Tuesday, June 04, 2013

Life, death and everything

I am speaking this Thursday about death at an event organised by the City Bible Forum!!  This is a MELBOURNE event.  The graphic above is a reference to the unspeakable nature of death.  Nice pic.

Life, death and everything: a skeptic, a psychic and a Christian discuss
Dick Gross (The Godless Gross), Greg Riley (winner of Channel 7’s ‘The One’) and Rev Ian Powell talk about death, life after death and life before death.
7pm, Thursday 6 June
Coopers Inn (282 Exhibition St)
Come and join in our free discussions. There will be plenty of opportunity for questions.
Check out the Facebook event.

BE THERE OR HAVE FOUR CORNERS

155 comments:

  1. MalcolmS12:38 AM

    "BE THERE OR HAVE FOUR CORNERS"

    Be there and miss the Footy Show?! :}}

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You should go mallypoos.

      You and Dick can hold hands and sing kumbaya, then afterwards head down to the CES and sign up for the dole together

      Delete
    2. is that Kumbaya with a capital K?

      Delete
    3. Why am I not surprised you watch the Footy Show?

      Delete
  2. 8x
    Life, death and everything: a skeptic, a psychic and a Christian discuss
    x8

    Let me guess: You're the psychic. Right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice try but wrong. Unlike the psychic who is never wrong...

      Delete
  3. It would be good to have someone on the panel like Bertrand Russell, who is actually dead to give a first hand perspective on the matter.

    I am sure that Greg Riley could help organise that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous12:37 AM

      I will ask him for you Robin. Dick (at a strange computer)

      Delete
  4. RalphH4:59 PM

    "It would be good to have someone on the panel like Bertrand Russell, who is actually dead to give a first hand perspective on the matter." (Robin4:48 PM)

    Or next best (and doable) thing Robin, someone who has experienced an NDE. e.g. Dr Eben Alexander

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS9:49 PM

      Was it the butterflies and beautiful girls in peasant dress that appealed to you Ralph?

      Don't believe everything they tell you. You may be disappointed.

      Delete
    2. Or even better, Jesus, who had an actal death experience, and lived to tell?

      Delete
    3. MalcolmS2:16 AM

      You think Jesus "lived to tell"?

      Sheesh! See where scepticism leads you!

      Delete
    4. Mal: You think Jesus "lived to tell"?

      If Jesus is not alive then who is Elvis, dummy?

      Delete
  5. Long John silver9:11 PM

    Hearing about death from someone who has experienced an NDE would be like taking advice on sex from a virgin who almost got lucky once.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS9:23 PM

      LOL May I borrow that one?

      Delete
    2. Long John Silver6:48 AM

      Nah, but you can NEARLY borrow it :)

      Delete
    3. RalphH8:41 AM

      "Hearing about death from someone who has experienced an NDE would be like taking advice on sex from a virgin who almost got lucky once." (Long John silver9:11 PM)

      You've been a long time at sea Long John and now you're 'all at sea'. Obviously no comparison but why let that get in the way of a good laugh.

      I see you posted at 9.11

      Delete
    4. Anonymous12:41 AM

      I will pinch this analogy Pirate. DICK

      Delete
  6. I am afraid I will have to be a rhombus, being interstate and all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hello Dick,
    This is a subject I feel strongly about. So many are not prepared to confront the reality of their own mortality. I'm so pleased the subject is being discussed. It's a issue people tend to avoid or make jokes about, so serious discussion can be difficult to come by. Hope it goes well.

    Wish I could come but my health is less than average at present.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous12:39 AM

      Please get better soon my lovely Tricia. You will be missed. DICK

      Delete
  8. RalphH5:33 PM

    Tonight's the night Dick. I'd come if I could but it's a long hike from Sydney. The most interesting aspect of your discussion must be life after death. If there weren't any speculation about this what would there be to talk about?

    As a theist/Christian I just take the extension of life after the death of the physical body for granted. I grew up with that knowledge/truth and have never encountered any argument to make me seriously question it. I know that NDE's are not 'proof' of life after death but there have been no rational arguments to explain them other than that life continues.

    My first experience of NDE's was attending a talk by Dr Raymond Moody (in the 70's) who was promoting his recently published book 'Life after Life'. Moody did not have a religious background or motivation, he was/is a scientist.

    There's an interesting section in the book called 'Parallels' where he lists other four other sources of similar knowledge – the Bible, Plato, 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead' and an experience of the scientist/philosopher/theologian Emanuel Swedenborg who claimed to have been taken through the experience of dying so that he (as a scientist) could record it.

    Enjoy your discussion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ralph:

      I hadn’t heard of Swedenborg till you mentioned him. What caught my eye is your reference to him as both a scientist and a theologian. I wondered if he was an early IDer. And so I checked out his Wiki entry. It says there that he turned to theology after he started having strange dreams. He came to think that his scientific insights were being given to him by angels.

      Some people reckon what happened is that he lost his marbles. That seems like a plausible theory to me. You, no doubt, wouldn’t agree. But, you must admit, it would have been more helpful to your cause if he had made the transition from scientist to theologian without the help of those strange dreams.

      Delete
    2. Long John Silver6:35 PM

      "Emanuel Swedenborg who claimed to have been taken through the experience of dying so that he (as a scientist) could record it."
      He also claimed to have been told by alien spirits that cattle are from Mercury. Horses are from Jupiter, so I wouldn't put too much faith in him.
      Still haven't heard a convincing response to the problem of Uranus.

      Delete
    3. MalcolmS8:07 PM

      "Some people reckon what happened is that he lost his marbles"

      Cut it out Terry.

      This is a family blog.

      Delete
    4. RalphH8:16 PM

      Your response was anticipated Long John (Silver6:35 PM). The story keeps changing and being embellished with each telling. Now cattle and horses actually come from outer space. I'm sure at least one of the cows 'jumped over the moon' on her way here.

      There are sensible explanations for Swedenborg's claim of speaking with spirits from other planets but I suppose it's more fun for a simple pirate to use ridicule. Maybe you could try thinking of plausible scientific explanations when the effect of the grog wears off.

      Just to get you started - are we confined to carbon based life-forms? Could the multi-verse speculation provide some possibilities?

