Times are Hard

“The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” ~ Principia Sir IsaacNewton

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” ~ Albert Einstein

(Einstein is calling you "lame" WTF)

None of which discounted the books contention , nor the books on the founding fathers.Shermer says it’s so, and so you believe him? Yet another instance of the blind leading the blind. Hence, you are denying your own eyes when you read Jefferson’s own words where he wrote: “I am a real Christian”? Or you are a pompous ass and presume to second guess Jefferson on his own, professed beliefs?

You sir are exactly what a book like that is written for. Not likely. It’s pretentious psychobabble – that’s your cup of tea.

You do not believe in science, Are you really calling Shermer’s book science-fact? you believe in some pie in the sky. And your “pie in the sky” belongs to someone else. So, quit trying to pick the pockets of others to pay for your personal financial shortcomings. Originally Posted by WTF

... Originally Posted by WTF

Thay is not what Munchmasterman said Wrong! You’re remiss for one of two reasons: 1) you didn’t read both posts, or 2) you do not understand both posts.

The book I recommended premise was that people do not understand scientific analysis. BTW, if you want others to “believe” in your messiah, how ever are you going to deal with this little factoid?

~ Your messiah, Michael Shermer, says, “By the criteria of science and reason, God is an unknowable concept. We cannot prove or disprove God’s existence through empirical evidence or rational analysis.”

Plus, isn’t it also troublesome for you that he is a devotee of both Ayn Rand and the Austrian School of economics? How do you reconcile those facts with your “pie in the sky” aspirations? Originally Posted by WTF

Sorry bud. I was referring to the original book in the post. So your maxim of “go with the majority: they’re always right” now has an addendum—“go with the majority: they’re always right – but only when they agree with you.” Typical position for a dim Dim to take. The book isn't a course matter reference or class text book. Suggest you clarify that point with WTF – it’s his bible. So you don't like it. Big deal, get over it.
You just had a chance to show your knowledge of brain chemistry. For the lay-person, the term "experience" is close enough to what you said (everyone knows the pyramidal tracts are a housing development outside of CairoSo is “De-Nial” – except for this pathetic puddle of piss you’ve managed to dribble here). And before you start bitching about that choice of word for the chemical process of imprinting, I bet there is another word similar to experience that lops a semester of reading off the table. They don't need in depth biology classes to catch the gist of the subject. When it’s used as a weapon to attack and demean others, it damn well should have intellectual sharpness. But then again, you and WTF do often enter into verbal jousts unarmed. BTW, you and WTF are offering different and conflicting arguments. Evidently you haven’t been reading WTF’s posts, but that’s quite understandable. Books are written for different levels of readers with different backgrounds. Get over it. You are, of course, agreeing with the critic that claims the book is written to accommodate your and WTF’s juvenile level of understanding?

Showing the review wasn't part of some plan to be used to buy books. The point of your post was quite clear. When it blew up in your face, you started backtracking with this puddle of piss post. Trying to extend a book review to cover all aspects of purchasing books is pretty simplistic, don't you think? When taken collectively, it’s the only way to purchase: it’s called research. I showed a review that was well thought out and with lots of details. Opinion, remember? The book itself is “opinionated” psychobabble; not science.

The bottom line here is that you disagree with the majority of the reviewers. Similarly, your refusal to agree with the majority of the reviewers on the second book is your dodge to avoid admitting your “maxim” regarding the first book is not at all valid. This isn't a text book. It's a person's take on an inexact science. Suggest you clarify that point with WTF – psychobabble (in his mind) – is infallible. A book he want to sell to more than 50 people. He has tried to make it informative for people who don't have a huge background in biology. Not being simplistic, just realistic.

You can't seem to tell the two apart. You and WTF are like two peas in a pod. BTW, who gets top? Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

“
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” ~ Albert Einstein

(Einstein is calling you "lame" WTF)


Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Not as lame as you are for misusing that quote. Not that all you Jesus freaks don't always misuse it. Let's take a look at the letter , not a snap shot of the letter but the whole letter...

