CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE
in [Physics]
|
Prev: geothermal energy
Next: First time: Haversian canal/blood vessels of meteorite magnified to 4000X
From: Geopelia on 5 Jan 2010 06:21 "George Hammond" <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote in message news:fda5k59nta0if7p9hm8b4dtqcfs3jao1pv(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 15:17:48 +1300, "Geopelia" > <phildoran(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > >> >>(Geopelia) >>Of course I don't know what God is. >> > [Hammond] > Glad we agree on that. >> >> >> >>Here's another silly question "Who does know?" >> >> > [Hammond] > As I susected you're not bothering to read my replies... > just posting endless stock-in-trade trolls which you have > always thought clever in the past. They are sorely out of > date. > I told you in my last post who "does know what God is"... > an entire class of people belonging to the "First > World"..here I'll post it again for you: > > [Hammond] > All of human society is divided into three classes > depending on their understanding of God. > > THE FIRST WORLD: > Actually knows what God is and has for thousands of > years. they know that God is a perfect man who has no > growth deficit and that no such person has ever walked the > face of the Earth, so therefore he is the invisible man > within us. all of the peculiarities, foibles and > idiosyncrasies in people are caused by the 20% of us that is > missing, particularly of our brain. the nobility, the > aristocracy, the elite and the leadership of world history > have always known this andhave transmitted it from > generation to generation for thousands of years. The first > class talks almost exclusively in metaphorical terms about > people, politics, society and history. in other words they > talk almost exclusively about "God". > > THE SECOND WORLD: > Consists of professionals, bureaucrats, business people, > and most of the middle class; are generally aware of the > shortcomings of human awareness due to the vicissitudes of > human growth. however they are not explicitly aware that > this phenomenon is what people are talking about when they > say "God'. the second class talks almost exclusively about > "ideas", plans, schemes and activities. > > THE THIRD WORLD: > Consists of people who almost exclusively talk about > "facts"... dates, names, events, amounts, prices, times and > places etc. > These people have an almost totally na�ve idea about God, > believing perhaps that is an invisible man living in the sky > floating on a cloud etc. > > As for you Geopelia, you are somewhere in the Second > World, as are all people who refer to themselves as > "agnostics" or "atheists" or say that they believe in an > unknown "higher power" and have literally no realistic > comprehension of what the phenomenon of God actually is. >> >> >> >>But do you seriously think that a rather advanced ape (us!) on one little >>planet of a very small star could possibly be the God that created >>everything? >> > [Hammond] > This is the kind of question typically asked by people > hovering between the second and third worlds. a person > belonging to the first world considers such a question > ludicrously pathetic. only a person belonging to the Third > World would think the question is deep and intellectual. a > person like yourself in the Second World of course thinks > the question is "erudite" and "profound". > >>And I think "that question" DOES occur to everyone at some time, but it >>isn't PC to voice it. >> >> > [Hammond] > WRONG.... absolutely WRONG. There are mor intellectually > advanced class of people who KNOW that such a question is > "palpably ignorant. >> >> >>Wouldn't more people lose their faith than ever risk saying so? >> >> >> > [Hammond] > NO. WRONG. You are simply UNAWARE that there is a gigantic > class of people who know more than you do.... heads of > state, elected officials, the highly educated, hereditary > elite, etc. etc. who actually know what God is. You are > apparently unaware that they exist. (Geopelia) Of course there are a lot of people who know more than I do, on all kinds of subjects. But where a god is concerned. anybody's guess is as good as anybody else's. You can believe in "the invisible man within us" if you want to. Millions believe in what Jesus or Mohammed said. I think that if there is really a god the human race will be extinct before we are capable of understanding what it is. Scientists now talk about a "god particle". But what will they do with it when they have found it? And isn't the Mandelbrot said to be the Thumbprint of God? >> >> >> >>The Queen is Head of the Church of England. The Archbishops would keep her >>informed, as far as they think they know. But she's the Lord's Anointed, >>so >> perhaps has some special knowledge. >> > [Hammond] > Of course she is the Lord's Anointed... she is smarter, > better looking, has better teeth, better health and will > doublessly outlive us... to say nothing of the fact that she > is decended genetically from a long line of kings, champions > and defenders of the faith who prevailed in battle, politics > and warfare. To say she is the "Lord's Anointed" is a > colossal understatement. She is there for the same reason > her ancestors were there..... because they KNOW what God > is.... and YOU DON'T. > But the supreme irony is that you are NOT EVEN AWARE of > that difference.... you probabvly think if they put a cr4own > on your head and the keys to Buckingham palace YOU could > rule England....... don't be a simpleton! (Geopelia) If I wanted to rule England I would do it better from 10 Downing Street than Buckingham Palace. Parliament makes the laws, the Queen signs them. But who would vote for me? Or for you? And the Queen is the Lord's Anointed because she was anointed at her Coronation. >> >>What is my intellectual class please? Pray tell me. >> > [Hammond] > As I defined above, you beong to the "SECOND WORLD", > whereas the Queen of England belongs to the "FIRST WORLD". > she knows what God is, and you DON'T.... and don't ever > forget it! (Geopelia) I wonder what the Queen would think of the things you post.
From: George Hammond on 5 Jan 2010 13:28 On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 00:21:46 +1300, "Geopelia" <phildoran(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > >"George Hammond" <Nowhere1(a)notspam.com> wrote in message >news:fda5k59nta0if7p9hm8b4dtqcfs3jao1pv(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 15:17:48 +1300, "Geopelia" >> <phildoran(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: >> >> >>> >>>(Geopelia) >>>Of course I don't know what God is. >>> >> [Hammond] >> Glad we agree on that. >>> >>> >>> >>>Here's another silly question "Who does know?" >>> >>> >> [Hammond] >> As I susected you're not bothering to read my replies... >> just posting endless stock-in-trade trolls which you have >> always thought clever in the past. They are sorely out of >> date. >> I told you in my last post who "does know what God is"... >> an entire class of people belonging to the "First >> World"..here I'll post it again for you: >> >> [Hammond] >> All of human society is divided into three classes >> depending on their understanding of God. >> >> THE FIRST WORLD: >> Actually knows what God is and has for thousands of >> years. they know that God is a perfect man who has no >> growth deficit and that no such person has ever walked the >> face of the Earth, so therefore he is the invisible man >> within us. all of the peculiarities, foibles and >> idiosyncrasies in people are caused by the 20% of us that is >> missing, particularly of our brain. the nobility, the >> aristocracy, the elite and the leadership of world history >> have always known this andhave transmitted it from >> generation to generation for thousands of years. The first >> class talks almost exclusively in metaphorical terms about >> people, politics, society and history. in other words they >> talk almost exclusively about "God". >> >> THE SECOND WORLD: >> Consists of professionals, bureaucrats, business people, >> and most of the middle class; are generally aware of the >> shortcomings of human awareness due to the vicissitudes of >> human growth. however they are not explicitly aware that >> this phenomenon is what people are talking about when they >> say "God'. the second class talks almost exclusively about >> "ideas", plans, schemes and activities. >> >> THE THIRD WORLD: >> Consists of people who almost exclusively talk about >> "facts"... dates, names, events, amounts, prices, times and >> places etc. >> These people have an almost totally na�ve idea about God, >> believing perhaps that is an invisible man living in the sky >> floating on a cloud etc. >> >> As for you Geopelia, you are somewhere in the Second >> World, as are all people who refer to themselves as >> "agnostics" or "atheists" or say that they believe in an >> unknown "higher power" and have literally no realistic >> comprehension of what the phenomenon of God actually is. >>> >>> >>> >>>But do you seriously think that a rather advanced ape (us!) on one little >>>planet of a very small star could possibly be the God that created >>>everything? >>> >> [Hammond] >> This is the kind of question typically asked by people >> hovering between the second and third worlds. a person >> belonging to the first world considers such a question >> ludicrously pathetic. only a person belonging to the Third >> World would think the question is deep and intellectual. a >> person like yourself in the Second World of course thinks >> the question is "erudite" and "profound". >> >>>And I think "that question" DOES occur to everyone at some time, but it >>>isn't PC to voice it. >>> >>> >> [Hammond] >> WRONG.... absolutely WRONG. There are mor intellectually >> advanced class of people who KNOW that such a question is >> "palpably ignorant. >>> >>> >>>Wouldn't more people lose their faith than ever risk saying so? >>> >>> >>> >> [Hammond] >> NO. WRONG. You are simply UNAWARE that there is a gigantic >> class of people who know more than you do.... heads of >> state, elected officials, the highly educated, hereditary >> elite, etc. etc. who actually know what God is. You are >> apparently unaware that they exist. > >(Geopelia) >Of course there are a lot of people who know more than I do, on all kinds of >subjects. But where a god is concerned. anybody's guess is as good as anybody else's. > > [Hammond] That's what you think. > > >You can believe in "the invisible man within us" if you want to. >Millions believe in what Jesus or Mohammed said. >I think that if there is really a god the human race will be extinct before >we are capable of understanding what it is. > > [Hammond] We know what you know and what you don't know. We know you are not competent in Science for one thing. > > >Scientists now talk about a "god particle". But what will they do with it >when they have found it? And isn't the Mandelbrot said to be the Thumbprint of God? > > [Hammond] Non sequitors are no subsitute for scientific competence. We are talknng about scientific proof here, not opinion! >>> >>> >>> >>>The Queen is Head of the Church of England. The Archbishops would keep her >>>informed, as far as they think they know. But she's the Lord's Anointed, >>>so perhaps has some special knowledge. >>> >> [Hammond] >> Of course she is the Lord's Anointed... she is smarter, >> better looking, has better teeth, better health and will >> doublessly outlive us... to say nothing of the fact that she >> is decended genetically from a long line of kings, champions >> and defenders of the faith who prevailed in battle, politics >> and warfare. To say she is the "Lord's Anointed" is a >> colossal understatement. She is there for the same reason >> her ancestors were there..... because they KNOW what God >> is.... and YOU DON'T. >> But the supreme irony is that you are NOT EVEN AWARE of >> that difference.... you probabvly think if they put a cr4own >> on your head and the keys to Buckingham palace YOU could >> rule England....... don't be a simpleton! > >(Geopelia) >If I wanted to rule England I would do it better from 10 Downing Street >than Buckingham Palace. Parliament makes the laws, the Queen signs them. > > [Hammond] The Queen outranks the prime minister and the Archbishop of Canterbury. > > >But who would vote for me? Or for you? >And the Queen is the Lord's Anointed because she was anointed at her >Coronation. > > [Hammond] Queen of England is a HERIDITARY position. Neither elected nor appointed nor bought. > > >>> >>>What is my intellectual class please? Pray tell me. >>> >> [Hammond] >> As I defined above, you beong to the "SECOND WORLD", >> whereas the Queen of England belongs to the "FIRST WORLD". >> she knows what God is, and you DON'T.... and don't ever >> forget it! > >(Geopelia) >I wonder what the Queen would think of the things you post. > [Hammond] I already KNOW what she thinks of them. And that's for me to know and you to find out. ======================================== GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE Primary site http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond Mirror site http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 =======================================
From: George Hammond on 5 Jan 2010 13:33 On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 12:44:26 +0000 (UTC), Anti Vigilante <antivigilante(a)pyrabang.com> wrote: >On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:16:43 -0800, spiritual energy 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: >> >>> > God and the Universe are identical entities. >>> >>> Pop-psychology bullshit. >> >> 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 >> 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. > >I never claimed otherwise. > > [Hammond] I did. > > >> Hence they are identical. > [Hammond] No they're not dummy. > > >Um no. Universe determines is = is and isn't = isn't. God cannot lie, for >if he did my breakfast toast would taste like apple pie and the Moon >would be made of Green cheese, on Tuesdays. > > [Hammond] Yeah and fish would have wings and lunch meat could talk. And you're an ignorant dipshit. ======================================== GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE Primary site http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond Mirror site http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 =======================================
From: BruceS on 5 Jan 2010 14:36 On Jan 4, 1:14 pm, Occidental <Occiden...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Occidental <Occiden...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > [Hammond's] underlying problem appears to be that he perceives logical or > > > causal connections abnormally, finding correspondence where none > > > exists. This IMO is the basic kook pathology. The rest is just normal > > > grandiosity at being the discoverer of this world-changing idea, and > > > understandable frustration with a world that ignores him. > BruceS <bruce...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Aren't you describing schizophrenia? Not being well versed in > > psychology, I may be way off base. > > My point is that kooks of the Hammond variety have a dysfunction of > the intellect which leads them to find Great Truths where there are > none to be found. They then spend years trying to get their point > across to an indifferent or hostile world. The more they are rejected, > the more insistent and indignant they become. > > This will not necessarily impact the rest of their lives; outside > their monomania they may be able to function more or less normally > (though they may appear eccentric to their peers). Schizophrenia is a > far more serious condition: > > "A person diagnosed with schizophrenia may demonstrate auditory > hallucinations, delusions, and disorganized and unusual thinking and > speech; this may range from loss of train of thought and subject flow, > with sentences only loosely connected in meaning, to incoherence, > known as word salad, in severe cases. Social isolation commonly occurs > for a variety of reasons. Impairment in social cognition is associated > with schizophrenia, as are symptoms of paranoia from delusions and > hallucinations, and the negative symptoms of avolition (apathy or lack > of motivation). " - wikipedia OK, it sounds like I was off base, and that there's a difference between these conditions, at least in degree. No problem, as I'm no psychology expert. Try to correct me on IT however, and you can expect a much more tenacious grip on my position. > What interests me about Usenet kooks is that they reveal an area of > bizarre psychology that is fundamentally different from the > traditional mental disorders, and which has not been systematically > studied. To complicate matters, conspiracy theorists (Jewish > international finance, Kennedy assassination, 9/11, etc), though > obviously kooks, seem to be fundamentally different from theoretical > "innovators" like Hammond. The taxonomy could probably be extended > further. Any psych PhD candidates out there looking for a research > project please take note. AIUI, these candidates need to perform original work. A topic like this really *could* be a good place to develop such work. > > ... kooks are often more > > entertaining than non-kooks, which explains their reply rate. Few > > would pay to see an ordinary goat, but if it has an obvious > > abnormality, people line up. > > You are comparing Hammond to a mutant goat? Um...yes. Yes, I am. > > For my part, I usually avoid replying to > > the kook and instead try to talk to the person who is replying to > > him. In this thread, I was mainly talking to geo, who seems an > > interesting, sane, and intelligent person. OTOH, sometimes I'm just > > an adolescent poking a dead rat with a stick, > > Oh, now he's a dead rat. Uh...he mutated? > > and while that's hardly > > admirable, I don't exactly apologize for it either. I'm still young > > enough (and male enough) to play the little boy.
From: BruceS on 5 Jan 2010 15:00
On Jan 4, 2:18 pm, "Geopelia" <phildo...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > "BruceS" <bruce...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:012d715f-a507-4c81-8735-12ac6e5f1ddc(a)h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > One must ask - if Hammond is all you say he is, why are you so > > > > preoccupied with him? > > > > Hah! Well, I have to say that I'm not preoccupied with him, or with > > > his fellow travelers. At times, I find his ilk amusing, and I play > > > along a bit, but mostly I ignore them. I'm much more likely to read > > > and post when someone I respect seems to be interacting with one of > > > them. > > > My complaint about Usenet is that, given the choice between kook and > > normal, most posters, however bright and knowledgeable, will respond > > to the kook. That is why I challenged you about responding to Hammond. > > You cannot make an unreasonable person reasonable by reasoning with > > him. > > No real disagreement here, but note that kooks are often more > entertaining than non-kooks, which explains their reply rate. Few > would pay to see an ordinary goat, but if it has an obvious > abnormality, people line up. For my part, I usually avoid replying to > the kook and instead try to talk to the person who is replying to > him. In this thread, I was mainly talking to geo, who seems an > interesting, sane, and intelligent person. OTOH, sometimes I'm just > an adolescent poking a dead rat with a stick, and while that's hardly > admirable, I don't exactly apologize for it either. I'm still young > enough (and male enough) to play the little boy. > > > rec.org.mensa has seriously deteriorated over the years; so have other > > NGs. There was a time when substantial discussions took place. Not > > often, but often enough to make place worth visiting. By slow degrees > > the kooks took over, causing the better contributors to disappear one- > > by-one. And here we are. > > I remember in the '90s seeing a good mix of posters here, but even > then we had kooks and cranks. Anything with "Mensa" in the name will > attract some mentally unbalanced people who think they can somehow be > important by talking to "smart" people. The fact that they didn't > need to pass any sort of IQ (or sanity) test to talk here doesn't seem > to dissuade them. I bet mtm is nowhere near as busy or interesting as > rom. > > ----------------- > > Thank you for those kind words. > I came here hoping to talk to people more intelligent than myself, and have > found plenty over the years. > Geopelia You're quite welcome; I meant them. 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. |