CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Speed of Time
Next: "The Einstein Hoax"
From: Autymn D. C. on 8 Jan 2010 01:18 On Jan 3, 8:28 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > >(Geopelia) > >Very likely. I was brought up Church of England back in the thirties. > >Good old King James Version and the Book of Common Prayer. > >But I often refer to the Catholic Encyclopaedia for their official view. > > [Hammond] > Same here pretty much. I was born a New England > Congregationalists and like you consider the King James > version "the" Bible. Of course I haven't set foot in a > church in 50 years and probably never will again. Last time > I was in church I was the best man at my buddy's wedding. We http://google.com/groups?q=%22Halexandria+update%22
From: Inertial on 8 Jan 2010 02:24 "<SNIP STALKER>" <.@..com> wrote in message news:iahdk5lao2q1gievb64heclesinsdfdtbp(a)4ax.com... > X-No-Archive: Yes > On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 15:25:45 +1100 SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP
From: Autymn D. C. on 8 Jan 2010 08:06 On Jan 4, 8:15 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 19:16:43 -0800 (PST), spiritual energy > <solidst...(a)rocketmail.com> wrote: > >On Jan 5, 2:48 am, Anti Vigilante <antivigila...(a)pyrabang.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:10:27 -0800, Don Stockbauer wrote: > > >> >[Don Stockbauer] > >> > God and the Universe are identical entities. > > >>[Anti Vigilante] > >> Pop-psychology bullshit. > > >[spiritual energy] > >It's not bullshit at all. There is no evidence for a God which is > >seperate from the universe. In fact there is no physical evidence for separate > >any God at all but that is a different matter. If God is seperate from > >this universe or exists outside this universe, then he has absolutely > >no effect on the universe we live in. > > >So if some kind of God exists, he/she/it must be part of this > >universe. Hence they are identical. > > [Hammond] > For chrissakes at least put your initials on the first > line of your post. When 4 people are in one post it is > impossible to tell who is talking without identifying > initials. > > In the first place Don Stockbauer who made the original > target statement doesn't realize there is a difference > between "reality" and "the universe". But there is. One > can prove this in the following way. At 9am tomorrow > morning we simply kill every living person on Earth. Then > at 9:05 am, HOW could it be proved the Universe still > existed? According to the laws of Physics, there is NO WAY > it could be proved, since Physicis requires an "observer"... > a "human" observer. Ergo... the Universe would NOT EXIST at > 9:05 am. > This is a simple proof that "reality" is caused by the > mind of Man, and without "reality" the "Universe" does not > "exist", i.e. with Man the Universe does not exist. Reality is mutval, whether by the mind or by the field, by man or by stone. Trees a'falling still make a woom when we're not there. > A corrolary of that proof is that "reality creates the > Universe". Therefore, "reality" is "outside the Universe". > And by simple deduction, "God is the creator of reality, and > therefore the creator of the Universe" > Finally, it is obvious from this demonstration that "God" > is simply "Man"...i.e., the "mind" of Man. > > So much for Philawsephy..... but there is more.... fact > of the matter.... from the above simple argument we see that > if anything happens to the mind of Man.... reality willl > change.... and thus the (observed) Universe will change... > and guess what.... there happens to be a FUNDAMENTAL DEFECT > in the mind of Man, and therefore a fundamental defect in > Reality, and therefore a fundamental defect in the > Universe... and this defect is the "Human growth deficit" > which causes a human brain growth deficit.... which causes > the entire OBSEFRVABLE PHENOMENON OF GOD which is what the > 1,333 pages of the Bible is all about. God != Man Your stinkin' Tanac even says God is not a man, which makes you a hairètic. Rather, it makes you a fraud--if you understood Scripture, you'd know the "New Testament" (Screw ye, King Dzhems and Bishops) was already refuted and contravent by the First. > Now, if you can't understand that.... I suggest you fijd > something better to do like bowling jor motorcycle How does your software write "fijd"? -Aut
From: Autymn D. C. on 8 Jan 2010 09:15 On Jan 5, 12:00 pm, BruceS <bruce...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Just because you don't fully understand something someone else says, > don't assume that they're more intelligent than you are. It's > possible that they're talking more in their own specialty. It's also > possible that they're quite insane, and that you aren't understanding > them because they make no sense. Guess which Hammond is. > Of course, some people fit both categories, but I won't name any names > on that. someone != they 1 != 2 a someone -> one the someone -> who
From: BruceS on 8 Jan 2010 16:55
On Jan 7, 11:07 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Jan 2, 9:13 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: <snip> > > Note: Speech recognition software is only 99% accurate at > > best and can drop to 95% if you are dictating into an > > obscure program. This means that you'll have to correct one > > to five words in every 10 lines manually. That's where the > > typos come from and the misspellings. Also, I don't bother > > to proofread a lot of this stuff and occasionally the > > It makes up words? Notice that it not only makes up words, but seems to have a distinct tendency to replace letters with others adjacent on the keyboard. For instance, "find" becomes "fijd", almost as if the right index finger slipped a little. What amazing software he uses, that creates typos *just like a real typist*, instead of doing sound-alike errors. Hmm. Could it be that he's just lying? A lie to cover his inability to respond coherently, and another (bigger) lie to cover that, and more lies after that to bind them all together? All my posts are made through my own hands, so typos are due to sloppy typing, not incredibly bad software. |