Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #581420 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-29 06:27 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-06-03 11:02 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 135 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 06:27 -0700
BJ Believes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 06:43 -0700
BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 06:54 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-29 12:58 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 09:15 -0500
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 07:18 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 10:45 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 07:51 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 12:13 -0400
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 10:54 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 08:14 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 12:18 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 08:19 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 12:20 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 11:38 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 14:38 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 13:49 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 00:24 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 09:36 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 13:01 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 10:43 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 12:27 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 11:48 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 15:10 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 12:37 -0700
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 14:50 -0500
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 17:32 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 01:12 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 03:45 -0700
Re: BJ Believes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 05:43 -0700
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 11:06 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 00:45 -0400
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 00:27 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 03:34 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 12:54 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 14:48 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 00:43 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 09:36 -0500
Re: BJ Believes ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-05-29 14:25 -0500
Re: BJ Believes "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-29 13:50 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-29 12:48 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 11:34 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 20:41 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 18:03 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 22:12 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 10:28 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 12:03 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 11:34 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 18:48 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 18:01 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 20:09 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 20:17 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 00:45 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 05:02 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 09:47 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:08 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:45 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 06:56 -0500
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 15:15 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 19:41 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 21:38 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 03:13 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:21 -0500
Re: BJ Believes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 05:50 -0700
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:00 -0500
Re: BJ Believes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 06:51 -0700
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:53 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:20 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:24 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:54 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:41 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:21 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:48 -0500
Re: BJ Believes Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:01 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:32 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 13:58 -0500
Re: BJ Believes Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 15:02 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 23:53 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 06:08 -0700
Re: BJ Believes ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-03 13:50 -0500
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 14:26 -0500
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:44 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:18 -0400
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 09:57 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:07 -0500
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:23 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:45 -0400
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:35 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:55 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:19 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:41 -0500
Re: BJ Believes ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-03 13:42 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 09:51 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:00 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:27 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:26 -0500
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 13:59 -0500
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 13:40 -0700
Re: BJ Believes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 21:11 +0000
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 17:38 -0400
Re: BJ Believes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-08 22:50 +0000
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 20:34 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-06-08 19:21 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-09 02:43 -0400
Re: BJ Believes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-09 02:34 +0000
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-09 02:48 -0400
Re: BJ Believes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-09 16:34 +0000
