Re: A Letter to George Hammond, and all Christians for that matter.

From: RoyBoy (armageddon79_at_SPAMBAD.email.com)
Date: 06/14/04 

Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 15:57:36 -0400

"George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> "RoyBoy" <armageddon79@SPAMBAD.email.com> wrote in message
> news:iKRyc.9298$_V4.3726@read1.cgocable.net...
> > "George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > "RoyBoy" <armageddon79@SPAMBAD.email.com> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > "George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:D7qyc.11366$eu.8684@attbi_s02...
> > > > >
> > > > > "ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:10cjnshfcpsgn84@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "George Hammond" <research137@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
> > > > > > news:oaiyc.4808$zz.4797@attbi_s04...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Gwar" <xeno@xor.qua> wrote in message
> > > > > > >
news:Pine.BSF.4.31.0406110018500.29354-100000@localhost...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, George Hammond wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>> QED: "Observables" do not exist if
> > > > > > > > >>> "observers" do not exist.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Bull ***!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [Hammond]
> > > > > > > > > sorry, the statement is OBVIOUSLY CORRECT.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Just because you can imagine nothing existing when you
> > imagine
> > > > the
> > > > > case
> > > > > > > > when nobody exists, doesn't mean your thought
experiment
> > is
> > > > > successful.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Hammond]
> > > > > > > Gwar.... you've been smoking too much dope....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Obviously if no one exists- no one can imagine anything.
> > > > > > > What's wrong with you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Matter does not need my "imagination" to exist!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For someone who claims to have an advanced education -
your
> > > > statements
> > > > > > indicate your probably failed sandbox.
> > > > >
> > > > > [Hammond]
> > > > > You're stupid... which proves eductation means nothing.
> > > > > Answer THIS simple question:
> > > > >
> > > > > If all people died tomorrow morning, HOW
> > > > > would you prove that the Eiffel Tower still existed
> > > > > tomorrow night... or the entire Universe for that
> > > > > matter?
> > > > > Please just answer the question, moron.
> > > >
> > > > If all the people died,
> > > > who would be asking the question?
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Exactly my point. The question has no meaning,
> > > in fact doesn't even EXIST if all men are dead.
> >
> > Exactly, it has no meaning... just like your theory.
> > One of your many problems is, if all men (otherwise
> > known as humans) were dead, there could potentially
> > be plenty of things/people to ask.
> >
> > You're a narrow minded simpleton...
> > and your question illustrates that quite well.
> > Why should we assume humans are the only
> > lifeform of concequence?
>
> [Hammond]
> They ARE "the only lifeform of consequence" when
> it comes to "reality"... because:
>
> "Humans are the only life form who observe
> 'reality as we know it' ".

So? Reality 'as we know it' is different for every individual.
What is important is that not only is there an objective
reality which faces us (misconceptions or not), but it faces
others on this planet, and likely elsewhere in the
universe.

This theory is truly a waste of time... yes of course humans
support reality as they know it... that doesn't mean they
define reality! It means they define their reality... which is
small/large, accurate/inaccurate... results will vary for
each individual, but there is a big difference between defining
our reality and defining reality.

Quantcast