness? Right: the world is tired of forgiving Christians their willful and calculated trespasses. Even though that larger paradigm is beyond the scope of our present discussion, it's a fair consideration. I'll even drop my offense toward the Christian assumption of the right to forgive various "offenses" like artistic expression and private human associations if they'll just live that forgiving nature by and large. That's about all anyone wants of the faith: consistency 'twixt declaration and action.

God judges people at the end out of the necessity of being good. If there is no justice on earth, a perfectly good God would have to judge all the wrongs that people did to others.

If you don't address the question of God's knowledge, as reminded above, this point is utterly meaningless. If God's knowledge is Perfect and will Immutable, then judgement's a racket. If God's knowledge is not, then He has no right to judge, for he knows not that of which he judges.

While more use of birth control may help in lessening the number of unwanted pregnancies, it does not help in the lessening of the spread of many sexually transmitted diseases.

Quit dodging. Are women the only ones contracting STD's? Now, aside from that, you're still avoiding the issue. And yes, a condom contributes some to lessening the spread of STD's. It's not iron-clad, but iron-clad would defeat the point.

If society was structured around the idea that it is okay to have sex any time you wanted if you just used birth control (Huxley's Brave New World?), then nothing would deter the spread of many lifelong or life-shortening STDs.

Condoms help with many; medicine helps with others; those that aren't covered there, we're working on. We're the human race, dude. We're not perfect, but I'm beginning to see in you the same negative perception of humanity that I accuse when I rail against the notion of being born into sin. We're apparently idiots who have never cured or controlled a disease. I know it's just easier to sit at home and be sexually frustrated, but it's also easier to sit at home and be bored instead of leaping off a mountainside on a bicycle. We're the human race; that is part of the reality with which religions seem to have a hard time--especially Christianity.

Why don't you just throw boys into prison right after they're born then?

So the ownership of women is a god-given right of a male at birth? Thank you for clearing that up.

For men to stay in a lifelong relationship, society has created the family unit and held the father responsible

That's funny, Dan. You may have a point in social theory, but we are the human race, y'know.

Also, without the basis of a family that is intact, there will be no stopping a myriad of unwanted pregnancies because after seeing their parents go from one partner to another, many children will follow, and won't have the responsibility in place to keep up with birth control even if it is widely available.

Would you please do something to render this statement something other than laughable? You're shooting wide of the mark, Dan ... watch out for the bystanders. Oh, wait ... you'll just let God bless them because you won't be shooting 300,000 bystanders.

Did you read those quotes carefully?

The question is, Did you, Dan? Remind me to never enumerate for a Christian. Two of four points in a progression and you think you know what you're talking about? You know, I read some crappy Krishna Consciousness recently in which Swami Bhaktivedanta asserted that a woman is only free when serving her husband in marriage. So there's Bhaktivedanta's idea of the enfranchisement and elevation of women; what's yours?

The question is, do you want to have to donate more to crisis pregnancy centers or do you want to have to give more to STD research?

You know, you Christians really need to get a sense of vision. Can you tie together race, poverty, abortion, drugs, economy, and crime? Go for it. You seem to be assuming that liberated persons don't care about their individual selves or their community. This is as wrong as saying Christians walk on water. Educated people are a little more careful about themselves in most circumstances; I think you'd find STD's a little easier to control in a better-educated environment.

The solution you offer, if successful, only creates another problem.

Ri-ight. I'm inclined to ask here if you've ever gotten laid, but that's an inappropriate question, so I'll assume the answer is no, based on your expression of human communion. We could, I suppose, get into a discussion about handjobs, oral sex, clitoral masturbation, femoral intercourse, &c. But I figure that's an even bigger digression from the points about charity that you're trying to assume around.

Reducing someone's exposure to sex outside of a lifelong commitment is beneficial to society in reducing unwanted pregnancies, affairs, and the spread of STDs.

It's worked so well in the past, I don't see how it can fail. The big if is, as you noted, if Christians are successful. The nearest thing to success Christianity has achieved has come through criminalization of sexuality.

Could we perhaps give some consideration to charity (directly) and the questions of God's knowledge and will (anything would be a start)?

--Tiassa

 

[tony1]

Re: Christianity--Uncle Jesus wants YOU

*Originally posted by tiassa
Such a powerful argument, indeed.*
It isn't an argument.
Have you forgotten what questions are for?

*To be specific, you have an answer,*
In that case, I'm one up on you since you have no answers.

*it is asserted that Hubble sees 95% of the way to the "edge" of the Universe; this figure will, of course, be revised by later findings.*

Given the past history of "science," I'm sure it will.
What kind of knowledge requires constant revision?
The existence of revisions prima facie means that the previous "knowledge" was, in fact, crap, or at best, faulty.

Besides, if it sees 95% of the way to the "edge," why couldn't they have made it 10% bigger so it could see past the "edge?"

*Regarding the infinite Universe and humanity's place in it, The only way to find out the answer is if humanity itself is ensconced in the Universe. If the human race lasts until "the end of time" (or infinity, or whatever that may be) then we will know how the event unfolds.*

What do you mean "we?"
In your scenario, you won't know.

*if God is as you describe in your interpretations of the Bible, then His coming will be "the end" and we will know the answer. If, however, we continue to thrive in the Universe, and spread out across the stars and become permanent fixtures as the Human Species, then we will, indeed, come as close as we can to seeing the "all there is" aspect of the word "god".*

Well, you do have a point there.
I'm guessing that the thousands of pieces of space junk floating in orbit, combined with Bill Gates' brilliant plan to add hundreds of new satellites to the existing pile, will start crashing into each other.
When that happens, space travel will be a dream.

*I would have thought your great theological brain, what with its cultural context of nine languages and its philosophical lessons from the religion of medicine would have figured out the simplicity of the statement.*

Luckily, it did.
I realized that only a simple mind could have thought of it.

*Not really ... it's one less or one more than the next number in the sequence; hardly the same thing.*
I'm thinking that while the literal statement is true, there is a significant lack of understanding of infinity behind it.

*Yeah, cancer and AIDS are ideal for that, eh?*
Ideal? You are twisted, tiassa.
In any case, what do patients with those do?
With their last dying, gasping breath, some of those AIDS patients are decrying "the rotting corpse of Christianity?"
The irony is remarkable.

*Do you have a legitimate, worthwhile point? *

Jesus is Lord.

*Do you think that it is at all possible that what these women were objecting to was the mortality rate associated with abortion at the time?*

Probably not.
People wanting abortions aren't planning their own deaths, they're planning someone else's.

*Christians have much work to do to reconcile notions of free will with the power of God.*

We haven't any work to do at all.
You're the one identifying the problem, although you can't actually define the problem.

*To the first, God wills the fall of man; to the other, God's right to judge at all is only declaratory and thus haughty.*

Since it is neither, you're just off-base completely.

*Originally posted by dan1123
The question is, do you want to have to donate more to crisis pregnancy centers or do you want to have to give more to STD research?*

tiassa, wants more of both, but doesn't want to donate to either.

*Originally posted by tiassa
Let me know when Christianity gets around to dealing with it.*

Rhetoric.
You know perfectly well that satanists and pagans have no intention of dealing with that and you hope to extend it to Christianity.

From what we've seen, you have a major gripe with attending Catholic school. You gripe about pretty much everything, without a single solution in sight, except of course, the one where you get to do anything you want with no consequences.
Dream on.

 

[Tiassa]

Do better, Tony1 ... we're all waiting for it

It isn't an argument.
Have you forgotten what questions are for?

No, Tony1 ... it appears you have, however.

In that case, I'm one up on you since you have no answers.

Yet your answers do not apply well. Especially since they're built around fragments of ideas, instead of considering the whole of the idea. Much like you respond to sentence fragments, instead of to the whole sentence. It's a nifty means of helping oneself feel superior that most of us learned by fifth grade and abandoned by eighth.

Given the past history of "science," I'm sure it will.
What kind of knowledge requires constant revision?

Active, living knowledge. Knowledge that grows with our capability to perceive it. This as opposed to fixed "knowledge" called faith, which relies on nobody disagreeing with the point.

Besides, if it sees 95% of the way to the "edge," why couldn't they have made it 10% bigger so it could see past the "edge?"

A fair question. As I have it, this is after the corrections and updates to the optical system; I don't think Hubble was supposed to see that far originally, but that the distance is a maximization made available by repair and update.

What do you mean "we?"
In your scenario, you won't know.

I am part of the human species, and take part in its endeavor in this Universe. If my brethren and their descendancy can stay around, then yes, we, the human species, will know how the event unfolds.

Your inability to comprehend the word "we" is quite revealing of your individualist faith in Jesus and its accompanient greed for salvation.

I'm guessing that the thousands of pieces of space junk floating in orbit, combined with Bill Gates' brilliant plan to add hundreds of new satellites to the existing pile, will start crashing into each other.
When that happens, space travel will be a dream.

Are you shortsighted or just sarcastic? As you display dim vision and anemic sarcasm, it's often difficult to tell those phases apart.

Luckily, it did.
I realized that only a simple mind could have thought of it.

And you haven't yet realized that you missed the point entirely. Just say "No" to religion: A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Or, as Dan Quayle has it: "It's a terrible thing to lose your mind."

I'm thinking that while the literal statement is true, there is a significant lack of understanding of infinity behind it.

Well, it's not infinity if it's one less. When you try to intellectualize, you still miss the point.

Ideal? You are twisted, tiassa.
In any case, what do patients with those do?
With their last dying, gasping breath, some of those AIDS patients are decrying "the rotting corpse of Christianity?"
The irony is remarkable.

Not really; if you had any clue of the point to which you're responding, you'd understand why the irony isn't remarkable. Just so you have it clear: You asserted that one would need to know ahead of time that they were dying to make the deathbed confession legitimate. I have noted that AIDS and cancer are ideal for that deathbed confession, as they usually allow you some period of reflection before your body fails. Of course, if you hadn't been so dogged in your chance to call me twisted, you might have realized the point you've missed.

Jesus is Lord.