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 17:27 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 21:16 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-09 03:38 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 01:56 -0700
Re: BJ Believes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 06:38 -0700
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 07:23 -0700
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 10:49 -0500
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-09 09:13 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 17:07 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 16:16 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 17:41 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 14:53 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-08 20:28 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-06-08 19:21 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-09 02:41 -0400
Re: BJ Believes "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 13:30 -0700
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 20:10 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 22:14 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 10:28 -0500
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 12:05 -0400
Re: BJ Believes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 11:36 -0500
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 04:13 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 12:00 -0400
Re: BJ Believes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 09:38 -0700
Re: BJ Believes benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 18:49 -0400
Re: BenJacoby would have everyone believe in Santa Claus. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 12:11 -0400
Re: Jesus Christ and Santa Claus were invented for people like you. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 19:07 -0400
Re: Correlation doesn’t imply causation. ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-03 11:02 -0500
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 10:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nikbec$vdv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581857 |
On 5/31/2016 9:54 AM, benj wrote: > On 05/31/2016 10:15 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/29/2016 8:54 AM, HVAC wrote: >>> john >>> Haha. >>> Read the deathbed confession >>> of the head scientist at Area 51 >> >> He was not the "head scientist" at Area 51, John. You made that up. > > Like HVAC never made anything up in his life! The ONLY HVAC question of > relevance is what has he NOT made up? I'm really surprised to learn > that I am the head "alien ghost hunter" at Area 51. Odd, why do you > believe all that ignorant nonsense HVAC spews? I thought you were a > better amateur scientist than that. I don't pay a lot of attention to the splatter between you and HVAC. > > Actually HVAC needs to know I worked in Area 10 not 51. And unlike you > that is not a lie. > >>> CONFIRMING what kooks say. >>> Boyd Bushman is a hero >>> ----------- >>> >>> Isn't he the kook who was pushing the 'alien ghost' picture? >>> >>> John, do you believe in ghosts? Please answer honestly. Have no >>> fear. I'll make sure no one makes fun of you > > What is YOUR religious beliefs, Odd. HVAC wants to know. He thinks > science is religion. Why are you bringing me into your paintball battle with HVAC? > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 12:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <574dbb70$0$5105$b1db1813$65575428@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #581875 |
On 05/31/2016 11:43 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/31/2016 9:54 AM, benj wrote: >> On 05/31/2016 10:15 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 5/29/2016 8:54 AM, HVAC wrote: >>>> john >>>> Haha. >>>> Read the deathbed confession >>>> of the head scientist at Area 51 >>> >>> He was not the "head scientist" at Area 51, John. You made that up. >> >> Like HVAC never made anything up in his life! The ONLY HVAC question of >> relevance is what has he NOT made up? I'm really surprised to learn >> that I am the head "alien ghost hunter" at Area 51. Odd, why do you >> believe all that ignorant nonsense HVAC spews? I thought you were a >> better amateur scientist than that. > > I don't pay a lot of attention to the splatter between you and HVAC. Excellent intelligent choice, Boinker! Nothing of value there for anyone of normal or greater intellectual capacity. >> Actually HVAC needs to know I worked in Area 10 not 51. And unlike you >> that is not a lie. >> >>>> CONFIRMING what kooks say. >>>> Boyd Bushman is a hero >>>> ----------- >>>> >>>> Isn't he the kook who was pushing the 'alien ghost' picture? >>>> >>>> John, do you believe in ghosts? Please answer honestly. Have no >>>> fear. I'll make sure no one makes fun of you >> >> What is YOUR religious beliefs, Odd. HVAC wants to know. He thinks >> science is religion. > > Why are you bringing me into your paintball battle with HVAC? I want to you agree with me that science is not religion. That science is not about belief. I want you to denounce HVAC as a heretic and kook! It's for the good of all reading here. I'm all about public service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 11:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nikf90$15pv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581897 |
On 5/31/2016 11:27 AM, benj wrote: > On 05/31/2016 11:43 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> What is YOUR religious beliefs, Odd. HVAC wants to know. He thinks >>> science is religion. >> >> Why are you bringing me into your paintball battle with HVAC? > > I want to you agree with me that science is not religion. That science > is not about belief. I want you to denounce HVAC as a heretic and kook! You're not going to have very much luck manipulating me. Belief is different than faith. Faith is belief without need for observational evidence. Science is belief based on observational evidence. Belief and knowledge are all on a gradient -- there is no good boundary line for a distinction between the two. There is nothing in science that is known with absolute certainty, and so you would be hard pressed to declare that so-and-so is KNOWN and this-or-that is only BELIEVED. > > It's for the good of all reading here. I'm all about public service. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 15:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <574de1c0$0$28963$c3e8da3$88b277c5@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #581905 |
On 05/31/2016 12:48 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/31/2016 11:27 AM, benj wrote: >> On 05/31/2016 11:43 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> What is YOUR religious beliefs, Odd. HVAC wants to know. He thinks >>>> science is religion. >>> >>> Why are you bringing me into your paintball battle with HVAC? >> >> I want to you agree with me that science is not religion. That science >> is not about belief. I want you to denounce HVAC as a heretic and kook! > > You're not going to have very much luck manipulating me. > Belief is different than faith. > Faith is belief without need for observational evidence. > Science is belief based on observational evidence. > Belief and knowledge are all on a gradient -- there is no good boundary > line for a distinction between the two. There is nothing in science that > is known with absolute certainty, and so you would be hard pressed to > declare that so-and-so is KNOWN and this-or-that is only BELIEVED. Exactly! Except you seem to think that somehow belief based on evidence is science. I think the word is not quite the right one for science. If you BELIEVE in ghosts because of this or that evidence, it still means that in your mind ghosts are absolutely true. Sure faith requires no evidence, but the basics of assumed reality are the same I say. In science one says that this or that evidence "suggests" something may be true. Or one can say I "suspect" that this or that is true. Or I surmise that it might be true, or even I am convinced that it's probably true. The key is as you say in science there is no "true". Nobody knows exactly what "true" is. So basically it's all this long guessing game. You look at evidence and take a guess at what might be "true" based on that, knowing full well that you are NEVER going to be able to attain real "truth" only work toward it. Hence to demand that someone declare they "believe" in something and then call that "science" is nonsense. Don't you agree?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 12:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <97dd5fec-e090-4193-9d0a-d18445b85f5d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #581947 |
BJ quacked In science one says that this or that evidence "suggests" something may be true. Or one can say I "suspect" that this or that is true. Or I surmise that it might be true, or even I am convinced that it's probably true. The key is as you say in science there is no "true". Nobody knows exactly what "true" is. So basically it's all this long guessing game. You look at evidence and take a guess at what might be "true" based on that, knowing full well that you are NEVER going to be able to attain real "truth" only work toward it. ---------- And that's why BJ believes in ghosts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 14:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nikptp$1mji$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581954 |
On 5/31/2016 2:37 PM, HVAC wrote: > BJ quacked > In science one says that this or that evidence "suggests" something may > be true. Or one can say I "suspect" that this or that is true. Or I > surmise that it might be true, or even I am convinced that it's probably > true. The key is as you say in science there is no "true". Nobody knows > exactly what "true" is. So basically it's all this long guessing game. > You look at evidence and take a guess at what might be "true" based on > that, knowing full well that you are NEVER going to be able to attain > real "truth" only work toward it. > ---------- > > And that's why BJ believes in ghosts > Ben is ghost-agnostic. He doesn't know whether there are ghosts or not. People don't have to be shoehorned into "reject without reservation" or "buy into wholesale". -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 17:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b1cb5ea1-cf0d-4726-9828-b5d7d9739468@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #581956 |
Odd Bodkin Ben is ghost-agnostic. He doesn't know whether there are ghosts or not. People don't have to be shoehorned into "reject without reservation" or "buy into wholesale". --------- BJ had said he believes in "persistence of consciousness" after death...Said those words himself. That doesn't sound agnostic to me. However, he has tried to walk that back a bit lately
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 01:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <574e6edc$0$7269$c3e8da3$66d3cc2f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #582011 |
On 05/31/2016 08:32 PM, HVAC drooled: > Odd Bodkin Ben is ghost-agnostic. He doesn't know whether there are > ghosts or not. People don't have to be shoehorned into "reject > without reservation" or "buy into wholesale". --------- > > BJ had said he believes in "persistence of consciousness" after > death...Said those words himself. That doesn't sound agnostic to me. > However, he has tried to walk that back a bit lately > Odd, I did indeed introduce HVAC to the term "persistence of consciousness" as I am something of a "wordsmith" myself, you know. HVAC immediately got wood and has been giggling over the term and repeating it to himself and anyone who will listen ever since. I love having HVAC in my fan club! But obviously inventing (HVAC will say I plagiarized it from some kook website...the only person he allows to have credit for anything is himself) and writing the term as opposed to believing in it are two different things to a sane person. Of course that condition leaves HVAC out which is why he lies about it. I once said "HVAC" and "shit" in the same sentence and you know what that means I believe...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 03:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a52923d-baac-46f1-befb-6d9c058834c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582067 |
BJ quacked Odd, I did indeed introduce HVAC to the term "persistence of consciousness" as I am something of a "wordsmith" myself, you know ----------- You stole the gay phrase 'persistence of consciousness', so I just wanted to clear that up. Stop being ashamed of your belief in ghosts. Own it, as well as the rest of your kooky beliefs. "God is the universe and everything in it". Seriously, that is the gayest thing you've said since you said you believed in ghosts. Oh... And ether is gay too
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 05:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cf075cdf-5d1c-43d9-a9e5-bf629486bf2b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582115 |
Deathbed confessions hold no sway with HVAC. He's gonna be a'partyin and a'lyin right til the end :) Fun times, bobby!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 11:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nin15l$1i3m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #582122 |
On 6/1/2016 7:43 AM, john wrote:
> Deathbed confessions hold no sway
> with HVAC.
> He's gonna be a'partyin and a'lyin right
> til the end
> :)
> Fun times, bobby!!
>
It's remarkable you give deathbed confessions special credence, John.
It might be worth looking at how the law treats deathbed confessions, in
particular whether they are to be considered more trustworthy than
on-the-stand testimony.
You may also be interested in how psychologists view deathbed
confessions and whether the confessors would be more likely or less
likely to be telling the truth.
Keep in mind, John, this is not about what makes sense to YOU about
deathbed confessions. ("Why would they lie? What do they have to lose in
telling the truth?") This is about what EXPERTS on the subject might
have to say about them.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 00:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <574e6861$0$46645$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #581956 |
On 05/31/2016 03:50 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/31/2016 2:37 PM, HVAC wrote: >> BJ quacked >> In science one says that this or that evidence "suggests" something may >> be true. Or one can say I "suspect" that this or that is true. Or I >> surmise that it might be true, or even I am convinced that it's probably >> true. The key is as you say in science there is no "true". Nobody knows >> exactly what "true" is. So basically it's all this long guessing game. >> You look at evidence and take a guess at what might be "true" based on >> that, knowing full well that you are NEVER going to be able to attain >> real "truth" only work toward it. >> ---------- >> >> And that's why BJ believes in ghosts >> > > Ben is ghost-agnostic. He doesn't know whether there are ghosts or not. > People don't have to be shoehorned into "reject without reservation" or > "buy into wholesale". Good one Boinker! Are people who believe in ghosts called ghost-theist?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 00:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <574e641d$0$56143$c3e8da3$b1356c67@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #581954 |
On 05/31/2016 03:37 PM, HVAC drooled: > BJ quacked > In science one says that this or that evidence "suggests" something may > be true. Or one can say I "suspect" that this or that is true. Or I > surmise that it might be true, or even I am convinced that it's probably > true. The key is as you say in science there is no "true". Nobody knows > exactly what "true" is. So basically it's all this long guessing game. > You look at evidence and take a guess at what might be "true" based on > that, knowing full well that you are NEVER going to be able to attain > real "truth" only work toward it. > ---------- > > And that's why BJ believes in ghosts > Drool. You having a seizure again, HVAC? We are really concerned about you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 03:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <100e7a0a-2123-454e-b17f-ccecdc0ac416@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582059 |
BJ quacked > And that's why BJ believes in ghosts > You having a seizure again, HVAC? We are really concerned about you. ------------- "We"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 12:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <574f134e$0$2859$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #582114 |
On 06/01/2016 06:34 AM, HVAC wrote: > BJ quacked >> And that's why BJ believes in ghosts >> > > You having a seizure again, HVAC? > > We are really concerned about you. > ------------- > > "We"? > All of us here who don't believe your lies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-31 14:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nikppn$1mji$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581947 |
On 5/31/2016 2:10 PM, benj wrote: > On 05/31/2016 12:48 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/31/2016 11:27 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 05/31/2016 11:43 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >>>>> What is YOUR religious beliefs, Odd. HVAC wants to know. He thinks >>>>> science is religion. >>>> >>>> Why are you bringing me into your paintball battle with HVAC? >>> >>> I want to you agree with me that science is not religion. That science >>> is not about belief. I want you to denounce HVAC as a heretic and kook! >> >> You're not going to have very much luck manipulating me. >> Belief is different than faith. >> Faith is belief without need for observational evidence. >> Science is belief based on observational evidence. >> Belief and knowledge are all on a gradient -- there is no good boundary >> line for a distinction between the two. There is nothing in science that >> is known with absolute certainty, and so you would be hard pressed to >> declare that so-and-so is KNOWN and this-or-that is only BELIEVED. > > Exactly! Except you seem to think that somehow belief based on evidence > is science. I think the word is not quite the right one for science. I disagree. I think scientists BELIEVE the law of conservation of momentum is true. > If > you BELIEVE in ghosts because of this or that evidence, it still means > that in your mind ghosts are absolutely true. Absolutely true? No, not necessarily. One can be led by the evidence to say that it is LIKELY ghosts are true, especially if one places a lot of stock in the evidence. Belief and knowledge both are sliding scales of certainty. For some propositions, some people hold them with enough certainty that counterevidence would make them physically disoriented. Most people are REASONABLY certain that the sun will come up tomorrow, though most people will also disavow any absolute certainty. > Sure faith requires no > evidence, but the basics of assumed reality are the same I say. > > In science one says that this or that evidence "suggests" something may > be true. Or one can say I "suspect" that this or that is true. Or I > surmise that it might be true, or even I am convinced that it's probably > true. The key is as you say in science there is no "true". Nobody knows > exactly what "true" is. So basically it's all this long guessing game. Yes. But that's true for just about anything we say we believe. There is no absolute certainty about ANYTHING, but for all practical purposes people may conduct their lives as though this claim or that one is true without reservation. > You look at evidence and take a guess at what might be "true" based on > that, knowing full well that you are NEVER going to be able to attain > real "truth" only work toward it. > > Hence to demand that someone declare they "believe" in something and > then call that "science" is nonsense. I don't think that BELIEVE carries with it a connotation of absolute truth. As I said, all "knowledge" and "belief" are on a sliding gradient of certainty, with absolutely nothing sitting at the 100.0000% certainty point. > > Don't you agree? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 00:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <574e67fd$0$46645$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #581955 |
