1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 40 | bottom
Quote# 135074

SATANIC TRAPS FOR CHILDREN

As we left that place and He told me, “I want to show you something else… There are also children in this place.” And I replied, “Children in this place, Lord? Why are there children here? Your Word says, ‘let the children to come unto Me, and do not stop them: for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” (Matthew 19:14)Jesus replied, “Daughter, it’s true, of such is the kingdom of Heaven, but that child must come to Me, for he who comes to Me I will not throw out.”(John 6:37) Instantly, the Lord showed me an eight year old boy being tormented in fire. The boy cried, “Lord have mercy of me, take me out of this place, I don’t want to be here!” He kept crying and screaming. I saw demons around this boy, that resembled cartoon figures. There was Dragon Balls Z, Ben 10, Pokémon, Doral, etc. “Lord, why is this boy here?” Jesus showed me a large screen of this boy’s life. I saw how he would spend all of his time in front of the TV, watching these cartoons.

Jesus said, “Daughter, these animated cartoons, those movies, those soap operas that are seen daily on TV are satan’s instruments to destroy humanity…Look, Daughter how this came to be.” I saw how the boy was rebellious and disobedient toward his parents. When his parents talked to him, he would run away, throwing things and disobeying them. After this happened, a car ran over him and ended his life. Jesus told me, “Ever since then, he has been in this place.”

I looked at the boy as he was being tormented. Jesus said, “Daughter, go and tell parents to instruct their child as is written in My Word. (Proverbs 22:6)” The Word of God is real, it tells us to correct a child with the rod, but not every moment, only when the child has been disobedient to his parents. (Proverbs 22:15)

The Lord told me something that is very sad and very painful. He said, “Daughter, there are many children in this place because of animated cartoons, because of rebellion.” I asked Him, “Lord, why are animated cartoons to blame for this?” And He explained, “Because they are demons that carry rebellion, disobedience, bitterness and hatred to children; and other demons enter these children, so that they do not do good things, but do that which is bad: whatever children see on TV, they want to do in reality.” Hell exists, hell is real, and even children must decide with whom they will go. I said, “Lord, tell me, why are there children in this place?” And Jesus answered, “Once children have knowledge that there is a heaven and a hell, then they have a place to choose.”

Angelica Zambrano, Christ is Coming 15 Comments [12/10/2017 10:49:27 PM]
Fundie Index: 12
Submitted By: Denizen

Quote# 115159

[re: "Logic-based proof of God"]

Objective truth proof

1. Objective truth exists.
2. The existence of objective truth depends on the existence of an objective observer.
3. In the absence of an objective observer, the concept of objective truth would fail for lack of falsifiability.
4. The only possible objective observer for all of objective truth is God.
5. Therefore God exists.

Andy Schlafly, Conservapedia, Logic-based proof of God 52 Comments [12/9/2015 3:35:50 PM]
Fundie Index: 23
Submitted By: Night Jaguar

Quote# 136010

Lady Checkmate's headline: "Toronto schoolgirl hijab attack condemned by Trudeau never happened, police say"

True story: A few years ago I was sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ with some folks on online. Everything was progressing well. Up pops a muslim woman, mad as heck and communicating rudely. So, I shared the gospel with her as well :) and rebutted/refuted every lie she told (including those about the quran and allah-I studied many religions when I was a missionary so that I would be able to interact with those we ministered to). Later, up popped a male muslim threatening acts of terrorism, etc. She had called in the reserve terrorists to threaten me into silence. Obviously, I continued and we laughed at him. His behavior didn't shock nor impress me, BUT the fact that she ran to him to get him to threaten me (a woman) and try to stop me from sharing Truth when she couldn't do so was an eye-opener.

Lady Checkmate, Disqus - News Network 14 Comments [1/16/2018 12:12:16 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 136014

I remain committed to the faith of my teenage years: to authentic human freedom as a precondition for the highest good. I stand against confiscatory taxes, totalitarian collectives, and the ideology of the inevitability of the death of every individual. For all these reasons, I still call myself “libertarian.”

But I must confess that over the last two decades, I have changed radically on the question of how to achieve these goals. [b]Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. By tracing out the development of my thinking, I hope to frame some of the challenges faced by all classical liberals today.

As a Stanford undergraduate studying philosophy in the late 1980s, I naturally was drawn to the give-and-take of debate and the desire to bring about freedom through political means. I started a student newspaper to challenge the prevailing campus orthodoxies; we scored some limited victories, most notably in undoing speech codes instituted by the university. But in a broader sense we did not achieve all that much for all the effort expended. Much of it felt like trench warfare on the Western Front in World War I; there was a lot of carnage, but we did not move the center of the debate. In hindsight, we were preaching mainly to the choir — even if this had the important side benefit of convincing the choir’s members to continue singing for the rest of their lives.

As a young lawyer and trader in Manhattan in the 1990s, I began to understand why so many become disillusioned after college. The world appears too big a place. Rather than fight the relentless indifference of the universe, many of my saner peers retreated to tending their small gardens. The higher one’s IQ, the more pessimistic one became about free-market politics — capitalism simply is not that popular with the crowd. Among the smartest conservatives, this pessimism often manifested in heroic drinking; the smartest libertarians, by contrast, had fewer hang-ups about positive law and escaped not only to alcohol but beyond it.