I said legitimate point. We've all heard that one before, and if you're a living demonstration of the effect thereof, the future of Christian faith is grim.

Probably not.
People wanting abortions aren't planning their own deaths, they're planning someone else's

There's that lack of human empathy we've come to know and love in Christianity.

We haven't any work to do at all.
You're the one identifying the problem, although you can't actually define the problem.

First and foremost is the lack of cohesion among the faithful. No matter how many difficulties one identifies, a faithful can always say, "That's not Christianity". This is much like you do. And then those faithful can always refuse--again, much like you do--to qualify what is Christianity, beyond stupid, ineffective, meaningless snippets like Jesus is Lord, which do nothing to account for the broad and sometimes contradictory diversity of Christian faith. A general lack of sincerity is the most glaring problem of the faith. And a latent and necessary hatred for all things not Christian is the second. Of course, your arrogance is much similar to those who claim Christians are persecuted. A faith that abuses people as much as Christianity does should expect some backlash; and, yet, despite the constant violations it fosters against others, the faithful seem confused that anybody should decline it, and offended that anyone should resent it. Like I always advise the Christian lot: Clean up your own house.

Since it is neither, you're just off-base completely.

That's called faith, and you're using it as a shield to deflect and thus avoid the issue.

tiassa, wants more of both, but doesn't want to donate to either.

You're really in a snit, aren't you? Going so far out of your way to take jabs?

You know perfectly well that satanists and pagans have no intention of dealing with that and you hope to extend it to Christianity.

What is your bloody problem, Tony1? Christians who claim compassion excuse themselves by pointing out the faults in others? Isn't Satan the one who accuses in that manner? Hello? It's not like you're all supposed to emulate Christ in any way or anything; it's enough just to believe and still treat people like shite, eh?

From what we've seen, you have a major gripe with attending Catholic school. You gripe about pretty much everything, without a single solution in sight, except of course, the one where you get to do anything you want with no consequences.
Dream on.

Well, I would hope that humanity could move past this morass called Christian faith and build something positive out of its superstitions. But your fixation on Catholocism outstrips mine by a longshot. Why you keep assigning me a Catholic-centered attribute is beyond me; I'm generally an equal-opportunity griper: most, if not all of Christianity has failed miserably, and largely because of selfish doctrinal interpretations such as your own. We see your brand of faith among the greatest disasters of Christianity: presumptuous arrogance and the joy of human division.

Life bears its own consequences; the idea of someone making things worse because He loves us is just flat absurd. And to empower oneself by such idiocy, as your brand of individualist Christianity does is downright selfish. You can do better, Tony1, and God, I'm sure, has faith in that.

--Tiassa

 

[FA_Q2]

" Nice whitewashing of the Catholic Church.
You're forgetting that they did all that fighting to keep people AWAY from the Bible. "

You don't seem to get it tony1. Catholics are not the only aggressors. Even today. Catholics were attacked as they brought their children to school by PRTISTANTS just a few days ago.

" Not really ... it's one less or one more than the next number in the sequence; hardly the same thing."

Unfortunately you are wrong here tiassia. Basically any math operation you do to infinity comes out with infinity because it is not a number. Yes one minus infinity would be one lower on the number line but you would need a reference to a part of the infinite to accomplish this. Infinity is measured in increments not hard numbers. Infinity plus infinity is infinity that is traveling at a faster rate. You could say that the 100 sequence in an infinite sequence minus one equals a finite number but that in no way affects the infinite. This is why infinity is never found in algebra.

" Well, it's not infinity if it's one less. When you try to intellectualize, you still miss the point."

Yes it still is because the sequence continues to go on.

" The nearest thing to success Christianity has achieved has come through criminalization of sexuality. "

And I might add that it has been implemented and failed before.

" Besides, if it sees 95% of the way to the "edge," why couldn't they have made it 10% bigger so it could see past the "edge?" "

That is just plain stupid tony1. Bigger is not always better.

 

[Tiassa]

FA_Q2 ... shall we dance on pins?

" Not really ... it's one less or one more than the next number in the sequence; hardly the same thing."

Unfortunately you are wrong here tiassia. Basically any math operation you do to infinity comes out with infinity because it is not a number.

Touche. You have me on that one. The idea I'm bandying about comes from an old question of mine which goes: If 2x=y and 2x+1=z, which will "reach infinity" faster? It's actually a philosophical question exactly as useful as How many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's why I reminded Tony1 that if he intellectualizes it, he misses the point.

Yes it still is because the sequence continues to go on.

I almost missed this in the italics. The only thing I'll assert is that if it's minus-one, there's part of "going on" to forever that's not included. As long as our idea of infinity is grasped by a finite mind, it seems we think that infinity will "fit inside" something. What I mean specifically comes from the metaphysical aspects of a godhead; if God is infinite, what happens if there is something not of God? Regardless of whether or not the sequence goes on, or if infinity exists statically, there is a limitation of the infinite idea, and it is this being, this point, this idea, this Devil ... whatever. Furthermore, if the sequence can "go on", is it really infinite yet? If it can "go on", it means it has a terminus at the present, and thus exists in a finite form with infinite potential. Like I said, it's about as useful an idea as angels and pinheads, but that point is about as useful as God. So while I agree that you're correct, I would assert that the terms of the paradoxical arena of metaphysical redemptive theory changes the terms of correctness. Which may exactly explain the usefulness of God-ideas: exeunt reality.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by tiassa
Especially since they're built around fragments of ideas, instead of considering the whole of the idea.*

Well, try giving us the "whole" idea instead of cannabinolized fragments.

*learned by fifth grade and abandoned by eighth.*

You made it to the fifth grade?
Wow.

*Active, living knowledge. Knowledge that grows with our capability to perceive it. This as opposed to fixed "knowledge" called faith, which relies on nobody disagreeing with the point.*

You're disagreeing with it at every turn.
Of course, I'm not relying on your disagreement, so you may have a point.
On the the other hand, this "living" knowledge has a curious way of turning up dead with practically every new discovery.

*If my brethren and their descendancy can stay around, then yes, we, the human species, will know how the event unfolds.*

It still won't be "we."
It'll be "them."

*Are you shortsighted or just sarcastic? As you display dim vision and anemic sarcasm, it's often difficult to tell those phases apart.*

Oh my, you're not keeping up with even your scientific brethren.
They're the guys who realized that piling junk in the sky endlessly does actually have an end.
They are the ones who started doing the math to figure out what would happen if those satellites started hitting each other.

Us non-scientific types could figure out that one-ton blobs flying around at 18,000 mph might cause a problem.
The scientific types did a computer simulation and also figured it out.
Ooops.

*Or, as Dan Quayle has it: "It's a terrible thing to lose your mind."*

You should have listened to him.

*Well, it's not infinity if it's one less.*

You are creating new dimensions of meaning to the word "clueless."

*you'd understand why the irony isn't remarkable.
...
the future of Christian faith is grim.*

There you go, demonstrating the irony.
There is something very ironic, though sad, about an AIDS patient rotting away while decrying the "rotting corpse of Christianity."

*a faithful can always say, "That's not Christianity". This is much like you do.*

I admit I do that.
Every time you point out some Catholic thing, I say "that's not Christianity."
The main reason for that being that it isn't.

*snippets like Jesus is Lord, which do nothing to account for the broad and sometimes contradictory diversity of Christian faith.*

Ypu will be quite surprised to find out what power that particular "snippet" has.

*That's called faith, and you're using it as a shield...*

Well, duh.
That's what it is for.

Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
(Ephesians 6:16, KJV).

*Going so far out of your way to take jabs?*

Not jabs.
You talk a blue streak, but I suspect you put your money in your pocket.

*But your fixation on Catholocism outstrips mine by a longshot. Why you keep assigning me a Catholic-centered attribute is beyond me; I'm generally an equal-opportunity griper:*

None so blind...etc.

I keep assigning you a Catholic-centered attribute because you are either quoting or paraphrasing Catholic Catechism almost constantly.
The few times you don't, it is because you are quoting or paraphrasing the Catholic Encyclopedia instead.

*Originally posted by FA_Q2
That is just plain stupid tony1. Bigger is not always better.*

In this case, you just don't get it.
tiassa was talking about Hubble seeing 95% of the way to the "edge" of the universe.
Another 5% bigger would have solved all of the world's problems, along with settling religion vs science once and for all.
At least it would have established where the "edge" was.
Of course, how it is possible to know that something is 95% of the way to the "edge" without knowing where the "edge" is, while ludicrous, is another thing that apparently would have been settled, too.
As I said, you just don't get it.

*Originally posted by tiassa
It's why I reminded Tony1 that if he intellectualizes it, he misses the point.*

You just plain blew it.
You can't rationalize it; it's too late.
Even FA_Q2 nailed you on that.

*blah, blah, pot smoke, blah*

exeunt reality, to quote someone.

 

[Tiassa]

Well, try giving us the "whole" idea instead of cannabinolized fragments.

Why? Any time I extend your offered fragment to its fullest consequences, you just give some marijuana-related dismissal. You've got more to offer than that, don't you?

You made it to the fifth grade?
Wow.

Ooh. A touch! And with this final breath, I curse thy name to God ....

On the the other hand, this "living" knowledge has a curious way of turning up dead with practically every new discovery.

That's what happens when you learn. The old is replaced by the new. Kind of like skin, hair, &c. Oh, wait, you went to medical school, so why do I have to remind you of that?

It still won't be "we."
It'll be "them."

Your individualist bent leans toward dysfunction. You are part of a larger you. Tell me: if it's "them", and not "me", why should I give a damn that there's thousands dead in New York? Are you so unaffected by what has happened as to draw that same distinction 'twixt the self and others? I doubt it; I'm not prepared to accuse any of my neighbors of that kind of coldness. Thus, it is fair to say that you recognize this particular "we", whether you care to admit it or not. Or would you like to share your thoughts on the World Trade Center atrocity as relates to the sense of communal "we"?

