On 5/11/2016 1:29 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 19:18, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:42 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:16, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:00 PM, Bod wrote:

As I look around *me*, I see many different religions all guessing
that
their particular strain is the *only* religion. I also see that
religion
in the UK is dying out except for the primitive Muslim religions.
It's
true that as people get more informed and intelligent that they
are
realising how misguided they have been.
It wasn't that long ago that people were worshipping the Moon/
the Sun
and many other objects as their god. Even today there are
Scientologist
idiots believing in Aliens etc.
If you read the Bible or the Koran, you'll see that they are both
contradictory all the way through and the *believers* cherry pick
what
they want to hear.


I don't think any individual religion has everything correct, but
I do
think many religions make an attempt to acknowledge that there is a
greater power involved in our existence, which, in turn,
acknowledges
that mankind is not equivalent to being a god.

IMO, there is too much evidence that it took intelligence to create
everything we see around us.

And it all happened only 6 thousand years ago?

No.

Hmm! this disagrees with you:

The Biblical Age of the Earth - Truth In Genesis
http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/0...-of-the-earth/
3 Jan 2013 - So, according to the Bible the earth is about 6000 years
old. ... How long did Joshua march around the walls of Jericho anyway?
... He says, €œBy Periods God created that which produced the Solar
Systems; then that which ...


How many hours were in a day when Creation happened?


What!!?


In order to conclude that the Earth is 6000 years old, we have to define
if a year was the same time increment when Creation happened. In recent
history, time has been defined in seconds, minutes, hours, and years,
etc., but how do we define time when Creation was taking place?

But the Bible states 6,000 years ago. Time was no different
6,000 years ago.



No, the Bible doesn't say that.

--
Maggie

On 11/05/2016 19:29, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:55 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:41, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:33 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:10, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:39 AM, Bod wrote:

"Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world
views,
sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that
relate
humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of
existence".

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman
agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual
observances,
and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human
affairs
..."

Technically, if a person identifies with a particular societal
organization that shares a specific mindset relating to such
things as
stated above, it can be classified as a religion.


So in your strange interpretation, I am an Atheist who doesn't believe
in *any* religion, but I am religious!!?....hmm!

No. I'm saying that the definition of a religion equates atheism as a
religion.

Being "religious" is a whole different practice.

So I'm not religious, but I am?

No. A "religion" is not the same thing as being "religious".

But I'm *not* religious in any way shape or form.

Being "religious" is a behavior, and a response to information that
people live out on an every day basis.

Here's an extended definition of "religious" that is not related to
religion:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religious

Here are the non-religion applications to having behavior that is akin
to "religious" behaviorlisted from the top to the bottom of the page)

3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.

4. scrupulous, exact, or conscientious

4. religious - extremely scrupulous and conscientious; "religious in
observing the rules of health"...

scrupulous - having scruples; arising from a sense of right and
wrong; principled; "less scrupulous producers sent bundles that were
deceptive in appearance"

3. conscientious, exact, faithful, rigid, rigorous, meticulous,
scrupulous, fastidious, unerring, unswerving, punctilious The clientele
turned up, with religious regularity, every night.

My word you are desperate if you equate a non religious person as being
religious.

--
Bod

On 11/05/2016 19:30, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:56 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:43, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:37 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:12, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:43 AM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 17:32, Muggles wrote:
guess you have never looked into someone's eyes and
seen the love of God.

Many people won't look others eye to eye because they can see into
that
person's soul what they are going through, or what they are about.
Have
you noticed that people don't like looking at each other eye to eye?

I always do. Autistic people have trouble in looking into peoples eyes
though.
Only by looking into someone's eyes can you see their sincerity.

That's very true.

Wow!! we agree. :-)

Yeah! Now, that we agree that you can see sincerity in someone's eyes,
would you agree that you can see insincerity, too?

Of course.

Ok, would you define sincerity as good, and insincerity as bad, so you
could actually say you can see good or bad in someones eyes?


Yes and yes.

--
Bod

On 5/11/2016 1:34 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 19:21, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:55 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:41, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:32 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:08, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:32 AM, Bod wrote:

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided
the light from the darkness.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called
Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And that was the beginning of science. The universe was
a creation of God and what we observed around us was nature,
not the work of petty human like gods and magic.

Glory be to God!
-T

String theory is really w-e-i-r-d.

Indeed, very similar to many religions, like Scientology/ Jehovah
Witlesses/ Moony loonies and Morons (sorry....Mormons, etc.

One thing that is true about people who have a religious belief
system
is that people of all levels of intelligence BELIEVE. How do you
explain
that many very smart people still believe in a God?

Many *smart people* have turned out to be conning thieving villains.
So you can't measure by smartness.

Then we can agree that ones intelligence has no bearing on belief
in a
higher power?

Not necessarily, no. Maybe it depends whether they hear *voices in
their
heads*.


Ok. But you said "you can't measure by smartness". Maybe, I didn't
understand what you meant?

I thought you meant that intelligent (smart) people couldn't really be
intelligent if they believed in a God or higher power, and then you
said
"you can't measure by smartness"? To me, it sounds like you're
contradicting yourself.


Smart can be applied to a Jack the lad type of character as well as an
astute businessman etc. Some people are smart at business, but lack
common sense in other ways. I've worked with a top respected scientist
who was the brains of his dep't, but was as thick as a brick with
everyday liasons.


Ok, I understand what you mean, and I do agree with you. I'm not sure
how you apply smart to people who believe in a God, though.


I don't equate being smart with religion.


Ok. I can accept that's how you feel. Does that make you right?

--
Maggie

On 11/05/2016 19:31, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:58 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:44, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:39 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:14, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:50 AM, Bod wrote:

However, it doesn't have connections with "sacred texts, or holy
places"
except to deny such things are valid.

Atheism DOES relate to and adhere to beliefs in regards to ethics,
and
societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist
has
called "an order of existence".

A religion isn't necessarily about the sacred or holy or even about a
belief in a god. It is a belief system that has both a
connotative and
denotative understanding of how it is defined and what is involved in
its practices.

religion

noun
"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power,
especially
a personal God or gods".


That is ONE denotative definition of religion, but in order to be
thorough, it is a good idea to view the whole picture of how "religion"
is defined, vs. only quoting one narrow definition that may or may not
support ones own viewpoint, don't you agree?


If one is not religious, then they are NOT religious, no matter how you
twist the meaning.

One can be "religious" without any affiliation with a specific
"religion".

Hmm! you've lost me there.


See another post where I go into more detail.

Unfortunately I did read that "more detail" waffle , because that's what
it was.

--
Bod

On 5/11/2016 1:44 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 19:29, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:55 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:41, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:33 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:10, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:39 AM, Bod wrote:

"Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world
views,
sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that
relate
humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of
existence".

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
universe, especially when considered as the creation of a
superhuman
agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual
observances,
and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human
affairs
..."

Technically, if a person identifies with a particular societal
organization that shares a specific mindset relating to such
things as
stated above, it can be classified as a religion.


So in your strange interpretation, I am an Atheist who doesn't
believe
in *any* religion, but I am religious!!?....hmm!

No. I'm saying that the definition of a religion equates atheism
as a
religion.

Being "religious" is a whole different practice.

So I'm not religious, but I am?

No. A "religion" is not the same thing as being "religious".

But I'm *not* religious in any way shape or form.

Being "religious" is a behavior, and a response to information that
people live out on an every day basis.

Here's an extended definition of "religious" that is not related to
religion:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religious

Here are the non-religion applications to having behavior that is akin
to "religious" behaviorlisted from the top to the bottom of the page)

3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.

4. scrupulous, exact, or conscientious

4. religious - extremely scrupulous and conscientious; "religious in
observing the rules of health"...

scrupulous - having scruples; arising from a sense of right and
wrong; principled; "less scrupulous producers sent bundles that were
deceptive in appearance"

3. conscientious, exact, faithful, rigid, rigorous, meticulous,
scrupulous, fastidious, unerring, unswerving, punctilious The clientele
turned up, with religious regularity, every night.


My word you are desperate if you equate a non religious person as being
religious.

You've already agreed that it's a good idea to look at the full
definition of a word vs. a narrow version of the definition that you
think supports one particular viewpoint.

Non religious people can behave in a religious manner in regards to just
about anything.

--
Maggie

On 5/11/2016 1:45 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 19:30, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:56 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:43, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:37 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:12, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:43 AM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 17:32, Muggles wrote:
guess you have never looked into someone's eyes and
seen the love of God.

Many people won't look others eye to eye because they can see into
that
person's soul what they are going through, or what they are about.
Have
you noticed that people don't like looking at each other eye to
eye?

I always do. Autistic people have trouble in looking into peoples
eyes
though.
Only by looking into someone's eyes can you see their sincerity.

That's very true.

Wow!! we agree. :-)

Yeah! Now, that we agree that you can see sincerity in someone's eyes,
would you agree that you can see insincerity, too?

Of course.

Ok, would you define sincerity as good, and insincerity as bad, so you
could actually say you can see good or bad in someones eyes?

Yes and yes.

So, you agree that "good" and "bad" exist, right? Those are concepts
that are highly fluid and apply both the secular and spiritual mindsets.

If you agree that "good" and "bad" exist, at what point did you define
what qualifies as being either? A feeling? What other people taught
you? A sense of right vs. wrong? What influenced you to accept how you
would define either concept? Was it part of your training in the
Catholic schools that you did accept?

How can "good" and "bad" be separated as even being a secular or
spiritual mindset, or are secular and spiritual concepts directly related?


--
Maggie

On 11/05/2016 19:41, wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 09:16:35 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 10/05/2016 22:29, T wrote:
On 05/10/2016 02:10 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 22:05:56 +0100, T wrote:

On 05/10/2016 01:41 PM, Muggles wrote:
I love to discuss quantum physics in relation to outer space in
discussions about belief in God. How is time measured in space, how do
we know time has always been constant there since many people like to
put a number on the age of the universe and use that as evidence to
estimate the age of the Earth.

I've had some VERY interesting discussions like that!

Hi Muggles,

Something I have found interesting is Einstein's take on
quantum physics. He did not believe it to be correct
because "God is not random". And indeed the theory
which is starting to replace quantum physics, called
String Theory, is not random.

I wonder how many more things Einstein could have discovered if he
wasn't hampered by religion?


Einstein was driven by "How did he do it". So I have to say,
no. He probably would have just been mediocre.

"hampered by religion"? You lead an insular life.

Often times, those that say they don't believe in religion,
get caught up in religions by other names, such a secular humanism,
atheism, Liberalism, global warming (which is not science, but religoun).

Liberalism, which tells you what you can eat, what you can
wear, who you can speak with, what you can drive, yada, yada,
yada, is far more restrictive than Christianity. Hell,
Liberalism even tells you what you can think (political
correctness).

A lot of atheists are very religious people.


Oh dear, you are so deluded that you even change the meaning of words
to suit yourself.

Atheism
noun
"a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods".

Relion - noun " A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the
teachings of a spiritual leader."

Exactly, Clare.

--
Bod

Bod wrote:
[...]


Only by looking into someone's eyes can you see their sincerity.


How do blind people look into someone's eyes?

--
..

On 11/05/2016 19:44, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 1:29 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 19:18, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:42 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:16, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:00 PM, Bod wrote:

As I look around *me*, I see many different religions all guessing
that
their particular strain is the *only* religion. I also see that
religion
in the UK is dying out except for the primitive Muslim religions.
It's
true that as people get more informed and intelligent that they
are
realising how misguided they have been.
It wasn't that long ago that people were worshipping the Moon/
the Sun
and many other objects as their god. Even today there are
Scientologist
idiots believing in Aliens etc.
If you read the Bible or the Koran, you'll see that they are both
contradictory all the way through and the *believers* cherry pick
what
they want to hear.


I don't think any individual religion has everything correct, but
I do
think many religions make an attempt to acknowledge that there is a
greater power involved in our existence, which, in turn,
acknowledges
that mankind is not equivalent to being a god.

IMO, there is too much evidence that it took intelligence to create
everything we see around us.

And it all happened only 6 thousand years ago?

No.

Hmm! this disagrees with you:

The Biblical Age of the Earth - Truth In Genesis
http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/0...-of-the-earth/
3 Jan 2013 - So, according to the Bible the earth is about 6000 years
old. ... How long did Joshua march around the walls of Jericho anyway?
... He says, €œBy Periods God created that which produced the Solar
Systems; then that which ...


How many hours were in a day when Creation happened?


What!!?


In order to conclude that the Earth is 6000 years old, we have to define
if a year was the same time increment when Creation happened. In recent
history, time has been defined in seconds, minutes, hours, and years,
etc., but how do we define time when Creation was taking place?

But the Bible states 6,000 years ago. Time was no different
6,000 years ago.



No, the Bible doesn't say that.

What does it say then?

--
Bod

On 11/05/2016 19:45, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 1:34 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 19:21, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:55 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:41, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:32 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:08, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:32 AM, Bod wrote:

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided
the light from the darkness.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called
Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And that was the beginning of science. The universe was
a creation of God and what we observed around us was nature,
not the work of petty human like gods and magic.

Glory be to God!
-T

String theory is really w-e-i-r-d.

Indeed, very similar to many religions, like Scientology/ Jehovah
Witlesses/ Moony loonies and Morons (sorry....Mormons, etc.

One thing that is true about people who have a religious belief
system
is that people of all levels of intelligence BELIEVE. How do you
explain
that many very smart people still believe in a God?

Many *smart people* have turned out to be conning thieving villains.
So you can't measure by smartness.

Then we can agree that ones intelligence has no bearing on belief
in a
higher power?

Not necessarily, no. Maybe it depends whether they hear *voices in
their
heads*.


Ok. But you said "you can't measure by smartness". Maybe, I didn't
understand what you meant?

I thought you meant that intelligent (smart) people couldn't really be
intelligent if they believed in a God or higher power, and then you
said
"you can't measure by smartness"? To me, it sounds like you're
contradicting yourself.


Smart can be applied to a Jack the lad type of character as well as an
astute businessman etc. Some people are smart at business, but lack
common sense in other ways. I've worked with a top respected scientist
who was the brains of his dep't, but was as thick as a brick with
everyday liasons.


Ok, I understand what you mean, and I do agree with you. I'm not sure
how you apply smart to people who believe in a God, though.


I don't equate being smart with religion.


Ok. I can accept that's how you feel. Does that make you right?

From what I've read and heard, yes.
As far as I'm concerned, the Universe was always around.
The rest simply evolved, IMO.

--
Bod

On 5/11/2016 2:05 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 19:44, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 1:29 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 19:18, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:42 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:16, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:00 PM, Bod wrote:

As I look around *me*, I see many different religions all
guessing
that
their particular strain is the *only* religion. I also see that
religion
in the UK is dying out except for the primitive Muslim
religions.
It's
true that as people get more informed and intelligent that they
are
realising how misguided they have been.
It wasn't that long ago that people were worshipping the Moon/
the Sun
and many other objects as their god. Even today there are
Scientologist
idiots believing in Aliens etc.
If you read the Bible or the Koran, you'll see that they are
both
contradictory all the way through and the *believers* cherry
pick
what
they want to hear.


I don't think any individual religion has everything correct, but
I do
think many religions make an attempt to acknowledge that there
is a
greater power involved in our existence, which, in turn,
acknowledges
that mankind is not equivalent to being a god.

IMO, there is too much evidence that it took intelligence to
create
everything we see around us.

And it all happened only 6 thousand years ago?

No.

Hmm! this disagrees with you:

The Biblical Age of the Earth - Truth In Genesis
http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/0...-of-the-earth/
3 Jan 2013 - So, according to the Bible the earth is about 6000
years
old. ... How long did Joshua march around the walls of Jericho
anyway?
... He says, €œBy Periods God created that which produced the Solar
Systems; then that which ...


How many hours were in a day when Creation happened?


What!!?


