On 5/13/2016 10:51 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 5/13/2016 8:38 AM, Bud Frede wrote:

Because there are plenty of mechanisms that explain "Life, the
Universe, and Everything" without having to resort to the
supernatural.

OK. Can you explain Creation?

Can you?


I lean heavily towards the intelligent design description of Creation -
that it took an intelligent being - God - to initiate the 'beginning'.
The Bible describes it in terms of days, evenings and mornings, and what
order things were created. It doesn't describe how long those days,
evenings or mornings lasted in any time increments that we live by in
modern times, either, so there is nothing in the biblical description of
creation that denotes how long ago creation took place.

Your turn.

--
Maggie

Bud Frede writes:

The new bible isn't really any better. We don't have any eyewitness
testimony, and the various authors don't even agree with each
other.

And most of that was written well after the events (50+ years
in most cases), and much was left out by King James.

There is very little contemporaneous evidence that a man named
Jesus even existed, and that little is from Josephus who was born
four years after the supposed crucifixion (and wrote his manuscript
in 93AD, which is 23 years after Mark wrote his gospel in 70AD.)

And most scholars consider that Tesimonium Flavianum is most likely
not authentic, but rather expanded and altered subsequently by
christian monks who copied it. Some even believe that the reference
to Jesus in TF refers to the high priest Jesus ben Damneus who
had a brother James.

Note that no contemporaneous copy of Testimonium Flavianum has
ever been found, the earliest known reference is found in the
writings of a fourth-century christian apologist Eusebius, and
the earliest copies of TF date to the 11th century.

No newspapers, no Fox News, just based on second and third hand
stories.

On Fri, 13 May 2016 16:59:11 +0100, Muggles wrote:

On 5/13/2016 10:51 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 5/13/2016 8:38 AM, Bud Frede wrote:

Because there are plenty of mechanisms that explain "Life, the
Universe, and Everything" without having to resort to the
supernatural.

OK. Can you explain Creation?

Can you?


I lean heavily towards the intelligent design description of Creation -
that it took an intelligent being - God - to initiate the 'beginning'.
The Bible describes it in terms of days, evenings and mornings, and what
order things were created. It doesn't describe how long those days,
evenings or mornings lasted in any time increments that we live by in
modern times, either, so there is nothing in the biblical description of
creation that denotes how long ago creation took place.

Your turn.

This belief has no basis. There is no reason to think the laws of Physics were created.

--
Risk more than others think is safe.
Care more than others think is wise.
Dream more than others think is practical.
Expect more than others think is possible.
-- Claude Bissell

On Fri, 13 May 2016 17:09:08 +0100, Bud Frede wrote:

Muggles writes:

On 5/13/2016 8:38 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 5/12/2016 5:44 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:


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.

I don't see any evidence of the existence of a "greater power."


Perhaps, you need to think about what it means?


No, I think I've got the concept.

Ok. Explain it from your perspective. I may not be understanding where
you're coming from.

Some supernatural being that you feel is responsible for doing things,
without any proof that this is the case, and often without even any
proof that the things ever happened in the first place.

When I was a child I believed in the Tooth Fairy. Then I grew up.




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

It depends upon what you mean by "everything we see around us." If
you're talking about the organisms that live and have lived on the
Earth, their existence doesn't require a "greater power." The universe
itself doesn't require a "greater power." Neither of these require any
sort of "creator" either.

How do you know?

Because there are plenty of mechanisms that explain "Life, the
Universe, and Everything" without having to resort to the
supernatural.

OK. Can you explain Creation?

"Creation?" With a capital "C?" I have no idea what you think that
is. It sounds like something defined in the bible that you always go
back to, and is thus nugatory.




The existence of a deity or deities is highly improbable, and is not
required to explain anything we can observe. When something is this
improbable, it's not worth expending any time and energy on.

At one time it was improbable that we'd be able to fly planes.

I don't think it was improbable at all. In fact, it was likely once we
started using tools and changing our environment to suit our needs -
rather than adapting to our environment like the rest of the organisms
on Earth.

So, in the year 1600, for example, you think people thought flying jets
was probable?

I don't know what they thought about flying jets, nor do I care. I
didn't even make any comments about that they thought.



Just because ones mindset can't imagine something is probable, doesn't
make them right. It just means they have limited vision as to what is
possible beyond their finite thinking.

I can imagine all kinds of things, but that doesn't make them true. When
I look at things rationally, I see it just isn't necessary to use a
deity to explain anything.


OK. How do you rationally explain emotions?

Chemical and electrical impulses in the brain.

If you want to explore why they exist, look to our early evolution as
organisms.

Take fear. It would have been very useful to any creature that can
actually react to a threat. Kick a dog a few times and it will be afraid
of you. The dog can't think, but it can certainly feel fear.

Now that we can think, we can fear things that are far less concrete
than an impending kick in the rear. We can fear concepts or even nothing
at all.