Oh my, you're not keeping up with even your scientific brethren.
They're the guys who realized that piling junk in the sky endlessly does actually have an end.
They are the ones who started doing the math to figure out what would happen if those satellites started hitting each other.

Like I said, are you shortsighted or just poorly sarcastic? They'll do some more math and fix the situation; they've got too much money invested to turn back now. If I apply your theory to the history of urbanization, what would become of cities? It took us a while to figure out how to live in cities properly, and it's a fair assertion that we haven't fully achieved that yet. But at least we're not dumping our excrement in the streets anymore.

Us non-scientific types could figure out that one-ton blobs flying around at 18,000 mph might cause a problem.

Medical school? Technical reading? Non-scientific? Oh, that's right, you want to throw out the scientific method in favor of a better proof that can be found in the nightstand of any hourly-rate motel.

You should have listened to him

You know what the dumbest thing about that was? He was speaking to the United Negro College Fund: A mind is a terrible thing to waste. I might follow that up with, Just say "No" to Christianity.

You are creating new dimensions of meaning to the word "clueless."

It's a Zen thing.

There you go, demonstrating the irony.
There is something very ironic, though sad, about an AIDS patient rotting away while decrying the "rotting corpse of Christianity."

Um ... Christianity has not been documented to be an effective cure for HIV. And since Christians in this country have contracted the disease as well, it's fair to say it doesn't prevent HIV either.

I admit I do that.
Every time you point out some Catholic thing, I say "that's not Christianity."
The main reason for that being that it isn't.

Says you.

Ypu will be quite surprised to find out what power that particular "snippet" has.

I'd put five bucks on that except there's an issue of collection of debts. In the meantime, that's some nice bluster. (Oh, I can just see the retort coming )

That's called faith, and you're using it as a shield...

Well, duh.
That's what it is for.

Well thank you for admitting it; after all, we know that you don't ever attempt to twist context now, do you? So, just for a reminder, what you've admitted to (the complete sentence that you're citing), is: That's called faith, and you're using it as a shield to deflect and thus avoid the issue. So, yes, we finally get to the heart of the problem. And I thank you for that.

I keep assigning you a Catholic-centered attribute because you are either quoting or paraphrasing Catholic Catechism almost constantly.
The few times you don't, it is because you are quoting or paraphrasing the Catholic Encyclopedia instead.

Jonathan Edwards? Really? Which Puritans were Catholics? The ones that crushed the old guy with the stones?

You just plain blew it.
You can't rationalize it; it's too late.
Even FA_Q2 nailed you on that.

You're welcome to perceive that; after all, it's better than intellectualizing the point. Of course, we all know you wish it had been you. But while you're at it, why don't you undertake the metaphysical aspect of the issue?

*blah, blah, pot smoke, blah*

If it's problematic, Tony1, then put down the damn pipe! Learn to smoke responsibly or else you might end up looking more foolish than you do.

,
Tiassa

 

[FA_Q2]

" In this case, you just don't get it.
tiassa was talking about Hubble seeing 95% of the way to the "edge" of the universe.
Another 5% bigger would have solved all of the world's problems, along with settling religion vs science once and for all. "

Unfortunately, you got me there. I thought you meant the devise instead of the result. Naturally we couldn't make it 5% bigger, not that it would have helped. We have no idea where the end is. That was just speculation. On top of that, what the hell would we see at the end. Most likely nothing.

" ...we all know you wish it had been you."

Ahhh, the painful truth tony1.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by tiassa
Ooh. A touch! And with this final breath, I curse thy name to God .... *

Does that mean you didn't make to the fifth grade?

*That's what happens when you learn. The old is replaced by the new.*

You mean to say, "the incorrect is replaced by the officially correct, which will later be proven in turn to be incorrect."

*They'll do some more math and fix the situation; they've got too much money invested to turn back now.*

Inadvertently correct.
They will do some more math, along the lines of WTC architectural calculations, and "fix" the situation precisely because there is too much money invested to turn back.
They will then do the math to determine how much money they lost.

* But at least we're not dumping our excrement in the streets anymore.*

What a tremendous achievement!!!!

*Oh, that's right, you want to throw out the scientific method in favor of a better proof that can be found in the nightstand of any hourly-rate motel.*

I must be in the presence of the grand galactic overlord of hourly-rate motels.
Only your great wisdom could allow you to create such a zinger.

Just a side issue, what was the point you were making with that? That you hang around such places?

*It's a Zen thing.*

That would be one of the old, pre-existing dimensions.

*Christianity has not been documented to be an effective cure for HIV.*

It seems to work well in Uganda, but there are fewer fund-raising organizations raising funds for the eradication of AIDS there.

*(Oh, I can just see the retort coming )*

""

*So, just for a reminder, what you've admitted to (the complete sentence that you're citing), is: That's called faith, and you're using it as a shield to deflect and thus avoid the issue. *

Granted, I had to take a hit there.
On the other hand, what is your issue?
That God isn't who he says he is, and tiassa is right about everything.
I should be avoiding the issue, but then again, you might see the light.

*Jonathan Edwards? Really? Which Puritans were Catholics?*

You'll excuse me for ignoring the statistically insignificant exceptions.

*Of course, we all know you wish it had been you.*

Nah, I don't wish to be second.
FA_Q2 had to nail you a second time in order for you to even recognize the possibility that something other than your limited knowledge could possibly exist.

* But while you're at it, why don't you undertake the metaphysical aspect of the issue?*

Sure.
Infinity minus one is....uhhh...errr....infinity minus one.
I could go your route, and claim that it isn't infinity anymore, but that would like saying two-sided triangles differ from three-sided triangles by the absence of one side.

*...put down the damn pipe!...*

Quit staring at the reflection in your screen, tiassa!

*Originally posted by FA_Q2
We have no idea where the end is.*

You're right, of course.
In tiassa's world, the end is just a few percentage points past the limits of the Hubble.

 

[FA_Q2]

" You mean to say, "the incorrect is replaced by the officially correct, which will later be proven in turn to be incorrect.""

No. An incomplete understanding replaced by a better understanding that is later replaced by an even better understanding. Much better than the ignorance of claiming a perfect understanding of all when you have no idea about anything you are talking about.

" Inadvertently correct.
They will do some more math, along the lines of WTC architectural calculations, and "fix" the situation precisely because there is too much money invested to turn back.
They will then do the math to determine how much money they lost. "

LOL. At least it was funny. It is quite a simple solution really. Put less of them in the air and have them do more. Take old ones out and send them back to earth or, it one chooses, blast it off to the sun. I also do not think that you are grasping the amount of volume that a satellite can reside in. The only populations problems satellites are having are low earth orbits. They occupy a 200 to 500 mi area above the planet. There are 8000 objects in this orbit that are larger than a softball. Given the distance from the planet this area consists of 71 billion cubic miles. Quite a lot of space if you ask me. Somehow I do not believe that 71 billion cubic miles is constraining space for 8000 objects. This is also leaving out the fact that satellites go out to 22000 miles. The most important ones like communication satellites are out that far. Even weather satellites are out there. That leaves 73 trillion cubic miles of space. It is amazing how fast the volumes can go up. Those orbits are also not permanent. Most are in a decaying orbit. Before long they will burn up in the atmosphere and then we are one step closer to clearing the skies. Which goes with this:

"Us non-scientific types could figure out that one-ton blobs flying around at 18,000 mph might cause a problem.'

And then us scientific types actually asked the question and answered it. There is not a problem with putting objects in the sky going 18000mph and hence you have satellite TV, cell phones and the weather channel. Among other things of course.

" It seems to work well in Uganda, but there are fewer fund-raising organizations raising funds for the eradication of AIDS there. "

And no physical proof at all. If it is try then why don't you go get the cure, bring it here and make millions instantly. Those that are paying the grants might want to pay you an awful lot for simply handing them the cure.

" Granted, I had to take a hit there. "

Wow. This is a first. Admitting to taking a hit.

" You're right, of course.
In tiassa's world, the end is just a few percentage points past the limits of the Hubble."

It is always just beyond what we know.

" You'll excuse me for ignoring the statistically insignificant exceptions. "

I would but it is not the statistically insignificant. Today protestants and other Christian factions are attacking and killing others. Less than a month ago it was the Catholics that were attacked while bringing their grade school kids to school by, you guessed it, protestants. Wow, what a target for peace loving people, mothers ant their small children.

" FA_Q2 had to nail you a second time in order for you to even recognize the possibility that something other than your limited knowledge could possibly exist. "

Actually no. I had to point out what was incorrect while you simply shut your eyes and screamed I wont listen. This must be the after affect of the statement you quoted from tiassia.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by FA_Q2
An incomplete understanding replaced by a better understanding that is later replaced by an even better understanding.*

Well, that is definitely the theory behind public education.
It lacks only evidence to be true.

*It is quite a simple solution really. Put less of them in the air and have them do more. Take old ones out and send them back to earth or, it one chooses, blast it off to the sun. I also do not think that you are grasping the amount of volume that a satellite can reside in. The only populations problems satellites are having are low earth orbits. They occupy a 200 to 500 mi area above the planet. There are 8000 objects in this orbit that are larger than a softball. Given the distance from the planet this area consists of 71 billion cubic miles. Quite a lot of space if you ask me. Somehow I do not believe that 71 billion cubic miles is constraining space for 8000 objects. This is also leaving out the fact that satellites go out to 22000 miles. The most important ones like communication satellites are out that far. Even weather satellites are out there. That leaves 73 trillion cubic miles of space. It is amazing how fast the volumes can go up. Those orbits are also not permanent. Most are in a decaying orbit. Before long they will burn up in the atmosphere and then we are one step closer to clearing the skies.*

That is exactly how the problem arose.
I think you fail to grasp the results of even a small number of initial collisions of satellites with each other, or meteorites with satellites.
I notice in your calculations, that you have overlooked how much space future metorites will require, and how their trajectories intersect with existing satellites.
I also notice a peculiar inability to predict meteorites in general, in your calculations.

*And then us scientific types actually asked the question and answered it. There is not a problem with putting objects in the sky going 18000mph and hence you have satellite TV, cell phones and the weather channel. Among other things of course.*

Some of those "other things" are meteorites.