I believe in faith, just as Albert, I just put my faith in myself to do the right thing. I do not put in in some pie in the sky. I am an Humanist.


http://news.softpedia.com/news/Scien...nd-85550.shtml


This is what Albert Einstein wrote in his letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, in response to his receiving the book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt". The letter was written on January 3, 1954, in German, and explains Einstein's personal beliefs regarding religion and the Jewish people; it was put on sale one year later and remained into a personal collection ever since. Now the letter is again on auction in London and has a starting price of 8,000 sterling pounds.

The letter states pretty clearly that Einstein was by no means a religious person - in fact, the great physicist saw religion as no more than a "childish superstition". "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this", Einstein wrote.


Einstein may have not believed in God, but he felt that faith was a must. This is probably why he never gave a second thought to studying the quantum theory and its random nature. He once said that "God does not throw dice", meaning that quantum theory randomness is out of the question for him. This belief in faith is probably also why his position towards religion was often misinterpreted.

"Like other great scientists he does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him. It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions... but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion", said John Brook from the Oxford University, leading expert on Albert Einstein.



BTW...I am in the process of actually reading the book in question. The book explains from a scienticic point, why we believe the things we do. That is totally different than what we believe to be the best form of goverance. You again are mixing apples with oranges. Had you a better understanding of science you would understand that subtle difference.

Not as lame as you are for misusing that quote. Not that all you Jesus freaks don't always misuse it. Let's take a look at the letter , not a snap shot of the letter but the whole letter...

I believe in faith, just as Albert, I just put my faith in myself to do the right thing. I do not put in in some pie in the sky. I am an Humanist.


http://news.softpedia.com/news/Scien...nd-85550.shtml


This is what Albert Einstein wrote in his letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, in response to his receiving the book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt". The letter was written on January 3, 1954, in German, and explains Einstein's personal beliefs regarding religion and the Jewish people; it was put on sale one year later and remained into a personal collection ever since. Now the letter is again on auction in London and has a starting price of 8,000 sterling pounds.

The letter states pretty clearly that Einstein was by no means a religious person - in fact, the great physicist saw religion as no more than a "childish superstition". "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this", Einstein wrote.


Einstein may have not believed in God, but he felt that faith was a must. This is probably why he never gave a second thought to studying the quantum theory and its random nature. He once said that "God does not throw dice", meaning that quantum theory randomness is out of the question for him. This belief in faith is probably also why his position towards religion was often misinterpreted.

"Like other great scientists he does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him. It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions... but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion", said John Brook from the Oxford University, leading expert on Albert Einstein.



BTW...I am in the process of actually reading the book in question. The book explains from a scienticic point, why we believe the things we do. That is totally different than what we believe to be the best form of goverance. You again are mixing apples with oranges. Had you a better understanding of science you would understand that subtle difference.

Originally Posted by WTF

"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." Einstein

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." Einstein

"I'm absolutely not an atheist. . .The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations." Einstein

"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." Einstein

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." Einstein

"I'm absolutely not an atheist. . .The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations." Einstein Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You truly do not understand science I B. Exactly the kind of person the book I recommended was talking about.

The letter states pretty clearly that Einstein was by no means a religious person - in fact, the great physicist saw religion as no more than a "childish superstition". "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this", Einstein wrote.


http://www.devsamaj.com/einsteinonreligion.html


Einstein identifies religion with cosmic feeling towards harmony of the Universe. He therefore rejects traditional view of religion as faith in personal God as constituting the principle of harmony of the Universe. As for personal God Einstein pointed out: "There are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea of personal God, which have painfully felt since the beginning of history. It undefined source of fear and hope which genesis of irrational superstitions and in the past placed such vast power in the hands of the priests and so ruthlessly exploited by them. Unfortunately the doctrine of a personal God interfering natural events can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot."

You seem to have no concept of wtf he is actually saying!

