Re: An Open Letter to [Hammond]

From: stew dean (stewart_at_webslave.dircon.co.uk)
Date: 10/01/04 

Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 15:36:02 +0000 (UTC)

"George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message news:<y4KdnfZOMaXgM8bcRVn-iA@comcast.com>...
> "Richard Crawford" <rscrawCOWford@mossREMOVEHERBIVOREroot.com> wrote in
> message news:cjeq9o$55q$2@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
> > George Hammond wrote:
> > > "Richard Crawford" <rscrawCOWford@mossREMOVEHERBIVOREroot.com> wrote in
> > > message news:cjbvq5$8ck$1@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
> > >
> > >>George Hammond wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>"Richard Crawford" <rscrawCOWford@mossREMOVEHERBIVOREroot.com> wrote in
> > >>>message news:cj9tam$jih$1@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>bv_schornak wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>stew dean wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>George Hammond wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>3. STUNNINGLY, it now appears that modern Science has
> > >>>>>>> actually (by brute force) discovered a proof that "God"
> > >>>>>>> is actually physically real, this proof coming from 55
> > >>>>>>>years of computerized Factor Analysis in Psychometry
> > >>>>>>>and 80 years of General relativity.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>It appears you're the only one, so far, to think this. Until you
> > >>>>>>convince others I would save your proclomations.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Hm, but the "brute force" thingy is true, don't you think? :)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Greetings from Augsburg
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Bernhard Schornak
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>If God is physically real, then why don't we see him?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>[Hammond]
> > >>>Watch your step there bigshot.... some people can.
> > >>>This is how you separate the men from the boys...
> > >>>the men can see him, the boys can't.
> > >>
> > >>Arrogance is no substitute for content. And arrogance is dull, not
> > >>interesting. It isn't even funny. Try a different approach.
> > >
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > I'll be the judge of that thank you.
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>> A tai chi master, a CEO, a 5 Star General are all
> > >>>examples of men who can "see God" when they
> > >>>look at other people. They "can see" who other
> > >>>people actually are, even when those people don't know
> > >>>it themselves. This is called "seeing God", and all power,
> > >>>all politics, all leadership, and all hope is based on it....
> > >>>and YOU have yet to discover it or understand it.
> > >>>Our mission is to save you!
> > >>
> > >>I don't understand why you're taking this approach. The best I can
> > >>figure is that you're mixing up some metaphors here.
> > >
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > I know what you think. I'm not "answering questions" when
> > > I talk to you.... I'm directing your thinking without you knowing it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>As Christians, we are called to see the Christ in all our brothers and
> > >>sisters (or, at least, so I have been taught, and so I believe). But
> > >>this is not meant to be taken literally; indeed, as in most religious
> > >>thought, to take something literally is to miss the point. I try to see
> > >>the Christ in all others, and I try to act appropriately: meaning that I
> > >>try (and fail all too often) to treat all others with love and charity
> > >>and humility. But to literally "see God" in them is to turn other
> > >>people into objects of worship, which they are not.
> > >
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Have you ever watched the movment displays of a Karate or
> > > Tai Chi master.... all those strange fascinationg jestures
> > > before the actual physical engagement with an opponent.
> > > What do you think that is chief?..... an arobic warmup
> > > exercise? No, its not.... that's him mimicking his opponent..
> > > "proving" to his opponent that he "can see him as an adult
> > > can see a child".... he is "warning" his opponent not to
> > > attack him or he'll tear his head off..... because he can
> > > "see him". You got a lot to learn chief. the fundamental
> > > reason Donald Trump is a millionaire and you've only got
> > > an IRA account is that he can "see you".
> > > Ever heard the expression "places to go and people to see"...
> > > well that's what a lot of misguided "seers" spend their life
> > > doing.... you know.... those intimidating panhandlers
> > > hanging out down town... those nasty telemarketers who
> > > you can't get off the phone... those pushy car salesman...
> > > that's the ONLY talent they have... they were born with it,
> > > and never bothered to do anything constructivbe with it...
> > > just spend their entire life ripping off "blind" people.
> > > I guess that's where the expression "take it easy" comes from.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>But if other people really are God, then what are you doing in claiming
> > >>that God is *a* (note the use of the singular here, which you have used
> > >>yourself) physical, real being.
>
> [Hammond]
> People are "real physical beings" so therefore "god" is a real
> physical being... he is however not in the flesh (being ungrown)
> he is therefore "invisible", and yet his influence and actions are
> materially visible and measureable in human behavior and in
> human perception of "reality"... because it (God) changes their
> "reality" we say that "God controls reality" which he does.
>
>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > "God" is a "perfect man" (i.e. a "fully grown" man). There is no
> > > such thing on Earth. Therefore "actual man" is divided into two parts.
> > > the "grown" part of him is standing in front of you. the "ungrown"
> > > part of him (especially his mind) is said to be "in heaven". However,
> > > through common usage, the word "God" commonly means only the
> > > invisible (in heaven) part of God.
> >
> > Well, heck, George. I guess your proof *does* work. I mean, all it
> > takes is a redefinition of every term you use to mean what you want it
> > to mean and vitriol against anyone who uses any other definition. Kind
> > of the Glenn Sheldon school of argumentation.
>
> [Hammond]
> I don't think that's an adequate substitute for pointing out that you
> are scientifically unqualified to "challenge" the theory (which is the only
> thing
> you are interested in). Sorry.

Not a substitute as chest beating about qualifications isnt valid in
the first place. It's called argument from authority and is one of
Carl Sagan's test for balony.

In other words it's not relevent. Your arguments need to stand up on
their own two legs. What qualifications you have or do not have has no
relevence. Science does not need qualifications in order to follow it,
what it requires is knowledge, imagination and understanding. These do
not appear when you get a qualification.

Just as the map is not the terrain, the qualification is not the
knowledge.

Stew Dean

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Britains Bird Flu tests
    ... you have been holding out to have relevent ... qualifications needed ... I think it is time to cease harassing me. ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: Britains Bird Flu tests
    ... you have been holding out to have relevent ... qualifications needed ... I think it is time to cease harassing me. ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)