*And no physical proof at all.*

Simply hundreds of former AIDS patients.

*It is always just beyond what we know. *

Which is the point I've been making repeatedly.
I'm glad it finally sunk in.

 

[Tiassa]

Do you have a purpose, Tony1?

*That's what happens when you learn. The old is replaced by the new.*

You mean to say, "the incorrect is replaced by the officially correct, which will later be proven in turn to be incorrect."

This as opposed to what? Your cynicism is remarkable in light of one who claims faith. The exclusionary nature of your faith, however, leaves that cynicism well-expected; it is a hallmark of Christian faith that suffuses all of history, from the rise of the Church which built and delivered you a Bible and even into today when solitary practicioners of Christian faith build all manner of false temples to honor Jesus.

Like I said, it's called learning: just because you learn something does not fix it in all time. Just as scientific knowledge replaced much religious assumption, so does it replace itself, regenerating with new perspective. The "mistakes" of science in the field of physics did not seem to interfere with the predicted result of an atomic explosion. The imperfections in medicine do not invalidate its greater successes. You've mentioned clumsy surgeons and bad prescriptions before in your crusade against modern medicine: do you deny the success of antibiotics against bacteria? (Of course, as one who decries evolution, we could enter the debate of drug-resistant bacteria; if the change was merely adaptive, we would eventually have enough drugs to cover the microorganisms and would never need to make any stronger. Yet penicillin itself seems to not suffice anymore. Even the antibiotics I took thirteen years ago have largely disappeared due to their growing inefficiency.)

Strange, though, how you don't turn this critical eye of yours to your faith. But that, as any witch knows, is the danger of being solitary in one's faith: with no image to compare oneself against, one generally mirrors their preexisting self with the new icon of faith. Knowledge is not fixed like faith; it grows like a flower, new with each season.

Inadvertently correct.
They will do some more math, along the lines of WTC architectural calculations, and "fix" the situation precisely because there is too much money invested to turn back.
They will then do the math to determine how much money they lost.

If knowledge is a flower, then cynicism is a thorn. In nature, thorns have a purpose; humans use them to scratch and poke things with. (As someone who has been thrown into a blackberry thicket, I shall personally attest to the legitimacy of this malice.) Cynicism, improperly deployed, tarnishes the knowledge and aims it to hurt, instead of protecting that knowledge.

You'll have to explain your WTC line, since it makes no sense. If you have a general issue with skyscrapers, I well understand. But if you're implying that the architecture of skyscrapers has been skimped against airplane crashes, I'm not sure it's possible to design a building of qualifying proportions that won't collapse under the force of impact of a fully-fuelled 757 at open throttle.

For this irrelevance, your response seems to be a standard dismissal of the issue for any lack of real knowledge or perspective that you might otherwise offer.

* But at least we're not dumping our excrement in the streets anymore.*

What a tremendous achievement!!!!

Yes ... but, to keep with the original point of this particular evasion of yours, it certainly beats hunting and gathering amid the lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Like I said, by your standard, we would have abandoned the metropolitan effort ages ago.

*Oh, that's right, you want to throw out the scientific method in favor of a better proof that can be found in the nightstand of any hourly-rate motel.*

I must be in the presence of the grand galactic overlord of hourly-rate motels.
Only your great wisdom could allow you to create such a zinger.

Just a side issue, what was the point you were making with that? That you hang around such places?

Unless I'm mistaken, I was responding to your usual fare of sarcasm; you, the med-school dropout and professed reader of "technical" materials had included yourself among the non-scientific. I was merely wondering why, since you were such a wealth of technical and scientific knowledge, you know, like how medicine is a fraud, and so forth, you would classify yourself as such. And then I remembered ... That's right, what Tony1 takes for knowledge is a book I can find while looking for a condom when I'm with a hooker.

And the answer, Tony1 is no, I don't hire prostitutes; nor am I married so I don't patronize it on that end, either. It's a little more gratifying when you're not actually paying to get laid.

*It's a Zen thing.*

That would be one of the old, pre-existing dimensions.

The Buddha is in the hedge-row.

*Christianity has not been documented to be an effective cure for HIV.*

It seems to work well in Uganda, but there are fewer fund-raising organizations raising funds for the eradication of AIDS there.

You'll have to document the effort in some fashion, Tony1 ... of course, if it's like other places in Africa, they're blaming virgins for being female, so it's a toss-up.

Granted, I had to take a hit there.
On the other hand, what is your issue?
That God isn't who he says he is, and tiassa is right about everything.
I should be avoiding the issue, but then again, you might see the light.

Most apparently, the issue seems to have been in boldface. Oh, that issue. Well, I had to go back to 9/8/2001 to get at the issue:

*To the first, God wills the fall of man; to the other, God's right to judge at all is only declaratory and thus haughty.*

Since it is neither, you're just off-base completely.

It was at that point that I brought up your use of faith as a shield to avoid the issues and thereupon you proudly admitted it. Did you care for another swing at the point? Or would you be serving up another loping wad of faith? I'm curious, though, since you mentioned it: is that really as much a part of your approach as it seems? To digress from the issue and then wonder what the issue is? That's Reaganesque.

*Jonathan Edwards? Really? Which Puritans were Catholics?*

You'll excuse me for ignoring the statistically insignificant exceptions.

Which statistic is that? Lives stolen? Therein lies the problem with statistics; sure, Puritanism killed only a few hundred as compared to the thousands of Catholic-sponsored murders. But you seem to underestimate the power of the dark side: what I deride as post-Victorian, what Polly Trout considers Edwardian, what Jacques Barzun calls Philistine, and what writers from Emma Goldman (ca. 1918) to Jack Cady (ca. 1999) refer to as Puritan all represent a certain spectre. (Barzun's Philistine can be more internationally applied, but when applied to its American incarnation, it describes this same spectre.) There is a brand of assumptive conservatism running thickly through Americans. It springs from the vulgar Christianity that exploited Deist institutions; it is the Protestant hatred that seeded anti-Catholic laws in Maryland, that removed indigenous children from their tribes and forcibly acculturated them to Euro-American standards, that turned inward and ugly in 17th-century Boston and flogged women half-naked in snowy streets, that closes pubs in some towns on Sundays, that reduced a man legally to 60% of himself for his skin color, and left women to equal nothing. It is the meddling force that encouraged first temperance leagues and then prohibitionism, that pamphleted against Catholics while satiating the voyeuristic urges of the Protetant proper. It is the undereducated, idiocy-fuelled outrage that compels breakaway churches like the Missouri Synod, who simply could not accept the revisions of faith suggested by Darwinism and Spencerism. It is a conservatism that permeates the nation for no particular reason, except that we learned it from our parents and our institutions and our community, even though the reasons why evade recognition. Consider the following passage, written by Emir Ali Khan (1):

The members of all communities, including nations and whole civilizations, are infused with the prevailing ideologies of those communities. These, in turn, create attitudes of mind which include certain capacities and equally positively exclude others.

The ideologies may be so ancient, so deep-seated or so subtle that they are not identified as such by the people at large. In this case they are often discerned only through a method of challenging them, asking questions about them or by comparing them with other communities.

Such challenge, description or questioning, often the questioning of assumptions, is what frequently enables a culture or a number of people from that culture to think in ways that have been closed to most of their followers.

Strangely, I read that just this morning on the way to work; or, perhaps, not so strange, as one of superstition might suggest that I was intended to read the passage as such--in this case, the answer is a twofold negation. First, while my goddess-superstitions do allow for such correllations of events, such occasions are usually intended for my own learning, and not the correction of another. Secondly, and considering the topic of the book--Sufi practice and philosophy--it is fair to note that while various Dervish tales account for such methods of God's intervention in mundane things, such occasions usually aim toward less petty an outcome than our Sciforums bickering. In the end, I generally appreciate Life's little ironies; this is no football-dove, but Mike Doonesbury would appreciate it.

Nah, I don't wish to be second.
FA_Q2 had to nail you a second time in order for you to even recognize the possibility that something other than your limited knowledge could possibly exist.

My, you do seem to have an intimate knowledge of FA_Q2 and my psyches and how we observe, feel, communicate, perceive, and respond. Strange, then, how you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Sure.
Infinity minus one is....uhhh...errr....infinity minus one.
I could go your route, and claim that it isn't infinity anymore, but that would like saying two-sided triangles differ from three-sided triangles by the absence of one side.

Not quite. I'm asserting that something altered isn't what it was before it was altered. You're asserting that two objects not alike are alike, even though you have to redefine a word that has a specific meaning.

*...put down the damn pipe!...*

Quit staring at the reflection in your screen, tiassa!

Sorry, my monitor has an anti-glare screen that kills reflection. But, to remind you of why I'm advising you to cut back on your drug intake is that you seem to be having difficulty. For instance, your citation, *blah, blah, pot smoke, blah*, seems to be invented from the depths of nowhere. Once again, you are tilting windmills, and the present incarnation speaks to your need to address sobriety once in a while.

In tiassa's world, the end is just a few percentage points past the limits of the Hubble.

Hey, of everyone I know, I'm the only one who's actually curious about what's behind that point; I fully expect it to be wrong, but what if it's about right and we witness the creative fire moving outward? Or, rather, the aeons-old light-relics of that fire? Of course, what if there's just more stars? Consider knowledge to be like a chess set, exquisitely carved and awaiting the world's Grand Masters. A scientific inquiry would be into the methods of manipulation of the game pieces, e.g. learning to play. A religious inquiry would be to glance at it and say, "God says it's beautiful." Well? Is it beautiful or is it a bishop? It can be both, if we allow it to be. In fact, knowing what it does on a chessboard cannot diminish its qualities as a beautiful piece, and this is something you don't seem to understand. Many a Christian have found a place for knowledge beside their faith; why can't you? The Universe is there for the learning, why do you want to leave it as what you think God tells you it is?

You know, I'm even taking weekends off for lack of DSL; is this really the best you can do?

