On Apr 25, 3:34*pm, Well Knopwn Crackpot George Hammond
wrote:


PS Don't you mind that reply by John Smith,
* We know you are more than an asshole!

[Hammond]
* *"We" apparently means people who are of sufficient
decency to use their real names; not the overwhelming
majority of Usenet who, like criminals, prefer to use
aliases


But then there are the named CRACKPOTS like Hammond who revel in their
little fantasy world, not caring that, in the light of reality,
they're clearly seen as FOOLS

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:51:53 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:


There is nothing stupid about not being able to understand psychotic
insanity.

[Hammond]
You don't think so? How else could you discover the
world's first scientific proof of God?

You admit it?

On 26 apr, 00:34, George Hammond wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:10:18 -0700 (PDT),





" wrote:
On 25 apr, 01:14, George Hammond wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:45:41 -0700 (PDT),

" wrote:
On 23 apr, 23:25, George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:55:03 -0700 (PDT),

[Hammond]
* *Wrong Pizzaman. *Religion is FOUNDED on exactly my
explanation of "existence". *In case you haven't noticed 85%
of the world's population are adherents to one of the 5
major faiths. *This means 85% of the world agrees with my
definition of "existence" in principle when it comes to the
scientific phenomenon of "God".

You are saying that religious people generally admit that the only
reason why something exists is because they believe it to exist?

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

[Hammond]
* Of course not, don't be ridiculous. *People (any people)
believe what they see.
* *What the SPOG proves is that NOBODY can see true reality
because we never reach full growth, and therefore we see a
CURVED VERSION of reality.
* *Now, unaware people think this "curved version " is true
reality, but more aware people discovered long ago that it
is curved, and therefore part of true reality is missing, or
"invisible".
* *Religious people are simply people who KNOW ABOUT IT,
while atheists, the uneducated, stupid or ignorant people
DON'T KNOW IT.
* *The religious people call the phenomenon "God" while
ignorant and unaware people don't even notice it, until it
eventually kills them due to an accident, healthl effects,
mental effects or lact of the ability to protect themselves
from predators (Evil so called).
=====================================
* * *SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
*http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
* *mirror site:
*http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
* * * GOD=G_uv * (a folk song on mp3)
*http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

Research has shown that the more educated people are the greater the
chance of them being atheists.
So I am afraid you are mistaken.

[Hammond]
* * There isn't a head of state in the world, and few if any
high ranking public officials who would say that he was an
atheist. *Common opinion holds that public officals are less
ignorant than the highly educated. *So I'm afraid you're
mistaken.

I wasn't talking about politicians.
The sersearch was done at universtiy
The more years students had been studying there,
the greater the percentage of atheists.

An atheist politician on the other hand,
would have better chances telling a lie,
and saying he "trusted in God".

Do you expect all atheist politicians to be completely honest like me?

I don't.

Peter van Velzem
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

PS
And don't you mind Ken calling you a crackpot.
He himself is not intelligent enough to understand my comment about
you being more than an asshole.





As for phenomenon.
Maybe you could explain wich phenomenon you mean,
instead of leaving me rather agnostic :-)
I surely want to take some measures,
before the hideous thing kills me!
Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

[Hammond]
* *Read my website

PS Don't you mind that reply by John Smith,
* We know you are more than an asshole!

[Hammond]
* *"We" apparently means people who are of sufficient
decency to use their real names; not the overwhelming
majority of Usenet who, like criminals, prefer to use
aliases.
=====================================
* * *SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
*http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
* *mirror site:
*http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
* * * GOD=G_uv * (a folk song on mp3)
*http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:52:40 -0700 (PDT),
" wrote:

On 26 apr, 00:34, George Hammond wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:10:18 -0700 (PDT),





" wrote:
On 25 apr, 01:14, George Hammond wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:45:41 -0700 (PDT),

" wrote:
On 23 apr, 23:25, George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:55:03 -0700 (PDT),

[Hammond]
* *Wrong Pizzaman. *Religion is FOUNDED on exactly my
explanation of "existence". *In case you haven't noticed 85%
of the world's population are adherents to one of the 5
major faiths. *This means 85% of the world agrees with my
definition of "existence" in principle when it comes to the
scientific phenomenon of "God".

