Slashdot Mirror

To to moron moderators who are actually modding me troll just because some anti-semite Anonymous Coward says to, read this first.

Here, read this, asshole, and tell me, please, with a straight face, that it is I who have the "agenda" here and not you:

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/HistoryJewishPersecution/

My comment is obviously NOT trolling to anyone who has ever cared to open a history book, without some agenda to cover something up.

Really? How do you square that with:

• "God does not play dice with the universe.", OR
• "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"?

Try finding out what Einstein meant by God. Hint: it's utterly alien to your apparent conception or that of anyone who cleaves to ID or indeed to any of today's major religions.

In 1929, Einstein was asked in a telegram by Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein whether he believed in God. Einstein responded by telegram: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

You'll find that quote and references to it in lots of places, including Wikipedia's articles on Baruch Spinoza, on pantheism, and on Albert Einstein, among others. In fact, it's hard to see how you avoided the linked article on Einstein's religious views where he described himself as being agnostic since the age of twelve, and also stated the year before his death:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.

Or maybe it's not so hard, as even the most superficial inquiry would have devastated your position.

Really? How do you square that with:

• "God does not play dice with the universe.", OR
• "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"?

Actually no, like many modern traditions the actual origins are much more convoluted. A list like this, or several, usually make the rounds about this time of year. Fist time I had seen this particular one but they are all pretty much the same:

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm

And Christians are so quick to believe that Christmas is such an innocuous subject and yet would be up in arms if the school play or carols dealt with another religion. They don't want to see a school play depicting the miracle of the lamp oil that should have lasted only 1 night but lasted 8 nights (the basis for Chanukah) and they don't want their kids learning songs about dradles. Why should students and parents from other religions be forced to see plays and sing songs about Christmas when they're not allowed to see plays and sing songs about their own religion?

I've sometimes wondered about the origins of Christmas. I guess it's something for me to think about as my kids are opening their Christmas presents around the Christmas tree this year...

Uhm....

Merry Christmas!

I was really ignoring the "Iranian question" when talking with you.

I never studied logic, I just enjoy arguing, and you are a very good opponent.

my final question to you is this: if there is no superior moral authority, who is to determine that your solution is the correct one?

you might think everyone should be left to mind there own business, and another might think that everyone should be forced to follow his ideas. why is your opinion superior? you consider it superior, but why should I?

so far as I can see, there can be no standard values without god, and without standard values, anyone might decide let's say, that the ideal is that women would be sex slaves to men. the only way then in which you can argue is by winning physical dominance, such as through war.

as far as I can tell, without god you can't have civilization, unless everyone is brainwashed and incapable of independent thoughts, feelings, and desires. there may be other alternatives, but non of them seems to me capable of providing positive existence.

as to the link, I think it's this page. I know it's in that website anyway.

Most of the region was like that.

Damn, I was about to quote Herman Rauschning to you but I see his book has been declared fraudulent since I read it.

Anyway he claimed, perhaps falsely, that one of Hitler's approaches was to talk peace & treaty with neighbours over common geopolitical goals in order to stop them meddling, until it was prudent to turn on them.

That's partly why the Jews and Gypsies were chosen, because they were intra-state collectives and "dealing" with them is something European government has been doing for ever, be it Auswitch or planning directives.

The Jews, rightly, got plenty of world sympathy (though that word sounds a bit pale) whereas : Gypsies still among Europe's most discriminated-against people, EU center says

Some details at:

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_T heRealStory.htm

Of course, it'd probably be best if fundmentalists [sic] actually talked to, say, the rabbis who wrote the whole thing down. The Orthodox rabbis I've spoken find it amazingly amusing that people take the creation story as literal truth, rather then a story about YHWH's power.

Really? Do words mean anything?

Funny how astrophysics seems to have played right in to the hands of the Bible in the last 80 years. These guys below are NOT Christians, they are scientists. And the site the quotes come from is ........ Judaism Online!

"This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth... [But] for the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; [and] as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

- Robert Jastrow
(God and the Astronomers [New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1978], 116. Professor Jastrow was the founder of NASA's Goddard Institute, now director of the Mount Wilson Institute and its observatory.)

"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"

- George Greenstein (astronomer)
Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.

Source: http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Science_Quo tes.htm

The half-life of C14 does not mean that we can only date organic material 5730 years old and newer -- I'm not entirely certain where you got that information.
[btw, i never said that, i mentioned that it got sketchy past/near the half life, sure, my explanation below]
The half-life of C14 is the time it takes for half of a sample to undergo radioactive decay. The effective range of Carbon Dating seems to be about 50,000 years. There is a good article Here [wikipedia.org] that you might find enlightening.

As far as your understanding of the half life I am in agreement with, this is my problem with it - we currently know that about 21 pounds of nitrogen are converted into radioactive c14 in the atmosphere per year (mainly from a neutron colliding into a Nitrogen14 atom and also from both He 4 reacting with carbon13 and finally Oxygen17 reacting with neutrons). Now, when we go and try to estimate how old something is, using C14 dating, we assume that the rate of Nitrogen - > C14 conversion has remained constant throughout thousands of years. That is very skeptical. It is basically nothing short of an assumption. I believe there was far less C14 thousands of years ago, because of several obvious variables that didn't exist thousands of years ago.

There are actually several assumptions made with C14 dating, including:
a) the decay rate of c14 has always been the same (there is alot of evidence supporting this assumption overall, but not when put into a specific instance. lots of variables could cause c14 to decay faster in one specific creature, but not overall for everything that died the same year.)
b) the organic matter has not gained any c14 since being buried
c) the ratio of c12/c14 has remained constant throughout thousands of years
d) the organic matter was in equilibrium with biosphere when said organic matter was buried

The oldest tree in the world is a Bristlecone Pine named "Methuselah" -- It's 4,767 years old. Why isn't there an older tree? Perhaps changes in climate and geography over time, natural disasters (think: fire, etc.). It's preaty amazing anything could survive that long.

depending on who you go to for those numbers they fluctuate for hundereds of years. for all we know that tree could be 5.2k years old or 4.0k, I seriously doubt they would appreciate (or allow for that matter) multiple more drills to know a closer to exact estimation of its age.

what i find kind of interesting is that evolutionists are quick to dismiss the idea of a creator, and yet welcome with open arms the idea that all life came from a rock (which if you think about long enough, and trace the steps back, you will realize that is what they believe)

Not quite -- the oldest reef in the world is is located in a very odd place -- Vermont -- The Chazy Reef is estimated to be over 480 million years old. Though it has competition from Rowland's Reef in Nevada -- a multi-million year old bioherm. (Perhaps you shouldn't trust info you get from John Ankerberg?)

I'd like to thank you for bringing these to my attention, I will surely be investigating them further. As far as John Ankerberg, i've never heard of him but I will look into him as well.

id like to leave you with a few quotes from former atheist scientists and authors.

"It is, for example, impossible for evolution to account for the fact than one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together."
"It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."
- Anthony Flew
Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater

"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I