Ann Coulter: W.W.J.K.: WHO WOULD JESUS KILL?

Coulter via Yahoo ^ | 3-10-04 | Ann Coulter

[Dataman]

So much for the free interplay of ideas.

Free thought in public schools has been dead for 44 years.

[RightWingMama]

bttt

[Jotmo]

Where'd she get that. The Spanish Inquisition lasted for a thousand years, and the number of deaths were about 3,000.

A second variety of the Inquisition was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, authorized by Pope Sixtus IV in CV1478. Pope Sixtus tried to establish harmony between the inquisitors and the ordinaries, but was unable to maintain control of the desires of King Ferdinand V and Queen Isablella. Sixtus agreed to recognize the independence of the Spanish Inquisition. This institution survived to the beginning of the 19th century, and was permanently suppressed by a decree on July 15, 1834.

****************************

Lets see. 1834 - 1478 = Tada! 356

You'd do well not to question Ann on any historical references without thorough research.

Particularly around here.

[Old Professer]

Clear enough.

[hosepipe]

Pretty mild for Ann... The truth is much worse.. The same people despise even the 10 Commandments and probably the golden rule too..

Jesus saying, HEY YOU.!. EVERYBODY lives forever SOMEWHERE.. you are now CHOOSEING you're eternal holiday.. read the fine print before signing by the way I'm offering a DISCOUNT...

Its the USED JESUS salesman and RETAILERS that hate Jesus...

[SquirrelKing]

Ann...*sigh*

[findingtruth]

Lets see. 1834 - 1478 = Tada! 356. You'd do well not to question Ann on any historical references without thorough research. Particularly around here.

You got me there, hotshot. I should have just "Inquisition" or "Inquisition in Spain," both of which have much broader connotations than "Spanish Inquisition." Nonetheless, I note you didn't address the main question, the matter of 30,000 people allegedly killed by it.

[Objective Reality]

Well... not quite. Were quantum physics not true, we wouldn't have computers with which to talk about this. We also wouldn't have barcode scanners at supermarkets, among many other things.

Afraid I don't follow. I've always considered the channeling of electricity through a large number of microcircuits, where "on" equals 1 and "off" equals 2, to be plain old physics, not quantum physics. Same with the concentration of a narrow spectrum of light across a beam, in terms of the barcode scanner. Nothing really quantum about the base technology.

I know work continues in the so-called "quantum computer" space, but my understanding is that it's really just the addition of more states than simply "on" and "off", amounting to "on and on", "on and off", "off and off", "off and on," and so forth up the multidimensional tree. There's also a theory that the human brain is actually an electrochemical "quantum" computer which processes data across multiple dimensions, else the candlepower of it can't be fully explained.

I think the current quantum theory is evolving within a simultaneously too-rigid and too-fantastical supposition, and that actual reality is simpler. Multiple dimensions that the human mind perceives as three, for example. Seems easier to digest to me.

[Objective Reality]

But how do you know that God doesn't run His other universes in different ways? Maybe He's a loving, father-like God in our universe, a wrathful, vengeful God in another, and a neglectful, underachiever God in yet another. In other words, how can you presume to place limitations on God?

It isn't so much a limitation as an acceptance of the Biblical statement that God is One (in three "persons"). I don't imagine a God that deins to exist in an infinite number of states of Being across an infinite number of "universes," or observing from outside of that infinite number of universes. There's also the paradoxical idea that there would exist an infinite number of universes in which there IS no God, and an infinite number in which God is One, an infinite number in which there are an infinite number of Gods, an infinite number in which a particular rock or bird feather is God, and so on.

That's where the whole "infinite number of parallel universes" idea falls apart, in my mind. People tend to imagine this in macro-scale. There's a universe in which Hitler existed, and one in which he didn't, for example. The actual theory, compared to that level of simplicity, is insane. Such concepts as, for every drop of rain that falls on every square millimeter of earth, and on every earthlike planet in the universe, there are an infinite number in which that drop of rain landed a nanometer to the left or to the right of where it fell in this universe.

Really, even that is thinking in macro-scale - the reality would be that for every mere probability in, say, the track of every electron around every atom in the universe, there would be an infinite number of parallel universes in which that probability is different - and an infinite number resulting from each of those differences.

There are those who find this theory tenable. I personally don't. The only tangible evidence I've ever seen is the brief existence of antihydrogen - and I think even that is subject to different interpretations. Maybe it's the forcible extraction of the tiniest piece of "matter" one can pull from an adjacent dimension, rather than from the "antiUniverse."

[Objective Reality]

duh, did I say "2"? I meant "0".

[Dustbunny]

Excellent !!!

[Terpfen]

"Afraid I don't follow. I've always considered the channeling of electricity through a large number of microcircuits, where "on" equals 1 and "off" equals 2, to be plain old physics, not quantum physics. Same with the concentration of a narrow spectrum of light across a beam, in terms of the barcode scanner. Nothing really quantum about the base technology.

I know work continues in the so-called "quantum computer" space, but my understanding is that it's really just the addition of more states than simply "on" and "off", amounting to "on and on", "on and off", "off and off", "off and on," and so forth up the multidimensional tree. There's also a theory that the human brain is actually an electrochemical "quantum" computer which processes data across multiple dimensions, else the candlepower of it can't be fully explained."

Basically, modern computers work by manipulating the quantum state of matter between two states, zero and one. The work being done now involves trying to build a "quantum computer," one that utilizes all 32 known states, vastly increasing processing power. The basic idea I was getting at is that computing technology as it exists today proves the theory of quantum physics.

Unless you can come up with a reason why two particles a million miles apart can somehow interact with each other--the basic problem that led to quantum physics' invention--I'm going to have to lean towards the multiverse theory.

[Objective Reality]

Unless you can come up with a reason why two particles a million miles apart can somehow interact with each other--the basic problem that led to quantum physics' invention--I'm going to have to lean towards the multiverse theory.

I've never really been convinced of the "Many Worlds" premise from Bell's Theorem - quite the opposite, actually. Although this looks like an interesting take on it: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0003/0003146.pdf

I do admit a ready tendency to lean towards the theological in favor of the theoretical.

[giotto]

Actually, I agree with you. I was only being argumentative--a symptom of coffee deficiency. The whole infinite universes thing is not so much unlikely as it is unnecessary and inelegant, in my opinion. Besides, it's just as mind boggling, but far more sublime, to contemplate one universe that extends infinitely in three or more dimensions.

[an amused spectator]

Actually she seems not so unlike Shmuely Boteach to me in this opinion piece. I found nothing either of them wrote today inspiring.

You were prolly blinded by the blood gouting from the severed limbs of the liberal rabble.

[an amused spectator]

This week, even though the subject is similar, acerbic falls flat. For one thing, I feel a deep sympathy for the ones whose oxen are being gored. If Ann Coulter were just a little more "woman for all seasons", she could have accomplished something wise, rather than flattening all in her path with controversialism.

Dude, I laughed out loud at 3 separate paragraphs. What more could a man ask for?

[Mr. Buzzcut]

Ms. Buzzcut just bought me the talking Ann Doll ... next i need a lifesize cardboard Ann ...

[k2blader]

Bump!

[an amused spectator]

Connecticut Peach bump - Ann's spikes at their razor sharpest.

LOL! Only at FR would a Coulter cheesecake thread devolve into a discussion of quantum physics. :-)

[af_vet_1981]

I generally prefer Laura Ingraham to Ann Coulter and identify with either of them over any of the liberal rabble.