Driver to drive?

[Andrew VK3BFA]

not_keith wrote:

As a Christian (and an Engineer, yes not ALL science orientated
people
are atheists - we just cann't spell), I have to ask.... Have you
looked at the subject heading for this forum?

Yep - important message. Was a Christain diatribe(sp) - why do they
preach, surely if they have faith and certainty in their God, then it
is unnecessary. And I have nothing against Christians, its a fine moral
philosophy. Pity about all the people killed in its name. (And the same
goes for all the other religions, and political systems, - they all
look good, its just that the execution/interpretation by flawed human
beings is vastly different from what their founders intended.)
73 de VK3BFA Andrew.

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

nice_reply_only@yahoo.com wrote:

Good News!

Do you know how simple it is to go to Heaven after this life has ended?

You'll never know. There's a special place in Hell reserved for those
who spam newgroups with off-topic crap.


--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
If life was fair, Elvis would be alive and all the impersonators
would be dead. -- Johnny Carson

 

[Noah Roberts]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

Dude, where are you at? I could use some assistance with my chi. Are
you anywhere near LA?

No, and there are way more advanced people than me...I'm pretty much a
novice. I have a hard enough time doing it myself, I couldn't teach
anything but the easy stuff.

Find a Tai Chi, Chi Gung, or Xing Yi expert...Karate or kung fu will
also work, but not all of them really work on Chi a lot.

In other words, you should learn from a master, something I am not.

 

[Ban]

Bradley1234 wrote:

Honestly having checked out details of world religions, only
Christianity can withstand the scrutiny of science. Extremist
atheists are as those who sent Christ to the cross, saying Christ was
guilty when Pilate found no guilt at all and was perplexed by the
insanity of the crowd. There is something that causes people who
havent studied it, to take this raging, angry response to
Christianity that I have not witnessed towards any other religion.
That in itself suggests to me it could be true

Really, I feel you have watched too much Mel Gibson, that is not necessarily
the truth.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

 

[Anthony Fremont]

"Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote

Honestly having checked out details of world religions, only
Christianity
can withstand the scrutiny of science.

Ummm, the scientific method won't work here. One can't conduct any
experiments.

I guess that puts it in the same realm as the big bang and the first
fraction of a second afterwards. ;-) It's simply a matter of where you
chose to "put your faith".

 

[Parse Tree]

learner@juno.com wrote:

In <HbfKd.248458$ju.41350@news.easynews.com>, on 01/27/05
at 11:55 PM, Parse Tree <account@domain.extension> said:


Show me a *contemporary* *written* record to these alleged sightings.

Game over, little man.

You really think that the only proof of anything on this earth has to come
from a contemporary source? You reject all of history because it is not
contemporary?


I, personally, would accept a credible source.

You, personally, don't know what a credible source is. You change the
meaning of the word every time your position is challenged.

I'm not the person who thinks some guy off the street is a credible source.

 

[ParaXerxes]

Mark Fergerson wrote:

ParaXerxes wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

A "fact"? The US Constitution in particular asserts that certain
rights are God-given (because it was written by men who believed
that), but presents no proof. Do you have any? If not, I see no reason
to bother trying to refute an unsupported assertion.

Atheists fall into the same trap that they accuse religionists of
falling prey to. You have offered no proof of your assertions.

Which assertions, exactly? What part of the above do you dispute?

Claims a many you
and your cohorts make, but no real proof is offered. So-called
scientific proof is no proof at all, it's but an argument based on
human concepts, human interpretations, human speculation, human
preconceptions and human nonsense in accepting the authority of science
as the supreme
determinator
and authority.

Well, being human, it's hard for me to accept anything less. What
does _your_ species mean by "real proof" and "sense", and accept as
"the supreme determinator and authority"?

Should we bow down to science as the God of the Universe?

Bow down to whatever you like. I bow to nothing.

Atheism in such a context is based purely on speculation and
assumption.

Oh? Do you have definitive proof of the existence of deities?

Dogma reigns in atheism as it reigns in religion and science.

No. The scientific equivalent of "dogmas" reign only so long as they
remain un-disproved. Many have fallen or been demonstrated to have
limited application in the last three hundred or so years, and many more
(if not all) are _assumed_ to fall in the future. This does not occur in
religion.

Science is a work-in-progress. Religions are closed systems.

I see no reassonable cause for me to waste my precious time in
refuting your
irrational preconceptions.

IOW, you have no actual arguments to contribute.

Incidentally, I am not a religionist.

Riiiight.

Oh, and don't limit followups to groups I don't frequent.

