A revolution in thought

[davidm]

And, btw, peacegirl, no one is reading your cut and paste jobs of the buffoon's blather anymore.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't even acknowledge that Lessans had very good reasons for why he came to his conclusions.

Originally Posted by davidm

Dodging the question about NASA again, are we, you little ?

And, no, as a matter of fact, you have yet given us a single reason why anything he said is correct, and you have yet to name a single one of his "astute observations." Assertions that he made, are not obervations. Observations are empirical, what is observed.

Now, then, peacegirl, why does NASA said spacecraft to Mars and other bodies based on deleayed-time seeing? If they used Lessans' way, they would miss their targets every time. How do you explain that?

You are so very smug David. You believe they would miss their targets completely. That's a theory. It looks perfectly airtight, but I don't believe we see in delayed time, so I am going to place my bets on a claim that makes more sense to me. I will, therefore, continue to support Lessans' claim of efferent vision whether you like it or not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

And, btw, peacegirl, no one is reading your cut and paste jobs of the buffoon's blather anymore.

Do you think this changes anything David? Come on, use your brain a little bit?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so very smug David. You believe they would miss their targets completely. That's a theory. It looks perfectly airtight, but I don't believe we see in delayed time, so I am going to place my bets on a claim that makes more sense to me. I will, therefore, continue to support Lessans' claim of efferent vision whether you like it or not.

Really davidm, hasn't peacegirl made it plain that she will not pay attention to anything we have to say but expects all of us to accept everything she has to say? Just as a proper fourth grade teacher would expect. So get with the Lessans plan.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you think this changes anything David? Come on, use your brain a little bit?

Well by now you must know davidm, he thinks reason conquers all, even mental illness.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so very smug David. You believe they would miss their targets completely. That's a theory. It looks perfectly airtight, but I don't believe we see in delayed time, so I am going to place my bets on a claim that makes more sense to me. I will, therefore, continue to support Lessans' claim of efferent vision whether you like it or not.

I couldn't care less what you do, you little fool. Go write to NASA, or send them an e-mail, and ask them how they send spacecraft to Mars and whether, if they calculated trajectories on the theory of real time seeing, they would miss their target or not. NASA would laugh in your face if you told them Lessans' "theory."

Go fuck off, peacegirl, you're nothing but a big bore now.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly what I said. We're not talking about after the fact; we're talking about before the fact. These are opposites.

an·tith·e·sis   [an-tith-uh-sis] Show IPA
noun, plural an·tith·e·ses  [-seez] Show IPA.
1.
opposition; contrast: the antithesis of right and wrong.
2.
the direct opposite (usually followed by of or to ): Her behavior was the very antithesis of cowardly.
3.
Rhetoric .
a.
the placing of a sentence or one of its parts against another to which it is opposed to form a balanced contrast of ideas, as in “Give me liberty or give me death.”
b.
the second sentence or part thus set in opposition, as “or give me death.”
4.
Philosophy . See under Hegelian dialectic.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antithesis

Reading comprehension still isn't your strong suit, is it Peacegirl? I said that you often say the opposite of what you mean, so if LadyShea is saying the opposite of what you are saying then she's probably saying exactly what you really mean. And you reply by saying that this is exactly what you just said and giving me a dictionary definition of 'antithesis'. You sure are an idiot. That can't really be treated, but your mental illness can.

[But]

peacegirl, does light have to be at the object or at the eye to see something?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so very smug David. You believe they would miss their targets completely. That's a theory. It looks perfectly airtight, but I don't believe we see in delayed time, so I am going to place my bets on a claim that makes more sense to me. I will, therefore, continue to support Lessans' claim of efferent vision whether you like it or not.

So you're going to stick with what you want to believe and are comfortable believing, no matter how airtight the evidence against it appears, even to you. And you wonder why people describe you as a fundy and accuse you of relying on faith?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not a trivial tautological truth David. Yes, he was making testable, inductive, empirical claims...

If he was making testable, inductive, empirical claims, then he was not presenting undeniable and mathematically certain knowledge equivalent or in any way comparable to the knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8.