As one fast-forwards to 2009, the prospects for a libertarian politics appear grim indeed. Exhibit A is a financial crisis caused by too much debt and leverage, facilitated by a government that insured against all sorts of moral hazards — and we know that the response to this crisis involves way more debt and leverage, and way more government. Those who have argued for free markets have been screaming into a hurricane. The events of recent months shatter any remaining hopes of politically minded libertarians. For those of us who are libertarian in 2009, our education culminates with the knowledge that the broader education of the body politic has become a fool’s errand.

Indeed, even more pessimistically, the trend has been going the wrong way for a long time. To return to finance, the last economic depression in the United States that did not result in massive government intervention was the collapse of 1920–21. It was sharp but short, and entailed the sort of Schumpeterian “creative destruction” that could lead to a real boom. The decade that followed — the roaring 1920s — was so strong that historians have forgotten the depression that started it. The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.

In the face of these realities, one would despair if one limited one’s horizon to the world of politics. I do not despair because I no longer believe that politics encompasses all possible futures of our world. In our time, the great task for libertarians is to find an escape from politics in all its forms — from the totalitarian and fundamentalist catastrophes to the unthinking demos that guides so-called “social democracy.”

The critical question then becomes one of means, of how to escape not via politics but beyond it. Because there are no truly free places left in our world, I suspect that the mode for escape must involve some sort of new and hitherto untried process that leads us to some undiscovered country; and for this reason I have focused my efforts on new technologies that may create a new space for freedom. Let me briefly speak to three such technological frontiers:

(1) Cyberspace. As an entrepreneur and investor, I have focused my efforts on the Internet. In the late 1990s, the founding vision of PayPal centered on the creation of a new world currency, free from all government control and dilution — the end of monetary sovereignty, as it were. In the 2000s, companies like Facebook create the space for new modes of dissent and new ways to form communities not bounded by historical nation-states. By starting a new Internet business, an entrepreneur may create a new world. The hope of the Internet is that these new worlds will impact and force change on the existing social and political order. The limitation of the Internet is that these new worlds are virtual and that any escape may be more imaginary than real. The open question, which will not be resolved for many years, centers on which of these accounts of the Internet proves true.

(2) Outer space. Because the vast reaches of outer space represent a limitless frontier, they also represent a limitless possibility for escape from world politics. But the final frontier still has a barrier to entry: Rocket technologies have seen only modest advances since the 1960s, so that outer space still remains almost impossibly far away. We must redouble the efforts to commercialize space, but we also must be realistic about the time horizons involved. The libertarian future of classic science fiction, à la Heinlein, will not happen before the second half of the 21st century.

(3) Seasteading. Between cyberspace and outer space lies the possibility of settling the oceans. To my mind, the questions about whether people will live there (answer: enough will) are secondary to the questions about whether seasteading technology is imminent. From my vantage point, the technology involved is more tentative than the Internet, but much more realistic than space travel. We may have reached the stage at which it is economically feasible, or where it soon will be feasible. It is a realistic risk, and for this reason I eagerly support this initiative.

The future of technology is not pre-determined, and we must resist the temptation of technological utopianism — the notion that technology has a momentum or will of its own, that it will guarantee a more free future, and therefore that we can ignore the terrible arc of the political in our world.

A better metaphor is that we are in a deadly race between politics and technology. The future will be much better or much worse, but the question of the future remains very open indeed. We do not know exactly how close this race is, but I suspect that it may be very close, even down to the wire. Unlike the world of politics, in the world of technology the choices of individuals may still be paramount. The fate of our world may depend on the effort of a single person who builds or propagates the machinery of freedom that makes the world safe for capitalism.

For this reason, all of us must wish Patri Friedman the very best in his extraordinary experiment.

(Emphasis added)

Peter Thiel, Cato Unbound 4 Comments [1/16/2018 12:12:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 120864

(WorldGoneCrazy talking about the forum posters here at fstdt, and stating that all the posters here are sock puppets of one person)

The dumbest of the dumb hang out at Valri's fundie site.

Of course, they are all socks of Valri, so the logistics are not too difficult. :-)

WorldGoneCrazy, Live Action News 82 Comments [8/1/2016 2:38:58 PM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 135951

"Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”

Anonymous, Telegraph 14 Comments [1/15/2018 2:26:37 PM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 135985

Feel Sorry for BP?

It was 21 years ago that the Exxon Valdez leaked oil and unleashed torrents of environmental hysteria. Rothbard got it right in his piece "Why Not Feel Sorry for Exxon?"

After the British Petroleum–hired oil rig exploded last week, the environmentalists went nuts yet again, using the occasion to flail a private corporation and wail about the plight of the "ecosystem," which somehow managed to survive and thrive after the Exxon debacle.

The comparison is complicated by how much worse this event is for BP. Eleven people died. BP market shares have been pummeled. So long as the leak persists, the company loses 5,000–10,000 barrels a day.

BP will be responsible for cleanup costs far exceeding the federal limit of $75 million on liability for damages. The public relations nightmare will last for a decade or more. In the end, the costs could reach $100 billion, nearly wrecking the company and many other businesses.

It should be obvious that BP is by far the leading victim, but I've yet to see a single expression of sadness for the company and its losses. Indeed, the words of disgust for BP are beyond belief. The DailyKos sums it up: "BP: Go f*** yourselves." Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said that the government intended to keep "its boot on BP's neck."