      Delete
    5. RalphH8:20 PM

      “Some people reckon what happened is that he lost his marbles. That seems like a plausible theory to me. “ (Terry6:21 PM)

      Many people who have done no more than a surface skim or a cherry-picking read of his work think that way but no one who has done a proper sampling or in-depth study would. I'll just mention that he didn't make a transition from scientist to theologian. Many people wear those two hats quite comfortably. It was his grounding as a scientist and philosopher and the ability to view and understand the whole spectrum that led to his rational explanation of theology.

      I doubt very much that Moody who is a serious contemporary scientist would have included him in his list if he thought he'd “lost his marbles.”

      Delete
    6. Ralph: Many people wear those two hats quite comfortably.

      I’ve just looked at Wiki’s list of religious scientists and found some of my all-time favourites on it. Which proves that no matter how smart you are, you can’t rely on your brain to be rational. And if even the best brains in the world can’t stave off religious infection and strange dreams, what chance the rest of us?

      Next time an atheist criticises you for your religion, point to that list and say ‘careful, mate, it’s infected better people than you’.


      Delete
    7. MalcolmS12:30 AM

      Terry: ".. you can’t rely on your brain to be rational"

      No, you must use your mind.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous12:43 AM

      Dear Ralph, the City Bible Forum is based in Sydney. They are worth a visit as they are highly intellectual, highly transparent and afraid of no one. I recommend them to you. Dick

      Delete
    9. " I grew up with that knowledge/truth"

      No Ralph you grew up with that belief.

      "and have never encountered any argument to make me seriously question it. "

      Yes you have, you just don't want to accept them.

      " I know that NDE's are not 'proof' of life after death but there have been no rational arguments to explain them other than that life continues."

      There have been plenty of rational attempts to explain them, and we have discussed them Why do you keep making things up?

      Delete
    10. "There are sensible explanations for Swedenborg's claim of speaking with spirits from other planets"

      No there aren't or you would have mentioned them by now.

      "Maybe you could try thinking of plausible scientific explanations when the effect of the grog wears off."

      You've been given one, Swedenborg went insane.

      "Just to get you started - are we confined to carbon based life-forms? Could the multi-verse speculation provide some possibilities?"

      None of that has anything to do with spirits talking to someone about cattle on mercury.

      Delete
    11. Terry wrote: "..it’s infected better people than you"

      What is your basis for claiming that religion is an "infection"?

      Delete
    12. RalphH5:19 PM

      “Next time an atheist criticises you for your religion, point to that list and say ‘careful, mate, it’s infected better people than you’.” (Terry11:49 PM)

      Just saw Robin's latest comment and was reminded that I had also intended to comment on this. I find your proposed statement quite illogical Terry. It's an arrogant put-down of atheism in general and the individual in particular which contradicts the suggestion that those choosing religion are better people (because a better person wouldn't act that way).

      Saying someone is “infected” by religion is, of course, using an analogy. The interesting thing is that the Bible/Word of God is written using this type of analogy – using physical things and processes to illustrate the workings of the mind/spirit. For an example read the 'parable of the sower' (Matthew 13:3-23, also in Mark and Luke) where the physical act of sowing seed is used to demonstrate how the mind can respond differently to the influx of ideas/truths.

      Delete
    13. Robin: What is your basis for claiming that religion is an "infection"?

      According to Webster’s New World College Dictionary, an infection can mean a belief that’s transmitted from one person to another. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, it means a moral corruption or contamination.

      Take your pick.

      Delete
    14. Ralph: It's an arrogant put-down of atheism in general and the individual in particular which contradicts the suggestion that those choosing religion are better people (because a better person wouldn't act that way).

      It may be arrogant. But it’s not a comment on atheism. It’s a comment on religion, specifically its power to corrupt. As the Wiki list shows, even the sharpest brains in the world are not immune.

      Delete
    15. Terry - in which sense did you mean it?

      Also atheism is a belief that can be passed from one person to another.

      Is atheism, then, an infection?

      Delete
    16. "Is atheism, then, an infection?"

      No, it is the default position.

      Delete
    17. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    18. Stranger wrote: "No, it is the default position."

      Why, exactly?

      Is there some stone tablet I should know about?

      Delete
    19. 8x
      "Is atheism, then, an infection?"
      x8

      lol
      Would you prefer cowpox or smallpox? ;)

      Delete
    20. Robin: ... in which sense did you mean it?

      Both.

      Robin: Is atheism, then, an infection?

      I suppose you could infect someone with the idea that there is no god. But it would be a very mild infection compared to Christianity or Islam, don’t you think? I know I'd much rather be injected with a little atheistic scepticism in me than a full syringe of religious certainty.

      Delete
    21. Robin: Also atheism is a belief that can be passed from one person to another.

      On second thoughts, I don’t think it can, at least not in the same way that religion is transmitted. If it were, then you’d see whole swathes of land covered in rashes of atheists, in the same way you see Saudi Arabia covered in a rash of Muslims or Italy covered in a rash of Catholics. Instead, there seems to be no pattern to the distribution of atheists except that they occur most frequently in populations with higher education.

      Comparing atheism to religion may be a case of comparing apples to oranges. Religions are clearly ideologies and ideologies propagate by means of infection. I don’t think atheism is an ideology and if if it does propagate it does so by some other means.

      Delete
    22. "Both"

      Nice linguistic precision.

      Delete
    23. MalcolmS9:55 PM

      Robin: "Is there some stone tablet I should know about?"

      There you go being obtuse again.

      Atheism is simply the assertion that theists cannot validate their position. Full stop. Amen.

      Delete
    24. Robin we aren't born believing in anything, especially gods

      Delete
    25. 8x
      Robin we aren't born believing in anything, especially gods
      x8

      Ahhh but;
      Once "we" DO "believe in gods", what is it that could make us "unbelieve"?

      Hmmmm? Food for fat gutted thought?

      or:

      "Piss off subtle distinctions, I'm busy"

      ;)

      Delete
    26. Stranger wrote: "Robin we aren't born believing in anything, especially gods"

      Then the word you are looking for is "agnostic".

      Delete
    27. MalcolmS wrote: "Atheism is simply the assertion that theists cannot validate their position. Full stop. Amen."

      So the default position is "theists cannot validate their position"?

      Delete
    28. Zed wrote: "Would you prefer cowpox or smallpox? ;)"

      In general I think that metaphors are an invitation to vagueness and should be avoided whenever possible in favour of saying what you actually mean.

