Callistus Valerius Da Vinci Code

[ST]

On 5/22/06 5:54 AM, in article [email protected], "Paul
Cassel" <[email protected]> wrote:


>
> How many beliefs people hold dear today were intentional hoaxes or
> misrepresentations? Perhaps most of them.
Islam????


>
> -paul

 

[[email protected]]

Robert Chung wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:

> > Ha. That's good. It's a matter of interpertation whether the memorial
> > design refutes my argument or the overheated reaction to it
> > conclusively proves my argument.
>
> Perhaps this will make it clearer:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1482656/posts

Chung, only for you would I follow a link to freerepublic.com.
But I think what I really learned is that next time
I'm stuck in a lifeboat with a cadre of Freepers, not
to let them do any of the celestial navigation.

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>, "Robert Chung" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
> > Robert Chung wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>> This is because no major American municipality would ever erect
> >>> a star of David or crescent the size and prominence of the
> >>> Mt. Soledad Cross on public land in the first place.
> >>
> >> http://www.google.com/search?q=flight+93+crescent
> >
> > Ha. That's good. It's a matter of interpertation whether the memorial
> > design refutes my argument or the overheated reaction to it
> > conclusively proves my argument.
>
> Perhaps this will make it clearer:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1482656/posts

Alec Rawls (his father: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls) is good with
this ****. Check out the comments here:

http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2006/01/lunacy-abounds-nuts.html

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Basjan]

"Curtis L. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 23 May 2006 16:43:35 +0200, "Basjan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>So I fail to see my lack
>>of acceptance without judgement... but I eagerly await your explanation.
>
> What nonsense - he gave you no reason for sadness other than your
> judgment of his position. I suggest that before you are
> passing judgment so freely on whether other people are inappropriate
> that you start by stop giving yourself a free ride in the judgment
> area. You pass the time between making judgments on others by being
> hypocritical.
>
> I would be sad at your dishonesty, but I won't waste the emotion.
>
> Curtis L. Russell

....this is going nowhere fast..he thought as the spewing continued, more
vomiting actually, and he wished him well on his recovery from mental
hangover.

Cheers

Basjan

 

[Basjan]

"Tim Lines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Basjan wrote:
>
>> The statement to a person that "your mother is a *****" might be ABSOLUTE
>> fiction, but it still upsets something deep inside that person.
>
> It upsets a person to precisely the extent they allow themselves to be
> upset. The statement is probably intended to upset you but you get to
> decide. Many people are in the habit of doing whatever others
> want/expect.

Very true, but to that end, it was used as an example, albeit it poor one.

Basjan

 

[Donald Munro]

Sandy wrote:
>>> > Mathematics is a belief system. Get over it.

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>> > Mathematics is science. In the scientific method, no theory is ever
>> > proven, if a theory is confirmed by observation it is assumed that it
>> > is true only until if and when it is disproven.
>> > Scientists assume that it is possible to describe the universe in
>> > mathematical terms, because observation has shown this to be true

Donald Munro wrote:
>> There is a difference between pure mathematics (in which one can prove
>> a 'truth' within a given system) and applied mathematics which
>> attempts to describe the universe or sub-systems of the universe as
>> a mathematical model, though.

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> Even so, how does that make it faith based?

Dunno, ask Sandy. Perhaps its something to do with puissance if not *****.

 

[Robert Chung]

Howard Kveck wrote:

> Alec Rawls (his father: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls) is
> good with this ****. Check out the comments here:
>
> http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2006/01/lunacy-abounds-nuts.html

Thanks. He was the guy whose name I was trying to remember.

I'm vaguely surprised the nutbars haven't been picketing Jack in the Box
over the croissandwich.

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>, "Robert Chung" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> > Alec Rawls (his father: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls) is
> > good with this ****. Check out the comments here:
> >
> > http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2006/01/lunacy-abounds-nuts.html
>
> Thanks. He was the guy whose name I was trying to remember.
>
> I'm vaguely surprised the nutbars haven't been picketing Jack in the Box
> over the croissandwich.

You're right. After all, it's in the shape of an Islamic crescent and sounds
French (not sure which of those would be considered worse). Of course the Freepers
might not actually recognize that the croissamich name is based on the word
"croissant."

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Wed, 24 May 2006 17:34:22 -0700, Howard Kveck
<[email protected]> wrote:

> You're right. After all, it's in the shape of an Islamic crescent and sounds
>French (not sure which of those would be considered worse). Of course the Freepers
>might not actually recognize that the croissamich name is based on the word
>"croissant."

