The dumbest 9-11 Op-Ed?

09/11/2006

If you like this post - click to Reddit!
add to del.icio.us	Add to digg - digg it

Original text copyright by the author and MidEastWeb for Coexistence, RA. Posted at MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log at http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000509.htm where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Distributed by MEW Newslist. Subscribe by e-mail to mew-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Please forward by email with this notice and link to and cite this article. Other uses by permission.

by Moderator @ 05:02 PM CST [Link]

Replies: 33 comments

The actions taken by my government on September 11th 2001 proves they were either complicite in the crime against the United States or they are too stupid to be trusted with the responsibility of protecting the American people. Whatever may be the case, they should be disbanded. From time to time society needs to clean the garbage out of the drains. We should expell all those in the executive and legislative branches, and begin the process of redeploying those positions. I understand this process could take a couple of years. but given the circumstances of what treachery we have been enduring for at least the past 10 years I find it is a necassary move if the people of the United States wish to remain a free society in control of their own destiny. Corruption will always be a constant in a governing body, but when the disease has spread beyond the point of any hope of redemption, we must put the horse down, so to speak.

Posted by OMFG @ 09/11/2006 06:25 PM CST

Reference article concerning Gwynne Dyer,Jordan News.

The Rhineland was part of Germany and therefore was not invaded.It was remilitarized in violation of a treaty.

Posted by Marvin Jacobs @ 09/11/2006 10:16 PM CST

To Mr. Jacobs,
Ref your comment that Rhineland was not invaded. Definition of invaded:
To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.

To encroach or intrude on; violate: “The principal of the trusts could not be invaded without trustee approval” (Barbara Goldsmith).

To overrun as if by invading; infest: “About 1917 the shipworm invaded the harbor of San Francisco” (Rachel Carson).

To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.

Ref: http://www.answers.com/invaded&r=67

It does not say anything about international borders in the definition.

Everyone is aware that the Rhineland was German territory. It is not relevant.

From the Web:
Yahoo!7 Answers - when did WW2 start exactly?Level 3. For which country? When Germany invaded the Rhineland, Japan had already been at war with China for at least four years. 6 hours ago ...
au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060911171714AAIULwJ - 67k - 11 Sep 2006 - Cached - Similar pages

Bay Link Lesson Plans: MacArthur Mem #5 WWII1936 Germany invaded the Rhineland; 1937 Japan launched a full scale war against Japan; 1939 Germany invaded Poland and Great Britain and France declared ...
www.baylink.org/lessons/mm5-wwtwo_r.html - 7k - Cached - Similar pages

Waging Peace - MSN EncartaItaly invaded Abyssinia, and Germany invaded the Rhineland. Within ten years of renouncing war forever, the mightiest nations of the Earth plunged into ...
encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/Columns/?Article=peacemakerswagingpeace - 39k - Cached - Similar pages

Please check your knowledge before making such "corrections."

Thank you.
Ami Isseroff

Posted by Ami Isseroff @ 09/14/2006 02:16 AM CST

It is a bit extreme to speak of government "complicity" in the events of 9/11. In terms of rallying support for the administration in their determination to invade Iraq, it was of great benefit to the Bush administration. Although there was absolutely no connecion between Iraq and the attack of 9/11 the administration has convinced a lot of US citizens that the attck on the twin towers justified the US attack on Iraq. Now the dependence of the administration on maintaining the idea of a supposedly monolithic terrorist movement to justify policy is ever more marked. Osama Bin laden could be said to need the aggressions of the Bush administration to maintain his fanatical support. The Bush administration needs a demon figure to focus national fear and anger and maintain support for their policies. In a sense they need each other

Posted by Clear Eyes @ 09/15/2006 05:23 PM CST

Clear Eyes,

Your almost circular reference to the relationship that has developed between Usama and the Bush administration does not sway the pendulum from possible government complicity, but instead, with the rest of your statement and commonly known facts (Al-Quida was a CIA supported and trained institution) provides motive, opprotunity, and association to the case for complicity. Though these would be hard to substantiate with the constant obstruction of justice preformed personally by GWB and his clan. But there can be no doubt that they benefit from the act and don't seem too driven to put an end to Usama, which then begs the question of Usamas existance. May be he is dead already. Iraq is undoutedly our primary theatre. Usama in Afganistan is not a concern for the Bush administration. Bush has used his (weapons of mass distaction) to get us to watch the birdie, while they piss away Afganistan. Where there is smoke, there is fire. You cannot tell me with good conscience that something is not fishy with the whole operation. Two and Two does not equal 5 no matter how you try to put.

Posted by OMFG @ 09/15/2006 07:22 PM CST

The wars fought in the Mid-east are far more important than people believe. These wars were absolutely going to happen whether it be now or after tens of thousands more Americans were killed.

Talking one on one, What would be your wake up call? What would convince you that there are people you don't even know that hates you and wants to kill you? And will if they can! Of course I'm talking about terrorist.

So, you say, what does this have to do with Iraq? Iraq wasn't a terrorist state until we invaded it. How wrong can naive people be. The mindset of almost all Arab people is to destroy Israel and by association, the U.S.A.

You might ask, "Why should we kill so many people because of what a few terrorist do"?

Here's an example.
A neighbor comes into your house while you're gone and leaves a note on your kitchen table. The note says, "I want your house and everything that is in it or I'm going to kill a member of your family. And if you don't give it to me, I'll kill another member of your family and then another and then another until everyone in your family is dead. Then, I'll just take your house."

The first thing you would do is go to the proper authorities and file your complaint but what if the authorities do nothing about it? The man kills a member of your family. You don't know for sure which man in the house next door killed your family member because it's a father that has 4 grown son's living with him. You don't believe in killing or revenge so there's nothing you can do about it. So what do you do? Do you wait until he's killed everyone including yourself or do you go and kill everyone in he's house?

It's a no brainer for me. I've killed in combat and would have no problem with killing people to save my own family. The minute that I read his first note, he's whole family would be dead and if I thought all his neighbors supported his actions, I would kill them too. I wouldn't care if I was prosecuted for it later.

So, I have to ask myself, where does my family end? If another country's terrorist kills someone in my country, do I only care about my immediate family or do I care as much about my extended family that includes from shore to shore, and Canada to Mexico. Everyone in the U.S. is my family and I would be willing to die for anyone to protect them and there family.

Saddam Hussein caused his own destruction by thumbing his nose at 27 U.N. resolutions. Also, he refused to allow the inspectors to do there job. We had no way of knowing what kind of wmd's that he had. So what were we suppose to do? Wait until he had killed or caused the deaths of many of my extended family?

And last of all, Iran WILL BE the next war. There is no way out of it. And you might say, what right does the U.S. have to tell Iran that they can't have nuclear bombs? Simple answer...

By virtue of the fact that we already have three thousand nuclear bombs! That gives us the right to tell any country that they can't have nuclear capabilities. also, if Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons, Hezbollah would get them and use them on Israel and the U.S.

After we take care of Iran, Syria will wake up and become friendly and the Palestinians will cease to be a problem. If we do this, the world could live in peace, and if we don't, there will never be peace.

Posted by Lemuel McRorey @ 09/16/2006 12:28 AM CST

"So what were we suppose to do? Wait until he had killed or caused the deaths of many of my extended family?"

We wait for one offense, then we bring all of hell down on them with one swift blow, as we did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. History does not unfold by the laws of assumptions. If we strike first, then we become the agressors, not the defenders. There are only a handfull of Nations that are capable of destroying us and none of them are willing to take that step. The nuclear nations of the world all know the term "Mutually assured destruction", so the argument of protecting ourselves through preemptive force is moot at best and a falsehood most acurately.

Iraq was not a threat to us, on the other hand a recently forgotten region called Afganistan is the sanctuary of the ones who did kill three thousand of our people. Our job there is not done, why did we divert our attention to a people that were not a threat to us? Through our actions we have ensured that we now have MANY more enemy to keep us awake at night pondering if tomorrow will be the day we loose more of our brothers and sisters to a US bread enemy.

