On 5/13/2016 3:07 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 18:09:47 +0100, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/13/2016 11:23 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
I was referring to my observations about the way people lived, the
things they thought about, etc. Their belief in the supernatural didn't
really interest me.

For not being interested, you're having a pretty good discussion about a
topic you're not interested in! ;-)


What we're all interested in is how in the 21st century people can still
be as stupid and gullible as you.

IMO, stupidity involves just believing what other people tell you to
believe.


Much of my enjoyment of life comes from my continued education. I love
learning new things. I'm sorry that you don't share that.

hmmm What makes you think I don't share that?

You keep retreating to your bible and you refused my reference to
authors whose work might teach you something.

Retreating to the bible?? Not really. I've using it as a reference for
any explanations or answers to questions about God.


Thanks for admitting your argument has no substance. Everything you're
saying is based on one book? Oh dear.

Well, it's a book that's been accepted for quite a long time by millions
of people, so I'd say it's a good choice if I'm going to reference any
book at all.

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.


He asked you to read a different book. Is that too difficult for you?

He passive aggressively tried to goad me into doing something because he
thought it would sway me to agree with him, and implied if I didn't do
it that I was in some way stupid or lazy or unwilling to learn.



--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 3:08 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 18:51:01 +0100, Muggles
wrote:

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.

Or he's fed up of talking to a brick wall.

If someone isn't happy with something, why continue to do it?

He chose to respond with one logical fallacy instead of not responding
at all.

--
Maggie

On Fri, 13 May 2016 21:16:45 +0100, Muggles wrote:

On 5/13/2016 3:08 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 18:51:01 +0100, Muggles
wrote:

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.

Or he's fed up of talking to a brick wall.

If someone isn't happy with something, why continue to do it?

He chose to respond with one logical fallacy instead of not responding
at all.

He incorrectly thought it was possible to teach you something.

--
Intercourse prevents divorce.

On Sun, 08 May 2016 09:33:59 +0100, JXTcsš›†� ï¼*ｉｇｈｔｙ •¬ ï¼·ï½�ｎｎï½�ｂｅ †’š›IVjBI wrote:

My 2 Cents wrote on 5/7/2016 7:48 PM:
On 5/7/2016 8:08 PM, ZUMzXš›†� ï¼*ｉｇｈｔｙ •¬ ï¼·ï½�ｎｎï½�ｂｅ †’š›ejqpQ wrote:
My 2 Cents wrote on 5/7/2016 5:38 PM:
On 5/7/2016 6:25 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

After my great grandmother died, we found a ball of string labeled,
"string to short to do anything with". I suppose I inherited some of
those genes.
Here's another thing I don't have... but if I see one at the Dollar
Tree I'll have to have it.
https://www.dollartree.com/Emergency...0905/index.pro


Just to take apart and see what's inside.


That is essentially a battery holder. Four rechargeable AA batteries
will give you close to 5V to charge your devices through the built-in
USB socket.

only two AA batteries... so it must boost the voltage up?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mraqng4303Y

Yes, the room near the USB port must be housing the DC-DC converter to
boost the voltage to 5V.

A normal lithium ion battery is 3.7V and requires a 5V USB voltage for
the charging circuit.

My idea of using 4 rechargeable batteries (4.8V) without using a DC-DC
converter is simple and efficient, except if you put 4 alkaline
batteries it becomes 6V (20% over voltage and no limit on output
current) which may damage some sensitive USB devices connected to it.

So you don't use alkalines, simple.

--
Fellows, it's often easier to just give in to your wife. I mean, what's your word against thousands of hers?

On Fri, 13 May 2016 21:41:31 +0100, Winston_Smith wrote:

On Sat, 07 May 2016 21:48:07 -0500, My 2 Cents wrote:
On 5/7/2016 8:08 PM, ZUMzX wrote:

That is essentially a battery holder. Four rechargeable AA batteries
will give you close to 5V to charge your devices through the built-in
USB socket.

only two AA batteries... so it must boost the voltage up?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mraqng4303Y

But holds half the total energy of a model with four cells. You will
get half the charges. Fine if you can recharge regularly. If you are
away from home or a heavy user, one might consider the 4 cell
versions. Twice as big, twice as heavy. Pick your poison.

4AAAs?


--
A Smith and Wesson beats four Aces.

On Fri, 13 May 2016 16:09:47 +0100, Stormin Mormon wrote:

On 5/7/2016 10:48 PM, My 2 Cents wrote:
That is essentially a battery holder. Four rechargeable AA batteries
will give you close to 5V to charge your devices through the built-in
USB socket.

only two AA batteries... so it must boost the voltage up?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mraqng4303Y


That would be my guess. My LG flip phone (with
USB Micro socket) charges okay with the DT
charger, and a cable which I purchased at DT.

Why not just take a fully charged spare phone battery?!?
You're deliberately taking the wrong kind of batteries, then transferring the charge, how ridiculous.

--
A Smith and Wesson beats four Aces.

On Fri, 13 May 2016 15:47:06 +0100, Muggles wrote:

On 5/13/2016 6:22 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 5/13/2016 12:32 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:35:59 -0400, Stormin Mormon
Not saying most Mormons are not "good people" - a lot would make "good
christians" if they got their theology sorted out.