--Tiassa

Note (1):
Emir Ali Khan. "Sufi Activity". Sufi Thought and Action, assembled by Idries Shah. London: Octagon, 1990.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by tiassa
Like I said, it's called learning: just because you learn something does not fix it in all time. Just as scientific knowledge replaced much religious assumption, so does it replace itself, regenerating with new perspective.*

Learning is one thing.
If something exists to be learned, then at one point one does not know it and later one does know.
That is, in fact, learning.

However, Science education purports to teach such things.
This amounts to the blind leading the blind.
It is one thing for scientists to claim to be learning things that they have not known before.
It is something completely different to go to school and be taught things which are known to be false at the time simply because it is written in some textbook.

*The "mistakes" of science in the field of physics did not seem to interfere with the predicted result of an atomic explosion.*

Perhaps you are unclear on the concept of "mistakes" and "atomic explosions," especially when they are so close together in a single sentence.

*do you deny the success of antibiotics against bacteria?*

You mean, as in the modern invention of MDRTB (multiple drug-resistant tuberculosis)?
Oh yes, quite a success! For the tuberculosis bacilli!

*Of course, as one who decries evolution, we could enter the debate of drug-resistant bacteria; if the change was merely adaptive,*

Let's.
It is merely adaptive.
The tuberculosis bacilli are still tuberculosis bacilli; they didn't turn into hippopotami.

*Strange, though, how you don't turn this critical eye of yours to your faith.*

I do, but the curious absence of atomic explosions in most churches indicates that someone is at least heading toward what they think is the right path.

*But that, as any witch knows, is the danger of being solitary in one's faith: with no image to compare oneself against, one generally mirrors their preexisting self with the new icon of faith.*

One shudders to think what witches pattern themselves after.

*Cynicism, improperly deployed, tarnishes the knowledge and aims it to hurt, instead of protecting that knowledge.*

Cynicism, properly deployed, simply strips away the frippery of self-delusion that seems to attach itself itself to every thought generated by those who think themselves wise.

*You'll have to explain your WTC line, since it makes no sense.*

Perhaps you are unaware that the architect of the WTC allegedly claims to have made his calculations with the specific intent to have his buildings withstand such an aircraft collisions.
Oops.

*I'm not sure it's possible to design a building of qualifying proportions that won't collapse under the force of impact of a fully-fuelled 757 at open throttle.*

I'm sure a 757 would just bounce off the Pyramids of Egypt even after thousands of years of weathering behind them.

Even with this sidetrack, I'm sure that you aren't really going to claim that similar errors in calculation have not been made (for sure, mind you) in the planned deployment of hundreds of additional satellites.

*For this irrelevance, your response seems to be a standard dismissal of the issue for any lack of real knowledge or perspective that you might otherwise offer.*

Then again, it might be you lacking in knowledge and perspective.

*I was merely wondering why, since you were such a wealth of technical and scientific knowledge, you know, like how medicine is a fraud, and so forth, you would classify yourself as such.*

Who on this forum would classify me as a scientific type?

*That's right, what Tony1 takes for knowledge is a book I can find while looking for a condom when I'm with a hooker.*

Presumably then, knowledge is limited to certain locations, only?
Thus, knowledge is only to be found in places specified by tiassa, and in no other places.
And what is found in all of those other places is also to be defined by tiassa as non-knowledge.

Brilliant!!
Knowledge is dependent on location.
So what happens, you enter a motel room and all of a sudden your brain cells begin to deteriorate?

*The Buddha is in the hedge-row.*

The Buddha is in the crapper.
(It's a Zen thing, you know)

*You'll have to document the effort in some fashion*

Actually, I don't.
I'm not writing a scientific paper.
If you don't believe it, that's OK by me.

*To digress from the issue and then wonder what the issue is?*

While I can see the humor in such an approach to debate, the fact is that faith is my shield.
And against what, you may ask?
Against such inanely non-logical reasonings such as yours.

*it is the Protestant hatred that seeded anti-Catholic laws in Maryland, that removed indigenous children from their tribes and forcibly acculturated them to Euro-American standards, that turned inward and ugly in 17th-century Boston and flogged women half-naked in snowy streets, that closes pubs in some towns on Sundays, that reduced a man legally to 60% of himself for his skin color, and left women to equal nothing. It is the meddling force that encouraged first temperance leagues and then prohibitionism, that pamphleted against Catholics while satiating the voyeuristic urges of the Protetant proper.*

All the more reason to actually read the Bible, instead of just carrying one around.
I do note that you lump in the closing of bars as somehow equivalent to some of the other things.
How horrendous!!

*It is the undereducated, idiocy-fuelled outrage that compels breakaway churches like the Missouri Synod, who simply could not accept the revisions of faith suggested by Darwinism and Spencerism.*

You're on a vitriolic roll now, tiassa!!!!!

However, "revisions of faith" are not required, nor even suggested.
Belief in evolution merely requires a lobotomy.

*In this case they are often discerned only through a method of challenging them, asking questions about them or by comparing them with other communities.

Such challenge, description or questioning, often the questioning of assumptions, is what frequently enables a culture or a number of people from that culture to think in ways that have been closed to most of their followers.*

I thought I'd requote from your quote, any copyrights being owned by their respective owners.

What he seems to have omitted is that such questioning creates a feeling of irritation, as is expressed by so many in this forum, among other places.

School-children have been so successfully brainwashed into believing that evolution is true, that they cannot believe that only a tiny minority (outside of recent graduates) believe in it, that it is a religious faith like many others and that it has not a shred of evidence for it.
They actually believe that a frog changes into a monkey changes into man, even though the simplest of mathematical calculations can demonstrate that it cannot possibly be true.

*My, you do seem to have an intimate knowledge of FA_Q2 and my psyches and how we observe, feel, communicate, perceive, and respond.*

It's a piece of cake.
You two write it all down for me to read.

*I'm asserting that something altered isn't what it was before it was altered.*

There you go again, completely missing the point.
Taking one away from infinity does not alter it.
You may be confusing infinity with a smaller number like, say, two.

*SFor instance, your citation, *blah, blah, pot smoke, blah*, seems to be invented from the depths of nowhere.*

While I do think of your posts as originating from the depths of nowhere...

*the present incarnation speaks to your need to address sobriety once in a while.*

I'd like to, but that you would require you to be sober when I'm addressing you.
Oh well, one can dream.

*Hey, of everyone I know, I'm the only one who's actually curious about what's behind that point;*

So am I, but I suspect that it isn't the edge of the universe, as you unthinkingly put it.

*Many a Christian have found a place for knowledge beside their faith; why can't you?*

The feeble attempt at humor, by a rhetorical-looking double-entendre is duly noted.

*The Universe is there for the learning, why do you want to leave it as what you think God tells you it is?*

I see now what you think my problem is.
I want to leave it as God tells me it is, not as the tiny little joke you're trying to convince me it is.

 

[FA_Q2]

" Well, that is definitely the theory behind public education.
It lacks only evidence to be true. "

There is plenty. Do you even know what you are commenting on?

" That is exactly how the problem arose.
I think you fail to grasp the results of even a small number of initial collisions of satellites with each other, or meteorites with satellites.
I notice in your calculations, that you have overlooked how much space future metorites will require, and how their trajectories intersect with existing satellites.
I also notice a peculiar inability to predict meteorites in general, in your calculations. "

I did not predict meteorites mainly because there is no way to predict them. The only thing you can do is to leave enough space in between these objects to allow for meteorites. Lets see, 71 billion cubic miles (a number you cant even comprehend let alone vision) leaves almost 9 billion cubic miles per object. That is a LOT of space. Given a satellite that is 60' x 10' x 10' we are using .0000004% of the space up there at any moment. .0000004% is a miniscule proportion. This is also not counting the fact that only 2,500 (NOT 8000) of those objects are satellites we use. Most of the other objects are softball size. That percentage is actually MUCH smaller. So meteorites are not predicted but accounted for. So little space occupied means much smaller chances of collisions. A single collision is not such a horrible thing anyway. Usually the load can easily be transferred to other satellites for the time being and if it can't then you just have to live without a cell phone or a beeper for a few days. Under your solution that you have alluded to we would just have to give up cell phones, beepers, and of course the weather channel. Oops, didn't see that hurricane coming.

" Simply hundreds of former AIDS patients. "

None of which have been documented. Sounds like a televangelist healing almost. In other words, LIES. Of course you are one of the first I would believe to follow such blatant lies.

" However, Science education purports to teach such things.
This amounts to the blind leading the blind. "

Actually it is you (the blind) telling those that can see that you can see better even though you have no eyes.

" You mean, as in the modern invention of MDRTB (multiple drug-resistant tuberculosis)?
Oh yes, quite a success! For the tuberculosis bacilli! "

Actually NO since MDRTB is no worse than normal tuberculosis without medication. So we were able to save millions and now have to find another cure to save another few million. I fail to see the negative.

" Perhaps you are unaware that the architect of the WTC allegedly claims to have made his calculations with the specific intent to have his buildings withstand such an aircraft collisions. "

I think the both of you missed a huge point in this. the WTC DID survive the plane crash. That is not what collapsed the buildings and that is why the death toll is closer to 6000 rather than 50000. Fire is what brought the WTC down. Naturally the fire was created from the planes but the initial crash did not knock those buildings down. However, had those fires been put out the buildings would still be here.

" I'm sure a 757 would just bounce off the Pyramids of Egypt even after thousands of years of weathering behind them. "

Of course there is a lot more material in them, a waste of land, and NO interior. It is a tunnel in a hill. You could not fit 50000 people in it and it took up a LOT more land then the WTC. Being the reader that you are I'm not surprised that you missed tiassia's point of "qualifying proportions". The pyramids do NOT have qualifying proportions.

" Who on this forum would classify me as a scientific type? "

You attempted to pass yourself off as one way back when I first joined this forum.

" Actually, I don't.
I'm not writing a scientific paper.
If you don't believe it, that's OK by me. "

You do if you whish to claim it as fact.
If I follow your rules of fact I could easily say the sky is pink and the earth goes around the moon a be correct. You need proof to treat something as fact.

