PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

stardust wrote:

BingoTheClowno wrote: You're a cretin and a hypocrite on top.

that one was, ehmmmm,
Some obscenities and incommensurable allegations

That was commensurate and deserving.

BingoTheClowno wrote: I don't care what you believe.
I just asked simple, plain questions and you answered consistently united in mockery. The 38 pages are only a proof your bigotry and immaturity.

would you be so kind, bingo, to tell me where I was answering anything or mockering? you just repeated a phrase you wrote several times before, but you didn't answer me. why not? what do you want me to convince of? I didn't get that point, sorry. this is my first post over those 38 pages, and you already call me bigot and immature. come on, prove any of your words you wrote to me. I'm eager to learn where you know me from so well.

-kylie-

BingoTheClowno wrote:That is true, (and forgive me for being brief I didn't know you'd be interested to learn anything about the Universe in addition to what you learned in the church) however in the initial state, superdense ball of particles, there was no resemblance of the Universe as we know it today, and what is being refered to in the bible. I hope you don't want to say that god created the superdense ball of particles now? That would be quite cowardly from your side.

ok, this is funny.

some questions come up...

first-have you ever seen a superdense ball of particles as you claim? and..
second-have you even studied the math involved which claims to prove such a mass, and if so, would you please explain it?
third-what made the mass "bang"?
fourth-where did the ball of particles come from and what principles founded it's formation?
fifth-what makes you think that parroting(yes, parroting, there's no personal knowledge involved in your regurgitation, no real study, i'm betting) a pbs documentary proves any real understanding of anything at all if you can't answer each of those questions and the others that will follow concisely and clearly?

a comment-

actually, depending on the translation, the creation story in the 104th psalm is very like the scientific one, speaking of a world that was ocean and then the mountians rose(volcanoes and along fault lines in the earth's crust) and the waters moved into their channels. still, the water is taken to the top of the mountains and makes life for all the intertwined creatures and their food which grows. it could even be seen as sight that there is an evolution of experience in the universe.

there are a lot of things in the several texts which make up the bible. most who speak of it haven't studied it at all, they only know what their pastors, or freinds or some writer has explained to them. they don't know it's history or how it's been used or why. proof of this is the inane use of the moses story in this thread. a very good human trait was shown there, that a man of high stature recognized his family being enslaved and abused and killed a tormentor even though it endangered his personal nice life. there are also tales of very bad behavior as well, for sure. lack of context makes misunderstanding and bad judgement inevitable as evidenced by the different ways that bingo and i see the same story.

yes, the religions are for shit, but no, the people's togetherness is not, even if it's being misused by "higher" powers. those same forces are using "atheism" as well and a number of other "isms" as well. brainwashing is brainwashing.

no matter what you think of the idea of god, it's good to see where the funding of a group you belong to comes from. ok, bingo, braincell, i'll easily concede that a filthy ruling elite has used religion as one of the ways to abuse and enslave mankind(which has nothing to do with whether there is ultimately a creator of the universe). unfortunately for you, however, that same filthy slimy elite uses the lack of belief in god(atheism), the polar opposite of the demand in the belief in that god, against humans.

a very smart man Alan Watt (cuttingthroughthematrix.com) explained this using the sheep analogy. when herding sheep, one wants to move the flock en masse from one spot to another and so he uses dogs. the dogs are lines of force upon the herd. one dog(a single force) will only scatter the sheep, which will then regroup where they want to, most likely in the same place they were, as soon as the dog passes(the dog can't chase all the sheep at once). no, it takes at least 3 dogs to move a large flock. all three dogs provide pressure from opposing directions. the sheep huddle close together for protection and any stragglers are quickly chased back into the flock. the sheep can then be easily run wherever the shepherd wants to go. so it is with the human herd. those that really run things fund all sides of the issues of the day. people act as the dogs and the sheep. some join groups with put pressure on the herd from opposing direction and the herd itself goes where the shepherds want it to go......

the only thing one must be sure of when one does the shepherd's work as a dog is; are the shepherd's intentions really good? the sheep trust the shepherd. he seems to spend a lot of time looking after them. of course, ultimately the sheep are foolish. the shepherd only is concerned with his own profit. he will certainly shear and slaughter the sheep........

once more here's the quote that you love so much from the much honored Albert Pike, supreme wizard and founder of the KKK and founder of the scottish rite of freemasonry, beloved by kings, the organization which is headed by british royalty, supporters of atheists and eugenicists:
"We shall unleash the nihilists and the atheists and we shall provoke a great social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to all nations the effect of absolute atheism; the origins of savagery and of most bloody turmoil. "

braincell wrote:" let other people believe what they want to" is exactly what Christians are *not* doing. No other faith has as it's primary goal the conversion and brainwashing of every human being on this planet as it's ultimate goal.

even though I didn't even give a hint whether I'm christian at all, or not, I am put together with people who indeed don't let other people believe what they want (which doesn't apply to christians only, but that's covered by the topic title, imho). would you be so kind to tell me why? and where you have the proof that all or at least the majority of christians do so? and where did I personally kept people from belieing in what they want? (putting me into the club would imho imply you brand me as somebody not letting other people believ what they want. if that is correctly assumed, you are wrong here.)

if you really don't care what I believe or not, why isn't it just accepted what I believe in, without putting me together with other people that are not representative for what I do?