      Delete
    29. "In general I think that metaphors are an invitation to vagueness and should be avoided whenever possible in favour of saying what you actually mean."

      Like the Bible?

      Delete
    30. "Then the word you are looking for is "agnostic"."

      No it isn't Agnostic is not the same as 'hasn't heard of God'

      Delete
    31. Neither is "atheist"

      Delete
    32. RalphH3:17 AM

      “No, (atheism) is the default position.” (Stranger7:43 PM)

      How could that possibly be Stranger. One has first to have a concept of God before one can reject and/or deny it. Atheism is a rejection of theism so theism is and must be prior.

      We have a creation – there must be a creator. What or who that creator is is a further question but the obvious first intuition is a being who creates just as we create. Any child is happy with the explanation, God did/created it.” Rejection if it comes, comes later when other agendas arise.

      Delete
    33. RalphH3:19 AM

      “Robin we aren't born believing in anything, especially gods” (Stranger12:48 AM)

      Why did you find it necessary to add that qualifier Stranger? All it does is display your prejudice. Obviously if someone didn't yet believe in anything there would not be anything in particular that they didn't believe in.

      Delete
    34. "Why did you find it necessary to add that qualifier Stranger?"

      It's not a qualifier, it's an explanation for you as to why atheism is the default position.

      " All it does is display your prejudice."

      All that does is display your lack of intelligence

      Delete
    35. RalphH3:37 AM

      "In general I think that metaphors are an invitation to vagueness and should be avoided whenever possible in favour of saying what you actually mean.” (Robin2:35 AM)

      “Like the Bible?” (Stranger2:37 AM)

      No, not “like the Bible” Stranger. The Bible is a special case because it's talking about the unseen world within/the world of the mind which can be exposed and understood by the parallelism that exists between the things of the mind and the things of the body.

      Delete
    36. " Atheism is a rejection of theism so theism is and must be prior."

      No Ralph, if one has never heard of God one is an atheist as atheism is disbelief in gods, not a rejection of the idea.

      "We have a creation – there must be a creator."

      No we don't have a creation, we have a universe that so far has not yielded any evidence as to whether it was created by an outside intelligence.

      "Any child is happy with the explanation"

      No they aren't, you might have been dumb enough to swallow what your parents told you but not all of us are happy with 'god did it'.

      Delete
    37. "Neither is "atheist""

      If one hasn't heard of God how does one believe in him?

      Delete
    38. By the same logic, if one hasn't heard of God how does one know if he exists or not.

      But I am nevertheless fascinated to learn that "atheist" is the same as "hasn't heard of God".

      I recall that recently there was that Global "haven't heard of God" conference.

      They seemed to talk a lot about God for people who hadn't heard of him.

      Delete
    39. "By the same logic, if one hasn't heard of God how does one know if he exists or not."

      One doesn't but that is not agnosticism.

      "But I am nevertheless fascinated to learn that "atheist" is the same as "hasn't heard of God"."

      I bet you're fascinated by other simple concepts too.

      Delete
    40. 8x
      In general I think that metaphors are an invitation to vagueness and should be avoided whenever possible in favour of saying what you actually mean.
      x8

      ??
      What are you trying to say?

      Delete
    41. Long John Silver5:05 AM

      "Atheism is a rejection of theism so theism is and must be prior. "

      "But I am nevertheless fascinated to learn that "atheist" is the same as "hasn't heard of God"."

      If someone had never been told that some people eat animals, could they still be a vegetarian?

      Delete
    42. Long John Silver5:19 AM

      "Comparing atheism to religion may be a case of comparing apples to oranges. "

      Or it may be a case of comparing people who eat apples to people who don't eat apples. Would it matter if they didn't know about apples?

      Delete
    43. Ralph 8/067:13 PM

      "Dear Ralph, the City Bible Forum is based in Sydney. They are worth a visit as they are highly intellectual, highly transparent and afraid of no one. I recommend them to you. Dick" (Anonymous/ {Dick - at a strange computer})12:43 AM)

      Thanks for the info Dick. I looked it up was interested and may be able to get to the Krauss/Craig event coming up in August.

      I've decided to try a little experiment Dick. Since you seem to be too busy or don't know how to date individual posts, I'm going to try including the date with my name.

      Delete
  9. LJS: He also claimed to have been told by alien spirits that cattle are from Mercury. Horses are from Jupiter, so I wouldn't put too much faith in him.

    Then 'lost his marbles' would appear to be a fact rather than a theory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. MalcolmS8:51 AM

      Robin: "So the default position is "theists cannot validate their position"?"

      I made no claim for a default position.

      However, theists cannot validate their position.

      Delete
    3. MalcolmS8:54 AM

      RalphH: "We have a creation – there must be a creator"

      Fallacy of begging the question.

      Delete
    4. MalcolmS8:55 AM

      RalphH: "Any child is happy with the explanation, God did/created it.”

      I wasn't!

      Delete
    5. RalphH 8/067:24 PM

      "We have a creation – there must be a creator" (RalphH)

      Fallacy of begging the question. (MalcolmS8:54 AM)

      Please explain how that statement 'begs the question' Malcolm

      Delete
    6. RalphH 8/067:25 PM

      "Any child is happy with the explanation, God did/created it.” (RalphH)

      I wasn't! (MalcolmS8:55 AM)

      Why am I not surprised Malcolm. I didn't specify an age you know. What about before you were too young to form your own ideas and look for an alternative agenda. My guess is that you wouldn't even be able to rember back that far.

      Delete
    7. MalcolmS12:58 AM

      RalphH: ""Any child is happy with the explanation, God did/created it.” (RalphH)

      I wasn't! (MalcolmS8:55 AM)

      Why am I not surprised Malcolm. I didn't specify an age you know"

      You specified "any child" though!

      And many are not happy with such a dopey "explanation"!