Mark L. Fergerson

The mediocrity of human knowledge and understanding is unbelievable. The
arrogance of humans is even more unbelievable in light of its ignorance.
the fool thinks themselves wise.

When a question is asked with sincerity I will answer.

Make all the assumptions about me that you like, nothing, not even the human
pretence to knowledge, can change truth. Truth is not subservient to human
concepts. Magna est veritas et prevalebit. More have been turned away from
science because of science's and its adherents attitudes than you'll ever
realise. It really is a shame.

 

[Parse Tree]

Noah Roberts wrote:

Parse Tree wrote:

Yes, I know... I replied again...

Your 'proof' isn't a proof. I have already pointed out the incorrect
premise, and thus your proof is invalidated.

The term I have been looking for is undecidable.

The existance of an all powerful god is undecidable.

No it's not, I just proved that it's not possible. It's decided.

You were right, I did not invalidate logic. But the proof of
non-existance is still wrong because logic cannot limit an unlimited
being.

You're trying to define him into existence.

Undecidability is valid in logic, it means we can't find the
answer in logic (exactly what I claimed), and it is proven...by the same
guy who proved the law you keep using.

You need to look up undecidability. For one, you have to prove that
something is undecidable, and the fact that I've decided it with a proof
pretty much prevents that from happening.

I think this guy (honestrosewater) uses logic pretty well to answer the
question "Can God limit God's power" with God defined as unlimited (all
powerful):

Your definition: God's power is unlimited.
Can logic limit God's power? No. Read your definition.
Can people limit God's power? No. Read your definition.

Ergo god cannot logically exist.

Can God limit God's power? Well, now you have an interesting question.
If you say yes, "God can limit God's power" then you are using logic to
limit God's power. Can you limit God's power? No. Can logic limit God's
power? No. So you cannot say yes.
If you say no, "God cannot limit God's power" then you are using logic
to limit God's power. Can you limit God's power? No. Can logic limit
God's power? No.
So you cannot say no.
You can neither say yes nor say no.
I will have to check with someone more comfortable with these concepts,
but I believe the question "Can God limit God's power?" is undecidable
by your definition.

http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=54956

Yes, he got a contradiction, and ergo God cannot logically exist.

Do you understand yet that logic is not actually putting any sort of
limitation on god? It's just seeing it god is consistent with logic. God
is not, ergo god cannot logically exist. It's really quite simple.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 03:34:03 +0000, Yukio wrote:

Did you know that the Hubble mirror could have been QC inspected and
tested with only a Pin-hole Light source and a Knife-edge. Idea was
overruled as too primitive, like building the Panama Canel with a pick
and shovel.!

Do you have links to any more information about this, or is it just more
UL?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Ken Taylor]

"Guy Macon" <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote in message
news:10vi0lmdnnda508@corp.supernews.com...

Gareth wrote:

1m square array would therefore need >400,0000,000,000 pixels,
each sampling at thousands of THz.

Gareth, marketing just called; they need that CCD array by
Friday, at a retail cost of less than $10 per array...

.....because they've sold 200 already!

Ken

 

[Digi]

James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> writes:

Aunty Kreist wrote:

Does Scientology count as a religion, or a cult?

Is there a difference?

A cult is just an unpopular religion.

Digi
--
The idle mind knows not what it is it wants.
-- Quintus Ennius

 

In <w8kKd.279771$f47.55410@news.easynews.com>, on 01/28/05

I paid attention. Your 'evidence' was simply not worth the effort it
took you.

Because I was never attempting to prove God exists. You can't worm out of
it, you were wrong.

Yes, I'm playing the game 'find evidence of Jesus'. I'm losing very
badly, because there doesn't look like there is any.

You have admitted five times that there is evidence, and now you think you
can change you mind? Sorry, its already out there for anyone to see.

No, it's a sign that you've become boring.

The clever reparte of one who has been caught, and proven wrong.

That's probably why you believe incorrect things. Incorrect evidence
will lead you to incorrect conclusions.

Yes, but I am not incorrect, because I was not trying to prove anything
that needed evidence. Once again, you validate my point. Keep it up. I
like winning an argument

No, it exists, but it's not evidence, because it's incorrect. Evidence
has to be true for it to be useful.

This is where you fall down completely. Evidence is not necessarily a
fact. You can try to change the definition, but that does not make it
correct. Evidence is used to determine facts. Often, evidence is found to
be false, but it is still evidence.

You just don't know what the word evidence means. Here is a helpful hint
for the future: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Actually it really is the case!

No again. Evidence is not always true. That is why we have trials, and
judges, and scientists and intelligent people who WEIGH THE EVIDENCE, and
make a decisions. If there is not false evidence, we do not need jurys,
judges, or, oh how I wish, scientists. Think before you try and alter this
fact.

I don't know if you're talking about Jesus or God.

I don't care, neither of them is the point of all of this.

I have some incorrect evidence that says you wear women's clothing.

Wow, good one. This is how people behave when they are caught in their own
words. Smarmy comments in hopes of moving off the subject.

Remember, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Incorrect evidence is not evidence.

Yes, it is. Maybe I ought to put up a web site that says "evidence does
not have to be true, or factual" post the URL here, and THEN you will
believe it.

Here is an example you can understand. A crime is commited, a trial
commences, both sides present their EVIDENCE. The jury listens to all the
EVIDENCE, and makes a decision as to which they choose to believe. Their
decision does not make the losing side's evidence dissapear, or vanish
into the night. It is merely determined to be incorrect. It can still be
seen, it has mass and takes up space, and it is available for anyone
interested, to view it, and consider it, and make their own decisions.

I discarded it, because it was
incorrect.

As is your right. No argument from me on that, but once again, you
validate my premise that there is evidence, but you choose to discard it.
That does not make it go away, so again, I am correct in what I said.
There is evidence.

Yes, there is incorrect evidence that suggests he exists. I have it on
good authority that there is incorrect evidence that also shows that I
can shoot fireballs out of my ass.

And you are also showing everyond exactly how mature, wise, and
intelligent you are.

Why not just admit that I am right and get it over with? You have already
conceded a half dozen times, so make it official.

Doesn't matter if there is a God, there is evidence that He exists. You
just don't accept it.

Again, I win!

Now, go argue with someone about God, because it doesn't matter to
me.

 

[Tim Wescott]

Ken Smith wrote:

In article <10vh0vlo9igof81@corp.supernews.com>,
Tim Wescott <tim@wescottnospamdesign.com> wrote:

years, but it's a consistent, even green -- the only fingerprints are on
the back panels which are (a) removable and (b) not taped.

Clear paint would probably also work, assuming you're careful about not
painting the parts that are supposed to connect.



How about getting it gold plated?

Must resist temptation to -- oh to hell with it:

Why would you want to gold plate paint?

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

 

[Fred Bloggs]

John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:02:55 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:


Bush unfazed by UK protest plans
Bush unfazed by 'loving women' gaffe
Bush unfazed by criticism
Bush unfazed by falling car rental taxes, Orlando hotel closings
Bush unfazed as absence of WMDs confirmed
Bush unfazed by criticism, believes WMD search has just begun
Bush unfazed by death toll (this blunt title has been hidden by The
Herald Sun)
Bush unfazed as US toll in Iraq tops 1,000
Bush unfazed by spineless pundits, UN



Gosh Fred, you sure sound fazed.

Did you listen to, or even better read, his Inaugural address?

No- I cannot stand listening to that drawling brainless garbage for more
than a millisecond.

You
have two choices:

1. Believe he means this and that it's possible.

Bush is a void- he believes nothing, he understands nothing, he knows
nothing, he is nothing, just another ape with a title.

or

2. Believe in nothing. In that case, he's a winner and you're a loser,
and that's OK because only power matters and the world has always
been, and will always be, a miserable mess. Tough luck about those
kids in Africa.

Okay - well here's the deal- your retard has "broken" his main
substitute for a penis, otherwise known as the US Army. This fiction
about a light, agile, high tech Army does not work when it comes to old
fashioned occupation of a large land area inhabited by millions of
heavily armed bitter enemies hell bent on destroying you at any cost. If
you pay attention to little things like the statistic that support:
combat ratio is running 4:1, then you would realize that the insurgent:
US combat strength may be pushing 10:1. The situation is clearly
becoming one where the full time job of the occupation forces is
protecting themselves while providing very little security for the
majority of the population. Nearly 500 high level Iraqi government
officials have been assassinated in just the past four months, and
untold thousands of apostates, collaborators, and/or what-have-you's
have been executed. Now you were saying something about power? It
doesn't look like the resistance fighters in Iraq are all that impressed
with your idea of power. I've noticed that Iran is not folding
especially fast in response to Bush's blowhard innuendo either. Bush's
speech was an atrocious pile of evangelical crap. If he's so sold on
democracy, then I challenge him to enforce it in Pakistan- not too
convenient that one- would soon become a nuclear armed Islamic state
with missiles pointed at the US- remember, the latest Pew poll conducted
there showed that Bin Laden was #1 in their view, that the insurgency in
Iraq was justified, and that the US invasion there was a blatant oil grab.

 

[Paul Burke]

Bradley1234 wrote:

How can you say it isnt true? A person has only 2 options, to say its
absolutely true, or, they dont know.

Or to say it's absolutely false. These are in the same position as the
person who says it's absolutely true, i.e. they don't know but they
won't admit it.

Paul Burke

 

[Kevin Aylward]

learner@juno.com wrote:

In <jBiKd.270328$ju.45089@news.easynews.com>, on 01/28/05
at 03:47 AM, Parse Tree <account@domain.extension> said:

Well, I admit that you tried those things, but you failed to control
the discussion.

Because you failed to pay attention to anything that was brought up,
for fear you might have to concede that you may be mistaken.

I am not about to try and prove the existence of God. Its not my
place, it doesn't belong here, and I won't do it.

Ok. And I won't prove that there are a finite number of primes.

What the hell does that have to do with any of this?

No, I've never heard any credible evidence that there even was an
historical Jesus Christ.

Well then you are just playing the game to see how far I will go.
This is as far as I will go.

I think you mean LSD Church.

Why do you feel the need to put people and organizations down. That is
really the sign of a small mind.

The LSD Church is demonstrable false. They are frauds, so sure, I have a
moral issue with staying silent on such knowledge. I take the same
action against those that claim oxygen free cable makes for a better
sound, and subsequently charge $100 for a bit of wire. The LSD steal 10%
of peoples earnings by fraudulent methods. Its that simple.

Since you apparently know enough to feel you can judge those people,
how can you say you don't know of any evidence of Jesus? Your problem
is, you think all evidence has to be correct, and I say it does not.
Incorrect evidence is still evidence, you cannot make it non-existent
by your disbelief.

Oh dear. Case closed. Your clueless.

Like, you truly believe false evidence is considered evidence? Yeah,
sure its evidence that the dude has committed perjury, but thats your
lot.

Further discussion is pointless. You are discribed quite well at
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Rene Tschaggelar]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 03:34:03 +0000, Yukio wrote:


Did you know that the Hubble mirror could have been QC inspected and
tested with only a Pin-hole Light source and a Knife-edge. Idea was
overruled as too primitive, like building the Panama Canel with a pick
and shovel.!


Do you have links to any more information about this, or is it just more
UL?

Rich,
Telescopes can be tested against a point source. In earlier
times one used aluminum foil with a pinhole in front of a
lamp, nowadays, I'd rather use a laserdiode without optics
in 500m distance. The 10um in square are pretty close to a
point soutce. Through the telescope one then sees the bessel
rings of the fourier transformed point source if the telescope
is right. Otherwise one sees the distortions in interferometry
style.

Rene
--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net

 

[Rhyanon]

Touchy little fucktard, ain't ya? So HAVE you stopped beatin' yer whore? How
can you , when you made the cunt up to begin with?

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:h20iv05956copj2lndm1s8r1lcibicb3bl@4ax.com...

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:56:05 -0500, "Aunty Kreist"
Aunty_Kreist@satanickittens.net> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:ejcfv0d0p6s0k4prkgvcao5ftp7va0pbgv@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 07:58:33 -0600, "Rhyanon" <pissoff@uberbitch.com
wrote:

How so, shitlick?

---
Dumcunt can't even figger it out.
Size 48W twat coupled to a size 2N brain?

Yeah, honey, you've got a lot to look forward to...

Does your wife know your projecting her failings all over Usenet?

---
What "failings"?

By "failings" you obviously mean trying to keep me locked down so I
can't talk down to a couple of foul-mouthed bitches, which is exactly
what you'd like, no?

AND, your question is phrased like the classic: "Have you stopped
beating your wife?"

Try again later...

--
John Fields

 

[Rhyanon]

Oh, sure it was, einswine. Yer brilliant like mud.


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:5jhiv093lnchftuk4gtpc1hcltgqqmvbfh@4ax.com...

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:18:46 -0600, "Rhyanon" <pissoff@uberbitch.com
wrote:

So, you spew things without being able to explain them? how utterly
mindless
of you.

---
The statement, to someone of even subnormal intellect, should have
been self-explanatory.

--
John Fields

 

[Rhyanon]

Merely making the only conversation suitable to a creature of
your.................hehehe........dubious origins.

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:j1iiv0larubm8b5jddh4f8vmloksld08ec@4ax.com...

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:19:19 -0600, "Rhyanon" <pissoff@uberbitch.com
wrote:

What'd yer fat ho mama do, besides not wiping you off, I mean.

---
Desperately grasping at straws, huh?

--
John Fields