How about reality? The incident is a tragedy for BP and all the subcontractors involved. It will probably wreck the company, a company that has long provided the fuel that runs our cars, runs our industries, and keeps alive the very body of modern life. The idea that BP should be hated and denounced is preposterous; there is every reason to express great sadness for what has happened.

It is not as if BP profits by oil leaks, or that anyone reveled in the chance to dump its precious oil all over the ocean. BP gains nothing from this. Its own CEO has worked for years to try to prevent precisely this kind of accident from occurring, and done so not out of the desire to comply with regulations, but just because it is good business practice.

In contrast to those who are weeping, we might ask who is happy about the disaster:

the environmentalists, with their fear mongering and hatred of modern life, and
the government, which treats every capitalist producer as a bird to be plucked.

The environmentalists are thrilled because they get yet another chance to wail and moan about the plight of their beloved marshes and other allegedly sensitive land. The loss of fish and marine life is sad, but it is not as if it will not come back: after the Exxon Valdez disaster, the fishing was better than ever in just one year.

The main advantage to the environmentalists is their propaganda victory in having yet another chance to rail against the evils of oil producers and ocean drilling. If they have their way, oil prices would be double or triple, there would never be another refinery built, and all development of the oceans would stop in the name of "protecting" things that do human beings not one bit of good.

The core economic issue concerning the environment is really about liability. In a world of private property, if you soil someone else's property, you bear the liability. But what about in a world in which government owns vast swaths, and the oceans are considered the commons of everyone? It becomes extremely difficult to assess damages to the environment at all.
"The liability for environmental damage should be 100% at least."

There is also a profound problem with federal government limits on liability. That is central planning gone mad. The liability for environmental damage should be 100% at least. Such a system would match a company's policies to the actual risk of doing damage. Lower limits would inspire companies to be less concerned about damage to others than they should be, in the same way that a company with a bailout guarantee faces a moral hazard to be less efficient than it would be in a free market.

But such a liability rule presumes ownership, so that owners themselves are in a position to enter into fair bargaining, and there can be some objective test. There is no objective test when the oceans are collectively owned and where huge amounts of territory are government owned.

And it is precisely the government and the Obama administration that gain from the incident. The regulators get yet another lease on life. They are already sending thousands of people to "save" the region. "Every American affected by this spill should know this: your government will do whatever it takes for as long as it takes to stop this crisis," Obama said.

Are we really supposed to believe that government is better able to deal with this disaster than private industry?

Meanwhile, the Obama administration must be thrilled to have an old-fashioned change of subject, so that we don't have to notice every single day that its economic stimulus has been an incredible flop, with unemployment higher today than a year ago and the depression still persisting.

And why, by the way, when every natural disaster is hailed by the Keynesian media for at least having the stimulative effect of rebuilding, is nothing like this said about the oil spill? At least in this case, losses seem to be recognized as losses.

The abstraction called the "ecosystem" — which never seems to include mankind or civilization — has done far less for us than the oil industry, and the factories, planes, trains, and automobiles it fuels. The greatest tragedy here belongs to BP and its subsidiaries, and the private enterprises affected by the losses that no one intended. If the result is a shutdown of drilling and further regulation of private enterprise, we only end up letting the oil spill win.


Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr., Mises Institute 10 Comments [1/15/2018 5:51:40 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 135928


[A cheesy ClipArt image of a man in a straitjacket making a crazy facial expression. To his left there is a caption reading:" Whites are oppressors, non-whites are victims. But race doesn't exist, yet I love racial diversity and I celebrate our differences because we're all the same. So let's destroy diversity by mixing together... but only in white countries".]

transcend_honk, Twitter 11 Comments [1/14/2018 5:12:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: The Reptilian Jew

Quote# 136012

Recently, I have had a lot of conversations with atheists. Many express a strong hatred of God. I have been at a loss to explain this. How can you hate someone you don’t believe in? Why the hostility? If God does not exist, shouldn’t atheists just relax and seek a good time before they become plant food? Why should it matter if people believe in God? Nothing matters if atheism is true.

Aldous Huxley (1894–1963), the brother of the atheistic evolutionist Sir Julian Huxley, advocated a drug-fuelled utopia. He gave the reason for his anti-Christian stance:

If God does not exist, shouldn’t atheists just relax and seek a good time before they become plant food? Why should it matter if people believe in God?

“I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning … the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.”1

Like Huxley, some people don’t like God because they don’t like moral constraints—you can make up your own rules, or have none at all, if God does not exist. They hate God and Christians because they are actually not confident that God does not exist and seeing Christians may remind them that they are ‘suppressing the truth’ (Romans 1:18).

What about atheists who had a church/religious upbringing? Some of them hate God because of evil things done to them by teachers in religious schools or by church leaders—people who on the face of it represented God. Antipathy towards God is an understandable reaction, sadly (although illogical).
Some atheists complain of Christian ‘intolerance’ in speaking about hell. But if those who spurn God’s forgiveness will suffer God’s wrath, as the Bible teaches, shouldn’t we Christians be warning everyone about the danger and how they can be saved? How is that ‘intolerant’?