      Delete
  10. Long John Silver4:59 AM

    "Now cattle and horses actually come from outer space."
    Ralph, you know perfectly well that I quoted those passages from Swedenborg in the blog a long time ago. Are you going to try to pretend that he didn't claim to have been told of interplanetary horses and cows? Are you going to back away from the assertion that the reason why these animals can survive on Mercury is because the climate is so mild? Do I really have to go to all the trouble of reading that drivel again just so I can prove that you are lying, or will you just concede that the reason why I ridicule Swedenborg's claims is because they are ridiculous?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RalphH9:04 AM

      “Are you going to try to pretend that (Swedenborg) didn't claim to have been told of interplanetary horses and cows? Are you going to back away from the assertion that the reason why these animals can survive on Mercury is because the climate is so mild? “ (Long John Silver4:59 AM)

      Long John, I'm not going to back away from anything. The problem is that your intent is not to pursue the truth or to understand but to ridicule and as always 'where there's a will a way will be found'. You've done a bit of cherry-picking, found something that appears to you to be ridiculous and blown it up to completely obliterate everything else and claim “(Swedenborg) was a raving loony”.

      Nothing could be further from the truth when one considers the full compass of his life's work in many fields of science, philosophy and his own extensive and rational interpretation of theology right up to the day of his death. The man was obviously a colossal intellect (check out any website that looks at geniuses from the past). But why let the truth get in the way of your fun. Once you had collected your tools for ridicule the embellishments (cattle ranching, interplanetary livestock) started also.

      I explained to you that 'Earths in the Universe' is not core teaching (that's all about loving God/good and our fellow beings and learning how loving ourselves and worldly, temporal things should serve that end). EU is demonstrating the extent of the Kingdom of God. Terry said he read the Wiki article. It might be an idea if you read it too and try to take in more than just a few words that 'prove' your prejudice and serve you intent (to ridicule). In other words try to act like a scholar.

      Delete
    2. "The man was obviously a colossal intellect"

      The man was obviously a raving loony by the time he wrote of cattle on mercury.

      Delete
    3. Long John Silver6:48 PM

      "I explained to you that 'Earths in the Universe' is not core teaching . . ."

      Core teaching or not, the fact remains that Swedenborg described interplanetary spirits telling him about the livestock enjoying the mild climate on Mercury. Of course that seems ridiculous to me - it would be difficult to find someone outside your cult who did not consider that claim to be ridiculous. I am also a bit sceptical of the assertion that he spoke with various other famous people (I forget the list, but quoted the passage back when this blog was in its previous incarnation).

      Swedenborg also asserts that these spirits travelled around the universe in search of knowledge, but somehow they only visited planets which were known to scientists in Swedenborg's time. If his imaginary friends had mentioned the existence of other planets which an interplanetary traveller would be expected to see, and the existence of these planets were subsequently shown to be true by developments in earthling technology, then his writings could be taken seriously. It would have been hard to explain how he anticipated future discoveries (rather than, for example, offering a completely erroneous description of Mercury which provides a strong indication that he was not gathering information from visiting spirits but was describing a hallucination which seemed real to him). I will continue to dismiss his theological writing as the incoherent rantings of a mentally ill person (no matter how brilliant a scientist he may have been before losing his sanity) until you are able to offer a coherent response to the Problem of Uranus.

      Delete
    4. 8x
      it would be difficult to find someone outside your cult who did not consider that claim to be ridiculous.
      x8

      - Shrug - ... I dunno, seems reasonable enough to me

      http://www.poee.org/documents/Other_Religions/Church_of_the_SubGenius/Dictionary_of_the_Gods.htm#bleeding head

      Delete
    5. Long John Silver1:18 AM

      OK, I stand corrected. So anyone outside Ralph's cult or zed's cult would probably think that claims of Mercurian cattle (and attempts to suggest that they might be non-carbo based cattle) was implausible.

      Delete
    6. RalphH 9/066:15 AM

      "... the fact remains that Swedenborg described interplanetary spirits telling him" (Long John Silver6:48 PM)

      This shows how little you have understood what you read Long John. Although Swedenborg claimed to be reporting things told him about certain other planets there was nothing "interplanetary" going on.

      The mental/spiritual world that he explored is beyond all time and space. It's a connectedness of minds just as they can be connected by phone or Internet. Swedenborg was well aware of the ridicule his statements would bring but he made them anyway because he believed they had spiritual significance. He was not addressing the world of science or claiming to have esoteric scientific knowledge.

      I don't believe we know enough about our solar system (let alone the universe beyond) or the range of material possibilities for life-forms yet to rule our what he has said. One of the biggest mistakes of a scientist is to believe that he/she has all the answers (illustrated by Anthony Standen's book, 'Science is a Sacred Cow").

      You can believe (or disbelieve) whatever you want. That's your prerogative. But ridiculing others because you think you know it all is not a good look. I do not belong to a cult and as you suggested there are reams of famous intellects and humanitarians through the last few centuries who have gratefully acknowledged their debt to the man you want only to ridicule (over a trivial matter) because you have no real interest in perusing the truth of his considerable achievements.

      Delete
    7. " He was not addressing the world of science or claiming to have esoteric scientific knowledge."

      Yes he was and did. Claiming things about reality is addressing the world of science.

      "I don't believe we know enough about our solar system (let alone the universe beyond) or the range of material possibilities for life-forms yet to rule our what he has said. "

      That's because you are totally ignorant of what we do know and will ignore anything we do know in favour of your delusion.

      " One of the biggest mistakes of a scientist is to believe that he/she has all the answers ..)."

      But it's okay for you to think you have all the answers. Typical deluded hypocrite.

      "I do not belong to a cult "

      Yes you do.

      Delete
    8. Long John Silver6:54 PM

      "Although Swedenborg claimed to be reporting things told him about certain other planets there was nothing "interplanetary" going on."

      Swedenborg states quite clearly that the spirits were from another planet, and they travel the universe learning about what spirits from various planets are like. Do you have a different meaning for the word "interplanetary"? He claims that these spirits have been to Mercury, Jupiter and various other planets (although apparently they didn't know about what came from Uranus). When someone travels from Mercury to Earth, their travels can reasonably be described as "interplanetary".

      "I don't believe we know enough about our solar system (let alone the universe beyond) or the range of material possibilities for life-forms yet to rule our what he has said. "
      Check the NASA website. You may discover that scientific knowledge has now gathered sufficient evidence to rule out the possibility of Mercurian cattle having existed at the time when Swedenborg was writing..

      Delete
    9. Long John Silver6:58 PM

      "One of the biggest mistakes of a scientist is to believe that he/she has all the answers"
      Can you provide evidence that this is a common belief among scientists?

