How Skeptical Are You?

Welcome, Ringo.
I implicated this in different words, Ringo. The supernatural is the physically invisible realm, existing in the universe which the psyche/spirit/soul of humans must experience in order to be detected by the majority of humans to whom these entities have not revealed themselves in a physical manner visible to humans. Protons and electrons exist, but my understanding is that nobody has ever seen one. So do microwaves, and black holes, et al. The most secularistic cosmologists tell us that particles in the cosmos go in and out of existence, i.e. appear and disappear from the detection of humans, but these same folks say the possibility of what is labeled as the super-natural does not exist, regardless of the evidence, such as unique undisputable fulfilled prophecy imperically verified by history and testimony of thousands of credible folks.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

quote:

---

Really? Why? What if the opposite is true?

---

The opposite of what? I know it's true that I think the kind of widespread conspiracy we're talking about is improbable. I know why I think so. Until someone offers some kind of sane reason, preferably grounded in evidence, for thinking otherwise, I'm unlikely to change my assessment of the probability.

quote:

---

Today we have the Federal Reserve System, and it is NOT Federal, but a privately owned company that controls ALL THE MONEY IN THE NATION. You probably think the government controls the Fed. I tend to think the Fed controls our government.

​

Sounds looney, I know...but that's what I think.

---

Now that you've explained it . . . yup, it sounds loony. The Fed could certainly ruin the economy if it wants -- until Congress intervened of course, which it would do promptly. It can help establish the broad economic environment, hence the complaint that its emphasis on control of inflation favors business and creditors over debtors. That's about all it can do, however. It has no mechanism for affecting government policy, including legislation and regulation, and no control at all over the judiciary.

I was under the impression that politicians can sometimes be influenced with money. The bankers control ALL the money...where do you think Congress is getting the money it uses to run the country (and line their pockets and their friend's pockets)? Income taxes? If it was income taxes there'd be no such thing as a $6 trillion deficit.The $6 trillion--or a large part of it--is borrowed money. Where'd they borrow the money from? Now, what politician is going to "intervene" in the affairs of the ones who have "funded" almost everything?

When requesting a loan, I get nothing until I hand over a signed promise to pay--a promissory note--an asset from the bank's point of view. That means that when I sign a promissory note I am making money out of thin air. The bank will give me nothing until I give them the note. I give them an asset this time, worth $1000 (if my credit-rating is good). Then, I give them $1000 again plus interest...that is the point I think you are missing. They are getting the principal TWICE--AND the interest. This would be fine IF they reduced their ASSETS to give me the loan...but they don't...they increase their LIABILITIES (they credit my checking account or cut me check). When I deposit money? I'll go on the assumption that's what you mean. I don't think so. My checking and savings balances seem affected only by MY transactions. You must understand I fought this idea for like 6 months before it made sense to me. If I'm wrong, I'm willing to be shown how. I might be missing something...it does confuse me a bit. But the "accepted idea" doesn't make sense to either...less so, actually.I shall have to try to find out what the bookkeeping entries are, if I can--from the bank's side of a loan process.The important thing to me, though, is the fact that a signed promissory note from me is an asset to the bank. They are not loaning me $1000 until I give them a $1000 asset--which they can turn around and sell, btw, usually at some reduced value. And then I have to "pay them back," but I already gave them a $1000 asset. (BTW, here in the States, our "cash" our called Federal Reserve Notes--IOW, the Fed gives out "promises to pay." They never reduce their assets as far as I can tell. That's "fiat" money...it's just paper. If were still on the gold standard, then each dollar would be a claim against some of their gold...but now each dollar is a claim against...???I don't think this is purely wild-eyed conspiracy theory stuff, either...I took Money & Banking in college (I was an accounting major)...it was a decade ago so it's not too fresh in my mind, but I do recall the teacher and the text explaining that the money supply was made in the banks during the loan process. That is the supposed beauty of the fractional lending system--IIRC. Whatever it is I don't think it qualifies for a branch of the government...I will try to find a source for that.

So who owns the federal reserve?(Hint: a link to thejewsandblacksareallinittogethergetmemytinfoilhat.com will not cut it).

I suppose that you don't think that the Supreme Court is a branch of the Government either since judges are appointed to it by much the same process as the Fed's Board of Governors are appointed. GO back and look at all the ways that government is involved in the Fed - from your own post.As for the loan issue I'll say it again. You are counting the same money more than once.You sign a promissory note to the bank in exchange for cash.You have $1000 cash in hand - and a debt of $1000 - net value zero.The bank has $1000 dollars LESS in cash but holds your debt - net value zero.So how has money been "created" ? In pure net terms neither you, nor the bank has any more.You seem stuck on the idea that the promissory note is worth something on its own - it isn't. It's just a document representing the debt. When you pay off the debt that note becomes worthless. When you pay off the debt that isn't money in addition to the promissory note - it IS the money represented by the promissory note. The bank doesn't get the principal twice - only once.And if the bank sells the promissory note then THEY don't get to collect the debt as well - they've just handed over your debt to someone else - and that someone else will collect the money from you. So again the bank doesn't get the principal twice.Let me repeat - the promissory note has no value independant of the debt. You can't add the value of the note to repayment of the debt because it's the same money.

Evo:

quote:

---

Do you believe Earth is now, or ever has been visited by life from other planets?

---

No

quote:

---

Do you believe that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, RFK, or MLK? If yes, please specify which one(s).

---

Mostly no, but with a certain open-mindedness in rgeards the burtality of the US state.

quote:

---

Do you believe that Franklin Roosevelt knew that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked, but kept the information secret in order to get the U.S. into WWII?

---

Not until recently; but the deceptions around Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin) and Iraq (WMD) suggest something of a pattern of deception, and so I feel obliged to reconsdier this one.

quote:

---

Are there supernatural forces working in the Bermuda Tiangle?

---

Certainly not; disapearances in the triangle are not higher than average given its size.

quote:

---

If you have any other out- of -the- mainstream theories, that I haven't mentioned, feel free to bring them up.

---

I'm a communist.

quote:

---

I was under the impression that politicians can sometimes be influenced with money.

---

Politicians can quite often be influenced by money; that's why wealthy people and large corporations have so much political influence. Money isn't the mechanism, however. Most often the mechanism is campaign contributions, but their are other levers to pull: lawsuits, advertising campaigns, decisions about where to place factories. What comparable mechanism do you see the Fed using to influence the rest of the government?

quote:

---

The bankers control ALL the money.

---

Uh, no. The Fed controls the money supply (at least until they piss off Congress too much), but they don't control the money. My wife and I borrowed a couple of hundred thousand dollars to buy our house, but the mortgage company does not control what we do with our money.

quote:

---

where do you think Congress is getting the money it uses to run the country (and line their pockets and their friend's pockets)? Income taxes? If it was income taxes there'd be no such thing as a $6 trillion deficit.

---

Most of the money (something like 80% at the moment) does come from taxes. The rest is borrowed (or created) through the Fed, but it's not like the Fed has the option of turning the Treasury Department down when they ask for money. The Fed can control the money supply by borrowing more or less from outside investors and it can control interest rates through the federal funds rate (the latter is the more important these days). As I said before, this gives the Fed the ability to influence the overall economic climate and how expensive (in terms of interest rates) deficits will be to run. So they can have some effect on whether there will be a deficit and on how big it will be. They only have influence even in that arena, however, and not control. They have no input at all on what's legal and illegal, on what laws are passed, on how business is regulated, on how foreign policy is conducted, on how budget priorities are set, i.e. on the bulk of what government does.So yes, I continue to think that this idea is loony.(Also, there is no $6 trillion dollar deficit. There's a nearly $8 trillion dollar debt (what the U.S. owes) and a $600 billion deficit (the amount outlays exceed revenues this year).)

quote:

---

The $6 trillion--or a large part of it--is borrowed money. Where'd they borrow the money from? Now, what politician is going to "intervene" in the affairs of the ones who have "funded" almost everything?

---

The money is not owed to the Fed, it's owed to investors, most notably foreign central banks. Just what do you think the Fed could do if Congress and the President decided to "intervene" in anything at all, including in the Fed itself?

quote:

---

The most secularistic cosmologists tell us that particles in the cosmos go in and out of existence, i.e. appear and disappear from the detection of humans, but these same folks say the possibility of what is labeled as the super-natural does not exist,

---

No, they do NOT say that, buz.They don't say anything at all about the supernatural. Not in any professional capacity, anyway.Science ignores the supernatural. It only concerns itaself with what we can detect through our five senses.(somehow I think you have had this explained to you a few times in the past...)

quote:

---

regardless of the evidence, such as unique undisputable fulfilled prophecy

---

Funny, I don't seem to remember you being able to convince a single science-minded person that any of your prophecy claims were "unique" or "undisputable".In fact, I seem to remember all such discussions consisting of people trying to nail you down with specifics and you being unable to provide them.Likewise, the fact that there are threads of many posts describing people's problems with your so-called fulfilled prophecies, you really cannot make the claim that they are "undisputed".

quote:

---

imperically verified by history and testimony of thousands of credible folks.

---

Thousands? OK, name 100 of them, what their credentials are, and why it is that we should believe them.But anyway, What would you say if I told you that green goblins exist, and that I have a book which tells me what the green goblins said would happen and that the prophecies have come true? And when you ask me to show you evidence of the green goblins, I say that only some special chosen people can talk to the green goblins, and you have to believe in them without evidence before they will start talking to you.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-28-2005 10:41 AM

Are you a skeptic, Ringo?

No Of course there was a conspiracy to commit those murders, by the murderers. However, I take your question to mean some sort of massive, goevernment involved conspiracy, in which case, no. No. No, but there has been some talk about gases coming from the floor bed of the the Atlantic causing engines to stall. Its possible. I lost my grand uncle over the Triangle and my friend lost his father in the same waters. There does some seem to be a high number of crashes there. At the same time, these figures don't take into account the hundreds of people who fly over it daily. I myself have been in the Triangle at least 6 times with no problems. But supernatural, no.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

Full circle! That was my first post ever at EvC. Have you read any of my posts? Answers to the OP questions: No. No. No. No.(I do, however, believe that I'm being followed by a Safeway cashier.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

If its inside the store (s)he is hoping that enough encounters with you will prompt a conversation. If you keep seeing him/her outside of the store very frequently, you either live in a small town or (s)he is a straight stalker, in which case, be afraid, be very afraid....

Answers to the OP questions: No, but some version of panspermia appears more credible as more organic compounds are detected outside our solar system. Government or broad conspiracy, no--but I would not be surprised to discover there were a few "supporting" conspirators involved in any or all of these. Unqualified no. Since I've never been there, how could they be?

---

Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799) Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

No worries - he lives in Denver (or so he claims).

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC