Posted by: graemebird | February 20, 2013

“Persian” The REST Of The Story.

The Jew Sinclair just knocked me off right about the time that I thought he might have decided that there is nothing to lose from being open and fair-minded in the face of good-will and genius.  I tried to stay off the economic side of the blog (for the most part) so as not to criticise the economists professionally though I was fuming up about their bias and incompetence through the day.  Even Henry Ergas. Good as he is Sinclair came up with a thread that was a three-way screw-up wherein its heads the gentiles lose and tails the bankers win. If I did not know that Henry Ergas was a man of good character, whose done good work in the past and suffered for it, his take on the mining tax …. would have come across as simple Jew controlled opposition.  Henry Ergas has done enough “outside the box” good works to be presumed innocent in nearly all cases, but Sinclair needs to reach for purgatory and Ken Henry has to be considered as just another anti-Gentile Jew.  If I did not know Henry Ergas’s work and Sinclair’s persona as well I do I would have been easily able to portray this travesty THAT GOES DIRECTLY AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF YOUR AVERAGE AUSTRALIAN ….. as just more Talmudic Jews controlling all aspects of the discourse.  And I remain suspect of Sinclair …..  but fairness forces me to give him a stay in purgatory for his crimes against economic science, and not send him all the way to hell.

Anyway Persian showed up and tried to talk some sense to the Jew-Mesmerized amongst the Catallaxians.  About matters of cosmology and physics.   I’ll reproduce part of the thread that was before the Jew Sinclair edited it. Then I’ll edit it myself over the next couple of days.

  1. Jarrah. This complicated notion of “personhood” as being the arbiter of when murder is okay? Where is this coming from.? Can we source these ideas? We need to be on the look-out always for those sources of dehumanisation and the belittlement of the standing of the human race. Are the thinkers you rely on here competent? Who are they and what is their background?

    Persian19 Feb 13 at 8:01 pm
  2. Are the thinkers you rely on here competent? Who are they and what is their background?

    What do you want? Believers in the Glow-ball warming cult?

    Token19 Feb 13 at 8:06 pm
  3. Seriously? Who comes up with this complicated idea of “personhood” when the dignity of human life is on the line? Are we to rely on credentialed old men debating for hours when our we may only have minutes to turn the machines back on? When our standing and our very life is in peril? It sounds like the old ideas of socialist non-persons. Kulaks and so forth.

    So where are these ideas coming from? Who are the people involved?

    Persian19 Feb 13 at 8:11 pm
  4. “How come gamma radiation is escaping from the north and south poles and not from the dense body generally. ……. To destroy us all? Allan’s favour? Who can put forward a reasonable hypothesis?

    And why only gamma? Why not blue light?”

    We can make short work of this. The gamma gets out because its the highest energy light. This implies that there is immense energy stored inside the dark rift, which further implies that we ought to expect pulsating explosions from the dark rift. The Gamma from the north and south poles are akin to a steam release valve.

    The only reason that the steam comes from the North and South poles is that the gravity must be less there. In such a large body this implies that the mass is spinning at an incredible rate and so it must take on an oblate spheroid shape. As much a disc as a sphere. Or between a disc and a sphere.

    No settling of dust could lead to that sort of angular momentum. Except in the case of new matter creation angular momentum is conserved. Hence the angular momentum of the dark rift must be a feature that grows with its development. There is no traction in space and so no way for anyone to reach in and send the thing spinning. So the growth of the mass of the object and the growth of its angular momentum conclusively has to be part of its evolutionary story. Just as is the case with Jupiter.

    Here we see that the only model that fits this story is the model where moons grow to rocky planets, then to gas giants and then onto stars. So why is the universe not full of only dark rifts. Because the evidential record tells us that when the dark rift erupts, moons planets and stars explode as the shock-wave moves out through the galaxy.

    So moons go to planets, go to gas giants go to stars go to dark rifts. But only those that survive. The growth in spin is easily explained but not in the one post.

    Persian19 Feb 13 at 8:36 pm
  5. All this is conclusive just from this one photo alone. Note how badly off track the modern physicists are!!!!

    Persian19 Feb 13 at 8:37 pm
  6. Seriously? Who comes up with this complicated idea of “personhood” when the dignity of human life is on the line?

    Changing the definition from life and to person hood is a transparent game to avoid having to face the fact abortion is about killing human life.

    Token19 Feb 13 at 8:38 pm
  7. I agree Token. Or I’m sure I would if I saw he culprits in action. These are thinkers for hire in some sense. Nick Rockefeller confessed to Aaron Russo that the entire feminist movement had been contrived by his network. Just to get more taxpayers.

    Persian19 Feb 13 at 8:42 pm
  8. Nick Rockefeller confessed to Aaron Russo that the entire feminist movement had been contrived by his network. Just to get more taxpayers.

    LOLWUT?

    .19 Feb 13 at 8:50 pm
  9. I don’t understand. Are you claiming that this is not true? What do you know about this matter? Are you an expert on the history of feminism?

    Persian19 Feb 13 at 8:58 pm
  10. You seem to be an expert in economics. I had a couple of questions for you on another thread.

    Persian19 Feb 13 at 9:01 pm
  11. “JamesK: the very angry Yoda.”

    I doubt he could pass a Turing test.

    Jarrah19 Feb 13 at 10:07 pm
  12. “Jarrah. This complicated notion of “personhood” as being the arbiter of when murder is okay?”

    Calling it ‘murder’ is begging the question.

    “Where is this coming from.? Can we source these ideas?”

    Does where they come from change their validity? No.

    “We need to be on the look-out always for those sources of dehumanisation and the belittlement of the standing of the human race.”

    I agree. Anyone who argues that humanity or personhood is not present (when there is a prima facie case for its presence) needs to justify themselves. I feel I have done that.

    “Are the thinkers you rely on here competent? Who are they and what is their background?”

    How odd. Do you have no views that you work out for yourself? Does everything come from prior thinkers?

