Neuloveyou wrote:So going on this, how are you so certain that what you know about, say, 9/11 is the absolute universal truth?

Yeah, pretty much what those other guys said. Because the evidentiary proceedures we have at present are good at providing us reliable with information about our immediate environment (not that I've looked much into the evidence that 9/11 was conspiracy... but you know, they're good for other stuff like making cough syrup and Smart Cars).

These proceedures are not so great at explaining why, if you drop a glass, it crashes to the floor instead of the ceiling given the fact that the universe is explanding.

The possibly of god will never be ruled out by science. Just at is the possibility that the world was created one minute ago, but it looks a lot older and we all have false memories of our lives. A perfectly working theory of everything not mentioning God which would end science (as there would be nothing to learn about the world) would not rule out the possibility of God either. God is not an idea that can be ruled out (falsified) by science, or by anything.

BTW, even if something is 'falsified' it does not mean it is ruled out definitely, as we falsify something on a base of facts that were not falsified yet, but might be falsified in the future. Therefore even the possibility of flat earth is not 'ruled out' by science, but it is falsified. The difference between the idea (not a theory) of God and the idea/theory of flat earth is that the idea/theory of God can't be falsified.


I know this is should be obvious for everyone who uses "God" and "science" and "theory" in one sentence but apparently it is not.

i'm thinking of that quote in "anchorman," where after the big brawl ron burgandy goes "whoo... that escalated quickly!"

bellulah wrote:i'm thinking of that quote in "anchorman," where after the big brawl ron burgandy goes "whoo... that escalated quickly!"

It ALWAYS does, and everyone is ALWAYS repeating the same thing over and over again. It is sad, actually.

tocharian wrote:

Neuloveyou wrote:So going on this, how are you so certain that what you know about, say, 9/11 is the absolute universal truth?

Yeah, pretty much what those other guys said. Because the evidentiary proceedures we have at present are good at providing us reliable with information about our immediate environment (not that I've looked much into the evidence that 9/11 was conspiracy... but you know, they're good for other stuff like making cough syrup and Smart Cars).

These proceedures are not so great at explaining why, if you drop a glass, it crashes to the floor instead of the ceiling given the fact that the universe is explanding.

So at what point do you draw the line and say that we don't and can't know this?

Cranius wrote:Swell American, Rick...or should we call you Reich Reuben?

I don't know Cranius, this seems a bit like schoolyard taunting to me. I'm willing to take Rick on faith that he's interested in this guy's ideas about banking and not antisemitism.

Would you call me an antisemite for reading this guy:

tocharian wrote:Would you call me an antisemite for reading this guy

Emphatically...no (although it should be no surprise to anyone reading Heidegger that he turns out to be a Nazi).

As for Eustace Mullins....yes. Go read some and report back, he is quite convincingly a writer of white suprematism, even and especially when he writes about banking.

I don't know about you, but I for one am bored of this daily fascist discourse (albeit for thickies).

Rick Reuben wrote:

Cranius wrote:Rick, tell us more about Eustace Mullins

As everyone knows, Zionism is a movement founded by Khazars who were converts to Judaism, and therefore do not have any claim to Palestine, even if one accepts the preposterous idea that religious books should be used to endorse acts of revenge and theft.

By 'everyone' I presume you mean fascists, neo-nazis, anti-semites and holocaust deniers who believe that the Askenazi Jews(Kazhars) are not 'real' jews*, because of their turkic (non-white) origin and based on something that happened in the 8th century.

That's pretty odd considering Judaism (or even being Arab for that matter) is not racially determined.

*'khazar jew pretenders' as extremist writers often call them