" And against what, you may ask? "

No I know. Against any rational thought.

" You may be confusing infinity with a smaller number like, say, two. "

Almost tony. Not confusing infinity with a smaller number at all. It is confusing infinity with a number at all as it is not.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by FA_Q2
There is plenty. Do you even know what you are commenting on?*

Do you really think that you are the only person who ever attended school?
I also note that you have failed to identify the propaganda inherent in any school system that teaches evolution, among other things.

*I did not predict meteorites mainly because there is no way to predict them.*

So you do see the problem with your calculations.

*The only thing you can do is to leave enough space in between these objects to allow for meteorites.*

You seem to be taking the statistical approach to the issue.
However, reducing the probability of a meteorite impact does not eliminate meteorite impacts.

*Lets see, 71 billion cubic miles (a number you cant even comprehend let alone vision)*

It sounds like you can't comprehend it.
It is actually quite small.
It would be equivalent to a cube that is less than 5000 miles to a side.

*.0000004% is a miniscule proportion.*

While your grasp of arithmetic is acceptable, your grasp of risk analysis is non-existent.
In addition, you are arguing against the existence of what scientists themselves have identified as a problem.

*So meteorites are not predicted but accounted for. So little space occupied means much smaller chances of collisions. A single collision is not such a horrible thing anyway.*

Actually, meteorites are neither predicted nor accounted for.
If you say they are accounted for, then what actions have been taken to mitigate the risk of collision?
So far, none.

*Usually the load can easily be transferred to other satellites for the time being and if it can't then you just have to live without a cell phone or a beeper for a few days. Under your solution that you have alluded to we would just have to give up cell phones, beepers, and of course the weather channel. Oops, didn't see that hurricane coming. *

That pretty well reveals your total lack of understanding of the risk involved.
You think it is the loss of cellular connections for a few days.
I say it is the near-total cessation of space travel, combined with tons of satellite debris raining on your head.
Oops, didn't see that chunk of satellite hitting your head.

*None of which have been documented.*

I first saw it on a documentary video.
Presumably in your world, that doesn't count as documentation.
Only a school textbook would qualify for that.

*Actually it is you (the blind) telling those that can see that you can see better even though you have no eyes. *

What kind of crap is that?

*Actually NO since MDRTB is no worse than normal tuberculosis without medication. So we were able to save millions and now have to find another cure to save another few million. I fail to see the negative. *

You FAIL TO SEE THE NEGATIVE in drug-resistant tuberculosis???
Are you sure your IQ isn't 1.50?

*I think the both of you missed a huge point in this. the WTC DID survive the plane crash.*

Are you nuts?
They are not standing any longer.

*Fire is what brought the WTC down.*

That is even stupider.
Fires are far more common than plane impacts where buildings are concerned.
You appear to be saying that the architect made even worse decisions concerning the fire-protection systems in his buildings.

*Of course there is a lot more material in them, a waste of land, and NO interior.*

Waste of land? They're in a DESERT.

*You could not fit 50000 people in it and it took up a LOT more land then the WTC.*

Great. So modify the design a bit.

*Being the reader that you are I'm not surprised that you missed tiassia's point of "qualifying proportions". The pyramids do NOT have qualifying proportions.*

Everything tiassa says is qualified in some way, usually many ways.
In any case, the pyramids have lasted for thousands of years, whereas the WTC lasted for less than 30.
Is it possible that the WTC actually succumbed to "lowest bidder" type reasoning?

*You attempted to pass yourself off as one way back when I first joined this forum.*

Describing some work-related functions hardly qualifies as "passing myself off" as a scientific type.

*No I know. Against any rational thought. *

For a person who is as unfocused in your thinking as you are, where would you get any first hand knowledge of rational thought?

*Not confusing infinity with a smaller number at all. It is confusing infinity with a number at all as it is not. *

There you go demonstrating my point about your unfocused thought.

 

[FA_Q2]

" You seem to be taking the statistical approach to the issue.
However, reducing the probability of a meteorite impact does not eliminate meteorite impacts. "

No it does not. There is also the probability that you atoms will decide to blow apart at any given moment but you don't seem to worry about that. We live in a world of probabilities. Live with it, it is the best you'll ever get.

" In addition, you are arguing against the existence of what scientists themselves have identified as a problem. "

Yes I am. That really means nothing as science is not a religion. I don't blindly follow scientists as you blindly follow your pastor. I actually think.

" If you say they are accounted for, then what actions have been taken to mitigate the risk of collision? "

Very little percentage of space occupied.

" That pretty well reveals your total lack of understanding of the risk involved.
You think it is the loss of cellular connections for a few days.
I say it is the near-total cessation of space travel, combined with tons of satellite debris raining on your head.
Oops, didn't see that chunk of satellite hitting your head. "

How many things have fallen from the sky in the last 100 years? I'll tell you it is a hell of a lot more than 8000 and very few of those actually struck a person. Also, how does this end space travel? We are still travailing in space. As long as we don't stick to many up there we will be able to travel in space. So far we have plenty of room up there.
Can't you do better tony? Guess not.

" I first saw it on a documentary video.
Presumably in your world, that doesn't count as documentation. "

No it does not. Are you that easily fooled that you believe anything Hollywood throws at you. How many documentaries have shown there to be aliens? Or maybe Atlantis is better. How about psychic abilities. Then again there are always those 'documented' catholic events that make their religious claim rock solid.

" What kind of crap is that? "

It is the same crap you write every day.

" You FAIL TO SEE THE NEGATIVE in drug-resistant tuberculosis??? "

No I fail to see the negative of not using anti-biotic or having MDRTB. Tell me tony, WHAT ARE THE DISADVANTAGES TO HAVING MDRTB IF YOU CANT USE ANTIBIOTICS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Do not take my quotes out of context.

" Fires are far more common than plane impacts where buildings are concerned. "

Multi-level fires with tons of jet fuel are not common.
Hmmmm....
If the jet brought the building down as a direct result of an impact then why did it take 20 minutes for the first one to collapse?

" Waste of land? They're in a DESERT. "

But the WTC is not. It would make no sense to have a pyramid in any city but Vegas.

" Great. So modify the design a bit. "

A bit!! If you hollowed out the design so that it could fit 50000 people it would collapse under its own weight. If you made it out of better materials then it would stand, but not survive a plain crash like the WTC. You have NO idea at all about construction do you.

" Is it possible that the WTC actually succumbed to "lowest bidder" type reasoning? "

So you would spend more, watch the economy crash, and then see millions die of poverty rather than thousands from being cheap. Or we could start walking around in bubbles like that movie bubble boy. It would be safer after all.

" Describing some work-related functions hardly qualifies as "passing myself off" as a scientific type. "

That is not what you did.

" For a person who is as unfocused in your thinking as you are, where would you get any first hand knowledge of rational thought? "

My thinking seems that way to one that cannot see past a book and is incapable of thinking for themselves.

" There you go demonstrating my point about your unfocused thought. "

So you do not actually understand infinity either.
Well....
A simple fact. INFINITY IS NOT A NUMBER. IT IS A CONCEPT. Get it now?

 

[Tiassa]

Progress? Perhaps.

Learning is one thing.
If something exists to be learned, then at one point one does not know it and later one does know.
That is, in fact, learning.

First, since you're using the word know, we might then conclude that there is no learning in faith? Since you're simply assuming and calling it "knowing"?

Now then, when did you first learn about gravity? Did you ever in your life learn more? Or did you have the luxury of a PhD in Physics explaining gravity to you when you were four?

The individualist bent of your self-centered faith seems to interfere with your ability to perceive knowledge as an entity unto itself. No "knowledge" is ever complete; when you assume the comfort of faith and tell yourself it's knowledge, you become dissatisfied with "knowledge" that isn't as fixed as your assumptions. I think you're an excellent illustration of this principle in living action. Now, one can learn a concept that isn't true; people learned about Jews in Nazi Germany. People learned about the "humors" of the body in bygone eras. For things learned to be valid, they must have a practical application; this is why science prefers the idea of bacteria and antibiotics over that of spirit possession. One "knowledge" can be applied with consistent expectations. The other must have a thorough faith assembly in place before it can work.

Perhaps you are unclear on the concept of "mistakes" and "atomic explosions," especially when they are so close together in a single sentence.

So the best you can do is to place your moral structure as fact and try to bend a witticism out of it? In the end, I agree that "atomic explosions" seem to have been a bad idea; that's the problem of making it a weapon, eh? But it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the assertion you were responding to, except to indicate your lack of any substantive answer. But then again, we're not surprised.

You mean, as in the modern invention of MDRTB (multiple drug-resistant tuberculosis)?
Oh yes, quite a success! For the tuberculosis bacilli!

What, gasp ... you mean, the bacteria evolved?

How does microbial evolution help your argument? And why indeed did the microbe have to evolve in the first place?

Let's.
It is merely adaptive.
The tuberculosis bacilli are still tuberculosis bacilli; they didn't turn into hippopotami.

So you assert no genetic modifications had to take place? And, furthermore, you assert that the adaption should, then, go away, instead of be a permanent part of the microbe's descendancy? Strange, then, that the old drugs don't work after a period of disuse. Could it be that the microorganism is changing permanently?

I do, but the curious absence of atomic explosions in most churches indicates that someone is at least heading toward what they think is the right path.

You're right ... nobody who ever detonated an atomic bomb was Christian. Of course, we can note that Christian-based oppression of peoples lost most of its lethal aspects before the invention of the atomic bomb, but that merely leaves us with two observations:

1) Christians weren't creative enough; after all, they just built bonfires and drowned women in tubs.
2) They taught well the future generations of killers to work with ambition and quantitative zeal. Kill 'em all, let God sort out the mess, eh?

*But that, as any witch knows, is the danger of being solitary in one's faith: with no image to compare oneself against, one generally mirrors their preexisting self with the new icon of faith.*

One shudders to think what witches pattern themselves after.