Testable, inductive, and empirical claims are not mathematically certain, and mathematically certain knowledge is not testable, inductive, or empirical. The two are distinct categories, and after years of having this pointed out and explained you still equivocate between the two in classifying your father's claims.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you think this changes anything David? Come on, use your brain a little bit?

LOL, airhead with the little chewed up wad of bubblegum in the big, yawning chamber of her skull has thinking advice. So precious!

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't win here if you are steadfast that no matter what Lessans says, you automatically think he's wrong.

I sincerely doubt that anyone here thinks that the things Lessans says are wrong just because he said them. Rather, they think the things he says are wrong because they are wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not reasonable if you are critiquing things that have no bearing on the major concepts. If you want to be critical, be critical of what's important, not the things you bring up (which have no bearing on the validity of the claims) just so you can cause suspicion in people's minds.

The big picture is made up of many little pieces. It is perfectly reasonable to critique those little pieces in the process of critiquing the big picture. If enough of the component parts are defective, then it is reasonable to conclude that the whole is defective as well.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't even acknowledge that Lessans had very good reasons for why he came to his conclusions.

No, we can't. For the simple reason that Lessans provides us with no reason to believe that had good reasons for his conclusions.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by davidm

And, btw, peacegirl, no one is reading your cut and paste jobs of the buffoon's blather anymore.

You can't know that, david. It may well be true, but you have no way of verifying it. I suppose you could conduct a poll, but then everyone may not participate in the poll and even those that do could be lying in their responses.

If you keep making unsupported claims of this sort we may have to charge you with practicing Lessanism without a license.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You can't know that, david. It may well be true, but you have no way of verifying it. I suppose you could conduct a poll, but then everyone may not participate in the poll and even those that do could be lying in their responses.

If you keep making unsupported claims of this sort we may have to charge you with practicing Lessanism without a license.

Ah, but pastor, you forget that in the New World, no one will need a license to do anything. A "doctor" will simply hang out a shingle saying "Doctor" and he will be a doctor. This will relieve everyone in the New World of the tedium of acquiring more than, say, a seventh-grade education, a tedious endeavor that interferes with pool playing.

[Angakuk]

The New World ain't here yet, sparky. Also, don't hold your breath while you wait for it.

[davidm]

[Angakuk]

I told you not to do that!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I couldn't care less what you do, you little fool. Go write to NASA, or send them an e-mail, and ask them how they send spacecraft to Mars and whether, if they calculated trajectories on the theory of real time seeing, they would miss their target or not. NASA would laugh in your face if you told them Lessans' "theory."

Go fuck off, peacegirl, you're nothing but a big bore now.

I know you by now, and I can see when I hit a nerve. That's when you say go fuck off peacegirl. I'm sorry you don't like this conversation, but this is not going to stop me from stating what I believe to be true. I could care less who laughs in my face. I don't believe there is absolute proof that we SEE in delayed time.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know you by now, and I can see when I hit a nerve. That's when you say go fuck off peacegirl.

You think you hit a nerve by asserting that you'll believe Lessans no matter how airtight the evidence against him appears? Your faith claims are no threat or challenge to anyone here. And David tells you to fuck off all the time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry you don't like this conversation, but this is not going to stop me from stating what I believe to be true.

And that's all you're doing. Asserting over and over again that you believe Lessans, without ever being able to rationally support or defend your beliefs.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I could care less who laughs in my face.

And you won't stop until you have the whole internet laughing at you and your father.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe there is absolute proof that we SEE in delayed time.

There's no such thing as absolute proof in science. There's only proof beyond any sane and reasonable doubt, which has been more than satisfied here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I sincerely doubt that anyone here thinks that the things Lessans says are wrong just because he said them. Rather, they think the things he says are wrong because they are wrong.

But it's gotten to the point where the minute I say Lessans said something, they react impulsively, without batting an eye.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not reasonable if you are critiquing things that have no bearing on the major concepts. If you want to be critical, be critical of what's important, not the things you bring up (which have no bearing on the validity of the claims) just so you can cause suspicion in people's minds.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The big picture is made up of many little pieces. It is perfectly reasonable to critique those little pieces in the process of critiquing the big picture. If enough of the component parts are defective, then it is reasonable to conclude that the whole is defective as well.