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that path to genuine religiosity does not lie through fear of personal God or blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. After religious teachers give up the doctrine of a personal God and accomplish the necessary refining process they will surely recognize with joy that true religion can be ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge."

The facts are that Democrat or Republican, they're ALL lying, pieces of shit! It will ALWAYS be the lesser of two evils AT BEST! the overall corruption, greed and quest for power will over shadow ANYONE who tries to make this country a better place. That is a fact that history has proven time and time again!

Why do we believe the things we do?? Because we are the only creatures that can truly comprehend our own demise, and that demise with no hope of any other life compels us to look for answers that there might indeed be something other than what we have now.

As the old saying goes: "The problem is not that Life is so short, the problem is that you are dead for so damned long".

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman (Blue)
I.B posted next in red.
My rebuttal is in Black
Sorry bud. I was referring to the original book in the post. So your maxim of “go with the majority: they’re always right” now has an addendum—“go with the majority: they’re always right – but only when they agree with you.” Typical position for a dim Dim to take. First off, you’re the one offended someone likes the book. Since I never said or implied anything about buying the book or agreeing with anybody, majority or minority, about the quality of the book, I don’t understand how you arrived at the conclusion you did. It’s not important that I understand how a douche bag such as yourself arrives at any aspect of anything. I can only say it is typical of you, not any given group.The book isn't a course matter reference or class text book. Suggest you clarify that point with WTF – it’s his bible. I reject your suggestion for many reasons. None of them have anything to do with WTF. It’s admirable you look out for his concerns, much less when you attempt to speak for himSo you don't like it. Big deal, get over it.
You just had a chance to show your knowledge of brain chemistry. For the lay-person, the term "experience" is close enough to what you said (everyone knows the pyramidal tracts are a housing development outside of CairoSo is “De-Nial”This was a pretty good one. You could even say it the way you normally do. – except for this pathetic puddle of piss you’ve managed to dribble here I see you’re back to your 50% average.). And before you start bitching about that choice of word for the chemical process of imprinting, I bet there is another word similar to experience that lops a semester of reading off the table. They don't need in depth biology classes to catch the gist of the subject. When it’s used as a weapon to attack and demean others, it damn well should have intellectual sharpness. But then again, you and WTF do often enter into verbal jousts unarmed. BTW, you and WTF are offering different and conflicting arguments. Evidently you haven’t been reading WTF’s posts, but that’s quite understandable. Once again you attempt to speak for others when you can’t even speak for yourself. Even after pointing out that WTF and I differ in opinion, you reject your own arguments trying not to appear less than stupid for thinking we consult each other about our posts. Books are written for different levels of readers with different backgrounds. Get over it. You are, of course, agreeing with the critic that claims the book is written to accommodate your and WTF’s juvenile level of understanding? Our juvenile level of understanding? This from the person who is personally affronted that the author didn’t write the book just for you and who also can turn my statement about writing to different levels into a statement agreeing with your moronic obsession that WTF and I share anything other than a well documented set of bitch-slaps (or force fed you shit sandwiches as your girl friend says) that would have caused a douche bag of lesser stature than yourself to change his handle

Showing the review wasn't part of some plan to be used to buy books. The point of your post was quite clear. You are right. When it blew up in your face, you started backtracking with this puddle of piss post. You are wrong. 50%. Better than your normal average.Trying to extend a book review to cover all aspects of purchasing books is pretty simplistic, don't you think? When taken collectively, it’s the only way to purchase: it’s called research. What part of “extend a book review to cover all aspects of purchasing books” don’t you understand? You don’t check tables of content? Bibliographies? Excerpts? Research, I should say honest research considers all factors available. Your “research” showed 3 negative reviews which you based your decision not to buy, because according to you, “it’s the only way to purchase”. Wrong again, there goes your 50% average. Don’t bother to fill your Depends pointing out that I missed some research items or categories. I was only adding enough of them to point out once again how completely wrong you were and that you would show some sign that your brain chemistry had not locked you into a state of perpetual befuddlement. I am forced to face the brutal truth that you can’t save everyone. I showed a review that was well thought out and with lots of details. Opinion, remember? The book itself is “opinionated” psychobabble; not science.What about me saying opinion don’t you understand?