      Delete
    10. Long John Silver7:02 PM

      "Terry said he read the Wiki article. It might be an idea if you read it too and try to take in more than just a few words that 'prove' your prejudice and serve you intent (to ridicule). In other words try to act like a scholar."

      A scholar would know that wiki articles are not necessarily reliable sources. I consulted the primary source - I read a book by Swedenborg. I also looked at a few articles on a Swedenborgian website.

      Delete
    11. Long John Silver7:08 PM

      Just for you, Ralphy, I checked wikipedia.
      "The contactee movement is a rich treat for anthropologists, sticky with sincere and sincerely deluded individuals. Were the contactees in touch with anything other than their own internal fantasies?"

      "As early as the 18th century, people like Emanuel Swedenborg were claiming to be in psychic contact with inhabitants of other planets. 1758 saw the publication of Concerning Earths in the Solar System, in which Swedenborg detailed his alleged journeys to the inhabited planets. J. Gordon Melton notes that Swedenborg's planetary tour stops at Saturn, the furthest planet known during Swedenborg's era — he did not visit Uranus, Neptune or Pluto."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contactee

      Delete
    12. MalcolmS7:31 PM

      "Long John Silver 7:08 PM"

      ROFLMAO Classic!

      Delete
  11. Long John Silver5:08 AM

    "Any child is happy with the explanation, "God did/created it.” "

    Some children are smarter than others. Unfortunately there are some kids who don't have the sense to question what they are told. What is even more depressing is the fact that some people never grow out of that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RalphH9:18 AM

      "Some children are smarter than others. Unfortunately there are some kids who don't have the sense to question what they are told. What is even more depressing is the fact that some people never grow out of that." (Long John Silver5:08 AM)

      Just because some people stick with a good idea doesn't mean they haven't questioned it even though some others may not have. Many have questioned the idea of God, studied it and accepted it as adult rational beings. Many who have rejected it have done so on insufficient evidence, from prejudice and worldly ambition.

      Delete
    2. " Many who have rejected it have done so on insufficient evidence, from prejudice and worldly ambition."

      Yes Ralph people who don't believe in God are prejudiced. Prejudiced against bullshit.

      Delete
    3. Long John Silver6:51 PM

      Yep, and I rejected Santa Claus because I was ambitious to give my children cooler presents than they'd have got from Santa.

      Delete
    4. Long John Silver10:31 PM

      "Many who have rejected it have done so on insufficient evidence . . ."
      Do you have any surveys of atheists available to demonstrate that this is the case? Are you able to demopnstrate how much evidence would be sufficient for someone to reject an unproven assertion? If not, you have insufficient evidence of our insufficient evidence.

      Delete
    5. MalcolmS2:10 AM

      RalphH: "Many who have rejected it [the idea of God] have done so on insufficient evidence, from prejudice and worldly ambition"

      That's utter nonsense. There is no such thing as *evidence for the nonexistence of God.* There is no such thing as evidence for the nonexistence of anything. There is only evidence for an existent.

      How could a nonexistent produce any evidence?

      The onus of proof rests with he who asserts the positive [the theist] and we're still waiting Ralph.

      Delete
    6. 8x
      There is no such thing as evidence for the nonexistence of anything. There is only evidence for an existent.
      x8

      So true.
      I doubt that anyone anywhere can find a shred of evidence that you arent a twerp either

      Delete
    7. RalphH 9/066:32 AM

      "Yes Ralph people who don't believe in God are prejudiced. Prejudiced against bullshit." (Stranger12:54 AM)

      From dictionary.com :-
      1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
      2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.

      Stranger, the essence of prejudice is that it is formed without having properly examined whatever is under consideration. It's a knee-jerk reaction to blind feelings based on who knows what. I believe many (but not all) people who reject the concept of God do so from such a process.

      Delete
    8. RalphH 9/066:46 AM

      "That's utter nonsense. There is no such thing as *evidence for the nonexistence of God.* There is no such thing as evidence for the nonexistence of anything. There is only evidence for an existent.

      How could a nonexistent produce any evidence?

      The onus of proof rests with he who asserts the positive [the theist] and we're still waiting Ralph." (MalcolmS2:10 AM)

      Nice litttle 'slight of hand' there Malcolm – subtly changing "insufficient" into "nonexistent". The insufficiency is in the mind of the observer. There is actually heaps of evedence for God but not of the sort that the non-believer has decided is the only type of evidence he/she will accept.

      The "onus of proof" exists with the individual. If he/she's not willing to accept something one might as well go 'whistle Dixie'.

      Delete
    9. MalcolmS7:01 AM

      Thanks for all that Ralph but... er... but we're still waiting... er... waiting, waiting...

      Delete
    10. "There is actually heaps of evedence for God"

      Stop lying Ralph. There is only subjective experience, which is not evidence of external entities.

      Delete
    11. "Stranger, the essence of prejudice is that it is formed without having properly examined whatever is under consideration."

      You don't even bother reading what you quote, or are too stupid to understand it. "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand"

      Ralph you are prejudiced against reality, anything that goes against your beliefs is wrong even though you are totally ignorant about any form of science.

      Delete
    12. RalphH 10/065:52 PM

      “Stop lying Ralph. There is only subjective experience (for God), which is not evidence of external entities.” (Stranger3:17 PM)

      There is actually heaps of “evidence of external entities” - everything God has created but ,of course, you need to believe that He created it to see/understand that it is “evidence”.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p3zTTu8Y4mI

      Delete
    13. Long John Silver6:00 PM

      Ralph, it is not necessary to "believe" before assessing evidence. I don't need to have faith in the theory of gravity - I can observe things falling to the ground. If something requires us to believe in it before we examine it, then it isn't "evidence".

      Delete
    14. "There is actually heaps of “evidence of external entities”

      The external entity in context of the statement is God. You are so stupid you can't handle simple sentences.

      "you need to believe that He created it to see/understand that it is “evidence”."

      If you believe that a giant invisible immaterial pixie called Gavin created the universe than the universe is evidence that Gavin exists. Belief is not evidence of something existing, but I doubt you have the ability to understand that.