Not to mention you make something in the shape of a crescent and try a
sneaky way to call it a cross. Seems like something a Unitarian
Universalist would do.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[chalo colina]

Basjan wrote:
>
> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> >
> > Basjan wrote:
> >
> >>Realize that the "someone" referred to above actually might find
> >>it sad that another believes in only that which he/she can comprehend,
> >>explain, see, or fathom. Perhaps it really is not all about the bike...
> >
> > So you can't accept the viewpoint of this other person without being
> > judgmental. Interesting.
>
> Curtis, there is a huge difference between acceptance and emotion. I can
> accept his indifference, while still (personally) finding it sad. Like a
> teenage dauther´s pregnancy, which while the father accept this and doesn´t
> judge, still finds sad for a multitude of reasons.

This is utterly typical arrogant garbage from a mind addled by
institutional religious dogma. You assume that because someone finds
your adherence to some ludicrous fairy tale contemptible, that such a
person has no reckoning with his maker. You think that somehow, you
perceive the answers to eternal questions more clearly than others.

You can keep your pity. You'll need it for yourself when your faith
can no longer support the weight of all that manure.

Chalo Colina

 

[Doug Taylor]

On Wed, 24 May 2006 09:24:56 +0200, "Basjan" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Much of what is *real* to you, might not be real to me at all. Or stated
>differently, things you may regard, as you eloquently stated, as fairy
>tales, might be more real to me than your spewing this lovely morning.


So you admit that reality is subjective. Excellent, grasshopper.
Progress, at last!

Please let all the other evangelicals - and Muslim terrorists - and
while you're at it, the neocons - know this, and then maybe we can see
peace on earth in our lifetimes.

Thank you.

 

[Sorni]

chalo colina wrote:

> You can keep your pity. You'll need it for yourself when your faith
> can no longer support the weight of all that manure.

If anyone knows about weight and manure, it's Chalo.

)

 

[Mad Dog]

Kurgan Gringioni says...

>Even so, how does that make it faith based?

As soon as the concepts become abstract, a significant portion of the student
population admits to faith-based learning. Google it, dumbass.

 

[[email protected]]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> Donald Munro wrote:
> > Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > > Mathematics is science. In the scientific method, no theory is ever
> > > proven, if a theory is confirmed by observation it is assumed that it
> > > is true only until if and when it is disproven.
> > >
> > > Scientists assume that it is possible to describe the universe in
> > > mathematical terms, because observation has shown this to be true,
> > > however, a true follower of the scientific method will abandon this
> > > assumption if it is ever shown that there are portions of the universe
> > > undescribable by mathematics.
> >
> > There is a difference between pure mathematics (in which one can prove
> > a 'truth' within a given system) and applied mathematics which
> > attempts to describe the universe or sub-systems of the universe as
> > a mathematical model, though.
>
> Even so, how does that make it faith based?
>
> Any discipline which follows the scientific method is not faith based.

Mathematics is an axiomatic system. It is not a science because
it is not empirical nor based on comparison to observations.
However, mathematics is also not faith based.

Assumptions that mathematical models are useful for describing
the universe _are_ science and are refutable. Generally, if a
mathematical model fails to describe the universe, one replaces
it not by abandoning the assumption that math is useful, but by
constructing a new model with different mathematics. For example,
Euclidean geometry doesn't describe the universe on very large
scales, but that doesn't mean Euclidean geometry is "wrong."
It's just inapplicable to that particular problem.

Ben

P.S. It sounds like you have a lot of faith in the scientific method.

 

[Robert Chung]

[email protected] wrote:
> For example,
> Euclidean geometry doesn't describe the universe on very large
> scales,

Dude,

The Flight 93 memorial? It points toward Mecca.

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > Donald Munro wrote:
> > > Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > > > Mathematics is science. In the scientific method, no theory is ever
> > > > proven, if a theory is confirmed by observation it is assumed that it
> > > > is true only until if and when it is disproven.
> > > >
> > > > Scientists assume that it is possible to describe the universe in
> > > > mathematical terms, because observation has shown this to be true,
> > > > however, a true follower of the scientific method will abandon this
> > > > assumption if it is ever shown that there are portions of the universe
> > > > undescribable by mathematics.
> > >
> > > There is a difference between pure mathematics (in which one can prove
> > > a 'truth' within a given system) and applied mathematics which
> > > attempts to describe the universe or sub-systems of the universe as
> > > a mathematical model, though.
> >
> > Even so, how does that make it faith based?
> >
> > Any discipline which follows the scientific method is not faith based.
>
> Mathematics is an axiomatic system. It is not a science because
> it is not empirical nor based on comparison to observations.
> However, mathematics is also not faith based.
>
> Assumptions that mathematical models are useful for describing
> the universe _are_ science and are refutable. Generally, if a
> mathematical model fails to describe the universe, one replaces
> it not by abandoning the assumption that math is useful, but by
> constructing a new model with different mathematics. For example,
> Euclidean geometry doesn't describe the universe on very large
> scales, but that doesn't mean Euclidean geometry is "wrong."
> It's just inapplicable to that particular problem.