BTW, a lot of those setbacks have been caused by religion and religious
people. It's time we outgrew all of that.



The root cause of all setbacks people engage in is human nature.


They're beheading people in the Middle East right now because of
religion. If you're not their exact brand of believer, they kill you.

They don't do it because of religion, they do it because of their human
nature that wants to be in control.

I think you just said that religion has no effect on anything and we're
governed solely by our impulses. Is that the case?

They say they're killing unbelievers, so that's what I assume they're
doing.


We also had idiots that, instead of donating time or money to research
for better methods and drugs to combat AIDS, pranced around saying that
it was "God's payback" for homosexuality and people with AIDS somehow
deserved it so we didn't need to worry about helping them.

Their argument is that AIDS was a result of dangerous and unhealthy
behavior that had a consequence. I can agree with that premise of
actions have consequences, but not the part where people shouldn't help
those who get sick.

No, their argument was that homosexuality was a sin, and people who had
AIDS were thus sinners and somehow deserved what they got.



Bigotry is
bigotry and you don't get a free pass just because you try to justify it
with religion.

When we don't understand other people and develop negative attitudes as
a result, we all form some brand of bigotry in our thought processes.
For example, you called it bigotry when you described a reaction by
religious people as "God's payback", but I, OTOH, described what their
argument was really saying and then disagreed with a specific conclusion.

Your description is just as bigoted against religious people as the
religious people you described because you fail to understand the
individual and specific issues being presented.

I heard what they said. If they didn't want to be hateful then they
shouldn't have said it.




You can just shrug your shoulders and blame everything on something as
nebulous as "human nature,"

Human nature is not nebulous.

Point to it. Hold it in your hand.

All very good points, and more than I can be bothered wasting my time with religious folk. She will keep her head stuck in the sand forever, because it's easier for her little brain.

--
Baby robins eat 14 feet of worms a day.

On Thu, 12 May 2016 16:53:13 +0100, Muggles wrote:

On 5/12/2016 5:44 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:


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.


I don't see any evidence of the existence of a "greater power."

Perhaps, you need to think about what it means?


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

It depends upon what you mean by "everything we see around us." If
you're talking about the organisms that live and have lived on the
Earth, their existence doesn't require a "greater power." The universe
itself doesn't require a "greater power." Neither of these require any
sort of "creator" either.

How do you know?

The existence of a deity or deities is highly improbable, and is not
required to explain anything we can observe. When something is this
improbable, it's not worth expending any time and energy on.

At one time it was improbable that we'd be able to fly planes.

Just because ones mindset can't imagine something is probable, doesn't
make them right. It just means they have limited vision as to what is
possible beyind their finite thinking.

If you want to know what I believe - I believe in human beings. We've
had a long, hard climb up, with many setbacks, but I think we will
eventually leave our cradle and spread into the rest of the solar system
and perhaps farther than that.

So, you're a humanist?

I believe in humans, if that's what you mean, I can see two of them right now.

--
When they found out their wives were attending a sex-toy party,
the husbands refused to go and pick them up,
and instead left them to their own devices.

Muggles writes:
On 5/13/2016 10:51 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 5/13/2016 8:38 AM, Bud Frede wrote:

Because there are plenty of mechanisms that explain "Life, the
Universe, and Everything" without having to resort to the
supernatural.

OK. Can you explain Creation?

Can you?


I lean heavily towards the intelligent design description of Creation -
that it took an intelligent being - God - to initiate the 'beginning'.
The Bible describes it in terms of days, evenings and mornings, and what
order things were created. It doesn't describe how long those days,
evenings or mornings lasted in any time increments that we live by in
modern times, either, so there is nothing in the biblical description of
creation that denotes how long ago creation took place.

Your turn.

There is no act of creation; a given universe starts as a singularity,
explodes, expands, heat death, contracts back to a singularity and wash, rinse, repeat
ad inifinitum.

On 13/05/2016 15:58, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:15:26 +0100, 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 you have no ****ing idea. Always the same, religion is based on
maybe this maybe that jumping to conclusions with no evidence whatsoever.

The classic answer that religious people give when they are stumped is
that "god moves in mysterious ways".

--
Bod

On 13/05/2016 16:37, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 9:55 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 16:45:28 +0100, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/12/2016 2:10 AM, Bod wrote:
On 12/05/2016 05:12, Muggles wrote:

BUT, the text doesn't address either explanation 100%. They are the 2
possibilities that I've seen discussed that explains people living in
the land of Nod where Cain found a wife.


"Nod"! is that where the character *Noddy* comes from? ;-)


Who knows? Probably!

I thought god knew?


God knows ... but I don't!

And you know this!....how do you know god knows?
Please be specific!

--
Bod

On 13/05/2016 16:43, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 9:58 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:15:26 +0100, 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 you have no ****ing idea. Always the same, religion is based on
maybe this maybe that jumping to conclusions with no evidence whatsoever.