And, we believe much the same, but back at you. After
the death of Christ, there wasn't a proper succession
plan. The church fell into apostacy. It was only with
the restoration that the true church of Christ was
back on Earth. The Bible only churches may be sincere,
but without authority. Those who don't have continuing
revelation and don't have the Spirit wander in darkness.
How are vyou different, in that respect, from the nEW aPOSTOLIC
cHURCH?

Which of you has the "real" continuing
revelation/proper succession?


And, that question has been asked for centuries. The
Catholics insist thier Pope is the true successor,
the Vicar of Christ. The Protestants insist that
Rome has lost its way. The more recent Mormons gently
declare to the world that all the other churches have
lost their way. And the Jehovas Witness church also
clearly teaches that they are the ones with the truth.

============================
https://www.lds.org/topics/joseph-smith?lang=eng
As a young boy in 1820, Joseph Smith wanted to know
which church was true. As he searched the Bible for
help, he read that he should ask of God. Acting on
this counsel, Joseph went into the woods near his
home and prayed. Suddenly, a light shone above him
and Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him.
When Joseph asked which church he should join, the
Savior told him to join none of the churches then
in existence because they were teaching incorrect
doctrines. Through this experience and many others
that followed, the Lord chose Joseph to be His
prophet and to restore the gospel of Jesus Christ
and His Church to the earth.
=============================



The Church, which is the body of Christ, doesn't need a Pope or a Joseph
Smith because Jesus himself told us that he left a comforter, the Holy
Spirit, to teach us all things, and to lead us in the path we're
supposed to go.

That's what the bible says.

Every religion disagrees with each other. The only sensible conclusion? They're ALL wrong.

--
The state of Texas has executed yet another inmate. But Unforeseen legal issues have arisen. The state has killed so many people this year, it must now register as a tobacco company.

On Fri, 13 May 2016 21:14:58 +0100, Muggles wrote:

On 5/13/2016 3:07 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 18:09:47 +0100, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/13/2016 11:23 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
I was referring to my observations about the way people lived, the
things they thought about, etc. Their belief in the supernatural didn't
really interest me.

For not being interested, you're having a pretty good discussion about a
topic you're not interested in! ;-)


What we're all interested in is how in the 21st century people can still
be as stupid and gullible as you.

IMO, stupidity involves just believing what other people tell you to
believe.

Which is precisely what religious folk do, they believe the bible and their parents' religious beliefs.

Much of my enjoyment of life comes from my continued education. I love
learning new things. I'm sorry that you don't share that.

hmmm What makes you think I don't share that?

You keep retreating to your bible and you refused my reference to
authors whose work might teach you something.

Retreating to the bible?? Not really. I've using it as a reference for
any explanations or answers to questions about God.


Thanks for admitting your argument has no substance. Everything you're
saying is based on one book? Oh dear.

Well, it's a book that's been accepted for quite a long time by millions
of people, so I'd say it's a good choice if I'm going to reference any
book at all.

Millions of gullible folk copying everyone else. The bible wouldn't stand up in court, it has no actual evidence.

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.


He asked you to read a different book. Is that too difficult for you?

He passive aggressively

What a stupid expression. Is he passive or aggressive?

tried to goad me into doing something because he
thought it would sway me to agree with him, and implied if I didn't do
it that I was in some way stupid or lazy or unwilling to learn.

Your'e reading too much into it.

--
Tip: Don't substitute salt for sugar in recipes.
It tastes like ****.

On 5/13/2016 4:36 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 15:47:06 +0100, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/13/2016 6:22 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 5/13/2016 12:32 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:35:59 -0400, Stormin Mormon
Not saying most Mormons are not "good people" - a lot would make
"good
christians" if they got their theology sorted out.


And, we believe much the same, but back at you. After
the death of Christ, there wasn't a proper succession
plan. The church fell into apostacy. It was only with
the restoration that the true church of Christ was
back on Earth. The Bible only churches may be sincere,
but without authority. Those who don't have continuing
revelation and don't have the Spirit wander in darkness.
How are vyou different, in that respect, from the nEW aPOSTOLIC
cHURCH?

Which of you has the "real" continuing
revelation/proper succession?


And, that question has been asked for centuries. The
Catholics insist thier Pope is the true successor,
the Vicar of Christ. The Protestants insist that
Rome has lost its way. The more recent Mormons gently
declare to the world that all the other churches have
lost their way. And the Jehovas Witness church also
clearly teaches that they are the ones with the truth.

============================
https://www.lds.org/topics/joseph-smith?lang=eng
As a young boy in 1820, Joseph Smith wanted to know
which church was true. As he searched the Bible for
help, he read that he should ask of God. Acting on
this counsel, Joseph went into the woods near his
home and prayed. Suddenly, a light shone above him
and Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him.
When Joseph asked which church he should join, the
Savior told him to join none of the churches then
in existence because they were teaching incorrect
doctrines. Through this experience and many others
that followed, the Lord chose Joseph to be His
prophet and to restore the gospel of Jesus Christ
and His Church to the earth.
=============================



The Church, which is the body of Christ, doesn't need a Pope or a Joseph
Smith because Jesus himself told us that he left a comforter, the Holy
Spirit, to teach us all things, and to lead us in the path we're
supposed to go.