      Delete
    15. Long John Silver6:39 PM

      I just wasted over 8 minutes of my life sitting through that stupid video Ralph. 7 minutes of things for which we have EVIDENCE (wrapped up in a lame story with bad animation) leading to a conclusion which has been thoroughly discredited and a straw man argument. You really need to get an education in clear thinking and logic if you expect a video like this to convince anyone. I know that I will be wasting my time trying to explain this to you, but I hope that I can save others the trouble of wading through that video. To summarise the argument - as scientific knowledge has advanced, people have gradually learned more about the world around them. Therefore we can make shit up and pretend that it's true. Most people would see through the flaw in that logic without too much trouble, but I will attempt to explain it to you -

      (1) Nobody asserts that because they know a lot about something, therefore they know everything. This is a "straw man" argument. There is always the possibility that scientists will discover new things about trees. They will do it by conducting proper research and producing evidence for their theories. When there is EVIDENCE for new theories about trees, we will change our ideas.
      (2) The fact that we have not (yet?) found any reason to believe that God created trees is not a reason to assume that at some unspecified point in the future we will find that evidence. It is just as likely that the tree was made by the Flying Spaghetti Monster (notice how the roots of some plants look a bit like spaghetti? It's a miracle!). Maybe there is an invisible teapot in the branches, but there is no reason to confuse "speculation" and "evidence". We have evidence for the atoms in a tree. We do not have evidence for God creating the tree.
      (3) This discussion about trees from someone who suggests googling Swedenborg as "food for thought") does point towards my original theory - Swedenborgians are barking mad.

      Delete
    16. MalcolmS7:26 PM

      Long John Silver: "I just wasted over 8 minutes of my life sitting through that stupid video Ralph"

      Small price to pay.

      Ralph has wasted his entire life believing in God.

      Delete
    17. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23674-nuclear-pasta-may-stabilise-pulsars-spins.html

      proof that the FSM created the universe.

      Delete
    18. Mal: Ralph has wasted his entire life believing in God.


      That's a bit rich coming from you.

      Delete
    19. Long John Silver10:37 PM

      "proof that the FSM created the universe"
      Blessed be his noodly appendages. Take that, zed and your blasphemous subgenius unbelievers!

      Delete
    20. Hmmm

      And it came to pass that while excremeditating on this EVIL FILTHY LIE in the chapel of thunderous echoes, I was overcome with a great gust of insight.

      It. doesnt. matter...

      Because youre livin' in the past man - Yes - You - Living - In - the - past.

      !!QUIT LIVING IN THE PAST MAAAN!!

      You see heretic, the future is all that matters, specifically one day in the very near future - July 5th
      X-DAY - The end of the world .... for you that is --- For me though - Interstellar Sex godesses

      HA!
      Enjoy your worms heretic
      http://rdn-consulting.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/spaghetti.jpg

      Delete
    21. Long John Silver4:07 AM

      "!!QUIT LIVING IN THE PAST MAAAN!!"
      They can take our land. they can take our freedom. But they can NEVER take our Jethro Tull albums!
      BTW you missed a "d" from "godesses" - intergalactic spirit wenches are very pedantic about spelling and typographical errors.

      Delete
    22. "They can take our land. they can take our freedom. But they can NEVER take our Jethro Tull albums!"

      Didn't figure you as a Tull fan Longers.

      Delete
    23. Long John Silver7:21 AM

      http://youtu.be/rnWx8iDwVUs

      Delete
  12. Long John Silver5:14 AM

    "Just to get you started - are we confined to carbon based life-forms? "
    Swedenborg described them as being similar to the cattle on our earth, and I would expect a scientist to have mentioned the existence of non-carbon based cattle. His explanation for them surviving on Mercury was not because there was something unusual about the cattle, it was because the climate on Mercury was hospitable to animals of that type. Unless you would like to demonstrate that I have misquoted Swedenborg (for example, by citing a passage which suggests that there is something special about Mercurian animals which I missed when I read about his interplanetary visitors) then I will continue to hold to my original response - he was a raving loony.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Long John Silver6:43 PM

      Still waiting, Ralph. Can you quote a passage from swedenborg's book which suggests that the Mercurian cattle are able to survive the conditions there because they are non-carbon based? Can you explain why Swedenborg's descriptions of the Mercurian climate are so different from the conditions which NASA describe?

      Delete
    2. RalphH 13/063:38 AM

      This is a bit late but I thought I'd re-post it anyway. Been having Internet problems and it mustn't have got through.

      “I just wasted over 8 minutes of my life sitting through that stupid video Ralph.” (Long John Silver6:39 PM)

      If I'd known I was going to mess up your incredibly busy life Long John I'd have put some sort of disclaimed (maybe 'Not recommended for anyone slow of wit – especially fake pirates and other miscreants') on it.

      I think it's great. All the different ascending levels through time believed that they had the full story. I doubt if anyone with such an attitude would go looking for new knowledge or new evidence.

      “(1) Nobody asserts that because they know a lot about something, therefore they know everything. This is a "straw man" argument.”

      Richard Dawkins for one (and he's only one of many) – knows a lot about biology and basically nothing about religion yet pontificates about it as if he was an authority. Bang goes your straw-man suggestion.

      “ There is always the possibility that scientists will discover new things about trees. They will do it by conducting proper research and producing evidence for their theories. When there is EVIDENCE for new theories about trees, we will change our ideas.”
      The “evidence” in the cartoon was about God. Atheists have closed their minds to God, believing that life/existence is totally of Nature and therefore have no hope/chance of discovering anything outside that limited, close-minded view. Your (2) point demonstrates this with your silly nonsense of FSM. That's what I call a “straw-man argument”. As if there's any comparison between an infinite and eternal being of love and the power that springs from love and a blob of spaghetti.

      Delete
    3. "“(1) Nobody asserts that because they know a lot about something, therefore they know everything. This is a "straw man" argument.”

      Richard Dawkins for one (and he's only one of many) – knows a lot about biology and basically nothing about religion yet pontificates about it as if he was an authority. Bang goes your straw-man suggestion."

      Ralph you do know what assert means don't you? It is not the same as pontificate, which is also what you do. Your straw-man is still there.

      Ralph your mind is closed to reality, preferring to believe in made up bullshit.

      "As if there's any comparison between an infinite and eternal being of love and the power that springs from love and a blob of spaghetti."

      The comparison is they are both made up.

      Delete
  13. Robin: In general I think that metaphors are an invitation to vagueness and should be avoided whenever possible in favour of saying what you actually mean.

    I would have thought the exact opposite is true.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The talk with the psychic and the Christian has been run and won. I will post the link to the talk soon for those with tolerance for three boring pontificators.
    Dick

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dick,
      I'm so pleased I shall get to see the discussion. Looking forward to the link.

      Delete
  15. MalcolmS12:36 AM

    ""We have a creation – there must be a creator" (RalphH) Please explain how that statement 'begs the question' Malcolm"

    Glad to Ralph!

    The child of your example has no way of knowing whether the world he perceives is created/uncreated but [at least implicitly] he knows that the world he perceives *exists.*

    As he develops cognitively he discovers that no existent comes from nothing.

    Which means that existence [as a whole] is *eternal,* i.e., has always existed [in some form].

    In other words you claim a "creator" for the eternal, i.e., the *uncreated.*

    That's begging the question Ralph.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RalphH 9/068:31 AM

      "The child of your example has no way of knowing whether the world he perceives is created/uncreated but [at least implicitly] he knows that the world he perceives *exists.*

      As he develops cognitively he discovers that no existent comes from nothing.

      Which means that existence [as a whole] is *eternal,* i.e., has always existed [in some form].

      In other words you claim a "creator" for the eternal, i.e., the *uncreated.*

      That's begging the question Ralph." (MalcolmS12:36 AM)

      I think you might be getting your "existence" and "existents" mixed up Malcolm. You've said, "existence [as a whole] is *eternal". Obviously there's no need for a creator for 'eternal existence' but what you've called "existents" are not eternal and therefore need a creator i.e. the eternal existence. No question begging that I can see.

      Delete
    2. MalcolmS9:36 AM

      There is no "mix up" except in your tiny little mind Ralph. An existent *is* a thing or an entity - they are synonyms. *Only* things, entities or existents exist. The sum of all things, entities or existents *is* existence as a whole - there is nothing else.

      Change from a prior entity/s to a new entity is *caused* by the nature of the prior entity/s which changed, an entirely natural phenomenon -
      no "creator" required.

      Oh, you're still begging the question and now, I suspect, obfuscating and equivocating.

      Delete
  16. On the subject: Author Iain Banks died yesterday, a great loss to the literary world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS2:28 AM

      Why is Iain Banks "on the subject"?

      Why is Iain Banks "a great loss to the literary world"?

      Delete
  17. "Why is Iain Banks "a great loss to the literary world"?"

    If you had a skerrick of intelligence, I'd tell you why.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MalcolmS2:55 AM

      "If you had a skerrick of intelligence, I'd tell you why"

      I don't need to know why. I already know.

      The point of the question was that I suspected you didn't.

      I now know :)

      Thanks for your reply.

      Delete
    2. "The point of the question was that I suspected you didn't.

      I now know :)"

      You only believe what makes you feel better. You are stupid enough to think that I don't know because I gave you a glib answer.

      Delete
  18. MalcolmS3:01 AM

    Stranger aka AndrewR, why is Iain Banks "on the subject"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you had a skerrick of intelligence, I'd tell you why

      Delete
    2. MalcolmS3:26 AM

      "If you had a skerrick of intelligence, I'd tell you why"

      I don't need to know why. I already know.

      The point of the question was that I suspected you didn't.

      I now know :)

      Thanks for your reply.

      Delete
    3. You only believe what makes you feel better. You are stupid enough to think that I don't know because I gave you a glib answer.

      Delete
    4. MalcolmS5:23 AM

      glib: lacking depth and substance : superficial

      www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/glib‎

      Yep, that's you alright.

      Delete
    5. "glib: lacking depth and substance : superficial

      www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/glib‎

      Yep, that's you alright."

      So you'll accept the dictionary definition of sense now?
      Though not.

      Delete
    6. MalcolmS8:57 PM

      "So you'll accept the dictionary definition of sense now?"

      Sure dopey.

      "The senses are usually spoken of as being five in number, namely, sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch" - - Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary - Unabridged

      So, when will you accept it?

      Delete
    7. usually spoken of?

      R.O.F.L.M.A.O

      Are we gonna' have some fun with that now .. or what?

      Delete
    8. MalcolmS9:21 PM

      What??

      "Usually spoken of" not *usual* enough for you?

      Delete
    9. Seems all dictionaries arent created equal.

      Interestingly that definition seems to have been lifted verbatim from "A commentary on the shorter catechism"

      http://archive.org/stream/commentaryonshor00whytuoft/commentaryonshor00whytuoft_djvu.txt


      A commentary on the shorter catechism ([19--?])
      Author: Whyte, Alexander, 1836-1921

      Here it is in its original context


      The senses are those faculties by which man, and in their measure the lower animals also, perceive
      external objects by means of impressions made on certain organs of the body.
      The senses are usually spoken of as being five in number, namely, sight,
      hearing, taste, smell, and touch. And that is called sensible which possesses
      properties or attributes that affect the senses. Thus water in the one sacrament,
      and bread and wine in the other, are sensible, that is, they are capable
      of being perceived and apprehended through the senses and organs of the
      body.


      No matter how you try, you just cant escape from the intellectual limitations imposed by your particular Christian upbringing can you mallypoos?

      ;)

      ===
      ps
      lol catchpa: institutio represo

      Delete
    10. Oh, and additionally there mallypoos:

      If you had any "respect for original sources" AND learned to read beyond a kindergarten level(note correct spelling of kindergarten), you would have known that.

      Robbsybobbsy
      Is this an adequate "citation of a primary text" for you?

      Please let me know if I need to provide anything else; say the GPS coordinates of a copy of the physical book itself, or the authors bibliography.

      Dont want to get me no reputation as a bullshitter do I? ;)

      Delete
    11. "Interestingly that definition seems to have been lifted verbatim from "A commentary on the shorter catechism""

      Even more interesting the quote in the format Mal supplied only seems to appear in "A commentary on the shorter catechism" and not in Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary - Unabridged

      Delete
    12. MalcolmS7:10 PM

      zedinhisbigloonyflyinghead: "Seems all dictionaries arent[sic] created equal"

      No kidding dopey!

      "(note correct spelling of kindergarten)... Dont[sic] want to get me no[sic] reputation as a bullshitter[sic] do I?[sic] ;)[sic]"

      Er... please attend to syntax and grammar.