Posted by OMFG @ 09/16/2006 02:27 AM CST

BTW, if anyone were to unleash a nuclear explosive on us, collateral damage would become so great the term would cease to have any meaning. Now come back to reality, do you really think Iran wishes to have the whole of their culture be engulfed in a blink of an eye? No one is that stupid.

Posted by OMFG @ 09/16/2006 02:34 AM CST

Lemuel McRory

I believe your arguments are wrong in terms of four ways of seeing the problem
1 Strategic (long term interest of the US)
2 Tactical (short trm security of the US)
3 legal
4 moral

1 Strategic
If the Moslem world hates the USA and the British and other European former imperial powers it is because of a lot of history. They feel they have been oppressed and humiliated by political and economic imperialism (you don't have to agree that they have: the point is they believe it). Their strong religious conviction gives them a capacity to endure suffering in order to get revenge. Some victims of oppression sometimes accept it and resign themselves to the inevitable. The religious fervour in the middle east gives them the resolve to endure a lot to get revenge. The imposition of government by European immigrants in Palestine in 1948 just when the rest of the colonial subjects of formwer european powers were approaching independence was a bitter blow that they can never forgive. Waging war aginst these people with their great geographical spread, their common sense of grievance and cultural bonds, wis waging a war that will never end. I do not believe it makes strategic sense to make the main oilfields of the world an eternal battle field.

Tactical (security)
Terrorism was unknown, or at any rate very rare, in the middle east pre 1948. As a means of gaining political advntage it started in connection with the creation of Israel which was seen as a colonialist/imperialist imposition on the region. Foreign ocupatioon of land where the moslem tradition is strong infuriates moslems. This is why we are hated. Enterprises like the Iraq war generate hate and therefore terrorists. (This is not to say the US and Britain can pull out. The situation is now such that it is too dangerous to our security to pull out; we created this situation)

legal

What we mean by international law in this context I am not quite sure. I tend to agree with you that the law is on the side of the people with three thousand atom bombs. But suppose that there is some meaning to the term "international law", what was the legal justification for the UN to grant \ (alestine to jewish immigrants. I do not believe the UN charter authorizes the UN to take land and give it to colonists. When it comes to defying UN resolutions Israel has a track record as well as Sadam hussein's government. The US and Britain went ahead with the invasion of Iraq without UN authorization.

moral

Thjis is a subjective way of evaluating things. To bomb and occupy Iraq, a secular country, because some religious zealots from saudi arabia commit a hate crime seems to me to be immoral, but there are probably as many views on that question as there are people. Certainly the damage and suffering caused in Iraq as a result of the ivasion is a large multiple of thedamage and sufferin caused on 9/11. In my view none of it is moral. We have keft morality behind and find our justification in our strength.

I have put this comment together as objectively as I can, but I have no serious expectation that it will convince you. The gulf between your thinking and mine seems to be too wide.

Posted by Clear Eyes @ 09/16/2006 03:41 AM CST

OMFG,

Your argument has been made over and over and over. So there's nothing I could say that wouldn't be reiterated. I can always tell who is a Democrat just by what they say. And all I can add to that is, Oh well, no one is always perfect.

However,

Cleareyes,

I do want to respond to you!

Strategic,
Nothing that you mentioned had anything to do with strategy. I do agree that we had and have a strategy for the med-east. Much of which I understand and much I'm sure I'm not even aware of.

The U.S. did back the Taliban against the Soviet Union which did cause a lot more deaths, but could have also aided in the collapse of a superpower. And arguably made the world a safer place.

The U.S. also backed Saddam Hussein against Iran. If we hadn't, Iraq would have been invaded in the late 80's and literally millions of people would have been slaughtered. Of course, this is only speculation but history does reflect this viewpoint.

As for the Iraqi people hating the U.S., what can I say? The Iraqi people and all Muslims have always hated anybody that wasn't Muslim. These people even war against other Muslims. The Shiites hate the Sunnis and the Kurds, the Kurds hate the Shiites and the Sunnies and the sunnies kill the Shiites and the Kurds. The only way these people are ever going to get it together is from outside intervention. Who is to say that U.S. intervention in the Mid-east won't stop the deaths of many more people as time goes on?

Tactical (The long term security concerns of the U.S. might outweigh the short term security concerns of the U.S.)

I'm not sure who's tactics you're talking about but the Mid-east has had terrorism since the beginning of time. We just didn't have a name for it until the 60's and 70's.

If you're talking about Muslin tactics, every country that has a large number of Muslims also have unrest and terrorism. They are a waring people that plans to force the whole world to become Muslim or die. That in itself should tell you that we should have international concerns when it comes to Muslims. I personally am a Christian and just knowing that over a billion people in the world are Muslims (an Arab religion) is enough to worry me.

Legal,
I can't say much about that since the U.S. made most of the international laws. Laws are man-made and always leaves so many loop-holes that they become irrelevant. People can scream International law until they're blue in the face, but who even pays attention to them when they're country is involved. The U.S. maybe. England, maybe. Very few other country's do.

And Moral,
Again, that can always be debated. I think what we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is justified and basically righteous. I also believe that President Bush will go down in history as being one of the great presidents. People like Jimmy Carter will go down in history as having no vision at all.

Cleareyes, it's obvious that you and I see things differently. I fought in Vietnam and I know this sounds like a cliche, but I really did fight and killed people for what I believed in, Democracy. There will be wars until the end of time, question is, which ones do we fight in? Which ones are righteous? Do we fight in these religious wars or do we allow warlords to force they're religion on the rest of the world?

Cleareyes, you can respond to my opinion if you wish, but as you said; "I have put this comment together as objectively as I can, but I have no serious expectation that it will convince you. The gulf between your thinking and mine seems to be too wide". I agree and I thank you for your response.

Posted by Lemuel McRorey @ 09/18/2006 11:23 PM CST

LOL..Lemuel,

Wrong again, I am a Republican. Not Neo-con, but a true, Isolationist Republican. I would rather the US pull all of our intrests from every country, put the blinders on and let you all blow yourself to bits. But, I'm also a realist, what affects the world community will ultimately find it's way back to us. Btw, Neo-Cons are not Republicans, lookup their history, they were southern Democrats that became at odds with their party over segregation laws and such. They were not good enough to be Democrats and are not good enough for the Republicans. My party has become nothing but a joke and a danger to the US since the Neo-Cons gained majority power. Neo-Cons are in favor of bigger government, hmm sounds like a Democrat. Neo-Cons love to spend money we don't have, again Democrat...etc..etc.

Posted by OMFG @ 09/19/2006 07:46 PM CST

OMFG

I apologize if I brushed you off on your comments earlier but your talking points continue to be reiterated and invite the continued same arguments.

If you are a Republican, as you say, then I commend you and apologize for antagonizing you.

I personally vote straight party Republican and flat refuse to vote for a Democrat even down to city offices level. I vote in every election that comes around.

I'm a FAR, right wing Republican who is against abortion and gay rights. I have never been a Democrat and I promise you, I am not a Neo-anything. I have the highest regard for black people and personally promote equality for all of God's human creation.

OMFG, I invite you to go to my website, (Click on my name beside, Posted by) and read my ebook that I offer free. I wrote this ebook while living in England for six months. If you read at least 60 pages of my ebook, I think you would see what kind of person I am and what I wish I could afford to do for struggling people.

As for your comment about being an isolationist, I somewhat disagree with you on that point because I don't think the worlds greatest nation should bury it's head in the sand and view the rest of the world as being unimportant. We are obligated to be a major player on the world stage.

On the other hand, I think we should get out of the U.N. since the U.N. has became such an Arab lobbying forum and shift our U.N. funding to N.A.T.O. I'm 100% for protecting who I consider as being God's chosen people, Israel.

OMFG, I've tried to paint a clear picture of who I am and what I stand for. I'm sure that what I've said will offend many who reads this and quit probably, you as well. But I believe what we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq is important because it will define how the world is shaped for the future.

If the American public would allow the completion of our war efforts to play itself out in Iraq, then there would only be one country left to deal with to have lasting peace. That is Iran.

It is my fear that the American people will scream so loud that we will be forced to leave Iraq and then the U.S. will be disgraced again as we were in Vietnam. I hate to be defeated by our own people when our enemies can never defeat us. That is part of what brought down the Romans.

I respect President Bush and the Republican party, but most of all, I respect God's Holy Word, The Holy Bible. The Holy Bible tells me that when the Arabs destroy Israel again, ( http://websitescatalog.com/zechariah14.htm ) verse 12, It will be the end of the world as we know it, so in that respect, I guess I should just put my head in the sand and let it all happen.

Maybe I care too much about how the world is and not enough about how Jesus will change it when he comes to rule in Jerusalem.

Posted by Lemuel McRorey @ 09/19/2006 10:43 PM CST

OMFG,

I've been trying to figure out what OMFG stands for and I think I figured it out. It stands for 'ONE MORE FOR GOD', right? I'm just kidding, I'm sure it doesn't.

Posted by Lemuel McRorey @ 09/20/2006 03:44 AM CST

I respect your views Lemuel and agree on many base points, though maybe not in detail. I am a Nihilist and so I can't comment on, or understand religious views. I am a child of logic rather than belief, and so my position stems not from compassion for the world, but from the fact that conflict will lead to a delay in progression of man-kind as a whole. The U.N., though I hate to admit, has becmoe lip-service to ideologies rather than an enforcer of human rights, here I have to agree. The biggest hurdle we are facing is separating those who are truely resisting agressors and those who are religious fanatics or using religion as a stimuli to further thier empirical ideals.

Posted by OMFG @ 09/20/2006 04:39 AM CST

I read a post the first day I came to this site that was so rediculous that I used OMFG as the poster...Oh My F#@*ing God.

Posted by OMFG @ 09/20/2006 07:04 PM CST

I can't help but displaying your stupidity for being a republican Lemuel. On the other hand I have agreed with 99.9% of OMFG comments. OMFG maybe you should look into another party. lol. So Lemuel I shall post something that was beautifally written, and does not require 6 months of thought but more like 6 years. Try not to cry when you read this please.

To Lemuel,
First of all I would like to tell you that God himself is Liberal. First, as far as I can remember God does not punish me on earth if I masterbate, or have premarital sex. As far as I can remember, God does not punish homosexuals. That is fact. God if he does exist has chosen to create life in such a way that we are free to make choices, and the fact that this God does not currently punish homosexuals and punish me for masterbating means that this is a Liberal God. Proof enough. You want to tell me that God does punish people. You have not proof. The fact is right now God is invisible and does not punish. Why???? Well if he is allowing us to learn from our mistakes, then that makes him a liberal, and makes sense with Jesus's character on earth. If God is punishing and muslim suicide bombers, I sure the hell do not see it. lol. So what is God???? Liberal. He does not act on our mistakes. He said forgive them they do not know what they are doing. He is extremely patience with your fukkken stupidity, including myself, but you seem a little more stupid. He is patient while witnessing the holocaust. He is patient while witnessing the horrible inhumane acts in Africa. He is patient when He witnesses you make mistakes in life. Jesus was extremely patient as well, right??? He did not punish ANY OF HIS ENEMIES. NONE. ZERO. ZILCH. Why???? Maybe Jesus and God are related. lol. See the entire word of the Gospel is sickly full of liberal thought and actions. So then the proof is in your Bible. lol. This is funny because religious people are the most hypocritical kinds of people on the planet. Now this does include muslims also. But, in fact of all this God today, with all his power, does not punish people, Why??? Why??? Why??? Think about it Lemuel, and you will be scared to even look in the mirror. So what do I have to say about the Religious, Conservative Republican Party. Thats next, read on.
I am a United States citizen. I have lived in the United States for 32 of my 33 years of life. YOU SIR ARE 100 PERCENT WRONG IN YOUR STATEMENTS. People like Ami and other right wing idiots in the United States are the real terrorists. Let me prove this to you Lemuel.
Most if not all Right Wing Republicans in the United States are Christian conservatives. So this is really simple, who is the main character in the Bible????? What is the main idea of the Bible???? Many of these Republicans quote everything in their Bible execpt the Gospels. So, now for the proof. The main character is Jesus. The main idea is Love. What is a christian???? It is to be "Christ-like", right??? Not only is Jesus the main character of the Bible, but he is God himself in flesh and blood. The same God that created these Republican conservatives, came down as a human. So what did Jesus do???? How did he respond to physical, and verbal torture???? He did NOTHING. HE LOVED THEM. HE SAID FORGIVE THEM THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
So here is your proof Lemuel on why the real terrorists are the Republican conservatives in the United States. If you are a Republican right wing conservative you are usually a Chrisitian. To be a true Christian, you have to BE LIKE JESUS, NOT JUST EXEPT THAT HE SAVED YOUR SINS. It is true that no one can be perfect, but that is the IDEAL MAN. To all the the people on there radio talk shows, such as, Rush Limbaugh, and others on there right wing media, you are either a CHRISTIAN, AND YOU DO NOT BEHAVE IN ANY MATTER THAT IS DISPLEASING TO JESUS OR YOU GO TO HELL BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT REALLY CHRISTIAN. YOU CLAIM THAT IRAN, SYRIA, AND HIZBOLLAH ARE TERRORISTS, BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT IF EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN IN THE UNITED STATES WHERE EXACT COPIES OF MOTHER TERESA, I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT NO TERRORISTS WOULD EXIST.

Now for all the right winged idiots, especially Rush, who will say that we can't be weak, all those psycho left wingers, are going to kill us all. I only have to say this again. Was JESUS WEAK??? WHY WOULD GOD TEACH TRUE CHRISTIANS ON HOW TO BEHAVE AS A HUMAN IF IT IS A SIGN OF WEAKNESS. IS GOD WEAK????

Lemuel THE REASON TERRORISTS EXIST WETHER IT IS IN THE MIDDLE EAST OR HERE IN THE UNITED STATES (EX. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY), IS BECAUSE OF SOME KIND OF REACTION. LIKE I SAID IF IRAN, SYRIA AND LEBANON WHERE HANDLED BY MOTHER TERESA AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT THOSE COUNTRIES WOULD BE OUR ALLIES TODAY AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY ENEMIES. THE UNITED STATES ACTIONS IS WHAT GAVE BIRTH TO TERRORISTS IN THE MIDDLEAST. THAT IS FACT, NOT AN OPINION.

WHY WAS THERE NEVER A MUSLIM JIHAD AGAINST TRUE SAINTS, LIKE ST. NICKALAUS, ST. PATRICK, MOTHER TERESA, AND THOUSANDS OF OTHER SAINTS IN THE PAST????

FOR ALL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE THINKING THAT OF COURSE THERE WERE PEOPLE THAT ATTACKED CHRISTIANS AND, THERE WERE THE CRUSADES WHERE MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS BATTELED, BUT ONCE AGAIN, CHRISTIANS THAT BATTLED ARE NOT REAL CHRISTIANS. JESUS SAID TURN THE CHEEK.

MOST SAINTS AND MOST TRUE CHRISTIANS IN HISTORY WHEN FACED WITH PERSECUTION WHERE LOVING TILL THERE DEATH. DO ALL THE REPUBLICANS FORGET THAT ST. PAUL AND MANY SAINTS IN THERE BIBLES DIED PREACHING LOVE AND DID NOT FIGHT BACK.

I CANNOT RECALL THAT ST. PAUL AND THE OTHER 10 DISIPLES AFTER LOVING JESUS, FELT LIKE TAKING A WEAPON FOR ARMS AND KILLING HUMANS IF THEY DID NOT AGREE WITH THE GOSPEL (MEANING GOOD NEWS).

