I think that the so-called 'new' atheism is simply a 'not believing that there are any gods'.
Christian philosophers can try to drag that into their 'arena' and 'hammer' it with the old, "How can we know anything?"
That's an uphill climb. If a person lives on this here ball of mud long enough to form an opinion about supernatural beings and that opinion is 'thumbs down' all the word-magic in the World is not going to change their minds.
Think about it. Anyone who is an atheist today has overcome all the church people who belong to all the churches on all the street corners. They've overcome all the teachers, perhaps their own parents and surely some of their sisters and/or brothers.
These people are determined. There is no way that you could be an atheist because daddy was. If you grew up in 'the West' you had to PERSONALLY overcome the notion that there is an all-powerful authority in the face of KNOWING that there IS authority (of course there is), in the face of the propaganda that Christianity IS freedom, in the face of all the propaganda that goodness is exactly the same thing as Godliness, in the face of their DEMAND for respect.
But they KNOW that to 'respect' their demands, is to be them. There is no escape. If you ridicule them, you are in league with Satan.
How do we few, as little as 10% continue on, challenging the D'Souza's of this World that we are not monstrous Stalins, Maos etc. ?
There's NO convincing them that if we're not with them we're not against them.
It is a stand-off.
We can only hope that since the internet is the ONLY means by which we can stand them off, the only means by which we spread our 'reason', that they will not find some way to cut off our solidarity(for want of a better word).
... and they say that we have no 'hope'. HAH!
Monday, December 22, 2008
Friday, December 19, 2008
I believe..
I believe, in fact I KNOW that I am a streaming consciousness.
What is 'essentially' ME is NOT my body but the process of ME knowing that I am me.
I believe, and I'm SURE that the process of being me is an electro-magnetic process caused by my brain and extended nervous system which 'tells' me that I am an individual human being living in this world with other living human beings who have their OWN personal nervous systems, brains and streaming consciousnesses.
I believe that we can and have, through science, constructed an objective model of reality where individual objects, known as atoms, exist in three dimensions of space and 'through'(or over) time.
I believe that some of these individual objects have combined to form MASSIVE complex objects that we see around us. Anything with the element CARBON in it is called an organic compound because we KNOW that all life is based on CARBON compounds.(therefore, by definition, organic compounds)
This doesn't mean that anything with carbon in it is alive, it means that anything alive has carbon in it.
Speculating that there may be 'life' without CARBON in it, is IMAGINATION.
Does your notion of GOD include HIM being composed of CARBON compounds?
If, "NO!", then your GOD is NOT alive in reality, which is, by any scientific definition that is not speculation or imagination.
Sure, you can hark back to a time when science hadn't defined 'life' or appeal to philosophy(unempirical, untestable "knowledge"), but then you are avoiding the answer to the question, "What is life as we KNOW it?" and substituting an answer to, "What is life as we might imagine it to be?" Is THAT clear enough?
What is 'essentially' ME is NOT my body but the process of ME knowing that I am me.
I believe, and I'm SURE that the process of being me is an electro-magnetic process caused by my brain and extended nervous system which 'tells' me that I am an individual human being living in this world with other living human beings who have their OWN personal nervous systems, brains and streaming consciousnesses.
I believe that we can and have, through science, constructed an objective model of reality where individual objects, known as atoms, exist in three dimensions of space and 'through'(or over) time.
I believe that some of these individual objects have combined to form MASSIVE complex objects that we see around us. Anything with the element CARBON in it is called an organic compound because we KNOW that all life is based on CARBON compounds.(therefore, by definition, organic compounds)
This doesn't mean that anything with carbon in it is alive, it means that anything alive has carbon in it.
Speculating that there may be 'life' without CARBON in it, is IMAGINATION.
Does your notion of GOD include HIM being composed of CARBON compounds?
If, "NO!", then your GOD is NOT alive in reality, which is, by any scientific definition that is not speculation or imagination.
Sure, you can hark back to a time when science hadn't defined 'life' or appeal to philosophy(unempirical, untestable "knowledge"), but then you are avoiding the answer to the question, "What is life as we KNOW it?" and substituting an answer to, "What is life as we might imagine it to be?" Is THAT clear enough?
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Sunday Sermon
Sunday Sermon.
There is an awesome process going on here. It's cyclical nature seems to be hinted at in all.We thinking beings noticed this by the seasons, the tides, the phases of the moon, the repetitive nature of life itself.
But we came to be thinking beings by being social beings, and societies have leaders, societies have authority.For us, it is only natural to assume that the cyclical process of the universe is run by authority.
If some of us call the process GOD, it is natural for us to anthropomorphize that process and have that process be 'the decider' of our fate.
There is NO appeal to this ultimate authority, which is fate. At the same time there is Earthly authority, natural authority that we can see in leaders of packs, herds and flocks of animals and birds, which I'm sure is an extention of the authority of parents.
BUT with religion, there can be an appeal to an organized 'reflection' of spiritual authority. With religion we can connect parental authority to 'fate' through a hierarchy which becomes it's own purpose.
This is a double edged sword as authority not only grants favors, it demands compliance, submission.
The idea is that, ONLY with submission, can come favors BUT as with all authority comes corruption and the authority becomes self-serving, loses its original purpose of 'peace and love to all mankind' to 'bring us together' and replaces that with "you must obey".
What we 'are obeying' here is someone's interpretation of 'that, that is good' corrupted to be, 'that that is GODLY'. The only trouble with this is that the process, or fate or God, is NOT fair, it is not necessarilly good. Authority is not necessarilly just.
Can't you almost hear the theists whispering, "YES, but OUR religion is the best model, the least corrupt, join us, join us..."
There is an awesome process going on here. It's cyclical nature seems to be hinted at in all.We thinking beings noticed this by the seasons, the tides, the phases of the moon, the repetitive nature of life itself.
But we came to be thinking beings by being social beings, and societies have leaders, societies have authority.For us, it is only natural to assume that the cyclical process of the universe is run by authority.
If some of us call the process GOD, it is natural for us to anthropomorphize that process and have that process be 'the decider' of our fate.
There is NO appeal to this ultimate authority, which is fate. At the same time there is Earthly authority, natural authority that we can see in leaders of packs, herds and flocks of animals and birds, which I'm sure is an extention of the authority of parents.
BUT with religion, there can be an appeal to an organized 'reflection' of spiritual authority. With religion we can connect parental authority to 'fate' through a hierarchy which becomes it's own purpose.
This is a double edged sword as authority not only grants favors, it demands compliance, submission.
The idea is that, ONLY with submission, can come favors BUT as with all authority comes corruption and the authority becomes self-serving, loses its original purpose of 'peace and love to all mankind' to 'bring us together' and replaces that with "you must obey".
What we 'are obeying' here is someone's interpretation of 'that, that is good' corrupted to be, 'that that is GODLY'. The only trouble with this is that the process, or fate or God, is NOT fair, it is not necessarilly good. Authority is not necessarilly just.
Can't you almost hear the theists whispering, "YES, but OUR religion is the best model, the least corrupt, join us, join us..."
Sunday, December 7, 2008
"the hat's fault"
Do you know how many sperms 'vie' for 'entrance' to life as a being-that-will-'sex'-another being?
Gotta be a couple-a-hundred to one!(at least) Right?
But we're assuming that the 'egg' is 'in the pipe five by five' here, what are the odds that MAMA would be 'in the mood' to spread her legs?
Are we talking 'mamas' like the women that "I" know here? Are we talking, "Miss Priss!" or "Mattress Mona!"(seriously, I KNOW HER), or what the fuck(pun LOL) are we talkin' here?
Ya KNOW, just 'cos you 'BITCHES' have 'outies' , don't mean that 'goddidit!', surely!
You DO realise that us organic life forms 'happen' to be here 'BECAUSE' we find humping 'intriguing'???(mesmerizing, sexy, 'better than chocolate' etc. etc.)
WTF is wrong with you 'god-did-it''s?
I'd be a 'happy camper' if you would simply live up to your OWN expectations!!!
Why is THAT so hard for you?
Example.. AAAAAAAAAA! AAAAAAAA! You live in the desert! THAT'S why no food will grow! Are you MENTAL!?
Gotta be a couple-a-hundred to one!(at least) Right?
But we're assuming that the 'egg' is 'in the pipe five by five' here, what are the odds that MAMA would be 'in the mood' to spread her legs?
Are we talking 'mamas' like the women that "I" know here? Are we talking, "Miss Priss!" or "Mattress Mona!"(seriously, I KNOW HER), or what the fuck(pun LOL) are we talkin' here?
Ya KNOW, just 'cos you 'BITCHES' have 'outies' , don't mean that 'goddidit!', surely!
You DO realise that us organic life forms 'happen' to be here 'BECAUSE' we find humping 'intriguing'???(mesmerizing, sexy, 'better than chocolate' etc. etc.)
WTF is wrong with you 'god-did-it''s?
I'd be a 'happy camper' if you would simply live up to your OWN expectations!!!
Why is THAT so hard for you?
Example.. AAAAAAAAAA! AAAAAAAA! You live in the desert! THAT'S why no food will grow! Are you MENTAL!?
Friday, December 5, 2008
Everybody thinks different, Jackass!
I am pissed off at people saying stupid things, such as, "How do atheists think?", "What do atheists believe?", etc.
What part of, "There are no gods, not even one!", synthesize into, "You guys are warring on Christmas!", or, "You guys are responsible for a million-plus abortions!", or , "Can't you see God everywhere you look, you must just HATE God, if you don't!", or, "You saw a killer-whale that you fell in love with at first sight, and YOU just want an excuse to hump that bitch, right?!"
Honestly, I don't want to 'make a woman out of' "Wilhemina", I don't 'bear ANY responsibility for ANY abortion EVER!, and, "NO!", of course I can't 'see' GOD everywhere, I can't 'see' GOD, ANYWHERE!
I just don't 'get it'.
I understand that your entire belief system is BUILT to keep you guys IN and bring more converts in too, and I realise that you MUST KNOW THIS!
So, if someone considers Pascal's Wager, considers the entire contents of THE BIBLE, considers the possibility of any kind of spirituality AT ALL, even SATANISM, or witchcraft, or wicca and comes to the conclusion that it is ENTIRELY BULLSHIT!, why must you take that up as some kind of challenge?
The facts are clear!
NO SPIRITUAL BULLSHIT.
Sure there are atheists who just don't believe in 'supreme beings', and ... I like 'em.
There are probably atheists who want to 'dominate', to 'control' you daffy ducks, and I HATE THEM!
There is a middle line, a fairness, a justice that is REAL and your GODLY MORALITY is just NOT IT!
Denying all gods then proceeding to imagine that then YOU ought to be 'in command' is NOT IT EITHER!
Show me your qualifications. OH, you don't believe in gods, you say.
Hmm.. well, neither does a ROCK or a worm or a dog.
But religion is NO SUBSTITUTE for 'REAL' KNOWLEDGE!
Yea, I know, you have knowledge of propaganda, rhetoric, persuasion, but that is DECEIT!
Don't believe me!
Your booklets tell you that 'they' saw the future!
WHAT. A .LOAD.OF.NONSENSE!
("'Tis the future you see!"- Yoda
(Luke asks him if it is real.
("Hard to see, the future is, always in motion!)
Hey, this is in a fictional story where they can lift objects WITH THEIR MINDS!
What part of, "There are no gods, not even one!", synthesize into, "You guys are warring on Christmas!", or, "You guys are responsible for a million-plus abortions!", or , "Can't you see God everywhere you look, you must just HATE God, if you don't!", or, "You saw a killer-whale that you fell in love with at first sight, and YOU just want an excuse to hump that bitch, right?!"
Honestly, I don't want to 'make a woman out of' "Wilhemina", I don't 'bear ANY responsibility for ANY abortion EVER!, and, "NO!", of course I can't 'see' GOD everywhere, I can't 'see' GOD, ANYWHERE!
I just don't 'get it'.
I understand that your entire belief system is BUILT to keep you guys IN and bring more converts in too, and I realise that you MUST KNOW THIS!
So, if someone considers Pascal's Wager, considers the entire contents of THE BIBLE, considers the possibility of any kind of spirituality AT ALL, even SATANISM, or witchcraft, or wicca and comes to the conclusion that it is ENTIRELY BULLSHIT!, why must you take that up as some kind of challenge?
The facts are clear!
NO SPIRITUAL BULLSHIT.
Sure there are atheists who just don't believe in 'supreme beings', and ... I like 'em.
There are probably atheists who want to 'dominate', to 'control' you daffy ducks, and I HATE THEM!
There is a middle line, a fairness, a justice that is REAL and your GODLY MORALITY is just NOT IT!
Denying all gods then proceeding to imagine that then YOU ought to be 'in command' is NOT IT EITHER!
Show me your qualifications. OH, you don't believe in gods, you say.
Hmm.. well, neither does a ROCK or a worm or a dog.
But religion is NO SUBSTITUTE for 'REAL' KNOWLEDGE!
Yea, I know, you have knowledge of propaganda, rhetoric, persuasion, but that is DECEIT!
Don't believe me!
Your booklets tell you that 'they' saw the future!
WHAT. A .LOAD.OF.NONSENSE!
("'Tis the future you see!"- Yoda
(Luke asks him if it is real.
("Hard to see, the future is, always in motion!)
Hey, this is in a fictional story where they can lift objects WITH THEIR MINDS!
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
In the Beginning...(revisited?)
"In the Beginning..", there was no beginning, unless God created time and forgot to mention it.
Life cannot come from nothing, excepting the eternal life of God, which renders the 'When did life begin?' answer moot.
God, as a spiritual being, needs no rest, has no 'feelings' and somehow 'lives' outside of time and space(nowhere, nowhen).
Yet, God created heirarchy (for a mysterious purpose.)
"A hierarchy is an arrangement of objects, people, elements, values, grades, orders, classes, etc., in a ranked or graduated series. The word derives from the Greek ἱεραρχία (hierarchia), from ἱεράρχης (hierarches), "president of sacred rites, high-priest" and that from ἱερός (hieros), "sacred" + ἄρχω (arkho), "to lead, to rule""
Whether God is real, in any sense, HE certainly created heirarchy.
Given HIS manifestation on this planet as religions, the first booklets are clear about who is in charge! God's priests are given authority over us.
The objective of every priesthood is to claim leadership of every hierarchy with a simple trick.
The idea is to convince any hierarchy that they are ultimately responsible to GOD(whether their GOD is real(living outside space and time) or actually DEFINED as a personification of ultimate leadership of all hierarchies. Since every hierarchy NEEDS GODLY advice and the priests are the GODLIEST then the hierarchy ought to take advice from the priests.
Simple. Straightforward. It works every time.
............................................................................................................................
The controlled.
The controlled are kept in line by means of propaganda which has a full range of complexity.
Brainwashing children to accept absurd stories. Bribing children into the scheme with candies, formal dinners etc. never ceasing to equate Godliness with goodness and God with Order.
Conversion of the weak, poor and elderly.
Simple propaganda for the less-than-faithful, "GOD means Good Orderly Direction!", "If there were no GOD, we'd have to invent HIM!"
Infiltration of secular institutions(hierarchies).
Sound-bites.
"Abortion is Murder!"
"Atheists HATE God!"
"This is a Christian Nation!"
Thought-bites.
"Goodness IS Godliness"
"Godliness IS Goodness"
"Atheism CAUSES totalitarianism"
"Atheism IS sociopathy"
.................................................................................................
Can we escape from the clutches of those who know that God is another word for power, that God is another word for money and that God is another word for control?
Perhaps when the controlled stop believing that Godliness is exactly equal to Goodness!
Example.
If I were a pastor of a small community church I'd dream of having a larger congregation, having more money, more power, more respect and more control of secular hierarchies.
Wouldn't you?
The thing that pisses me off about Christianity is their willful ignorance.
Let's say that 'all' is God. The Holy Spirit is life, intelligence, the power to have faith and such. Christ is the tradition, the traditional way to impart the 'power' of belief, the 'power' that you can have OVER those who believe. The 'thing' that we thinkers are, as an entirety.. GOD.
Talking to them is like talking to tricksters and buffoons who are trying their best to trick us non-believers into their buffoonery.
If we point out that there is NO archeological evidence for their most important stories they simply start dissembling.
There is no archeological evidence for the Exodus, NONE!
I can almost hear the faithful mentally adjusting, "But we have the tradition as truth, there IS a place called Egypt, the Sinai desert, Palestine etc. you dummy!
Someone will chime in about morality!
Someone will chime in about philosophy!
Someone will chime in that science is to be questioned!
If they believe that they are 'intellectual' they might try to 'hoist us by our own petard!', (ab)using science against us.(D'Souza anyone?)
There is no archeological evidence for a city or a town or even a village of Nazareth in that time period!
These two facts ought to demolish Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions RFN(right-fuckin'-now!).
But the power to control believers is more or less deliberately confused with some power of God(ALL, remember) to control nature, nations, the future, personal happiness, health etc.
It is this mumbo-jumbo, this praying, this open admission of submission to priests and those at the tops of hierarchies controlled by those 'in submission' that pisses me off!
To misquote the Mythbusters, they reject reality and substitute their own(doctrine, dogma)
Life cannot come from nothing, excepting the eternal life of God, which renders the 'When did life begin?' answer moot.
God, as a spiritual being, needs no rest, has no 'feelings' and somehow 'lives' outside of time and space(nowhere, nowhen).
Yet, God created heirarchy (for a mysterious purpose.)
"A hierarchy is an arrangement of objects, people, elements, values, grades, orders, classes, etc., in a ranked or graduated series. The word derives from the Greek ἱεραρχία (hierarchia), from ἱεράρχης (hierarches), "president of sacred rites, high-priest" and that from ἱερός (hieros), "sacred" + ἄρχω (arkho), "to lead, to rule""
Whether God is real, in any sense, HE certainly created heirarchy.
Given HIS manifestation on this planet as religions, the first booklets are clear about who is in charge! God's priests are given authority over us.
The objective of every priesthood is to claim leadership of every hierarchy with a simple trick.
The idea is to convince any hierarchy that they are ultimately responsible to GOD(whether their GOD is real(living outside space and time) or actually DEFINED as a personification of ultimate leadership of all hierarchies. Since every hierarchy NEEDS GODLY advice and the priests are the GODLIEST then the hierarchy ought to take advice from the priests.
Simple. Straightforward. It works every time.
............................................................................................................................
The controlled.
The controlled are kept in line by means of propaganda which has a full range of complexity.
Brainwashing children to accept absurd stories. Bribing children into the scheme with candies, formal dinners etc. never ceasing to equate Godliness with goodness and God with Order.
Conversion of the weak, poor and elderly.
Simple propaganda for the less-than-faithful, "GOD means Good Orderly Direction!", "If there were no GOD, we'd have to invent HIM!"
Infiltration of secular institutions(hierarchies).
Sound-bites.
"Abortion is Murder!"
"Atheists HATE God!"
"This is a Christian Nation!"
Thought-bites.
"Goodness IS Godliness"
"Godliness IS Goodness"
"Atheism CAUSES totalitarianism"
"Atheism IS sociopathy"
.................................................................................................
Can we escape from the clutches of those who know that God is another word for power, that God is another word for money and that God is another word for control?
Perhaps when the controlled stop believing that Godliness is exactly equal to Goodness!
Example.
If I were a pastor of a small community church I'd dream of having a larger congregation, having more money, more power, more respect and more control of secular hierarchies.
Wouldn't you?
The thing that pisses me off about Christianity is their willful ignorance.
Let's say that 'all' is God. The Holy Spirit is life, intelligence, the power to have faith and such. Christ is the tradition, the traditional way to impart the 'power' of belief, the 'power' that you can have OVER those who believe. The 'thing' that we thinkers are, as an entirety.. GOD.
Talking to them is like talking to tricksters and buffoons who are trying their best to trick us non-believers into their buffoonery.
If we point out that there is NO archeological evidence for their most important stories they simply start dissembling.
There is no archeological evidence for the Exodus, NONE!
I can almost hear the faithful mentally adjusting, "But we have the tradition as truth, there IS a place called Egypt, the Sinai desert, Palestine etc. you dummy!
Someone will chime in about morality!
Someone will chime in about philosophy!
Someone will chime in that science is to be questioned!
If they believe that they are 'intellectual' they might try to 'hoist us by our own petard!', (ab)using science against us.(D'Souza anyone?)
There is no archeological evidence for a city or a town or even a village of Nazareth in that time period!
These two facts ought to demolish Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions RFN(right-fuckin'-now!).
But the power to control believers is more or less deliberately confused with some power of God(ALL, remember) to control nature, nations, the future, personal happiness, health etc.
It is this mumbo-jumbo, this praying, this open admission of submission to priests and those at the tops of hierarchies controlled by those 'in submission' that pisses me off!
To misquote the Mythbusters, they reject reality and substitute their own(doctrine, dogma)
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Politics! Yech!
Ooo, the socialists crow, we've defeated capitalism, the government can take care of everything NOW!
Communism(the USSR) collapses!!
Socialism takes a beating as the public loses confidence and votes for Conservative policy over most of the world.
Bitter 'belt-tightening' prevails for years as Conservative policies 'take-effect'. Not a problem for the rich though!
Conservative policies(total privatization) works for a spell but even as the last bitter pills of socialism are being spat from our mouths, THE FREE MARKET proves itself to be far from self-sustaining when it turns into a 'casino' and the public loses confidence.
And 'yea yea', if we were all 'free market' Conservatives and NOT SO GREEDY then it 'might work'.
What'll work? Oscillating back and forth between totally restrictive government (wage and price controls, deficit spending) and 'ridiculously free' government, total free market, letting the bullies grab everyone's toys.
Oooo.. do you see how absolutely wrong socialism is? The fixers will use the market as a club, showing it up!
O... do you see how absolutely wrong conservatism is? The fixers will use the market as a casino, crapping in their 'own' pool!
Communism tried to kill the fixers, but, much like the 'war on drugs' trying to jail all the dealers and users, the fixers are found to be us, albeit a 'bad side of us' that we don't want to admit to.
If you really want to be a really real fiscal Conservative, that'll be no 'war on drugs' please, let the free market decide!
But, I can almost here your thoughts 'screaming', Conservatism and religion go hand in hand, like, "It's all mine, stay away from my piece of the pie!", goes with, "Let's all share! Let's all be friends and love one another!"
It's like punitve justice goes with freedom!
Just 'not'. Right, just 'not'.
But the government can 'check' runaway free market greed by buying food corporations, fuel corporations etc. BEFORE they run themselves into the ground! Before we're all starving and walking and freezing! The government can create employment etc.
This is the exact opposite of Conservatism and ought not to be a smug 'rebuttal' of free market, because, in the end, public confidence will return and socialism will overdo it, holding back 'freedom' just as much as Conservatism does when THAT is hailed as the 'be all and end all'.
Unions having an iron grip on an industry is just as bad as Corporations having a totally free hand to employ wage-slaves.
The public are no better off with extreme socialism holding their 'feet in the fire'(as it were) than they(the public) are with extreme conservatism holding their 'heads in the fire'.
Seems to me that a dedicated zealot of either extreme would be just as happy switching allegience. The zealotry is 'the thing' for them.
And they have these 'hidden agendas', wilfully ignoring the public's "pain" as they yank us from extreme to extreme, each insisting that we'd ALL love to be living in their particular HELLISH vision of Utopia!
Where are all these economic egg-heads that graduate every single year from universities all over the world?
Can they not use spread sheets?
Reagan became president KNOWING that his policies would CAUSE hyper-inflation , fucking with the public's wealth, but he didn't TELL THAT to the voters!
Hmm, wonder why?
Communism(the USSR) collapses!!
Socialism takes a beating as the public loses confidence and votes for Conservative policy over most of the world.
Bitter 'belt-tightening' prevails for years as Conservative policies 'take-effect'. Not a problem for the rich though!
Conservative policies(total privatization) works for a spell but even as the last bitter pills of socialism are being spat from our mouths, THE FREE MARKET proves itself to be far from self-sustaining when it turns into a 'casino' and the public loses confidence.
And 'yea yea', if we were all 'free market' Conservatives and NOT SO GREEDY then it 'might work'.
What'll work? Oscillating back and forth between totally restrictive government (wage and price controls, deficit spending) and 'ridiculously free' government, total free market, letting the bullies grab everyone's toys.
Oooo.. do you see how absolutely wrong socialism is? The fixers will use the market as a club, showing it up!
O... do you see how absolutely wrong conservatism is? The fixers will use the market as a casino, crapping in their 'own' pool!
Communism tried to kill the fixers, but, much like the 'war on drugs' trying to jail all the dealers and users, the fixers are found to be us, albeit a 'bad side of us' that we don't want to admit to.
If you really want to be a really real fiscal Conservative, that'll be no 'war on drugs' please, let the free market decide!
But, I can almost here your thoughts 'screaming', Conservatism and religion go hand in hand, like, "It's all mine, stay away from my piece of the pie!", goes with, "Let's all share! Let's all be friends and love one another!"
It's like punitve justice goes with freedom!
Just 'not'. Right, just 'not'.
But the government can 'check' runaway free market greed by buying food corporations, fuel corporations etc. BEFORE they run themselves into the ground! Before we're all starving and walking and freezing! The government can create employment etc.
This is the exact opposite of Conservatism and ought not to be a smug 'rebuttal' of free market, because, in the end, public confidence will return and socialism will overdo it, holding back 'freedom' just as much as Conservatism does when THAT is hailed as the 'be all and end all'.
Unions having an iron grip on an industry is just as bad as Corporations having a totally free hand to employ wage-slaves.
The public are no better off with extreme socialism holding their 'feet in the fire'(as it were) than they(the public) are with extreme conservatism holding their 'heads in the fire'.
Seems to me that a dedicated zealot of either extreme would be just as happy switching allegience. The zealotry is 'the thing' for them.
And they have these 'hidden agendas', wilfully ignoring the public's "pain" as they yank us from extreme to extreme, each insisting that we'd ALL love to be living in their particular HELLISH vision of Utopia!
Where are all these economic egg-heads that graduate every single year from universities all over the world?
Can they not use spread sheets?
Reagan became president KNOWING that his policies would CAUSE hyper-inflation , fucking with the public's wealth, but he didn't TELL THAT to the voters!
Hmm, wonder why?
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
In God's Kingdom, CONFUSION reigns!
"In essence, it is no more than a presentation of a whole series of individually differing, contradictory suggestions, apparently all at variance with each other, differently directed, and requiring a constant shift in orientation by the subject. "
"As the subject accommodates himself to the seeming confusion..., thereby unwittingly cooperating in a significant fashion..."
"As the subject tries, conditioned by his early cooperative response to the ..apparent misspeaking, to accommodate himself to the welter of confused, contradictory responses apparently sought, he finds himself at such a loss that he welcomes anv positive suggestion that will permit a retreat from so unsatisfying and confusing a situation. The rapidity, insistence, and confidence with which the suggestions are given serve to prevent the subject from making any effort to bring about a semblance of order. At best, he can only try to accommodate himself and, thus, yield to the over-all significance of the total series of suggestions. "
"These suggestions are also recognized as carrying a weight of acceptable meaningfulness, and every effort the subject makes to understand it leads to acceptance of them."
"These suggestions are given not in the form of commands or instructions but as thought-provoking comments, at first. Then, as the subject begins to respond, a slow, progressive shift is made to direct suggestions.. "
from here
Theists will poo-poo the notion that they are being hypnotized. I can't imagine why they would do that though, can you? Religious leaders would certainly be able to keep better control of their flocks if, when being sermonized to, the flock were in a suggestible state.
The Godly Hebrews, according to the Bible, did the Godly thing, slaughtering in the name of God, but of course this is childs-play to counter! God himself saw their incorrigible evil and commissioned the Hebrews in HIS NAME to wipe their presence from the land that HE gave the Hebrews!
Any Christian would be more than willing to accept an explanation like that if he/she believes that Godly is good.
This is obvious stuff, obvious confusion technique where the recorded atrocious acts of the Hebrews can't be put down to them 'not being truly Godly' as is done with modern day genocidal religious fanatics. In the Bible, God not only wanted them to commit atrocious acts, HE commanded them!
But I wanted to talk about a more subtle confusion technique that modern religious leaders perpetrate today.
The pro-life movement takes it's cue from religious leaders who presumably feel that they are supported by the Bible using this vague, all encompassing quote, "Whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do to me."
But every Christian worthy of being called a Christian ought to know, and believe me that they DO KNOW, when it suits them, that the Gospels are backed up by the entire Old Testament, the truth of the Gospels falls if the truth of the Old Testament falls because then the prophecies prophesying the coming Jesus(as Christians would have it) would be meaningless.
I don't want to get into 'context wars' with Christians here, so I'll say that the context of the Old Testament PROVES the context of the New Testament to the Christians themselves.
Here's the crux of the confusion, if God related his LAWS to Moses, then left it to priests to pass that on, and to fathers to pass that on(which is kind of obvious, still happens today), THEN the father of a household is given complete authority over his children, to the point of stoning that child to DEATH for disobeying HIM, never mind GOD!
If a girl got pregnant out of wedlock then the father would have every religious right to have her stoned to DEATH! The notion that the fetus would die too doesn't even enter the equation.
The girl was a slut! The girl committed adultery! She disobeyed her fathers instructions to NOT do this.
Under GOD'S LAW, she ought to be condemned.
To stand at your altar and expound to your flock that they were 'funny old days' and we should pay that 'no never mind' is confusingly OPPOSITE to invoking the EXACT SAME GOD'S LAW trying to justify that fertilized human eggs are SACRED!
The whole notion that life is sacred and can be TERMINATED only for sacred reasons is just one example of priests/clergymen talking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.
The idea that the Old Testament's context proves the New Testament's context yet they were silly old buggers in silly old times, and that GOD'S LAW is changed now, but is the SAME(when you feel like it) is OPPOSITE, which is confusion technique, pure and simple.
"As the subject accommodates himself to the seeming confusion..., thereby unwittingly cooperating in a significant fashion..."
"As the subject tries, conditioned by his early cooperative response to the ..apparent misspeaking, to accommodate himself to the welter of confused, contradictory responses apparently sought, he finds himself at such a loss that he welcomes anv positive suggestion that will permit a retreat from so unsatisfying and confusing a situation. The rapidity, insistence, and confidence with which the suggestions are given serve to prevent the subject from making any effort to bring about a semblance of order. At best, he can only try to accommodate himself and, thus, yield to the over-all significance of the total series of suggestions. "
"These suggestions are also recognized as carrying a weight of acceptable meaningfulness, and every effort the subject makes to understand it leads to acceptance of them."
"These suggestions are given not in the form of commands or instructions but as thought-provoking comments, at first. Then, as the subject begins to respond, a slow, progressive shift is made to direct suggestions.. "
from here
Theists will poo-poo the notion that they are being hypnotized. I can't imagine why they would do that though, can you? Religious leaders would certainly be able to keep better control of their flocks if, when being sermonized to, the flock were in a suggestible state.
The Godly Hebrews, according to the Bible, did the Godly thing, slaughtering in the name of God, but of course this is childs-play to counter! God himself saw their incorrigible evil and commissioned the Hebrews in HIS NAME to wipe their presence from the land that HE gave the Hebrews!
Any Christian would be more than willing to accept an explanation like that if he/she believes that Godly is good.
This is obvious stuff, obvious confusion technique where the recorded atrocious acts of the Hebrews can't be put down to them 'not being truly Godly' as is done with modern day genocidal religious fanatics. In the Bible, God not only wanted them to commit atrocious acts, HE commanded them!
But I wanted to talk about a more subtle confusion technique that modern religious leaders perpetrate today.
The pro-life movement takes it's cue from religious leaders who presumably feel that they are supported by the Bible using this vague, all encompassing quote, "Whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do to me."
But every Christian worthy of being called a Christian ought to know, and believe me that they DO KNOW, when it suits them, that the Gospels are backed up by the entire Old Testament, the truth of the Gospels falls if the truth of the Old Testament falls because then the prophecies prophesying the coming Jesus(as Christians would have it) would be meaningless.
I don't want to get into 'context wars' with Christians here, so I'll say that the context of the Old Testament PROVES the context of the New Testament to the Christians themselves.
Here's the crux of the confusion, if God related his LAWS to Moses, then left it to priests to pass that on, and to fathers to pass that on(which is kind of obvious, still happens today), THEN the father of a household is given complete authority over his children, to the point of stoning that child to DEATH for disobeying HIM, never mind GOD!
If a girl got pregnant out of wedlock then the father would have every religious right to have her stoned to DEATH! The notion that the fetus would die too doesn't even enter the equation.
The girl was a slut! The girl committed adultery! She disobeyed her fathers instructions to NOT do this.
Under GOD'S LAW, she ought to be condemned.
To stand at your altar and expound to your flock that they were 'funny old days' and we should pay that 'no never mind' is confusingly OPPOSITE to invoking the EXACT SAME GOD'S LAW trying to justify that fertilized human eggs are SACRED!
The whole notion that life is sacred and can be TERMINATED only for sacred reasons is just one example of priests/clergymen talking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.
The idea that the Old Testament's context proves the New Testament's context yet they were silly old buggers in silly old times, and that GOD'S LAW is changed now, but is the SAME(when you feel like it) is OPPOSITE, which is confusion technique, pure and simple.
Friday, November 14, 2008
'Good' is Godly, because Godly is 'Good'?
Here, Roger Mannrgmann at kc.rr.com quoted online book by Vincent Cheung entitled “Ultimate Questions”.
“Only the Christian conception of God, as revealed by God himself in Scripture, is consistent with a God that possesses all knowledge, and at the same time makes knowledge possible for man. In God dwells "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2:3). Since God has all knowledge, he requires no one greater – there is no one greater – to justify his knowledge. His absolute sovereignty implies that he wills what he knows, that he knows what he wills, and that there can be no error in his knowledge. At the same time, "the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever" in the words of Scripture (Deuteronomy 29:29), and so we have knowledge as well. God has all knowledge – his knowledge consists of what he wills – and our knowledge consists of what he wills to reveal.”“On the other hand, since non-Christian religions and philosophies cannot produce an adequate and defensible – not to say infallible – epistemology, on the basis of non-Christian thought, there can be no knowledge at all. If non-Christian systems of thought cannot provide a foundation for knowledge – if they cannot know anything – then they cannot even begin or produce any content. If they cannot begin or have any content, then they can pose no challenge to Christianity. Without an adequate and defensible – and even infallible – epistemology, it remains that no intelligible proposition can be uttered on the basis of non-Christian worldviews, let alone objections against the Christian faith…”“However, since all non-Christian worldviews (including all non-Christian religions and philosophies) are without any ultimate justification, there is really nothing to prevent them from collapsing into total skepticism, but one cannot remain a skeptic because skepticism self-destructs – it is self-contradictory to affirm that we know that we cannot know. Only Christianity rescues the intellect from complete skepticism; therefore, rather than depending on a non-Christian foundation to construct a case for the biblicalworldview, the Christian adopts the revelational epistemology of biblical infallibility.”
As we can see, from this out-take, non-Christians, apparently, don't have 'a leg to stand on'.
"Right out of the gate" it is circular. Christian GOD because Christian concept of GOD therefore Christian GOD.
Certainly this is 'GOOD' from a Christian perspective and strangely ONLY from a Christian perspective.
“Only the Christian conception of God, as revealed by God himself in Scripture, is consistent with a God that possesses all knowledge, and at the same time makes knowledge possible for man. In God dwells "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2:3). Since God has all knowledge, he requires no one greater – there is no one greater – to justify his knowledge. His absolute sovereignty implies that he wills what he knows, that he knows what he wills, and that there can be no error in his knowledge. At the same time, "the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever" in the words of Scripture (Deuteronomy 29:29), and so we have knowledge as well. God has all knowledge – his knowledge consists of what he wills – and our knowledge consists of what he wills to reveal.”“On the other hand, since non-Christian religions and philosophies cannot produce an adequate and defensible – not to say infallible – epistemology, on the basis of non-Christian thought, there can be no knowledge at all. If non-Christian systems of thought cannot provide a foundation for knowledge – if they cannot know anything – then they cannot even begin or produce any content. If they cannot begin or have any content, then they can pose no challenge to Christianity. Without an adequate and defensible – and even infallible – epistemology, it remains that no intelligible proposition can be uttered on the basis of non-Christian worldviews, let alone objections against the Christian faith…”“However, since all non-Christian worldviews (including all non-Christian religions and philosophies) are without any ultimate justification, there is really nothing to prevent them from collapsing into total skepticism, but one cannot remain a skeptic because skepticism self-destructs – it is self-contradictory to affirm that we know that we cannot know. Only Christianity rescues the intellect from complete skepticism; therefore, rather than depending on a non-Christian foundation to construct a case for the biblicalworldview, the Christian adopts the revelational epistemology of biblical infallibility.”
As we can see, from this out-take, non-Christians, apparently, don't have 'a leg to stand on'.
"Right out of the gate" it is circular. Christian GOD because Christian concept of GOD therefore Christian GOD.
Certainly this is 'GOOD' from a Christian perspective and strangely ONLY from a Christian perspective.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Sermon from REALITY
What was I going to say again...Oh, yea.
The entire Bible is set up as a 'confusion technique' document.
It evolves to a certain extent but like an old, worn audio disc playing through it's tune, the needle(or stylus) just naturally 'skips' back, hence Creationism, Intelligent Design, Pro-life and other wedge issues.
The wedge issues are an important part of religion as believers want to force their opinions on the less devout.
Believers are on a 'mission from God' to have everyone subject to GOD. This becomes obvious when reading the famous TEN COMMANDMENTS right 'out of the gate', we hear that GOD HAS SPOKEN and he's telling us that it is a CRIME to worship any other god but HIM.
What believers are telling us, is that the church(their religion) IS 'GOD' and that it must be obeyed. They will deny it, of course. They use 'confusion technique' on everyone, including themselves to aviod facing reality.
They believe that there was, in order of appearance, God, various other spirit beings, the universe and all non-spiritual beings and things, semi-spiritual beings which are human beings(or MANKIND as they like to put it), a general 'falling from grace', a very few ELECT(intrinsically GODLY men who recorded history and prophecies of the future) who were IN CONTACT with GOD!(hence their GODLINESS!)
They are confused between 'the good' and 'the Godly' and they want us all to be confused about that too.
Example:- At this point in time(in 'the west') we are clear that slavery is wrong, that subjegating a person is inherently 'bad'.
But the Bible is unclear about this. We hear, in the story of the Exodus that slavery IS bad(for the Hebrews) but later we hear that slavery is not necessarilly unGodly!
The entire Bible is set up as a 'confusion technique' document.
It evolves to a certain extent but like an old, worn audio disc playing through it's tune, the needle(or stylus) just naturally 'skips' back, hence Creationism, Intelligent Design, Pro-life and other wedge issues.
The wedge issues are an important part of religion as believers want to force their opinions on the less devout.
Believers are on a 'mission from God' to have everyone subject to GOD. This becomes obvious when reading the famous TEN COMMANDMENTS right 'out of the gate', we hear that GOD HAS SPOKEN and he's telling us that it is a CRIME to worship any other god but HIM.
What believers are telling us, is that the church(their religion) IS 'GOD' and that it must be obeyed. They will deny it, of course. They use 'confusion technique' on everyone, including themselves to aviod facing reality.
They believe that there was, in order of appearance, God, various other spirit beings, the universe and all non-spiritual beings and things, semi-spiritual beings which are human beings(or MANKIND as they like to put it), a general 'falling from grace', a very few ELECT(intrinsically GODLY men who recorded history and prophecies of the future) who were IN CONTACT with GOD!(hence their GODLINESS!)
They are confused between 'the good' and 'the Godly' and they want us all to be confused about that too.
Example:- At this point in time(in 'the west') we are clear that slavery is wrong, that subjegating a person is inherently 'bad'.
But the Bible is unclear about this. We hear, in the story of the Exodus that slavery IS bad(for the Hebrews) but later we hear that slavery is not necessarilly unGodly!
Friday, November 7, 2008
I liked this so much...edit 1
... I read it over a few times and was amazed at my own brilliance!(LOL, that's not as difficult as you might imagine!)
I was thinking here, that you guys might give me some 'additions', some thoughts or pointers so that I might improve this into an open source multi-authored document putting into words the 'common sense' worldview opposing, not religion per se, but this disingenuous attempt at religification(and exposing it too).
Hey theists, throw in some of your mindless drivel if you think I can use that too!
I see possible 'expansion' points all over this! All the formatting disappeared into the 'spiritual realm'(DAMMMMYOUGOD!) so it is 'shit' to read right now, but I'm hoping that it will be an ongoing project.
The references to specific God's lawyers will be scrapped of course eventually.
"What God's lawyers don't want to see."
If life begins at conception, then the sperm wasn't alive.
If life begins at conception, then the ovum wasn't alive.
But "life doesn't come from non-life" is one of the cornerstones of God's lawyers, isn't it?
If we were all to be honest we'd admit that life is a continuum, an evolving continuum which has absolutely nothing to do with possible 'spiritual realms' or nonsensical beings that can be imagined 'living' in them.
We, each of us, individually, get to choose which points to amplify and which to decrease in our mind like a row of dials to magnify or diminish our worldview.Now historically a baby begins it's life at BIRTH.
We use this term for the beginning of actual things."The birth of a nation.", comes to mind, as opposed to 'the conception of a nation', where it might be an idea, a notion in people's minds.
Pregnancy is a 'chance' thing, everyone knows this. The woman will visit a doctor to improve her 'chances'.There is a good chance that a fertilized egg will just not 'stick' and the woman will never even know that "God gave her a child!", to put it in religious terms.
We need modern technology for a woman to know if she is pregnant before her body 'let's her know',(No doubt breaking a few would-be mothers hearts), it is an 'iffy' thing.
We, by convention, start counting a baby's life at their first breath. This has religious significance from when breath(which people didn't have a scientific understanding of) was considered 'spirit' AND the fact that some babies were 'born' DEAD.
I'll call this position 'the timeless common sense view'.
We can contrast this with the God's lawyer's recent(on generational timescales) view that for 'new' religious purposes we now ought to consider the beginning of a human life much earlier, as a wedge to force God's law into common law.
(Observant, Janesophie, I'm not being 'smug', I'm just RIGHT, and you are just WRONG!)
Most folk have enough common sense, even if it is just a feeling in their hearts, to know that the GOD'S lawyers are deviously trying to force a religious agenda on this Constitutionally secular society.
D'Souza practically admits that he thinks even Islam is better than secularism. Same as 'the Decider' was when he said that the Constitution was 'just a piece of paper'.
BAD Christians!
Deceitful Christians!
(Observant. You're really not very observant since you have read a lot of my comments and you imagine that you are 'rattling my cage' when it must be obvious that I LIKE nothing better than a good argument.It must be obvious that I have the patience of 'Job'(LOL) when it comes to 'rewording' my position to make clear to anyone who is willing to read EXACTLY how daft, cheaty, evil, dispicable, disingenuous etc. etc... xenophobic YOU GOD'S LAWYERS are.I know what you're thinking, Observant.I don't need to be psychic or Nostradamus-like.You're thinking, "But the Bible says(some drivel or other!)!"('cos you're ALWAYS thinking that, you simpleton!)
I was thinking here, that you guys might give me some 'additions', some thoughts or pointers so that I might improve this into an open source multi-authored document putting into words the 'common sense' worldview opposing, not religion per se, but this disingenuous attempt at religification(and exposing it too).
Hey theists, throw in some of your mindless drivel if you think I can use that too!
I see possible 'expansion' points all over this! All the formatting disappeared into the 'spiritual realm'(DAMMMMYOUGOD!) so it is 'shit' to read right now, but I'm hoping that it will be an ongoing project.
The references to specific God's lawyers will be scrapped of course eventually.
"What God's lawyers don't want to see."
If life begins at conception, then the sperm wasn't alive.
If life begins at conception, then the ovum wasn't alive.
But "life doesn't come from non-life" is one of the cornerstones of God's lawyers, isn't it?
If we were all to be honest we'd admit that life is a continuum, an evolving continuum which has absolutely nothing to do with possible 'spiritual realms' or nonsensical beings that can be imagined 'living' in them.
We, each of us, individually, get to choose which points to amplify and which to decrease in our mind like a row of dials to magnify or diminish our worldview.Now historically a baby begins it's life at BIRTH.
We use this term for the beginning of actual things."The birth of a nation.", comes to mind, as opposed to 'the conception of a nation', where it might be an idea, a notion in people's minds.
Pregnancy is a 'chance' thing, everyone knows this. The woman will visit a doctor to improve her 'chances'.There is a good chance that a fertilized egg will just not 'stick' and the woman will never even know that "God gave her a child!", to put it in religious terms.
We need modern technology for a woman to know if she is pregnant before her body 'let's her know',(No doubt breaking a few would-be mothers hearts), it is an 'iffy' thing.
We, by convention, start counting a baby's life at their first breath. This has religious significance from when breath(which people didn't have a scientific understanding of) was considered 'spirit' AND the fact that some babies were 'born' DEAD.
I'll call this position 'the timeless common sense view'.
We can contrast this with the God's lawyer's recent(on generational timescales) view that for 'new' religious purposes we now ought to consider the beginning of a human life much earlier, as a wedge to force God's law into common law.
(Observant, Janesophie, I'm not being 'smug', I'm just RIGHT, and you are just WRONG!)
Most folk have enough common sense, even if it is just a feeling in their hearts, to know that the GOD'S lawyers are deviously trying to force a religious agenda on this Constitutionally secular society.
D'Souza practically admits that he thinks even Islam is better than secularism. Same as 'the Decider' was when he said that the Constitution was 'just a piece of paper'.
BAD Christians!
Deceitful Christians!
(Observant. You're really not very observant since you have read a lot of my comments and you imagine that you are 'rattling my cage' when it must be obvious that I LIKE nothing better than a good argument.It must be obvious that I have the patience of 'Job'(LOL) when it comes to 'rewording' my position to make clear to anyone who is willing to read EXACTLY how daft, cheaty, evil, dispicable, disingenuous etc. etc... xenophobic YOU GOD'S LAWYERS are.I know what you're thinking, Observant.I don't need to be psychic or Nostradamus-like.You're thinking, "But the Bible says(some drivel or other!)!"('cos you're ALWAYS thinking that, you simpleton!)
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Fermat's "margin" PROOF!
Fermat's theorem was supposedly cracked by an English mathematician a few years back using math SOOOO complicated that they couldn't begin to explain it on the NOVA show about it.
I spent quite a few 'odd hours' puzzling over why it would be 'SOOOO' complicated. I seemed to always get stuck when I would ask myself that one damning question, "Why does that solution mean that it only works for whole numbers? It never did!
My attempted solution was always along the lines of, if there is a whole number
Solution to x(cubed) + y(cubed) = z(cubed) all being whole numbers then there couldn't be a whole number solution to yx(squared) + y(cubed) = yz(squared), which there obviously IS!
Seriously now, there is no way in HELL that, if the second equation is 'true' that you could decrease the value of y to x and also increase the value of y to z!(THAT IS FERMAT'S PROOF that fits in the margin, that no-one til I, pboyfloyd figured it out!)
I think that there needs to be a visual aid in the real-life not complicated solution because of the difficulty defining a whole number.
Picture a room with a tile floor. The tiles are layed first one white one in the corner to represent the 1(square)(duh!).
Three black tiles(unit squares) 'surround' the white tile making a four tile square representing 2 squared(or 4).
Five white tiles are layed 'surrounding' the "2 squared" to represent "3 squared"
All this is a question of 'can you "see"?
The 'stumbling block' is ... do the sides need to follow the 'rules' for squares?
If you 'see' it, YES THEY DO!
Here's the proof!
Imagine that there IS a solution to x(cubed) +y(cubed) = z(cubed)
This equals x times x(squared) + y times y(squared) = z times z(squared)
But to rearrange this equation to a similar one which we KNOW is true :-
k times x(squared) + k times y(squared) = k times z(squared)
all we need to do is make k (any constant whole number) equal to x or y or z.
But if we do that then we see that we are ADDING to the left side of the equation and SUBTRACTING from the right side of the equation!
This happens no matter what 'power' above 2(above squaring).
How about the power of 2, does it work there?
3 + 4 = 7 (let k = 4)
k3 + k4 = k7
12 + 16 = 28
Subtract 3 from both sides...
9+16=25
This becomes essentially a 'trap' because we can see that if we multiply by k (again letting k be the same as 'y', that is 4 in this scenario, we get:-
k9 + k16 = k25 or..
36 + 64 = 100
forcing another solution of power 2!
Attempting to jam a solution for power 3 means subracting 9 to make the first term 3^3 from the left side of the equation but now we must ADD 25 to the right side of the equation.
Attempting solutions for powers higher still only results in EVEN MORE ludicrous disparity!
The visualization part comes in when looking at what 'happens' when the third dimension is added.
$$$
$$$
$$$
+
####
####
####
####
(# and $ Both being unit squares)
=
$$$$$
####$
####$
####$
####$
MUST follow this 'look' whether we are dealing with just the 'squares' or with ONE FACE of the cubes!
The 'tiles' earlier looked like this(BTW)
#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#
$$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#
###$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#
$$$$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#
#####$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#
$$$$$$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#
#######$#$#$#$#$#$#$#
$$$$$$$$#$#$#$#$#$#$#
#########$#$#$#$#$#$#
$$$$$$$$$$#$#$#$#$#$#
###########$#$#$#$#$#
$$$$$$$$$$$$#$#$#$#$#
#############$#$#$#$#
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$#$#$#$#
###############$#$#$#
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$#$#$#
#################$#$#
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$#$#
###################$#
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$#
#####################
(and so on down as far as you need)
if any added layer is a complete square, if any 'L' (or backward L in this case) of black or white tiles) then x^2 +y^2 = z^2
There are also a huge amount of 'non-solutions'. i.e. 7^2 + 7 along + the corner 1 + 7 up whch is 8^2 but 15 is not itself a 'square'.(hey, almost tho!)
Then there is the 'double layer' solutions. 8^2 plus the 9th and the 10th layer = 10^2
AND the the ninth layer of tiles plus the tenth layer add to 36, a perfect square(6^2)!
So, the general expression of true(and the trivial non-) solutions are x^2 + n2x+n^2 = z^2!(where n is a whole number duh!)
Or, visually pick a square on the floor made up of black and white rows and colunms, add the next row/column or the next two rows/columns or the next 3 etc. etc.
Example x^11 + y^11 = z^11 cannot be 'reconciled' with the 'truth' of y*x^10 + y*y ^10 equaling y*z^10!
I spent quite a few 'odd hours' puzzling over why it would be 'SOOOO' complicated. I seemed to always get stuck when I would ask myself that one damning question, "Why does that solution mean that it only works for whole numbers? It never did!
My attempted solution was always along the lines of, if there is a whole number
Solution to x(cubed) + y(cubed) = z(cubed) all being whole numbers then there couldn't be a whole number solution to yx(squared) + y(cubed) = yz(squared), which there obviously IS!
Seriously now, there is no way in HELL that, if the second equation is 'true' that you could decrease the value of y to x and also increase the value of y to z!(THAT IS FERMAT'S PROOF that fits in the margin, that no-one til I, pboyfloyd figured it out!)
I think that there needs to be a visual aid in the real-life not complicated solution because of the difficulty defining a whole number.
Picture a room with a tile floor. The tiles are layed first one white one in the corner to represent the 1(square)(duh!).
Three black tiles(unit squares) 'surround' the white tile making a four tile square representing 2 squared(or 4).
Five white tiles are layed 'surrounding' the "2 squared" to represent "3 squared"
All this is a question of 'can you "see"?
The 'stumbling block' is ... do the sides need to follow the 'rules' for squares?
If you 'see' it, YES THEY DO!
Here's the proof!
Imagine that there IS a solution to x(cubed) +y(cubed) = z(cubed)
This equals x times x(squared) + y times y(squared) = z times z(squared)
But to rearrange this equation to a similar one which we KNOW is true :-
k times x(squared) + k times y(squared) = k times z(squared)
all we need to do is make k (any constant whole number) equal to x or y or z.
But if we do that then we see that we are ADDING to the left side of the equation and SUBTRACTING from the right side of the equation!
This happens no matter what 'power' above 2(above squaring).
How about the power of 2, does it work there?
3 + 4 = 7 (let k = 4)
k3 + k4 = k7
12 + 16 = 28
Subtract 3 from both sides...
9+16=25
This becomes essentially a 'trap' because we can see that if we multiply by k (again letting k be the same as 'y', that is 4 in this scenario, we get:-
k9 + k16 = k25 or..
36 + 64 = 100
forcing another solution of power 2!
Attempting to jam a solution for power 3 means subracting 9 to make the first term 3^3 from the left side of the equation but now we must ADD 25 to the right side of the equation.
Attempting solutions for powers higher still only results in EVEN MORE ludicrous disparity!
The visualization part comes in when looking at what 'happens' when the third dimension is added.
$$$
$$$
$$$
+
####
####
####
####
(# and $ Both being unit squares)
=
$$$$$
####$
####$
####$
####$
MUST follow this 'look' whether we are dealing with just the 'squares' or with ONE FACE of the cubes!
The 'tiles' earlier looked like this(BTW)
#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#
$$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#
###$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#
$$$$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#
#####$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#
$$$$$$#$#$#$#$#$#$#$#
#######$#$#$#$#$#$#$#
$$$$$$$$#$#$#$#$#$#$#
#########$#$#$#$#$#$#
$$$$$$$$$$#$#$#$#$#$#
###########$#$#$#$#$#
$$$$$$$$$$$$#$#$#$#$#
#############$#$#$#$#
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$#$#$#$#
###############$#$#$#
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$#$#$#
#################$#$#
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$#$#
###################$#
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$#
#####################
(and so on down as far as you need)
if any added layer is a complete square, if any 'L' (or backward L in this case) of black or white tiles) then x^2 +y^2 = z^2
There are also a huge amount of 'non-solutions'. i.e. 7^2 + 7 along + the corner 1 + 7 up whch is 8^2 but 15 is not itself a 'square'.(hey, almost tho!)
Then there is the 'double layer' solutions. 8^2 plus the 9th and the 10th layer = 10^2
AND the the ninth layer of tiles plus the tenth layer add to 36, a perfect square(6^2)!
So, the general expression of true(and the trivial non-) solutions are x^2 + n2x+n^2 = z^2!(where n is a whole number duh!)
Or, visually pick a square on the floor made up of black and white rows and colunms, add the next row/column or the next two rows/columns or the next 3 etc. etc.
Example x^11 + y^11 = z^11 cannot be 'reconciled' with the 'truth' of y*x^10 + y*y ^10 equaling y*z^10!
BobamafamafofamaOOObama!
Looney-tunes Fundies are likely still letting the fact that Armageddon has been put on hold for another four years sink in!
Bet they are wishing they hadn't gotten that sub-prime loan NOW!
Still and all, the American people are a fickle bunch and one has to wonder if a lot of them didn't vote in Obama because they felt that he was the man to 'work wonders'!
Don't want to come off as a pendejo(wet prickly blanket, as is my understanding) here so, "WooHoo! Obama, Obama, Obama!, Obama RULES(in 100 days approx.)
Bush can't destroy the world in that time, can he? NAW, he must have seen what a dork he is/was in the movie 'W'.
On a completely different note, did anyone notice if Sarah Palin was allowed to say anything or is she supposed to lay low and keep 'mum' for the 2012(end of times) election?
Bet they are wishing they hadn't gotten that sub-prime loan NOW!
Still and all, the American people are a fickle bunch and one has to wonder if a lot of them didn't vote in Obama because they felt that he was the man to 'work wonders'!
Don't want to come off as a pendejo(wet prickly blanket, as is my understanding) here so, "WooHoo! Obama, Obama, Obama!, Obama RULES(in 100 days approx.)
Bush can't destroy the world in that time, can he? NAW, he must have seen what a dork he is/was in the movie 'W'.
On a completely different note, did anyone notice if Sarah Palin was allowed to say anything or is she supposed to lay low and keep 'mum' for the 2012(end of times) election?
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Plan B(from outside of spacetime!)
So, here you are after drinking the equivalent of an entire lake of booze and you never did find the answer at the bottom of that glass, did you?
Life has stopped being fun!
You are, as the AA slogan goes, "Sick and tired of being sick and tired!"
What to do, what to do?
Well, you do what everyone else does, you find yourself a 'higher power!'.
As you forgive yourself for being busted for impaired driving(again?), or beating the wife(again?), or waking up with a layer of shit between your bum and your underwear(again?) or any one(or combination of) of a myriad of sins, several things will start to penetrate that thick fog that you call your consciousness.
1) The 'higher power' is Jesus!
2)The unforgivable things you've done are called 'sins'.
3) The 'power' that Jesus has is the power to forgive you of your sins, which is the power to forgive yourself!
4)It's not easy to forgive yourself and the only way to make it permanent is to be BORN AGAIN!
5)Suddenly, you'll see the deceitful world for what it is. It was the deceitful world's fault that you did those unforgivable things, it was Satan's fault all along!
6)Now that you are BORN AGAIN, no matter how many lives you've screwed up with your drinking or drug addiction or whatever, it wasn't your fault at all!
How easy is it now to look down your humble nose at the 'world'? Well, how easy is it to fall off a log?
Is there more? Shit yea!
Life has stopped being fun!
You are, as the AA slogan goes, "Sick and tired of being sick and tired!"
What to do, what to do?
Well, you do what everyone else does, you find yourself a 'higher power!'.
As you forgive yourself for being busted for impaired driving(again?), or beating the wife(again?), or waking up with a layer of shit between your bum and your underwear(again?) or any one(or combination of) of a myriad of sins, several things will start to penetrate that thick fog that you call your consciousness.
1) The 'higher power' is Jesus!
2)The unforgivable things you've done are called 'sins'.
3) The 'power' that Jesus has is the power to forgive you of your sins, which is the power to forgive yourself!
4)It's not easy to forgive yourself and the only way to make it permanent is to be BORN AGAIN!
5)Suddenly, you'll see the deceitful world for what it is. It was the deceitful world's fault that you did those unforgivable things, it was Satan's fault all along!
6)Now that you are BORN AGAIN, no matter how many lives you've screwed up with your drinking or drug addiction or whatever, it wasn't your fault at all!
How easy is it now to look down your humble nose at the 'world'? Well, how easy is it to fall off a log?
Is there more? Shit yea!
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The Morality Argument
How can there be 'good' if there is no GOD?
Well let's turn that around, dump it on it's head and paint it with a mixture of poo and urine!
Disgusting, isn't it?
Okay, now let's hose it off again so we can have a peek into the mind of a Creationist.
Ultimate question, where did we come from?
Answer:- GOD!
(see the first Book of the Sacred Holy Bible, conveniently named Genesis, which means 'Beginning'!)
How do I know that that is right? Well, it is simple, straightforward, to the point, and written in an unimpeachible, sacred, holy book! If your not going to 'go along' with this part you are definitely going to have a bit of a problem with the rest.
But what if you're not the gullible, childlike, uncritical simpleton that we LOVE to teach-hahahaha? (regular teaching can be complicated and might make you prone to thinking and that just leads to trouble, BUT "teach-hahahaha-ing", although it can be quite expensive too, does exactly the opposite!
What if you are not the kind of person that we can say to, "Look around you, do you not see God's handiwork?", and you unthinkingly say, "Sure!", well, that's not as bad as you might think that we think it is. We have, of course, what we laughingly call "Plan B".(I know, that's not very creative, but we already have a Creator and we'd like you to suck that 'fact' up, keep it in mind as it were. If you can do that you are already unwittingly 'ours', "Bwahahah!, ahem, I mean, 'Praise the Lord!'")
If you're not the kind of person to say, "Sure!" to the premise that everything is God's handiwork, then, although we have 'Plan B'(see above parenthetical introduction of "the Creator"), we CAN be very disappointed that we know that you are not the kind of person who would automatically answer, "Yes, yes!"(while skipping in circles) to the question, "Do you love your mommy and daddy with all your heart and know that they are the very bestest mommy and daddy that a little girl could ever, every-dever have?????!
This one giant, 'Holy jumping Jesus!' black mark on you already! Just letting you know 'buster', we'll be keeping a close watch on you, don't you think that we won't!
Sadly it's time for me to go and 'get a life' just now. Hey, what do you think that my armpits clean themselves?
You can rest assured that I will be back to explain 'Plan B' and, subsequently the Morality Argument and why it is important for you to look around you and see God everywhere!
(ending music) chic-a-bau-chic-a=bau-chic-a-bau... "Peace-out!"
(I'm trying to be 'hep' here, you ungrateful Philistines!)
Well let's turn that around, dump it on it's head and paint it with a mixture of poo and urine!
Disgusting, isn't it?
Okay, now let's hose it off again so we can have a peek into the mind of a Creationist.
Ultimate question, where did we come from?
Answer:- GOD!
(see the first Book of the Sacred Holy Bible, conveniently named Genesis, which means 'Beginning'!)
How do I know that that is right? Well, it is simple, straightforward, to the point, and written in an unimpeachible, sacred, holy book! If your not going to 'go along' with this part you are definitely going to have a bit of a problem with the rest.
But what if you're not the gullible, childlike, uncritical simpleton that we LOVE to teach-hahahaha? (regular teaching can be complicated and might make you prone to thinking and that just leads to trouble, BUT "teach-hahahaha-ing", although it can be quite expensive too, does exactly the opposite!
What if you are not the kind of person that we can say to, "Look around you, do you not see God's handiwork?", and you unthinkingly say, "Sure!", well, that's not as bad as you might think that we think it is. We have, of course, what we laughingly call "Plan B".(I know, that's not very creative, but we already have a Creator and we'd like you to suck that 'fact' up, keep it in mind as it were. If you can do that you are already unwittingly 'ours', "Bwahahah!, ahem, I mean, 'Praise the Lord!'")
If you're not the kind of person to say, "Sure!" to the premise that everything is God's handiwork, then, although we have 'Plan B'(see above parenthetical introduction of "the Creator"), we CAN be very disappointed that we know that you are not the kind of person who would automatically answer, "Yes, yes!"(while skipping in circles) to the question, "Do you love your mommy and daddy with all your heart and know that they are the very bestest mommy and daddy that a little girl could ever, every-dever have?????!
This one giant, 'Holy jumping Jesus!' black mark on you already! Just letting you know 'buster', we'll be keeping a close watch on you, don't you think that we won't!
Sadly it's time for me to go and 'get a life' just now. Hey, what do you think that my armpits clean themselves?
You can rest assured that I will be back to explain 'Plan B' and, subsequently the Morality Argument and why it is important for you to look around you and see God everywhere!
(ending music) chic-a-bau-chic-a=bau-chic-a-bau... "Peace-out!"
(I'm trying to be 'hep' here, you ungrateful Philistines!)
Saturday, October 25, 2008
I was really hoping for some comments defending either the idea that life was good(in any sense) or that life was good(in the sense that it is holy.)
I think that it is safe to say that, in general, people will cling to life. Even more generally, it is probably safe to say that all life clings to life.
But is that because there is a basic 'goodness' to life?
Now, I believe that religious people will, without even thinking about it, without thinking that they even need to think about it, would say that life is 'good' at least in the sense of being 'holy' or sacred.
I was hoping for some 'action' from eric or Botts, something that we could get some 'traction' on to at least get past the 'beginning', the Genesis, in the sense that there is some kind of definite 'goodness' to life and/or in the sense that 'God saw that it was good!'.
I was hoping to create some kind of beginning point that we might agree on, or even not agree on without going full tilt into a religious or anti-religious rant!
I think that it is safe to say that, in general, people will cling to life. Even more generally, it is probably safe to say that all life clings to life.
But is that because there is a basic 'goodness' to life?
Now, I believe that religious people will, without even thinking about it, without thinking that they even need to think about it, would say that life is 'good' at least in the sense of being 'holy' or sacred.
I was hoping for some 'action' from eric or Botts, something that we could get some 'traction' on to at least get past the 'beginning', the Genesis, in the sense that there is some kind of definite 'goodness' to life and/or in the sense that 'God saw that it was good!'.
I was hoping to create some kind of beginning point that we might agree on, or even not agree on without going full tilt into a religious or anti-religious rant!
Friday, October 24, 2008
Who can say, in all seriousness that they know good from bad?
Is it 'good' to be alive?
What absolute drivel runs through our minds on a day to day basis...
Geez, am I trying 'my best' to sound like Kevin Spacey's character in the movie 'Seven' or what?
The question is, "Is it good to be alive?"
Good Friday
c.1290, from good in sense of "holy" (e.g. the good book "the Bible," 1896), also, esp. of holy days or seasons observed by the church (c.1420); it was also applied to Christmas and Shrove Tuesday.
There's a twist on the question. Is it 'holy' to be alive?
Is it 'good' to be alive?
What absolute drivel runs through our minds on a day to day basis...
Geez, am I trying 'my best' to sound like Kevin Spacey's character in the movie 'Seven' or what?
The question is, "Is it good to be alive?"
Good Friday
c.1290, from good in sense of "holy" (e.g. the good book "the Bible," 1896), also, esp. of holy days or seasons observed by the church (c.1420); it was also applied to Christmas and Shrove Tuesday.
There's a twist on the question. Is it 'holy' to be alive?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)