      Delete
    13. MalcolmS7:59 PM

      "Even more interesting the quote in the format Mal supplied only seems to appear in "A commentary on the shorter catechism" and not in Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary - Unabridged"

      No doubt you have read the 24[at least] previous editions of that dictionary - my copy is the '49th edition, belonged to my grandfather and is over 2000 pages. It includes my above quote as one of the many meanings of 'sense.'

      Your claim that that meaning is "not in Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary - Unabridged," unfortunately, is simply one of your numerous lies. That's the problem with making stuff up to suit your false position instead of accessing the original source.

      On the issue of the "catechism" I have no knowledge, or interest, in who they choose to plagiarise. Please pass information on to fellow idiot Z.

      Delete
    14. "my copy is the '49th edition, belonged to my grandfather"

      Ah so you are using an outdated definition.

      "Your claim that that meaning is "not in Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary - Unabridged," unfortunately, is simply one of your numerous lies"

      If you had any sort of intelligence you would have noticed I said 'seems', as I did a google search of teh quote and it is not listed as being in the inline version of Websters.

      " That's the problem with making stuff up to suit your false position instead of accessing the original source."

      You are the one making stuff up about senses and relying on obsolete information. As susual

      Delete
    15. 8x
      zedinhisbigloonyflyinghead
      x8

      Who?


      8x
      Er... please attend to syntax and grammar.
      x8

      Sorry: Too busy laughing my arse off to care.. ;)

      Delete
    16. 8x
      That's the problem with making stuff up to suit your false position instead of accessing the original source.
      x8

      x8
      On the issue of the "catechism" I have no knowledge, or interest, in who they choose to plagiarise.
      x8

      Wrong way round ya goofball.
      That's the problem with making stuff up to suit your false position instead of accessing the original source. ;)

      Delete
    17. MalcolmS8:35 PM

      loonyhead: "That's the problem with making stuff up to suit your false position instead of accessing the original source"

      My quote *was* from the original source which still sits on my bookshelf. FYI, in my edition, under sense[noun] it lists 10 meanings plus numerous synonyms and I quoted the one appropriate to my context.

      It still sits on my bookshelf now - even as you get an acquaintance to read this post to you :}}

      Delete
    18. 8X
      loonyhead
      X8

      who?

      8x
      My quote *was* from the original source
      x8


      Well leaving aside for a moment the fact that I'm as certain as I need to be that the phrase WAS originally lifted from "A commentary on the shorter catechism"...

      8x
      It still sits on my bookshelf now
      x8

      ... theres ya problem right there goobly-gobbler. Ya gotta OPEN the book and [get your mother to] LOOK inside. ;)



      Delete
    19. Long John Silver8:35 PM

      "No doubt you have read the 24[at least] previous editions of that dictionary - my copy is the '49th edition."

      If you are unsure of how many editions might have preceded the 49th edition, then your mathematical skills are clearly not good enough to figure out how many senses you have.

      Delete
    20. Long John Silver8:37 PM

      ". . . I quoted the one appropriate to my context."
      Translation - ignored anything which contradicted you (just as you ignored the 2 dictionary definitions that I provided)

      Delete
    21. Long John Silver9:05 PM

      "In addition to the “five senses”—sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch—humans have senses of motion (kinesthetic sense), heat, cold, pressure, pain, and balance. Temperature, pressure, and pain are cutaneous (skin) senses; different points on the skin are particularly sensitive to each. " http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sense

      Delete
    22. MalcolmS10:50 PM

      Idiot Pirate: "If you are unsure of how many editions might have preceded the 49th edition.."

      There were 24 listed in my 49th edition. What's "unsure" about that?

      Idiot Pirate repeating: "". . . I quoted the one appropriate to my context" Translation - ignored anything which contradicted you (just as you ignored the 2 dictionary definitions that I provided)"

      The different meanings[often numerous] given in dictionary definitions of a word cannot be conflated. They have different meanings! To do so is to commit the fallacy of equivocation. That is what's meant by *context.* I set the context of this discussion which you transgressed. Please cease your continual violations of this venerable law of logic.

      Delete
    23. 8x
      I set the context of this discussion
      x8

      False: You dont get to set the context, ya twerp.
      That would be like letting a toddler decide when and what to have for dinner.

      Your "sense argument" is senseless and retarded. Thats why you lost.

      Grow up and deal with it.
      This conversation is now terminated. lol

      Delete
  19. MalcolmS10:52 PM

    Idiot Pirate: "In addition to the “five senses” - sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch - humans have senses of motion"

    "Sense[s :)] of motion" is not a primary sense - it's derivative.

    Idiot Pirate repeating: ".. heat, cold, pressure, pain, and balance. Temperature, pressure, and pain are cutaneous (skin) senses"

    All are examples of the sense of 'touch' with the exception of 'balance' which is not a sense.

    Handy hint to idiot Pirate: please eat nutritious foods, take a vitamin supplement and get more early nights.

    This conversation has now concluded - hope it helped.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "All are examples of the sense of 'touch"

      No they aren't. Your stupidity is a choice.

      Delete
    2. 8x
      with the exception of 'balance' which is not a sense.
      x8

      Sorry twerplet, but the vestibular system is indeed a sense - in every "sense" of the word. ;)

      You on the other hand are a retarded adolescent gerbil.

      Hope that helps - lol

      Delete
    3. Long John Silver3:32 AM

      "This conversation has now concluded - hope it helped."
      Concluding this conversation is extremely helpful. Attempting to explain simple concepts to you is apparently not helpful _ my apologies for underestimating your stupidity.

      Delete
    4. Long John Silver3:40 AM

      "There were 24 listed in my 49th edition. What's "unsure" about that?"

      Those with a more advanced concept of numbers would tend to wonder what happened to the other editions that would be needed to progress from 24 editions all the way up to number 49.

      If your edition lists the first 24 editions, then we can reasonably expect that there should be edition 25, edition 26, edition 27, edition 28, edition 29, edition 30, edition 31, edition 32, edition 33, edition 34, edition 35, edition 36, edition 37, edition 38, edition 39, edition 40, edition 41, edition 42, edition 43, edition 44, edition 45, edition 45, edition 47 & edition 48. Or maybe your book only mentions the odd numbers and we have to assume that the even numbers were implied? It is a shame that this conversation has been terminated, as it would have been fascinating to find out that either Rand or Aristotle have somehow changed the definiton of counting (or maybe you missed a page in the book?).

      Delete

Followers