SO I WILL REPEAT ONE MORE TIME FOR THE IDIOT RIGHT WING CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVE VIEW THAT IS JUST PURE LIES AND HYPOCRITICAL TOWARDS THE MIDDLE EAST. EITHER YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN AND YOUR ASS BETTER BE BEHAVING EXACTLY LIKE JESUS, OR YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN AND YOU ARE GOING STRAIGHT TO THE HELL THAT YOU PREACH ABOUT. SO WHAT WOULD JESUS DO WHEN 2 SOLDIERS WHERE KIDNAPPED??? LOVE THEM. WHAT WOULD JESUS DO IF IRAN THREATENS TO WIPE OF ISREAL OF THE MAP???? LOVE THEM. IT IS NOT WEAKNESS, IT IS STRENGTH TO LOVE AN ENEMY, THAT IS WHY IT IS SOO DIFICULT.

IF YOU ARE SCARED TO DIE FROM A TERRORIST OR A NUCLEAR WEAPON FIRED FROM IRAN, THEN AGAIN I QOUTE JESUS "DO NOT BE AFRAID". AGAIN FOR ALL THESE RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVES, IF YOU KNOW JESUS IS GOD, AND THAT HE DEFEATED DEATH THEN DO NOT BE AFRAID OF TERRORISTS.

FOR THE PEOPLE THAT NOW ARE SAYING BUT THEN HOW WILL WE DEFEND THE UNITED STATES??????
SAME LOGIC AND REASONING. ACCORDING TO THE CHRISTIAN FAITH, GOD IS IN CHARGE, RIGHT???? IF THE UNITED STATES IS STRICTLY ADHEREING TO THE GOSPEL AND IS TRYING TO BEHAVE EXACTLY LIKE JESUS, THEN I AM PRETTY DARN SURE THAT GOD WILL PROTECT THE COUNTRY. SO ONCE AGAIN, YOU ARE EITHER A CHRISTIAN AND YOU CAN SEE THE FACTS OF WHAT IS IN THE GOSPELS OR YOU ARE LYING HYPOCRITES THAT PISSED OF JESUS IN THE TEMPLE.

LIKE I SAID I AM A PROUD UNITED STATES CITIZEN, AND I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT NOT EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES REPRESENTS THE TERRORIST REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THE TERRORIST STATE OF ISREAL.

Posted by john @ 09/21/2006 11:38 PM CST

Religion is in it's simplest form a perception. Perception is reality colored by "stresses" of the mind. Stresses of the mind are cultural, racial, and social learned behaviors. By that definition religion is what is taught to us from our environment, every moment and "chance" meeting that defines our existance. True reality is without perception, there is no good, no evil, no right, no wrong,; Reality simply just is as it is. With that in mind, the disagreements, wars and struggles we are dealing with are a product of misaligned perceptions. Remove the persona of gods, ghost, ghouls, and the boogey men; and perhaps we can begin to cooperatively deal with the real problems, those being: Too many people not enough land, too many people not enough food, adjusting our social teachings to teach selflessness instead of egotistical selfishness. Too many peole not enough land is a real problem without a clear solution. The only possible solution is tolerance and rationing the land we , as the world community, collectively inhabit. Too many people and not enough food is also a real problem, though this can be solved by solving item three, selfishness. Ego is a social and instinctive behavior. We are not bound by society's teachings nor our instincts. Holding on to more than what one can use is pointless and only serves as a power hold on all those that have less than you. This is a controlling behavior without any justification. A few facts may bring further understanding to how rediculous this behavior is

1. No one is imortal, therefor why do we "own" land?
A. No one "owns" land, we only borrow it for a time while we walk this earth.

2. What is the benefit of controlling others?
A. There is none. To control another is work, hard work that will never end. Also controlling another is going to be met with stiff resistance. Cooperation is much more productive and yields greater benefits.

3. Why do we think that we are inherently better than another?
A. We all have the same bodily functions. We are all born with the same desire to achive a state of perpetual happiness. And we will all die while emptying our bowls into our death beds. Just because you posess things that others do not does not make you better, it just means you have different possesions. Just as land possesions are not permanent, thus you have no more than anyone else.

Understanding these few basic principals could lead to a shared stable perception that is beneficial to all humans, and is truely what we all want, but are afraid that if someone else does not adhere to these principals then we will be taken advantage of. The solution to that is to simply as John stated, turn the other cheek and refuse to break stride, once the offenders learn their efforts are fruitless they will cease to have a desire to continue those behaviors.

Posted by OMFG @ 09/22/2006 07:21 PM CST

Agreed again. OMFG. The only one topic of disagreement, if it is a disagreement would be on your statement, I quote:

"By that definition religion is what is taught to us from our environment, every moment and "chance" meeting that defines our existance. True reality is without perception, there is no good, no evil, no right, no wrong,; Reality simply just is as it is."

The fact that there is religion is actually a byproduct of the way humans are brought into this world. The most basic, basic question one will have to ask themselves at one point or another in life, whether young or old, is this:
"My parents had sex, therefore I exist, and then I exist not only because of sex, but also because my parents were willing to take care of me. The next logical and basic step in human thought is OK? Where did my parents come from?? and so on and so on. The problem is religion exists because the idea of some kind of creator might exist is a natural question to ponder about. Many people though fill that void with answers quickly before actually deeply thinking about it. How hard is it to say I don't know where we came from??? That is extremely difficult, which explains all the religions of the world."

Truth is truth however, no matter how hard it is to say "I dont' know where I came from", people should be honest and say that untill they really do know one day, if at all. That said, religion just like all other beliefs, including macro-evolution, is just a lazy way of humans providing an answer to the most important question on Earth. They do not use their brains, so they take the easy way and just accept, Darwin, Jesus, Mohammed, and so on.

OMFG, this is really another deep deep discussion that I have spent many years analyzing, but is related to many problems facing the world. That said, leaving religion out of the middle east, (sounds funny I know) your statements about the middle east and various other statements about superpowers, especially Isreal, have been DEAD ON.

Posted by john @ 09/22/2006 08:45 PM CST

Origin is not a reality. We did not originate from any one point. If you observer all natural systems, cellular, atomic, cosmic, so and and so forth, they all are bound by the same system which is best observed as a fractal system. This is even true of our social system, we, being natural entities mimic what we observe, our world which is broken into smaller regions, continents, then nations, then provinces, counties, cities, neighborhoods, house, individual. These systems of course are not defined so strictly in nature because they are simply the product of mathematical functions. The abstract ideas that we call dimensions, mass, time, you, me were concieved by man, and are only dualistic tools used for the purpose of distinction so we may comprehend our existance. Without light how would you know dark? Without the past how would you hope for the future. Without good how would you know what is evil? Thus religion is a perception (tool) used to give us meaning and purpose in life, less we face the reality that we are meaningless and of no consequence.

Posted by OMFG @ 09/23/2006 05:50 AM CST

to OMFG
lol, ahhh we are debating our origins now. Good, first let me start by
asking you to prove this statement that you typed.

"Origin is not a reality. We did not originate from any one point."

This is what you typed, so since you did type this statement as a fact
and not as an opinion means logically that you KNOW THIS FOR A FACT.
So following the logic, that people that do know must prove what they
know, just as a math teacher knows math so they teach that knowledge to
students, now you must teach me and prove this statement.
I have a few questions and comments before you prove this statement.
First, what is reality??? Saying that origin is not a reality is
running away from the fact that sex created OMFG, and sex created
OMFG's parents. Now if you deny that there is a system in which humans
are created by sex, then you are not in reality, lol. If you follow
that pattern of sex back and back into history, the question that begs
to be answered is where does all this human creation come from. If God
started it, then we must know what the hell he wants and why is he
invisible and what happened. Now, if God does not exist, then the
person claiming the knowledge of God's nonexistence MUST PROVE THIS.
One cannot make such a bold statement without actually proving their
knowledge of this athiestic veiw, or they are held just as accountable
as the religious people claiming that God does exist without proving
it. So the proof is left for you to show me because you did make that
statement as a fact.

As for your second quote: "If you observer all natural systems, cellular, atomic, cosmic, so and and so forth, they all are bound by the same system which is best observed as a fractal system."

Agreed, but what does this statement have to do with the fact that all these natural systems, cellular, atomic, cosmic and so forth have an origin. Just because they are fractal systems, does not mean there is NO ORIGIN.

Your next quote: "These systems of course are not defined so strictly in nature because they are simply the product of mathematical functions. The abstract ideas that we call dimensions, mass, time, you, me were concieved by man, and are only dualistic tools used for the purpose of distinction so we may comprehend our existance. Without light how would you know dark? Without the past how would you hope for the future. Without good how would you know what is evil?"

That does not make any sense. First of all math does not produce any of those systems. These systems behave in a mathematical pattern that humans happen to discover. The ideas of dimension, mass, time, you and me, are not "concieved by man". If it where, then right now, go ahead and conceive a 5 inch monkey and make it appear next to your computer. Humans do not create anything with conceptions, we merely conceptualize what already exists with out senses.

For your final quote: "Thus religion is a perception (tool) used to give us meaning and purpose in life, less we face the reality that we are meaningless and of no consequence."

Yes religion is used as a tool in a DISHONEST WAY to give meaning and purpose in life. That is a problem of dumb idiots and hypocrites placing dishonesty in a search for a creator (if any) to provide meaning for life, INSTEAD OF sticking to being honest AND using their brains to actually question life and question Mohammad and Jesus and Buddhism and Evolution. Humans do not question this because of a complex issue which we are all guilty of. Humans accept an answer to our origins very very quickly because there is a void in our brains. We do not know where we came from, so we fill it up quickly and lazily into our heads so we don't have to FACE REALITY.

Posted by john @ 09/23/2006 07:28 PM CST

Addressing the first question..proof..I could go into further detail explaining what observations lead me to this conclusion though you know as well as I do, that proof requires the acceptence of it's validity from the target audience. My conclusion is based on the observation of the natural systems. Fisrt, time does not exist...it is a tool that exists only in our minds it is used to comprehend distance and movement or to allow you distinguish between two dualistic extremities. if you were placed in a chamber that were to cut off all of your physical senses you would become disoriented and have no idea of how much "time" has passed. If time does not exist, then there can be no beggining and no end. We live in a state of impermanence. There is continuous change. As all of these natural systems interact: chemical, biological, radiant,etc,etc.. they act as a modal function, one system introduces it's pattern to the next system altering it. This is what Darwinism is based on, the adaptability was based on environmental influences and genetic mutation (which is an influence at the genetic level). The mutations ,which we all have..hitch hikers thumb..third nipple etc etc, allow some organisms to survive while others die. So to say we have an origin is as absurd as saying energy has an origin, all thing transmute they do not begin nor end. If you would like further rational or as you call it "proof", get yourself a fancy smancy edumacation and spend your time studing the natural sciences instead of reading books about hocus-pocus. As for the part right before you suggest I manifest a monkey, the distinction between you and I or myself and the community...is a concept, just as one would observe that it takes many cells to make a human, it takes many humans to make the world community that we have, thus it is a matter of your perception and not a true reality. The reality is we are many and we are one, I make no distinctions. And finally your last statement, I am human, and no I do not accept fairy tales to explain origin, I don't even look for origin, the term origin is a falacy given the observations I have stated already. I have already come full circle with the religion crap, and have concluded that my existance does ot require meaning..Just because there is no fantastical reason to live also does not mean there is a reason to die, I simply exist.

Posted by OMFG @ 09/24/2006 02:44 AM CST

OM,

I assume you believe in evolution. No proof, no actual evidence, just blind faith. A dangerous blind faith. The earth accidentally has gravity, oxygen, and sunlight for light and heat, It accidentally produces rain to replenish itself and to cleanse itself. The earth only has one sun but accidentally receives sunlight on it's entire surface every single day.

Mankind was the greatest accident of all. He accidentally started out as one cell and actually survived. Then that one cell knew it had to evolve to survive. He eventually grew arms and legs over millions of years. He must have had a brain because he knew he could not survive without a mouth to eat and drink with, so presto, now a mouth. He didn't need it before but Oh well, Why not?

Man wanted to hear sounds so he decided to grow ears and he wanted to smell so he grew a nose. During all this evolution time, for millions of years, this little mass of nothing survived just fine without all the extras but man just accidentally evolved for no reason at all. He wanted to reproduce himself so he split into man and woman. Then he thought, Hey, why don't I have sex with the woman and see what happens. He tried it and he liked it but something strange happened. The woman got fat. Nine months later, the woman had a baby.

I'm sure it didn't take man very long to figure out that it was all that sex that caused the woman to have that crying, wetting little useless hunk of meat that the woman wanted to protect. And my goodness when that little baby began to walk and talk and grow to be as big as the man, I'll bet the man must have thought this was an act of something far more superior than man so in all his wisdom, man dreamed up God.

Low and behold, man became so perfect. If you don't believe me just ask any man and he will tell you so.

He kept on evolving. He knew if he cut himself, he would bleed to death so his skin just accidentally evolved so that it would heal itself.

Of course man hasn't evolved at all since the known existence of mankind, but he didn't need to. I mean, why grow wings when you can get all your food on the ground?

So, now to end this joke!

To anyone who believes the unproven Darwin's theory, think how ridicules that sounds before laughing at someone that believes in God or Jesus. I would rather live my life believing in a God that put me on this earth to test me to see if I'm worthy to go to Heaven and live forever and forever. An eternal life that even evolution couldn't evolve into and never will. Why did evolution leave out that hope?

Posted by Lemuel McRorey @ 09/24/2006 03:34 AM CST

OM,

I reread what you said and found that I was in error. You don't believe in evolution. LOL, From what I could determine, you don't believe in anything or you believe man just always was. I think I'll stay with the God theory.

Anyway, I apologize for addressing my last comment to you.

Posted by Lemuel McRorey @ 09/24/2006 03:50 AM CST

OMFG

Your quote: "Addressing the first question..proof..I could go into further detail explaining what observations lead me to this conclusion though you know as well as I do, that proof requires the acceptence of it's validity from the target audience."

Yes proof does require the acceptance of it's validity, very good OMFG, that was very intellectual, lol. So here it is, you prove it and I will accept it. I await. Remember if you do not prove that there is no origin, then you do not know what you are talking about.

Another quote: "Fisrt, time does not exist...it is a tool that exists only in our minds it is used to comprehend distance and movement or to allow you distinguish between two dualistic extremities"

Ok, since time is a tool that exists only in our minds, then please do tell me WHERE OUR MINDS COME FROM. Please do not runaway from this question on your next response or I will keep asking it. You point to many things that they come from our minds, good, now tell me and prove where our minds came from.

Qoute: "if you were placed in a chamber that were to cut off all of your physical senses you would become disoriented and have no idea of how much "time" has passed. If time does not exist, then there can be no beggining and no end."

AGREED 100 PERCENT, BUT, this is not proof that time does not exist. Time does exist, but the person that was placed in a chamber is unable to see the effects of time because all of his senses where removed. Therefore, time exists, but the person does not know time because of what we did to him. This is just playing with words, try sticking to reality.

Quote: "This is what Darwinism is based on, the adaptability was based on environmental influences and genetic mutation (which is an influence at the genetic level). "

I have studied Darwinism, read origin of species, and read "Evolutionary Structure" by Gould. So please do tell me and provide me the proofs if you don't mind summarizing to me the PROOF as expressed by Darwin and others on how humans where created. No opinions, but proof.

Quote: "So to say we have an origin is as absurd as saying energy has an origin"

Still awaiting your proof on not having an origin, AND, now you have to proof also that energy has no origin. lol, you have a lot of homework.

MY ABSOLUTE FAVORITE QOUTE OF YOURS LOL: "If you would like further rational or as you call it "proof", get yourself a fancy smancy edumacation and spend your time studing the natural sciences instead of reading books about hocus-pocus."