What? No real answer, then? You could try paying attention to what witches say, instead of seeking out the worst stereotypes to reinforce, and thus reinforce your own illusion of self-confidence. It's a shame the point slipped by you, Tony1, it's one you need to figure out.

*Cynicism, improperly deployed, tarnishes the knowledge and aims it to hurt, instead of protecting that knowledge.*

Cynicism, properly deployed, simply strips away the frippery of self-delusion that seems to attach itself itself to every thought generated by those who think themselves wise.

Really, Tony1, you can do better than to describe why people should be cynical of you. Whatsoever you do to the least of His brethren ... you decried the wisdom of the least of His brethren as false so that you could assume yourself to possess greater wisdom. Sick, Tony1 ... that's pretty sick. You're a hypocrite beyond even Jesus' imagination.

*You'll have to explain your WTC line, since it makes no sense.*

Perhaps you are unaware that the architect of the WTC allegedly claims to have made his calculations with the specific intent to have his buildings withstand such an aircraft collisions.
Oops.

Maybe he did, at the time. I haven't researched the history of the building's design versus the 757's ... besides, the BS factor is one of the problems I have with capitalism.

*I'm not sure it's possible to design a building of qualifying proportions that won't collapse under the force of impact of a fully-fuelled 757 at open throttle.*

I'm sure a 757 would just bounce off the Pyramids of Egypt even after thousands of years of weathering behind them.

Qualifying proportions? I'm not sure the Great Pyramid is what people have in mind when building in urban zones. Admittedly, I would love a city of pyramids, but I don't think it qualifies as having qualifying proportions. A vague term, I admit, but I figured even you could tell the difference between a skyscraper and a pyramid. Actually, I didn't. Such a stupid response as you gave never occurred to me in the first place.

Even with this sidetrack, I'm sure that you aren't really going to claim that similar errors in calculation have not been made (for sure, mind you) in the planned deployment of hundreds of additional satellites.

Point being?

*For this irrelevance, your response seems to be a standard dismissal of the issue for any lack of real knowledge or perspective that you might otherwise offer.*

Then again, it might be you lacking in knowledge and perspective.

If there's one thing your months of posting tells me, Tony1, it's that you would have shown us some of that knowledge and perspective by now if you had any. But we're quite accustomed to your brand of nothing: ever hear of a Zen martini? It's a martini with no vermouth at all. And no gin. Or glass. It's an olive on a toothpick in an extravagant bar. In other words, as pointless as your posts. Believe me, I'm sure they do have a point, but at that level, you're most likely preaching to the converted. Mere reaffirmations of what you already believe, and no real effort toward growing in your faith through knowledge.

Who on this forum would classify me as a scientific type?

Technically, sir, nobody. But you seem to think you know better than doctors and astrophycisists, and you claimed yourself too smart for med-school or something like that, and you read mostly technical manuals. But you've missed the point entirely, and I'm not sure there ever was one because this particular tangent is even more useless than most.

*That's right, what Tony1 takes for knowledge is a book I can find while looking for a condom when I'm with a hooker.*

Presumably then, knowledge is limited to certain locations, only?
Thus, knowledge is only to be found in places specified by tiassa, and in no other places.
And what is found in all of those other places is also to be defined by tiassa as non-knowledge.

It seems you've missed the point. Everyone knows Christianity focuses on the least-educated and least-empowered members of society; it's easier to maintain superstition among them and thus less important to actually produce any positive result. But then again, the Bible is a book that demands faithful acceptance above knowledge, so I think it's fair to say that it isn't knowledge. I pulled two tracts out of a phone booth today telling me how to be "saved" ... faith, faith, faith ... one must have faith, says the tract: these are not knowledge. It isn't so much the location of the information, Tony1, but its content. I can't recall the last article I ever read in a scientific journal that told me to have faith in its "writer" or else I would suffer punishment and death. If you'd provide one, we'll all say, "Oooh ... ahhhh .... wow, man ...."

*The Buddha is in the hedge-row.*

The Buddha is in the crapper.
(It's a Zen thing, you know)

Except for the worthless emotion that compels you to that comparison, you're more right than you know. Too bad about your disrespect toward other faiths and ideas, though. Otherwise, you would have a very valid point. But since you aren't actually capable of understanding why that point would be valid, it's not a valid point.

Actually, I don't.
I'm not writing a scientific paper.
If you don't believe it, that's OK by me.

Since you're asserting that Christianity is effective in preventing HIV, you'll have to provide some sort of evidence of your assertion, or else you are, in effect, wasting our time. But then again, we're used to that. As long as we're clear then that your assertion is unfounded, I'm willing to move on and see if you actually have a point. (You see, Tony1, therein lies the difference 'twixt your distrust and my trust: were I to inherently distrust you as you seem to distrust other people, I would have stopped reading your posts long ago on the certainty that you never will have anything to say. When one trusts the positive potential of humanity, anything is possible, including an occasion on which you demonstrate that you have a worthwhile point.)

While I can see the humor in such an approach to debate, the fact is that faith is my shield.
And against what, you may ask?
Against such inanely non-logical reasonings such as yours.

That's just your faith talkin'. Since we seem to have arrived, as noted above, at the conclusion that faith and knowledge are two separate things, I conclude that you are inventing windmills to tilt.

You're on a vitriolic roll now, tiassa!!!!!

However, "revisions of faith" are not required, nor even suggested.
Belief in evolution merely requires a lobotomy.

See, like that! Your faith cannot support its assertions against knowledge, and resorts to tawdry distractions. Why should evolution require a lobotomy? To equalize the evolutionist with the religionist?

What he seems to have omitted is that such questioning creates a feeling of irritation, as is expressed by so many in this forum, among other places.

It is only the prejudice of faith which makes it irritating. If one's inherent cultural assumptions were easily defended, it wouldn't be so irritating, would it? Again, you're so selfish with your approach: just because you're irritated by perspectives different from your own doesn't mean said perspectives are without value.

School-children have been so successfully brainwashed into believing that evolution is true, that they cannot believe that only a tiny minority (outside of recent graduates) believe in it, that it is a religious faith like many others and that it has not a shred of evidence for it.
They actually believe that a frog changes into a monkey changes into man, even though the simplest of mathematical calculations can demonstrate that it cannot possibly be true.

Then demonstrate, since you're the authority on science. Oh, wait, who at this forum would classify you as scientific? So it seems you're just belching up more faith here, and evading notions of knowledge and learning.

It's a piece of cake.
You two write it all down for me to read.

And this is why I stab at your reading comprehension. Because you're irritated by those perspectives different from your own, you assign your own prejudices to them so that you can demonize them. Really, Tony1, were your reading comprehension functional, you would be able to understand a little more about the perspectives you're so afraid of.

*SFor instance, your citation, *blah, blah, pot smoke, blah*, seems to be invented from the depths of nowhere.*

While I do think of your posts as originating from the depths of nowhere...

*the present incarnation speaks to your need to address sobriety once in a while.*

I'd like to, but that you would require you to be sober when I'm addressing you.
Oh well, one can dream.

And that's the best you can do? Come on, Tony1 ... you're the one who invents citations to respond to. Can you do anything other than be childish? Didn't think so.

*Hey, of everyone I know, I'm the only one who's actually curious about what's behind that point;*

So am I, but I suspect that it isn't the edge of the universe, as you unthinkingly put it.

Is that your faith speaking, Tony1?

*Many a Christian have found a place for knowledge beside their faith; why can't you?*

The feeble attempt at humor, by a rhetorical-looking double-entendre is duly noted.

This in lieu of an answer? I suppose I understand.

*The Universe is there for the learning, why do you want to leave it as what you think God tells you it is?*

I see now what you think my problem is.
I want to leave it as God tells me it is, not as the tiny little joke you're trying to convince me it is

I'd say that's your faith talkin' again, Tony1. Has it really consumed you so much that you're just an automaton? The discovery of God's Universe is a joke? Tell it to God, son, and see how far you get.

,
Tiassa

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by FA_Q2
There is also the probability that you atoms will decide to blow apart at any given moment but you don't seem to worry about that. We live in a world of probabilities. Live with it, it is the best you'll ever get. *

You are hell-bent on proving you have no clue, aren't you?
Satellites actually get struck by meteorites; that's why some of them suddenly quit working.
Your example is several orders of magnitude less likely to occur.

*Yes, I am. That really means nothing as science is not a religion.*

Given the fact that the guys who send the satellites up there actually think, and you don't, I'll go with their analysis.
It bears some resemblance to reality.

*I actually think. *

I challenge you to prove that.
Examples would be welcome.

*Very little percentage of space occupied.*

I note your complete unfamiliarity with the word "action."
I also note your complete unfamiliarity with risk analysis.

*How many things have fallen from the sky in the last 100 years? I'll tell you it is a hell of a lot more than 8000 and very few of those actually struck a person.*

Very few? That would be more than zero, correct?
I see you are still unclear on the concept of risk.

*Also, how does this end space travel? We are still travailing in space. As long as we don't stick to many up there we will be able to travel in space. So far we have plenty of room up there. *

You claim the ability to think.
Why not apply some thought to the issue?

*Are you that easily fooled that you believe anything Hollywood throws at you.*

Hollywood had nothing to do with it.

*How many documentaries have shown there to be aliens?*

None.

*Or maybe Atlantis is better.*

No Atlantis.

*How about psychic abilities.*

None.

*Then again there are always those 'documented' catholic events that make their religious claim rock solid. *

That which is documented isn't always what is claimed to be documented.

*No I fail to see the negative of not using anti-biotic or having MDRTB. Tell me tony, WHAT ARE THE DISADVANTAGES TO HAVING MDRTB IF YOU CANT USE ANTIBIOTICS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Do not take my quotes out of context.*

I quoted your entire statement.
Presumably, that is the context you wish to express.

The disadvantage is that people who get it, die.

*If the jet brought the building down as a direct result of an impact then why did it take 20 minutes for the first one to collapse?*

Did you notice that after it started to collapse, it took while for the top to stop moving downward?
I suppose the next step in your argument will be that the second floor didn't collapse as a result of the jet impact either, but only because the third floor struck it.