    I suppose it’s a reasonable presumption that there isn’t much in philosophy that hasn’t been thought about already. However my views on abortion do not rely on philosophical luminaries. Undoubtedly my views are shared by some people, but I’ve arrived at them independently, based on biological reality.

    Jarrah19 Feb 13 at 10:15 pm
  13. “Changing the definition from life and to person hood is a transparent game to avoid having to face the fact abortion is about killing human life.”

    Except you’re conflating ‘human life’ with what we actually value, what has moral worth – a person.

    A permanently brain-dead body kept alive by machines is human life, but is obviously not a person with moral standing. The person, which can only be manifested in a human mind, is gone.

    There’s a reason Nancy Reagan called Alzheimer’s ‘the long goodbye’, and a reason why it rings so true with those who watch it happen to their loved ones. It’s because the person slowly goes away. The body keeps going, but the mind fades. What was important about that human life – their mind – is decaying to nothingness. Lest I be misunderstood, I’m not advocating the killing of Alzheimer’s patients. Something remains all the way until physical death. But the chipping away of personhood is obvious to anyone who’s witnessed the decline.

    Jarrah19 Feb 13 at 10:42 pm
  14. QandA had a fascinating ‘faith v science’ discussion last night. The American physicist was talking about how humble true science is, but he spoiled the effect by sounding smug and a bit conceited about it. Did anyone else see it?

    Yes… Kraus I think was his name. He suggested that he/science can explain nothing or a void and that even in a nothing void there are particles in existence that jump out at you, which to me suggests it’s not really a void/nothing. It was the most idiotic thing I’ve heard in a while.

    Jc19 Feb 13 at 10:51 pm
  15. * either God created them and he “just is”; or

    * the laws “just are – why do you need to go one step further to a God who ‘just is’”; or

    Because we might be talking about a God who creates laws. I think that’s an odd argument. Besides the laws of physics are posited to have come into existence at the same time as the universe, so they have a beginning of sorts, and Christianity has always posited a God who transcends all things, including the universe itself. So it’s inherent in the discussion from the outset.

    * “there may be many universes with many different physical laws, we just happen to be in the one we can observe but there is nothing ‘special’ about them and they were not specially created for us.”

    The many universes theory does not logically entail that there is nothing special about our universe.

    Look, I’m sorry if I sound a bit dry or terse but I’m just not sure that any of the listed positions are in any way conclusive or superior to any of the others, and some of them seem to beg the question. Is that because you do not hold those views, and that has coloured your retelling?

    wreckage19 Feb 13 at 11:04 pm
  16. I feel I have done that.

    Yes and you certainly have sorta rationalised your feelings.

    It’s not logical nor is there a premise worthy of the name

    In fact, it’s clearly facile bs

    JamesK20 Feb 13 at 12:18 am
  17. Yes… Kraus I think was his name. He suggested that he/science can explain nothing or a void

    Krause would say it depends on what one means by ‘nothing’.

    ‘Nothing’ means the absence of a physical quantifiable something to Krause.

    In quantum mechanics we know ‘something’ in present even when it can’t be fixed or measured.

    That’s where he gets his great tag line of “a universe from nothing’.

    It’s just cheap thrill he knew would make his crappy book a bestseller.

    It is not profound at all in any way shape of form.

    Ironically its a nothing idea in fact and certainly unoriginal.

    It’s really a giant hoax and no one calls him out on his bullshit because he doesn’t debate PhDs in cosmology or theoretical physics.

    Krause equates his nothing from the biblical void but a ‘void’ is not ‘nothing’ as it implies space for a start.

    JamesK20 Feb 13 at 12:40 am
  18. In Matthew 7:12 Jesus tells us how: “Therefore, however you want people to treat you, so treat them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

    No I am wondering how this applies in James’ mind. I assume he must like being abused as the above would be Catholic teaching also wouldn’t it even though he does not consider himself a Christian. Even though I might be an athiest I think James is doing a dis service to his religion much the same way muslim extremists do. No doesn’t mean I think he is a terrorist just as most muslim extremists are not terrorists. Both are a threat to my freedoms though.

    The above religious quote is something to try and live by and I don’t have to be religous to believe that. I don’t hate any religious person even if there beliefs are out of kilter even so far as I do not hate terrorists I actually feel sorry for them. I hate those in charge of terrorist organisations though who send people to their deaths for no good reason.

    kelly liddle20 Feb 13 at 12:50 am
  19. In Matthew 7:12 Jesus tells us how: “Therefore, however you want people to treat you, so treat them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

    Do onto others as you would have them do onto you Kelly.

    Whereas I do unto leftists as they do onto others and me and only ever in response to such doings.

    Do try and grow up and express yourself like a man Kelly

    JamesK20 Feb 13 at 12:54 am
  20. Both are a threat to my freedoms though.

    Are they? jamesK might express himself with a total lack of grace at times but he’s not going to impose Sharia, is he?

    wreckage20 Feb 13 at 1:02 am
  21. Can we have a separate religion thread for the fervently held religion of radical secularist mouth-foaming Christian-hating atheists?

    Whereas I do unto leftists as they do onto others and me and only ever in response to such doings.

    Ok James I will go with what you have just said. So expain to me why your first comment was an attack and nobody had attacked you or Christianity. Second point which group would you assign me to, the current thread or the other one you proposed?

    Your last part of you comment seems to be an insult to me. I did not insult you I only questioned what your beliefs are. So how is that “only in response to”? Also I am not sure what leftists or as I would say lefties has to do with religion. It seems you do not even accept people of your own religion if they do not agree with everything you think.

    kelly liddle20 Feb 13 at 1:12 am
  22. New York Times book review of Krause’s book:

    On the Origin of Everything
    ‘A Universe From Nothing,’ by Lawrence M. Krauss

    Lawrence M. Krauss, a well-known cosmologist and prolific popular-science writer, apparently means to announce to the world, in this new book, that the laws of quantum mechanics have in them the makings of a thoroughly scientific and adamantly secular explanation of why there is something rather than nothing. Period. Case closed. End of story. I kid you not. Look at the subtitle. Look at how Richard Dawkins sums it up in his afterword: “Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If ‘On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to super­naturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is ­devastating.”…..