That's what the bible says.

Every religion disagrees with each other. The only sensible
conclusion? They're ALL wrong.


Scientists disagree on many things. By your reasoning they're all wrong.

--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 3:47 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 21:16:45 +0100, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/13/2016 3:08 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 18:51:01 +0100, Muggles
wrote:

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.

Or he's fed up of talking to a brick wall.

If someone isn't happy with something, why continue to do it?

He chose to respond with one logical fallacy instead of not responding
at all.

He incorrectly thought it was possible to teach you something.


So, you believe he's a teacher who's qualified to instruct people on
this newsgroup on how they should believe?

--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 4:38 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 21:14:58 +0100, Muggles
wrote:

What we're all interested in is how in the 21st century people can still
be as stupid and gullible as you.

IMO, stupidity involves just believing what other people tell you to
believe.


Which is precisely what religious folk do, they believe the bible and
their parents' religious beliefs.

How do you explain full grown adults who can choose freely what they
believe and still choose to believe God exists?


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


He asked you to read a different book. Is that too difficult for you?

He passive aggressively


What a stupid expression. Is he passive or aggressive?

Look up "passive aggressive".



--
Maggie

On Fri, 13 May 2016 23:13:36 +0100, Muggles wrote:

On 5/13/2016 4:38 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 21:14:58 +0100, Muggles
wrote:

What we're all interested in is how in the 21st century people can still
be as stupid and gullible as you.

IMO, stupidity involves just believing what other people tell you to
believe.

Which is precisely what religious folk do, they believe the bible and
their parents' religious beliefs.

How do you explain full grown adults who can choose freely what they
believe and still choose to believe God exists?

They never grew up and learnt how to think for themselves. My father and his sister both grew up in a religious family, yet they both realised it was utterly ridiculous. My teachers at primary school were very religious, but I realised what they were spouting was illogical, and what my parents said was believable.

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

He asked you to read a different book. Is that too difficult for you?

He passive aggressively

What a stupid expression. Is he passive or aggressive?

Look up "passive aggressive".

I did, and it's a stupid expression. Are you one of those trick cyclists?

--
Billy bashed bandy Brian's ******** because bandy Brian broke Billy's big brown blowup boy before breakfast began.
Bigtits Beryl bit Barry's boner because Barry banged black Barbara's bare bruised bottom beside Brighton beach's battered blue bandstand.

On Fri, 13 May 2016 12:12:10 -0500, 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?
totally useless for any reasonable person to attempt any meaningful
dialog with macaw. Don't cofuse him with facts - his mind, such as it
is, is already made up.

On Fri, 13 May 2016 13:31:22 -0400, 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.

Typical Atheist response. Out of your depth so take your leaky inner
tube and go home.

On Fri, 13 May 2016 13:39:44 -0400, 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.
Not nearly as gullible as a quasi-scientific illiterate who cannot
argue their point because they have no idea what their point is, other
than they are smarter than anyone who has thought out their beliefs
to the point of knowing what they believe..

They jusy believe what someone they think is smart says is true.

On Fri, 13 May 2016 13:41:40 -0400, 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.)
I have not seen youi explain anything you believe yet. Oh - that's
right - you don't "believe" anything. You KNOW - but you don't have
any idea what you do know. - amd more telling - you have no idea what
you DON"T know.

On Fri, 13 May 2016 12:44:38 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

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.
Whar Macaw and Bod don't know, and think they do, would fill a lot of
books - just like the Gurus of "FREE THOUGHT" who they think have all
the answers to the questions of the universe. Books like "The Selfish
Gene"
The same "great thinkers" who's theories are falling out of favour
with REAL science faster than oak leaves in a November storm.

On Fri, 13 May 2016 12:45:02 -0500, 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?
There is some evidence it may have been an accident. 3 examples so
far include Macaw, Bud, and Bod. By some accident of fate all 3 got
onto the same newsgroup(s) and ran into someone they dissagreed with
enough to waste almost a week.

On Fri, 13 May 2016 13:13:54 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/13/2016 1:05 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 19:01:36 +0100, Muggles
wrote:

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?


Ah, I've found your problem. You were taught religion so it's true.

Wrong. I wasn't taught religion at all. I studied the Bible, though,
and during the process challenged many people who thought they were
teachers of the Bible, and made many of them angry because I didn't just
accept what they were telling me to believe.

The rest of us decide what is true based on evidence and facts.

Who qualifies as "the rest of us"??

Go
speak to a ****ing archaeologist because I don't have time to talk to
ignorant fools like you.


Anger is an indication of an inability to deal with frustration on the
topic at hand.

Take heart Muggles.
Talk to some REAL archeologists - a very large number seriously
question the evolutionary theory, as do many other scientists - both
theoretical and physical.

Most, like you and I, would consider Macaw to be well out of his
depth and almost totally ignorant of the "science" he claims to
believe.

On Fri, 13 May 2016 13:14:46 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/13/2016 1:06 PM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 18:46, Muggles wrote:
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?