The bottom line here is that you disagree with the majority of the reviewers. Similarly, your refusal to agree with the majority of the reviewers on the second book is your dodge to avoid admitting your “maxim” regarding the first book is not at all valid. You can assign a maxim to the action of inaction in reference to a subject I never touched upon or referenced. You then use the term “psychobabble” referring to someone else in your next statement. The weight of the irony alone should immobilize you.This isn't a text book. It's a person's take on an inexact science. Suggest you clarify that point with WTF – psychobabble (in his mind) – is infallible. You harp on things that have nothing to do with our dialog. How can you defend any “thought” process you claim to have? You’re WTF’s bitch. You’re the one that has to worry about what he thinks, not me. I agree with him on some things and don’t on others. You can only be torn between 2 masters for so long. Eventually you will have to be totally subjugated by marshal or WTF (not that you have any part of the choice). It’s obvious by the amount of self degradation and the need to be humiliated by all who you do “battle” with, that yes, you are WTF’s bitch.A book he want to sell to more than 50 people. He has tried to make it informative for people who don't have a huge background in biology. Not being simplistic, just realistic.

You can't seem to tell the two apart.You and WTF are like two peas in a pod. BTW, who gets top? Why doesn’t it surprise me that this would be your conclusion? Hey wtf, WTF? Do something about your bitch or we’ll have her turned out by Leslie, our local cross dresser.

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman (Blac k and Blue: WTF put it to him)
I.B posted next in green and red.
Munchmasterman is in Back of WTF
You can't seem to tell the two apart.You and WTF are like two peas in a pod. BTW, who gets top? Why doesn’t it surprise me that this would be your conclusion? Hey WTF, you’re my number two bitch. I still love butt-fucking Leslie, our local cross dresser. It’s so obvious you two have a thing for each other. You hurry to his defense when you see WTF being bested in an intellectual exchange. (But what do you expect given the choice of authors he admires.) It’s a shame your defense is as intellectually challenged as his. BTW, isn’t a “shit-sandwich” just a metaphor describing your filthy hand as you wipe WTF’s shit off your limp dick after you’ve butt fucked him? You are top aren’t you? You never did answer that question. Your language is replete with the lexicon of a TS – “bitch slap”, “douche bag”, etc., and yet you go even further and brag about your P4P conquest Leslie. Poor ol’ WTF, he isn’t enough for you? He doesn’t quite measure up? Tsk, tsk, tsk! Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

FUCK YOU!

FUCIt’s so obvious you two have a thing for each other. You hurry to his defense when you see WTF being bested in an intellectual exchange. (But what do you expect given the choice of authors he admires.) It’s a shame your defense is as intellectually challenged as his. BTW, isn’t a “shit-sandwich” just a metaphor describing your filthy hand as you wipe WTF’s shit off your limp dick after you’ve butt fucked him? You are top aren’t you? You never did answer that question. Your language is replete with the lexicon of a TS – “bitch slap”, “douche bag”, etc., and yet you go even further and brag about your P4P conquest Leslie. Poor ol’ WTF, he isn’t enough for you? He doesn’t quite measure up? Tsk, tsk, tsk!K YOU! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

1)I. B. is Lauren Summerhill's WK.

2) He does not understand how science works.

3) He tried to hint at leaking personal information about me earlier in the thread but decided he liked his teeth more and thought better of continuing down that path.

4) He does not want to debate the merits of an issue.

5) How about growing a pair and debating in your own thread.

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=263949

6) Who are you and Lauren Summerhill betting on to die next? I bet it will be you and Lauren if I quit paying attention to the both of you. I never seen two bigger drama queens/attention whores in my life. She leaves the board by choice and all you do is continually bring her up. Is she paying you in pussy or just rubbing your belly? I hope the former but suspect the latter.

