Comments on: Quick Update About Ottawa + Video

By: Harvard

Harvard — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:50:02 +0000

When someone tries to dominate the space by posting a number of silly messages per day, he becomes almost invisible, because readers recognize the name, and skip over it, knowing the message will contain more nonsense. Thus, by trolling and botheration, he destroys any credibility he may have started with. The best way to be ignored is to jump up and down screaming, “Look at me! Look at me!”

By: Jeff K

Jeff K — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 05:18:29 +0000

That said, I really should defend myself, Harvard, I suppose;

My “words”, as you call them, are part of a conversation designed to engage you in a contract to perform an experiment, and you have not lived up to your side of the contract (or to meaningfully engage in it by taking up the contract [experiment]).

You can videotape the experiment, add a musical score and fireworks if you want, and then upload it to youtube, where we can all view it and then resort back to this ancient “word” system to see if my experiment under your guidance and execution is the first of its kind in the world, or if it is not.

By: Jeff K

Jeff K — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:01:25 +0000

Harvard: Oooh aaahh.

Say, someone accused me of being a pantheist somewhere along the line. Here’s some censored ammunition to spot creationist books you might be interested in:

http://file.sunshinepress.org:54445/how-to-spot-a-hidden-religious-agenda-2009.html

Just words, but you might find them useful. I’m not here to embarrass you Harvard. Take away something you can use from my “meanderings”.

By: Harvard

Harvard — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:35:46 +0000

Dear Jeff K
All your words are just that: words.
There is no evidence in anything you have put forth.
You call me an atheist – but you dont know me. I am simply asking questions, which have not been answered.
Many of your comments about “me” make me smile – because you dont know me, my profession, my background, my education, etc.
However, you call yourself a scientist and an authority, yet we have found no authority or science yet from your meanderings.
Instead of attacking the questioner, attack the question. Submit some physical evidence.
If you can unearth evidence for the existence of any gods, then you will be the first in the history of the world to do so. Good luck, my friend.
Words alone are not evidence. Physical demonstrations can be evidence. Evidence is a set of undeniable facts that convince everyone on earth that the claim they back up is true. You – being an authority and a scientist – must know this.
I like the term “misplaced bravado.” Don’t you, Mr K?

By: Jeff K

Jeff K — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:12:31 +0000

Harvard, a 3rd experiment or proof if you will. I need only establish that an anonymous poster exists who is an atheist in name only for an ulterior motive, or through mesmerism, then I can treat the set of anonymous posters unwilling to go to book stores, watch popular movies or examine epistemology as a group containing (some) atheists in name only.

Maybe that was more of a mathematical proof. Then through process of reasoning (credibility), I establish that people unwilling to pick up introductions to philosophy, watch popular movies and go to book stores lack the credibility to be president of the center for inquiry and should resign immediately, if they should find themselves in such positions.

Its very scientific, mathematics is one of those sciences you can actually prove things in text on a website with.

By: Jeff K.

Jeff K. — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:07:11 +0000

Harvard, I just thought of another experiment. Its a bit like self-hypnosis.

Suppose you learn that most Japanese self-identify as not-believing in God. Suppose you fall in love with Japanese society, and you are I dunno, maybe 20.

Now suppose you watch “Cape 7″, the #1 movie of all time hailing from Taiwan.

Now let’s paraphrase one of the main characters (a beautiful woman supposedly Japanese working near Taipei). She said “When you belittle the Japanese, remember that I am from Japan.” Anyway, let’s suppose you will do anything to be part of the Japanese self-identification of “not believing in God” a rather roundabout term I’m using to avoid “atheist” can I call it “kami ga inai”?

So anyway, the influence of the mesmerism of Japan on Taiwan is depicted in the movie.

…and it ends beautifully with the mesmerism intact and this town in Taiwan wonderfully portrayed.

The hypnotism of the movie is compelling. Its masterful. Mesmerizing. Astounding, and you don’t have to believe in God, *but* whoops!!

You’ve been mesmerized! You will claim atheism, buddhism, you will do anything to promote this movie.

Well, anyway, I would. Except that such mesmerism is a god-like power.

By: Jeff K.

Jeff K. — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:22:54 +0000

Harvard, one other thing, compelling evidence I have. I think the question for you is, what does my evidence do for you. This is a philosophical question.

Hypothetically, suppose I showed you a youtube video I made. It’s convincing to me, maybe I just wanted to prove I knew how to upload to youtube. You may have wanted the video to prove that a higher power did it.

Then you’re into the language. “Did it”, as in “Did what, exactly?”. Am I a movie producer? Do I use special effects? As an atheist, you will certainly think so, it is part of your philosophy.

So this leaves you with the experimental part of science. Why do you not carry out my suggested experiment? I have carried out my experiments day after day, I just did another one 10 minutes ago.

Why don’t you take a chance on one of my fascinating experiments to break the atheism spell? Afraid of something? Afraid of what you’ll find?

Afraid Daniel C. Dennet is a complete waste of selfish, atheist introversion and misplaced bravado? Go ahead, pick up one of his books, prove to me he is anything but just another anti-Christian, like many of the rest. Suggest an experiment. I will peer-review it for you.

By: Jeff K

Jeff K — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:25:39 +0000

Harvard, prime mover and “nature” are defintions pertaining to someone’s firm belief and definition of their god (Spinoza, Aquinas, whomever). They have prosented sufficient evidence that these definitions match. This is an exercise above science in the philosophical area.

This is mostly because “time” has not been explained in our science, aside from its intricate relationship to the velocity of light and the permittivity and permeability of free-space (more simply, that which is “length”).

So again, the prime mover is a simple definition. As a scientist I like to think about it as the “time” aspect, but Aquinas wrote whatever he did. My favorite book on the topic is “An Introduction to Time”, a perfectly conventional accessible book.

Anyway, I have the largest pile of evidence this side of Mecca for the existence of strange powers in the universe. Alas, I own it. I’m such a materialist.

Anyway Harvard, your hung up on “Epistemology”. Access to evidence for you probably won’t penetrate your atheism until you pick up a intro on philosophy.

Try the bookstore experiment. It’s really just old-fashion detective work, but atheism works against it, you’ll see.

By: Harvard

Harvard — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:54:21 +0000

Dear Jeff K
Being an authority and a scientist, you know that evidence involves facts, documentation, and testimony by eye witnesses. In addition, evidence is the result of experimental data from scientific observation that supports a theory based on a reputable journal or paper that has undergone a process of peer review and has been accepted by the scientific community.
.
“Nature itself is seen as god” is a claim that has no evidence to back it up. Also, the concept of the prime mover may be an interesting theory, but there is no evidence to back it up. Neither of the above claims has been accepted by the scientific community – of which you are a member. Every scientist and authority – as you are – knows that the mere mention of a statement in a book doesn’t make it true.
.
We all expect, everyone on earth – no matter what religion – that events and situations in our lives be rational. Irrationality and unreason are not acceptable to anyone, anywhere. Therefore, the only way to convince someone of the truth of your claim is by means of logic, reason, and evidence. However, the claims of religionists are not backed by any logic, reason, or evidence.
Evidence is a set of undeniable facts that convince everyone on earth that the claim they back up is true. Being an authority and a scientist yourself, Mr. K, you know this process must be rigorous and compelling. No religionist has yet come up with any compelling evidence to back up his claim that any type of god or gods exist.

By: Mat

Mat — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:01:01 +0000

If everything is God does that mean every baby is Jesus?