    What on earth, then, can Krauss have been thinking? Well, there is, as it happens, an interesting difference between relativistic quantum field theories and every previous serious candidate for a fundamental physical theory of the world. Every previous such theory counted material particles among the concrete, fundamental, eternally persisting elementary physical stuff of the world — and relativistic quantum field theories, interestingly and emphatically and unprecedentedly, do not. According to relativistic quantum field theories, particles are to be understood, rather, as specific arrangements of the fields. Certain ­arrangements of the fields, for instance, correspond to there being 14 particles in the universe, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being 276 particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being an infinite number of particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being no particles at all. And those last arrangements are referred to, in the jargon of quantum field theories, for obvious reasons, as “vacuum” states. Krauss seems to be thinking that these vacuum states amount to the relativistic-­quantum-field-theoretical version of there not being any physical stuff at all. And he has an argument — or thinks he does — that the laws of relativistic quantum field theories entail that vacuum states are unstable. And that, in a nutshell, is the account he proposes of why there should be something rather than nothing.

    But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff….

    The true relativistic-quantum-field-­theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.

    JamesK20 Feb 13 at 1:13 am
  23. Ok James I will go with what you have just said. So expain to me why your first comment was an attack and nobody had attacked you or Christianity. Second point which group would you assign me to, the current thread or the other one you proposed?

    I seriously have no idea what you are talking about Kelly.

    Take one last swig if you must – but no further – and go to bed mate.

    JamesK20 Feb 13 at 1:15 am
  24. Are they? jamesK might express himself with a total lack of grace at times but he’s not going to impose Sharia, is he?

    How dare you wreckage!

    I’m extremely graceful and elegant.

    JamesK20 Feb 13 at 1:17 am
  25. Are they? jamesK might express himself with a total lack of grace at times but he’s not going to impose Sharia, is he?

    Wreckage
    Yes and no, if he had the ability to make all laws according to his beliefs then he would reduce my freedoms but just like your example both threats in reality are insignificant because their numbers are insignificant in Australia.

    kelly liddle20 Feb 13 at 1:17 am
  26. Wreckage
    Yes and no, if he had the ability to make all laws according to his beliefs then he would reduce my freedoms

    No. No, I wouldn’t.

    You just make shit up when you’re drunk, Kelly

    JamesK20 Feb 13 at 1:19 am
  27. Krause = Krauss

    JamesK20 Feb 13 at 1:26 am
  28. James
    you believe in the death penalty from memory. This tells me a couple of things. You have absolute faith in the government and justice system. It also tells me that you are willing to have someone killed in my name. It also tells me you do not mind me paying more tax.

    If my memory is incorrect then set me straight. I also suspect you support terror legislation, do you?

    kelly liddle20 Feb 13 at 1:28 am
  29. This tells me a couple of things. You have absolute faith in the government and justice system.

    That’s a stupid deduction Kelly.

    It tells no one any such thing in fact.

    Go to bed as you are inebriated.

    At least I hope inebriation – which is easily reversible – explains your stupidity.

    JamesK20 Feb 13 at 1:44 am
  30. When are we ever going to get a principled leader who will argue for the death penalty?

    Even in America the death penalty is dying.

    This low life has been alive for 22 years since his heinous crime.

    Pretty soon the only countries showing moral leadership on this issue will be Islamic countries but they are quite unable to articulate it.

    Wreckage
    This should indicate to you James is not so far from supporting Sharia, it would just be his version of Sharia. Eye for an Eye ok and state sanctioned thou shall kill is ok. Ten commandments are secondary to other considerations.

    kelly liddle20 Feb 13 at 1:47 am
  31. Its not a valid idea for someone to declare another a non-person to engage in baby-killing. To claim that this is a valid idea is to beg the question. To claim that this is NOT murder is to beg the question. But we definitely want to know what his background is. Where did you get this notion from?

    Persian20 Feb 13 at 1:48 am
  32. I’m also pretty sure James would vote yes to outlawing abortion.

    Like Kelly said, Christians aren’t much threat now, because so few people actually believe in Christianity any more.

    When they were the majority, they certainly did impose their own version of Sharia law.

    Yobbo20 Feb 13 at 1:51 am
  33. That’s a stupid deduction Kelly.

    James
    That is even worse you are willing to risk killing innocents just to support your Eye for an Eye.

    kelly liddle20 Feb 13 at 1:52 am
  34. Bird, I imagine it probably came from the Hebrews. They seem to be behind everything else these days.

    Fisky20 Feb 13 at 1:53 am
  35. Wreckage
    This should indicate to you James is not so far from supporting Sharia, it would just be his version of Sharia. Eye for an Eye ok and state sanctioned thou shall kill is ok. Ten commandments are secondary to other considerations.

    Wreckage isn’t stupid and drunk like you Kelly so he won’t be convinced by your inane argument.

    The bible advocates capital punishment by a society for heinous crimes.

    The shalt not kill actually means thou shalt not murder in Hebrew.

    As I said earlier Kelly: grow up as your comments are of a rather inept juvenile standard

    JamesK20 Feb 13 at 1:55 am
  36. That’s a stupid deduction Kelly.

    James
    That is even worse you are willing to risk killing innocents just to support your Eye for an Eye.

    Before you grow up Kelly, please sleep it off.

    You are drunk (I hope).

    JamesK20 Feb 13 at 1:57 am
  37. I thought you said you weren’t a Christian, and even if you were the Old Testament is bunk?

    Why bring it up now then?

    The ten commandments also say that you shouldn’t covet your neighbour’s posessions. Should we disband capitalism to please god also?