I answered your question, " OK ... tell me where incest was in Adam and
Eve's family." I gave you 2 possibilities based on the text, and didn't
tell you what to believe either way.

It doesn't matter to me if you agree, disagree, like my answer, or have
a hissy fit. I just answered your question.

Erm! no you didn't.

--
Bod

On 13/05/2016 17:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 5/13/2016 10:51 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 5/13/2016 8:38 AM, Bud Frede wrote:

Because there are plenty of mechanisms that explain "Life, the
Universe, and Everything" without having to resort to the
supernatural.

OK. Can you explain Creation?

Can you?


I lean heavily towards the intelligent design description of Creation -
that it took an intelligent being - God - to initiate the 'beginning'.
The Bible describes it in terms of days, evenings and mornings, and what
order things were created. It doesn't describe how long those days,
evenings or mornings lasted in any time increments that we live by in
modern times, either, so there is nothing in the biblical description of
creation that denotes how long ago creation took place.

Your turn.

There is no act of creation; a given universe starts as a singularity,
explodes, expands, heat death, contracts back to a singularity and wash, rinse, repeat
ad inifinitum.

Yup and stars and planets *make/ form themselves*. This has been proved
conclusively, just as planet Earth was.

--
Bod

On 5/13/2016 11:09 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 5/13/2016 8:38 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 5/12/2016 5:44 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:


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.

I don't see any evidence of the existence of a "greater power."


Perhaps, you need to think about what it means?


No, I think I've got the concept.

Ok. Explain it from your perspective. I may not be understanding where
you're coming from.


Some supernatural being that you feel is responsible for doing things,
without any proof that this is the case, and often without even any
proof that the things ever happened in the first place.

When I was a child I believed in the Tooth Fairy. Then I grew up.

Supernatural only means something beyond what our minds consider to be a
natural occurrence. Why don't you believe that something can be
supernatural?


Because there are plenty of mechanisms that explain "Life, the
Universe, and Everything" without having to resort to the
supernatural.

OK. Can you explain Creation?

"Creation?" With a capital "C?" I have no idea what you think that
is. It sounds like something defined in the bible that you always go
back to, and is thus nugatory.

I capitalize Creation because many people consider it to be a title of
something important.


Just because ones mindset can't imagine something is probable, doesn't
make them right. It just means they have limited vision as to what is
possible beyond their finite thinking.

I can imagine all kinds of things, but that doesn't make them true. When
I look at things rationally, I see it just isn't necessary to use a
deity to explain anything.

OK. How do you rationally explain emotions?

Chemical and electrical impulses in the brain.

If you want to explore why they exist, look to our early evolution as
organisms.

Take fear. It would have been very useful to any creature that can
actually react to a threat. Kick a dog a few times and it will be afraid
of you. The dog can't think, but it can certainly feel fear.

Now that we can think, we can fear things that are far less concrete
than an impending kick in the rear. We can fear concepts or even nothing
at all.

So, emotions are a result of learning from cause and effect?

Can you explain why those chemicals and electrical impulses react in the
brain?

BTW, a lot of those setbacks have been caused by religion and religious
people. It's time we outgrew all of that.



The root cause of all setbacks people engage in is human nature.


They're beheading people in the Middle East right now because of
religion. If you're not their exact brand of believer, they kill you.

They don't do it because of religion, they do it because of their human
nature that wants to be in control.


I think you just said that religion has no effect on anything and we're
governed solely by our impulses. Is that the case?

I'm saying that human nature is what determines how we respond to
outside criteria. If it is in our human nature to be mean, nasty, and
cruel then any ideology we latch on to will magnify that human nature.

Unless we allow our human nature to change and deliberately reject the
darker side of our nature we're all subject to the same abhorrent
behaviors. It's normal to see people struggle with good vs. bad
behavior despite the influences of a religion that is supposed to make
them better people. It's difficult to change our nature.


They say they're killing unbelievers, so that's what I assume they're
doing.

That is human nature's need to control others.


We also had idiots that, instead of donating time or money to research
for better methods and drugs to combat AIDS, pranced around saying that
it was "God's payback" for homosexuality and people with AIDS somehow
deserved it so we didn't need to worry about helping them.

Their argument is that AIDS was a result of dangerous and unhealthy
behavior that had a consequence. I can agree with that premise of
actions have consequences, but not the part where people shouldn't help
those who get sick.


No, their argument was that homosexuality was a sin, and people who had
AIDS were thus sinners and somehow deserved what they got.

What they are actually saying is they agree that there are consequences
to dangerous and unhealthy behavior.

Regardless of any religion a person is affiliated with they could not
agree that homosexuality was a sin and contracting AIDS was a result of
sinful behavior IF they did not already have an innate agreement that
consequences weren't deserved according to behavior.



--
Maggie

On Fri, 13 May 2016 17:58:26 +0100, Bud Frede wrote:

"Mr Macaw" writes:


All very good points, and more than I can be bothered wasting my time
with religious folk. She will keep her head stuck in the sand
forever, because it's easier for her little brain.

