Re: Pluto bounces back!
On 1 June 2014 10:15, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Dr. Marchal, you should ask about the Ahmadi sect of Islam who are hated by most of the Sunni and Shia Didn't they divorce in 1975? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On 28 Jun 2014, John Clark wrote: Most intelligent educated people long ago abandoned the notion of God, That's truly funny. You really did go to bed and dreamt that one. Now you are outdoing me in insulting Americans by calling most of the human race, including the majority of people in the United States unintelligent and uneducated. Go for it! Kim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: American Intelligence
Addressing questions. Its a debacle more over the last 5 years then before, but yes, it sucked. On the other hand, I am more bloody-minded then Bushie was (I suspect this is because of his friendship with the Saudi royals) and I would have done Afghanistan and the Pakistan circa Oct 200, for the Bin Laden thing, and would have wiped out anyone protecting him-so please realize who your are arguing with. The clash of civilizations was ever true and is more true today. I take it, Chris, that you are not a dweller in the UK or Spain with the subway bombings? I suspect that lack of cause and effect influences your opinion aside from pure ideology? A guess, no more. I support mil actions as long as its fought like total war. Think WW2. Note, that nuanced responses have done little since WW2, although the Korean War is the most solid, maybe? If its worth fighting, then its worth willing to the max. Neither Bushie nor, Obama hold this position as something they want. Otherwise, try bribes, incentives and all that diplomacy provides-just don't expect it to work. It really has not. Since 9-11 was launched with Taliban support, how were we not going to trouble them? Be peaceful so we can make progressives feel better? The failure of Bush was failure to fight to win, a novel thing in this day and age. What could we have done outside of boots on the ground. Answer-carpet bombing as we did in Haiphong Harbor in North Vietnam. It actually brought peace, a truce for 2+ years, before the North took over. What about the Islamist lands in question? When they re-take the un-held lands once more after the bombing stops and start rebuilding. Well, one more time! We'd defeat their goals and keep them off balance. How long? Permanently. There are other options of course, aside war, but none that seem to work. The big ugly, is that the establishment world-wide, the Davos guys, tend to be pacifist in nature because it brings in the lucre from Saudi, Oman, Dubai, Yemen, cash on the barrel head. That's nice for them, but less so for the middle classes worldwide, that they don't care about, usually. Where does this leave us today, whatever our opinions? No where, because we're just a couple of dudes on a mailing list, and don't have the valuta for any influence. Did progressives lead America in the Iraq war debacle that has bankrupted this country (thre trillion dollars and counting) Or was that war begun by neocons in the Bush administration -- using the self same clash of civilizations rhetoric you employ all the time. The same goes for the American war in Afghanistan. Who was it begun by? Under what administration? -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jun 26, 2014 10:08 pm Subject: Re: American Intelligence From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 5:44 PM Subject: Re: American Intelligence Sure, but if one is pushed to try to put out fires that progressives are lighting around the world, What fires are progressives starting. Did progressives lead America in the Iraq war debacle that has bankrupted this country (thre trillion dollars and counting) Or was that war begun by neocons in the Bush administration -- using the self same clash of civilizations rhetoric you employ all the time. The same goes for the American war in Afghanistan. Who was it begun by? Under what administration? and, or enabling jihadists to do so, one can develop the Manichean attitude. How exactly are progressives enabling jihadists? You almost make us sound traitorous -- employing the typical rhetoric of war mongering folk. It's unwise to light fires during a dry spell and this is what progressives do, because its how they feel. More BS -- the big recent wars (the ones that have resulted in by far most death and injury and that have drained the US treasury were all begun under the Bush administration. Or feel is right. I could fly into a rage, or pretend to, and shriek, how dare you typify me as a tea bagger..yadda yadda yadda. I think it is pretty evident why I typify you as a Tea bagger -- your rhetoric comes straight out of their playbook.. Cheers, Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this
Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On 28 Jun 2014, at 5:39 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: Given that your average 6th grader knows far more about the universe than he ever did why in hell should I read Plotinus?? Yes, kids have the ability to understand a lot more than we give them credit for, don't they? I walked into a class of 8th graders at a school last week and explained to them the concept of First Person Indeterminacy and they all understood from it that there is a very strong indeterminism at the heart of reality which is usually decribed as deterministic. Amazing; 8th graders (and Plotinus) can understand it, yet you can't. Actually, I believe you do understand it, but you just don't like it. Kim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: American Intelligence
Richard, like past wars its often very hard to decide what to do. You know I am a rightist, but hopefully a pragmatic one. I suspect, but cannot prove, that BHO and CIA were involved in moving north African Al Qaeda troops and funneling them into Syria to fight Assad (alawites) and his Shia (Iranian) partners. They were then attacked on the anniversary of 9-11, by the self-same units. Call it infiltration. This is why the fear on the part of the administration regarding getting exposed supporting al Qaeda during the 2012 election. This is what I suspect the truth is, that it might have cost him the election. We have other options I'd like to consider, but as I was replying to Chris, I am just a fellow with strong opinions posting to a mailing list. To be influential, I'd have to be rich and have a lobbyist to the congress to handle policies. Because of voting plurality, I liken myself to Captain Ahab, lashed to the body of Moby Dick (final scene-spoiler). It's in your guys court now. Play well. Spud, I will fault Obama for supporting the ISIS in Syria but opposing them in Iraq. Richard -Original Message- From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jun 26, 2014 11:38 pm Subject: Re: American Intelligence Spud, I will fault Obama for supporting the ISIS in Syria but opposing them in Iraq. Richard On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 8:44 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Sure, but if one is pushed to try to put out fires that progressives are lighting around the world, and, or enabling jihadists to do so, one can develop the Manichean attitude. It's unwise to light fires during a dry spell and this is what progressives do, because its how they feel. Or feel is right. I could fly into a rage, or pretend to, and shriek, how dare you typify me as a tea bagger..yadda yadda yadda. But it clarifies nothing and presents no way forward. I am just presenting news items from the US presidents own troops, the mainstream media, who find it difficult to ignore some of the things he's fowled up. To his view, nothings wrong, nothings broken, its all good. Now that is a point of beliefs, ideologies, and values. I don't think his side see's this as negotiable, so hence the Manichean bilateralism. Comrade Stalin was fascinating, historically in the same sense that the bubonic plague was. Makes you sound Stalinist... are you a crypto-communist per chance? You Tea Party people are truly a tiresome bunch so very Manichean. Come on man there are more hues than black and white in the spectrum. -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 25, 2014 9:19 pm Subject: Re: American Intelligence From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 4:56 PM Subject: Re: American Intelligence Perchance! I have just observed, on occasions, your points of view and it adds up to the progressive mind set, more or less. The act of your deciding that I have a more or less progressive mindset leads you to conclude that I therefore hate America or some such silly Tea Party labeling of all who do not conform to the Tea Party line. Makes you sound Stalinist... are you a crypto-communist per chance? You Tea Party people are truly a tiresome bunch so very Manichean. Come on man there are more hues than black and white in the spectrum. Chris Feel free at any time to define your own positions that diverge from all that. As for what goes on in the world, in mine own land yet, this kind of thing, brought forth from the left has sort of messed things up here. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/irs-admits-targeting-conservatives-for-tax-scrutiny-in-2012-election/2013/05/10/3b6a0ada-b987-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html There's also this- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/obama-nsa-spying_n_5028736.html and this- http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/20/nation/la-na-fbi-reporter-20130521 and this of course- http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/15/world/meast/iraq-photos-isis/ and this too- http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/u-s-economy-contracted-almost-3-percent-first-quarter-n140336 The political cards do not now auger well for the US now, and sad to say, even under Bush 43, things did not seem as gloomy. Look at the economy and now the politics in France under Hollande, the US president's brother, so to speak. Neither guys are pragmatists and both ideologues, of the neo-Marxist persuasion. Neomarx don't seem to work well except for the very rich and very poor. A pragmatist would know better. As far as defining you, just remember the great, French philosopher, Jacque Derida who invented desconstructionism.