You want to know why this is my favorite quote OMFG, lol, because I teach Math, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. I have read Jay Gould's evolutionary structure because I used to accept evolution as fact. I can however PROVE TO YOU MACROEVOLUTION IS NOTHING MORE THAN A WIMSY HYPOTHESIS AT BEST. BUT BEFORE I PROVE IT, I DO BELIEVE YOU OWE ME MANY PROOFS. I have also read the Bible four times, and I am not a Christian, I have read the Koran two times and I am not a Muslim, I studied other world religions also. I have done all this and do you want to know why I am not anything. I will tell you why, see when you actually use your brains and stretch it to the extreme and be honest to yourself, then you will realize that in life, we do not know shhiit. All my studying for many years have proven only one thing to me, the more I know, the more I dont' know because life is MYSTERIOUS. The reason 99% of humanity is in the situation they are in, including yourself OMFG, is laziness, pride, and dishonesty. You want proof of that, look at the 3 billion muslims and christians that just accept some weird, hocus-pocus, stuff that happened hundreds of years ago without proof. That is what happens when you don't question everything. Everything, even your own beliefs, OMFG. I had to admit I was wrong many times before learning something new. But you know as well as I do people do not admit they are wrong.

Your last quote: "I am human, and no I do not accept fairy tales to explain origin, I don't even look for origin, the term origin is a falacy given the observations I have stated already. I have already come full circle with the religion crap, and have concluded that my existance does ot require meaning..Just because there is no fantastical reason to live also does not mean there is a reason to die, I simply exist.

No one is telling you to accept fairy tales, that is my entire point if you haven't noticed. So don't. Just admit that you do not know where we came from, and then you might be open for more information. Open mind goes a long way. Evolution might not be a fairy tale, but it is a propagated lie that is nothing more than a hypothesis stated as fact. That makes is almost as bad as fairytales. You have proven my point once and for all when you typed,"I dont' look for origin". If you dont' than do not talk about it. That means you do not know about the subject. You have not placed any thought about human origins. Just making the statement that origin does not exist is absurd, as many things in life does have an origin. Scientists constantly ask why, how and where did this come from. Humans are curious about things, that is why we enjoy mysteries. Now, I still await your proof that there is no origin.

Quote: " I have already come full circle with the religion crap, and have concluded that my existance does ot require meaning."

Agreed religion is crap, but that still does not proof that your existence does not have a meaning. I am sure you have witnessed all the crap that humans do. Look at what Lemuel types. lol. So the point is, religion for the most part is crap because maybe humans made it crap. Remember if a god does exist, it is possible that there might be a real hones answer, but humans fukkks it up because there thinking is crap and stupid.

Last qoute: " I simply exist. "

Yes OMFG, you say that you simply exist, because you simply do not think about it. Of course life is simple when one does nothing. Meaning, life is simple for dogs and cats and other animals because they do not know they are alive. On the other hand the FACT THAT YOU DO KNOW THAT YOU WILL DIE FORCES YOU TO THINK ABOUT IT. Why???? as far as I can tell most humans do not want to die. That does not make it ok to make up fairy tales, BUT, it also triggers humans to THINK. So start thinking OMFG. You definitely are ahead of many other stupid religious people and stupid athiests, but keep going. Do not close doors on life, because if you do, then you are claiming that you know and have solved the mystery of life, which I am sorry to say makes you no different than a moronic bible thumper like Lemuel.

Posted by john @ 09/24/2006 05:01 AM CST

I've been in here several times this last week but I refuse to even read John's comments but today I came in and noticed my name as the last word of his last comment. I just couldn't resist.

In the first place, I hate to waste my time talking to retarded people so I refuse to address him, but I'm going to have my last say, leave this forum and never come back.

So John can say any ridicules thing he wants to but I'll never see it.

John says he teaches Math, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. ROFL :-) Anyone with half a brain can see that John has never taught anyone anything. It's quite obvious John doesn't know the first thing about teaching.

John's theory is that everyone on the Internet is sub-human so he can talk to them anyway he wants to. This also leaves him open to tell lies about being a teacher.

In his weak mind it doesn't matter if he lie's because none of these sub-humans know him so he can say whatever he wants. He sure doesn't want these sub-humans to know what a loser he really is because that would bring him back down to reality.

In every other sentence, John makes what he thinks is a profound statement, then he says he can prove everything he says. When he gives his proof, it is nothing more than just his opinion which isn't even relative to what he is trying to prove but in his retarded mind it's proof.

John tries so hard to say things in such a way as to make people think he's intelligent. I have no doubt that John doesn't fool anyone else in this forum anymore than he fools me.

I guess I should have sympathy for him but it's hard for me to have sympathy for someone that is so arrogant, obnoxious and ridicules.

Have your say John, I'll never read it because after I post this, I'm deleting this site from my favorites and I'll never be back.

Posted by Lemuel McRorey @ 09/28/2006 12:20 AM CST

Time..according to the "basic units" is defined by "Special Relativity" which is based on the speed of light being the reference point from which all motion can be measured. Why is the speed of light used as the reference?

1.The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.
2.The laws of physics are the same in any inertial (that is, non-accelerated) frame of reference. This means that the laws of physics observed by a hypothetical observer traveling with a relativistic particle must be the same as those observed by an observer who is stationary in the laboratory

As I said Time is only a tool for us to describe movement of particles. It has no basis in, nor does it address beginnings or ends. Becuase you observe major transitions while you are living, you have concluded there is a beginning (birth) and end (death). The truth is, these like all things, are mereley transmutting from one form to the next. Consciousness is not addressed by physics, yet. But I would wager it too, transmutes into its basic elements, electromagnetic patterns become free electrons, the chemicals that pass messages (memories) between neurons break down or leach from the brain, as well as the rest of the neurological tissue.

Posted by OMFG @ 09/28/2006 07:40 PM CST

To OMFG,

you quote: "Time..according to the "basic units" is defined by "Special Relativity" which is based on the speed of light being the reference point from which all motion can be measured. Why is the speed of light used as the reference?

1.The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.
2.The laws of physics are the same in any inertial (that is, non-accelerated) frame of reference. This means that the laws of physics observed by a hypothetical observer traveling with a relativistic particle must be the same as those observed by an observer who is stationary in the laboratory"

Yes, true, but I never disagreed with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. I dont mind even dropping the argument of "time". What I am saying OMFG, is that whether time is or isn't a tool, the fact of life remains, that the sun goes up and down in a predicatable pattern, the moon behaves in a predictable cyclic pattern, humans and other life forms are born from some cyclic event. NOW, what I am suggesting is that whether humans developed time as a tool to deal with these changes OR wether time really does exist, the facts remain the same, and without even discussing time, we can still "see changes" occuring around us. The natural question that humans ask sometimes is where did our humanity begin. The fact that two people have sex, and then thru very complicated steps of human pregnancy, life is formed. So when I ask OMFG, "how do you come to exist?" You can say from my parents. I still have not discussed time. Now my next question is where did your parents come from, and you would logically conclude from sexual reproduction. And you would tell me it happened before you were born. Still not discussing time or any measurement of time. So where did OUR HUMAN EXISTENCE COME FROM??? This is the proof that is required from you if you do SAY that we have no origin. Either there is an origin, or we do not know. I think that ALL HUMANS should learn to say "I don't know" a little more. I know you are probably thinking then why don't I follow what I am preaching. I do not know. I do not know. That is my response many times over, but the fact that I have admitted that I do not know, opens up a vast and amazing amount of knowledge that can be gained from life. So now I do know a lot, but I still dont' know crap.

Now back to Einstien, NOBODY CAN DENY that he was a genius. The fact is still that he is only human and is subjected to the same senses that humans have. Einstein, though he wasnt' religious, has said that he does think that there is a God, but, and a big but, he has also stated, and I am paraphrasing, that "he is not interested in the small details of life, but is interested in what is in the mind of God". Einstein surely was a deep thinker, but for him to make a statement that he wants to know what is in the mind of God, is admiting to all of us subtly, that there is an origin and that origin is a creator. Einstien discovered special relativity relating to time dialation and length contraction, but the fact is that this same man that agrees that time is relative, STILL SAID THAT THERE WAS AN ORGIGIN. MEANING THAT GOD CREATED TIME, AND ALL HIS THEORY OF RELATIVITY STATES IS THAT TIME IS ESSENTIALLY A CREATION BY THE CREATOR FOR HUMANS.