You will find the answer in science. It's basically to do with elements
and chemicals reacting and creating new elements etc.
Similar to how Oxygen was created.

How Earth Got its Oxygen

http://www.livescience.com/5515-earth-oxygen.html

Why does it work?? Is it just an accident?


First of all, a very large percentage of "Christians" believe in
intelligent design, but not a litteral 144 hour creation. I am one of
them.
Look at Genesis 1, Vs 2.

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of
the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Notice - the eath WAS.

Then notice the progression
night and day
Earth and atmosphere.
Land and sea.
Vegatation
The entire solar system
Sea creature
Land creatures
Man

A sequence that HAD to happen in that precice order - and supported
even by the more progressive evolutionary minds.

Just happened????
Very doubtfull....

What exactly the "void and without form" consisted of nobody knows
for certain. No scientist of any standing even pretends to know.
No thinking christian will agree with a 144 hour creation 6000 years
ago.

Like with Atheists, there ARE a fair number of "non-thinking"
Christians. Neither Christianity nor Atheism has a lock on low
intelligence., and the HOW or WHEN of the "genesis" of life on earth
is NOT the central point of Christianity.
It is the WHO WHAT and WHY, not the WHEN or HOW

WHO did WHAT and WHY

5:6-11 Christ died for sinners; not only such as were useless, but
such as were guilty and hateful; such that their everlasting
destruction would be to the glory of God's justice. Christ died to
save us, not in our sins, but from our sins; and we were yet sinners
when he died for us. Nay, the carnal mind is not only an enemy to God,
but enmity itself, chap. 8:7; Col 1:21. But God designed to deliver
from sin, and to work a great change. While the sinful state
continues, God loathes the sinner, and the sinner loathes God, Zec
11:8. And that for such as these Christ should die, is a mystery; no
other such an instance of love is known, so that it may well be the
employment of eternity to adore and wonder at it. Again; what idea had
the apostle when he supposed the case of some one dying for a
righteous man? And yet he only put it as a thing that might be. Was it
not the undergoing this suffering, that the person intended to be
benefitted might be released therefrom? But from what are believers in
Christ released by his death? Not from bodily death; for that they all
do and must endure. The evil, from which the deliverance could be
effected only in this astonishing manner, must be more dreadful than
natural death. There is no evil, to which the argument can be applied,
except that which the apostle actually affirms, sin, and wrath, the
punishment of sin, determined by the unerring justice of God. And if,
by Divine grace, they were thus brought to repent, and to believe in
Christ, and thus were justified by the price of his bloodshedding, and
by faith in that atonement, much more through Him who died for them
and rose again, would they be kept from falling under the power of sin
and Satan, or departing finally from him. The living Lord of all, will
complete the purpose of his dying love, by saving all true believers
to the uttermost. Having such a pledge of salvation in the love of God
through Christ, the apostle declared that believers not only rejoiced
in the hope of heaven, and even in their tribulations for Christ's
sake, but they gloried in God also, as their unchangeable Friend and
all-sufficient Portion, through Christ only.
(Matthew Henry Commentary)


THAT is the central core belief of Christianity.

On 5/13/2016 7:20 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 12:45:02 -0500, 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?

There is some evidence it may have been an accident. 3 examples so
far include Macaw, Bud, and Bod. By some accident of fate all 3 got
onto the same newsgroup(s) and ran into someone they dissagreed with
enough to waste almost a week.


Well, it's been a fun discussion for me so far, anyway.

--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 9:04 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 13:13:54 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/13/2016 1:05 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 19:01:36 +0100, Muggles
wrote:

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?


Ah, I've found your problem. You were taught religion so it's true.

Wrong. I wasn't taught religion at all. I studied the Bible, though,
and during the process challenged many people who thought they were
teachers of the Bible, and made many of them angry because I didn't just
accept what they were telling me to believe.

The rest of us decide what is true based on evidence and facts.

Who qualifies as "the rest of us"??

Go
speak to a ****ing archaeologist because I don't have time to talk to
ignorant fools like you.


Anger is an indication of an inability to deal with frustration on the
topic at hand.


Take heart Muggles.
Talk to some REAL archeologists - a very large number seriously
question the evolutionary theory, as do many other scientists - both
theoretical and physical.

Most, like you and I, would consider Macaw to be well out of his
depth and almost totally ignorant of the "science" he claims to

I've always enjoyed this particular topic, and more often than not those
who oppose my position generally end up either cursing or name calling.
I don't see the point in doing that.

As far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter to me if anyone likes the
position I take or not, and I'm not bothered by someone else's opposing
arguments. I enjoy the opportunity to think about the subject and
discuss it because I don't mind being challenged. If I really believe
something, then I should be prepared to face any challenge to that belief.


--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 9:28 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 13:14:46 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/13/2016 1:06 PM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 18:46, Muggles wrote:
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?


You will find the answer in science. It's basically to do with elements
and chemicals reacting and creating new elements etc.
Similar to how Oxygen was created.

How Earth Got its Oxygen

http://www.livescience.com/5515-earth-oxygen.html

Why does it work?? Is it just an accident?


First of all, a very large percentage of "Christians" believe in
intelligent design, but not a litteral 144 hour creation. I am one of
them.
Look at Genesis 1, Vs 2.

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of
the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Notice - the eath WAS.

Then notice the progression
night and day
Earth and atmosphere.
Land and sea.
Vegatation
The entire solar system
Sea creature
Land creatures
Man

A sequence that HAD to happen in that precice order - and supported
even by the more progressive evolutionary minds.

Just happened????
Very doubtfull....

What exactly the "void and without form" consisted of nobody knows
for certain. No scientist of any standing even pretends to know.
No thinking christian will agree with a 144 hour creation 6000 years
ago.

Like with Atheists, there ARE a fair number of "non-thinking"
Christians. Neither Christianity nor Atheism has a lock on low
intelligence., and the HOW or WHEN of the "genesis" of life on earth
is NOT the central point of Christianity.
It is the WHO WHAT and WHY, not the WHEN or HOW

WHO did WHAT and WHY

5:6-11 Christ died for sinners; not only such as were useless, but
such as were guilty and hateful; such that their everlasting
destruction would be to the glory of God's justice. Christ died to
save us, not in our sins, but from our sins; and we were yet sinners
when he died for us. Nay, the carnal mind is not only an enemy to God,
but enmity itself, chap. 8:7; Col 1:21. But God designed to deliver
from sin, and to work a great change. While the sinful state
continues, God loathes the sinner, and the sinner loathes God, Zec
11:8. And that for such as these Christ should die, is a mystery; no
other such an instance of love is known, so that it may well be the
employment of eternity to adore and wonder at it. Again; what idea had
the apostle when he supposed the case of some one dying for a
righteous man? And yet he only put it as a thing that might be. Was it
not the undergoing this suffering, that the person intended to be
benefitted might be released therefrom? But from what are believers in
Christ released by his death? Not from bodily death; for that they all
do and must endure. The evil, from which the deliverance could be
effected only in this astonishing manner, must be more dreadful than
natural death. There is no evil, to which the argument can be applied,
except that which the apostle actually affirms, sin, and wrath, the
punishment of sin, determined by the unerring justice of God. And if,
by Divine grace, they were thus brought to repent, and to believe in
Christ, and thus were justified by the price of his bloodshedding, and
by faith in that atonement, much more through Him who died for them
and rose again, would they be kept from falling under the power of sin
and Satan, or departing finally from him. The living Lord of all, will
complete the purpose of his dying love, by saving all true believers
to the uttermost. Having such a pledge of salvation in the love of God
through Christ, the apostle declared that believers not only rejoiced
in the hope of heaven, and even in their tribulations for Christ's
sake, but they gloried in God also, as their unchangeable Friend and
all-sufficient Portion, through Christ only.
(Matthew Henry Commentary)


THAT is the central core belief of Christianity.


smile


--
Maggie

On 13/05/2016 20:09, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:48 PM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 19:20, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:13 PM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 18:54, Muggles wrote:
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?


Ok, explain what all that means!


Adultery begins in the heart of a person. It's better to reject it with
extreme prejudice than to allow adultery to live out in someone's life
and end up having to suffer the consequences.

It's the brain that controls lust/attraction/libido/love and all of the
other senses. The heart is just to pump the blood to the body and the
brain. The body is just a very clever machine that has evolved from
lesser forms. Archeologists can show you the development of how the
human body and brain has evolved from primitive forms over millions of
years. The first humans had totally different shaped heads and much
hairier bodys and more muscley etc.


There is no proof that humans descended from anything but other humans,
so what you're saying is you believe what other people have taught and
told you to believe. How is that not faith?

How Do We Know Humans Are Primates?

"Besides similar anatomy and behavior, there is DNA evidence. It
confirms that humans are primates and that modern humans and chimpanzees
diverged from a common ancestor between 8 and 6 million years ago. There
is only about a 1.2 percent genetic difference between modern humans and
chimpanzees throughout much of their genetic code".

http://humanorigins.si.edu/education...s-are-primates

--
Bod

On Thu, 12 May 2016 10:44:23 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/12/2016 1:30 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 23:57:14 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/11/2016 11:47 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 18:14:26 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

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.

Oh of course it is. Which is why we have an entire nation of deaf
people who were born before 1980.

Right?

Gunner

You don't believe second hand smoke is dangerous, or causes health problems?

I believe that second hand smoke CAN cause breathing issues in some
people, particularly those who are asthmatic or have lung degeneration
issues..and are subjected to living in a semi-truck cab structure for
12 hrs a day for months on end. Other than that..and similar odd and
really wierd circumstances...no.

I should mention that Im a pack a day smoker, have been for over 40
yrs, my wife is a half pack a day smoker, we are surrounded by over 20
dogs and a half dozen cats (we do animal rescue) and most of my
friends are smokers..though not all. All the studies so far to date,
show that about 25% of smokers will have some health problems as a
result, meaning 75% of smokers will not. And for those who get the
occasional wiff of a cigarette....and bitch and moan...tough.

My parents were chain smokers, which meant our house was a cloud of
secondhand smoke all the time. I lived there for nearly 2 decades, so I
had to breathe the smoke every day. The smoke was in everything - the
drapes, our clothes, the carpet, my toys, the furniture, etc. When I
left the house my friends thought I was a smoker, which, horrified me.
They said I smelled like smoke all the time.

So they were "chain smokers". Please define that. 3 packs a day each?
Id say that put you in the semi-truck catagory.

I was sick often, and if I got in a car with my parents smoking I'd get
physically sick to my stomach. I was told there was something wrong with
me because I couldn't travel without getting sick. I had bronchitis on a
regular basis, ear infections so severe that my ears would swell shut,
which caused me to have hearing loss.

Oddly enough..my grand children have the same issues.

However...neither of their parents smoke.

Funny how that works eh? Oh..they live 900 miles away. So my second
hand smoke is probably not the cause.

Back then, it was cool to smoke, and no one would acknowledge that
secondhand smoke could be harmful to anyone, let alone harm kids who
lived in that environment.


I should mention that many...ladies in particular..over use toxic
perfumes and other similar products..and I dont see much bitching and
moaning about those, not to mention toxic cleaning supplies, motor
vehicle exhausts and nasty body oders that are the result of
uncleanliness.

I can't visit some stores because of the VOCs in the air from the items
they stock. I'm now super sensitive to many pollutants in the air, too.
They all turn my stomach, give me headaches, and trigger lungs
problems. I'm not the only adult who suffers from being exposed to
secondhand smoke as a child.

So it was the result of second hand smoke as a child? Or was it the
result of being a sickly child and having little resistance to
chemicals...hand and hand with your sickly childhood. IE..you were not
blessed with the resistance to various chemicals that most other
people are born with. Shrug...ADHD is now a major health epidemic as
well. Thats hardly a second hand smoke issue either. What is it...1
in 104 kids is born with ADHD? Seems they have it far worse than
those with smoking related "allergies" despite having parents who
didnt smoke.

I mentioned the dogs and cats..as I find more people to be allergic to
pet dander and fur fuzz than are allergic to cigarette smoke...this of
course does not include those "420 friendly" pot heads who gasp in
outrage while Im smokeing a Pall Mall Light 100 in the same room,
while they have just filled their lungs and brain cells with THC,
along with covering themselves with a nasty stench.

Irrelevant, or should I say you're just trying to muddy the water with
other issues to avoid the real issue that smoking hurts other people.
It's like a person who may be a carrier of some contagious disease, but
never suffers from it himself. He can give it to other people, though,
and they are his collateral damage.

So I suck up cubic feet of toxic chemicals right from the source...yet
Im not sick, while you...are? Seems to me that there are other
issues there...like your very..very..very poor resistance to chemicals
of all sort..which you admit to, up above. Blaming it on second hand
smoke...is denial at its worst.

You being a smoker have every right to do that to your own body, but at
the same time your right to smoke ends where you pollute the air someone
else has to breathe. In addition to the secondhand smoke stinking, your
clothes more than likely stink everywhere you go, and when you pass by
others they can smell your stench at you pass by. To be real you can
literally make people sick by your presence.

Oddly enough..other people make me sick with their stench. Unwashed
bodies, cheap perfumes, far far too many drugs and foods that seep
through their skins. Most crowds remind me of a womans locker
room....make me want to barf. Beer breaths, wiskey breaths, pot
breaths, garlic breaths....GACK!!! Everywhere there is a stench,
on their skins, on their clothes...IN their clothes. Im sure I reek
as well. Yet I dont hear you ****ing and moaning about all those other
stench bags. Why is that? Because you cannot smell yourself? Thats
hardly news. Most people cannot. Which is why I shower daily, only
wear my clothes a day at a time, and change into freshly laundered
clothing if Im meeting someone, smoker or non smoker. I do it as a
service to my fellow man. Which is more than I can say for over half
the people I have to deal with each day.

I'm not being cruel by saying so, I'm telling you the truth, and if you
don't care that you make people sick just by passing by others, that's
your own character flaw you have to live with.

Frankly..no..I really DONT care if I make a tiny minority of people
sick by passing by. With luck..they are Democrats and are getting
what they deserve..a hint of the smell of smoke and brimstone that
they are going to be living in, in the near future. Now do you ask
your fellow non smokers if they care about making ME sick when they
pass by? Of course you dont. You are simply a bigot of the worst sort.
A self rightious one. Brrrr...worst kind. No honesty either.

Oh..I should mention I dont drink booze either, with the single
exception of a cordial of Khalua about 6 times a year. Generally when
friends come over and we have just finished a nice big steak dinner
with all the fixings. I do however keep a liquor cabinet for my
friends. I just choose not to drink or do drugs. Nicotine and caffeine
are my drugs of choice.

So, you're an addict, then ...

Of course I am. As are you to YOUR addictions. We ALL are addicted to
one or more substances, in greater or lesser degrees. Im also addicted
to chocolate, Monsters and Mt. Dew. Along with puppies, pretty women,
beautiful sunsets, quality firearms, nifty gadgets and cowboy
boots..just to name a few of my addictions.

Are you trying to tell me you are addicted to ..nothing...?

Really?

Was there any other questions?

Why don't you care that you make other people sick?

Because they are not MY problem. They are their own problem. They can
deal with it, or not..their choice. As your issues are your!
problems..hardly mine. If you found out I make you sick...feel free to
be somewhere else than in my presence. As I would..if I found out YOU
made me sick. Simple..no?

Gunner

On Thu, 12 May 2016 10:25:35 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/12/2016 12:43 AM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 20:24, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 2:16 PM, Bod wrote:

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?

No. and to be pedantic, the Earth is not round, it's an oblate spheroid.

Ok. How do you know the Universe is round? Who told you that?


Did he say the Universe was "round"? No..he certainly didnt.

Say...you really are allergic to something close by you.

Gunner

On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:14:58 +0100, Bod wrote:


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)

I expected a factual explanation, rather than interpreted waffle.

Expect in one hand...expectorate in the other and tell us the
qualitative results.

Gunner

On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:17:26 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/05/2016 00:16, Gunner Asch wrote:
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?

What was hateful about what I said?

Was it "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"

So did many Germans, prior to 1936.

Gunner

On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:19:10 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/05/2016 00:20, Gunner Asch wrote:
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

Hmm!....and *I* get accused of being hateful :-)

You ARE hateful. While Im not a gentleman..I am however..accurate.

Accuracy is never hateful..its simply...accurate.

Gunner

On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:24:49 +0100, Bod wrote:


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

No, I offer my opinion. Religious people tend to get shirty when
challenged. You are no different.
I'm not attacking anyone.

Your "opinion"? You preach and spew like a medicine wagon preacher.
And you attack the very concept of religion and ALL who follow one.

You are a blind bigot of the worst sort. The Self Rightious and self
delusional sort.

On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:26:52 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/05/2016 00:37, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:55:02 +0100, Bod wrote:



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.


Then Buddhism/Toaism,Shintoism and many others such as Hinduism are
not religions? They have no leaders. Just teachers

Buddhism

noun
a widespread Asian religion or philosophy, founded by Siddartha Gautama
in NE India in the 5th century BC.

Correct. And?

Gunner

On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:34:23 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/05/2016 00:41, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 18:36:30 +0100, Bod wrote:


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

So you're frightened of discussing religion?

No..should I be? This however is alt.survival, not exactly a hotbed
of religious zeal. Stormy is probably one of the more vocally
religious here. In fact..I know only of 2 others who have strong
beliefs..one being Greek Orthodox and the other IRRC ...a Babtist of
some sort. None of who bothers to mistreat anyone else here. It takes
outsiders like you to do that. Which means of course you are
A..young, B. self centered, C. A yutz, and D. Ignorant as hell of the
world around him.

Gunner

So you've accused me of 1. "being hateful" and 2. I "mistreat people".
3. "self centred" 4. "a yutz" 5. "young"

You left out that I eat babies.
BTW, I'm 67.

If you ate babies..you would have been caught by now.
As I said..I may not be a gentleman..but I am Accurate.

And your chronological age has little to do with your emotional age.

Im 62 going on 80. And more than a little world weary.

Gunner

On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:40:43 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/05/2016 00:47, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 17:27:32 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 17:13, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 3:03 AM, Bod wrote:
On 10/05/2016 21:41, Muggles wrote:

It also helps when you have a personal relationship with Jesus
(God) and one of his saints. Can we say "voices in our heads?"
:-)

...a constant discussion and conversation, I'd say.

Voices in the head is a sign of madness.

Do you ever "think" about anything? Do you ever "contemplate" events,
or remember your past, or rehearse future discussions you want to have
with people in your head?

Voices in the head are normal. It's just unspoken conversation and
memories, whether it be from the past, or something inferred for the
futures.

I don't suffer with voices, but admit to having thoughts (like normal
people do).

Ill bet they are very similar to that uttered by a retarded 5 yr
old..often just grunts and nasty covered finger pointing.

Blimey! how did you know that! Spot on.

Ive been around all sorts of sick and twisted people. Some of whom I
consider good friends. Others..not so much.

Gunner

On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:41:40 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/05/2016 00:50, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 18:28:29 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 18:01, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:27 AM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 17:13, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 3:03 AM, Bod wrote:
On 10/05/2016 21:41, Muggles wrote:

It also helps when you have a personal relationship with Jesus
(God) and one of his saints. Can we say "voices in our heads?"
:-)

...a constant discussion and conversation, I'd say.

Voices in the head is a sign of madness.

Do you ever "think" about anything? Do you ever "contemplate" events,
or remember your past, or rehearse future discussions you want to have
with people in your head?

Voices in the head are normal. It's just unspoken conversation and
memories, whether it be from the past, or something inferred for the
futures.


I don't suffer with voices, but admit to having thoughts (like normal
people do).


A thought is just a voice we hear in our heads.

No it's not, it's just a thought.

The enemy within: People who hear voices in their heads are being ...
www.independent.co.uk › Lifestyle › Health & Families › Health News
25 Jan 2015 - One night, during her first year at the University of
Sheffield, Rachel Waddingham struggled to fall asleep. She could hear
three middle-aged ...

Actually..with rare individuals..its other peoples voices.

http://www.themystica.com/mystica/ar...telepathy.html

Oh dear.

Now it may be evolutionary..it may be some sort of "sport" or it could
be the results of "demons tormenting people and turning their skin to
snakes...pick any choice above or make up your own. Frankly...I
wouldnt live near groups of people if I could read minds. Im able to
judge simple emotions..and that a pain in the ass...I couldnt do
telepathy.....brrrr.... Id have filled more than a few stadiums with
corpses.

Gunner

On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:47:05 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/05/2016 01:00, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 20:16:08 +0100, 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.

So then the boffins and their Big Bang Theory are bonkers?

No.

No? But you just said you disagreed with them!

Gunner

The very telling part of all this is NONE of the rebuttal is coming
from outside the "established, recognized scientific community" and
from what I have read - none from a "religious" angle.

The science just isn't there. He is a "fake"


So let's see some more of your "truth" AND LETS SEE HOW IT STANDS UP
TO SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY"

Bring it on

http://humanorigins.si.edu/education...uman-evolution

--
Bod

On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:51:15 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/05/2016 01:19, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 17:17:49 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 16:50, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 15:04:30 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 12:48, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 11:15:54 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 10:24, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 08:52:17 +0100, Bod wrote:

And looking around you, you see God's hand in everything.

As I look around *me*, I see many different religions all guessing that
their particular strain is the *only* religion.

Many? I see only a couple, Islam being the primary one.

Or did you somehow forget about the Reformation way back in the 1600s?

Gunner

What's that got to do with it? It simply highlighted the confusion of
religious beliefs. A form of cherry picking.

Yet your widespread statements seem to cover ALL religions

Wind back thousands of years and people believed that the Sun was the
real god. Some thought it was the moon.
Religious guesswork (cherry picking) has been going on since the world
evolved.

Yes it has. And you are as guilty of it as any.

Gunner

I don't preach, I give you my honest opinion, but I base it on reality
*not* a faith.

Actually..you do preach here. And I do not recall anyone asking for
your opinion on religion. So you did come in here and start preaching
your religion. As for how YOU View something...that neither makes
it true, nor false. Im still waiting for your Proof that there are no
god(s). Trot it out, feel free to use all the white space necessary.

Gunner

Religious people are the ones who claim there *is* a god, yet offer no
proof other than they believe.

Actually..there is more than a little actual proof out here.
"miracles" are just one type of th em.

The onus is on them to prove this existence.

The onus is on YOU to prove they dont exist.

How on earth does one prove that an invisible god does *not* exist?
The *invisible*/ imaginary bit is the bit that puzzles me.

You are often puzzled. Does crossing the street unattended also leave
you puzzled?


Bod

Every time.

Are you given a keeper? Or do they leash a bunch of you together for
safety in numbers?

Gunner

On Fri, 13 May 2016 18:46:28 +0100, Bod wrote:

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.

Actually...its quite specific. You are in denial again.

On 13/05/2016 20:33, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 2:27 PM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 20:01, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:37 PM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 19:14, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:06 PM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 18:46, Muggles wrote:
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?


You will find the answer in science. It's basically to do with
elements
and chemicals reacting and creating new elements etc.
Similar to how Oxygen was created.

How Earth Got its Oxygen

http://www.livescience.com/5515-earth-oxygen.html

Why does it work?? Is it just an accident?

Basically yes.


OK, so you just have faith it all accidentally worked out is what you're
admitting to.

I don't do faith, I do scientific proof and there is stacks of evidence
to support the science of evolution.

"Human evolution. Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by
which people originated from apelike ancestors. Scientific evidence
shows that the physical and behavioral traits shared by all people
originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of
approximately six million years"

http://humanorigins.si.edu/education...uman-evolution

Just look at how different our very early ancestors skulls looked like
in the link.



It takes a lot of faith to believe humans originated from apes.

Nothing to do with faith. The DNA proves the links.

--
Bod

On Thu, 12 May 2016 08:01:32 -0400, Bud Frede
wrote:

Muggles writes:


I've asked many questions, myself. As far as creation goes, including
human beings, the rules were defined in the beginning. Babies being
born blind or limbless and other such things happened after sin entered
the world. There is now more chemicals and pollution that we're exposed

I get right off that boat when it comes to things like "original sin."
Why would a newborn baby be punished for something that someone else did
far in the past?

What kind of petty, vengeful god would cause a newborn baby to be born
blind of limbless?

There's something really wrong with your god - it's all too human. I see
nothing of a superior being there.

You also really have to wonder about what kind of god would want to be
worshipped. That seems really immature to me.


to than there ever was, and that doesn't include what people voluntarily
do to each other or themselves exposing themselves to all sorts of
contaminates. 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.

I've never heard of anyone losing their hearing due to secondhand
smoke. Can you tell us more about this?

She admitted to having been a sickly child. Probably the results of
measles or bad ear infections.


We blame god for everything bad that happens to us, and don't take into
consideration that perfection ended with creation after sin entered the
world.

I don't blame your god for anything.


That's my take on it, anyway.

Both Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have written extensively
on this topic. What they have written is far more eloquent than anything
I can write here. I would suggest that you seek out some of their works
and read them.