Re: American Intelligence
Not disagreeing with Brent, but realpolitik only works when you like the outcome. I tend to be absolutist in my war views, so the nuances are wasted on me. It is however, what's the result at the end of the day. The biggest question is, what is the national interest? Usually it means whatever pleases the super rich. If you happen to be on Soros or the Koch's side, then all is good. If not...? It's called realpolitik. Do you want the President to choose who tosupport based on their morality and disregard the nationalinterest? And how would you measure their morality? Maybe the realplan is to keep any one murderous faction from winning so they keepfighting till they've all killed each other. Brent -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jun 26, 2014 11:57 pm Subject: Re: American Intelligence On 6/26/2014 8:45 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: From:everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Ruquist Spud, I will fault Obama for supporting theISIS in Syria but opposing them in Iraq. Richard Itamazed me how they tried to rebrand these intolerant murderous A-holes as freedom fighters when these dogs of war became useful tools again in Syria. From Al-Qaidaour immortal enemies to “freedom fighters” just likethat, given the old Madison Avenue makeover. Thecynicism of the power knows no bounds and has no decency at all in its old vampire bones. It's called realpolitik. Do you want the President to choose who to support based on their morality and disregard the nationalinterest? And how would you measure their morality? Maybe the realplan is to keep any one murderous faction from winning so they keepfighting till they've all killed each other. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 7:36 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/27/2014 3:29 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 5:34 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/26/2014 4:19 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
But []~g in contrast... that's not even rational
If you read it as In every possible world g is false and g=Some God,
it's irrational (unless g entails a contradiction). But that isn't
atheism. An atheist says g doesn't exist and that's prefectly rational
if g=Yaweh or g=Zeus or g=Baal or... Which is why I said it depends on g.
If g is some mystic unifying principle then I'm agnostic about g. If g
is some vain despotic theist god, then I'm an atheist about g.
But then you are willing, in principle at least, to fight everybody with
bullshit notion of god from your point of view.
Why? People who believe in the despotic personal god are willing to fight
to spread the religion because their god commands it. They are also
willing to commit atrocious acts to suppress heresy and unbelief because if
one of their children fell away from belief they would suffer eternal
torment. The Holy Inquisition was quite rationally justified give their
beliefs.
Yes on the inquisition, if you can reason strongly on something that we
can't grasp, resulting in deaths and suffering of people then we're capable
of horrible stuff, I agree. But same is true with certainty in negation.
So religious war becomes justifiable, in principle.
I'm not sure how justifiable goes with in principle. Justifiable,
to me, implies balancing competing values. In principle implies some
absolute extreme.
Justifiable: account/derive usage.
In principle: the appropriate ontology.
For me, no such nonsense is justifiable when invoking something
not-justifiable. To pretend such is to fuel these irrational disputes.
That's why this confusion between ~[]g and []~g is not fancy semantic
splitting hairs.
It doesn't matter whether your god is a teapot or Zeus. Tells me nothing
about whether you're relationship is weakly questioning or you're prepared
to impose it upon others. ~{}g at least prevents, makes nonsensical any
authoritative/manipulative/political move to impose it on others. Do you
fight/work against Yaweh, Baal and the entire list you keep posting?
Because that's quite a lot of deities to fight, where do you find the time?
;-) PGC
No, in fact I agree with Sam Harris that atheist and agnostic are not
very useful terms. We don't call someone who thinks fascism is a bad form
of society an afascist. We don't call people who don't believe in Santa
Claus, aClausists.
Atheist doesn't make sense indeed.
But I guess you could find something better than agnostic: Suggest a more
fitting term, for set of people who don't know but will consider
assumptions, reasoning and evidence, without necessarily ceding to
reductionisms or unquestionable faiths concerning them.
How about openly insecure people, not ashamed to give a fuck when they
agree and not when they don't? PGC
Brent
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Pluto bounces back!