Many complain about hell; they are angry at God because of hell. I understand that teachers in certain church-based schools, and parents in some ‘religious’ homes, commonly used the ‘fear of God’ to make children behave. “You are bad; you will burn in hell if you don’t behave.” But such a simplistic works-oriented approach not only trivializes this most serious of subjects, it negates the Gospel of God’s grace. (We are all ‘bad’ in God’s eyes, and ‘behaving properly’ will not save us—only Jesus can.)

A child who is having difficulties may well conclude that there is no way out for them, leading to years of nightmares about suffering in hell. Such a troubled teenager hearing an atheist say that evolution explains how we got here and that God is a myth2 could find this to be a liberating message, a release from their fears.

The Gospel (good news, see p. 41) is missing from all this. The Bible tells us that God is in the business of salvation. Though His wrath regarding sin is all too real (as seen in the Fall and Flood judgments; pp. 12–14, p. 15), we need not suffer it. Those who come to Him in repentance and faith will not be turned away (John 6:37). See also pp. 32–34.

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

It is strange that people hate God, who loves so much.

Some atheists complain of Christian ‘intolerance’ in speaking about hell. But if those who spurn God’s forgiveness will suffer God’s wrath, shouldn’t we Christians be warning everyone about the danger and how they can be saved? How is that ‘intolerant’? It would be extremely unloving not to tell others of this. A gift of Creation magazine might be a good place to start.

Don Batten, Creation.com 18 Comments [1/16/2018 12:12:40 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Denizen

Quote# 135972

So THIS is what our 'queens' have devolved to under Obama???

These pictures were taken at the 10th annual No Pants Subway Ride - which occurred in various cities around the nation and across the world. Obama's presidency helped unleash a wave of this sort of hedonism and sexual non-restraint.

If they did this when it was a frigid 12 degrees outside, can you imagine what they would've done if it was a nice balmy 50 or 60 degrees out?

This is what happens when the leader of the free world celebrates sin by lighting up the White House in the very stolen colors that represent the abomination that God hates. Hate it or love it: Obama flirted with God's judgment in a way previously unknown in America. And we'll be left to deal with the aftermath.

Let's pray God has mercy to temper what's still to come.

#NoPants #NoPantsSubwayRide #NoPantsDC #NoPantsNYC



Mack Major, Facebook 12 Comments [1/14/2018 3:26:01 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Yossarian Lives

Quote# 135988

Relativity and the Priesthood of Science

A major turning point in the public's understanding of science came about a century ago, with the introduction of Einstein's special and general theories of relativity. Before then, educated laymen were expected to and usually could understand new developments in science, at least in outline. After Einstein this changed. Science moved beyond the ken of educated laymen. You didn't understand what these new arguments were about? Then stick to your poetry, or perhaps your knitting. Science was becoming a private party to which you weren't invited. (Except that, increasingly, your taxes were expected to pay for it.)

Newton's laws of motion and gravity always were intelligible to the layman, and could be expressed in plain language. Einstein's relativity changed that, in the direction of reduced clarity, intelligibility and vastly increased complexity. I shall go further and say that relativity failed to improve on Newtonian physics in terms of accuracy.

Recently I wrote a book about relativity, Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary? It was based on the research and arguments of Petr Beckmann, who taught electrical engineering at the University of Colorado after defecting from Czechoslovakia in 1963. He wrote books that were both popular (A History of Pi) and obscure (The Scattering of Electromagnetic Waves from Rough Surfaces), and late in life he published Einstein Plus Two (1987).

He argued that the facts that led to relativity could more easily be explained by classical physics — without relativity. His book was in many ways technical, but before he died (in 1993) he reviewed it for my benefit in a series of tape-recorded interviews.

I was already familiar with his newsletter Access to Energy. An excellent popularizer of science, Beckmann could have written a popular anti-relativity book himself and had considered doing so. But he believed that it would be ignored. A technical one just might be accepted, he thought. He was wrong about that. His book was neither attacked nor even reviewed. It sold quite well, however, because he advertised it. I told him that I would write the popular account myself.

I still have my tapes, in which he talks not just about relativity but about his high school education in England, Czechoslovakia's postwar tumble into Communism and much else. The son of secular Jews in Prague, he was among the refugee children, known as Kinder-Transport, who were brought to England in 1939.

He died long before I could write my book. But by then Howard Hayden, with the Physics Department at the University of Connecticut, had accepted Beckmann's arguments. Today Hayden is retired, and the publisher of a newsletter, The Energy Advocate. The help he gave me in writing my book was indispensable.

It came out in 2009. I am glad to say that it just received a favorable review in The Physics Teacher [Feb 2011 issue].

In the course of writing the book I found that many physicists are uncomfortable discussing relativity theory. They believe it is true, but they doubt their ability to explain it. Few can respond to questions if they have not actually taught relativity at the university level. And that is a tiny subset of all physicists.

Special relativity theory (1905) has a special difficulty. It baffles almost everyone, yet nothing more than high school algebra is involved. So it's not the math. It's that we must accept something that is impossible to believe — except on Einstein's authority. If Petr Beckmann is right, we should reject that authority, as indeed we should reject authority in all fields of science.