Yes, if she was truly pointing out a flaw in the premises, but she's doing no such thing. LadyShea is bringing up trivialities which have nothing to do with the major concepts. She is so anal, she thinks that the things she is pointing out actually negate the entire book. I'm sure she's gloating with pride at what a wonderful sleuth she is, and how her imagined red flags actually mean anything.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't even acknowledge that Lessans had very good reasons for why he came to his conclusions.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No, we can't. For the simple reason that Lessans provides us with no reason to believe that had good reasons for his conclusions.

That's not true. He gave his reasons as to why he believed the eyes work differently than the other senses. He didn't just pull this out of a hat. And he explained very clearly why man's will is not free. If you don't understand it the first time around, does that mean he's wrong? No, it means you've got to read it again and make a more concerted effort to understand why this is true. These are not just opinions. For people to disregard these claims as nonsense is a mistake. I am at a major disadvantage because Lessans was an unknown and people have not read the book. I'm just asking people to not rush to judgment. Is that asking too much?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true. He gave his reasons as to why he believed the eyes work differently than the other senses. He didn't just pull this out of a hat. And he explained very clearly why man's will is not free. If you don't understand it the first time around, does that mean he's wrong. No, it means you've got to read it again and make a more concerted effort to understand why this is true. These are not just opinions. For people to disregard these claims as nonsense is a mistake. I am at a major disadvantage because Lessans was an unknown and people have not read the book. I'm just asking people to not rush to judgment. Is that asking too much?

Yes, you are asking too much. You are asking us to accept on faith claims that you cannot support. You are asking us to consider as plausible claims which we consider impossible based on objections you are unable to answer. You are asking us not to rush to judgement after having already spent months (and in some cases years) discussing it. You are asking far too much. His work has been read, refuted, and rejected, and you have nothing left to offer. You are at a major disadvantage because you have accepted your father's work on faith, and lack the intellectual capacity and basic cognitive functioning required to either explain or defend his claims.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Reading comprehension still isn't your strong suit, is it Peacegirl? I said that you often say the opposite of what you mean, so if LadyShea is saying the opposite of what you are saying then she's probably saying exactly what you really mean. And you reply by saying that this is exactly what you just said and giving me a dictionary definition of 'antithesis'. You sure are an idiot. That can't really be treated, but your mental illness can.

You are a poster child for shooting yourself in the foot. Until you change your attitude, you will be ignored. So talk to yourself Spacemonkey and have a party of one!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, you are asking too much. You are asking us to accept on faith claims that you cannot support.

Bullshit. He is offering his observations and asking people to test them.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are asking us to consider as plausible claims which we consider impossible based on objections you are unable to answer.

That's because you can't come from that position in order to determine if he is right, especially when we're talking about far away objects that are based on a theory that light brings the image. It doesn't prove it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are asking us not to rush to judgement after having already spent months (and in some cases years) discussing it.

Oh my god, I'm laughing. You are saying this as if these other forums actually investigated this work. THEY DID NOT. They were doing what LadyShea does, and calling it day. Well it's not a day. It takes diligence to study what is new to the scientific community. Give me a break, okay?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are asking far too much. His work has been read, refuted, and rejected, and you have nothing left to offer.

Bullcrap, what are you saying Spacemonkey? Are you saying point blank that this is a lie, and Lessans was an arrogant man out for his own aggrandizement because he disagrees with you? You're nuts just like David. This work has not ever been carefully analyzed, so where are you coming off to say crazy things about who this man was? And you call me a dam liar? You're the liar but you don't recognize it!

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are at a major disadvantage because you have accepted your father's work on faith, and lack the intellectual capacity and basic cognitive functioning required to either explain or defend his claims.

Yes, that's what you rationalize to make yourself confident that Lessans is wrong. If that helps you sleep at night, so be it. It obviously takes too much work for you to question your misguided analysis. I can't do anything about that, only you can.

[But]

Originally Posted by But

peacegirl, does light have to be at the object or at the eye to see something?

peacegirl, does light have to be at the object or at the eye to see something?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I told you not to do that!

BTW how did the sermon go on Sunday, I'd be interested in reading one of them sometime. Sometimes I am making a few notes during the sermon, usually about the day's message, but yesterday I had something different on my mind, but the sermon still stimulated ideas about it.