    Yobbo20 Feb 13 at 1:57 am
  38. Supposing someone started making a bunch of rationalisations and excuses for the purpose of engaging in baby-killing. Baby-killing here being a neutral and honest term. Well supposing he was a philosopher? We might wish to know if he were a competent philosopher. Supposing if he had been in the philosophy game for 40 years, was a lock-step leftist and still lacked a grasp of economics. We may wish to know about this. Someone making elaborate and feeble excuses for baby-killing concentrating on tragic line-ball cases … we may wish to find something about the fellow for reasons of our own self-preservation for one thing.

    Persian20 Feb 13 at 1:57 am
  39. When they were the majority, they certainly did impose their own version of Sharia law.

    No they didn’t you thoroughly ignorant git.

    JamesK20 Feb 13 at 1:58 am
  40. Why bring it up now then?

    It is a book of wisdom, Yobbo.

    Wisdom is quite clearly beyond your ken and unlike Kelly temporary inebriation cannot be blamed.

    JamesK20 Feb 13 at 2:00 am
  41. “I imagine it probably came from the Hebrews. They seem to be behind everything else these days.”

    Are you talking about Peter Singer? Is he a competent philosopher? Or a lock-step leftist? And does he hale out of the Irish Singer clan given over to singing and the drinking of dark brown liquids? Or is he from the tribe that gave us Isaac Bashevis Singer.

    Its important because we want to be able to see behind such lame rationalisations and excuse-making to see who is trying to diminish us all and justify egregious crimes.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImoZv1rprc0

    Persian20 Feb 13 at 2:08 am
  42. So who is putting Singer up to it, Birdie? Is he on the Rothschild’s tab?

    Fisky20 Feb 13 at 2:13 am
  43. No they didn’t you thoroughly ignorant git.

    Really so it was all those athiests who conducted trails of witches? According to the Wiki article all sorts of groups were involved including Christians depending on the time in history.

    In fact, witchcraft laws were much more a phenomenon of secular courts and governments than religious, until the time of the Protestant Reformation when the “Reformers” began witch-hunts in earnest with fanatical and bloodthirsty zeal.

    kelly liddle20 Feb 13 at 2:13 am
  44. Really so it was all those athiests who conducted trails of witches?

    Kelly go to bed you twit.

    JamesK20 Feb 13 at 2:23 am
  45. The modern impetus for abortion normalisation came in with the feminist movement which has already been traced to its source. But no-one from Singers background needed a sponsor to de-humanise Gentiles and to try and make them convinced that they are no different from animals. Did you see the video I linked Fisky? We have an after-the-fact excuse for horrific crimes that continue to this day as routine. So routine we might call them “ritual.”

    Persian20 Feb 13 at 2:25 am
  46. Are you talking about Peter Singer? Is he a competent philosopher?

    Infanticide is the perfectly logical extension of his initial premise.

    So he is somewhat transparent at least.

    JamesK20 Feb 13 at 2:26 am
  47. Are you talking about Peter Singer? Is he a competent philosopher?

    Infanticide is the perfectly logical extension of his initial premise.

    So he is somewhat transparent at least.

    JamesK20 Feb 13 at 2:27 am
  48. I don’t think it’s bird Fisky.

    JamesK20 Feb 13 at 2:28 am
  49. Oh yes it is.

    Fisky20 Feb 13 at 2:33 am
  50. “In fact, it’s clearly facile bs”

    JamesK, you’re particularly prone to making these kinds of declaratory statements without having an argument to back them up. It’s quite tiresome. Perhaps if you engaged with the issues more often, you wouldn’t be so despised around here. Then again, maybe not.

    Jarrah20 Feb 13 at 4:57 am
  51. “Oh yes it is.”

    Yeah, you’re right. I should have spotted it earlier – he tried to hide his natural style, but it’s obvious once you see it.

    Jarrah20 Feb 13 at 5:03 am
  52. JamesK, you’re particularly prone to making these kinds of declaratory statements without having an argument to back them up. It’s quite tiresome. Perhaps if you engaged with the issues more often, you wouldn’t be so despised around here.

    Jarrah sez that my problem is that I make unargued assertions.

    LOL

    JamesK20 Feb 13 at 8:13 am
  53. Oh yes it is.

    I didn’t know Bird was fixated on abortion.

    JamesK20 Feb 13 at 8:14 am
  54. Bird and Homer are exhibits A and B for the use of writing analysis as evidence. They always get spotted.

    “When they were the majority, they certainly did impose their own version of Sharia law.

    No they didn’t you thoroughly ignorant git.”

    Actually they did. You need to learn the history of the Ecclesiastical Courts in the middle ages.

    Pedro20 Feb 13 at 8:45 am
  55. PS, but not to the extent of sharia courts.

    Pedro20 Feb 13 at 8:46 am
  56. Actually they did. You need to learn the history of the Ecclesiastical Courts in the middle ages…….PS, but not to the extent of sharia courts.

    So the same but different?

    Presumably like the witch trials were Catholic Church fueled mass murder as suggested further up the thread?

    Just like Islam although I don’t think the Catholic Church was strong in Salem

    LOL

    And the forced conversions by the Spanish Inquisition in Andalusia – an aberration albeit understandable – which followed the Islamic Almohad invasion, enslavement and forced conversion of Christians makes the Catholic Church no different to Islam?

    Most of even that inquisition centred on heresy within Catholicism

    Pedro, you are a shining f-ckwit.

    JamesK20 Feb 13 at 9:45 am
  57. When they were the majority, they certainly did impose their own version of Sharia law.

    Christians were in a pretty solid majority until the late 1800′s; even now they hold a majority in places like the USA. They have not implemented Sharia. Even the Puritans, after military conquest of England, didn’t impose Burqas, death for blasphemy and apostasy, and so on, all of which are approved and required by all major schools of Sharia.