*So you would spend more, watch the economy crash, and then see millions die of poverty rather than thousands from being cheap.*

What are complaining about?
You got what you want.

Besides, I see that your grasp of economics is rather pathetic, too.
Since when does spending more cause an economy to crash?
Have you completely lost your mind?

*My thinking seems that way to one that cannot see past a book and is incapable of thinking for themselves. *

It seems that way to everybody except people who agree with you.

*Originally posted by tiassa
For things learned to be valid, they must have a practical application; this is why science prefers the idea of bacteria and antibiotics over that of spirit possession.*

It works so well, too.
MDRTB is one of the best successes modern medicine has produced, at least for the tuberculosis bacilli.

*What, gasp ... you mean, the bacteria evolved? *

No, they are still tuberculosis bacilli.
They may actually have been smarter than the doctors.

*So you assert no genetic modifications had to take place? And, furthermore, you assert that the adaption should, then, go away, instead of be a permanent part of the microbe's descendancy? Strange, then, that the old drugs don't work after a period of disuse. Could it be that the microorganism is changing permanently?*

You permanently changed from the age of one to your current age.
Are you prepared to argue that that permanent change is now reflected in your genes, such that your children (if any), will be born full-grown?
Since when does permanent change require genetic modification?

*What? No real answer, then?*

Of course not. I don't actually know what each and every witch is patterning him/herself after.

*Really, Tony1,*

You mean you wish to maintain your delusions?

*the BS factor is one of the problems I have with capitalism.*

I see a glimmer of the potential for agreement.
Mind you, I see the BS factor as a problem with communism, fascism, naziism, ...ism, ...ism, ...ism, etc.

*A vague term, I admit, but I figured even you could tell the difference between a skyscraper and a pyramid.*

The Transamerica tower is something I suspect you are unfamiliar with.
A skyscraper in the shape of a pyramid.
Who knew?

*Technically, sir, nobody.*

Bite the bullet, tiassa. You're forced to agree once in a while, even though you put yourself thru amazing contortions trying to look like you don't.

*It isn't so much the location of the information*

Again we agree.
See, it doesn't actually hurt that much.

*Except for the worthless emotion that compels you to that comparison, you're more right than you know.*

Again, some more agreement.
Then again, the Buddha IS in the crapper.
If he isn't, then he isn't the Buddha.

*Since you're asserting that Christianity is effective in preventing HIV, you'll have to provide some sort of evidence of your assertion*

I said nothing about prevention, although I will now.
People who listen to God and do what he says don't get HIV.
People who don't do what he says get HIV in great numbers.

*Why should evolution require a lobotomy?*

How else can one explain the total inability to see the ramifications of evolution in the evolutionist?
Granted it is one area I stand to be corrected in.
Perhaps the requirement is a cortectomy, or a synapse inhibitor, or electroshock, or something.
Whatever it is, it seriously affects brain function in the area of reason.

*you would be able to understand a little more about the perspectives you're so afraid of.*

And those perspectives would be...?

*This in lieu of an answer?*

This in lieu of an answer for that in lieu of a question.

*The discovery of God's Universe is a joke?*

The discovery of tiassa's universe is a joke.
On second thought, it is very sad.

 

[Tiassa]

Let's see that too-bright-for-med-school mind!

You permanently changed from the age of one to your current age.
Are you prepared to argue that that permanent change is now reflected in your genes, such that your children (if any), will be born full-grown?
Since when does permanent change require genetic modification?

Since you were too smart for med school, I feel I should ask you about how those microorganisms became drug-resistant. However, since you are Tony1, we understand that it just happened. Your question is a diversion, and you know it.

Of course not. I don't actually know what each and every witch is patterning him/herself after.

Then maybe you'd best consider your abusive misconceptions of paganism and cramming them up your ass. Is this what you were afraid to admit to Cupric?

You mean you wish to maintain your delusions?

Let's see, like Tony1 knows what a sentence is? Three words? You're getting lazy, even for you.

Mind you, I see the BS factor as a problem with communism, fascism, naziism, ...ism, ...ism, ...ism, etc.

We know, we know ... Tony1 is right, everyone else is going to hell, or the grave, or something stupid like that. We know.

The Transamerica tower is something I suspect you are unfamiliar with.
A skyscraper in the shape of a pyramid.
Who knew?

Yes, and it will last a thousand years, won't it? I'm surprised you didn't point out the Vegas casino, but I think we all understand that it's a novelty.

Bite the bullet, tiassa. You're forced to agree once in a while, even though you put yourself thru amazing contortions trying to look like you don't.

What bullet? Hell, I'm wondering why you spend so much time picking on scientific concepts if you're not a scientific type? Sounds to me like you're just bluster and superstition, but we knew that already.

Again we agree.
See, it doesn't actually hurt that much.

That would be comforting if I thought you had a clue what you were talking about.

Again, some more agreement.
Then again, the Buddha IS in the crapper.
If he isn't, then he isn't the Buddha.

I agree that you have no clue what you're talking about.

I said nothing about prevention, although I will now.
People who listen to God and do what he says don't get HIV.
People who don't do what he says get HIV in great numbers.

Ah, how correct you are; you said cure ... even less credible and more despicable on your part.

And people who think God tells them what is best for other people help spread AIDS by preventing its education and by encouraging relevantly dangerous drug consumption patterns through supporting a drug war. It happens to the best of y'all ... you have to remember that people who "listen to God and do what he says" believe many different things about what those words mean. Thus there's the Christian father who gives his little girls social diseases because he believes Jesus will forgive him the hookers, and the child abuse, and what's a little pop in the old lady's mouth now and then? And you can deny their Christianity all you want but it doesn't change the fact that these people share something in common with you: they think they're saved. That is, they think they're doing okay in Jesus' eyes. It's one of the reasons there's not supposed to be ideological diversity among Christians: there is one way to the father, and that one way means so many things that polar opposites do the trick.

We could go one step farther, though, and note that Seventh-Day Adventism is a preventative effort against cancer.

How else can one explain the total inability to see the ramifications of evolution in the evolutionist?
Granted it is one area I stand to be corrected in.
Perhaps the requirement is a cortectomy, or a synapse inhibitor, or electroshock, or something.
Whatever it is, it seriously affects brain function in the area of reason.

Is this another one of those times when you're setting up to point out that Christianity is no worse than the alternative?

And those perspectives would be...?

Well, let's see ... judging by your posts, those perspectives would include those of:

* Pagans
* Women
* Catholics
* anybody in the world, since it is your natural inclination to distrust them

Yeah, pretty much anyone. (Like you couldn't see that coming?)

This in lieu of an answer for that in lieu of a question.

Ah ... that might be a problem of your reading comprehension skills.

The question, sir, was: Many a Christian have found a place for knowledge beside their faith; why can't you?

Yeah, Tony1, that was a bright and snappy comeback. And accurate, too

The discovery of tiassa's universe is a joke.
On second thought, it is very sad.

What, it's sad that you have to put some effort into learning about the Universe? Is that why you're comfortable with the superstitions your God teaches you?

What's sad, Tony1, is the amount of energy you put into ignorance.

,
Tiassa

 

[FA_Q2]

" Satellites actually get struck by meteorites; that's why some of them suddenly quit working."

And so far it has not caused the end of the world. It happens, and infrequently enough that it is workable.

" Given the fact that the guys who send the satellites up there actually think, and you don't, I'll go with their analysis.
It bears some resemblance to reality. "

So far you haven't gone with their assertion. You have made up your own.

" I also note your complete unfamiliarity with risk analysis. "

I also note your ability to spout crap and buzzwords without actually understanding any of it. You remind me of Dilbert's boss.

" Very few? That would be more than zero, correct?
I see you are still unclear on the concept of risk. "

I am quite clear on that concept. You on the other hand are not. Very few have been hit with falling things from the sky. As far as I can tell zero are from man made items. That s another thing entirely since it is going to happen. The question is what would happen if we didn't have satellites at all? More people would suffer and die as a result. So they are saving people.

" You claim the ability to think.
Why not apply some thought to the issue? "

I have. You have yet to apply any thought past 'you don't understand.' If I do not then why is there no explaining? It could be due to the fact that YOU do not understand and are passing it off because you don't like to be wrong.

" *
Me: How many documentaries have shown there to be aliens?*

Tony1: None. "

Now that is funny. I can name at least 10 off the top of my head.

" *Or maybe Atlantis is better.*

No Atlantis.

*How about psychic abilities.*

None. "

Same here.

" Me: *No I fail to see the negative of not using anti-biotic or having MDRTB. Tell me tony, WHAT ARE THE DISADVANTAGES TO HAVING MDRTB IF YOU CANT USE ANTIBIOTICS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Do not take my quotes out of context.*

Tony1: I quoted your entire statement.
Presumably, that is the context you wish to express.
The disadvantage is that people who get it, die. "

Yup. However, if you got TB and did not use treatments you die. Well, there is no disadvantage then. Ether way you die. Of course we are not including the fact that treatments saved millions before the MTRTB came about and treatments are still saving those with TB.

" Did you notice that after it started to collapse, it took while for the top to stop moving downward? "

Yea, less than 30 seconds. Where are the other 19.5 minutes?

" Besides, I see that your grasp of economics is rather pathetic, too.
Since when does spending more cause an economy to crash?
Have you completely lost your mind? "

Not spending money you dolt, uselessly causing things to cost way to much. If a building cost to much no more will be built. No more office space. No more room for companies to grow. Your reasoning makes everything coast so much that the economy will crash because it costs way to much to buy anything. I think you fail to understand economics at all. That is not a surprise.

" The Transamerica tower is something I suspect you are unfamiliar with.
A skyscraper in the shape of a pyramid.
Who knew? "

48 stories tall and so skinny I doubt it can withstand a 747 fully fueled.

" People who listen to God and do what he says don't get HIV. "

Now that is crap. I guess those blood transfusions of those that got it from their spouses before the disease was discovered do not count in your tally.