You are saying that religious people generally admit that the only
reason why something exists is because they believe it to exist?

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

[Hammond]
* Of course not, don't be ridiculous. *People (any people)
believe what they see.
* *What the SPOG proves is that NOBODY can see true reality
because we never reach full growth, and therefore we see a
CURVED VERSION of reality.
* *Now, unaware people think this "curved version " is true
reality, but more aware people discovered long ago that it
is curved, and therefore part of true reality is missing, or
"invisible".
* *Religious people are simply people who KNOW ABOUT IT,
while atheists, the uneducated, stupid or ignorant people
DON'T KNOW IT.
* *The religious people call the phenomenon "God" while
ignorant and unaware people don't even notice it, until it
eventually kills them due to an accident, healthl effects,
mental effects or lact of the ability to protect themselves
from predators (Evil so called).
=====================================
* * *SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
*http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
* *mirror site:
*http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
* * * GOD=G_uv * (a folk song on mp3)
*http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

Research has shown that the more educated people are the greater the
chance of them being atheists.
So I am afraid you are mistaken.

[Hammond]
* * There isn't a head of state in the world, and few if any
high ranking public officials who would say that he was an
atheist. *Common opinion holds that public officals are less
ignorant than the highly educated. *So I'm afraid you're
mistaken.

[Peter van Velzen]
I wasn't talking about politicians.


[Hammond]
I was, I referred to "ignorant and unaware people",
politicians are examples of people who are NOT IGNORANT OR
UNAWARE.
Academics DO NOT lead the world, politicians DO.


[Peter van Velzen]
The research was done at university
The more years students had been studying there,
the greater the percentage of atheists.


[Hammond]
This merely proves that modern Academia is very corrupt,
sleazy, and backward. There is no law that says highly
educated people can't be corrupt, sleazy or backward.


[Peter van Velzen]
An atheist politician on the other hand,
would have better chances telling a lie,
and saying he "trusted in God".


[Hammond]
By the same token academics have a better chance of
telling a lie and saying they are atheists and getting away
with it. I'm sure many of the scared lower echelon
academics are dong just that to keep their job. So what's
your point?
Surely you're not going to attempt to refute the SPOG
using "unsupported conjectural assertions", are you?


[Peter van Velzen]
Do you expect all atheist politicians to be completely honest like me?
I don't.


[Hammond]
Same goes for academics, so what?


Peter van Velzem
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

PS
And don't you mind Ken calling you a crackpot.
He himself is not intelligent enough to understand my comment about
you being more than an asshole.


[Hammond]
Look Dutch, Usenet is crawling with criminals, cons
posting from death row, drug addicts, drunks, child
molesters, pedophiles, gun nuts, Nazis, serial killers, wife
beaters, anti Semitic psychos, war criminals, torturers,
sadistic kidnappers, sex trade slave masters, people dying
of terminal V.D., stalkers, foreign spies, suicide bombers,
homicidal Jihadists, KKK members and psychos of all
description. Fact is "normal" people may be in the minority
on Usenet.
All of these people are interested in whether or not
there is a God, including Ken The Crackpot. Until you can
empathetically talk to all of them, you're not qualified to
be toying with the world's first scientific proof of God by
posting frivolous amateur arguments. You ought to know,
you're from Holland and your parents saw the 3rd Reich
occupy your country and murder thousands of innocent people,
including Anne Frank.
"Man up" Dutch, and get with the program, I'm a real
physicist, the SPOG is real science, and it's serious
business.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

On Apr 26, 10:47*am, Crackpot George Hammond
wrote:

* "Man up" Dutch, and get with the program, I'm a real
phychotic, the SPOG is pseudo-science, and it's seriously bullcrap.


The rise of the Internet has given an outlet
to people well outside the mainstream who may get labeled crackpots
through internet
postings promoting particular beliefs

The universal characteristics of crackpots include:
Crackpots overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and
underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
Crackpots insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently
important.
Crackpots love to talk about their own beliefs
Crackpots greatly exaggerate their personal achievements

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:42:40 GMT, George Hammond
wrote:

On 26 apr, 00:34, George Hammond wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:10:18 -0700 (PDT),





" wrote:
On 25 apr, 01:14, George Hammond wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:45:41 -0700 (PDT),

" wrote:
On 23 apr, 23:25, George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:55:03 -0700 (PDT),

[Hammond]
Wrong Pizzaman. Religion is FOUNDED on exactly my
explanation of "existence". In case you haven't noticed 85%
of the world's population are adherents to one of the 5
major faiths. This means 85% of the world agrees with my
definition of "existence" in principle when it comes to the
scientific phenomenon of "God".

You are saying that religious people generally admit that the only
reason why something exists is because they believe it to exist?

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

[Hammond]
Of course not, don't be ridiculous. People (any people)
believe what they see.
What the SPOG proves is that NOBODY can see true reality
because we never reach full growth, and therefore we see a
CURVED VERSION of reality.
Now, unaware people think this "curved version " is true
reality, but more aware people discovered long ago that it
is curved, and therefore part of true reality is missing, or
"invisible".
Religious people are simply people who KNOW ABOUT IT,
while atheists, the uneducated, stupid or ignorant people
DON'T KNOW IT.
The religious people call the phenomenon "God" while
ignorant and unaware people don't even notice it, until it
eventually kills them due to an accident, healthl effects,
mental effects or lact of the ability to protect themselves
from predators (Evil so called).
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

Research has shown that the more educated people are the greater the
chance of them being atheists.
So I am afraid you are mistaken.

[Hammond]
There isn't a head of state in the world, and few if any
high ranking public officials who would say that he was an
atheist. Common opinion holds that public officals are less
ignorant than the highly educated. So I'm afraid you're
mistaken.

[Peter van Velzen]
I wasn't talking about politicians.


[Hammond]
I was, I referred to "ignorant and unaware people",

Oh ..... so you change the base criteria, just to make another ignorant, and
uninformed, point?


politicians are examples of people who are NOT IGNORANT OR
UNAWARE.

They aren't?
Openly looking at the way some of the ways they used to "lead the world" or
create laws, totally contradicts your asinine assertion.


Academics DO NOT lead the world, politicians DO.

????
So?
That has nothing to do with the point of the discussion.




[Peter van Velzen]
The research was done at university
The more years students had been studying there,
the greater the percentage of atheists.


[Hammond]
This merely proves that modern Academia is very corrupt,
sleazy, and backward. There is no law that says highly
educated people can't be corrupt, sleazy or backward.

No ... but there is no EVIDENCE to support your bellowing ignorance.
You claim to be a scientist ........... but you NEVER seem to provide ANY
valid evidence.

No, there is no more a law that says educated people cannot be corrupt,
sleazy or backward ..... no more than there is a law for that applies to
politicians .... OR YOU!





[Peter van Velzen]
An atheist politician on the other hand,
would have better chances telling a lie,
and saying he "trusted in God".


[Hammond]
By the same token academics have a better chance of
telling a lie and saying they are atheists and getting away
with it. I'm sure many of the scared lower echelon
academics are dong just that to keep their job. So what's
your point?

The point is ... do you have ANY VALID evidence to supprt that outrageously
ignorant claim?
or, as is true to your nature, are you once again just bellowing unsupported
ignorance out of your asshole?!?!?!?


Surely you're not going to attempt to refute the SPOG
using "unsupported conjectural assertions", are you?

??????????
Your "S.P.O.C. is totally "suported" by unscientific conjecture and empty
assertions.
You have to SUPPORT IT (and you haven't ... not one bit) .... others don't
need to prove it is wrong.



[Peter van Velzen]
Do you expect all atheist politicians to be completely honest like me?
I don't.


[Hammond]
Same goes for academics, so what?


Peter van Velzem
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

PS
And don't you mind Ken calling you a crackpot.
He himself is not intelligent enough to understand my comment about
you being more than an asshole.


[Hammond]
Look Dutch, Usenet is crawling with criminals, cons
posting from death row, drug addicts, drunks, child
molesters, pedophiles, gun nuts, Nazis, serial killers, wife
beaters, anti Semitic psychos, war criminals, torturers,
sadistic kidnappers, sex trade slave masters, people dying
of terminal V.D., stalkers, foreign spies, suicide bombers,
homicidal Jihadists, KKK members and psychos of all
description.
including George Hammond.

On Apr 26, 4:41*pm, "John Smith" wrote:
"George Hammond" wrote in message

...





On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:42:40 GMT, George Hammond
wrote:

On 26 apr, 00:34, George Hammond wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:10:18 -0700 (PDT),

" wrote:
On 25 apr, 01:14, George Hammond wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:45:41 -0700 (PDT),

" wrote:
On 23 apr, 23:25, George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:55:03 -0700 (PDT),

[Hammond]
Wrong Pizzaman. Religion is FOUNDED on exactly my
explanation of "existence". In case you haven't noticed 85%
of the world's population are adherents to one of the 5
major faiths. This means 85% of the world agrees with my
definition of "existence" in principle when it comes to the
scientific phenomenon of "God".

You are saying that religious people generally admit that the only
reason why something exists is because they believe it to exist?

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

[Hammond]
Of course not, don't be ridiculous. People (any people)
believe what they see.
What the SPOG proves is that NOBODY can see true reality
because we never reach full growth, and therefore we see a
CURVED VERSION of reality.
Now, unaware people think this "curved version " is true
reality, but more aware people discovered long ago that it
is curved, and therefore part of true reality is missing, or
"invisible".
Religious people are simply people who KNOW ABOUT IT,
while atheists, the uneducated, stupid or ignorant people
DON'T KNOW IT.
The religious people call the phenomenon "God" while
ignorant and unaware people don't even notice it, until it
eventually kills them due to an accident, healthl effects,
mental effects or lact of the ability to protect themselves
from predators (Evil so called).
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

Research has shown that the more educated people are the greater the
chance of them being atheists.
So I am afraid you are mistaken.

[Hammond]
There isn't a head of state in the world, and few if any
high ranking public officials who would say that he was an
atheist. Common opinion holds that public officals are less
ignorant than the highly educated. So I'm afraid you're
mistaken.

[Peter van Velzen]
I wasn't talking about politicians.

[Hammond]
*I was, I referred to "ignorant and unaware people",

Oh ..... so you change the base criteria, just to make another ignorant, and
uninformed, point?

politicians are examples of people who are NOT IGNORANT OR
UNAWARE.

They aren't?
Openly looking at the way some of the ways they used to "lead the world" or
create laws, totally contradicts your asinine assertion.

* Academics DO NOT lead the world, politicians DO.

????
So?
That has nothing to do with the point of the discussion.



[Peter van Velzen]
The research was done at university
The more years students had been studying there,
the greater the percentage of atheists.

[Hammond]
* This merely proves that modern Academia is very corrupt,
sleazy, and backward. *There is no law that says highly
educated people can't be corrupt, sleazy or backward.

No ... but there is no EVIDENCE to support your bellowing ignorance.
You claim to be a scientist ........... but you NEVER seem to provide ANY
valid evidence.

No, there is no more a law that says educated people cannot be corrupt,
sleazy or backward ..... no more than there is a law for that applies to
politicians .... OR YOU!



[Peter van Velzen]
An atheist politician on the other hand,
would have better chances telling a lie,
and saying he "trusted in God".

[Hammond]
* By the same token academics have a better chance of
telling a lie and saying they are atheists and getting away
with it. *I'm sure many of the scared lower echelon
academics are dong just that to keep their job. *So what's
your point?

The point is ... do you have ANY VALID evidence to supprt that outrageously
ignorant claim?
or, as is true to your nature, are you once again just bellowing unsupported
ignorance out of your asshole?!?!?!?

* Surely you're not going to attempt to refute the SPOG
using "unsupported conjectural assertions", are you?

??????????
Your "S.P.O.C. is totally "suported" by unscientific conjecture and empty
assertions.
You have to SUPPORT IT * (and you haven't ... not one bit) .... others don't
need to prove it is wrong.







[Peter van Velzen]
Do you expect all atheist politicians to be completely honest like me?
I don't.

[Hammond]
* Same goes for academics, so what?

Peter van Velzem
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

PS
And don't you mind Ken calling you a crackpot.
He himself is not intelligent enough to understand my comment about
you being more than an asshole.

[Hammond]
* Look Dutch, Usenet is crawling with criminals, cons
posting from death row, drug addicts, drunks, child
molesters, pedophiles, gun nuts, Nazis, serial killers, wife
beaters, anti Semitic psychos, war criminals, torturers,
sadistic kidnappers, sex trade slave masters, people dying
of terminal V.D., stalkers, foreign spies, suicide bombers,
homicidal Jihadists, KKK members and psychos of all
description.

including George Hammond.-

Hammond's a gas bag (in addition to being a Crackpot)

John Smith wrote:
"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:40:47 +0100, "Andy F."
wrote:

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:44:02 +0100, "Andy F."
wrote:

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:46:25 +0100, "Andy F."
wrote:

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:09:01 +0100, "Andy F."
wrote:

[Andy F.]
There's a human opinion based on sensory perception that the
universe
has
been around for billions of years.

[Hammond]
There is overwhelming evidence based on scientific
deduction that *IF* a person existed a billion years ago,
then he would have indeed observed the Universe to exist. I
throughly agree with that and anybody who doesn't is
certifiably either crazy or incompetent.
[Andy F.]
This means the universe existed before
humans did.


[Hammond]
WRONG, DEAD WRONG ANDY.

1) The "existence", of anything, depends entirely on the
sensory perception of Man. There IS NO definition
of the word "existence" that is independent of the
action of a HUMAN observer.
Proof: If all men died tomorrow at 9am, there
would no longer be any way to ascertain at 9:01am
if ANYTHING whatsoever "existed". The word
"existence" has no meaning whatsoever
without the existence of human beings.

2) But what your statement above says, is that
circumstantial evidence indicates (indeed
conclusively) that *IF* a human observer existed
a billion years ago, then he "would have" observed
that the Universe "existed". And I thoroughly
agree with that statement.
An event has to happen BEFORE it can be observed.The light from an
object
has to travel to your eyes before you can see it.
If the object is close by, this takes a few billionths of a
second.When
you
look at the sun, you're seeing what was there 8 minutes ago.And if you
look
through a powerful telescope, you can observe events which hapened
millions
of years ago.
[Hammond]
Idiocy, the Universe didn't "exist" until the human race
arrived to "make" it exist by seeing it. Makes no
difference that the light took 13 billion years to get here,
it didn't "exist" until the human race arrived to see it.

3) However, in point of fact, no such human observer
did exist a billion years ago, therefore, by paragraph
1 above, the Universe actually did *NOT* "exist"
a billion years ago.... even though it "would have"
if anybody was around to see it.
[Andy F.]
So it's not possible for humans to have created the universe.


[Hammond]
Wrong again.
The above proof demonstrates conclusively that Man
"caused" the Universe to come into "existence" since ONLY A
HUMAN can confirm that anything "exists".
In short, "existence" is a PROPERTY of the human mind. No
people, no existence, of anything!
But a human can't confirm that something exists until after it
exists.Which
would make it logically impossible for anything to come into
existence.

[Hammond]
Idiot..... nothing existed until Humans arrived to "make" it
exist by seeing it. You're an imbecile who will never rise
above moronic world games... I suggest you try crossword
puzzles. Moron.

OK. As soon as you've explained how you can 'see' something that doesn't
exist, I'll go and do the crossword.,

[Hammond]
Simple: You come into existence, and when you come into
existence anything you see "exists".
That doesn't explain anything

George doesn't ever explain anything - he just bellows more and more
ignorance ......


[Hammond]
Horse****, it answers your question directly.

see ................




It just looks like you don't understand the question.
If the universe doesn't already exist, there's nothing to see.

[
[Hammond]
No... YOU don't understand the question, or the answer.
It's SIMPLE:

1. If Man does not exist, then nothing exists.
This is an unsupported assumption which is actually what you
are trying to prove. Thus your "proof" is DOA.

2. When Man came into existence 200k yrs ago Time and the
Universe came into existence simultaneously
including it's 13 billion year evolutionary history.

Man has been around much longer than that. You can go to Nice
and see a hut which is 300,000 years old and go to Menton and
see human artifacts from nearly a million years ago.
the rest of your statement is laughable.
Why?
What "time" What universe? Why this paticular universe?
Why this particular planet? Why this particular solar system?
Where did this "Man" come from?
Where did this "universe" come from?




If you're too stupid to understand that, that's YOUR
problem, not mine!
You keep hoping people are stupid enough to swallow gigantic
silly delusions but that has not happened so far.


There is nothing stupid about not being able to understand psychotic
insanity.

George Hammond wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:52:40 -0700 (PDT),
" wrote:

On 26 apr, 00:34, George Hammond wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:10:18 -0700 (PDT),





" wrote:
On 25 apr, 01:14, George Hammond wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:45:41 -0700 (PDT),
" wrote:
On 23 apr, 23:25, George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:55:03 -0700 (PDT),
[Hammond]
Wrong Pizzaman. Religion is FOUNDED on exactly my
explanation of "existence". In case you haven't noticed 85%
of the world's population are adherents to one of the 5
major faiths. This means 85% of the world agrees with my
definition of "existence" in principle when it comes to the
scientific phenomenon of "God".
You are saying that religious people generally admit that the only
reason why something exists is because they believe it to exist?
Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
[Hammond]
Of course not, don't be ridiculous. People (any people)
believe what they see.
What the SPOG proves is that NOBODY can see true reality
because we never reach full growth, and therefore we see a
CURVED VERSION of reality.
Now, unaware people think this "curved version " is true
reality, but more aware people discovered long ago that it
is curved, and therefore part of true reality is missing, or
"invisible".
Religious people are simply people who KNOW ABOUT IT,
while atheists, the uneducated, stupid or ignorant people
DON'T KNOW IT.
The religious people call the phenomenon "God" while
ignorant and unaware people don't even notice it, until it
eventually kills them due to an accident, healthl effects,
mental effects or lact of the ability to protect themselves
from predators (Evil so called).
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================
Research has shown that the more educated people are the greater the
chance of them being atheists.
So I am afraid you are mistaken.
[Hammond]
There isn't a head of state in the world, and few if any
high ranking public officials who would say that he was an
atheist. Common opinion holds that public officals are less
ignorant than the highly educated. So I'm afraid you're
mistaken.
[Peter van Velzen]
I wasn't talking about politicians.


[Hammond]
I was, I referred to "ignorant and unaware people",
politicians are examples of people who are NOT IGNORANT OR
UNAWARE.
Academics DO NOT lead the world, politicians DO.

[Peter van Velzen]
The research was done at university
The more years students had been studying there,
the greater the percentage of atheists.


[Hammond]
This merely proves that modern Academia is very corrupt,
sleazy, and backward. There is no law that says highly
educated people can't be corrupt, sleazy or backward.

[Peter van Velzen]
An atheist politician on the other hand,
would have better chances telling a lie,
and saying he "trusted in God".


[Hammond]
By the same token academics have a better chance of
telling a lie and saying they are atheists and getting away
with it. I'm sure many of the scared lower echelon
academics are dong just that to keep their job. So what's
your point?
Surely you're not going to attempt to refute the SPOG
using "unsupported conjectural assertions", are you?

[Peter van Velzen]
Do you expect all atheist politicians to be completely honest like me?
I don't.


[Hammond]
Same goes for academics, so what?

Peter van Velzem
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

PS
And don't you mind Ken calling you a crackpot.
He himself is not intelligent enough to understand my comment about
you being more than an asshole.


[Hammond]
Look Dutch, Usenet is crawling with criminals, cons
posting from death row, drug addicts, drunks, child
molesters, pedophiles, gun nuts, Nazis, serial killers, wife
beaters, anti Semitic psychos, war criminals, torturers,
sadistic kidnappers, sex trade slave masters, people dying
of terminal V.D., stalkers, foreign spies, suicide bombers,
homicidal Jihadists, KKK members and psychos of all
description. Fact is "normal" people may be in the minority
on Usenet.
All of these people are interested in whether or not
there is a God, including Ken The Crackpot.
No, most people have already made up their mind which of
the huge number of choices of gods they want to accept.


Until you can
empathetically talk to all of them,
Swearing and insults are a different kind of empathy than
most people think of.

you're not qualified to
be toying with the world's first scientific proof of God by
posting frivolous amateur arguments.
Your scientific proof of god is not scientific, is in no way
a proof and has nothing to do with any of the different gods.

You ought to know,
you're from Holland and your parents saw the 3rd Reich
occupy your country and murder thousands of innocent people,
including Anne Frank.
"Man up" Dutch, and get with the program, I'm a real
physicist, the SPOG is real science, and it's serious
business.
Yes, we know, you flunked out of graduate school and are
a humorist. The SPOG is only for laughing at.
No one anywhere believes it.

=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 03:14:12 -0700 (PDT),
" wrote:



You are badly informed again!

[Hammond]
I doubt it and you certainly haven't proved it.

[Peter van Velzen]
About 50% of the world population believes in the monotheistic god.
The can be roughly separated in three groups: Roman Catholics, other
Christians and Muslims.



[Hammond]
Despite your opinion, the average person is not a pedant.
The average person believes that "God" is an "an invisible
man who lives in the sky and rules the world"; what the
Native American Indians called "The Great Sky Chief". And
FYI, the SPOG proves that this ancient and universal belief
is in fact, scientifically TRUE. Common belief also holds
that God has many "Angels", or call the "gods", or call them
"demigods" or whatever you want. Since we're arguing
irrelevant OPINION here let me mention that I'm 66 and
you're 30.... which means I know twice as much as you know
about what the average person believes. Furthermore, I'm not
interested in yakking about matters of opinion with
aggravated amateurs with no academic credentials.


[Peter van Velzen]
The other half can be roughly separated in three groups too.
Those who believe in multiple gods (mostly Hindus)

[Hammond]
The Hindu's have a supreme deity which is a triune God
called the "Trimurti" (Sanskrit-"the trimorphic God")
consisting of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. This parallels the
Christian Trinity. All the other "gods" are actually what
Christian call "Angels" (or demigods).
All of this is explained and PROVEN by the SPOG which
shows that this hierarchy appears as an EIGENVECTOR
HEIRARCHY in Psychometry, which is accurate to 3 significant
figures experimentally. Unfortunately you lack the
educational qualifications to discuss Factor Analysis
(Linear Algebra).
I will warn you that I only engage in extended
conversation with amateurs if they have a positive attitude,
otherwise they have nothing to offer.
I will engage in extended discussion with negative
aggravated educated professionals however.


[Peter van Velzen]
Those who do not believe in gods (mostly atheists)


[Hammond]
Generally atheists are of little interest, unless they
become a political force, which seems unlikely. On the
other hand some of them are highly educated such as Bertrand
Russell, whose analysis of the Omphalos theory is of
fundamental significance to the SPOG.

[Peter van Velzen]
Those who rather ignore the question (mostly Buddhists)

[Hammond]
Buddhism is a small compared to the other 4 major faiths.
However, I think Buddhists have a fundamental belief in a
supreme deity.


[Peter van Velzen]
O yes, of course most people within these groups tends to think the
members of the other groups - and many amongst there own group - Are
very very wrong.
I guess they are right about most of them :-)


Duh? I can't make much sense of this statement.


[Peter van Velzen]
Before you go out and post on the internet,
you should first do your homework


[Hammond]
You don't know who you're talking to.
I've been studying Religion and Psychology for 25 years
and Physics for 40. I have 2 degrees in Physics. You on the
other hand probably don't even have a college degree.


[Peter van Velzen]
That would spare us a lot of words
especially the words "crackpot" and "asshole"
which in my opinion are not very fruitful.


[Hammond]
I'm not worried about Fruits.

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands


=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================