I'm sure you have a good explanation for that, have you?

-kylie-

yeah, thanks!

i missed that, it's another false statement. braincell's religion certainly looks to convert everyone, so the statement is false by that logic. also, christianity's prime goal isn't brainwashing everyone, although some have used it for that purpose, so his statement's false by this logic as well.

I was in Tokyo recently ,came in from London so I was massively lagged which meant that I was wide awake at 4 in the morning . Just nearby was a Japanese Bhuddist temple which happened to be having a service ..it was about 6 by then . Apart from being transfixed by the chanting and the drummer and hoping not to give any offense it took me a little while to notice that I was perfectly welcome and nobody was worried that I didn't know what to do and in fact, made all the mistakes you could make in that situation . The Bhuddist temple was right next door to a Shinto temple as well ..no worries
Bingo just because people can be utter arseholes it doesn't mean that whatever they are using to justify their vile behaviour is neccesarily wrong .
Just as terrible atrocities are commited in the name of religion so are the same things commited in the name of "My Family" and that doesn't mean that Families are evil ...er then again

M-Theory is metapyshics. Damn, I love that stuff.

I think M-Theory is so close to a 'scietific religion' It's probably the nearest thing to religion I would beleive (oh yeh..that and Janes Addiction ).
Not that its got me convinced mind, but I do love the beauty of the theory.

Certainly needs more scientific minds enquiring, the truth may be in there.


anyway .... carry on

Struth Stardust - I'm English & I need to look some of those big words up (I get flummoxed with anything longer than wheelbarrow)
Just going out to buy a dictionary.

Seriously - Interesting explanation and I thank you for that enlightenment.

Listen guys, I'm having my ears syringed this afternoon, so can we finish this off and come up with an answer before I stop reading it and get on with some music?

And before Braincell or Bingo reply - yes, the syringe will probably go right the way through without touching anything in the middle.

Anyway, the problmes of America are now sorted - David Beckham has arrived.

Oh come on, all yea faithfull..... and faithless.....
Let's Rock!

Could some-one let me know if they saw this? My hands seem to be visible.

You make a joke out of it but I find it highly offensive. There is more than a tip of the hat to religious groups, they are getting countless billions in tax breaks most of which is used to spread their delusions, money we should be using for schools and health care.

stardust wrote:

braincell wrote:Neil Neil Neil...

I just used some bills to buy some things and printed on it was "In God We Trust"

Now just imagine that atheists take over and we change it to "There Is No God"...

That would be such a beautiful day!

Now I understand much better why you feel so paranoid.
Maybe all the atheists in god's own country should stand together and make a democratic petition to change it.

kylie wrote:

BingoTheClowno wrote: I don't care what you believe.
I just asked simple, plain questions and you answered consistently united in mockery. The 38 pages are only a proof your bigotry and immaturity.

would you be so kind, bingo, to tell me where I was answering anything or mockering? you just repeated a phrase you wrote several times before, but you didn't answer me. why not? what do you want me to convince of? I didn't get that point, sorry. this is my first post over those 38 pages, and you already call me bigot and immature. come on, prove any of your words you wrote to me. I'm eager to learn where you know me from so well.

-kylie-

This is your first post:

kylie wrote: I have the feeling this is one of the rare occasions where I would like to "expect the spanish inquisition"

Why would you like to "expect the spanish inquisition"? You want me to be tortured? Do you want anyone be tortured?
You're an hypocrite!

garyb wrote:
ok, this is funny.

some questions come up...

first-have you ever seen a superdense ball of particles as you claim? and..

No, no, that's is even funnier.
That's a well accepted fact, you'd be making quite a fool of yourself refuting this fact (not that you didn't do that already).

stardust wrote:Ok Clown, this one is about a physics lesson especially to you.
Thank you for politely asking for it.
I am willing to help you to get out of your 'black and white' extremes.
Certainly I know this is a big challenge for your little ego, but excuse me, I am sure it will be a good intellectual exercise and learning for you.