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On 27-Jun-2014, at 3:50 pm, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Okay, let’s leave aside whether this is a book about God by humans, or a book from God about humans. Why? It makes a claim that god is beyond comprehension; and goes on to tell us what is good and evil based on this. Please explain how this ties in with factual accuracy? Last I checked, what is beyond comprehension is what it is and does itself explain this. Invoking such would be a type of blasphemy to an ultimate entity beyond comprehension. Why can God not comprehend Himself, I don't know whether some hypothetical entity/object responsible for reality, Quran based or not, possesses self-referential ability; or what form that would take. Self? In relation to what other one would be inclined to ask. But then one stumbles on one part of the problem: if such god is all that is, how could that god possess a self that requires an other/background/universe to contrast against? This is part of why I wouldn't know whether god could have a self, in the sense that I can understand. and what's stopping God from communicating with His creations? I'm not saying god doesn't, but I don't know that god does either. Why would he if his creation is according to his taste? He created the physical laws and all creation is bound by them. He created us, gave us free-will and is testing us with some dos and don'ts. Again you make god some sort of insecure tester of his own creation. Is god a he by the way? Do you understand the blaspheme problem in this context? That this hardly fits with saying god is incomprehensible? I'm not so sure we can talk about hard facts on such a basis. If God can create everything from the cosmologically largest to the tiniest string or whatever is smaller than that, if God created our DNA and our neuronal and other networks with such precision, what's stopping or limiting God from sending a book which we can read and take guidance from? Do you consider God anything less than magnificently amazing? I don't know if god has a need to display himself as magnificently amazing. Humans and certain animals do this for variety of reason, but I don't think god has a need to show off. What would god have to prove to whom? Why would God create something already known to him and then want to test that? Let’s discuss the factual accuracy part first. You ask “how we can study something factually, with so many authoritative arguments and divine authority getting in the way?” The authoritative arguments and divine authority are only for those who consider the Quran from God. ? I mean in the sense of what religion we profess to belong to in this world, not in the absolute sense. For all we know, you might be right and I may be wrong. If what the scriptures foretell is correct, then however the content of the scriptures will be applicable to all in the final judgement. But there are billions of scriptures written by billions of humans. You've never answered my question concerning why God would limit his influence by writing the holy book correctly for only one culture? That seems like cheating the test; making it easier for some students than others. And if hypothetical god were his own student, why would he want to win by such cheating method? I don't like winning a chess game by cheating; I don't even like winning, if the opponent or me looses by too trivial error, because the game quickly gets boring. For all others, its just book giving warnings and glad tidings about a future (hereafter) we cannot know of otherwise. It explains giving many examples and similitudes, and those explanations draw the reader’s attention to much that we can verify for factual accuracy. Well, if you ignore the kind of elephant in the room question that I keep posing, then indeed, you can focus on anything you like. But calling this process factually accurate, I don't understand. I don't think I understand your question then. You asked how the Quran handled it, I asked whether and how the Quran handles overly literal interpretation leading to human suffering, as we can see with much religion and politics. so I quoted the verses, and explained that Book from God about Humans concept. Then you asked how does it lead to factual accuracy, so I explained through a few examples. Now, you say that I'm ignoring the question. I don't comprehend your question... Semi-fictional example: Say I grow up without religion in my education and I enjoy the music of the band Queen. As I grow up, I read more about the band, the music, the people, the histories, and I learn all the lyrics of all the songs by heart. Become a total expert and follower. At some point I will look at the world and myself, and see everything as
Re: American Intelligence
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 2:10 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Not disagreeing with Brent, but realpolitik only works when you like the outcome. I tend to be absolutist in my war views, so the nuances are wasted on me. Indeed, often you sound as absolutist as the militant FOX bitch, Liz posted yesterday. Not that I mind, but it's worth pointing out, I guess. PGC It is however, what's the result at the end of the day. The biggest question is, what is the national interest? Usually it means whatever pleases the super rich. If you happen to be on Soros or the Koch's side, then all is good. If not...? It's called realpolitik. Do you want the President to choose who to support based on their morality and disregard the national interest? And how would you measure their morality? Maybe the real plan is to keep any one murderous faction from winning so they keep fighting till they've all killed each other. Brent -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jun 26, 2014 11:57 pm Subject: Re: American Intelligence On 6/26/2014 8:45 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [ mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Richard Ruquist Spud, I will fault Obama for supporting the ISIS in Syria but opposing them in Iraq. Richard It amazed me how they tried to rebrand these intolerant murderous A-holes as freedom fighters when these dogs of war became useful tools again in Syria. From Al-Qaida our immortal enemies to “freedom fighters” just like that, given the old Madison Avenue makeover. The cynicism of the power knows no bounds and has no decency at all in its old vampire bones. It's called realpolitik. Do you want the President to choose who to support based on their morality and disregard the national interest? And how would you measure their morality? Maybe the real plan is to keep any one murderous faction from winning so they keep fighting till they've all killed each other. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: American Intelligence
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] Addressing questions. Its a debacle more over the last 5 years then before, but yes, it sucked. On the other hand, I am more bloody-minded then Bushie was (I suspect this is because of his friendship with the Saudi royals) and I would have done Afghanistan and the Pakistan circa Oct 200, for the Bin Laden thing, and would have wiped out anyone protecting him-so please realize who your are arguing with. Oh. I realize who I am arguing with - a couch potato general who has never tasted war, wishing war (for others to wage in distant lands). One question Rambo, you had your chance, why didn't you go yourself? The clash of civilizations was ever true and is more true today. I take it, Chris, that you are not a dweller in the UK or Spain with the subway bombings? I suspect that lack of cause and effect influences your opinion aside from pure ideology? A guess, no more. I have lived in both the UK and in Spain and visited several other times. I was also living in the NYC metro area on 911 and saw the aftermath with my own eyes in person.. I hugged the firemen who were in tears balling like babies - the ones who had lost 80% of their colleagues on that day. I walked through the streets with the flowers and candles burning and experienced the human trauma of that terror act of outsized scale. The day of 911 I was working to set up a fallback crisis response center for the Associated Press (for whom I was developing software at the time), in case headquarters in Rockefeller center also got hit (in those first hours no one really knew the scope of this act) Where were you? I support mil actions as long as its fought like total war. Think WW2. Note, that nuanced responses have done little since WW2, although the Korean War is