I'll try to explain that difficulty. But first let me make a simple clarification. What about E = mc2, you might ask. Surely that must be true, and was it not based on relativity? It is the one thing that laymen know about relativity. And here we come to something that the Easy Einstein books (and most of the not-so-easy ones) never tell you. Yes, the famous equation was derived from relativity theory, but Einstein himself also derived it, years later (in the 1940s) without relativity.

A similar adjustment, in which relativity can be shown to be unnecessary, applies across the entire field.

It was the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 that launched special relativity. It involves only unaccelerated, linear motion. If curved motion, acceleration, or gravity, are involved, then we must turn to general relativity (1916), where the math gets much more difficult.

Albert Michelson, the first American to win the Nobel Prize in Physics, attempted to detect the passage of the orbiting earth through the ether (sometimes spelled aether). It is the medium in which light waves travel. Just as sound travels in its medium, air, so light waves need a medium, too. As the earth orbits the Sun at a speed of about 48 miles per second, it should be possible, using an interferometer — an instrument that Michelson had perfected — to detect the Earth's passage through that ether.

Michelson's idea was that there should be a difference in the measured speed of the to-and-fro motion of a light beam within the interferometer — the difference being caused by the forward motion of the earth during the light beam's time of transmission. The difference in light speed would cause a "fringe shift" to be seen in the interferometer, which was sensitive enough to detect such an effect. But no such fringe shift could be detected.

This "null result" threw the world of theoretical physics into turmoil. Michelson, incidentally, never accepted relativity theory.

Einstein postulated — assumed — that the speed of light is a constant irrespective of the motion, not just of the light source, but also of the observer. And that "observer" part was very hard to accept. A sound wave travels at a constant speed in air (of a given temperature and density) whatever the motion of the sound source. Sound from an airplane travels forward at a speed that is unaffected by the speed of the plane. But if you travel toward that approaching sound wave then you must add your speed to that of the plane's sound wave if you are to know the speed with which it approaches you.

But Einstein decreed that the simple "addition of velocities" that applies to sound does not hold true for light. Light waves approach us at the same speed whether we travel toward or away from that light beam. It's important to note that Einstein didn't observe that in any experiment. He postulated it. He said: "Let's assume it is true."

What follows from it?

Well, speed is distance divided by time. When you move toward that light beam, which (Einstein said) always approaches at a constant speed irrespective of how you (the observer) move, then space must contract, and time must dilate to exactly the extent that is needed to ensure that the light approaches at an ever-constant speed. It's a bizarre claim. What Einstein did was take the fundamentals of physics, space and time, and argue that they must be subordinated to a velocity. Yet velocity is a mere derivative — it is space divided by time.

Einstein had resorted to a desperate measure — turning physics inside out. He also decided in 1905 that the ether could be dispensed with. It was "superfluous."

Observed from a moving reference frame, then, space should be observed to contract and time to slow down. Let's go over this with those spaceships sometimes used to illustrate Easy Einstein books (Martin Gardner's Relativity Simply Explained, for example). You are inside your spaceship, so from your point of view nothing about it is moving. So space and time are not affected within your ship.

But if you look out of a window you see a replica space ship passing you and (in accordance with relativity theory) it looks foreshortened because it is moving fast relative to you. Clocks as you see them in the other spaceship are running slowly. By the same token, observers within that spaceship see your ship as compressed, and your clocks running slowly, even though your clocks and structures look perfectly normal to you.

Notice that these weird outcomes are simply deductions from Einstein's postulate about the speed of light. They are not dictated nor confirmed by any observation or experiment. In subsequent experiments, no space contraction has ever been observed. No time dilation has been seen either — although that is a more controversial claim. What has been observed is that when atomic clocks travel at high speed through the Earth's gravitational field, they slow down. But clocks slowing down and time slowing down are two very different things. Only the former has been observed.

And this brings us to Beckmann's alternative. He amends Albert Michelson's worldview in a simple way. Following Clerk Maxwell's lead, Michelson assumed that the ether, the luminiferous medium, was made of a fine-grained substance that fills the entirety of space uniformly. The emphasis is on the last word. The ether was thought to be a uniform entity — equal in density everywhere.

Petr Beckman made a different claim. He argued that the ether is equivalent to the gravitational field, which of course is non-uniform. It is denser at the earth's surface than it is near the moon, for example. The Sun's gravitational field is much denser near the Sun than it is in outer space (where it is still not zero). The light medium, then, is non-uniform.

Obviously, we are predominantly in the Earth's field. Jump up, and you come back down again. To leave that field requires an almighty push — from Saturn rockets. When Michelson did his experiment, with the help of Edward Morley (at the Case School in Ohio) he assumed that his interferometer was moving through the ether at the Earth's orbital velocity. But if the ether is the local gravitational field, then that field is moving right along with us. In the same way, a man's shadow accompanies him as he runs. So the "fringe shift" that Michelson expected to see would not be there, because the relative velocity of the Earth and the ether would be . . . what, zero?

Here we encounter a twist — literally. The Earth also rotates on its axis, and it rotates within its gravitational field. Analogously, if a woman wearing a hoop skirt does a pirouette — assume she has a circular waist and friction is minimal — she will rotate within her skirt. It won't swing around with her.