I'm sure that she's actually a very nice lady, if you avoid talking to
her about her beliefs.

I know a few religious nuts round here, and while they may be "nice" (friendly, generous, etc), they're not the cleverest folk.

I don't think I'm going to spend much more time trying to have a
discussion with her though.

--
I dialled one of those 900 numbers to get some financial advice. They advised me not to dial 900 numbers.

On Thu, 12 May 2016 11:52:04 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/05/2016 11:44, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:


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.

I don't see any evidence of the existence of a "greater power."


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

It depends upon what you mean by "everything we see around us." If
you're talking about the organisms that live and have lived on the
Earth, their existence doesn't require a "greater power." The universe
itself doesn't require a "greater power." Neither of these require any
sort of "creator" either.

The existence of a deity or deities is highly improbable, and is not
required to explain anything we can observe. When something is this
improbable, it's not worth expending any time and energy on.

If you want to know what I believe - I believe in human beings. We've
had a long, hard climb up, with many setbacks, but I think we will
eventually leave our cradle and spread into the rest of the solar system
and perhaps farther than that.

BTW, a lot of those setbacks have been caused by religion and religious
people. It's time we outgrew all of that.

Religion is dying out in America: Just 18% of people 60 and younger
attend church and less than 50% believe in God

Read mo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz48RCIF82z

Excellent news.

--
Gargoyle (n), olive-flavored mouthwash.

On Thu, 12 May 2016 13:48:36 +0100, Stormin Mormon wrote:

One of these days, I'll try a life test
with a leaky alkaline battery. See how
long that runs.

I guarantee it will not be as long as this thread.

--
Gargoyle (n), olive-flavored mouthwash.

On Fri, 13 May 2016 17:59:39 +0100, Muggles wrote:

On 5/13/2016 11:09 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 5/13/2016 8:38 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 5/12/2016 5:44 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:


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.

I don't see any evidence of the existence of a "greater power."


Perhaps, you need to think about what it means?


No, I think I've got the concept.

Ok. Explain it from your perspective. I may not be understanding where
you're coming from.


Some supernatural being that you feel is responsible for doing things,
without any proof that this is the case, and often without even any
proof that the things ever happened in the first place.

When I was a child I believed in the Tooth Fairy. Then I grew up.

Supernatural only means something beyond what our minds consider to be a
natural occurrence. Why don't you believe that something can be
supernatural?

Because everything we have ever observed can be explained. Supernatural is for things we don't understand.

Because there are plenty of mechanisms that explain "Life, the
Universe, and Everything" without having to resort to the
supernatural.

OK. Can you explain Creation?

"Creation?" With a capital "C?" I have no idea what you think that
is. It sounds like something defined in the bible that you always go
back to, and is thus nugatory.

I capitalize Creation because many people consider it to be a title of
something important.

A capital letter is for a proper noun - i.e. a person or a place. So you're simply wrong.

Just because ones mindset can't imagine something is probable, doesn't
make them right. It just means they have limited vision as to what is
possible beyond their finite thinking.

I can imagine all kinds of things, but that doesn't make them true. When
I look at things rationally, I see it just isn't necessary to use a
deity to explain anything.

OK. How do you rationally explain emotions?

Chemical and electrical impulses in the brain.

If you want to explore why they exist, look to our early evolution as
organisms.

Take fear. It would have been very useful to any creature that can
actually react to a threat. Kick a dog a few times and it will be afraid
of you. The dog can't think, but it can certainly feel fear.

Now that we can think, we can fear things that are far less concrete
than an impending kick in the rear. We can fear concepts or even nothing
at all.

So, emotions are a result of learning from cause and effect?

Can you explain why those chemicals and electrical impulses react in the
brain?

Because those with chemicals reacting differently, and don't cause fear in dangerous situations, die off and don't pass that gene on.

BTW, a lot of those setbacks have been caused by religion and religious
people. It's time we outgrew all of that.



The root cause of all setbacks people engage in is human nature.


They're beheading people in the Middle East right now because of
religion. If you're not their exact brand of believer, they kill you.

They don't do it because of religion, they do it because of their human
nature that wants to be in control.


I think you just said that religion has no effect on anything and we're
governed solely by our impulses. Is that the case?

I'm saying that human nature is what determines how we respond to
outside criteria. If it is in our human nature to be mean, nasty, and
cruel then any ideology we latch on to will magnify that human nature.

Unless we allow our human nature to change and deliberately reject the
darker side of our nature we're all subject to the same abhorrent
behaviors. It's normal to see people struggle with good vs. bad
behavior despite the influences of a religion that is supposed to make
them better people. It's difficult to change our nature.

Our nature is primarily of self preservation. This is from evolution. Those without it die off and don't pass on their genes.

They say they're killing unbelievers, so that's what I assume they're
doing.