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman (Blac k and Blue: WTF put it to him)
I.B posted next in green and red.
Munchmasterman is in Back of WTF
You can't seem to tell the two apart.You and WTF are like two peas in a pod. BTW, who gets top? Why doesn’t it surprise me that this would be your conclusion? Hey WTF, you’re my number two bitch. I still love butt-fucking Leslie, our local cross dresser. It’s so obvious you two have a thing for each other. You hurry to his defense when you see WTF being bested in an intellectual exchange. (But what do you expect given the choice of authors he admires.) It’s a shame your defense is as intellectually challenged as his. BTW, isn’t a “shit-sandwich” just a metaphor describing your filthy hand as you wipe WTF’s shit off your limp dick after you’ve butt fucked him? You are top aren’t you? You never did answer that question. Your language is replete with the lexicon of a TS – “bitch slap”, “douche bag”, etc., and yet you go even further and brag about your P4P conquest Leslie. Poor ol’ WTF, he isn’t enough for you? He doesn’t quite measure up? Tsk, tsk, tsk!


NOW THAT'S A POST!RIGHT ON THE MONEY!

I know there's no outing on Eccie, but I couldn't help it after I found a picture of Marshall.

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman (Blac k and Blue: WTF put it to him)
I.B posted next in green and red.
Munchmasterman is in Back of WTF
You can't seem to tell the two apart.You and WTF are like two peas in a pod. BTW, who gets top? Why doesn’t it surprise me that this would be your conclusion? Hey WTF, you’re my number two bitch. I still love butt-fucking Leslie, our local cross dresser. It’s so obvious you two have a thing for each other. You hurry to his defense when you see WTF being bested in an intellectual exchange. (But what do you expect given the choice of authors he admires.) It’s a shame your defense is as intellectually challenged as his. BTW, isn’t a “shit-sandwich” just a metaphor describing your filthy hand as you wipe WTF’s shit off your limp dick after you’ve butt fucked him? You are top aren’t you? You never did answer that question. Your language is replete with the lexicon of a TS – “bitch slap”, “douche bag”, etc., and yet you go even further and brag about your P4P conquest Leslie. Poor ol’ WTF, he isn’t enough for you? He doesn’t quite measure up? Tsk, tsk, tsk!


NOW THAT'S A POST!RIGHT ON THE MONEY! Originally Posted by Marshall

FU(But what do you expect given the choice of authors he admires.) CK YOU! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I recommended a book. http://www.amazon.com/Believing-Brai.../dp/0805091254

You think because the author admires Any Rand that I should not like the author/book.

That is because you do not understand science.

What a stupid way to look at the world. Just because I do not agree with an authors beliefs has nothing to do with his research into his science. Science is peer reviewed, it is not dogmatic like religion.


One of the authors study is on liberals and conservatives.

Why those two clash when in fact they have so much in common.

He makes it very clear that political preference is not a question of right or wrong. It is a matter of the output one is seeking.

So even though the author and I do not agree on Any Rand , that does not mean that we do not agree on the science that goes into determining peoples political slant and why they clash and why the majority do not understand scientific theory. Science is a question of running data and living with the results.

You sir do not understand scientific theory and that my friend is why we are falling behind in the world. There is nothing excepional about that fact. You dogmatic Christians are the very reason for decline that you so hate....

FUCK YOU! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Now you even mimic marshal's "change the quote" terror tactic.

How will America survive?

PS I noticed how you didn't address any issue but the one that was most important to you.

I know there's no outing on Eccie, but I couldn't help it after I found a picture of Marshall.

Originally Posted by Sa_artman

Nice try on the Photoshopping!

Everyone knows he still has that "Cold sore" blister on his upper lip plus he still has no teeth. The teeth he lost when his arms gave out while doing the "Wheel barrow" for that 1 year supply of Valtrex

I just can't wait for junior high to start back up so Marshall has homework and we don't get 15 posts a night from him. They do still have homework in the 7th grade, don't they?