Gary did already a good job showing your science abuse.
What remains IMHO is:

1.) Big Bang theory is descriptive only at least when it comes to the Planck era, beacuse there is no math approach to correctly model the singularity.
2.) All serious scientist know that and have no problem with that, because that is normal for the scientific approach: to strive for improvements, knowing that a theory is a theory.
3.) Big Bang theory has its known limits: As a hint to you, since you seem to be a seriously interested adept, I am talking about the dark matter/dark energy complex and the genesis of large scale structures in the universe like the 'great wall'.
4.) There are no probes (empiric physical ones) that allow any conclusion about the planck era (staying in the context of today's physics of the standard model). Even if the TOE (maybe based on the current candidates String theory, M-Theory or Quantum loop theory) would be able to unify gravitaion with the other 3 forces and in general GTR with Quantum theory, we scientists do not have a gravitation probe into planck era, due to the practical limits of our technology.
5.) There are no probes at all to hop outside this universe (uni-verse) and look from outside and especially before the start of spacetime after (after !!) planck era.
You are still there Clown ? That means you and we dont know nothing about before the assumed singularity.
And a scientist does not even have a philosophical problem with the limitations of its theory before and after, because he knows his limits.
I am not even touching the questions of who and why ? Do you notice that ?

Conclusion (not exegesis):
Science (here cosmology) is not black and white (deterministic, materialistic) as you and your atheist cretins want to abuse it.
It just tells you what is empirically accessible and it knows its limits:
- the epistemologic ones, that you guys ignore constantly
- the existing flaws of the theories like Big Bang theory
- the transition between physics and meta-physics

break - here we get into a philosophical dispute beyond science.

And now you loosers come in and write nonsense about why science is the ultimate proof for the presumptuous superiority of atheism.
We had that before. There is no proof of atheism and there is no for theism by science ( argumentum ad ignorantiam )
Why ?
Because per definition this kind of philosophical discussion is not about empiric research, but exegesis of phenomenons. In best case it is about Meta-physics, and in the case of atheism a one dimensional anti-position to the theistic pole.

Stop spoiling science with your presumptuousness, learn modesty, logic and manners and if you really are interested physics.

You stop being a moron and tell me where is the evidence of the existence of god. You insulted me repeatedly based on your assumption that I was wrong claiming that god did not created the universe. Maybe you should have presented your evidence before mocking me and before you made a fool of yourself? So what are your claims? What did god create, a ball of particles, one particle, a black hole, a singularity, the planck era, what? Isn't it clear to you that you are panting to create evidence of god existence?
Thank you for the "lesson"!

garyb wrote:the moses thing is where he sees his fellow humans enslaved and abused and he kills the taskmaster to save those abused slaves. good work Mo!

i guess bingo would just give the slaves an iced tea when the boss decided he was tired of beating them.

there ARE questionable passages in the bible, but that isn't one of them!

Yo, murder advocate, don't you find it a bit ironic that moses brought us also the ten commandments, not to mention the first commandment: "Yo shall not kill"?
Are you enjoying being a hypocrite?

BingoTheClowno wrote: This is your first post:

kylie wrote: I have the feeling this is one of the rare occasions where I would like to "expect the spanish inquisition"

Why would you like to "expect the spanish inquisition"? You want me to be tortured? Do you want anyone be tortured?
You're an hypocrite!

1) the quote "I didn't expect the spanish inquisition" - "nobody expects the spanish inquisition" is from a very famous monthy python sketch. it was meant sarcastic, but maybe I was overshooting the mark of good taste. my apologies. honestly.

2) no, I definitely do not want anybody tortured. neither christians nor atheists.

2) you didn't answer any of my questions. tell me what's so bad about me, my familiy, and all religious people that I do respect.

-kylie-

kylie wrote:

BingoTheClowno wrote: This is your first post:

kylie wrote: I have the feeling this is one of the rare occasions where I would like to "expect the spanish inquisition"

Why would you like to "expect the spanish inquisition"? You want me to be tortured? Do you want anyone be tortured?
You're an hypocrite!

1) the quote "I didn't expect the spanish inquisition" - "nobody expects the spanish inquisition" is from a very famous monthy python sketch. it was meant sarcastic, but maybe I was overshooting the mark of good taste. my apologies. honestly.

2) no, I definitely do not want anybody tortured. neither christians nor atheists.

2) you didn't answer any of my questions. tell me what's so bad about me, my familiy, and all religious people that I do respect.

-kylie-

I did answer your question. That is more than any.
Second, I won't let you drag me into a personal argument.

BingoTheClowno wrote: I did answer your question. That is more than any.
Second, I won't let you drag me into a personal argument.

you did nothing but calling me names. and you really deny that you don't get personal with me? sorry, that makes no sense to me.
are you afraid to get out of answers once you started arguing with me?

-kylie-

ps. btw, if stardust actually managed to prove god's existance, what would you do then? bow down and say "I am not worthy!"?

You don't want it to make sense because it contradicts your doctrine.
The rest is assumptive word play, I had enough of those.

Ah! I see that I made some spelling mistakes in an earlier post. Thanks for indirectly pointing that out Bingo. I hadn't gathered your train of thought with the nouns, verbs etc sentence, but now I get it. Anyway, I'll leave the typos in place. The words look better spelt wrongly given the context.

Braingo the Clown wrote:
"Yo, murder advocate, don't you find it a bit ironic that moses brought us also the ten commandments, not to mention the first commandment: "Yo shall not kill"?
Are you enjoying being a hypocrite?"

That is the 6th commandment not the first - WRONG AGAIN