On an aside, other than the topic of our origins, I love to talk about relativity because it is soo interesting. I have my issues with relativity, though. I think that relativity is a visual trick of the eye. In other words, if OMFG goes on a space ship travelling near the speed of light, and I (john) happen to be able to see OMFG's atomic clock, I would "see" your clock running slower than my clock. Now the question that many scientists debate about is, is when OMFG returns to Earth, Whom would be older, JOHN or OMFG???? See many scientists think that they have proven that John would be older since my clock was running faster than OMFG's clock. I disagree, I think that this "future time travelling" is not real. I think that when OMFG returns to earth to see John, we would be exactly the same age. I am stating this because, while OMFG was travelling near the speed of life, OMFG can ALSO OBSERVE MY CLOCK WHICH (BASED ON EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY)IS ALSO RUNNING SLOW. If we take your path to be perpendicular to my frame of reference on earth, then not only do I see your clock running slow, but based on the same geometry, OMFG would also see the "earth" travelling at the speed of light, which means when you look at my clock, you see it running slow. That slower rate is both equal based on the geometry. So, when you come back to earth, we are both the same age.

I know all this is wierd stuff, as I am sure you agree, but another way I can show that Einstein's theory of relativity is just a "visual trick" is by using the same example, but this time by both of us observing the sun.
Take the same scenerio, if you travel close to the speed of light staring at the sun, and the sun has a clock, based on relativity, you are measuring proper time, so your clock is running the way it was running on earth, however, the sun's clock is running slower. Therefore, the sun is rising and setting in slow motion. I on the other hand see the sun from earth the way I would every day. Now, lets say that because you are seeing the sun rise more slowly than I am viewing the sun, from your frame of reference, you would see the sun at a higher altitude than I would see the sun from earth. So here is why i say it is a visual trick, If you where to suddenly stop your spaceship instantly, and look at the sun, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO SEE A DIFFERENT SUN THAN THE ONE I AM LOOKING AT FROM EARTH, BECAUSE ONLY ONE SUN EXISTS. SO WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT YOU SAW THE SUN AS A FAKE IMAGE BECAUSE OF YOUR HIGH SPEED, AND THAT WHEN YOU STOP SUDDENLY, THAT IMAGE OF THE SUN WOULD DISSAPEAR, AND THEN YOU WOULD SEE MY SUN FROM MY FRAME OF REFERENCE.

Posted by john @ 09/29/2006 06:32 PM CST

I agree completely that Einstien's definition of time is flawed in regards to that argument. It is also illogical as it is based on the speed of photons, what makes photons the ultimate reference? Only because their speed is the closest thing to an absolute constant? If my assumption is correct, and light is not always 100% constant, then applying this as a factor in an equation to say measure the distance of a far off cosmic body would be flawed; as you apply any constant that is not absolute to an equation exponentially, it will scew the results. Of course the more inaccurate the constant the more inaccurate the results. Has there been controlled studies to determine if the speed light is always constant? What if the light were passing near a black hole? What if the wave length were not the same frequency as our sun's? Maybe you can answer some of those John? Also, another error in Reletivity is the circular references. How can Mass, Time, and Length be a function of Velocity when Velocity is a function of Time and Length? Mathematically it is sound but not logically, as mathematics deals only with equations and not real numbers.

As for the origin debate, I'm not suggesting that we were not produced from sexual reproduction, I'm suggesting that we as products of the natural systems also transmute from one form to the next as aluded by Darwin. If this same system of transmutation works for everything else in physical existance, why would we be exempt of this process? Viruses mutate and become categorically a different quasi-organism, Heavenly bodies are in a state of constant change, as are orbits, chemical composition of the oceans, the geographical features of earth..et..etc. Of course I cannot put the ancestral whole of humanity in a controlled enviroment and observer their transformations, so you are right to say I cannot prove this. We do however have tangible evidence that would suggest we originated from the process of evolution. Genetic mapping of homo genus organisms, the fact that we can trace other organisms through the same process. Also by observing the "theoretical laws" that govern physics and biology. I say theoretical because they are just that as you suggest, of course nothing in reality can be dubbed absolute. On the other hand there is absolutely nothing to hint that there is or ever was a magical being that created any of this. The only thing that leaves that question up for debate is the idea of begining and end. If there were a "begining", then it is not likely that we evolved so quickly from a state of nothingness. As for Lemuels reference to my believing that we always were humans, no of course not. As we understand physics matter cannot be created nor destroyed. We are no doubt made of matter, thus in one form or anther, we as matter have always been and shall always be. Now glued together by atomic bonds as a human, no we have not always been. But again, isn't the term human just a category(tool) we have created to differentiate ourselves from all that surrounds us?

Posted by OMFG @ 09/29/2006 07:18 PM CST

to OMFG,

your quote: "Of course the more inaccurate the constant the more inaccurate the results. Has there been controlled studies to determine if the speed light is always constant? What if the light were passing near a black hole? What if the wave length were not the same frequency as our sun's? Maybe you can answer some of those John?"

You are correct. Now, just of the top of my head, didn't the Michelson experiment use a rotating apparatus, and that gave some kind of measurement of light??? I am not sure, I would have to go study it. So I don't know right now.

your qoute: "I'm suggesting that we as products of the natural systems also transmute from one form to the next as aluded by Darwin." and then you said "We do however have tangible evidence that would suggest we originated from the process of evolution. Genetic mapping of homo genus organisms, the fact that we can trace other organisms through the same process. Also by observing the "theoretical laws" that govern physics and biology."

There is no evidence OMFG. That is the brain washing part that scientists have propagated as theory. They are not even theory. Theory usually comes after observation and hypothesis by many many repeated tests. Just digging up fossils in the ground and saying they all came from each other is not evidence. For example, let us take the oldest fossil that can be traced to human ancestry, "lucy". I think that is the oldest fossil found connecting humanity to some very similiar ancestors. Now even though this is controversial, I don't argue this point. So basically I am giving this argument to any evolutionist that I talk with. What I am saying is a lie is Macro-evolution, not micro evolution. The differences of micro evolution has been proven. No debate there. BUT, macroevolution is what Darwin was referring to, and that is where some of the scientific community took the very fact of the words, faith and believe, (hypothesis) and said that macro evolution is a theory, (closer to a fact). The idea of macroevolution has NEVER been tested. So under the scrutiny of being scientists and searching for truth, one cannot claim that macroevolution is a theory, no matter how much an individual wants it to be true. If you look at the history of Darwin, you will see that the reason he states he believes that the Galapos Finches all have different beaks, is a result of macro evolution. Now, if I were to somehow remove Darwin and replace him with Einstein, or Newton, I can guarentee that they would have looked at those beaks, and said, "Oh, these beaks where just created differently by God"

your qoute: "The only thing that leaves that question up for debate is the idea of begining and end. If there were a "begining", then it is not likely that we evolved so quickly from a state of nothingness. As for Lemuels reference to my believing that we always were humans, no of course not. As we understand physics matter cannot be created nor destroyed. We are no doubt made of matter, thus in one form or anther, we as matter have always been and shall always be. Now glued together by atomic bonds as a human, no we have not always been. But again, isn't the term human just a category(tool) we have created to differentiate ourselves from all that surrounds us?"

Some of the greatest scientific minds of all time thought that there is a creator. I am saying this in reference to what you typed,"On the other hand there is absolutely nothing to hint that there is or ever was a magical being that created any of this." I am not saying that there is a creator, BUT one cannot say that there is evidence enough to say that there is no creator. With no evidence RULING OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF A CREATOR one is left to ponder that if there is a possibility of there being a creator. See that is my main point, to be completely honest and to fully comply with being a true scientists, one would have to admit that THERE POSSIBLY CAN BE A CREATOR. That does not mean become an ignorant bible thumper imediately. A person has to just say "i don't know", and then the possibilities of both sides of the issue become more visible. When that happens, a human can start to see evidences that both support the idea of a creator, and EVIDENCES THAT say that there is no creator. The problem is that there is NOT ENOUGH evidence either way to make a 100% conclusion. This last sentence I typed, IS THE REASON WE DO NOT HAVE WORLD PEACE. People will AND ALWAYS HAVE JUST ACCEPTED THINGS WITHOUT PROOF. Humans basically say "this is true because I say so". That is true of religious people as well as evolutionists.

Your qoute: "Now glued together by atomic bonds as a human, no we have not always been."

See that is what we do not know, where we always glued together???

Basically to sum up my point, is this.

- If you know God exists, then prove it with zero doubts.
- If you know God does not exist, then prove it with zero doubts.
_ If you do not know, then you should not propagate it as truth.

Like I mentioned earlier, that last statement is the cause of all destruction on earth. If humans would shove their fucckkeen foot in their mouths and admit that they do not know, instead of making conclusions quickly without 100 percent proof, then we would have world peace. Darwin by the way did not propagate macro evolution, it was the people following his idea that pushed it as theory. Those people should not propagate it unless proven. Christians should not propagate jesus, unless it can be proven, same with moslims, and all other ideas floating around about human origins. ONE MUST SAY (TO BE INTELLECTUALLY HONEST) THAT HUMAN ORIGINS IS A COMPLEX ISSUE, AND THEN IT IS ALSO A PEICE OF HISTORY, WHICH ADDS MORE UNCERTAINTY. NO ONE CAN CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE SOLVED THIS ETERNAL HUGE QUESTION WITHOUT PROOF.

If god exists and he did give us proof, or some method of scientifically proving his existence, it can be easily understood how humans could have completely messed up this proof. After all, if there is a creator which does have a created path to somehow find out about his existence, then this path is not easily identified because humans lie, and are ignorant. Do I need to prove that OMFG, just look around you. Why does a christian simply just accept that a man named jesus existed??? And then if that wasn't enough, that he existed 2000 years ago, how can a christian then say that there was a man who walked on water, and made someone dead, live again. I mean do you ever wonder what the hell is going on that these idiots just accept these amazingly weird unatural stories. And to make matters worse, OMFG, we are a minority, lol. Most of the 6 billion human population, really does think that these wierd fricken stories are really real, YET THEY DO NOT HAVE AN OUNCE OF PROOF. They just accept.

If I had one thing to say to humanity, if I had one microphone that would make everybody hear me, I would say "PROVE IT OR SHUT THE FUUCCKK UP BECAUSE THEN YOU DON'T KNOW". LOL.

Posted by john @ 09/29/2006 09:29 PM CST

LOL John "If I had one thing to say to humanity, if I had one microphone that would make everybody hear me, I would say "PROVE IT OR SHUT THE FUUCCKK UP BECAUSE THEN YOU DON'T KNOW"."

Now that is the wisest statement I have ever heard.

When I was studying Zen Buhddism and Yoga Sutra's (Pantanjali) I came to that very conclusion. All communication is destructive. Your reality is unique. your perception is only held by you, no matter how similar it is to others. If you teach then you are tainting their perception. Truth is not constant, reality as we know it is seen through the viel of our perception, therefor your reality is not constant. This life is for you to live, a personal experience that no other can experience as they are not you. And so I came to think that no matter what I said, I will not teach them what I truely mean, they will see it through their eyes, thus the meaning is lost and twisted. Now, if Jesus had only realized that we would be in much better shape. Of course I have not taken my own advice, I have to interact with society or I'll be locked up and dubbed a psychotic.

There is in fact, very little that can be proven about anything.

Posted by OMFG @ 09/29/2006 11:51 PM CST

your qoute "There is in fact, very little that can be proven about
anything."

True. BUT, (I KNOW I AM A PAIN IN THE ASSS, LOL). Your next qoute,"Your
reality is unique. your perception is only held by you, no matter how
similar it is to others. If you teach then you are tainting their
perception. Truth is not constant, reality as we know it is seen
through the viel of our perception, therefor your reality is not
constant." This quote is not true. Because truth does exist. For
example, 2+2=4. That is not a perception. That is a true statement.
Period. No perception. In other words, if I place a computer infront
of your face, you see one computer, if I place another computer infront of you, your would see two computer, and so on till you see 4 computers. If someone does not admit that this is a truth of 4, then they are either blind, OR lying. This point cannot be debated, and cannot have another perception. Another way to look at it, if humans cannot agree that 2+2=4, then our entire humanity and scientific world would have not progressed. Now what humans should do is use these basic facts and STICK TO THEM TO FIND MORE FACTS. They do not do that.

Your qoute: "Now, if Jesus had only realized that we would be in much better shape"

Well to take a look at the character of Jesus, if he existed, and if he is God, then Jesus knew exactly what he was doing. Either Jesus was a pshyco, or he was God. Jesus maybe was trying to fix, what you and me both observe as lies, and hypocrites. OMFG, how come me and you agree on lets say 85% of issues, but me and Lemuel might agree on 5%. In a way what you are saying about perception and reality is true, BUT up to a point. Not everything is a perception. When a human tries to be honest, humble and try to change to learn more truths, THEN, AND ONLY THEN, you will see that humans CAN AGREE. MY PROOF IS THAT ME AND YOU AGREE ON MORE ISSUES THAN COMPARED TO ME AND OSAMA BIL LADEN.
Another example, all humans have blood. That is not a perception. It is again a fact. The perception that you are talking about is actually in agreement with what I refer to in humans as "faith and belief". When a human runs out of facts, we are left with opinions, which could mess up our perceptions.

P.S. Please do not think that I am just arguing with you. I am not. I am just sharing with you all the information that I have thought about deeply. Like I said earlier, it might seem that I think that I am always right, BUT, the fact is I had to admit I was wrong thousands of times. A person has to admit that they are wrong before one can correct themselves. Even till today, I will be the first one to say I am wrong if provided with evidence and proof. For example, if some muslim tomorrow, proves that the Koran is indeed the word of God, and it explains our origins, I would not hesitate it admitting that I am wrong, and become Muslim.

Posted by john @ 09/30/2006 06:28 PM CST

I just wanted to point you to something that popped in my head as I was reading your last post; First when I say reality I really should say perception..I should distinguish the two better. With that said, you mention laws of numbers being reality and yes they are, though numbers are also an abstract idea and so they are not a tangible object and so they do not truely exist. There is a tribe in South America, I only remember the news article you will have to look it up for further information, but they do not comprehend numbers, not even when it comes to distinguishing themselves as an individuals. They "believe" they are a different person everytime they change their minds...very strange state of consciousness. When they want to catch fish, they do not want to catch one or 10 fish..they just want to catch fish, they don't understand numeric value. So I guess what I'm trying to convey is that all abstract idea's dreamed up by man can be proven because we have drawn the boundries and declared the laws. On the other hand, can the same be said of what we did not create or label?

Posted by OMFG @ 10/01/2006 04:47 PM CST

OMFG,
this tribe you talk about, still "sees the reality of catching 10 fish" wether they want to discuss it or think about it is their bussiness". For this tribe, if they are hungry, and the man goes and catches 2 fish and brings it home to his family, they will not be happy because it would not be enough to feed them, but if the man catches 20 fish, then they would be happy because there is enough food. So numerical values are NOT made up, they are just tools that are made up to represent reality. OMFG, what we make up to make reality a better place to live in DOES NOT remove reality, but only adds to it.

OMFG, if we cannot have such basic truths and facts that all humans can agree on, then someone would debate with me that all humans do have red blood. If someone debates that, then they are lying.

Posted by John @ 10/01/2006 10:55 PM CST

Please do not leave notes for MidEastWeb editors here. Hyperlinks are not displayed. We may delete or abridge comments that are longer than 250 words, or consist entirely of material copied from other sources, and we shall delete comments with obscene or racist content or commercial advertisements. Comments should adhere to Mideastweb Guidelines . IPs of offenders will be banned.