the most solid, maybe? If its worth fighting, then its worth willing to the max. Neither Bushie nor, Obama hold this position as something they want. Otherwise, try bribes, incentives and all that diplomacy provides-just don't expect it to work. It really has not. Good thing for us all that you are just a couch potato general then. Since 9-11 was launched with Taliban support, how were we not going to trouble them? Be peaceful so we can make progressives feel better? The Taliban had nothing operationally to do with 911 - they may have been medieval minded intolerant fundamentalist fascists who were harboring Al Qaida (who had fought side by side with them to drive the Russians from Afghanistan, and who for decades had been funded, armed and trained by the way by the US CIA and military based on the same realpolitik rational). But they were not involved with 911? And the afghan, farmers, goat and sheep herders (90% of the country) how exactly where they involved generalissimo? The failure of Bush was failure to fight to win, a novel thing in this day and age. What could we have done outside of boots on the ground. Answer-carpet bombing as we did in Haiphong Harbor in North Vietnam. It actually brought peace, a truce for 2+ years, before the North took over. Yeah like that won the war LOL - I witnessed the end of that war in person and it was not an American victory. So what did dropping more tons of explosive on Indochina than in all theaters of WWII put together accomplish? What objective was achieved? I was living there during the last year of that peace. I saw that peace with my own eyes. You really don't have a clue do you. peace, what peace? Every single night - during the curfew from dusk to dawn - Saigon would go quiet and the skies around it would be lit up by the light of the green flares parachuting down and the flashes from just over the horizon followed a short time later by the thuds of the booms of the bombs - being dropped in the ill-defined moving war zone that encircled the fortress city. I saw the long convoys of military trucks with two caskets per truck bringing the corpses back to be given to their grieving families. I really despise couch potato generals who have never seen war, never felt the suffering and deep terror of war.. bragging (empty bragging) about how they would bomb this and bomb that. Why didn't you go personally and volunteer to be shipped off to Iraq, then Rambo? Are you perchance a chickenhawk. a hawk for other people, but a chicken when it comes to your own flesh and blood? What about the Islamist lands in question? When they re-take the un-held lands once more after the bombing stops and start rebuilding. Well, one more time! We'd defeat their goals and keep them off balance. How long? Permanently. There are other options of course, aside war, but none that seem to work. You seem fetishistic about war. go fight then, or admit that you are in fact a couch potato coward, wishing for others to go die so you can get that adrenalin rush of self-righteousness vicarious thrill (from the safety of your couch
RE: American Intelligence
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2014 5:10 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: American Intelligence Not disagreeing with Brent, but realpolitik only works when you like the outcome. I tend to be absolutist in my war views, so the nuances are wasted on me. You are absolutely a coward in your war “actions” though…. War, for you, is for other people to fight. Chris It is however, what's the result at the end of the day. The biggest question is, what is the national interest? Usually it means whatever pleases the super rich. If you happen to be on Soros or the Koch's side, then all is good. If not...? It's called realpolitik. Do you want the President to choose who to support based on their morality and disregard the national interest? And how would you measure their morality? Maybe the real plan is to keep any one murderous faction from winning so they keep fighting till they've all killed each other. Brent -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jun 26, 2014 11:57 pm Subject: Re: American Intelligence On 6/26/2014 8:45 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Ruquist Spud, I will fault Obama for supporting the ISIS in Syria but opposing them in Iraq. Richard It amazed me how they tried to rebrand these intolerant murderous A-holes as freedom fighters when these dogs of war became useful tools again in Syria. From Al-Qaida our immortal enemies to “freedom fighters” just like that, given the old Madison Avenue makeover. The cynicism of the power knows no bounds and has no decency at all in its old vampire bones. It's called realpolitik. Do you want the President to choose who to support based on their morality and disregard the national interest? And how would you measure their morality? Maybe the real plan is to keep any one murderous faction from winning so they keep fighting till they've all killed each other. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Pluto bounces back!
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On 27-Jun-2014, at 3:50 pm, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: Okay, let’s leave aside whether this is a book about God by humans, or a book from God about humans. Why? It makes a claim that god is beyond comprehension; and goes on to tell us what is good and evil based on this. Please explain how this ties in with factual accuracy? Last I checked, what is beyond comprehension is what it is and does itself explain this. Invoking such would be a type of blasphemy to an ultimate entity beyond comprehension. Why can God not comprehend Himself, I don't know whether some hypothetical entity/object responsible for reality, Quran based or not, possesses self-referential ability; or what form that would take. Self? In relation to what other one would be inclined to ask. But then one stumbles on one part of the problem: if such god is all that is, how could that god possess a self that requires an other/background/universe to contrast against? This is part of why I wouldn't know whether god could have a self, in the sense that I can understand. All that is, you mean the Creator part of the creation, as in the emergent property article posted in another thread? No, we believe God to be independent and outside creation, whatever that may be. and what's stopping God from communicating with His creations? I'm not saying god doesn't, but I don't know that god does either. Why would he if his creation is according to his taste? I cannot answer that. I believe God has a good reason for it, but we've only been informed that its due to a prior event according to which The Human took the Trust, but breaks the Covenant, and therefore must be judged. Again, similar questions to what you've repeatedly posed can be asked, but they really don't lead to any answers, not because there are no answers, but rather because we humans, or at least I, do not have the answers to it. He created the physical laws and all creation is bound by them. He created us, gave us free-will and is testing us with some dos and don'ts. Again you make god some sort of insecure tester of his own creation. Insecure? No, we believe that God knows exactly what each creation is, and could have sorted us without testing, but God gives us a chance to make the right choices, or establish for ourselves where we belong. Is god a he by the way? Do you understand the blaspheme problem in this context? That this hardly fits with saying god is incomprehensible? God created the genders and is above that. However, its common (natural?) human practice to speak of unknown in the generic masculine tense (even I have been referred to as he / him by a number of people on this list :). Moreover, in the scriptures, the masculine pronoun is used. The Quran gives introduces the idea that God is the Spiritual Light (Nur) of the Heavens and Earth, and explains it through a parable in Chapter 24, Verse 35. To quote Dr. Zakir Naik (http://www.islam101.com/tauheed/conceptofGod.htm ): *The most concise definition of God in Islam is given in the four verses of Surah Ikhlas which is Chapter 112 of the Qur’an:Say: He is Allah, The One and Only.Allah, the Eternal, Absolute.He begets not, nor is He begotten.And there is none like unto Him. [Al-Qur’an 112:1-4]The word ‘Assamad’ is difficult to translate. It means ‘absolute existence’, which can be attributed only to Allah (swt), all other existence being temporal or conditional. It also means that Allah (swt) is not dependant on any person or thing, but all persons and things are dependant on Him. * You may also wish to read this answer: http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-about-islam/faith-and-worship/islamic-creed/168624-is-god-male-or-female.html I'm not so sure we can talk about hard facts on such a basis. May be your questions will be better answered by former non-muslims who have accepted Islam, especially Europeans or Americans, who can perhaps better relate to your questions. Some of them are well-known scholars/preachers of Islam and have web presence and videos on YouTube. I was able to find this list on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Islam If God can create everything from the cosmologically largest to the tiniest string or whatever is smaller than that, if God created our DNA and our neuronal and other networks with such precision, what's stopping or limiting God from sending a book which we can read and take guidance from? Do you consider God anything less than magnificently amazing? I don't know if god has a need to display himself as magnificently amazing. God doesn't need to. God's magnificence and amazing-ness is evident through