Mathematicians are quick to assure us that mathematics is
not a science, and this argument is true as far as it
goes, which is not far enough for me. Science and
mathematics are described at length, but never in the
terms that are important to me. To do mathematics or
science requires that one is regularly required to set
aside ideas, formulations, notions, feelings, and other
deeply rooted comforts; to recognize that one's science
hypothesis, or maths proof does not hold. In a word, one
is required at the drop of a hat to recognize that one is
_wrong_. I invest faith in this process.

--
Michael Press

 

[Ewoud Dronkert]

On 25 May 2006 17:44:19 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>Mathematics is an axiomatic system. It is not a science because
>it is not empirical nor based on comparison to observations.

Therefore it's equal to philosophy.
....Should I have x-posted to sci.*?

--
E. Dronkert

 

[Basjan]

"chalo colina" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Basjan wrote:
>
> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> >
> > Basjan wrote:
> >
> >>Realize that the "someone" referred to above actually might find
> >>it sad that another believes in only that which he/she can comprehend,
> >>explain, see, or fathom. Perhaps it really is not all about the bike...
> >
> > So you can't accept the viewpoint of this other person without being
> > judgmental. Interesting.
>
> Curtis, there is a huge difference between acceptance and emotion. I can
> accept his indifference, while still (personally) finding it sad. Like a
> teenage dauther´s pregnancy, which while the father accept this and
> doesn´t
> judge, still finds sad for a multitude of reasons.

>>This is utterly typical arrogant garbage from a mind addled by
>>institutional religious dogma. You assume that because someone finds
>>your adherence to some ludicrous fairy tale contemptible, that such a
>>person has no reckoning with his maker. You think that somehow, you
>>perceive the answers to eternal questions more clearly than others.

Dear Chalo, your judgement is noted, as is your remarkable ability to assign
meaning to my rather one-dimensional, comprehensible description of "why I
don't like a book". Your response is at the same time clarifyingly bitter.
Again, as I said to an earlier poster, if you know me, and my beliefs so
well, based on a little newsgroup banter, then it is clear that you are
carrying quite a lot of baggage. I have not once said anyone should AGREE
with my position, merely that they should UNDERSTAND it. And actually, if
you cannot, your unacceptance "makes a 180 degrees".


>>You can keep your pity. You'll need it for yourself when your faith
>>can no longer support the weight of all that manure.



I have not once in this entire thread claimed religious amnesty, but merely
that you *should* be willing to try, however unable, to understand that I
can in fact feel differently about an issue such as D.VinciCode. Your
extreme gurgitation seems like broiling hatred of sorts.



In the words of George Costanza: "Easy big fella..."



Basjan

 

[Basjan]

"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 24 May 2006 09:24:56 +0200, "Basjan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Much of what is *real* to you, might not be real to me at all. Or stated
>>differently, things you may regard, as you eloquently stated, as fairy
>>tales, might be more real to me than your spewing this lovely morning.
>
>
> So you admit that reality is subjective. Excellent, grasshopper.
> Progress, at last!

Dear Doug, you are truly going around in circles. While you should allow my
belief, I should allow your disbelief. I have nowhere claimed anything
different. I can try a variety of other languages, if this is not clear in
English.

> Please let all the other evangelicals - and Muslim terrorists - and
> while you're at it, the neocons - know this, and then maybe we can see
> peace on earth in our lifetimes.

Right back at you, sparky. I will do my bit, while you spread the word
amongst the hate-spewing, so-called tolerant, all-accepting liberals.

Basjan

 

[Donald Munro]

Michael Press wrote:
> To do mathematics or
> science requires that one is regularly required to set
> aside ideas, formulations, notions, feelings, and other
> deeply rooted comforts; to recognize that one's science
> hypothesis, or maths proof does not hold. In a word, one
> is required at the drop of a hat to recognize that one is
> _wrong_. I invest faith in this process.

Perhaps all politicians should be required to pass a maths course then.