That is human nature's need to control others.

No, 99% of people have no wish to control anybody else. That's why the world is in such a mess, because the 1% freaks that do like to control, are the ones that become politicians and ruin the place for the rest of us.

We also had idiots that, instead of donating time or money to research
for better methods and drugs to combat AIDS, pranced around saying that
it was "God's payback" for homosexuality and people with AIDS somehow
deserved it so we didn't need to worry about helping them.

Their argument is that AIDS was a result of dangerous and unhealthy
behavior that had a consequence. I can agree with that premise of
actions have consequences, but not the part where people shouldn't help
those who get sick.


No, their argument was that homosexuality was a sin, and people who had
AIDS were thus sinners and somehow deserved what they got.

What they are actually saying is they agree that there are consequences
to dangerous and unhealthy behavior.

Regardless of any religion a person is affiliated with they could not
agree that homosexuality was a sin and contracting AIDS was a result of
sinful behavior IF they did not already have an innate agreement that
consequences weren't deserved according to behavior.

There is no logical reason to think homosexuality should be a sin.

--
Peter is listening to "The Shadows - Sleepwalk"

On 5/13/2016 11:26 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 16:59:11 +0100, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/13/2016 10:51 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 5/13/2016 8:38 AM, Bud Frede wrote:

Because there are plenty of mechanisms that explain "Life, the
Universe, and Everything" without having to resort to the
supernatural.

OK. Can you explain Creation?

Can you?

I lean heavily towards the intelligent design description of Creation -
that it took an intelligent being - God - to initiate the 'beginning'.
The Bible describes it in terms of days, evenings and mornings, and what
order things were created. It doesn't describe how long those days,
evenings or mornings lasted in any time increments that we live by in
modern times, either, so there is nothing in the biblical description of
creation that denotes how long ago creation took place.

Your turn.

This belief has no basis. There is no reason to think the laws of
Physics were created.


It takes more faith to believe the laws of Physics just happened.

--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 11:28 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 17:09:08 +0100, Bud Frede
wrote:

Muggles writes:

On 5/13/2016 8:38 AM, Bud Frede wrote:

You can just shrug your shoulders and blame everything on something as
nebulous as "human nature,"

Human nature is not nebulous.

Point to it. Hold it in your hand.

All very good points, and more than I can be bothered wasting my time
with religious folk. She will keep her head stuck in the sand forever,
because it's easier for her little brain.

Can you explain why our bodies work?

--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 11:28 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 16:53:13 +0100, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/12/2016 5:44 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:


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.


I don't see any evidence of the existence of a "greater power."

Perhaps, you need to think about what it means?


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

It depends upon what you mean by "everything we see around us." If
you're talking about the organisms that live and have lived on the
Earth, their existence doesn't require a "greater power." The universe
itself doesn't require a "greater power." Neither of these require any
sort of "creator" either.

How do you know?

The existence of a deity or deities is highly improbable, and is not
required to explain anything we can observe. When something is this
improbable, it's not worth expending any time and energy on.

At one time it was improbable that we'd be able to fly planes.

Just because ones mindset can't imagine something is probable, doesn't
make them right. It just means they have limited vision as to what is
possible beyind their finite thinking.

If you want to know what I believe - I believe in human beings. We've
had a long, hard climb up, with many setbacks, but I think we will
eventually leave our cradle and spread into the rest of the solar system
and perhaps farther than that.

So, you're a humanist?

I believe in humans, if that's what you mean, I can see two of them
right now.


OK Can you see neurons, virus's, or gases? These days certain
microscopes can see the first 2, but what about gases? It's only in the
last 2 centuries that science even discovered such things with any proof.

--
Maggie

On Fri, 13 May 2016 18:12:10 +0100, Muggles wrote:

On 5/13/2016 11:28 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 17:09:08 +0100, Bud Frede
wrote:

Muggles writes:

On 5/13/2016 8:38 AM, Bud Frede wrote:

You can just shrug your shoulders and blame everything on something as
nebulous as "human nature,"

Human nature is not nebulous.

Point to it. Hold it in your hand.

All very good points, and more than I can be bothered wasting my time
with religious folk. She will keep her head stuck in the sand forever,
because it's easier for her little brain.

Can you explain why our bodies work?

4 million years of trial and error.

--
I want to lie shipwrecked and comatose
Drinking fresh mango juice
With goldfish shoals nibbling round my toes
Fun in the sun

On 5/13/2016 11:34 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 5/13/2016 10:51 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 5/13/2016 8:38 AM, Bud Frede wrote:

Because there are plenty of mechanisms that explain "Life, the
Universe, and Everything" without having to resort to the
supernatural.

OK. Can you explain Creation?

Can you?


I lean heavily towards the intelligent design description of Creation -
that it took an intelligent being - God - to initiate the 'beginning'.
The Bible describes it in terms of days, evenings and mornings, and what
order things were created. It doesn't describe how long those days,
evenings or mornings lasted in any time increments that we live by in
modern times, either, so there is nothing in the biblical description of
creation that denotes how long ago creation took place.