    For the materialist this is a happy accident: Christianity’s attitude to government and the use of force was cemented by Jesus and/or Paul and/or the Easter Bunny posing as Paul while Christianity was a vanishing minority under a violent State, and was spreading in the aftermath of the destruction of rebellious religious elements themselves set upon Statehood.

    wreckage20 Feb 13 at 10:16 am
  58. Most of even that inquisition centred on heresy within Catholicism

    I am no fan of the Catholic church’s actions during this period, but according to Church law they only had authority to act wrt Christians. Pagans and Jews were immune. Also for most of its history the Church only had authority to impose “spiritual” punishments and could not imprison, fine, or kill anybody.

    These are not limitations that any school of Sharia has ever recognised, let alone imposed on itself.

    wreckage20 Feb 13 at 10:22 am
  59. Presumably like the witch trials were Catholic Church fueled mass murder as suggested further up the thread?

    James my quote never suggested that and if you looked at the Wiki link the Catholic Church was pretty good compared to the Protestants. But it is reasonable to assume that no athiest would ever do a witch hunt based on belief as we do not believe in the supernatural. Given the numbers killed from witch hunts which number in the 10s of thousands I find it unlikely that no Catholic was ever involved are you implying this to be the case?

    kelly liddle20 Feb 13 at 10:25 am
  60. I find it unlikely that no Catholic was ever involved are you implying this to be the case?

    Have you your own breathalyser Kelly?

    Check you’re not above .05 before you jump in the driver’s seat.

    JamesK20 Feb 13 at 10:30 am
  61. These are not limitations that any school of Sharia has ever recognised, let alone imposed on itself.

    Bernard Lewis notes that traditionally Islamic government was very decentralised, offsetting the extreme nature of the risk that comes from the Sharia text. For example, he notes that the power of the Caliph of the Ottoman Empire was limited by many other groups.

    This is not the case today as Islamicists have adopted the absolute statism from first the Nazis and then the Communists, leading to the level of un-fettered power enjoyed and abused by modern islamic rules.

    Token20 Feb 13 at 10:37 am
  62. Has anyone previously suggested that the quantum field is God?
    Just a thought.
    Also, groupthink applies to all societies, whatever their beliefs. Religions and Atheistic communists have all felt better when they had numbers on their side. Quantity confers legitimacy, you might say.

    Nuke Gray20 Feb 13 at 10:44 am
  63. Has anyone previously suggested that the quantum field is God?

    Yes.

    My point I was raising yesterday is dealt with at length by (atheist) Sean Carroll in his essay “Does the Universe Need an Explanation“, and as he says, after noting people who say God created the universe:

    These ideas all arise from a conviction that, in various contexts, it is insufficient to fully understand what happens; we must also provide an explanation for why it happens – what might be called a “meta-explanatory” account.

    It can be difficult to respond to this kind of argument. Not because the arguments are especially persuasive, but because the ultimate answer to “We need to understand why the universe exists/continues to exist/exhibits regularities/came to be” is essentially “No we don’t.” That is unlikely to be considered a worthwhile comeback to anyone who was persuaded by the need for a meta-explanatory understanding in the first place.

    Granted, it is always nice to be able to provide reasons why something is the case. Most scientists, however, suspect that the search for ultimate explanations eventually terminates in some final theory of the world, along with the phrase “and that’s just how it is.” It is certainly conceivable that the ultimate explanation is to be found in God; but a compelling argument to that effect would consist of a demonstration that God provides a better explanation (for whatever reason) than a purely materialist picture, not an a priori insistence that a purely materialist picture is unsatisfying.

    Although I find Carroll can be annoying, I agree with the proposition that there is no way to prove which one is right: the universe “just is” or God “just is”.

    steve from brisbane20 Feb 13 at 10:59 am
  64. Has anyone previously suggested that the quantum field is God?
    Just a thought.

    Well quite a few have suggested that general relativity where mass is equivalent to energy and time and space are inter-dependent and later unified theories where gravity and quantum mechanics are unified confirms ancient soothsayers that Nature/universe is fundamentally vibration.

    New agey books like The Field: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe and The Holographic Universe: The Revolutionary Theory of Reality elaborate.

    JamesK20 Feb 13 at 11:07 am
  65. Has anyone previously suggested that the quantum field is God?

    Whatever science discovers from now on will just be called god by Christians. No scientific discovery could ever break their faith.

    Yobbo20 Feb 13 at 3:55 pm
  66. Whatever science discovers from now on will just be called god by Christians. No scientific discovery could ever break their faith.

    *SIGH* there are about 6 guys on earth who think the quantum field is God. We’ve just spent the entire thread arguing that the universe is not God, now you’re arguing that we’re arguing the opposite?

    I do wonder about you sometimes, Yobbo.

    wreckage20 Feb 13 at 4:57 pm
  67. No scientific discovery could ever break their faith.

    Actually, this can work the other way around too. I once was saying to an atheist friend how I found reading about evidence for life after death to be interesting, from the point of view that evidence for such a supernatural world would surely mean that at least one of the religions was right and materialism was wrong. No, she said: it would just be proof of something like another dimension, which may well just be part of the natural world and have no necessary implications for the existence of God at all.

    steve from brisbane20 Feb 13 at 5:18 pm
  68. Whatever science discovers from now on will just be called god by Christians. No scientific discovery could ever break their faith.

    That’s not true, of course but the reason is actually beyond Yobbo’s ken.

    Funny that he’s always fixated on Christians whilst swearing blind it’s just religion of any description that bothers him when confronted.

    One analogy as to why Yobbos’s latest of his myriad stupid assertions is untrue is a 2 dimensional being describing or refuting a 3 dimensional one.

    All mystics describe ultimate reality or God as ineffable.

    They use language as a pointer but no more.

    Jesus spoke in parables, Zen uses koans among others.

    Mother Teresa said “In the silence of the heart God speaks. If you face God in prayer and silence, God will speak to you. Then you will know that you are nothing.”

    Yobbo – on the other hand – thinks he’s smart and substantial.

    He’s not and neither am I.

    Malcolm Muggeridge who was a self-described and famous ‘furious atheist’ before converting too Catholicism said:

    I can say that I never knew what joy was like until I gave up pursuing happiness, or cared to live until I chose to die. For these two discoveries I am beholden to Jesus

    JamesK20 Feb 13 at 5:57 pm
  69. Christianity sure hasn’t made you very happy and joyous, James. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

    Yobbo20 Feb 13 at 6:08 pm
  70. “I found reading about evidence for life after death to be interesting, from the point of view that evidence for such a supernatural world would surely mean that at least one of the religions was right and materialism was wrong.”

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What have you been reading?

    Jarrah20 Feb 13 at 6:10 pm
  71. Christianity sure hasn’t made you very happy and joyous, James. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

    You don’t know me Yobbo.

    So you just commented from a position of ignorance.

    But what’s new?

    Also, I have told you (and only for your benefit and no other reason (see if you can work that out)) that I’m not a Christian.

    JamesK20 Feb 13 at 6:12 pm
  72. Yes, you have told me that James.

    But I don’t believe you, and nor does anyone else.

    You just said that because you couldn’t defend some of the more psychopathic teachings of your faith.

    Yobbo20 Feb 13 at 6:17 pm
  73. see if you can work that out

    LOL

    One way to avoid working anything out is denial

    JamesK20 Feb 13 at 6:21 pm
  74. Jarrah: I didn’t say it was proved, in case you thought that is what I meant. But I have over the years read quite a few books about the investigations some quite credible characters have done into the matter, looking into everything from mediums and alleged messages from the dead, to ghosts and premonitions. The period of the early days of the Society for Psychical Research in England, when spiritualism was in full bloom, is quite interesting; combining obvious frauds with cases which were much harder to explain. I can’t remember particular book titles now, but I have some at home.

    steve from brisbane20 Feb 13 at 6:33 pm
  75. I didn’t think you were so far gone as to think there’s proof of an afterlife. I was just surprised that you would say there was any evidence at all. From the sounds of things, there actually isn’t, only “hard to explain” phenomena.

    Jarrah20 Feb 13 at 6:44 pm
  76. SfB’s point was that if it was proven conclusively, materialists would say it was evidence of higher dimensions accessible only without the natural-selection favoured filters imposed by our neurology, and that it had no bearing on the question of the soul, for example, or even the transcendence of the intellect.

    wreckage20 Feb 13 at 8:31 pm
  77. Which is actually pretty reasonable from inside a materialist worldview :)

    wreckage20 Feb 13 at 8:32 pm
  78. Kerry Packer seems pretty convinced there was no afterlife.

    Yobbo20 Feb 13 at 9:26 pm
  79. “Has anyone previously suggested that the quantum field is God?
    Just a thought.”

    Lets put this in perspective. Given a universe that must have been around for trillions upon gadzillions of years, then the existence of a supreme being MIGHT be true, whereas we know that the “quantum field” is just more shadow government nonsense. When somebody says “quantum’ you ought to think “unscience.”

    Persian20 Feb 13 at 9:26 pm
  80. seemed*

    Yobbo20 Feb 13 at 9:26 pm
  81. Bird:

    We should take to calling you Omar from now on.

    Omar Bird has a kind of a ring to it, no?

    How’s all the Jew hate going?

    Jc20 Feb 13 at 9:31 pm
  82. Most of core physics is based on the primacy of unearned money over any valid scientific method.

    So lets get a few things straight here. Lets take the notion that matter cannot be created or destroyed. This is wrong from first evidence. If we say that this is true we have to add the proviso “in most terrestrial situations”.

    We have matter. Its here. This means its been created. “Manufactured” if you will. It follows directly that matter must be CAPABLE OF MANUFACTURE. And further, unless you are a parasite used to clapping your hands and getting your own way, you are never going to accept the big bang. Manufacture is a process wherein you have many steps in series and whole networks of steps in parallel.

    For this reason the creation of matter has to be presumed to be ongoing. Hence the only sane reason-based conclusion is a slowly growing universe …. or alternatively a universe that in many places has reached stasis in that matter in a local region is being destroyed about the same rate as being created.

    Energy is a concept and not a thing. But we have energy and that means that energy can be created.

    Also empirically there is no energy-mass equivalence. Perhaps both have the same source (ie “flux”) but the physicists are wrong, and not smart and not scientists. They are just there as a result of an engineered cult of personality.

    Empirically; when we make nuclear energy, no nucleons are harmed. When we make fusion energy the number of nucleons stays intact. What I mean is some protons become neutrons and vice versa. But adding the total of protons and nucleons together always brings the same number according to such empirical evidence that we have. So the physics profession is lying to you.

    Its a lie that mass is turned to energy. Forget all you thought you knew. Most of physics is just a lie, locked in via the shadow government.

    Persian20 Feb 13 at 9:37 pm
  83. “Which is actually pretty reasonable from inside a materialist worldview :) ”

    :-)

    Jarrah20 Feb 13 at 9:38 pm
  84. I think I see Sinclair’s strategy now. By making this issue-specific sandpit permanent, it will inevitably grow so big it becomes tedious to load, and thus will simultaneously segregate thread-derailing discussions and discourage people from coming here to have them.

    Jarrah20 Feb 13 at 9:41 pm
  85. Call me Omar if you wish. Don’t call me bird. That is not my handle.

    How is the Jew Hate going? Stronger then ever. Its been going for about 2630 years by some estimates. Some say this religion of hate was invented in Babylon. The hate has never let up. But notice they have radicalised and millenarianised a proportion of the Muslims so they can hide behind them.

    Angelo Codevilla, Mark Steyn, this new visitor to our country, Victor Davis Hansen … These people are excruciatingly logical. This is why a religion that reveres deception, concentrates on taking such people for a ride. They took me for a ride, I was taken in, and on paper if I stayed with my former beliefs I’d still be looking good as I acted like an unwitting Judas-goat and lead the rest of you over a cliff.