In order to conclude that the Earth is 6000 years old, we have to
define
if a year was the same time increment when Creation happened. In
recent
history, time has been defined in seconds, minutes, hours, and years,
etc., but how do we define time when Creation was taking place?

But the Bible states 6,000 years ago. Time was no different
6,000 years ago.



No, the Bible doesn't say that.

What does it say then?


It doesn't say what the age of the Earth is.

--
Maggie

On 5/11/2016 2:16 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 19:45, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 1:34 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 19:21, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:55 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:41, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:32 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:08, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:32 AM, Bod wrote:

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided
the light from the darkness.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called
Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And that was the beginning of science. The universe was
a creation of God and what we observed around us was nature,
not the work of petty human like gods and magic.

Glory be to God!
-T

String theory is really w-e-i-r-d.

Indeed, very similar to many religions, like Scientology/
Jehovah
Witlesses/ Moony loonies and Morons (sorry....Mormons, etc.

One thing that is true about people who have a religious belief
system
is that people of all levels of intelligence BELIEVE. How do you
explain
that many very smart people still believe in a God?

Many *smart people* have turned out to be conning thieving
villains.
So you can't measure by smartness.

Then we can agree that ones intelligence has no bearing on belief
in a
higher power?

Not necessarily, no. Maybe it depends whether they hear *voices in
their
heads*.


Ok. But you said "you can't measure by smartness". Maybe, I didn't
understand what you meant?

I thought you meant that intelligent (smart) people couldn't
really be
intelligent if they believed in a God or higher power, and then you
said
"you can't measure by smartness"? To me, it sounds like you're
contradicting yourself.


Smart can be applied to a Jack the lad type of character as well as an
astute businessman etc. Some people are smart at business, but lack
common sense in other ways. I've worked with a top respected scientist
who was the brains of his dep't, but was as thick as a brick with
everyday liasons.


Ok, I understand what you mean, and I do agree with you. I'm not sure
how you apply smart to people who believe in a God, though.


I don't equate being smart with religion.


Ok. I can accept that's how you feel. Does that make you right?

From what I've read and heard, yes.
As far as I'm concerned, the Universe was always around.
The rest simply evolved, IMO.


Did you mean to say the "Earth" was always round?

--
Maggie

On Wed, 11 May 2016 02:16:56 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 10:06:45 +0100, Bod wrote:


More dogmatically narrow minded than the most devout Jew, Muslim, or
southern Baptist Christian, by far.

Well put.

Gunner

"Kill every first born"....now where did I hear that said?...hmm.
Also....*Adam and Eve's incestuous family*...I heard that somewhere also.
I also heard the story about this thing called god deliberately making
childbirth extremely painful because of the actions of Adam & Eve.
What a kind and loving god.

--
Bod

You will have to take it up with a Christian. Im certainly not one of
those.

Gunner
Sinse I've plonked BOD I'll answer his objection through you. God had
said "if you eat of the tree--- you shall surely die"
He had compassion, and let them live for a "limited" time - with pain
and work as a reminder of their disobedience.

In the old testament times God was a "just God". It was a time of
"law"
This was before Christ. Christ was God's "gift" to mankind. He was the
"fullfillment of the law" and ushered in the time of "grace".

Justice is getting what you deserve. Grace is not getting what you
deserve on the one side, and getting what you don't desreve on the
other.. In the "new dispensation" or the "new testiment times" Goe
becomes a "loving god" - with-holding the punishments dictated by the
old law, while bestowing undeserved blessings.

A Christian

On 5/11/2016 2:26 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 02:16:56 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 10:06:45 +0100, Bod wrote:


More dogmatically narrow minded than the most devout Jew, Muslim, or
southern Baptist Christian, by far.

Well put.

Gunner

"Kill every first born"....now where did I hear that said?...hmm.
Also....*Adam and Eve's incestuous family*...I heard that somewhere also.
I also heard the story about this thing called god deliberately making
childbirth extremely painful because of the actions of Adam & Eve.
What a kind and loving god.

--
Bod

You will have to take it up with a Christian. Im certainly not one of
those.

Gunner
Sinse I've plonked BOD I'll answer his objection through you. God had
said "if you eat of the tree--- you shall surely die"
He had compassion, and let them live for a "limited" time - with pain
and work as a reminder of their disobedience.

In the old testament times God was a "just God". It was a time of
"law"
This was before Christ. Christ was God's "gift" to mankind. He was the
"fullfillment of the law" and ushered in the time of "grace".

Justice is getting what you deserve. Grace is not getting what you
deserve on the one side, and getting what you don't desreve on the
other.. In the "new dispensation" or the "new testiment times" Goe
becomes a "loving god" - with-holding the punishments dictated by the
old law, while bestowing undeserved blessings.

A Christian


{smile}

--
Maggie

On Wed, 11 May 2016 02:20:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 09:16:35 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 10/05/2016 22:29, T wrote:
On 05/10/2016 02:10 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 22:05:56 +0100, T wrote:

On 05/10/2016 01:41 PM, Muggles wrote:
I love to discuss quantum physics in relation to outer space in
discussions about belief in God. How is time measured in space, how do
we know time has always been constant there since many people like to
put a number on the age of the universe and use that as evidence to
estimate the age of the Earth.

I've had some VERY interesting discussions like that!

Hi Muggles,

Something I have found interesting is Einstein's take on
quantum physics. He did not believe it to be correct
because "God is not random". And indeed the theory
which is starting to replace quantum physics, called
String Theory, is not random.

I wonder how many more things Einstein could have discovered if he
wasn't hampered by religion?


Einstein was driven by "How did he do it". So I have to say,
no. He probably would have just been mediocre.

"hampered by religion"? You lead an insular life.

Often times, those that say they don't believe in religion,
get caught up in religions by other names, such a secular humanism,
atheism, Liberalism, global warming (which is not science, but religoun).

Liberalism, which tells you what you can eat, what you can
wear, who you can speak with, what you can drive, yada, yada,
yada, is far more restrictive than Christianity. Hell,
Liberalism even tells you what you can think (political
correctness).

A lot of atheists are very religious people.


Oh dear, you are so deluded that you even change the meaning of words
to suit yourself.

Atheism
noun
"a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods".

"Athiesm, just another faith based religious belief"

More correctly, perhaps - and definiely much more difficult to argue :
"Atheism is just another faith based belief"

It takes a whole lot more "faith" to believe there is no god - no
master planner, no engineer of the universe, and no higher powwer than
one's self, than to believe in a god - taking "faith" to mean
" confidence or trust in a person or thing; or the observance of an
obligation from loyalty; or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement;
or a belief not based on proof; or it may refer to a particular system
of religious belief, such as in which faith is confidence based on
some degree of warrant"

When the literary theorist Stanley Fish chastised atheists such as
Richard Dawkins, he wrote, "Science requires faith too before it can
have reasons", and described those who don't accept evolution as
belonging to "a different faith community "


From "the atlantic":Paul Bloom
| Nov 24, 2015


People defer to authorities not just to the truth of the religious
beliefs, but their meaning as well. In a recent article, the
philosopher Neil Van Leeuwen calls these sorts of mental states
"credences," and he notes that they have a moral component. We believe
that we should accept them, and that others (at least those who belong
to our family and community) should accept them as well.

None of this is special to religion. Researchers have studied those
who have strong opinions about political issues and found that they
often literally don’t know what they are talking about. Many people
who take positions on cap and trade, for instance, have no idea what
cap and trade is. Similarly, many of those who will insist that
America spends too much, or too little, on foreign aid, often don’t
know how much actually is spent, as either an absolute amount or
proportion of GDP. These political positions are also credences, and
one who holds them is just like someone who insists that the Ten
Commandments should be the bedrock of morality, but can’t list more
than three or four of them

Many scientific views endorsed by non-specialists are credences as
well. Some people reading this will say they believe in natural
selection, but not all will be able to explain how natural selection
works. (As an example, how does this theory explain the evolution of
the eye?) It turns out that those who assert the truth of natural
selection are often unable to define it, or, worse, have it confused
with some long-rejected pre-Darwinian notion that animals naturally
improve over time.

There are exceptions, of course. There are those who can talk your ear
off about cap and trade, and can delve into the minutiae of selfish
gene theory and group selection. And there are people of faith who can
justify their views with powerful arguments.

On Wed, 11 May 2016 08:24:28 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 14:48:14 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 12:39, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 10:32:03 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 10:18, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 09:32:59 +0100, Bod wrote:


I wonder how many more things Einstein could have discovered if he
wasn't hampered by religion?


Einstein was driven by "How did he do it". So I have to say,
no. He probably would have just been mediocre.

"hampered by religion"? You lead an insular life.

Often times, those that say they don't believe in religion,
get caught up in religions by other names, such a secular humanism,
atheism, Liberalism, global warming (which is not science, but religoun).

Liberalism, which tells you what you can eat, what you can
wear, who you can speak with, what you can drive, yada, yada,
yada, is far more restrictive than Christianity. Hell,
Liberalism even tells you what you can think (political
correctness).

A lot of atheists are very religious people.

More dogmatically narrow minded than the most devout Jew, Muslim, or
southern Baptist Christian, by far.

Erm! I was bullied into going to church as a kid by a scarey Vicar.
Many Irish Catholics were also bullied and brainwashed to go to church.
Cross the line and you got kneecapped or tarred and feathered.
What lovely religious people.

Odd...I was raised Catholic, before I became Buddhist..and dont recall
any kneecappings or tar and feathers. Is this an English version of
some religion? Probably..afterall...you lads do do things rather
****ed up.

Gunner

Er, this was the *Irish*, *not* the English. The Irish Catholic IRA even
bombed several of our English cities causing death and carnage.
*That's* religion for you.

Thats odd..I thought the Inquistion and the Reformaton were largely
English hatred against other religions..particularly the Jews...few of
whom survived.

So you are trimming the data again eh? Typical of your lot

Gunner

So it was religious hatred then. Just as I thought.

Indeed it was. One English religion hated the Jews. The Jews of
course being very religious and not killing anyone. So its probably
the combination of English and a religion that turned it so brutal.
The Brits being well known thugs and all...shrug

Gunner
The "irish problem" was not based on "religion". It was based on
economics. The (protestant) British over-ran (catholic) Ireland and
took over the economy - relegating the Irish (who happened to be
Catholic) to the lowest economic strata. The English put down the
Irish - which of couse "got up the Irish" of the Irish - who fought
back, long and hard - to rid their country of the "English". With the
church being the social center of Irish life (next to the pub) it
became a "Catholic" thing - turning it into a "religious war"

It was not based on "religion" or "faith". It was primarily an
economic and nationalist conflict - with virtually NO "religious
tenents" involved.

On Wed, 11 May 2016 10:11:47 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 16:53:14 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 16:32, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 14:56:15 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 12:46, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 10:41:42 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 10:21, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 09:44:50 +0100, Bod wrote:


And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided
the light from the darkness.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called
Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And that was the beginning of science. The universe was
a creation of God and what we observed around us was nature,
not the work of petty human like gods and magic.

Glory be to God!
-T

String theory is really w-e-i-r-d.

I love it when I get to discuss the existence of God, but many people
just get angry or frustrated and won't actually "discuss" anything.

Does a person base their belief system on "what we know to be true"?
Well, "what we know to be true" can be challenged, and some people see
that sort of a challenge as heretical in nature because mankind is their
god. How dare I challenge the wisdom of learned men! Who am I that I
would even try? I do get that opportunity every now and then, though.

Do you discuss your beliefs with any Catholic pervert Priests?

Did you discuss your beliefs with any atheist perverts?

You do know those perverts come in all flavors..right? Of course you
do...you have likely tasted more than a few.

Just like religion then, there are hundreds of flavours. Each religion
*believes* that their religion/ god is the true religion or god.
Which flavour is the correct one?

A very good question indeed and one neither of us is qualified to
answer. Yet you continue to try to put yours above everyone elses.

Bigotry like yours...Id thought it was long past.

So you admit that *you* don't even know for sure who's religion is the
right one, hmmm.
You worship something just by guessing.

I worship nothing. I, like you, have faith...faith that our beliefs
are among the right ones. I take it you know nothing of Buddhism, do
you?

My Eightfold Path is just one of the correct paths, not the only one.

Gunner

If I were forced at gunpoint to choose a religion, then Buddhism is what
I would choose out of them all and yes I and my wife were invited to a
ceremony in the house that we sold to them. There were real Buddhist
monks dressed in their robes an all. We all had to hold on to an
unbroken daisy chain of string whilst the monks chanted.
Very nice people.
I have also attended many C of E church services and tried hard to feel
the force (as it were), but the service just made me feel cold.
Both religions left me with the feeling that I'd witnessed pure bull****.
I sang in a church choir for 2 years, but only because I liked singing
in choirs.
Nice atmosphere and plush decor etc in churches though.

So it doesnt work for you..at this point in your life. Shrug. You
might change...you might not. Its surprising the numbers of Atheists
who cry out to god(s) as the dark night closes in, at the end. Ive
seen and heard many of them do just this as they died..or thought they
were about to die. Shrug.

So why not leave those that believe differently than you do, to their
beliefs and faiths, and try finding something else to discuss?
Say...something like "survival"? Afterall..thats what this group is
all about.

Gunner
Gee - and here I thought it was about "home repair"

Cross-posting evangelistic Atheist Missionaries invading all groups!!!

On Wed, 11 May 2016 12:44:55 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/11/2016 12:39 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:14, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:50 AM, Bod wrote:

However, it doesn't have connections with "sacred texts, or holy
places"
except to deny such things are valid.

Atheism DOES relate to and adhere to beliefs in regards to ethics, and
societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist
has
called "an order of existence".

A religion isn't necessarily about the sacred or holy or even about a
belief in a god. It is a belief system that has both a connotative and
denotative understanding of how it is defined and what is involved in
its practices.

religion

noun
"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially
a personal God or gods".


That is ONE denotative definition of religion, but in order to be
thorough, it is a good idea to view the whole picture of how "religion"
is defined, vs. only quoting one narrow definition that may or may not
support ones own viewpoint, don't you agree?


If one is not religious, then they are NOT religious, no matter how you
twist the meaning.

One can be "religious" without any affiliation with a specific "religion".
One can "religiously" follow any path - A person can "religiously"
follow instructions, for instance. It just means to do something with
a "fervour" - to believe something "with all their heart" or to "pour
their soul" into something.

No actual religion required - and both Bod and Macaw are very
"religious" in their belief there is no God, and that those who
believe in a god are necessarily mentally deficient - and by
association with a minority of Catholic priests, also morally
degenerate.

On Wed, 11 May 2016 14:02:36 +0100, Uncle Monster wrote:

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 3:12:05 AM UTC-5, Bod wrote:
On 10/05/2016 22:05, T wrote:
On 05/10/2016 01:41 PM, Muggles wrote:
I love to discuss quantum physics in relation to outer space in
discussions about belief in God. How is time measured in space, how do
we know time has always been constant there since many people like to
put a number on the age of the universe and use that as evidence to
estimate the age of the Earth.

I've had some VERY interesting discussions like that!

Hi Muggles,

Something I have found interesting is Einstein's take on
quantum physics. He did not believe it to be correct
because "God is not random". And indeed the theory
which is starting to replace quantum physics, called
String Theory, is not random.

Problem with quantum physics is that it is not unified,
meaning it does not incorporate gravity in its model.
String theory does.

We have a saying in our church. "Do not seek the truth
in science, for today's truths are always tomorrow's
falsehoods. But instead, seek the truth in Jesus Christ,
who is the way, the truth, and the light."

One of my most fascinating courses in college was the
history of science. It was all about tomorrow's
falsehoods. Caloric was a huge one.

My personal belief is that when the eight day comes
and all is revealed, that all our humanity's collective
knowledge and all our machines, we will have not scratched
one cell in God's finger.

I also think that ever since the first human eye laid
sight on the first star in the sky, that we were meant to
go there. I look forward to the light barrier being
broken. I will probably have to watch that happen from
heaven.

And we have Saint Moses to thank for science:

Genius 1, 1-5 KJV
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved
upon the face of the waters.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided
the light from the darkness.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called
Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And that was the beginning of science. The universe was
a creation of God and what we observed around us was nature,
not the work of petty human like gods and magic.

Glory be to God!
-T

String theory is really w-e-i-r-d.

Indeed, very similar to many religions, like Scientology/ Jehovah
Witlesses/ Moony loonies and Morons (sorry....Mormons, etc.
--
Bod

I'm curious about something Bod. Did a minister or some overly religious person hurt you at some point in your life? I was tortured by nuns when I was a small boy but I don't hate religious people. In fact, I've done a lot of work for churches not because I share their faith but because the people there are nice folks. I'm not one of the faithful and never dislike anyone of faith unless they give me a reason to. Such as telling me they will kill me if I don't convert. Now I have another question for you. Can you tell me of any atheist groups of people who show up after a disaster to help people in need? o_O

[8!{} Uncle Wicked Monster

I would have no objection to being tortured by a nun.

--
A Pakistani woman was sexually assaulted yesterday. Police are still trying to find a motive.

On Wed, 11 May 2016 15:23:13 +0100, Uncle Monster wrote:

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 9:11:32 AM UTC-5, Bod wrote:

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called
Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And that was the beginning of science. The universe was
a creation of God and what we observed around us was nature,
not the work of petty human like gods and magic.

Glory be to God!
-T

String theory is really w-e-i-r-d.

Indeed, very similar to many religions, like Scientology/ Jehovah
Witlesses/ Moony loonies and Morons (sorry....Mormons, etc.
--
Bod

I'm curious about something Bod. Did a minister or some overly religious person hurt you at some point in your life? I was tortured by nuns when I was a small boy but I don't hate religious people. In fact, I've done a lot of work for churches not because I share their faith but because the people there are nice folks. I'm not one of the faithful and never dislike anyone of faith unless they give me a reason to. Such as telling me they will kill me if I don't convert. Now I have another question for you. Can you tell me of any atheist groups of people who show up after a disaster to help people in need? o_O

[8!{} Uncle Wicked Monster

Certainly:

Many of your Atheist countrymen do just that:

http://atheists.org/relief

http://www.atheistvolunteers.org

There are many more.
--
Bod

Thanks for the information, I've just never heard of them. I'm in Alabamastan and the only place one of them might be found might be on a college campus. This place is infested with my Southern Baptist cousins and they have guns. Hey Charlie! I saw an atheist, get yer gun! ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Evil Monster

Southerners have lower intelligence (on average, not necessarily yourself), and they're also more religious. Funny that.

--
The cost of living hasn't affected its popularity.

Gunner Asch on Wed, 11 May 2016 08:24:28 -0700
typed in alt.survival the following:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 14:48:14 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 12:39, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 10:32:03 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 10:18, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 09:32:59 +0100, Bod wrote:


I wonder how many more things Einstein could have discovered if he
wasn't hampered by religion?


Einstein was driven by "How did he do it". So I have to say,
no. He probably would have just been mediocre.

"hampered by religion"? You lead an insular life.

Often times, those that say they don't believe in religion,
get caught up in religions by other names, such a secular humanism,
atheism, Liberalism, global warming (which is not science, but religoun).

Liberalism, which tells you what you can eat, what you can
wear, who you can speak with, what you can drive, yada, yada,
yada, is far more restrictive than Christianity. Hell,
Liberalism even tells you what you can think (political
correctness).

A lot of atheists are very religious people.

More dogmatically narrow minded than the most devout Jew, Muslim, or
southern Baptist Christian, by far.

Erm! I was bullied into going to church as a kid by a scarey Vicar.
Many Irish Catholics were also bullied and brainwashed to go to church.
Cross the line and you got kneecapped or tarred and feathered.
What lovely religious people.

Odd...I was raised Catholic, before I became Buddhist..and dont recall
any kneecappings or tar and feathers. Is this an English version of
some religion? Probably..afterall...you lads do do things rather
****ed up.

Gunner

Er, this was the *Irish*, *not* the English. The Irish Catholic IRA even
bombed several of our English cities causing death and carnage.
*That's* religion for you.

Thats odd..I thought the Inquistion and the Reformaton were largely
English hatred against other religions..particularly the Jews...few of
whom survived.

Wow. I mean, just Wow! Spelled backwards it is !woW. I wonder
what color sky in his world.

Because the IRA by the 1970 was Marxist, not Catholic. Which
doesn't negate the presumption "that's religion for you".

So you are trimming the data again eh? Typical of your lot

So it was religious hatred then. Just as I thought.

Indeed it was. One English religion hated the Jews. The Jews of
course being very religious and not killing anyone. So its probably
the combination of English and a religion that turned it so brutal.
The Brits being well known thugs and all...shrug



--
pyotr filipivich
Most of the intelligentsia haven't studied history, so much
as they've absorbed the Correct Position on "History".

On 5/11/2016 3:52 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 12:44:55 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/11/2016 12:39 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:14, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:50 AM, Bod wrote:

However, it doesn't have connections with "sacred texts, or holy
places"
except to deny such things are valid.

Atheism DOES relate to and adhere to beliefs in regards to ethics, and
societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist
has
called "an order of existence".

A religion isn't necessarily about the sacred or holy or even about a
belief in a god. It is a belief system that has both a connotative and
denotative understanding of how it is defined and what is involved in
its practices.

religion

noun
"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially
a personal God or gods".


That is ONE denotative definition of religion, but in order to be
thorough, it is a good idea to view the whole picture of how "religion"
is defined, vs. only quoting one narrow definition that may or may not
support ones own viewpoint, don't you agree?


If one is not religious, then they are NOT religious, no matter how you
twist the meaning.

One can be "religious" without any affiliation with a specific "religion".

One can "religiously" follow any path - A person can "religiously"
follow instructions, for instance. It just means to do something with
a "fervour" - to believe something "with all their heart" or to "pour
their soul" into something.

I agree!

No actual religion required - and both Bod and Macaw are very
"religious" in their belief there is no God, and that those who
believe in a god are necessarily mentally deficient - and by
association with a minority of Catholic priests, also morally
degenerate.


Guilt by association.

--
Maggie

On 5/11/2016 4:12 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 15:23:13 +0100, Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 9:11:32 AM UTC-5, Bod wrote:

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called
Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And that was the beginning of science. The universe was
a creation of God and what we observed around us was nature,
not the work of petty human like gods and magic.

Glory be to God!
-T

String theory is really w-e-i-r-d.

Indeed, very similar to many religions, like Scientology/ Jehovah
Witlesses/ Moony loonies and Morons (sorry....Mormons, etc.
--
Bod

I'm curious about something Bod. Did a minister or some overly
religious person hurt you at some point in your life? I was tortured
by nuns when I was a small boy but I don't hate religious people. In
fact, I've done a lot of work for churches not because I share their
faith but because the people there are nice folks. I'm not one of the
faithful and never dislike anyone of faith unless they give me a
reason to. Such as telling me they will kill me if I don't convert.
Now I have another question for you. Can you tell me of any atheist
groups of people who show up after a disaster to help people in need?
o_O

[8!{} Uncle Wicked Monster

Certainly:

Many of your Atheist countrymen do just that:

http://atheists.org/relief

http://www.atheistvolunteers.org

There are many more.
--
Bod

Thanks for the information, I've just never heard of them. I'm in
Alabamastan and the only place one of them might be found might be on
a college campus. This place is infested with my Southern Baptist
cousins and they have guns. Hey Charlie! I saw an atheist, get yer
gun! ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Evil Monster


Southerners have lower intelligence (on average, not necessarily
yourself), and they're also more religious. Funny that.


Why do you believe that?

--
Maggie

On 5/11/2016 2:42 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 02:20:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 09:16:35 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 10/05/2016 22:29, T wrote:
On 05/10/2016 02:10 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 22:05:56 +0100, T wrote:

On 05/10/2016 01:41 PM, Muggles wrote:
I love to discuss quantum physics in relation to outer space in
discussions about belief in God. How is time measured in space, how do
we know time has always been constant there since many people like to
put a number on the age of the universe and use that as evidence to
estimate the age of the Earth.

I've had some VERY interesting discussions like that!

Hi Muggles,

Something I have found interesting is Einstein's take on
quantum physics. He did not believe it to be correct
because "God is not random". And indeed the theory
which is starting to replace quantum physics, called
String Theory, is not random.

I wonder how many more things Einstein could have discovered if he
wasn't hampered by religion?


Einstein was driven by "How did he do it". So I have to say,
no. He probably would have just been mediocre.

"hampered by religion"? You lead an insular life.

Often times, those that say they don't believe in religion,
get caught up in religions by other names, such a secular humanism,
atheism, Liberalism, global warming (which is not science, but religoun).

Liberalism, which tells you what you can eat, what you can
wear, who you can speak with, what you can drive, yada, yada,
yada, is far more restrictive than Christianity. Hell,
Liberalism even tells you what you can think (political
correctness).

A lot of atheists are very religious people.


Oh dear, you are so deluded that you even change the meaning of words
to suit yourself.

Atheism
noun
"a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods".

"Athiesm, just another faith based religious belief"

More correctly, perhaps - and definiely much more difficult to argue :
"Atheism is just another faith based belief"

It takes a whole lot more "faith" to believe there is no god - no
master planner, no engineer of the universe, and no higher powwer than
one's self, than to believe in a god - taking "faith" to mean
" confidence or trust in a person or thing; or the observance of an
obligation from loyalty; or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement;
or a belief not based on proof; or it may refer to a particular system
of religious belief, such as in which faith is confidence based on
some degree of warrant"

When the literary theorist Stanley Fish chastised atheists such as
Richard Dawkins, he wrote, "Science requires faith too before it can
have reasons", and described those who don't accept evolution as
belonging to "a different faith community "


From "the atlantic":Paul Bloom
| Nov 24, 2015


People defer to authorities not just to the truth of the religious
beliefs, but their meaning as well. In a recent article, the
philosopher Neil Van Leeuwen calls these sorts of mental states
"credences," and he notes that they have a moral component. We believe
that we should accept them, and that others (at least those who belong
to our family and community) should accept them as well.

None of this is special to religion. Researchers have studied those
who have strong opinions about political issues and found that they
often literally don’t know what they are talking about. Many people
who take positions on cap and trade, for instance, have no idea what
cap and trade is. Similarly, many of those who will insist that
America spends too much, or too little, on foreign aid, often don’t
know how much actually is spent, as either an absolute amount or
proportion of GDP. These political positions are also credences, and
one who holds them is just like someone who insists that the Ten
Commandments should be the bedrock of morality, but can’t list more
than three or four of them

Many scientific views endorsed by non-specialists are credences as
well. Some people reading this will say they believe in natural
selection, but not all will be able to explain how natural selection
works. (As an example, how does this theory explain the evolution of
the eye?) It turns out that those who assert the truth of natural
selection are often unable to define it, or, worse, have it confused
with some long-rejected pre-Darwinian notion that animals naturally
improve over time.

There are exceptions, of course. There are those who can talk your ear
off about cap and trade, and can delve into the minutiae of selfish
gene theory and group selection. And there are people of faith who can
justify their views with powerful arguments.


Excellent post!

--
Maggie

On Wed, 11 May 2016 11:09:51 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

I lost much of my hearing as a teen because I lived in a
household with parents who smoked and secondhand smoke floated in the
house constantly. It's a fact that me being exposed to those
contaminates caused my hearing loss.

So your parents used your skull for an ashtray? Fascinating

On 5/11/2016 6:08 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 11:09:51 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

I lost much of my hearing as a teen because I lived in a
household with parents who smoked and secondhand smoke floated in the
house constantly. It's a fact that me being exposed to those
contaminates caused my hearing loss.


So your parents used your skull for an ashtray? Fascinating


Secondhand smoke is more lethal than the ashes.

--
Maggie

On Wed, 11 May 2016 13:15:26 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/11/2016 12:41 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:15, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:52 AM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 17:44, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 4:06 AM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 09:15, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 17:58:07 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 10 May 2016 14:29:30 -0700, T wrote:

On 05/10/2016 02:10 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 22:05:56 +0100, T wrote:

On 05/10/2016 01:41 PM, Muggles wrote:
I love to discuss quantum physics in relation to outer space in
discussions about belief in God. How is time measured in space,
how do
we know time has always been constant there since many people
like to
put a number on the age of the universe and use that as
evidence to
estimate the age of the Earth.

I've had some VERY interesting discussions like that!

Hi Muggles,

Something I have found interesting is Einstein's take on
quantum physics. He did not believe it to be correct
because "God is not random". And indeed the theory
which is starting to replace quantum physics, called
String Theory, is not random.

I wonder how many more things Einstein could have discovered if he
wasn't hampered by religion?


Einstein was driven by "How did he do it". So I have to say,
no. He probably would have just been mediocre.

"hampered by religion"? You lead an insular life.

Often times, those that say they don't believe in religion,
get caught up in religions by other names, such a secular humanism,
atheism, Liberalism, global warming (which is not science, but
religoun).

Liberalism, which tells you what you can eat, what you can
wear, who you can speak with, what you can drive, yada, yada,
yada, is far more restrictive than Christianity. Hell,
Liberalism even tells you what you can think (political
correctness).

A lot of atheists are very religious people.

More dogmatically narrow minded than the most devout Jew, Muslim, or
southern Baptist Christian, by far.

Well put.

Gunner

"Kill every first born"....now where did I hear that said?...hmm.
Also....*Adam and Eve's incestuous family*...I heard that somewhere
also.
I also heard the story about this thing called god deliberately making
childbirth extremely painful because of the actions of Adam & Eve.
What a kind and loving god.

Are you wanting to discuss each point individually?

Ok, let's start with the incest please!

OK ... tell me where incest was in Adam and Eve's family.


2 people...1 man ...1 woman. They have children, explain how
their children created more babies without incest taking place?

You may want to read the first 5 chapters of Genesis, but from what I've
read and studied there are 2 explanations that I've read.

One explanation that I've read via various commentaries and study is
that "in the beginning" incest did not exist because marrying a relative
wasn't considered to be incest. The gene pool at that time was not
corrupted, therefore, incest did not produce children who were deformed,
and marriage was a legitimate union between male and female.

Another explanation is God made more people besides just Adam and Eve.
That both Adam and Even were God's first man kind that he made, and that
the word "man" was plural in some usages, not always singular by
definition.

The following reference says that when Cain was banished that he lived
in a place called Nod, and there were people living there already
because he found a wife there. It's established that Adam and Eve lived
in Eden and that Cain could not have taken a wife until he was banished
and went to the land of Nod. How did those people get there if they were
not also created by God "in the beginning"? The text doesn't say how
they got in Nod.
......
Reference:
Gen 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in
the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. Gen 4:17- And Cain knew his wife;
and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the
name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
......


The following text implies that God made Adam (him/singular), and God
made male and female (them/plural), but it also defines male and female
by the name of Adam(male and female/plural). So, it's possible when God
created male and female, that male and female were plural, not singular,
with God assigning Adam and Eve to take care of the Garden of Eden.
.....
Reference:
Genesis 5:1- This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day
that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name
Adam, in the day when they were created"
.....

I haven't decided which possibility I agree with.

Maggie is very good at this! Bravo!!

Gunner

On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:25:46 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 19:15, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:41 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:15, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:52 AM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 17:44, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 4:06 AM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 09:15, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 17:58:07 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 10 May 2016 14:29:30 -0700, T wrote:

On 05/10/2016 02:10 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 22:05:56 +0100, T wrote:

On 05/10/2016 01:41 PM, Muggles wrote:
I love to discuss quantum physics in relation to outer space in
discussions about belief in God. How is time measured in space,
how do
we know time has always been constant there since many people
like to
put a number on the age of the universe and use that as
evidence to
estimate the age of the Earth.

I've had some VERY interesting discussions like that!

Hi Muggles,

Something I have found interesting is Einstein's take on
quantum physics. He did not believe it to be correct
because "God is not random". And indeed the theory
which is starting to replace quantum physics, called
String Theory, is not random.

I wonder how many more things Einstein could have discovered if he
wasn't hampered by religion?


Einstein was driven by "How did he do it". So I have to say,
no. He probably would have just been mediocre.

"hampered by religion"? You lead an insular life.

Often times, those that say they don't believe in religion,
get caught up in religions by other names, such a secular humanism,
atheism, Liberalism, global warming (which is not science, but
religoun).

Liberalism, which tells you what you can eat, what you can
wear, who you can speak with, what you can drive, yada, yada,
yada, is far more restrictive than Christianity. Hell,
Liberalism even tells you what you can think (political
correctness).

A lot of atheists are very religious people.

More dogmatically narrow minded than the most devout Jew, Muslim, or
southern Baptist Christian, by far.

Well put.

Gunner

"Kill every first born"....now where did I hear that said?...hmm.
Also....*Adam and Eve's incestuous family*...I heard that somewhere
also.
I also heard the story about this thing called god deliberately making
childbirth extremely painful because of the actions of Adam & Eve.
What a kind and loving god.

Are you wanting to discuss each point individually?

Ok, let's start with the incest please!

OK ... tell me where incest was in Adam and Eve's family.


2 people...1 man ...1 woman. They have children, explain how
their children created more babies without incest taking place?

You may want to read the first 5 chapters of Genesis, but from what I've
read and studied there are 2 explanations that I've read.

One explanation that I've read via various commentaries and study is
that "in the beginning" incest did not exist because marrying a relative
wasn't considered to be incest. The gene pool at that time was not
corrupted, therefore, incest did not produce children who were deformed,
and marriage was a legitimate union between male and female.

Another explanation is God made more people besides just Adam and Eve.
That both Adam and Even were God's first man kind that he made, and that
the word "man" was plural in some usages, not always singular by
definition.

The following reference says that when Cain was banished that he lived
in a place called Nod, and there were people living there already
because he found a wife there. It's established that Adam and Eve lived
in Eden and that Cain could not have taken a wife until he was banished
and went to the land of Nod. How did those people get there if they were
not also created by God "in the beginning"? The text doesn't say how
they got in Nod.
......
Reference:
Gen 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in
the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. Gen 4:17- And Cain knew his wife;
and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the
name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
......


The following text implies that God made Adam (him/singular), and God
made male and female (them/plural), but it also defines male and female
by the name of Adam(male and female/plural). So, it's possible when God
created male and female, that male and female were plural, not singular,
with God assigning Adam and Eve to take care of the Garden of Eden.
.....
Reference:
Genesis 5:1- This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day
that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name
Adam, in the day when they were created"
.....

I haven't decided which possibility I agree with.

So lots of could be's and maybe's. Nothing definitive then.

You expected differently? Why should this be any different than
Global Warming/Cooling/Change?

(VBG)

On Wed, 11 May 2016 18:29:56 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 18:07, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 16:39:33 +0100, Bod wrote:


Indeed it was. One English religion hated the Jews. The Jews of
course being very religious and not killing anyone. So its probably
the combination of English and a religion that turned it so brutal.
The Brits being well known thugs and all...shrug

Gunner

Oh dear, you're dragging the past up again.
The UK is very tolerant of Jews and we are in no way "thugs".
I speak as I find and I've worked for many Jews in their own homes and
all were lovely kind people. A few even insisted that I stay for dinner.

--
Bod

Dragging up the past again? Oh...so you dont like it when I do
it..but you do it as a matter of course and think its ok?

Of course most Jews are nice people. As are most Catholics, Anglicans,
Methodists, Lutherens and so on and so forth. Yet you lead us to
believe they are all ****ing ******s.

Do try try to be consistant in your distain and hate, old boy.

Gunner

Why do you refer to what I've said as *hate*?

Why do you deny what youve said is anything but?

On Wed, 11 May 2016 16:00:38 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 08:24:28 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 14:48:14 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 12:39, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 10:32:03 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 10:18, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 09:32:59 +0100, Bod wrote:


I wonder how many more things Einstein could have discovered if he
wasn't hampered by religion?


Einstein was driven by "How did he do it". So I have to say,
no. He probably would have just been mediocre.

"hampered by religion"? You lead an insular life.

Often times, those that say they don't believe in religion,
get caught up in religions by other names, such a secular humanism,
atheism, Liberalism, global warming (which is not science, but religoun).

Liberalism, which tells you what you can eat, what you can
wear, who you can speak with, what you can drive, yada, yada,
yada, is far more restrictive than Christianity. Hell,
Liberalism even tells you what you can think (political
correctness).

A lot of atheists are very religious people.

More dogmatically narrow minded than the most devout Jew, Muslim, or
southern Baptist Christian, by far.

Erm! I was bullied into going to church as a kid by a scarey Vicar.
Many Irish Catholics were also bullied and brainwashed to go to church.
Cross the line and you got kneecapped or tarred and feathered.
What lovely religious people.

Odd...I was raised Catholic, before I became Buddhist..and dont recall
any kneecappings or tar and feathers. Is this an English version of
some religion? Probably..afterall...you lads do do things rather
****ed up.

Gunner

Er, this was the *Irish*, *not* the English. The Irish Catholic IRA even
bombed several of our English cities causing death and carnage.
*That's* religion for you.

Thats odd..I thought the Inquistion and the Reformaton were largely
English hatred against other religions..particularly the Jews...few of
whom survived.

So you are trimming the data again eh? Typical of your lot

Gunner

So it was religious hatred then. Just as I thought.

Indeed it was. One English religion hated the Jews. The Jews of
course being very religious and not killing anyone. So its probably
the combination of English and a religion that turned it so brutal.
The Brits being well known thugs and all...shrug

Gunner
The "irish problem" was not based on "religion". It was based on
economics. The (protestant) British over-ran (catholic) Ireland and
took over the economy - relegating the Irish (who happened to be
Catholic) to the lowest economic strata. The English put down the
Irish - which of couse "got up the Irish" of the Irish - who fought
back, long and hard - to rid their country of the "English". With the
church being the social center of Irish life (next to the pub) it
became a "Catholic" thing - turning it into a "religious war"

It was not based on "religion" or "faith". It was primarily an
economic and nationalist conflict - with virtually NO "religious
tenents" involved.

What...you are denying Liberal History??!!!

And of course you are correct. The ****ing Brits beat the Irish down
like curs and murdered or moved out millions of them, to other lands.
They sold them like slaves as well.

There were more Irish in New York City than there were in Ireland by
1895.

And here we have Brits claiming that they are just and rightious
people. Bah!! Humbug!!

India is a perfect example of their work and deeds....(spit!)


Gunner

On Wed, 11 May 2016 14:25:32 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Wed, 11 May 2016 08:24:28 -0700
typed in alt.survival the following:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 14:48:14 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 12:39, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 10:32:03 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 10:18, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 09:32:59 +0100, Bod wrote:


I wonder how many more things Einstein could have discovered if he
wasn't hampered by religion?


Einstein was driven by "How did he do it". So I have to say,
no. He probably would have just been mediocre.

"hampered by religion"? You lead an insular life.

Often times, those that say they don't believe in religion,
get caught up in religions by other names, such a secular humanism,
atheism, Liberalism, global warming (which is not science, but religoun).

Liberalism, which tells you what you can eat, what you can
wear, who you can speak with, what you can drive, yada, yada,
yada, is far more restrictive than Christianity. Hell,
Liberalism even tells you what you can think (political
correctness).

A lot of atheists are very religious people.

More dogmatically narrow minded than the most devout Jew, Muslim, or
southern Baptist Christian, by far.

Erm! I was bullied into going to church as a kid by a scarey Vicar.
Many Irish Catholics were also bullied and brainwashed to go to church.
Cross the line and you got kneecapped or tarred and feathered.
What lovely religious people.

Odd...I was raised Catholic, before I became Buddhist..and dont recall
any kneecappings or tar and feathers. Is this an English version of
some religion? Probably..afterall...you lads do do things rather
****ed up.

Gunner

Er, this was the *Irish*, *not* the English. The Irish Catholic IRA even
bombed several of our English cities causing death and carnage.
*That's* religion for you.

Thats odd..I thought the Inquistion and the Reformaton were largely
English hatred against other religions..particularly the Jews...few of
whom survived.

Wow. I mean, just Wow! Spelled backwards it is !woW. I wonder
what color sky in his world.

Because the IRA by the 1970 was Marxist, not Catholic. Which
doesn't negate the presumption "that's religion for you".

(VBG)...absolutely true. At least for some factions of the IRA. There
were more than a few such.

So you are trimming the data again eh? Typical of your lot

So it was religious hatred then. Just as I thought.

Indeed it was. One English religion hated the Jews. The Jews of
course being very religious and not killing anyone. So its probably
the combination of English and a religion that turned it so brutal.
The Brits being well known thugs and all...shrug



--
pyotr filipivich
Most of the intelligentsia haven't studied history, so much
as they've absorbed the Correct Position on "History".

On Wed, 11 May 2016 17:50:19 +0100, Bod wrote:


However, it doesn't have connections with "sacred texts, or holy places"
except to deny such things are valid.

Atheism DOES relate to and adhere to beliefs in regards to ethics, and
societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has
called "an order of existence".

A religion isn't necessarily about the sacred or holy or even about a
belief in a god. It is a belief system that has both a connotative and
denotative understanding of how it is defined and what is involved in
its practices.

religion

noun
"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially
a personal God or gods".

"atheism, just another faith based religious belief"

On Wed, 11 May 2016 12:14:32 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/11/2016 11:50 AM, Bod wrote:

However, it doesn't have connections with "sacred texts, or holy places"
except to deny such things are valid.

Atheism DOES relate to and adhere to beliefs in regards to ethics, and
societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has
called "an order of existence".

A religion isn't necessarily about the sacred or holy or even about a
belief in a god. It is a belief system that has both a connotative and
denotative understanding of how it is defined and what is involved in
its practices.

religion

noun
"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially
a personal God or gods".


That is ONE denotative definition of religion, but in order to be
thorough, it is a good idea to view the whole picture of how "religion"
is defined, vs. only quoting one narrow definition that may or may not
support ones own viewpoint, don't you agree?

oy but his response is gonna be a dooozy!

On Wed, 11 May 2016 18:39:29 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 18:14, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:50 AM, Bod wrote:

However, it doesn't have connections with "sacred texts, or holy places"
except to deny such things are valid.

Atheism DOES relate to and adhere to beliefs in regards to ethics, and
societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has
called "an order of existence".

A religion isn't necessarily about the sacred or holy or even about a
belief in a god. It is a belief system that has both a connotative and
denotative understanding of how it is defined and what is involved in
its practices.

religion

noun
"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially
a personal God or gods".


That is ONE denotative definition of religion, but in order to be
thorough, it is a good idea to view the whole picture of how "religion"
is defined, vs. only quoting one narrow definition that may or may not
support ones own viewpoint, don't you agree?

If one is not religious, then they are NOT religious, no matter how you
twist the meaning.


If one has beliefs about gods and religions...then one has religious
beliefs. Deal with it mate.

Gunner

On Wed, 11 May 2016 18:58:00 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 18:44, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:39 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:14, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:50 AM, Bod wrote:

However, it doesn't have connections with "sacred texts, or holy
places"
except to deny such things are valid.

Atheism DOES relate to and adhere to beliefs in regards to ethics, and
societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist
has
called "an order of existence".

A religion isn't necessarily about the sacred or holy or even about a
belief in a god. It is a belief system that has both a connotative and
denotative understanding of how it is defined and what is involved in
its practices.

religion

noun
"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially
a personal God or gods".


That is ONE denotative definition of religion, but in order to be
thorough, it is a good idea to view the whole picture of how "religion"
is defined, vs. only quoting one narrow definition that may or may not
support ones own viewpoint, don't you agree?


If one is not religious, then they are NOT religious, no matter how you
twist the meaning.

One can be "religious" without any affiliation with a specific "religion".

Hmm! you've lost me there.

Thats hardly surprising now is it?

On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:47:49 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 19:31, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:58 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:44, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:39 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:14, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:50 AM, Bod wrote:

However, it doesn't have connections with "sacred texts, or holy
places"
except to deny such things are valid.

Atheism DOES relate to and adhere to beliefs in regards to ethics,
and
societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist
has
called "an order of existence".

A religion isn't necessarily about the sacred or holy or even about a
belief in a god. It is a belief system that has both a
connotative and
denotative understanding of how it is defined and what is involved in
its practices.

religion

noun
"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power,
especially
a personal God or gods".


That is ONE denotative definition of religion, but in order to be
thorough, it is a good idea to view the whole picture of how "religion"
is defined, vs. only quoting one narrow definition that may or may not
support ones own viewpoint, don't you agree?


If one is not religious, then they are NOT religious, no matter how you
twist the meaning.

One can be "religious" without any affiliation with a specific
"religion".

Hmm! you've lost me there.


See another post where I go into more detail.

Unfortunately I did read that "more detail" waffle , because that's what
it was.

Denial is not..not a river in Egypt, mate

On Wed, 11 May 2016 16:52:38 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 12:44:55 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/11/2016 12:39 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:14, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:50 AM, Bod wrote:

However, it doesn't have connections with "sacred texts, or holy
places"
except to deny such things are valid.

Atheism DOES relate to and adhere to beliefs in regards to ethics, and
societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist
has
called "an order of existence".

A religion isn't necessarily about the sacred or holy or even about a
belief in a god. It is a belief system that has both a connotative and
denotative understanding of how it is defined and what is involved in
its practices.

religion

noun
"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially
a personal God or gods".


That is ONE denotative definition of religion, but in order to be
thorough, it is a good idea to view the whole picture of how "religion"
is defined, vs. only quoting one narrow definition that may or may not
support ones own viewpoint, don't you agree?


If one is not religious, then they are NOT religious, no matter how you
twist the meaning.

One can be "religious" without any affiliation with a specific "religion".
One can "religiously" follow any path - A person can "religiously"
follow instructions, for instance. It just means to do something with
a "fervour" - to believe something "with all their heart" or to "pour
their soul" into something.

No actual religion required - and both Bod and Macaw are very
"religious" in their belief there is no God, and that those who
believe in a god are necessarily mentally deficient - and by
association with a minority of Catholic priests, also morally
degenerate.


Budda bang!! Well done!! Bravo.

On Wed, 11 May 2016 17:39:38 +0100, Bod wrote:


"Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views,
sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that relate
humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence".

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman
agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances,
and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs
..."

Technically, if a person identifies with a particular societal
organization that shares a specific mindset relating to such things as
stated above, it can be classified as a religion.

So in your strange interpretation, I am an Atheist who doesn't believe
in *any* religion, but I am religious!!?....hmm!

You are a ferverent atheist...making you very much subject to your
religious beliefs.

Your beliefs involve religion and gods....sorry chapy...you are just
as religious as a snake handler in Appalacia...just at the other end
of the spectrum

Gunner

On Wed, 11 May 2016 18:55:50 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 18:41, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:33 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:10, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:39 AM, Bod wrote:

"Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views,
sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that
relate
humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence".

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman
agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual
observances,
and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human
affairs
..."

Technically, if a person identifies with a particular societal
organization that shares a specific mindset relating to such things as
stated above, it can be classified as a religion.


So in your strange interpretation, I am an Atheist who doesn't believe
in *any* religion, but I am religious!!?....hmm!

No. I'm saying that the definition of a religion equates atheism as a
religion.

Being "religious" is a whole different practice.


So I'm not religious, but I am?

No. A "religion" is not the same thing as being "religious".

But I'm *not* religious in any way shape or form.


Snort! You are VERY much religious! And you preach your religion
long and loudly, to everyone you can force to listen.

Gunner