Your turn.


There is no act of creation; a given universe starts as a singularity,
explodes, expands, heat death, contracts back to a singularity and wash, rinse, repeat
ad inifinitum.


OK. What prompts singularity?

--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 11:35 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 5/13/2016 9:35 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 5/12/2016 10:27 AM, Bod wrote:
On 12/05/2016 16:24, Muggles wrote:

So the Bible doesn't know then.

The Bible is text - it doesn't "know" anything. It only contains the
information the writers put there.

So as I originally said, they are just unprovable stories.

Q: Do you think that someone who loves someone else would show the
person they love patience?

Non sequitor.


It's a valid question. If you agree that a loving person shows
patience, then you've contradicted your statement that the Bible text is
just 'unprovable stories'.


I didn't say that, the OP did.

I didn't say you did. You could have still answered the simple
question. Your response was noted as avoidance.

I don't know whether your hypothetical person would show patience or
not, and I don't see how that would make any of the stories in the bible
provable.

The Sermon on the Mount.


--
Maggie

On 13/05/2016 18:04, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 11:52:04 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/05/2016 11:44, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:


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.

I don't see any evidence of the existence of a "greater power."


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

It depends upon what you mean by "everything we see around us." If
you're talking about the organisms that live and have lived on the
Earth, their existence doesn't require a "greater power." The universe
itself doesn't require a "greater power." Neither of these require any
sort of "creator" either.

The existence of a deity or deities is highly improbable, and is not
required to explain anything we can observe. When something is this
improbable, it's not worth expending any time and energy on.

If you want to know what I believe - I believe in human beings. We've
had a long, hard climb up, with many setbacks, but I think we will
eventually leave our cradle and spread into the rest of the solar system
and perhaps farther than that.

BTW, a lot of those setbacks have been caused by religion and religious
people. It's time we outgrew all of that.

Religion is dying out in America: Just 18% of people 60 and younger
attend church and less than 50% believe in God

Read mo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz48RCIF82z


Excellent news.

Yup, people are wising up to reality.

--
Bod

On 13/05/2016 18:12, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 11:28 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 17:09:08 +0100, Bud Frede
wrote:

Muggles writes:

On 5/13/2016 8:38 AM, Bud Frede wrote:

You can just shrug your shoulders and blame everything on something as
nebulous as "human nature,"

Human nature is not nebulous.

Point to it. Hold it in your hand.

All very good points, and more than I can be bothered wasting my time
with religious folk. She will keep her head stuck in the sand forever,
because it's easier for her little brain.

Can you explain why our bodies work?

The answer can be found in evolution. Life started as a simple bacterial
amoebas.

--
Bod

On Fri, 13 May 2016 18:22:14 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 13/05/2016 18:12, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 11:28 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 17:09:08 +0100, Bud Frede
wrote:

Muggles writes:

On 5/13/2016 8:38 AM, Bud Frede wrote:

You can just shrug your shoulders and blame everything on something as
nebulous as "human nature,"

Human nature is not nebulous.

Point to it. Hold it in your hand.

All very good points, and more than I can be bothered wasting my time
with religious folk. She will keep her head stuck in the sand forever,
because it's easier for her little brain.

Can you explain why our bodies work?

The answer can be found in evolution. Life started as a simple bacterial
amoebas.

You mean like Muggles? Her attitude seems to be, "It's so wonderfully amazing I can't understand it, so someone must have made it that way". She's the sort of person magicians love.

--
In the event that all else has failed, and it seems tempting to actually read the instructions, don't panic: Get a bigger hammer!

On 5/13/2016 11:39 AM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 16:37, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 9:55 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 16:45:28 +0100, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/12/2016 2:10 AM, Bod wrote:
On 12/05/2016 05:12, Muggles wrote:

BUT, the text doesn't address either explanation 100%. They are
the 2
possibilities that I've seen discussed that explains people living in
the land of Nod where Cain found a wife.


"Nod"! is that where the character *Noddy* comes from? ;-)


Who knows? Probably!

I thought god knew?


God knows ... but I don't!

And you know this!....how do you know god knows?
Please be specific!


IF I believe that God IS God, then it is logical that I'd believe God
knows. ;-)

--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 11:46 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 5/13/2016 10:51 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 5/13/2016 8:38 AM, Bud Frede wrote:

Because there are plenty of mechanisms that explain "Life, the
Universe, and Everything" without having to resort to the
supernatural.

OK. Can you explain Creation?

Can you?


I lean heavily towards the intelligent design description of Creation -
that it took an intelligent being - God - to initiate the 'beginning'.
The Bible describes it in terms of days, evenings and mornings, and what
order things were created. It doesn't describe how long those days,
evenings or mornings lasted in any time increments that we live by in
modern times, either, so there is nothing in the biblical description of
creation that denotes how long ago creation took place.