    Persian20 Feb 13 at 9:43 pm
  86. Birdy what did the Jews do to you? Or do you just think its funny?

    Pedro20 Feb 13 at 9:47 pm
  87. How did you know I was referring to you Rug?

    Jc20 Feb 13 at 9:47 pm
  88. So Jarrah, are you as a Jew presuming this other Jew is creating a cul de sac for potential anti-Jew arguments?

    “I think I see Sinclair’s strategy now….”

    A strategy? For what purpose? Why did you not accept that he was just trying to do the right thing by the wider society? I’m not ruling that out. But you seem to be.

    For now I’m going to give Sinclair a break and assume the better angels of his nature have won out.

    You are assuming something else?

    Persian20 Feb 13 at 9:48 pm
  89. if I stayed with my former beliefs I’d still be looking good as I acted like an unwitting Judas-goat and lead the rest of you over a cliff.

    God forbid that someone as intelligent, handsome and inhumanly charismatic as you should remain so deceived, for surely the rest of us could hardly be expected to resist your animal magnetism.

    BTW “Matter cannot be created or destroyed” is not a scientific axiom. ENERGY cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form; including into matter. Matter can be destroyed via conversion into energy.

    wreckage20 Feb 13 at 9:49 pm
  90. Codevilla

    It’s Graeme Montgomery Bird alright.

    .20 Feb 13 at 9:49 pm
  91. Of course it is. Fat little bastard.

    Jc20 Feb 13 at 9:50 pm
  92. Moderator:

    Birdie’s back again.

    Jc20 Feb 13 at 9:51 pm
  93. Pedro the Jews are systematically destroying the US as we speak. Many Jews of excellent intellectual pedigree and good character are pointing this out but they are voices lost in the wilderness. They are doubly thrown to the outer dark. Twice as estranged as I am.

    For them to so much as point out that their own people are furiously in on the take-down makes them QUISLINGS in a topsy-turvy sort of way.

    Persian20 Feb 13 at 9:52 pm
  94. “So Jarrah, are you as a Jew presuming this other Jew is creating a cul de sac for potential anti-Jew arguments?”

    I… I don’t even know where to begin. So I won’t. Go away, ‘Persian’, ya bother me.

    Jarrah20 Feb 13 at 9:53 pm
  95. I think I see Sinclair’s strategy now. By making this issue-specific sandpit permanent, it will inevitably grow so big it becomes tedious to load, and thus will simultaneously segregate thread-derailing discussions and discourage people from coming here to have them.

    I think you’re right Jarrah. Sinclair would not tolerate Bird in the open thread.

    Yobbo20 Feb 13 at 9:55 pm
  96. This is what it is like for a Jew that points out that its his people who are part of the now frenzied take-down of the US …….

    “They are beating up a man,
    in a powdered blue wig,
    later he’ll be shot for,
    resisting arrest,
    I can still hear him crying,
    in the wilderness …”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P79EMaKnNw

    Persian20 Feb 13 at 9:55 pm
  97. Bird probably wouldn’t tolerate your crooked head anywhere Yobbo. You seem to be permanently without goodwill.

    Persian20 Feb 13 at 9:57 pm
  98. Well Jarrah you presented as fatfingers when you knew shit all about anything. Later you said you were Jarrah Job.

    Job was an old testament figure who really showed the hatefulness of the Hebrew tribal God.

    So my guess is that you are a Jew, doing Jew things, and these Jew things are designed to hurt Gentiles. Like here you are affecting to be a libertarian. But going full blast with this Peter Singer, incompetent philosopher and lock-step leftist. You are making excuses for the murder of gentile babies, and for the loss of confidence of gentiles that they have something to offer more then mere animals.

    Well are you a Jew or not?

    I think it matters.

    I really do.

    And just to remind you.

    I BLAME YOUR MOTHER.

    Persian20 Feb 13 at 10:02 pm
  99. This thread is a bit like Days of our life. You can take a break from it for six months watch an episode and be back up to date.

    Yobbo stares at a wall with his back to James and says “there is no God”.
    James stares out the window with his back to Yobbo and says ” there is a God”.

    Fast forward or to a flashback when Yobbo has been murdered and his evil twin brother supplants good Yob in the Cat only to find James has been rushed to Hospital and is in a coma due to a vicious troll attack.

    Hospital scene:
    Yobbo sits by James’ bedside and whispers into James’ ear “God won’t help you because he does not exist”.
    A nurse who is in love with James when they used to work for a secret intelligence agency notices his eyelid flickering and amazingly picks up that he is signalling in morse code the following message ” There is a God”.

    Camera pans to Jarrah who is seen kicking out the cord of the life support with his feet.

    These are the days of our Cat Religion Thread.

    Splatacrobat20 Feb 13 at 10:03 pm
  100. Yes but splatocrat. What about my dynamic expose of the scandalous state of modern “cult of personality” physics, and my serenely perfected philosophically-based pointing to a better world? To a better physics?

    Persian20 Feb 13 at 10:08 pm
  101. Jarrah:

    No, that was merely the consequence of applying your engine analogy. That’s why I said it was abysmal. I’m sure you can come up with a better one.

    Not at all. Analogies are not identical by definition, so the mere fact that one involved movement doesn’t at all mean that the other must by implication.

    You cannot be serious. A zygote has neither. There’s nothing there except potentiality. With a functioning brain, there’s something (someone!) there.

    A human zygote in being human certainly does have those powers as does a brain of a 20-week fetus. You really don’t understand what Thomists mean by potentiality. You seem to think it is in the same sense in which a tree is potentially a kitchen table but this is not at all what they mean by potentiality/potency.

    Let’s return to this discussion once you do.

    dover_beach20 Feb 13 at 10:09 pm
  102. Are you a Jew Jarrah? You were a male model and you are a good looking fellow. But did you get a nose-job. Or are you a latter-day William Shatner?

