Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008

PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
 2d1c85b5-531a-4784-9c7c-634757debf79@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com

What I learned in the history books, and even more so in
the 'holy books' we got to study in school, is that the easiest
way to make them ready and prepared for a killing party
is by making them believe they do it for their god, specially
if there's only Only One of them.

I think it does. If they choose to kill for food, I'd try to make
sure that everyone had enough of it. If they choose to kill for
their god, I'd try to convince them that they do it for a delusion.
Different motive, different action.

I think it would make it harder to get it started. Running out
of food can be objectively established. Running out of the
blessing and protection of a delusion cannot, at least not i.m.o.

Since you are probably talking about your personal god, I
can't comment on this. Your god is your god, and by design
he probably does whatever you want him to do :-)

Dirk Vdm

<All the atheist so-called scientists seen wandering in the
wilderness! >

The problem here Uncl, is what one accepts as "empirical reality".
Generally speaking you and yours demand that this mean all actions be
linear, not feedbacked, and repeatable without exception.  Clearly
that makes all of you idiots.

In science, "faith" is actually called a "theory".  "I believe that
this is how this or that works, but I have no real proof...yet!" WHERE
you got these ideas is of no importance. You might have thought them
up yourself or maybe some "wise man" gave them to you or maybe you
read them in an ancient text, or maybe they were "channeled" by a
disembodied spirit. NONE of that matters.

What does matter is the TEST of your "theory" empirically.  Now here's
where you atheists run off the rails. The rule is that if a theory
fails to produce results agreeing with empiricism, it fails. Most
today take that to mean that if a phenomenon is transient, it
therefore does not exist! Morons.  But what if something works ONCE in
agreement with your theory but is not reproducible at will? What does
that say for the theory? Well it says that in some way the theory is
wrong because the transient nature has not been taken into account.
But it doesn't negate the ENTIRE theory. IN FACT, it SUPPORTS it!

So lets now look at "faith".  What if I say, the universe is "alive"?
I have no proof. But what does it mean if the universe one day
"speaks" to me with a message. I still can't convince anyone else that
I have all the proof I need. They haven't seen (and probably can't
see) my evidence. But to me I've seen all the evidence I need. So I am
totally convinced and others call it "faith" and you atheists call it
"tinfoil hat".  Or I say I think UFOs are real. You and yours bring up
the tinfoil hat again. However, I need only see some large triangular
craft hovering 100 feet over the highway, to have ALL the evidence
I'll ever need.  Physics will simply scoff and not even admit of the
POSSIBILITY that such a theory even COULD be correct.  At best they
will go to the same spot on the highway, look upward and opine that
there is NO craft 100 feet above the highway so conclude the UFO
observer is nuts. So who is the "real" scientist here? The UFO viewer
who insists they are real, or the atheist scoffers who without any
medical evidence suggest that the viewer was "insane" and therefore
all his/her observations don't need to be considered?

Yep, that's right.

You are the moron.