Your turn.

So you're taking the bible literally? Or only those parts that you
think support your argument?

The Bible has allegories, parables, & historical stories. Some are
literal, some are figurative, and some are moral teachings. It would be
silly to take everything literally.

You sound like Bill Clinton. "It depends on what the meaning of the word
'is' is."




--
Maggie

On 13/05/2016 18:17, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 11:35 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 5/13/2016 9:35 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 5/12/2016 10:27 AM, Bod wrote:
On 12/05/2016 16:24, Muggles wrote:

So the Bible doesn't know then.

The Bible is text - it doesn't "know" anything. It only contains the
information the writers put there.

So as I originally said, they are just unprovable stories.

Q: Do you think that someone who loves someone else would show the
person they love patience?

Non sequitor.


It's a valid question. If you agree that a loving person shows
patience, then you've contradicted your statement that the Bible text is
just 'unprovable stories'.


I didn't say that, the OP did.

I didn't say you did. You could have still answered the simple
question. Your response was noted as avoidance.

I don't know whether your hypothetical person would show patience or
not, and I don't see how that would make any of the stories in the bible
provable.

The Sermon on the Mount.


Hmm! Here's the Adultery waffle from that sermon:

Adultery
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e]
28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already
committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes
you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to
lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into
hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and
throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than
for your whole body to go into hell.

Sorry, but..... a big LOL.
--
Bod

On 5/13/2016 11:58 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
"Mr Macaw" writes:


All very good points, and more than I can be bothered wasting my time
with religious folk. She will keep her head stuck in the sand
forever, because it's easier for her little brain.

I'm sure that she's actually a very nice lady, if you avoid talking to
her about her beliefs.

I don't think I'm going to spend much more time trying to have a
discussion with her though.


It's been fun. :-)

--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 12:09 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 17:59:39 +0100, Muggles
wrote:

Supernatural only means something beyond what our minds consider to be a
natural occurrence. Why don't you believe that something can be
supernatural?


Because everything we have ever observed can be explained. Supernatural
is for things we don't understand.

Who told you that everything we've ever observed can be explained?

If that is true, explain to me why our bodies function.




So, emotions are a result of learning from cause and effect?

Can you explain why those chemicals and electrical impulses react in the
brain?

Because those with chemicals reacting differently, and don't cause fear
in dangerous situations, die off and don't pass that gene on.

That sounds like a very immature and unscientific explanation, and I'm
being generous.


--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 12:15 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 18:12:10 +0100, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/13/2016 11:28 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 17:09:08 +0100, Bud Frede
wrote:

Muggles writes:

On 5/13/2016 8:38 AM, Bud Frede wrote:

You can just shrug your shoulders and blame everything on
something as
nebulous as "human nature,"

Human nature is not nebulous.

Point to it. Hold it in your hand.

All very good points, and more than I can be bothered wasting my time
with religious folk. She will keep her head stuck in the sand forever,
because it's easier for her little brain.

Can you explain why our bodies work?

4 million years of trial and error.


So, it's a total accident?

--
Maggie

On 13/05/2016 18:36, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 11:39 AM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 16:37, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 9:55 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 16:45:28 +0100, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/12/2016 2:10 AM, Bod wrote:
On 12/05/2016 05:12, Muggles wrote:

BUT, the text doesn't address either explanation 100%. They are
the 2
possibilities that I've seen discussed that explains people living in
the land of Nod where Cain found a wife.


"Nod"! is that where the character *Noddy* comes from? ;-)


Who knows? Probably!

I thought god knew?


God knows ... but I don't!

And you know this!....how do you know god knows?
Please be specific!


IF I believe that God IS God, then it is logical that I'd believe God
knows. ;-)

So nothing specific then. As expected.


--
Bod

On 5/13/2016 12:22 PM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 18:12, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 11:28 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 17:09:08 +0100, Bud Frede
wrote:

Muggles writes:

On 5/13/2016 8:38 AM, Bud Frede wrote:

You can just shrug your shoulders and blame everything on
something as
nebulous as "human nature,"

Human nature is not nebulous.

Point to it. Hold it in your hand.

All very good points, and more than I can be bothered wasting my time
with religious folk. She will keep her head stuck in the sand forever,
because it's easier for her little brain.

Can you explain why our bodies work?


The answer can be found in evolution. Life started as a simple bacterial
amoebas.


Why do amoebas exist? Where did they evolve from?

--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 12:27 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 18:22:14 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 13/05/2016 18:12, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 11:28 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 17:09:08 +0100, Bud Frede
wrote:

Muggles writes:

On 5/13/2016 8:38 AM, Bud Frede wrote:

You can just shrug your shoulders and blame everything on
something as
nebulous as "human nature,"

Human nature is not nebulous.

Point to it. Hold it in your hand.

All very good points, and more than I can be bothered wasting my time
with religious folk. She will keep her head stuck in the sand forever,
because it's easier for her little brain.

Can you explain why our bodies work?

The answer can be found in evolution. Life started as a simple bacterial
amoebas.

You mean like Muggles? Her attitude seems to be, "It's so wonderfully
amazing I can't understand it, so someone must have made it that way".
She's the sort of person magicians love.


Can you explain to me why our bodies work, or where amoebas evolved from?

--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 12:31 PM, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 5/13/2016 11:09 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:


Chemical and electrical impulses in the brain.

If you want to explore why they exist, look to our early evolution as
organisms.

Take fear. It would have been very useful to any creature that can
actually react to a threat. Kick a dog a few times and it will be afraid
of you. The dog can't think, but it can certainly feel fear.

Now that we can think, we can fear things that are far less concrete
than an impending kick in the rear. We can fear concepts or even nothing
at all.

So, emotions are a result of learning from cause and effect?

Can you explain why those chemicals and electrical impulses react in the
brain?


sigh You're a Tar-baby, and I'm not going to play Br'er Rabbit anymore.



So, you can't explain WHY those chemical work?? You simply accept that
they work? That's faith.

--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 12:35 PM, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 5/13/2016 11:23 AM, Bud Frede wrote:

I'd suggest you start with "The Selfish Gene." It's quite fascinating.

However, you really don't sound like you want to learn anything that
isn't in your bible, so I doubt you'll take my suggestion.


Passive aggressive challenges really don't inspire me to act upon them.

Tar-Baby


Ad homs only show you've lost your argument.

--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 12:39 PM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 18:17, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 11:35 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 5/13/2016 9:35 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 5/12/2016 10:27 AM, Bod wrote:
On 12/05/2016 16:24, Muggles wrote:

So the Bible doesn't know then.

The Bible is text - it doesn't "know" anything. It only
contains the
information the writers put there.

So as I originally said, they are just unprovable stories.

Q: Do you think that someone who loves someone else would show the
person they love patience?

Non sequitor.


It's a valid question. If you agree that a loving person shows
patience, then you've contradicted your statement that the Bible
text is
just 'unprovable stories'.


I didn't say that, the OP did.

I didn't say you did. You could have still answered the simple
question. Your response was noted as avoidance.

I don't know whether your hypothetical person would show patience or
not, and I don't see how that would make any of the stories in the bible
provable.

The Sermon on the Mount.


Hmm! Here's the Adultery waffle from that sermon:

Adultery
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e]
28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already
committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes
you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to
lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into
hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and
throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than
for your whole body to go into hell.

Sorry, but..... a big LOL.

You do realize that the text is a moral teaching - not literal, right?

--
Maggie

On 13/05/2016 18:45, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 12:15 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 18:12:10 +0100, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/13/2016 11:28 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 17:09:08 +0100, Bud Frede
wrote:

Muggles writes:

On 5/13/2016 8:38 AM, Bud Frede wrote:

You can just shrug your shoulders and blame everything on
something as
nebulous as "human nature,"

Human nature is not nebulous.

Point to it. Hold it in your hand.

All very good points, and more than I can be bothered wasting my time
with religious folk. She will keep her head stuck in the sand forever,
because it's easier for her little brain.

Can you explain why our bodies work?

4 million years of trial and error.


So, it's a total accident?

No, it is *billions* of years of evolution.

--
Bod

On 5/13/2016 12:39 PM, Bud Frede wrote:
"Mr Macaw" writes:


You mean like Muggles? Her attitude seems to be, "It's so wonderfully
amazing I can't understand it, so someone must have made it that way".
She's the sort of person magicians love.

I found this definition for Muggle:

"A person who is not conversant with a particular activity or skill."

It's either that or she's into pot.


Thou shall not commit logical fallacies if you intend on winning your
argument.

--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 12:41 PM, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 5/13/2016 11:28 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:


OK Can you see neurons, virus's, or gases? These days certain
microscopes can see the first 2, but what about gases? It's only in the
last 2 centuries that science even discovered such things with any proof.

It's always time for a Monty Python quote.

Gases?

I fart in your general direction.

(Well, you did hoist yourself on your own petard a few times today, so
gas in on-topic.)


{{groan}}

--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 12:56 PM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 18:45, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 12:15 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 18:12:10 +0100, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/13/2016 11:28 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 17:09:08 +0100, Bud Frede
wrote:

Muggles writes:

On 5/13/2016 8:38 AM, Bud Frede wrote:

You can just shrug your shoulders and blame everything on
something as
nebulous as "human nature,"

Human nature is not nebulous.

Point to it. Hold it in your hand.

All very good points, and more than I can be bothered wasting my time
with religious folk. She will keep her head stuck in the sand
forever,
because it's easier for her little brain.

Can you explain why our bodies work?

4 million years of trial and error.


So, it's a total accident?

No, it is *billions* of years of evolution.


Who taught you that?

--
Maggie