If this analogy applies to the Earth's field, then a fringe shift should indeed appear in Michelson's interferometer, but it will be much smaller than he anticipated. It so happens that the Earth's orbital velocity is close to 100 times greater than its rotational velocity in the latitude of Cleveland and, for reasons that need not detain us, that figures has to be squared. It follows that the fringe shift that the Michelson experiment generated — a function of the Earth's rotation — would be one ten thousandth of what he expected to see.

There was no way that so small an effect could be detected using 19th century equipment. But modern interferometers and laser beams can do so. In fact the most sensitive interferometer experiment ever conducted, by John Hall in 1979, did detect a fringe shift of the correct magnitude, confirming Beckmann's theory of the ether. Ironically Hall's experiment was done at Petr Beckmann's home base, the University of Colorado in Boulder, and while he was there. But he didn't know about the experiment and Hall didn't know of Beckmann's theory (still unpublished at that point).

Hall was not expecting to see this fringe shift and he assumed the effect was "spurious" — the artifact of a design error in his own equipment. In an interview with me in 2004, Hall (who won the Nobel Prize in Physics but not for this experiment) agreed that his 1979 experiment should be redone. But he is unable to repeat it for two reasons. First, the rotating interferometer that he used had been stored away in the Rocky Mountain Arsenal where the Federal government was making nerve gas; they won't return his machine for that reason. Secondly, interferometer design has changed. The new ones are "fixed" in a particular direction and use the Earth's rotation to sweep across the heavens. What is needed is an interferometer that rotates in the laboratory, as Michelson's did in 1887 and Hall's did almost a hundred years later.

Beckmann's theory, that the luminiferous ether is equivalent to the local gravitational field, accounts for the observations that confirmed general relativity, but does so far more simply. Amazingly, Einstein himself revived Beckmann's idea about the ether in 1916. (For details see Ludwik Kostro's Einstein and the Ether [2000], the first book on the subject). Some of Einstein's allies criticized him for restoring the ether, having abolished it a decade earlier, so it was downplayed.

Beckmann's theory accounts for the bending of light rays from a distant star as they pass close by the Sun — the 1919 observation that made Einstein world famous. If a medium in which a wave travels is non-uniform, it will slew the wave front around in accordance in Fermat's Principle — known since the 17th century. (Waves take the path that minimizes the time of transmission.) We do not need Einstein's "curvature of four dimensional space-time," which, as Edward Teller told me, is not an intelligible idea, no matter how much we may pretend we do understand it.

Finally, we come to the equation giving the perihelion of Mercury's orbit. Einstein derived it in 1915 using general relativity. But Beckmann points out that this equation had already been published by a high school teacher named Paul Gerber in 1898, well before relativity theory was known. Gerber assumed that gravity propagates with a finite speed, not instantaneously as Newton had argued. Gerber's result was publicized by Ernst Mach in his widely read textbook Mechanics. Einstein said that he hadn't seen Gerber's derivation, which anyway was "wrong through and through," he said.

Howard Hayden believes that Beckmann's theory gives the same results as Einstein's general relativity, but by a far simpler method. For various reasons, Einstein's special relativity should be discarded. It gives the wrong results for stellar aberration, among other defects. There is also a real question whether any experiment done on the surface of the Earth (a "spinning ball," as John Hall told me) fits the requirements of special relativity. On the surface of any spinning ball, the effects of acceleration will always appear as long as the experiment is sufficiently sensitive.

At present, the world of orthodox physics is unwilling to reexamine Einstein's relativity, whether special or general. It would fall apart if subjected to real scrutiny, I believe. But in science (and perhaps everything else) the simple should always be preferred to the complex — all else being equal. Such a revision, if it ever came to pass, would also constitute a serious challenge to the priesthood of science. Perhaps that's why the relativists are hanging tough.

Tom Bethell, LewRockwell.com 10 Comments [1/15/2018 5:51:47 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 135983

Fact is Greek was inhabited by blacks just like everywhere else was, Greece is nearer to Africa, than it is to Rome. Phoenicians were black. In fact it is being said Europe turned white only some 500 years ago. Invading northern hordes predicted by every ancient civilisation is how Greece, Italy, Spain who were so dark skinned and frizzy haired just 50 years ago are now looking so lily white not

Eye Spy, squawker 10 Comments [1/15/2018 2:43:57 PM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 136002

What Are Common Characteristics of Cults?

CHARACTERISTICS OF CULTS- Introduction
One of the most devastating experiences someone could face is to have a loved one involved in a cult. What are some ways we can know that a certain group is in fact a cult?
The devil always hides behind a mask; and he seldom carries an ID card. If this statement is true, it is of utmost importance for us to discern a cult when we see one.

CHARACTERISTICS OF CULTS- Scripture Twisting
The first mark of a cult is its manipulation of Scripture. The Bible is twisted to fit the leader or group’s interpretation. Private interpretations are forbidden because the leader of the cult is the only one, of course, who is able to understand God’s voice properly. Their teachings distort the historic, orthodox claims of Christianity.

CHARACTERISTICS OF CULTS- Mental Manipulation
Second, many times cults manipulate people’s minds. There is little concern for individual thought and development. Education is usually discouraged while the convert is bombarded with the cult’s doctrine and literature. Members are called to leave or neglect their old family and life-style for a brand new one.

CHARACTERISTICS OF CULTS- Time Manipulation
A third characteristic is the manipulation of time. Since salvation comes exclusively from the teachings of the group, in many cults members spend much of their time working for their organization. Family, school, leisure, sleep, and even food are most often neglected.

CHARACTERISTICS OF CULTS- Manipulating Reality
Finally, cults typically manipulate reality. They tend to have an exclusive “us”/“them” mentality in which society and old associates are all out to get them. Anyone outside of the group is suspect.

If a religious group exhibits one or more of the marks mentioned above, that group may well be considered a cult. Jesus Christ said that in the last days many false prophets would arise and deceive many (Matt. 24:11,24). To avoid the deception of the cults, we should be rooted in the teachings of the historic Christian faith, and receive Jesus Christ, God the Son, second Person of the Trinity, as Lord of our lives.

On the characteristics of cults, that’s the Bible Answer Man Perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.

Hank Hanegraaff, Christian Research Institute 11 Comments [1/16/2018 12:11:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Denizen

Quote# 135994

Satan is one of the sons of god (= the angels), but Jesus is the son of god. There's a little difference between...

Anonymous, Dwindling In Unbelief 9 Comments [1/15/2018 2:45:45 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: SomeApe

Quote# 135974

[If money is the root of all evil, why don't Christians give theirs away?]

Because of Christians gave away all the money the evil people would have more money to commit evil with That's Why Us Christians collect your money because if we collect it and put it into good use you won't be able to get into trouble with it and we will have invested it wisely for you.

ari, Y! answers 18 Comments [1/15/2018 2:41:54 PM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 22689

"I just believe there are places for men and places for women in society b/c the sexes are not equal."

[Everyone is created equal retard. This is America. Now go back to Iran.]

"Do men and women have the same body types?? no they don't."

[So what you are saying is women aren't equal because they aren't the same body type. I hate to ask this but do you love freedom? Since you seem to hate others who express their freedom.]

"For thousands of years women stayed home and things were fine. Women are too weak, too mean and too PMSey to handle power. Look at your Hillary, that old witch wrote the book on menopause and PMS."

proudrepublican81, IMDB 46 Comments [3/29/2007 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 22370

No Christians reject science. This, you are very confused on. Christians reject the assumptions that people like you make. Garbage like million or billions of years, etc... I'm a troll because I speak opposite of your silly superstitious beliefs. So be it. I will be labeled whatever you would like. Either way, I will eat your lunch. You have nothing to stand on. I have the truth. Where does that leave you? Talking out your ass as usual. None of you walking dead atheists can even agree with each other on ANYTHING. So I win once again!

xceptionalguysd, Sherdog.Net 48 Comments [3/22/2007 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 22372

Do you know that there is no such thing as an atheist? Its true friend, for if you were an atheist you would believe in absolutley, positively nothing, not even what you see in front of you or all around you. Atheist believe in absolutley nothing not even in the things that surround them. However, you friend are what they call an Agnostic. Which means you believe in what you see around you but you do not believe in a Higher Power, such as God.

Anonymous, help.com 56 Comments [3/22/2007 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: Missa

Quote# 135992

What are the Noetic Sciences?

no•et•ic: From the Greek noesis / noetikos, meaning inner wisdom, direct knowing, or subjective understanding.

sci•ence: Systems of acquiring knowledge that use observation, experimentation, and replication to describe and explain natural phenomena.

no•et•ic sci•ences: A multidisciplinary field that brings objective scientific tools and techniques together with subjective inner knowing to study the full range of human experiences.


For centuries, philosophers from Plato forward have used the term noetic to refer to experiences that pioneering psychologist William James (1902) described as:

…states of insight into depths of truth unplumbed by the discursive intellect. They are illuminations, revelations, full of significance and importance, all inarticulate though they remain; and as a rule they carry with them a curious sense of authority.


The term noetic sciences was first coined in 1973 when the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) was founded by Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell, who two years earlier became the sixth man to walk on the moon. Ironically, it was the trip back home that Mitchell recalls most, during which he felt a profound sense of universal connectedness—what he later described as a samadhi experience. In Mitchell’s own words, “The presence of divinity became almost palpable, and I knew that life in the universe was not just an accident based on random processes. . . .The knowledge came to me directly.”

It led him to conclude that reality is more complex, subtle, and mysterious than conventional science had led him to believe. Perhaps a deeper understanding of consciousness (inner space) could lead to a new and expanded understanding of reality in which objective and subjective, outer and inner, are understood as co-equal aspects of the miracle of being. It was this intersection of knowledge systems that led Dr. Mitchell to launch the interdisciplinary field of noetic sciences.

Why Consciousness Matters

con•scious•ness: In our work, personal consciousness is awareness—how an individual perceives and interprets his or her environment, including beliefs, intentions, attitudes, emotions, and all aspects of his or her subjective experience. Collective consciousness is how a group (an institution, a society, a species) perceives and translates the world around them.

con•scious•ness trans•for•ma•tion: A fundamental shift in perspective or worldview that results in an expanded understanding of self and the nature of reality.

world•view: The beliefs, attitudes, perceptions, and assumptions through which we filter our understanding of the world and our place in it.


The essential hypothesis underlying the noetic sciences is simply that consciousness matters. The question is when, how, and why does it matter?