Re: Germany sets record for peak energy use - 50 percent comes from solar (Update)
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I want to know how you're going to economically convert DC to AC. I'm gonna trasmit DC because that's more efficient anyway. Not unless it's at very high voltage! it's a struggle to get solar panels to output at 20 volts, and the best modern transmission lines operated at a MILLION volts or more. There are no DC to DC transformers so you will need to convert the low voltage DC to low voltage AC, then send it through a stept up transformer to a million volts or so, then rectify is back to DC, then send it into environmentally unpopular high voltage power lines thousands of miles long, then turn the high voltage DC to high voltage AC, then send it through a step down transformer to bring the million volts down to 110 volts and send it to your house. All this is possible but it's very expensive and at every stage in the process you loose efficiency. And I want to know what you're going to say to environmentalists when they notice that solar cells are black and only convert about 12% of the sunlight into electricity with the rest turning into heat which will transform that area in the desert the size of New Jersey into the hottest place on the surface of the Earth. The hottest by far! You didn't read it did you. No and I don't intend to, but I've read similar pipe dreams. McKay notes that PV is not efficient enough. All his area calculations are based on solar-thermal power plants. And they are about 30% efficient, but they need lots and lots of water to operate, where are you going to get all that water in the desert? You also must have missed the news that energy is conserved. No, I've heard about that. So if you turn part of solar energy into electricity it doesn't make the area hotter. You have missed the news that entropy is not conserved. Desert areas are bright so most of the sunlight hitting it is reflected back into space. But if you put a power plant there 70% is turned into heat, the land tries to radiate the heat away as infrared but due to the greenhouse effect it can't, so things get hotter. I want to know how you're going to shut up the environmentalists when they start screaming bloody murder about paving over a area of pristine desert the size of New Jersey with solar cells. I'll leave that one up to you. NO, it's your boondoggle not mine, let them yell at you. Never mind how you can make all those solar cells cheaply enough and long lasting enough to be practical, I want to know how you plan to store that energy so you can use it at night and on cloudy days. I'm gonna invent new battery, thermal, hydro storage technologies. Great, when you finish inventing all that let me know and we'll talk again. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On 27 Jun 2014, at 21:39, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I care about the notion behind. Call it the ONE Let's call it the BULLSHIT. Why not. But it can be confusing. read Plotinus, Given that your average 6th grader knows far more about the universe than he ever did why in hell should I read Plotinus?? You betray that you take the universe for bullshit. I made clear that God is not nameable But you just did. You actually did, but I guess you will not grasp this. Anyway by bullshit I mean (using your term) the fundamental reality, and you betray that you believe in the bullshit the physical universe, without being aware that it is a theological (bullshitical, if you insist) assumption. You seem to confuse physics and physicalism. It looks like according to you we just have no right to raise doubts on the Aristotelian Primary Matter notion. Terms like God, Universe, Everything, ... are fuzzy and refer to not easy notions. But assuming comp, we get definitions, and metadefinitions which can point openly toward an object or a person without naming it, and we get notably an arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus' theology, which you might appreciate if really, until now, you thought that God meant only the christian one. In occident (free scientific) theology has stopped at the 6th century, and at the 11th century in the Middle east (stopped in the mainstream, by political pseudo-religion). (by free here I mean non confessional). As long as quasi rationalist like you mock the theological field, and prevent seriousness there, it will remains in the end of the bullshit vendors. Bruno PS I think I will come back to the term god as it is less confusing than bullshit, to refer to the unknown cause or reason of why we are here. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Pluto bounces back!
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: Another example: does the Quran allow for possibility that it could be wrong etc? PGC No, it doesn't, as explained above. It allows for human evaluation, Which is pretty pointless, if the text is god's truth written large. This kind of fake advertising of scientific doubt is also present in the Bible; e.g. doubting apostle Thomas. As in yes, if you are the doubting type... we've reserved a place for you. My answer is: Sorry, you don't allow real doubt. Thomas and these figures can only doubt inside the book, not the book itself. Your doubt is false doubt. and suggests parameters that we can use such as discrepancy, falsifiability, trying to write a similar book without God's help, How can we even be sure the Quran, Bible, etc. are written with god's help? How can we be sure it is not a political tool of men, pretending to be god's voice simply, for obvious human reason? etc., and repeatedly claims that this Book is without any crookedness, You do not address the problem of blaspheme raised and continue to make statements about him, even though you believe you cannot understand him. Apologies, but that is crooked to me. errors or mistakes, and a guidance and blessing from the Lord of the Worlds. If I may suggest, keep asking questions and doubting, I do such with or without Quran. and at the same time, also read through the entire text of the Quran. I think I've had enough for some time: the way you present it in these quotes, Allah is vain, boastful (needs a book and people to do advertising for him), vengeful and cruel tester of creation he despises (why test and punish? why cultural preferences?), and the crooked move of writing about god when you admit that nothing can be said about god. For today, that is enough for me and it looks from your quotes like the book wants to convert people in typical manipulation through fear mechanism. I'm sure there are deeper ways to comprehend Quran, but today and through these quotes I don't see them. And since I can hypnotize myself to like almost anything, given enough time, I'm sure I could do it with Quran as well. But today I choose to doubt + it doesn't look much fun from the scripture quoted here; like I have to run around and convert people to some book that tells them to be frightened if they don't read it, and if they doubt, I just repeat them to keep reading. I respect a possible god's creation more than thinking it somebody's job to convert people. This makes god's magnificence, as you call it, very small. I still have no idea of whether you see the blaspheme problem here or not. PGC Some very good resources on the web give multiple translations in many languages, as well as Arabic text, and lexicon. I think you'll find that the Quran addresses many of your questions and doubts in a much clearer and direct way. Just a few minutes every morning, it just might be worth it! Samiya -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
to Samiya Illias
Dear Samiya, you wrote a pretty long lecture upon my short question(s) and one point caught my amazement - still swirling around in my mind. The question about the questionability of genders in the afterworld. Or the 'maybe' absence of them. Makes sense to me. Not even for the 'old grandpa in the white nightgown' or Jesus, the son of that grandpa. It seems (and you are part of it as well - sorry) we all THINK about what we call 'god' and believe as a supernatural, in restricted terms of our HUMAN thinking of the day. Comparison: science postulates a lot about the mental activities of animals - all in our human terms and concepts. (Not only that: in our TODAY's terms). 10,000, 5,000, 2,000, 1500 years ago as well as yesterday humans figured out what they would surround with 'awe' and impersonated such ideas into a 'god' (or more than one?) with appreciable human attributes. I am perplexed about our *'gender related'* worldview and find it a relaxing idea that it may last only as long as our (terrestrial) life does. That may be only ONE of many such facets we have to learn as peculiarities of our life. Maybe more to come. It does not alleviate my scorn against 'males' suppresing weaker 'females' into domestic slaves serving men and depriving the women of things they (the males) like to do, know and possess. It does not give me solace either for the extreme differences of potentials (*both genders*) may experience in their terrestrial life, in talents, physical capabilities, wealth/poverty, knowledge, or primitive ignorance, degrees of freedom, and - you name it. It really would take 'a god' to judge the life of a mentally retarded boondox beggar vs. Candidate gov. Romney, or Marie Curie - If there will be a day of judgement indeed. In this respect reincarnation makes more sense. In conclusion: I find ourselves in 'awe' of the impenetrable mysteries of our world and figure out a creator, who does maintenance and keeps order among us, uncontrollable creatures. Still the question stands: why was Hell created if 'god' is indeed so forgiving? Satan??? Jews omit that part from the early Abrahamic Script. Best regards John M -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: American Intelligence
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: American Intelligence
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] Well, of one takes the actions or inactions of gov leaders, specifically, U.S., then there is a lot at stake to lose. I am, whatever it's worth, far different, from what Fox views editorially. For instance, Rupert Murdoch is meeting with Obama advisor, Valerie Jarrett on promoting more immigration from Latin America. That is different then how I feel. Secondly, most US media are never critical of Obama's governance, because he is a fellow progressive, and the first black president. No criticisms, just support. Oh believe I am an American nationalist, but a pragmatic one. I always ask what has been achieved if anything? You are an American Nationalist who wants others to go die for you. essentially. My question, which I repeat, if you are so gung ho about some kind of clash of civilizations then how come you are not on the front lines fighting your crusade? Or do you prefer that others do the dying while you get to wax on with your self-righteous attitude? While you take care to keep yourself well out of harm's way. A chickenhawk: One, who is a hawk, but only when it is others who are doing the dying. Moreover, Using ponder where, as a species we want to be? The only thing anyone needs to fear from the ineffectual Fox News, is when somebody screws up and then lies about it. Lastly, I don't see Fox as having all that much clout, so your displeasure with them is likely, a waste of bradykinans, the brain chemical. -Original Message- From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: 28-Jun-2014 10:41:40 + Subject: Re: American Intelligence On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 2:10 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Not disagreeing with Brent, but realpolitik only works when you like the outcome. I tend to be absolutist in my war views, so the nuances are wasted on me. Indeed, often you sound as absolutist as the militant FOX bitch, Liz posted yesterday. Not that I mind, but it's worth pointing out, I guess. PGC It is however, what's the result at the end of the day. The biggest question is, what is the national interest? Usually it means whatever pleases the super rich. If you happen to be on Soros or the Koch's side, then all is good. If not...? It's called realpolitik. Do you want the President to choose who to support based on their morality and disregard the national interest? And how would you measure their morality? Maybe the real plan is to keep any one murderous faction from winning so they keep fighting till they've all killed each other. Brent -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jun 26, 2014 11:57 pm Subject: Re: American Intelligence On 6/26/2014 8:45 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Ruquist Spud, I will fault Obama for supporting the ISIS in Syria but opposing them in Iraq. Richard It amazed me how they tried to rebrand these intolerant murderous A-holes as freedom fighters when these dogs of war became useful tools again in Syria. From Al-Qaida our immortal enemies to freedom fighters just like that, given the old Madison Avenue makeover. The cynicism of the power knows no bounds and has no decency at all in its old vampire bones. It's called realpolitik. Do you want the President to choose who to support based on their morality and disregard the national interest? And how would you measure their morality? Maybe the real plan is to keep any one murderous faction from winning so they keep fighting till they've all killed each other. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this
Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On 29 Jun 2014, at 4:13 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: As long as quasi-rationalists like you mock the theological field, and prevent any seriousness there, it will remain in the province of the bullshit vendors. The trouble with thinkers like Clark is that they are really liars to themselves. Clark is a classic example of someone who has great knowledge of a field but remains a lousy thinker due to his dishonesty and his selective perception. Because it is actually kind of impossible to lie to oneself, the only way to work the magic trick is to utter the lie in public (under the guise of rational thinking) in the hope that clever use of selective perception and bullying tactics, vulgar language, colourful metsphors and analogies etc. will rally a bunch of sheeple behind him as some form of support. In other words, he believes that the more he persists by denying what he has understood all too well but would prefer wasn't within the scope of the possible (because it doesn't suit his personal taste) - the more vulgar his use of language, the more bully-boy his style, the more tortured and affected the use of analogy (often borrowed from Dawkins who often borrows from Bertrand Russell) the more he feels he has won some kind of intellectual point-scoring match. Clark is the kind of individual that believes progress is always a kind of battle against an opponent or an opposition. He is great at physics and related fields and in those posts we stand back in awe of his command of detail. Knowledge of a particular field or fields, however - I will never tire of saying - does not make you the Supreme Commander Of All Thinking. Such individuals have a well-known behavioural pattern: an intense emotional need to be seen to be right about everything but probably have never had an original idea in their life because they never risk anything; they only ever go to the safe havens. The fact that Clark keeps showing up in discussions where he is clearly out of his depth merely reinforces this impression. These guys over here are talking about something I understand but hate because it's not something that an instrumentalist Aristotelian physicalist mainstream scientific thinker like me should have to put with. I never miss reading posts by John K Clark. He is the perfect model of everything that is ineffectual with the thinking system that humans use. But he does know an awful lot about physics, to be fair. Kim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Pluto bounces back!
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: Another example: does the Quran allow for possibility that it could be wrong etc? PGC No, it doesn't, as explained above. It allows for human evaluation, Which is pretty pointless, if the text is god's truth written large. This kind of fake advertising of scientific doubt is also present in the Bible; e.g. doubting apostle Thomas. As in yes, if you are the doubting type... we've reserved a place for you. My answer is: Sorry, you don't allow real doubt. Thomas and these figures can only doubt inside the book, not the book itself. Your doubt is false doubt. and suggests parameters that we can use such as discrepancy, falsifiability, trying to write a similar book without God's help, How can we even be sure the Quran, Bible, etc. are written with god's help? How can we be sure it is not a political tool of men, pretending to be god's voice simply, for obvious human reason? etc., and repeatedly claims that this Book is without any crookedness, You do not address the problem of blaspheme raised and continue to make statements about him, even though you believe you cannot understand him. Apologies, but that is crooked to me. errors or mistakes, and a guidance and blessing from the Lord of the Worlds. If I may suggest, keep asking questions and doubting, I do such with or without Quran. and at the same time, also read through the entire text of the Quran. I think I've had enough for some time: the way you present it in these quotes, Allah is vain, boastful (needs a book and people to do advertising for him), vengeful and cruel tester of creation he despises (why test and punish? why cultural preferences?), and the crooked move of writing about god when you admit that nothing can be said about god. For today, that is enough for me and it looks from your quotes like the book wants to convert people in typical manipulation through fear mechanism. I'm sure there are deeper ways to comprehend Quran, but today and through these quotes I don't see them. And since I can hypnotize myself to like almost anything, given enough time, I'm sure I could do it with Quran as well. But today I choose to doubt + it doesn't look much fun from the scripture quoted here; like I have to run around and convert people to some book that tells them to be frightened if they don't read it, and if they doubt, I just repeat them to keep reading. I respect a possible god's creation more than thinking it somebody's job to convert people. This makes god's magnificence, as you call it, very small. I still have no idea of whether you see the blaspheme problem here or not. PGC We agree that it is blasphemy to attribute to God or make statements on God's behalf what God hasn't stated. However, we also consider it blasphemy to deny God or God's communication, pretending that God hasn't sent any message, when God has indeed provided guidance for humans. You seem to think that the Message is for a particular culture, I tell you its for all humanity from the Lord of the Worlds. God doesn't need us or our service, it is we who need God and God's guidance, since it is our future that depends on our beliefs and actions. Just as we have no choice over our own self's birth and death, similarly we have no choice in being resurrected for an immortal life. Our future well-being depends on the sincerity of our thoughts and actions in the present! Samiya Some very good resources on the web give multiple translations in many languages, as well as Arabic text, and lexicon. I think you'll find that the Quran addresses many of your questions and doubts in a much clearer and direct way. Just a few minutes every morning, it just might be worth it! Samiya -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List
RE: Pluto bounces back!
Samiya…. May I ask you why you believe. It is obvious that you do believe, but why… and please not the canned answer supplied by dogma but the deep inner personal reasons that motivate you to believe? Can we cut through all the bull shit and get straight at the core of the matter… with the simple direct question of why? Not in the generic sense, but rather in the exquisitely personal dimension of your own innermost wellspring of being.. your own emergent self-awareness. (which you believe was given to you by your God) Why? What is your personal story. Dogma does not interest me in the least; personal stories I do however find fascinating. Chris, in the Pacific Northwest (one of the best spots on the earth) From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2014 8:04 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back! On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: Another example: does the Quran allow for possibility that it could be wrong etc? PGC No, it doesn't, as explained above. It allows for human evaluation, Which is pretty pointless, if the text is god's truth written large. This kind of fake advertising of scientific doubt is also present in the Bible; e.g. doubting apostle Thomas. As in yes, if you are the doubting type... we've reserved a place for you. My answer is: Sorry, you don't allow real doubt. Thomas and these figures can only doubt inside the book, not the book itself. Your doubt is false doubt. and suggests parameters that we can use such as discrepancy, falsifiability, trying to write a similar book without God's help, How can we even be sure the Quran, Bible, etc. are written with god's help? How can we be sure it is not a political tool of men, pretending to be god's voice simply, for obvious human reason? etc., and repeatedly claims that this Book is without any crookedness, You do not address the problem of blaspheme raised and continue to make statements about him, even though you believe you cannot understand him. Apologies, but that is crooked to me. errors or mistakes, and a guidance and blessing from the Lord of the Worlds. If I may suggest, keep asking questions and doubting, I do such with or without Quran. and at the same time, also read through the entire text of the Quran. I think I've had enough for some time: the way you present it in these quotes, Allah is vain, boastful (needs a book and people to do advertising for him), vengeful and cruel tester of creation he despises (why test and punish? why cultural preferences?), and the crooked move of writing about god when you admit that nothing can be said about god. For today, that is enough for me and it looks from your quotes like the book wants to convert people in typical manipulation through fear mechanism. I'm sure there are deeper ways to comprehend Quran, but today and through these quotes I don't see them. And since I can hypnotize myself to like almost anything, given enough time, I'm sure I could do it with Quran as well. But today I choose to doubt + it doesn't look much fun from the scripture quoted here; like I have to run around and convert people to some book that tells them to be frightened if they don't read it, and if they doubt, I just repeat them to keep reading. I respect a possible god's creation more than thinking it somebody's job to convert people. This makes god's magnificence, as you call it, very small. I still have no idea of whether you see the blaspheme problem here or not. PGC We agree that it is blasphemy to attribute to God or make statements on God's behalf what God hasn't stated. However, we also consider it blasphemy to deny God or God's communication, pretending that God hasn't sent any message, when God has indeed provided guidance for humans. You seem to think that the Message is for a particular culture, I tell you its for all humanity from the Lord of the Worlds. God doesn't need us or our service, it is we who need God and God's guidance, since it is our future that depends on our beliefs and actions. Just as we have no choice over our own self's birth and death, similarly we have no choice in being resurrected for an immortal life. Our future well-being depends on the sincerity of our thoughts and actions in the present! Samiya Some very good resources on the web give multiple translations in many languages, as well as Arabic text, and lexicon. I think you'll find that the Quran addresses many of your questions and doubts in a much clearer and direct way. Just a few minutes every morning, it just might be worth it!