On 05/31/2016 03:48 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/31/2016 2:10 PM, benj wrote: >> On 05/31/2016 12:48 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 5/31/2016 11:27 AM, benj wrote: >>>> On 05/31/2016 11:43 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> >>>>>> What is YOUR religious beliefs, Odd. HVAC wants to know. He thinks >>>>>> science is religion. >>>>> >>>>> Why are you bringing me into your paintball battle with HVAC? >>>> >>>> I want to you agree with me that science is not religion. That science >>>> is not about belief. I want you to denounce HVAC as a heretic and kook! >>> >>> You're not going to have very much luck manipulating me. >>> Belief is different than faith. >>> Faith is belief without need for observational evidence. >>> Science is belief based on observational evidence. >>> Belief and knowledge are all on a gradient -- there is no good boundary >>> line for a distinction between the two. There is nothing in science that >>> is known with absolute certainty, and so you would be hard pressed to >>> declare that so-and-so is KNOWN and this-or-that is only BELIEVED. >> >> Exactly! Except you seem to think that somehow belief based on evidence >> is science. I think the word is not quite the right one for science. > > I disagree. I think scientists BELIEVE the law of conservation of > momentum is true. > >> If >> you BELIEVE in ghosts because of this or that evidence, it still means >> that in your mind ghosts are absolutely true. > > Absolutely true? No, not necessarily. One can be led by the evidence to > say that it is LIKELY ghosts are true, especially if one places a lot of > stock in the evidence. > > Belief and knowledge both are sliding scales of certainty. For some > propositions, some people hold them with enough certainty that > counterevidence would make them physically disoriented. Most people are > REASONABLY certain that the sun will come up tomorrow, though most > people will also disavow any absolute certainty. > >> Sure faith requires no >> evidence, but the basics of assumed reality are the same I say. >> >> In science one says that this or that evidence "suggests" something may >> be true. Or one can say I "suspect" that this or that is true. Or I >> surmise that it might be true, or even I am convinced that it's probably >> true. The key is as you say in science there is no "true". Nobody knows >> exactly what "true" is. So basically it's all this long guessing game. > > Yes. But that's true for just about anything we say we believe. There is > no absolute certainty about ANYTHING, but for all practical purposes > people may conduct their lives as though this claim or that one is true > without reservation. > >> You look at evidence and take a guess at what might be "true" based on >> that, knowing full well that you are NEVER going to be able to attain >> real "truth" only work toward it. >> >> Hence to demand that someone declare they "believe" in something and >> then call that "science" is nonsense. > > I don't think that BELIEVE carries with it a connotation of absolute > truth. As I said, all "knowledge" and "belief" are on a sliding gradient > of certainty, with absolutely nothing sitting at the 100.0000% certainty > point. > >> >> Don't you agree? Well if you want "believe to be on a sliding scale of truth (lawyer-definition, right?) I suppose usage might support some of that. I know you don't believe in dictionaries and prefer your own made-up definitions to words but... Believe (intransitive verb) 1a. to have a firm religious faith 1b. to accept trustfully and on faith 2. to have a firm conviction as to the reality of something. Believe (transitive verb) 1. To consider to be true. 2. To hold an opinion So there is a bit of "sliding scale) here so far as to "believe something", but not much. If you say "I believe in ghosts" then that says in your mind ghosts are "true". IF you say "I believe it will rain", you are saying in your opinion it will rain, but since everybody knows that nobody who does not have superpowers cannot really know for sure if it will or will not rain, common usage therefore connotes the meaning of an opinion. Of course HVAC DOES have superpowers so "believe" to him clearly implies that whatever it is is "true" and "real" in the mind of the believer. Which more less reflects the position I started with. How say you to the jury, counselor?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 09:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nimrsu$10f6$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #582060 |
On 5/31/2016 11:43 PM, benj wrote: > On 05/31/2016 03:48 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/31/2016 2:10 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 05/31/2016 12:48 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/31/2016 11:27 AM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 05/31/2016 11:43 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> What is YOUR religious beliefs, Odd. HVAC wants to know. He thinks >>>>>>> science is religion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why are you bringing me into your paintball battle with HVAC? >>>>> >>>>> I want to you agree with me that science is not religion. That science >>>>> is not about belief. I want you to denounce HVAC as a heretic and >>>>> kook! >>>> >>>> You're not going to have very much luck manipulating me. >>>> Belief is different than faith. >>>> Faith is belief without need for observational evidence. >>>> Science is belief based on observational evidence. >>>> Belief and knowledge are all on a gradient -- there is no good boundary >>>> line for a distinction between the two. There is nothing in science >>>> that >>>> is known with absolute certainty, and so you would be hard pressed to >>>> declare that so-and-so is KNOWN and this-or-that is only BELIEVED. >>> >>> Exactly! Except you seem to think that somehow belief based on evidence >>> is science. I think the word is not quite the right one for science. >> >> I disagree. I think scientists BELIEVE the law of conservation of >> momentum is true. >> >>> If >>> you BELIEVE in ghosts because of this or that evidence, it still means >>> that in your mind ghosts are absolutely true. >> >> Absolutely true? No, not necessarily. One can be led by the evidence to >> say that it is LIKELY ghosts are true, especially if one places a lot of >> stock in the evidence. >> >> Belief and knowledge both are sliding scales of certainty. For some >> propositions, some people hold them with enough certainty that >> counterevidence would make them physically disoriented. Most people are >> REASONABLY certain that the sun will come up tomorrow, though most >> people will also disavow any absolute certainty. >> >>> Sure faith requires no >>> evidence, but the basics of assumed reality are the same I say. >>> >>> In science one says that this or that evidence "suggests" something may >>> be true. Or one can say I "suspect" that this or that is true. Or I >>> surmise that it might be true, or even I am convinced that it's probably >>> true. The key is as you say in science there is no "true". Nobody knows >>> exactly what "true" is. So basically it's all this long guessing game. >> >> Yes. But that's true for just about anything we say we believe. There is >> no absolute certainty about ANYTHING, but for all practical purposes >> people may conduct their lives as though this claim or that one is true >> without reservation. >> >>> You look at evidence and take a guess at what might be "true" based on >>> that, knowing full well that you are NEVER going to be able to attain >>> real "truth" only work toward it. >>> >>> Hence to demand that someone declare they "believe" in something and >>> then call that "science" is nonsense. >> >> I don't think that BELIEVE carries with it a connotation of absolute >> truth. As I said, all "knowledge" and "belief" are on a sliding gradient >> of certainty, with absolutely nothing sitting at the 100.0000% certainty >> point. >> >>> >>> Don't you agree? > > Well if you want "believe to be on a sliding scale of truth > (lawyer-definition, right?) I suppose usage might support some of that. > I know you don't believe in dictionaries and prefer your own made-up > definitions to words but... > > Believe (intransitive verb) > 1a. to have a firm religious faith > 1b. to accept trustfully and on faith > > 2. to have a firm conviction as to the reality of something. > > Believe (transitive verb) > > 1. To consider to be true. > > 2. To hold an opinion > > So there is a bit of "sliding scale) here so far as to "believe > something", but not much. > > If you say "I believe in ghosts" then that says in your mind ghosts are > "true". IF you say "I believe it will rain", you are saying in your > opinion it will rain, but since everybody knows that nobody who does not > have superpowers cannot really know for sure if it will or will not > rain, common usage therefore connotes the meaning of an opinion. > > Of course HVAC DOES have superpowers so "believe" to him clearly implies > that whatever it is is "true" and "real" in the mind of the believer. > Which more less reflects the position I started with. > > How say you to the jury, counselor? > I think the definition above indicates that belief is on a sliding scale as I indicated. You can say you believe the sun will come up tomorrow, and you can have a pretty firm conviction that this is true, but you will also probably allow that there is a slim chance that it will not happen -- the sun might blow up, the earth might blow up, the earth might stop its rotation, etc. There are all sorts of contexts where belief is interpreted to be some dominance of certainty over doubt. But to what degree depends on the context: - believing a man on trial is guilty - believing that a family member actually exists - believing that a family member did yesterday what they claim they did - believing that a place you've never visited exists - believing that dinosaurs roamed the earth - believing that democracy is the best political system - believing that atoms exist - believing that Jesus Christ actually lived - believing that people have reported seeing ghosts - believing that ghost really exist -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 14:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <zc2btmb9kon$.1lyjotxjm5h68$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #581426 |
On Sun, 29 May 2016 06:43:06 -0700 (PDT), john wrote:
> Boyd Bushman
Did he sell anything based on such ideas?
--
"Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And
have a good laugh when it seeps down on
your face."
- Bert
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 13:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nifkn3$763$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #581545 |
"ClutterFreak" <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> aka the Iranian Muslim Mehram Maleki is still under the grip and control of the deranged 88 year old Jew <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> Bert Glazier. ROTFLMAO
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web