Oscar?

you still here Oscar?
i had a question...hope you're still around, and that you're doing well.
zone.

zone wrote:you still here Oscar?
i had a question...hope you're still around, and that you're doing well.
zone.

I'm still around, just I've been taking the last couple of weekends off. I'll be back in full effect on monday.

Its hard work eh O-man? Disproving geocentricity?

Strangelove wrote:Its hard work eh O-man? Disproving geocentricity?

I dont really think I'm trying to disprove Geo so much as understand the position, as I dont really feel at this point it needs to be disproved.

oscarkipling wrote:I dont really think I'm trying to disprove Geo so much as understand the position, as I dont really feel at this point it needs to be disproved.

Well its either disprove it or believe in a creator God.

S'u p to you.

Strangelove wrote:

Well its either disprove it or believe in a creator God.

S'u p to you.

there are plenty of things that I cannot disprove that I dont ascribe to. however at this point I dont believe that Geo is unfalsifiable...i just dont have enough info yet.

oscarkipling wrote:there are plenty of things that I cannot disprove that I dont ascribe to. however at this point I dont believe that Geo is unfalsifiable...i just dont have enough info yet.

I dont believe that Geo is unfalsifiable either. The interferometry experiments could have falsified it, instead they supported it. That is until nutty science reigned supreme.

Aaaaaaanywayz......zone...what was your question for oscar?

hi oscar:

um...

if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it ma....oh! i know what i wanted to ask:

has the helio/geo debate here caused you consider that you might have believed wrongly? to any degree?
love zone

zone wrote:hi oscar:

um...

if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it ma....oh! i know what i wanted to ask:

has the helio/geo debate here caused you consider that you might have believed wrongly? to any degree?
love zone

I mean to a degree, on default I sort of walk around with the understanding that I could be wrong on just about every issue. But as far as the thread goes, the single most compelling thing that has been presented is the "axis of evil". It is a very interesting piece of evidence, and honestly its a bit baffling. The concentricity argument imo seems to hinge on a visual appraisal and an analysis which are both sub optimal means of determining such a thing, so i must in honesty take those with a grain of salt. Overall I find the discussion fascinating, if at times frustrating and ultimately i hope to come away with a better understanding of the position.

Dont worry oscar, I'm sure you'll soon find a 'relatavistic effect' that explains away the axis of evil. And hey, even if it sounds completely nutty and counter intuative....you can still cling on to it for dear life not considering the obvious alternative.

Oscar...are you now or have you ever been involved with any occult groups...example....wiccans? Or freemasons?

__________________________

Ex Scientia Ad Relativios (sic?)

Strangelove wrote:Dont worry oscar, I'm sure you'll soon find a 'relatavistic effect' that explains away the axis of evil. And hey, even if it sounds completely nutty and counter intuative....you can still cling on to it for dear life not considering the obvious alternative.

yeah, alright

Strangelove wrote:Oscar...are you now or have you ever been involved with any occult groups...example....wiccans? Or freemasons?

__________________________

Ex Scientia Ad Relativios (sic?)

I answered this in the other thread, but I forgot the freemason. I am not currently nor have i ever been involved with Freemasons, Illuminati, The kabbalah monsters, or any other secret organizations, or fraternities, not even a college frat.

oscarkipling wrote:the "axis of evil".

Bush's "axis of evil" included Iran, Iraq, and North Korea (red).
"Beyond the Axis of Evil" included Cuba, Libya, and Syria (orange).
wiki

~

hmm....





A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (commonly known as the "Clean Break" report) is a policy document that was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the then Prime Minister of Israel.^[1] The report explained a new approach to solving Israel's security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on "Western values". It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy including the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

...

oscarkipling wrote:I answered this in the other thread, but I forgot the freemason. I am not currently nor have i ever been involved with Freemasons, Illuminati, The kabbalah monsters, or any other secret organizations, or fraternities, not even a college frat.

Well...obviously I never expected you to admit it if you were involved in any groups. I just wanted to see if you would give us a simple no nonsense serious answer.....

.......or if you would dress it up in childish prattling and intent to ridicule.

Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

oscarkipling wrote:
I answered this in the other thread, but I forgot the freemason. I am not currently nor have i ever been involved with Freemasons, Illuminati, The kabbalah monsters, or any other secret organizations, or fraternities, not even a college frat.

addressed in other thread...but ya....you are involved in the kabbalah.


Isaac Luria (1534-1572) -- also known as the "Ari Zaal," or "Divine Rabbi Isaac," -- was, and remains to this day, unarguably the greatest Kabbalist in world history. His doctrines, based entirely on the Old Testament and Zohar, anticipated virtually world-for-word -- or at the very least, concept for concept -- the theory of the "Big Bang" origins of the universe in astrophysics. Thus, the cosmogony of a 16th century Jewish Kabbalist was literally validated by modern science four hundred years later.

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Kabbalah/LurianicKabbalah.htm

...

do you agree with the Kabbalists that your science and their religion match?

Strangelove wrote:

Well...obviously I never expected you to admit it if you were involved in any groups. I just wanted to see if you would give us a simple no nonsense serious answer.....

.......or if you would dress it up in childish prattling and intent to ridicule.

Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

you're right, I was being silly, but I didn't mean it to be offensive. Just to lighten the mood...but for a serious straightforward answer: No I'm not a member of any occult organizations, and i dont believe in that stuff.

zone wrote:

addressed in other thread...but ya....you are involved in the kabbalah.


Isaac Luria (1534-1572) -- also known as the "Ari Zaal," or "Divine Rabbi Isaac," -- was, and remains to this day, unarguably the greatest Kabbalist in world history. His doctrines, based entirely on the Old Testament and Zohar, anticipated virtually world-for-word -- or at the very least, concept for concept -- the theory of the "Big Bang" origins of the universe in astrophysics. Thus, the cosmogony of a 16th century Jewish Kabbalist was literally validated by modern science four hundred years later.

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Kabbalah/LurianicKabbalah.htm

...

do you agree with the Kabbalists that your science and their religion match?

well okay, let me rephrase, It is not my understanding that my beliefs are actually rooted in or informed by the kaballah.

oscarkipling wrote:well okay, let me rephrase, It is not my understanding that my beliefs are actually rooted in or informed by the kaballah.

He's 'unconvinced'.

oscarkipling wrote:you're right, I was being silly, but I didn't mean it to be offensive. Just to lighten the mood...but for a serious straightforward answer: No I'm not a member of any occult organizations, and i dont believe in that stuff.

Ya....too late now. You already went over the top and betrayed yourself.

You guys need to train more on subtlety in face of suspicion.

Strangelove wrote:
Ya....too late now. You already went over the top and betrayed yourself.

You guys need to train more on subtlety in face of suspicion.

what do you mean "you guys"...atheists?

oscarkipling wrote:what do you mean "you guys"...atheists?

Lolz! At least you guys have a sense of humour!

Strangelove wrote:

Lolz! At least you guys have a sense of humour!

could you just answer the question, who or what do you think I am?

oscarkipling wrote:could you just answer the question, who or what do you think I am?

Who do you think I think you are?

Strangelove wrote:

Who do you think I think you are?

okay i'll bite. I think that you may believe that I am some sort of agent of an organized effort to stir up trouble for Christians, maybe a Mason, or a Wiccan or something like that.

oscarkipling wrote:okay i'll bite. I think that you may believe that I am some sort of agent of an organized effort to stir up trouble for Christians, maybe a Mason, or a Wiccan or something like that.

Do you think its reasonable that a Christian would believe that satan would employ those kind of tactics?

Specifically, to use agents to infiltrate Christian forums and post in support of atheism/anti-Christianity?

what we know oscar is that true atheists (who are actually a very tiny minority in the world) generally just go about their lives and do not care about debating. ocassionally they sign up to grind an axe for awhile. but then they just go away.

they never stick around for years.

Strangelove wrote:

Do you think its reasonable that a Christian would believe that satan would employ those kind of tactics?

Specifically, to use agents to infiltrate Christian forums and post in support of atheism/anti-Christianity?

honestly, I dont think it's so simple as a reasonable unreasonable dichotomy. Clearly with all of the other things that you believe its an inevitable conclusion. however from my perspective, that is thinking from the position that what i've come to understand about God, Satan and the nature of man (from my discussions on the other christian forum) is true, then its not implausible that this could be a tactic employed, but it seems entirely unnecessary. I think it also presumes that there are very few if any people that find the unbeliever position reasonable through honest means, and yet maintain curiosity and seek to interact in a non malicious way. This I believe is again plausible, but entirely unnecessary. So I would have to say that it depends on some more specific beliefs outside the bare minimum christian beliefs (that Jesus is the son of God and died for our sins, and that Satan is a real adversary, and men are sinners) in order to arrive at this as a reasonable conclusion, although those beliefs do make the proposition plausible.

I think that even if I am an agent of Satan, I dont see why its necessarily true (from a general christian perspective) that i would be aware , and in fact revel in causing Christians misery. I could be just as effective at sowing discord and doubt with genuine beliefs and the honest intent of inquiry as I could be with an agenda of destruction...perhaps I could even be more effective...but this is just speculation on my part.


anyway, while I understand why you are really only able to draw certain conclusions about my character and intent, and that it is reasonable given your beliefs, I find it extremely difficult to understand why you wouldn't want me to leave....that is perplexing.

zone wrote:what we know oscar is that true atheists (who are actually a very tiny minority in the world) generally just go about their lives and do not care about debating. ocassionally they sign up to grind an axe for awhile. but then they just go away.

they never stick around for years.

interesting, how do you know that?

zone wrote:what we know oscar is that true atheists (who are actually a very tiny minority in the world) generally just go about their lives and do not care about debating. ocassionally they sign up to grind an axe for awhile. but then they just go away.

they never stick around for years.

oscarkipling wrote:interesting, how do you know that?

which part do you mean?

zone wrote:what we know oscar is that true atheists (who are actually a very tiny minority in the world).

zone wrote:generally just go about their lives and do not care about debating. ocassionally they sign up to grind an axe for awhile. but then they just go away.

zone wrote:they never stick around for years.

oscarkipling wrote:interesting, how do you know that?

um...cuz i've been at this for years?
let's talk about it if you want.