Re: to Samiya Illias
Dear John, Please see my responses below. On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 2:27 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Samiya, you wrote a pretty long lecture upon my short question(s) Oops. Didn't intend it as a lecture, just a comprehensive answer to a query. and one point caught my amazement - still swirling around in my mind. The question about the questionability of genders in the afterworld. Or the 'maybe' absence of them. Makes sense to me. :) Not even for the 'old grandpa in the white nightgown' or Jesus, the son of that grandpa. It seems (and you are part of it as well - sorry) we all THINK about what we call 'god' and believe as a supernatural, in restricted terms of our HUMAN thinking of the day. Indeed we humans are limited by ou individual and collective knowledge and imaginations Comparison: science postulates a lot about the mental activities of animals - all in our human terms and concepts. (Not only that: in our TODAY's terms). It does 10,000, 5,000, 2,000, 1500 years ago as well as yesterday humans figured out what they would surround with 'awe' and impersonated such ideas into a 'god' (or more than one?) with appreciable human attributes. I feel humans have this innate desire to worship, as well as realize their own weakness and insufficiency. We either worship and look towards the one and only true God (to whom is due primal origin, and continues to create, sustain and govern), or we raise a multitude of gods which serve our temporal needs and purposes, or we reduce the former into the latter through corruption of thought and text... I am perplexed about our *'gender related'* worldview and find it a relaxing idea that it may last only as long as our (terrestrial) life does. That may be only ONE of many such facets we have to learn as peculiarities of our life. Maybe more to come. :) It does not alleviate my scorn against 'males' suppresing weaker 'females' into domestic slaves serving men and depriving the women of things they (the males) like to do, know and possess. All those who abuse power, and oppress /suppress the weak deserve scorn. Women have been suppressed throughout history, in almost all cultures and religions, or the absence or it, in various guises. By far and large, men have always abused their position with respect to women. If I may opinionate, even in Western culture where women are 'liberated', it seems that women have been 'short-changed' into giving up their privileges and end up working twice as hard. Now, they have to earn their living, are still campaigning for equal-pay, have to be more and more concerned about their appearance and presentability, marriage and children have become a luxury which only a select few can indulge in, families and populations are being decimated through contraception and abortions, while men are more 'liberated' having lesser responsibilities, fewer and fewer supporting families, and with sex becoming freely available, the need for marriage and family has declined. And eventually, as a consequence, most people are ending up in 'old-peoples' homes. It does not give me solace either for the extreme differences of potentials (*both genders*) may experience in their terrestrial life, in talents, physical capabilities, wealth/poverty, knowledge, or primitive ignorance, degrees of freedom, and - you name it. It really would take 'a god' to judge the life of a mentally retarded boondox beggar vs. Candidate gov. Romney, or Marie Curie - If there will be a day of judgement indeed. In this respect reincarnation makes more sense. How does reincarnation make more sense? What makes you think the same patterns will not be repeated. If we can draw any patterns from human history, the same patterns have been repeated across time and cultures. The tools and technologies may be different, but human motives and interactions are fairly common. (I am assuming by reincarnation, you mean re-birth in this terrestrial life, not resurrection for Judgement) In conclusion: I find ourselves in 'awe' of the impenetrable mysteries of our world and figure out a creator, who does maintenance and keeps order among us, uncontrollable creatures. We would be in a lot of chaos or self-destruct without a governing force overriding and correcting our follies! Still the question stands: why was Hell created if 'god' is indeed so forgiving? Satan??? Jews omit that part from the early Abrahamic Script. As I understand from the Quran, God has inscribed the rule of Mercy upon Himself for the terrestrial, temporal life of us humans. He forgives over and over again for sins committed in ignorance and by mistake, or due to weaknesses, as long as the human is not transgressing obstinately and keeps searching for and reverting to God for forgiveness and guidance. God rules in Justice in the absolute sense, and is not unjust to any of His creations. Therefore, the Day of Judgement will be established and all
Re: Tyson is not atheist (was Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture
On 29 June 2014 14:26, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 29 Jun 2014, at 4:13 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: As long as quasi-rationalists like you mock the theological field, and prevent any seriousness there, it will remain in the province of the bullshit vendors. The trouble with thinkers like Clark is that they are really liars to themselves. Clark is a classic example of someone who has great knowledge of a field but remains a lousy thinker due to his dishonesty and his selective perception. Without agreeing with the specific example (though I do wonder sometimes if it's faux naivete about comp), this is very common. I'm sure we have all done it at times, especially when we havent had that vital first coffee... the only answer is to be humble, no matter how much you think you know. Because it is actually kind of impossible to lie to oneself, the only way to work the magic trick is to utter the lie in public (under the guise of rational thinking) in the hope that clever use of selective perception and bullying tactics, Hmm. I'm not sure it's impossible to lie to yourself. I know that consciously trying to hold conflicting views causes cognitive dissonance but if you can hide the fact from yourself that your views don't gel ... a lot of deconstructionists would say that a lot of people hold self-contradictory views, but they hide the fact. You can generally find some point when someone is inconsistent if you are motivated enough to try, imho. vulgar language, colourful metsphors and analogies etc. will rally a bunch of sheeple behind him as some form of support. In other words, he believes that the more he persists by denying what he has understood all too well but would prefer wasn't within the scope of the possible (because it doesn't suit his personal taste) - the more vulgar his use of language, the more bully-boy his style, the more tortured and affected the use of analogy (often borrowed from Dawkins who often borrows from Bertrand Russell) the more he feels he has won some kind of intellectual point-scoring match. I only need two things. Your submission and your obedience to MY WILL! * I really do hate point scoring matches. The winner usually prostitutes him/herself to get the most points, bending his/her views around to make a snappy comeback. (Also, I'm no good at it :-) Clark is the kind of individual that believes progress is always a kind of battle against an opponent or an opposition. That's very macho. The war on terror - the war on drugs - the war on war? They're all the war on the people, by the powerful. He is great at physics and related fields and in those posts we stand back in awe of his command of detail. Yes, and Brent and a few other posters also have an impressive knowledge of this field. Knowledge of a particular field or fields, however - I will never tire of saying - does not make you the Supreme Commander Of All Thinking. Such individuals have a well-known behavioural pattern: an intense emotional need to be seen to be right about everything but probably have never had an original idea in their life because they never risk anything; they only ever go to the safe havens. Well, score one point for Mr Ross on that front! The fact that Clark keeps showing up in discussions where he is clearly out of his depth merely reinforces this impression. These guys over here are talking about something I understand but hate because it's not something that an instrumentalist Aristotelian physicalist mainstream scientific thinker like me should have to put with. It's the materialist hat (I'm not sure which colour it is). Calling bullshit! on comp and similar ideas without stopping to understand them seems to stem from a religious belief in materialism (Bill Taylor on the FOAR forum is another example of this). There is endless spluttering and shouting and often even (gasp) capital letters, but never any sign that the person concerned has stopped and thought it through, in the spirit of what if he's got a point? - I guess I read too much science fiction in my youth because I am always at least trying to what-if, I even did it on Tronnies, although sadly my suspension of disbelief has rather collapsed on that front. I never miss reading posts by John K Clark. He is the perfect model of everything that is ineffectual with the thinking system that humans use. But he does know an awful lot about physics, to be fair. And they was grateful for him patronage, And they thanked him very much... *quote from the Master in Dr Who, The Daemons (1971) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