There are several ways we can know the world around us. Science focuses on external observation and is grounded in objective evaluation, measurement, and experimentation. This is useful in increasing objectivity and reducing bias and inaccuracy as we interpret what we observe. But another way of knowing is subjective or internal, including gut feelings, intuition, and hunches—the way you know you love your children, for example, or experiences you have that cannot be explained or proven “rationally” but feel absolutely real. This way of knowing is what we call noetic.

From a purely materialist, mechanistic perspective, all subjective—noetic—experience arises from physical matter, and consciousness is simply a byproduct of brain and body processes. But there is another perspective, suggesting a far more complex relationship between the physical and the nonphysical. The noetic sciences apply a scientific lens to the study of subjective experience and to ways that consciousness may influence the physical world, and the data to date have raised plenty of provocative new questions.

IONS sees noetic science as a growing field of valid inquiry. Every new discovery leads to more questions as the mystery of human consciousness slowly unfolds. In the areas of consciousness and healing, extended human capacities, and worldview transformation, IONS keeps pushing the boundaries of what we know, advancing our shared understanding of consciousness and why it matters in the 21st century.

Institute for Noetic Sciences, Institute for Noetic Sciences 9 Comments [1/15/2018 5:51:55 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 135991

"The current situation in the United States and in Western Europe has nothing whatsoever to do with “free” immigration. It is forced integration […] The power to admit or exclude should be stripped from the hands of the central government and reassigned to the states, provinces, cities, towns, villages, residential districts, and ultimately to private property owners. […], if only towns and villages could and would do what they did as a matter of course until well into the nineteenth century in Europe and the United States: to post signs regarding entrance requirements to the town, and once in town for entering specific pieces of property (no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, etc.); to expel as trespassers those who do not fulfill these requirements [...]"

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, RationalWiki 13 Comments [1/15/2018 5:51:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 22313

God help us that we have so many in our world today who have bought the lie of evolution hook, line and sinker and want their children to grow up believing in same!

Who would've thought that a day would come when the Holy Bible's teaching would be referred to as something that prevented a child from learning what they "need to know?"

Who would've thought twenty-five years ago we'd see a day come when parents would be concerned that the minds of children could be "POLLUTED" by hearing a reference made to the Word of God in a classroom?

Michael G. Mickey, Rapture Alert 23 Comments [3/21/2007 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 22373

There are several appauling tricks atheists use to deny logic, but one of the most agregeious (sp?) is the use of strawman argument in relation to questions of origin.


Theist says: Where did the universe come from?

Atheist says: where did God come from?

Theist says: God did not come from anywhere God always was

Atheist says: that is special pleading.


That sounds like logic, but it's not. Its' plyaing with logic terms to get away with their own illogic. The truth is it's a straw man argument on their part.

they are insisting you must accept my straw man! It is so because it's not what we believe! you cant' call theistic belief "special pleading" because that's the belief itself. Now it could be used as special pleading at some point but this is not that point!

Metacrock, CARM 47 Comments [3/22/2007 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Winston Jen

Quote# 22422

PARENTS BEWARE!" Demon images are taking over the Toy Departments and the cartoon programming on your television! These images show up in the forms of Charms, Trolls, Monsters, and violence...signs of Pagan Idolatry carefully camouflaged...like Trolls with Demonic faces...but dressed in cute little "dolly" clothes to be accepted as a toy and hugged and loved by a child.

Let's examine the origin of Trolls. Where did they come from? These cute, ugly Demons that have captivated American children epitomize today's delight in "new-paganism" when joined to popular ideals. While the "Trolls of Scandinavian Fairy Tales would uproot trees, enslave beautiful ladies and turn people into stone with cruel spells, the toy makers are quoting poems and sayings to try and seduce and deceive the REAL origin of these Demons. For Example: "There was a time...when waters were clean and forests untouched...When ancient legends spoke of "Guardians of the Earth."

In Scandinavian lands, these mysterious creatures were Trolls...and were known to guard what was left of the Earth's natural treasures. This theory of fantasy can only help to encourage "New Age" thinking...like "Mother Earth...save our environment"...as if God would create anything that would not last, until He was ready for it to disappear. But, if our little children are introduced to these myths at such a young age...as they grow...satan can introduce this fantasy lie and encourage it to be accepted as truth.

It was said the "trolls" were rarely seen, people believed and pretended. Isn't it strange today these nearly forgotten Demon creatures are once again in our midst...working their Earth magic to help Humans? More of Satan's lies flowing out to capture the mind and control it.

Stan, Demonbusters 37 Comments [3/23/2007 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Infected

Quote# 135977

In response to this tweet by Kacey Musgraves

Your one of the reasons true country is sinking into the cesspool of immorality and stomach turning fake entertainment. Gotta perform half naked to make up for lack of God given talent. But biblical prophecy is spot on & you will account 4 ur part &the millions dead from GAY HIV.

Diane Griego, Twitter 8 Comments [1/14/2018 11:48:29 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Daspletosaurus

Quote# 135980

Lady Checkmate's headline: "Bradley Manning confirms Senate bid, says 'Yup, we're running'"

(NOTE: This is the usual Fox news cut-and-paste, but she has removed all references to "Chelsea" and replaced them with "Bradley". Original link here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/14/chelsea-manning-confirms-senate-bid-says-yup-were-running.html).

Lady Checkmate, Disqus - News Network 12 Comments [1/14/2018 11:50:32 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Jocasta
1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 40 | top