    See if you are a Jew most of your attitudes have a ready explanation in that they are dehumanising of gentiles. Right back to where you tried to tell me that property-owners ought to own the roads and foot-paths in front of their property and ought to be able to sell them off.

    Right back to our physics conversations.

    All your physics, ethics and economics can be thrown back to Jarrah the Jew.

    And when I was the most persuasive libertarian in this country save maybe Prodos, all the Jews agreement with me seems to have been for tribal advantage and I shit you not.

    Persian20 Feb 13 at 10:15 pm
  103. Maybe it was the alkalized water that sent him over the edge…

    But back to d-b: do you really think you can get away with the phrase ” [a zygote] at conception enjoys the powers of will and intellect ” by just saying “in the Thomistic sense”?

    Or do you want to admit that was sloppily worded.

    steve from brisbane20 Feb 13 at 10:27 pm
  104. The good sense in abortion, for the most part, is to equalize the definitions of life at the front and the end of life. That means brainwaves and heartbeat. That gives a girl who has allowed her pants to be taken off and not maintained the position wherein her knees are together, maybe 18 days to do something about it and with all due subsidy.

    There may be 10 000 sad cases of unwanted pregnancy resulting from this new dispensation. But in the end there will be less problems because young girls live on hope and don’t like to confirm their worst fears. So they wait for one missed period and then the next, and then if they don’t act they are already tempted to do something borderline barbaric if not barbaric.

    Jesus said to Judas “What you must do do quickly”

    The action is to be taken the morning after the elixer of romance and lust has led the girl to act in ways that she may be thankful for or regretful for and under this dispensation it matters not.

    She must ACT. All the girls under this dispensation will know they have to ACT.

    If we work with things this way YES there will be many unfortunate girls whose lives are affected. But ultimately there will be less girls who have less freedom under this equality of the recognition of life. Because every female will know that there is no time for wishing and hoping and wondering if they will miss their period.

    Every girl will know that the night before requires action the morning after.

    Ultimately it will work out as the best compromise between the liberty of our girls and the maintenance of human decency amongst the gentiles.

    Persian20 Feb 13 at 10:28 pm
  105. Well are you a Jew or not?

    I think it matters.

    I really do.

    And just to remind you.

    I BLAME YOUR MOTHER.

    Birdie, I must admit to possible “jewishness”. My great Grandma’s second name was Salamoni. It’s a “risk”, doncha reckon?

    Jc20 Feb 13 at 10:28 pm
  106. sfb:

    As was discussed on Q&A last night, modern physics finds that particles can pop out of vacuum, which seems to me to render debate about who first moved something rather arcane. Aquinas was thinking of very different type of uni

    Except that the quantum vacuum is not nothing; all that is occurring in these instances are changes in the combination of form and matter. If what Krauss was talking about was literally nothing he would be literally unable to give a physical description of it. That he does means it is something. Nothing, as Aristotle suggested, is what rocks dream about.

    One can go back to the argument of who created the physical laws of the universe that allows a particle to pop into existence; and one gets to the three positions which logic does not solve:

    * either God created them and he “just is”; or

    * the laws “just are – why do you need to go one step further to a God who ‘just is’”; or`

    * “there may be many universes with many different physical laws, we just happen to be in the one we can observe but there is nothing ‘special’ about them and they were not specially created for us.”

    As to which is these views is right is not definitely answerable by our universe embedded minds.

    I don’t think you understand Aquinas’s First Way argument at all. It can’t be the ‘laws’ because they are inert, they cannot give rise to the universe. They are like musical notes on a sheet of paper. It cannot be the third because such a multiverse still needs a sustaining cause, leave alone the evidence for an absolute beginning in time, which applies as much to a multiverse as to our universe. It must be the first and for the reasons the classical theism argue.

    dover_beach20 Feb 13 at 10:29 pm
  107. If it were not for the liberty of our girls we would have to take EVEN MORE CARE at the beginning of life then at the end, to make sure life is defined by brainwaves and heart beat. Because near the end of life the human has less of a potential future ahead of him.

    It is only good and proper that the issue of the liberty of our girls allows us for societal purposes to equalise the definition of life at both ends of the spectrum.

    We don’t need an incompetent Jew philosopher to be attempting to justify blood sacrifice nor the degradation of the value of a gentile life.

    Persian20 Feb 13 at 10:33 pm
  108. You’ve always been a Jew Cambria. The only way that you are a Gentile is in the same way that Disraeli was a Gentile.

    “Resistance Is Gentile.”

    Persian20 Feb 13 at 10:35 pm
  109. sfb, I’m happy with that formulation given that qualification. I don’t need to be able to actualize a power immediately to say that I enjoy that power.

    dover_beach20 Feb 13 at 10:36 pm
  110. *SIGH* there are about 6 guys on earth who think the quantum field is God. We’ve just spent the entire thread arguing that the universe is not God, now you’re arguing that we’re arguing the opposite?

    I do wonder about you sometimes, Yobbo.

    Indeed, and these six guys are probably publicists.

    dover_beach20 Feb 13 at 10:38 pm
  111. The Quantum field. Please. This is a respectable thread. Get serious about real science and real philosophy. None of which includes any “quantum field” jiveocracy.

    Persian20 Feb 13 at 10:40 pm
  112. Birdie

    You make it sound like a bad thing.

    Jc20 Feb 13 at 10:42 pm
  113. Look Aquinas was a wonderful philosopher. But even he cannot show logically a case against the proposition that the matter is here, so it must have gotten here, so it must have been created, so it must be capable of creation, so that it must be the subject of ongoing creation.

    As good as Aquinas is, we must break free of the cult of personality.

    Persian20 Feb 13 at 10:45 pm

Leave a Reply

 Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.


Responses

  1. [...] uncensored on ““Persian” The REST Of The Story.“ @ A Better World: Graeme Bird For High [...]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: