On 5/14/2016 3:01 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 08:01:32 -0400, Bud Frede
wrote:

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.


Center for Disease Control

Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic
and about 70 can cause cancer.

Since the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report, 2.5 million adults who were
nonsmokers died because they breathed secondhand smoke.

Secondhand smoke causes numerous health problems in infants and
children, including more frequent and severe asthma attacks, respiratory
infections, ear infections, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
Smoking during pregnancy results in more than 1,000 infant deaths annually.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_stat...ealth_effects/

I don't think I need to post the entire website.


--
Maggie

On 5/14/2016 3:16 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:50:08 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/13/2016 7:10 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 12:44:22 +0100, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 5/12/2016 2:30 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
And for those who get the
occasional wiff of a cigarette....
and bitch and moan...tough.


Was there any other questions?

Gunner



As with many smokers, you sure sound
inconsiderate. That may be too mild a
descriptor.

Non-smokers are the inconsiderate ones. They're taking in a millionth
of what the smokers are, they need to get a grip.


Do you think it would be ok with you if a non-smoker sprayed bottled
sewer gas that contained various dangerous chemicals randomly where
people would have no choice but to inhale that gas?

Why do smokers believe they have a right to poison the air other people
breath?

Depends on the levels of the sew gas and the chemicals that that non
smoker sprayed around.

If he were spewing out .005 parts per million..Id think he would not
be liable for much of anything

How about the equivalent to this:

Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic
and about 70 can cause cancer.

--
Maggie

From "the guardian"


It's a big, fat myth that all scientists are religion-hating atheists

Whether or not you think science is wonderful, the stereotype of all
scientists being atheists is unrealistic. There is, however, a special
dance

Scientists used to be white guys in white lab coats with crazy hair,
spectacles and an autistic inability to relate to other people. Now
scientists are (mostly) white guys who are obsessed about the wonder
of science and hate religion; and I think they all like Star Trek
quite a bit too. This new religion-hating, super-awed scientist
stereotype seems to based on some very strange amalgamation between
Brian Cox and Richard Dawkins. And this cartoon-version of "what a
scientist looks like" is all sort of tangled up in religion; where
science pundits are either vilified because they are seen to all hate
religion or almost worshiped like gods they supposedly detest.

Ignoring that science and religion are really not the same thing, on
the love side Cox has been said to resemble what God would have
probably looked like "with hair that falls around his face like a
helix".

On the flip-side, popular scientists have been attacked for using the
misty-eyed language of religion – because apparently using the word
"wonder" ain't allowed if you are an atheist or a scientist. As Eliane
Glaser put it last week: "It's ironic that the public engagement with
the science crowd is so pro-wonder, because they're so anti-religion."

All scientists; religion haters. Also it is a little known fact but
now when you get a physics PhD in the UK, you are given a job-lot of
Wonders wallpaper for your new office and complementary D:Ream CD;
which must be played on high days and holidays. We also learn a
special dance but I am not allowed to talk about this.

I really hate to be the one to break the news, but scientist is not
synonymous with atheist. Scientists also don't all have the same
gender, race, sexual orientation or political ideology, much less
religion or lack thereof. Whether or not a person is religious, with
respect to their vocation as a scientist, is completely irrelevant.
Just like sexual orientation, race and gender should be irrelevant to
being a scientist. Reinforcing the scientist = atheist stereotype,
whether you are for it or against it, necessarily excludes people. No
one should be excluded from science if they want to do it, be excited
about it or read about it.

Richard Dawkins aside, the view that all scientists – even if they be
atheists or famous people – hate religion is not really true. Peter
Higgs has very sanguinely criticised Dawkins for his anti-religious
stance, and goes on to say that he doesn't think science and religion
are incompatible. Brian Cox himself echoes the same sentiment. There
are, moreover, a number of prominent openly religious scientists, such
as Frances Collins, currently the head of the US National Institutes
of Health; Gerhard Etrl who won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry (2007)
and William D Phillips who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997. And
this is just naming a few. Most scientists in the media don't make a
stand one way or another, perhaps because they too think it is
irrelevant. Maybe this is a crazy idea but I am guessing a fair few
scientists don't like Star Trek either.

The cartoon stereotype that all scientists are religion-hating
atheists isn't just annoying; it is harmful. It is divisive and does
nothing to encourage people into scientific discovery. In fact, it
reinforces the idea that only a certain type of person can do science.
This is not true. Professional science has enough diversity problems
as it is, with women and minorities still grossly under-represented,
without throwing religious-typing in there too. Public scientists and
critics alike need to take a bit more care in lumping all scientists
into the same stereotypical category. The world is much more complex
than that.

• Dr Sylvia McLain runs a biophysics research group at Oxford. She is
on Twitter – @girlinterruptin

I have not been able to ascertain the name of the authour of this
piece.


Breaking the Science-Atheism Bond

As an atheist turned Christian, I know atheism is not the only
conceivable worldview for a thinking person.

Posted August 04, 2005


Science and Spirit
Reprinted with permission from Science & Spirit Magazine.

Spiritually, God is the oxygen of my existence; I would find it very
difficult to thrive without a belief in God. Of course, the word "God"
needs some clarification. It means different things to different
people, even though there are often clear areas of overlap. To
clarify: I believe in the God who is made known and made available
through Jesus-that is, a personal God who I believe knows me as an
individual, cares for me, and enables and inspires me to live my life
with a firm sense of purpose and a deep satisfaction in the service of
others. That situates me within the generous parameters of
Christianity.
I haven't always seen things this way. When I was growing up in
Belfast, Northern Ireland, during the 1960s, I came to the view that
God was an infantile illusion, suitable for the elderly, the
intellectually feeble, and the fraudulently religious. I admit this
was a rather arrogant view, and one that I now find somewhat
embarrassing. My rather pathetic excuse for this intellectual
haughtiness is that a lot of other people felt the same way back then.
It was the received wisdom of the day that religion was on its way
out, and that a glorious, godless dawn was just around the corner.

Part of the reasoning that led to my conclusion was based on the
natural sciences. I had specialized in mathematics and science during
high school, as preparation for going to Oxford University to study
chemistry. While my primary motivations for studying the sciences were
the insights they allowed into the wonderful world of nature, I also
found them a convenient ally in my critique of religion. Atheism and
the natural sciences seemed to be coupled together by the most
rigorous intellectual bonds. And there things rested, until I arrived
at Oxford in October 1971.

Chemistry proved to be intellectually exhilarating. As more and more
of the complexities of the natural world seemed to fall into place, I
found myself overwhelmed by an incandescent enthusiasm. I chose to
specialize in quantum theory, and found it to be mentally demanding,
almost to the point of pain-yet rewarding. Although the quantum
universe fascinated me, I was increasingly drawn to the biological
world, intrigued by the complex chemical patterns of natural
organisms. In the end, I decided to research advanced physical methods
of investigating biological systems, under the supervision of Sir
George Radda, who later became chief executive of the Medical Research
Council.In the midst of this growing delight in the natural sciences,
which exceeded anything I could have hoped for, I found myself
rethinking my atheism. It is not easy for anyone to subject his core
beliefs to criticism; my reason for doing so was the growing
realization that things were not quite as straightforward as I had
once thought. A number of factors had converged to bring about what I
suppose I can reasonably describe as a crisis of faith-or lack
thereof.

Atheism, I began to realize, rested on a less-than-satisfactory
evidential basis. The arguments that had once seemed bold, decisive,
and conclusive increasingly turned out to be circular, tentative, and
uncertain. The opportunity to talk with Christians about their faith
revealed to me that I understood relatively little about their
religion, which I had come to know chiefly through not-always-accurate
descriptions by its leading critics, including British logician
Bertrand Russell and German social philosopher Karl Marx. I also began
to realize that my assumption of the automatic and inexorable link
between the natural sciences and atheism was rather naïve and
uninformed. One of the most important things I had to sort out, after
my conversion to Christianity, was the systematic uncoupling of this
bond. Instead, I would see the natural sciences from a Christian
perspective-and I would try to understand why others did not share
this perspective.

In 1977, I read renowned biologist Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene,
which had appeared the previous year. It was a fascinating book,
brimming with ideas and showcasing a superb ability to put difficult
concepts into words. I devoured it, and longed to read more of his
work, but I was puzzled by what I considered to be a rather
superficial atheism, not adequately grounded in the scientific
arguments that undergirded the work. Atheism seemed to be tacked on
with intellectual Velcro rather than demanded by the scientific
evidence Dawkins assembled. A brilliant scientific popularizer,
Dawkins seemed to be propagandizing an aggressive atheism. And there
is no doubt that his lucid and hard-line atheism-especially evident in
his recent book, A Devil's Chaplain-has done much to shape public
perceptions of the credulousness of Christian faith. Belief in God, he
argues, is like believing in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy: It cannot
be sustained when we grow up and learn the realities of the scientific
method.

Dawkins is now the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public
Understanding of Science at Oxford University, where I earned a
doctorate in molecular biophysics and first class honors in both
chemistry and Christian theology-an academically enriching experience,
which I look back on with great affection. I began serious research in
Christian theology at Cambridge University, and was eventually drawn
back to Oxford. I now hold a chair in historical theology-the
systematic study of the development of Christian ideas down through
the centuries.

To this day, I have never seen the sciences and religion as being
fundamentally opposed to each other. As an historian, I am fully aware
of important tensions and battles, usually the result of specific
social conditions (such as the professionalization of science in late
Victorian England) or the unwise overstatements of both scientists and
theologians. Yet I judge that their relationship is generally benign,
and always intellectually stimulating. My Christian faith brings me a
deepened appreciation of the natural sciences, and although I am no
longer active in primary scientific research, I keep up my reading in
the fields that interest and excite me most: evolutionary biology,
theoretical physics, biochemistry, and biophysics.
Why does faith bring this intellectual enthusiasm and satisfaction? In
the words of another academic from Belfast who found faith at Oxford
University: "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has
risen-not only because I see it, but because by it, I see everything
else." C.S. Lewis wrote this in "Is Theology Poetry?" his famous essay
on the explanatory potential of the Christian faith.

Lewis conceives God in a manner that illuminates the great riddles and
enigmas of life, including how and why it is that we can make sense of
the universe at all. His conception offers me an understanding of my
own place in the greater scheme of things, and at the same time
provides an intellectual Archimedean point from which I can make sense
of the world around me. Above all, it sustains my sense of awe at the
wonders of nature, and the greater wonders to which they point. There
is a fundamental intellectual convergence between Christian theology
and the working methods and assumptions of the natural sciences-a
convergence I explored deeply while writing three volumes on
scientific theology: Nature, Reality, and Theory. How, some people
might reasonably ask, can I argue for such a productive and helpful
convergence when some scientists argue that atheism is the only
legitimate outcome of the proper application of the scientific method?
And isn't atheism actually more economic in terms of its concepts?
After all, one God is one more assumption than no God at all-and a
very important assumption at that.

Yet, as physicist Richard Feynman pointed out many years ago,
conceptual economy is no guarantor of theoretical correctness. The
real problem is trying to work out the "best explanation"-to use a
highly potent concept from Princeton University philosopher Gilbert
Harman-to make sense of this astonishingly complex, puzzling, and
exhilarating universe in which we live and think. The scientific
method simply does not allow us to adjudicate the existence of God,
and those who force it to do so (on either side of the debate) have
pressed it beyond its acceptable limits. In one sense, both theism and
atheism must be recognized as positions of faith, belief systems that
go beyond the available scientific evidence.

This conviction naturally brings me into conflict with thinkers like
Dawkins and his circle, who argue that the natural sciences in
general-and evolutionary biology in particular-force us to atheism.
Their highly contentious argument rests on decidedly shaky logical,
philosophical, and evidential grounds; far from being an intellectual
superhighway to atheism, it gets stalled at agnosticism, and is moved
beyond that point by an aggressive use of rhetoric alone. It is quite
clear that the natural sciences can be interpreted as supportive of
faith or hostile to faith, depending on your agenda. Any argument that
they necessitate atheism is not adequately supported by any of the
evidence available.

More importantly, from the scientific perspective, belief in a creator
God-however that complex notion is understood-offers a powerful
incentive to the investigation and appreciation of the natural world.
To study nature is to study God indirectly. As many Christian writers
of the Renaissance pointed out, the wisdom of an invisible and
intangible God can be explored through an engagement with the visible,
tangible realities of the world that appears around us.

My concerns about atheism, however, are by no means limited to my love
for the natural world. As a professor of historical theology, part of
my academic life involves studying the question of how culture impacts
religious (and anti-religious) beliefs. As I studied the intellectual
history of the modern period, it became increasingly clear to me that
atheism is heavily conditioned by the assumptions of the
Enlightenment-assumptions that have left a powerful legacy for our
time, but whose imperatives are perhaps less revolutionary in an age
without an entrenched royalty to overthrow.

As many cultural analysts have argued, atheism is the religion of
modernity. But the rise of postmodernity has unseated this settled
assumption. Atheism now seems a little old-fashioned, the
establishment position of a previous generation. And in its place,
postmodernity has recovered an interest in spirituality. I have no
idea where this trend will take us, but certainly it seems to take us
away from atheism.

Atheism is not the only conceivable worldview for a thinking person.
Belief in God gives us reason to examine the universe more closely,
and generates a matrix that both encourages and facilitates an
engagement with the world. Of course, I know this conclusion will be
contested. The arguments remain open, despite rather crude attempts to
close them down. I remain respectful of atheism, believing that I have
much to learn from it and the concerns that it expresses. But I no
longer share its faith. Or lack thereof.

On 05/14/2016 06:44 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
You can't believe two religions. If you became Buddhist, you must think
Catholicism was incorrect, or you'd still be in that religion.

http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Catholicis.../dp/0824514254
http://www.ncregister.com/site/artic..._collide_dont/

Some have tried to straddle the fence.

My opinion of Jews hasn't changed. The ones I meet are pleasant people.

Most Jews ARE pleasant people. And your point is?

Shalom

Gunner

y point is, that I don't hate anyone.

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

I still want to know where I've shown hate! I did ask you this before.

You hate and hold believers in distain and contempt. Your posts are
rife with it. You cant see it can you? Haters seldom look at
themselves.

You are a hater.

Gunner

Any hate is in your own mind.

--
Bod

Do you think it would be ok with you if a non-smoker sprayed bottled
sewer gas that contained various dangerous chemicals randomly where
people would have no choice but to inhale that gas?

Why do smokers believe they have a right to poison the air other people
breath?

Depends on the levels of the sew gas and the chemicals that that non
smoker sprayed around.

If he were spewing out .005 parts per million..Id think he would not
be liable for much of anything

How about the equivalent to this:

Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic
and about 70 can cause cancer.

Woman aged 112 says her secret to long life is smoking 30 cigarettes ...

www.mirror.co.uk › News › Weird News › Smoking
26 Jan 2016 - A 112-year-old woman claims the secret to a long life is
smoking .... Meet the world's oldest best man who organised the stag do
aged 102 ...

--
Bod
__________________________________________________ _


This 122 Year Old Woman Has The Most Important Secret To A Life Of ...
http://www.collective-evolution.com/...st-important-s...
2 May 2014 - The oldest documented person that ever lived was a French
woman ... Jeanne Calment smoked cigarettes (started at age 21), drank
port wine ...
__________________________________________________ ____

On 05/11/2016 02:11 AM, Bod wrote:
If you guys ever send us back Madonna, the damage between
our two people will never be repairable. Don't even
think about it! She is YOURS now !!!!

-T



She's your baggage, please take her back to her homeland ;-)


Are you trying to start a war ???? She is ALL yours now!

On 05/11/2016 09:32 AM, Muggles wrote:
Guess you have never looked into someone's eyes and
seen the love of God.

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

True. Guys tend to just look forward. Girl do tend to
look you in the eye.

On 05/11/2016 10:56 AM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:43, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:37 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:12, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:43 AM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 17:32, Muggles wrote:
guess you have never looked into someone's eyes and
seen the love of God.

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

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


That's very true.


Wow!! we agree. :-)


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

Of course.



Scariest of all is the monster that laughs instead
of growls. When the eyes don't match the smile ....

On Sat, 14 May 2016 22:42:47 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

On 05/14/2016 06:44 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
You can't believe two religions. If you became Buddhist, you must think
Catholicism was incorrect, or you'd still be in that religion.

http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Catholicis.../dp/0824514254
http://www.ncregister.com/site/artic..._collide_dont/

Some have tried to straddle the fence.

Its hardly straddling the fence. If you like steak, but also like
meatloaf....and decide that meatloaf is what you want to eat...it
makes steak no less a yummy food.

Gunner

On 15/05/2016 06:44, T wrote:
On 05/11/2016 02:11 AM, Bod wrote:
If you guys ever send us back Madonna, the damage between
our two people will never be repairable. Don't even
think about it! She is YOURS now !!!!

-T



She's your baggage, please take her back to her homeland ;-)


Are you trying to start a war ???? She is ALL yours now!

Can't you just take her back for a a while? You might get to love her
again.
Please!....pretty please!!....with cherrys on top!! Think of the children!

--
Bod

On Sat, 14 May 2016 22:42:47 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

On 05/14/2016 06:44 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
You can't believe two religions. If you became Buddhist, you must think
Catholicism was incorrect, or you'd still be in that religion.

http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Catholicis.../dp/0824514254
http://www.ncregister.com/site/artic..._collide_dont/

Some have tried to straddle the fence.

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/277.htm

Religion of Freedom

This is a religion of freedom and reason for man to lead a noble life.

Buddhism does not prevent anyone from learning the teachings of other
religions. In fact, the Buddha encouraged His followers to learn about
other religions and to compare His Teachings with other teachings. The
Buddha says that if there are reasonable and rational teachings. The
Buddha says that if there are reasonable and rational teachings in
other religions, His followers are free to respect such teachings. It
seems that certain religionists try to keep their followers in the
dark, some of them are not even allowed to touch other religious
objects or books. They are instructed not to listen to the preachings
of other religions. They are enjoined not to doubt the teachings of
their own religion, however unconvincing their teachings may appear to
be. The more they keep their followers on a one-track mind, the more
easily they can keep them under control. If anyone of them exercises
freedom of thought and realizes that he had been in the dark all the
time, then it is alleged that the devil has possessed his mind. The
poor man is given no opportunity to use his common sense, education,
of his intelligence. Those who wish to change their views on religion
are taught to believe that they are not perfect enough to be allowed
to use free will in judging anything for themselves.

According to the Buddha, religion should be left to one's own free
choice. Religion is not a law, but a disciplinary code which should be
followed with understanding. To Buddhists true religious principles
are neither a divine law nor a human law, but a natural law.

In actual fact, there is no real religious freedom in any part of the
world today. Man has not the freedom even to think freely. Whenever he
realizes that he cannot find satisfaction through his own religion to
which he belongs, which cannot provide him with satisfactory answers
to certain questions, he has no liberty to give it up and to accept
another which appeals to him. The reason is that religious
authorities, leaders, and family members have taken that freedom away
from him. Man should be allowed to choose his religion which is in
accordance with his own conviction. One has no right to force another
to accept a particular religion. Some people surrender their religion
for the sake of love, without a proper understanding of their
partner's religion. Religion should not be changed to suit man's
emotions and human weaknesses. One must think very carefully before
changing one's religion. Religion is not a subject for bargaining; one
should not change one's religion for personal, material gains.
Religion is to be sued for spiritual development and for
self-salvation.

Buddhists never try to influence other religionists to come and
embrace their religion for material gain. Nor do they try to exploit
poverty, sickness, illiteracy and ignorance in order to increase the
number of Buddhist population. The Buddha advised those who indicated
their wish to follow Him, not to be hasty in accepting His Teachings.
He advised them to consider carefully His Teaching and to determine
for themselves whether it was practical or not for them to follow.

Buddhism teaches that mere belief or outward rituals are insufficient
for attaining wisdom and perfection. In this sense, outward conversion
becomes meaningless. To promote Buddhism by force would mean
pretending to propagate justice and love by means of oppression and
injustice. It is of no importance to a follower of the Buddha whether
a person calls himself a Buddhist or not. Buddhists know that only
through man's understanding and exertion will they come nearer to the
goal preached by the Buddha.

Amongst the followers of every religion are some fanatics. Religious
fanaticism is dangerous. A fanatic is incapable of guiding himself by
reason or even by the scientific principles of observation and
analysis. According to the Buddha, a Buddhist must be a free man with
an open mind and must not be subservient to anyone for his spiritual
development. He seeks refuge in the Buddha by accepting Him as a
source of supreme guidance and inspiration. He seeks refuge in the
Buddha, not blindly, but with understanding. To Buddhists, the Buddha
is not a savior nor is He an anthropomorphic being who claims to
possess the power of washing away other's sins. Buddhists regard the
Buddha as a Teacher who shows the Path to salvation.

Buddhism has always supported the freedom and progress of mankind.
Buddhism has always stood for the advancement of knowledge and freedom
for humanity in every sphere of life. There is nothing in the Buddha's
Teaching that has to be withdrawn in the face of modern, scientific
inventions and knowledge. The more new things that scientists
discover, the closer they come to the Buddha.

The Buddha emancipated man from the thralldom of religion. He also
released man from the monopoly and the tyranny of the priestcraft. It
was the Buddha who first advised man to exercise his reason and not to
allow himself to be driven meekly like dumb cattle, following the
dogma of religion. The Buddha stood for rationalism, democracy and
practical, ethical conduct in religion. He introduced this religion
for people to practise with human dignity.

The followers of the Buddha were advised not to believe anything
without considering it properly. In the Kalama Sutta,the Buddha gave
the following guidelines to a group of young people:

'Do not accept anything based upon mere reports,
traditions or hearsay,
Nor upon the authority of religious texts,
Nor upon mere reasons and arguments,
Nor upon one's own inference,
Nor upon anything which appears to be true,
Nor upon one's own speculative opinion,
Nor upon another's seeming ability,
Nor upon the consideration: 'This is our Teacher.'
'But, when you know for yourselves the certain things are
unwholesome and bad: tending to harm yourself of others, reject them.
'And when you know for yourselves that certain things are
wholesome and good: conducive to the spiritual welfare of yourself as
well as others, accept and follow them.'

Buddhists are advised to accept religious practices only after careful
observation and analysis, and only after being certain that the method
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good of one and all.

A true Buddhist does not depend on external powers for his salvation.
Nor does he expect to get rid of miseries through the intervention of
some unknown power. He must try to eradicate all his mental impurities
to find eternal Happiness. The Buddha says, 'If anyone were to speak
ill of me, my teaching and my disciples, do not be upset or perturbed,
for this kind of reaction will only cause you harm. On the other hand,
if anyone were to speak well of me, my teaching and my disciples, do
not be over-joyed, thrilled or elated, for this kind of reaction will
only be an obstacle in forming a correct judgment. If you are elated,
you cannot judge whether the qualities praised are real and actually
found in us.' -- (Brahma Jala Sutta). Such is the unbiased attitude of
a genuine Buddhist.

The Buddha had upheld the highest degree of freedom not only in its
human essence but also in its divine qualities. It is a freedom that
does not deprive man of his dignity. It is a freedom that releases one
from slavery to dogmas and dictatorial religious laws or religious
punishments.

On Sat, 14 May 2016 20:15:15 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Sat, 14 May 2016 09:50:26 -0700
typed in alt.survival the following:
On Sat, 14 May 2016 07:40:42 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Sat, 14 May 2016 01:00:35 -0700
typed in alt.survival the following:

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.

He keeps asking religious people questions, and when he gets a
religious answer, it bothers him no end. Must be that their theology
doesn't match his.

Frankly...it appears that he is mentally ill.

Are you attempting to say that religious fanatics are unhinged?

Most fanatics on the spectrum are unhinged. Its obvious he isnt a
thinking man, just an emotional one. If he were in the slightest bit
thoughtful, he would be agnostic. But no..he is radically unhinged.


Shrug

Machts nichts als zu mir.

nicht leben alle Fledermäuse in belfries. Shrug




--
pyotr filipivich
"If once a man indulges himself in Murder, very soon he comes
to think little of Robbing, and from Robbing he comes next to
Drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to Incivility and
Procrastination." T. De Quincy (1785-1859) "Murder Considered As One of the Fine Arts"

On Sat, 14 May 2016 22:42:55 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/14/2016 3:16 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:50:08 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/13/2016 7:10 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 12:44:22 +0100, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 5/12/2016 2:30 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
And for those who get the
occasional wiff of a cigarette....
and bitch and moan...tough.


Was there any other questions?

Gunner



As with many smokers, you sure sound
inconsiderate. That may be too mild a
descriptor.

Non-smokers are the inconsiderate ones. They're taking in a millionth
of what the smokers are, they need to get a grip.


Do you think it would be ok with you if a non-smoker sprayed bottled
sewer gas that contained various dangerous chemicals randomly where
people would have no choice but to inhale that gas?

Why do smokers believe they have a right to poison the air other people
breath?

Depends on the levels of the sew gas and the chemicals that that non
smoker sprayed around.

If he were spewing out .005 parts per million..Id think he would not
be liable for much of anything

How about the equivalent to this:

Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic
and about 70 can cause cancer.

How about that. So you getting a wiff on rare occasions is being
poisoned far worse than I as the primary smoker? Is that your claim?

It should be noted that Chocolate Can cause cancer as well as coffee,
potatos and some fishes. With the exception of west coast fish...one
would have to eat a few tons of each in multiple single settings...but
hey...you would have to have a gas mask on your face for years at a
time...connected directly to my gas masks exhaust port, to get enough
"second hand smoke" (EEEEE!!! Run!!) to have ANY sort of medical
risk...unless you have medical issues of your own. Which you appear to
be victim of. You must curse your parents for their genetic "gift" to
you.

Gunner

On 15/05/2016 03:37, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2016 01:47:01 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Thu, 12 May 2016 00:34:17 +0100, Gunner Asch wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Being "religious" is a whole different practice.


So I'm not religious, but I am?

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

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


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

I know Bod and he's not religious in any way whatsoever.

What..you two sleep together and need to back each other up? Fanatics
are that way...pathetic and queer.

So are you intolerant of Gay people?

--
Bod

On 15/05/2016 06:57, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 14 May 2016 22:42:47 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

On 05/14/2016 06:44 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
You can't believe two religions. If you became Buddhist, you must think
Catholicism was incorrect, or you'd still be in that religion.

http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Catholicis.../dp/0824514254
http://www.ncregister.com/site/artic..._collide_dont/

Some have tried to straddle the fence.

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/277.htm

Religion of Freedom

This is a religion of freedom and reason for man to lead a noble life.

Buddhism does not prevent anyone from learning the teachings of other
religions. In fact, the Buddha encouraged His followers to learn about
other religions and to compare His Teachings with other teachings. The
Buddha says that if there are reasonable and rational teachings. The
Buddha says that if there are reasonable and rational teachings in
other religions, His followers are free to respect such teachings. It
seems that certain religionists try to keep their followers in the
dark, some of them are not even allowed to touch other religious
objects or books. They are instructed not to listen to the preachings
of other religions. They are enjoined not to doubt the teachings of
their own religion, however unconvincing their teachings may appear to
be. The more they keep their followers on a one-track mind, the more
easily they can keep them under control. If anyone of them exercises
freedom of thought and realizes that he had been in the dark all the
time, then it is alleged that the devil has possessed his mind. The
poor man is given no opportunity to use his common sense, education,
of his intelligence. Those who wish to change their views on religion
are taught to believe that they are not perfect enough to be allowed
to use free will in judging anything for themselves.

According to the Buddha, religion should be left to one's own free
choice. Religion is not a law, but a disciplinary code which should be
followed with understanding. To Buddhists true religious principles
are neither a divine law nor a human law, but a natural law.

In actual fact, there is no real religious freedom in any part of the
world today. Man has not the freedom even to think freely. Whenever he
realizes that he cannot find satisfaction through his own religion to
which he belongs, which cannot provide him with satisfactory answers
to certain questions, he has no liberty to give it up and to accept
another which appeals to him. The reason is that religious
authorities, leaders, and family members have taken that freedom away
from him. Man should be allowed to choose his religion which is in
accordance with his own conviction. One has no right to force another
to accept a particular religion. Some people surrender their religion
for the sake of love, without a proper understanding of their
partner's religion. Religion should not be changed to suit man's
emotions and human weaknesses. One must think very carefully before
changing one's religion. Religion is not a subject for bargaining; one
should not change one's religion for personal, material gains.
Religion is to be sued for spiritual development and for
self-salvation.

Buddhists never try to influence other religionists to come and
embrace their religion for material gain. Nor do they try to exploit
poverty, sickness, illiteracy and ignorance in order to increase the
number of Buddhist population. The Buddha advised those who indicated
their wish to follow Him, not to be hasty in accepting His Teachings.
He advised them to consider carefully His Teaching and to determine
for themselves whether it was practical or not for them to follow.

Buddhism teaches that mere belief or outward rituals are insufficient
for attaining wisdom and perfection. In this sense, outward conversion
becomes meaningless. To promote Buddhism by force would mean
pretending to propagate justice and love by means of oppression and
injustice. It is of no importance to a follower of the Buddha whether
a person calls himself a Buddhist or not. Buddhists know that only
through man's understanding and exertion will they come nearer to the
goal preached by the Buddha.

Amongst the followers of every religion are some fanatics. Religious
fanaticism is dangerous. A fanatic is incapable of guiding himself by
reason or even by the scientific principles of observation and
analysis. According to the Buddha, a Buddhist must be a free man with
an open mind and must not be subservient to anyone for his spiritual
development. He seeks refuge in the Buddha by accepting Him as a
source of supreme guidance and inspiration. He seeks refuge in the
Buddha, not blindly, but with understanding. To Buddhists, the Buddha
is not a savior nor is He an anthropomorphic being who claims to
possess the power of washing away other's sins. Buddhists regard the
Buddha as a Teacher who shows the Path to salvation.

Buddhism has always supported the freedom and progress of mankind.
Buddhism has always stood for the advancement of knowledge and freedom
for humanity in every sphere of life. There is nothing in the Buddha's
Teaching that has to be withdrawn in the face of modern, scientific
inventions and knowledge. The more new things that scientists
discover, the closer they come to the Buddha.

The Buddha emancipated man from the thralldom of religion. He also
released man from the monopoly and the tyranny of the priestcraft. It
was the Buddha who first advised man to exercise his reason and not to
allow himself to be driven meekly like dumb cattle, following the
dogma of religion. The Buddha stood for rationalism, democracy and
practical, ethical conduct in religion. He introduced this religion
for people to practise with human dignity.

The followers of the Buddha were advised not to believe anything
without considering it properly. In the Kalama Sutta,the Buddha gave
the following guidelines to a group of young people:

'Do not accept anything based upon mere reports,
traditions or hearsay,
Nor upon the authority of religious texts,
Nor upon mere reasons and arguments,
Nor upon one's own inference,
Nor upon anything which appears to be true,
Nor upon one's own speculative opinion,
Nor upon another's seeming ability,
Nor upon the consideration: 'This is our Teacher.'
'But, when you know for yourselves the certain things are
unwholesome and bad: tending to harm yourself of others, reject them.
'And when you know for yourselves that certain things are
wholesome and good: conducive to the spiritual welfare of yourself as
well as others, accept and follow them.'

Buddhists are advised to accept religious practices only after careful
observation and analysis, and only after being certain that the method
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good of one and all.

A true Buddhist does not depend on external powers for his salvation.
Nor does he expect to get rid of miseries through the intervention of
some unknown power. He must try to eradicate all his mental impurities
to find eternal Happiness. The Buddha says, 'If anyone were to speak
ill of me, my teaching and my disciples, do not be upset or perturbed,
for this kind of reaction will only cause you harm. On the other hand,
if anyone were to speak well of me, my teaching and my disciples, do
not be over-joyed, thrilled or elated, for this kind of reaction will
only be an obstacle in forming a correct judgment. If you are elated,
you cannot judge whether the qualities praised are real and actually
found in us.' -- (Brahma Jala Sutta). Such is the unbiased attitude of
a genuine Buddhist.

The Buddha had upheld the highest degree of freedom not only in its
human essence but also in its divine qualities. It is a freedom that
does not deprive man of his dignity. It is a freedom that releases one
from slavery to dogmas and dictatorial religious laws or religious
punishments.

Yet you class Gay people as queers.

--
Bod

On Sun, 15 May 2016 07:08:24 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 15/05/2016 06:57, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 14 May 2016 22:42:47 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

On 05/14/2016 06:44 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
You can't believe two religions. If you became Buddhist, you must think
Catholicism was incorrect, or you'd still be in that religion.

http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Catholicis.../dp/0824514254
http://www.ncregister.com/site/artic..._collide_dont/

Some have tried to straddle the fence.

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/277.htm

Religion of Freedom

This is a religion of freedom and reason for man to lead a noble life.

Buddhism does not prevent anyone from learning the teachings of other
religions. In fact, the Buddha encouraged His followers to learn about
other religions and to compare His Teachings with other teachings. The
Buddha says that if there are reasonable and rational teachings. The
Buddha says that if there are reasonable and rational teachings in
other religions, His followers are free to respect such teachings. It
seems that certain religionists try to keep their followers in the
dark, some of them are not even allowed to touch other religious
objects or books. They are instructed not to listen to the preachings
of other religions. They are enjoined not to doubt the teachings of
their own religion, however unconvincing their teachings may appear to
be. The more they keep their followers on a one-track mind, the more
easily they can keep them under control. If anyone of them exercises
freedom of thought and realizes that he had been in the dark all the
time, then it is alleged that the devil has possessed his mind. The
poor man is given no opportunity to use his common sense, education,
of his intelligence. Those who wish to change their views on religion
are taught to believe that they are not perfect enough to be allowed
to use free will in judging anything for themselves.

According to the Buddha, religion should be left to one's own free
choice. Religion is not a law, but a disciplinary code which should be
followed with understanding. To Buddhists true religious principles
are neither a divine law nor a human law, but a natural law.

In actual fact, there is no real religious freedom in any part of the
world today. Man has not the freedom even to think freely. Whenever he
realizes that he cannot find satisfaction through his own religion to
which he belongs, which cannot provide him with satisfactory answers
to certain questions, he has no liberty to give it up and to accept
another which appeals to him. The reason is that religious
authorities, leaders, and family members have taken that freedom away
from him. Man should be allowed to choose his religion which is in
accordance with his own conviction. One has no right to force another
to accept a particular religion. Some people surrender their religion
for the sake of love, without a proper understanding of their
partner's religion. Religion should not be changed to suit man's
emotions and human weaknesses. One must think very carefully before
changing one's religion. Religion is not a subject for bargaining; one
should not change one's religion for personal, material gains.
Religion is to be sued for spiritual development and for
self-salvation.

Buddhists never try to influence other religionists to come and
embrace their religion for material gain. Nor do they try to exploit
poverty, sickness, illiteracy and ignorance in order to increase the
number of Buddhist population. The Buddha advised those who indicated
their wish to follow Him, not to be hasty in accepting His Teachings.
He advised them to consider carefully His Teaching and to determine
for themselves whether it was practical or not for them to follow.

Buddhism teaches that mere belief or outward rituals are insufficient
for attaining wisdom and perfection. In this sense, outward conversion
becomes meaningless. To promote Buddhism by force would mean
pretending to propagate justice and love by means of oppression and
injustice. It is of no importance to a follower of the Buddha whether
a person calls himself a Buddhist or not. Buddhists know that only
through man's understanding and exertion will they come nearer to the
goal preached by the Buddha.

Amongst the followers of every religion are some fanatics. Religious
fanaticism is dangerous. A fanatic is incapable of guiding himself by
reason or even by the scientific principles of observation and
analysis. According to the Buddha, a Buddhist must be a free man with
an open mind and must not be subservient to anyone for his spiritual
development. He seeks refuge in the Buddha by accepting Him as a
source of supreme guidance and inspiration. He seeks refuge in the
Buddha, not blindly, but with understanding. To Buddhists, the Buddha
is not a savior nor is He an anthropomorphic being who claims to
possess the power of washing away other's sins. Buddhists regard the
Buddha as a Teacher who shows the Path to salvation.

Buddhism has always supported the freedom and progress of mankind.
Buddhism has always stood for the advancement of knowledge and freedom
for humanity in every sphere of life. There is nothing in the Buddha's
Teaching that has to be withdrawn in the face of modern, scientific
inventions and knowledge. The more new things that scientists
discover, the closer they come to the Buddha.

The Buddha emancipated man from the thralldom of religion. He also
released man from the monopoly and the tyranny of the priestcraft. It
was the Buddha who first advised man to exercise his reason and not to
allow himself to be driven meekly like dumb cattle, following the
dogma of religion. The Buddha stood for rationalism, democracy and
practical, ethical conduct in religion. He introduced this religion
for people to practise with human dignity.

The followers of the Buddha were advised not to believe anything
without considering it properly. In the Kalama Sutta,the Buddha gave
the following guidelines to a group of young people:

'Do not accept anything based upon mere reports,
traditions or hearsay,
Nor upon the authority of religious texts,
Nor upon mere reasons and arguments,
Nor upon one's own inference,
Nor upon anything which appears to be true,
Nor upon one's own speculative opinion,
Nor upon another's seeming ability,
Nor upon the consideration: 'This is our Teacher.'
'But, when you know for yourselves the certain things are
unwholesome and bad: tending to harm yourself of others, reject them.
'And when you know for yourselves that certain things are
wholesome and good: conducive to the spiritual welfare of yourself as
well as others, accept and follow them.'

Buddhists are advised to accept religious practices only after careful
observation and analysis, and only after being certain that the method
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good of one and all.

A true Buddhist does not depend on external powers for his salvation.
Nor does he expect to get rid of miseries through the intervention of
some unknown power. He must try to eradicate all his mental impurities
to find eternal Happiness. The Buddha says, 'If anyone were to speak
ill of me, my teaching and my disciples, do not be upset or perturbed,
for this kind of reaction will only cause you harm. On the other hand,
if anyone were to speak well of me, my teaching and my disciples, do
not be over-joyed, thrilled or elated, for this kind of reaction will
only be an obstacle in forming a correct judgment. If you are elated,
you cannot judge whether the qualities praised are real and actually
found in us.' -- (Brahma Jala Sutta). Such is the unbiased attitude of
a genuine Buddhist.

The Buddha had upheld the highest degree of freedom not only in its
human essence but also in its divine qualities. It is a freedom that
does not deprive man of his dignity. It is a freedom that releases one
from slavery to dogmas and dictatorial religious laws or religious
punishments.

Yet you class Gay people as queers.

You class believers as insane. Given that "queer" has been the term
used by both straights and gays to describe gays for many many
decades...you have a problem with this?

You are bonkers. Seek a mental health professional as soon as
possible. The rot is spreading


Gunner

On Sun, 15 May 2016 07:07:11 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 15/05/2016 03:37, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2016 01:47:01 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Thu, 12 May 2016 00:34:17 +0100, Gunner Asch wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Being "religious" is a whole different practice.


So I'm not religious, but I am?

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

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


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

I know Bod and he's not religious in any way whatsoever.

What..you two sleep together and need to back each other up? Fanatics
are that way...pathetic and queer.

So are you intolerant of Gay people?

Intolerant? I have gay friends. Shrug....you embarrassed at having
been exposed?

Gunner

On Sun, 15 May 2016 06:15:18 +0100, Bod wrote:


My opinion of Jews hasn't changed. The ones I meet are pleasant people.

Most Jews ARE pleasant people. And your point is?

Shalom

Gunner

y point is, that I don't hate anyone.

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

I still want to know where I've shown hate! I did ask you this before.

You hate and hold believers in distain and contempt. Your posts are
rife with it. You cant see it can you? Haters seldom look at
themselves.

You are a hater.

Gunner

Any hate is in your own mind.

Your denial is quite pathetic.

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 May 2016 22:42:55 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/14/2016 3:16 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:50:08 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/13/2016 7:10 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 12:44:22 +0100, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 5/12/2016 2:30 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
And for those who get the
occasional wiff of a cigarette....
and bitch and moan...tough.


Was there any other questions?

Gunner



As with many smokers, you sure sound
inconsiderate. That may be too mild a
descriptor.

Non-smokers are the inconsiderate ones. They're taking in a millionth
of what the smokers are, they need to get a grip.


Do you think it would be ok with you if a non-smoker sprayed bottled
sewer gas that contained various dangerous chemicals randomly where
people would have no choice but to inhale that gas?

Why do smokers believe they have a right to poison the air other people
breath?

Depends on the levels of the sew gas and the chemicals that that non
smoker sprayed around.

If he were spewing out .005 parts per million..Id think he would not
be liable for much of anything

How about the equivalent to this:

Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic
and about 70 can cause cancer.

How about that. So you getting a wiff on rare occasions is being
poisoned far worse than I as the primary smoker? Is that your claim?

It should be noted that Chocolate Can cause cancer as well as coffee,
potatos and some fishes. With the exception of west coast fish...one
would have to eat a few tons of each in multiple single settings...but
hey...you would have to have a gas mask on your face for years at a
time...connected directly to my gas masks exhaust port, to get enough
"second hand smoke" (EEEEE!!! Run!!) to have ANY sort of medical
risk...unless you have medical issues of your own. Which you appear to
be victim of. You must curse your parents for their genetic "gift" to
you.

Gunner

Another severly mentaly ill lib
Gorbal warming is only one of their religions
Sercond hand smoke is another one

On 15/05/2016 09:34, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2016 06:15:18 +0100, Bod wrote:


My opinion of Jews hasn't changed. The ones I meet are pleasant people.

Most Jews ARE pleasant people. And your point is?

Shalom

Gunner

y point is, that I don't hate anyone.

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

I still want to know where I've shown hate! I did ask you this before.

You hate and hold believers in distain and contempt. Your posts are
rife with it. You cant see it can you? Haters seldom look at
themselves.

You are a hater.

Gunner

Any hate is in your own mind.

Your denial is quite pathetic.

I'll ask for a third time. Show me the hate statements that you claim
that I have made?

--
Bod

On Sun, 15 May 2016 03:36:36 +0100, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2016 01:45:38 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 17:26:16 +0100, Muggles wrote:

On 5/11/2016 3:32 AM, 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.


Bullying anyone is wrong, imo. I've been bullied by religious people,
too, but just because they did something wrong, it shouldn't be cause
for me to abandon something I believe in. I may question "why", but at
the same time if I truly "believe" in a higher power then what people do
to me can't change what I truly believe.

Bullying people is fun, especially when the person you're bullying is a pathetic little worthless piece of ****. Survival of the strongest, fittest, cleverest, fastest, etc, etc. Oh, you don't believe that, you're religious. So er.... why do religious folk blow each other up?

And you claim repeatedly that you dont attack the religious in the
most viscious ways. When I pointed out that you lied...you denied
it.
And here you are doing it again. You are a true fanatic of your
religion

And a Putz.

You can't even keep track of who you're talking to. I have never in my entire life said I don't attack the religious.

--
I went to buy some camoflage trousers the other day but I couldn't find any.

On Sun, 15 May 2016 03:37:43 +0100, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2016 01:47:01 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Thu, 12 May 2016 00:34:17 +0100, Gunner Asch wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Being "religious" is a whole different practice.


So I'm not religious, but I am?

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

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


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

I know Bod and he's not religious in any way whatsoever.

What..you two sleep together and need to back each other up? Fanatics
are that way...pathetic and queer.

You don't know any other men then? Men must only know women because to know someone means you **** them up the arse?

--
Why is there no Disneyland China?
No one's tall enough to go on the good rides.

On Sun, 15 May 2016 06:54:26 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 15/05/2016 06:44, T wrote:
On 05/11/2016 02:11 AM, Bod wrote:
If you guys ever send us back Madonna, the damage between
our two people will never be repairable. Don't even
think about it! She is YOURS now !!!!

-T



She's your baggage, please take her back to her homeland ;-)


Are you trying to start a war ???? She is ALL yours now!

Can't you just take her back for a a while? You might get to love her
again.
Please!....pretty please!!....with cherrys on top!! Think of the children!

Don't tell me she's been done for child molesting aswell?

--
The scientific theory I like best is that the rings of Saturn are composed entirely of lost airline Luggage. -- Mark Russell

On 15/05/2016 11:18, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2016 06:54:26 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 15/05/2016 06:44, T wrote:
On 05/11/2016 02:11 AM, Bod wrote:
If you guys ever send us back Madonna, the damage between
our two people will never be repairable. Don't even
think about it! She is YOURS now !!!!

-T



She's your baggage, please take her back to her homeland ;-)


Are you trying to start a war ???? She is ALL yours now!

Can't you just take her back for a a while? You might get to love her
again.
Please!....pretty please!!....with cherrys on top!! Think of the
children!

Don't tell me she's been done for child molesting aswell?

Lol.

--
Bod

On Wed, 11 May 2016 18:12:12 +0100, Muggles wrote:

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

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


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

That's very true.

It's absolute bull****. A good liar like myself can fake looks.

--
Hit the button marked 'STOP' with remaining hand.

On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:55:01 +0100, Muggles wrote:

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

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

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

That's very true.

Wow!! we agree. :-)

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

Of course.

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

Yes and yes.

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

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

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

Good is the desire to be liked by others, for self gain.

--
I limit my Political Correctness to voting.

On Sun, 15 May 2016 06:46:26 +0100, T wrote:

On 05/11/2016 09:32 AM, Muggles wrote:
Guess you have never looked into someone's eyes and
seen the love of God.

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

True. Guys tend to just look forward. Girl do tend to
look you in the eye.

Guys look at the breasts.

--
The problem with today's society is adults are treated like children, children are treated like retards, and retards are exempt from the law.

On Wed, 11 May 2016 17:43:32 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 17:32, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 3:39 AM, T wrote:
On 05/11/2016 01:02 AM, Bod wrote:
On 10/05/2016 21:37, Muggles wrote:
On 5/10/2016 2:22 PM, T wrote:
On 05/08/2016 12:26 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/8/2016 1:33 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 08 May 2016 04:03:28 +0100, Muggles

wrote:

On 5/7/2016 4:08 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2016 21:36:25 +0100, Winston_Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 07 May 2016 21:09:27 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

As intelligence increases with each generation, religion
decreases.

Can you prove a decrease in religion results in an increase of
intelligence ? There seem to be examples to the contrary here.

I'd say the increase in intelligence causes the decrease in
religion.
Clever folk realise what they've been taught is a load of ****e.


Religion is only the outward expression of a desire or
acknowledgement
that a greater power exists beyond our own selves.


Yes I know what religion is, and it's nonsensical.

No, religion is a logical response to an inward sense that greatness
exists outside of being human.

There is no evidence of a greater power.

Who designed the human nervous system? What sort of intelligence would
it take to get it to function correctly?

If there was one, there would be evidence,

There is evidence, but even evidence is subject to your individual
belief system.

and if
we have to worship it, he would ask for the worship.

Would you want to have to ask, or would you want such adoration given
freely to you?


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

yeah ...

Hmm, like some innocent babies being born blind/ limbless etc?

Hi Bod,

Long time no talk. Hope this find you well over on the island.

That is nature, not God's doing. And don't think for one second
that God doesn't notice.

Luke 12:7 KJV
But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear
not therefo ye are of more value than many sparrows.

We also feel God presence around those who are helpless. This
is what Muggles and I an talking about.

And, by the way, we are servants of Christ. We are expected
to be his arms and legs. No sitting back and hitting others
over the head (taxes) and demanding that they take care of
the helpless, but not lifting a figer ourselves. It is
the deference between society, which is a blessing, and
government, which is to punish.

I've always thought that since it says we are the "body" of Christ that
it included the entire body, not just the arms and legs. I've joked
that I must be a gall bladder because even as a child people would say
things to me like, "You've got GALL to say that!" lol I guess I wasn't
born with much tact!


sing "all things bright and wonderful, the lord god made them all".

Yup. All things seen and unseen. You should feel our hearts
when we look at the stars. The universe is beyond our human
capability to comprehend (the hand of God).


Then recite "god made all men equal"

Colonel Colt made all men equal.

God loves each and every one of us.

What a load of crap!!

Watch out what you do unto the least of you. You
are also doing it unto God. That included the
rivers of blood from the abortionist's knife.

Guess you have never looked into someone's eyes and
seen the love of God.

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

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

Where did you get that idea from? I used to work in a school which had autistic kids, and they had perfectly normal conversations with me.

--
In the first few days of the Olympics the Rumanians took gold, silver, bronze, copper, lead and anything else they could get their bloody hands on.

On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:59:43 +0100, wrote:

Bod wrote:
[...]


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


How do blind people look into someone's eyes?

The dog tells them where to look.

--
Cold showers/baths/swimming:
1) Cure Hayfever. Apparently this is due to the strengthening effect on the mucous membranes.
2) Help circulation by bringing blood to capilliaries and increasing circulation through the body.
3) Improve the internal furnace, be warmer when it's cold.
4) Make losing weight easier - generating heat burns loads of calories.
5) Detoxify, by contracting muscles to eliminate toxins - skin and hair also improves.
6) Save energy.
7) Increase libido (contrary to the old wives' tale).

On Thu, 12 May 2016 13:56:32 +0100, wrote:

Bod wrote:
On 12/05/2016 13:43, Betty wrote:
Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 19:59, Betty wrote:
Bod wrote:
[...]


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


How do blind people look into someone's eyes?

Have a wild guess.

"I expected a factual explanation ....".

You made a definite statement and should have an answer other than,
"Have a wild guess".

If you understand what blindness means, then it was a stupid question.


Your statement was a stupid premise, you are just unwilling to amend
your statement.

Are you some kind of AI? Because you need reprogramming. You're not acting normal enough to fool us into thinking you're human. You're taking all the words too literally. Report to yur programmer and get back to us within 9462378243 seconds.

--
Yorkshire man takes his cat to the vet.
Yorkshireman: "Ayup, lad, I need to talk to thee about me cat."
Vet: "Is it a tom?"
Yorkshireman: "Nay, I've browt it wi' us."

On Fri, 13 May 2016 15:34:23 +0100, Bud Frede wrote:

Betty 'all writes:

Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 19:59, Betty wrote:
Bod wrote:
[...]


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


How do blind people look into someone's eyes?

Have a wild guess.

"I expected a factual explanation ....".

You made a definite statement and should have an answer other than,
"Have a wild guess".

Given that eyes don't convey much in the way of sincerity or the lack
thereof, I don't know that blind people are less effective at judging
sincerity or veracity than someone who is sighted, or at least not
because they can't see a persons eyes.

A much more sensitive means is using the voice to judge these things. If
you ever think that someone is lying to you, get them to repeat what
they were telling you on the phone. Without all the other cues that are
fooling you, it's usually pretty easy to detect a falsehood.

I have no problem listening to the tone of voice just because they're in front of you.

--
The most ejaculatory orgasms ever recorded in 1 hour for a boy is 16.

On 5/15/2016 12:42 AM, Bod wrote:

Do you think it would be ok with you if a non-smoker sprayed bottled
sewer gas that contained various dangerous chemicals randomly where
people would have no choice but to inhale that gas?

Why do smokers believe they have a right to poison the air other people
breath?

Depends on the levels of the sew gas and the chemicals that that non
smoker sprayed around.

If he were spewing out .005 parts per million..Id think he would not
be liable for much of anything

How about the equivalent to this:

Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic
and about 70 can cause cancer.

Woman aged 112 says her secret to long life is smoking 30 cigarettes ...

www.mirror.co.uk › News › Weird News › Smoking
26 Jan 2016 - A 112-year-old woman claims the secret to a long life is
smoking .... Meet the world's oldest best man who organised the stag do
aged 102 ...


There's always someone who appears immune when many people get sick.

Do you recommend her 30 cigarettes a day as a lifestyle?


--
Maggie

On 5/15/2016 12:46 AM, T wrote:
On 05/11/2016 09:32 AM, Muggles wrote:
Guess you have never looked into someone's eyes and
seen the love of God.

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

True. Guys tend to just look forward. Girl do tend to
look you in the eye.

They do? I'm surprised!

--
Maggie

On Sun, 15 May 2016 16:08:29 +0100, Muggles wrote:

On 5/15/2016 12:46 AM, T wrote:
On 05/11/2016 09:32 AM, Muggles wrote:
Guess you have never looked into someone's eyes and
seen the love of God.

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

True. Guys tend to just look forward. Girl do tend to
look you in the eye.

They do? I'm surprised!

I find someone looking me straight in the eye very annoying. It's a sign of nosiness or impatience. They ask me a question, then stare directly into my eyes, indicating to me that they're annoyed I haven't answered yet.

--
Don't waste money on binoculars, stand closer to the object.

On 5/15/2016 1:06 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 14 May 2016 22:42:55 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/14/2016 3:16 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

Non-smokers are the inconsiderate ones. They're taking in a millionth
of what the smokers are, they need to get a grip.


Do you think it would be ok with you if a non-smoker sprayed bottled
sewer gas that contained various dangerous chemicals randomly where
people would have no choice but to inhale that gas?

Why do smokers believe they have a right to poison the air other people
breath?

Depends on the levels of the sew gas and the chemicals that that non
smoker sprayed around.

If he were spewing out .005 parts per million..Id think he would not
be liable for much of anything

How about the equivalent to this:

Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic
and about 70 can cause cancer.


How about that. So you getting a wiff on rare occasions is being
poisoned far worse than I as the primary smoker? Is that your claim?

As a child I got a wiff with every breath I took while I was at home.
Those cumulative wiffs caused multiple upper respiratory infections,
including ear infections, bronchitis, and reactive airway disease.

It should be noted that Chocolate Can cause cancer as well as coffee,
potatos and some fishes. With the exception of west coast fish...one
would have to eat a few tons of each in multiple single settings...but

There are no people forcing anyone to eat chocolate, coffee, potatos, or
fish. If people have illness as a result of allergies to those things
they don't go near them, and on top of that they aren't exposing other
people to any dangerous chemicals they have no choice by to breath.


hey...you would have to have a gas mask on your face for years at a
time...connected directly to my gas masks exhaust port, to get enough
"second hand smoke" (EEEEE!!! Run!!) to have ANY sort of medical
risk...unless you have medical issues of your own. Which you appear to
be victim of. You must curse your parents for their genetic "gift" to
you.

After years of exposure and damage to my body from secondhand smoke, I'm
highly allergic and reactive to not only cigarette smoke, but VOC's in
the air.

It's a fact that cigarette smoke hurts the people it comes in contact
with, including, the residue you carry on you in your hair and on your
clothes.

Many people who smoke, not everyone, simply don't care about anyone but
themselves because their hooked on smoking psychologically, physically,
and emotionally. Essentially, they're drug addicts, only their drug is
legal.

--
Maggie

On Sun, 15 May 2016 04:41:44 +0100, Muggles wrote:

On 5/14/2016 3:01 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 08:01:32 -0400, Bud Frede
wrote:

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.


Center for Disease Control

Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic
and about 70 can cause cancer.

Since the 1964 Surgeon Generals Report, 2.5 million adults who were
nonsmokers died because they breathed secondhand smoke.

Secondhand smoke causes numerous health problems in infants and
children, including more frequent and severe asthma attacks, respiratory
infections, ear infections, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
Smoking during pregnancy results in more than 1,000 infant deaths annually.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_stat...ealth_effects/

I don't think I need to post the entire website.

Bod, how many years have you smoked? Would you say you were less well than anyone else?

--
All the American flags on the moon have been bleached by radiation from the sun (which can only be a good thing).

On Thu, 12 May 2016 17:37:13 +0100, Muggles wrote:

On 5/12/2016 7:01 AM, 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?

According to the bible, God "created" everything "in the beginning". At
that time all rules of nature and creation were also set into motion.

WE create the newborn baby based on the laws set into motion "in the
beginning". Since, sin entered the world, nothing has been perfect,
which allowed disease and imperfection to occur. Everything humanity
has done from the time of the fall leads up to a certain result - our
actions have consequences in our lives and our bodies, and that includes
our children.

This world was given to us to have dominion over, and what we have today
is a result of OUR dominion over this world, not God's. God gave it to
us, and he hasn't taken it back. Mankind in it's limited understanding
has thoroughly screwed things up over and over again, and yet, the bible
still tells us that God is waiting for us to acknowledge him and come to
him, and he will stand by our sides as we deal with this world and help
us, lead us, give us wisdom, and live in this world that he gave us.

THAT is what the bible says, not me.

Typical religious nut, twisting things to suit reality.

--
In the UK, 17% of employees are health and safety officers.
Say NO! to health and safety in the workplace, before there are no real workers left!
Look out for yourself and stop blaming each other like 6 year olds!

On 15/05/2016 15:55, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 17:43:32 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 17:32, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 3:39 AM, T wrote:
On 05/11/2016 01:02 AM, Bod wrote:
On 10/05/2016 21:37, Muggles wrote:
On 5/10/2016 2:22 PM, T wrote:
On 05/08/2016 12:26 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/8/2016 1:33 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 08 May 2016 04:03:28 +0100, Muggles

wrote:

On 5/7/2016 4:08 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2016 21:36:25 +0100, Winston_Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 07 May 2016 21:09:27 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

As intelligence increases with each generation, religion
decreases.

Can you prove a decrease in religion results in an increase of
intelligence ? There seem to be examples to the contrary here.

I'd say the increase in intelligence causes the decrease in
religion.
Clever folk realise what they've been taught is a load of ****e.


Religion is only the outward expression of a desire or
acknowledgement
that a greater power exists beyond our own selves.


Yes I know what religion is, and it's nonsensical.

No, religion is a logical response to an inward sense that
greatness
exists outside of being human.

There is no evidence of a greater power.

Who designed the human nervous system? What sort of intelligence
would
it take to get it to function correctly?

If there was one, there would be evidence,

There is evidence, but even evidence is subject to your individual
belief system.

and if
we have to worship it, he would ask for the worship.

Would you want to have to ask, or would you want such adoration
given
freely to you?


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

yeah ...

Hmm, like some innocent babies being born blind/ limbless etc?

Hi Bod,

Long time no talk. Hope this find you well over on the island.

That is nature, not God's doing. And don't think for one second
that God doesn't notice.

Luke 12:7 KJV
But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear
not therefo ye are of more value than many sparrows.

We also feel God presence around those who are helpless. This
is what Muggles and I an talking about.

And, by the way, we are servants of Christ. We are expected
to be his arms and legs. No sitting back and hitting others
over the head (taxes) and demanding that they take care of
the helpless, but not lifting a figer ourselves. It is
the deference between society, which is a blessing, and
government, which is to punish.

I've always thought that since it says we are the "body" of Christ that
it included the entire body, not just the arms and legs. I've joked
that I must be a gall bladder because even as a child people would say
things to me like, "You've got GALL to say that!" lol I guess I wasn't
born with much tact!


sing "all things bright and wonderful, the lord god made them all".

Yup. All things seen and unseen. You should feel our hearts
when we look at the stars. The universe is beyond our human
capability to comprehend (the hand of God).


Then recite "god made all men equal"

Colonel Colt made all men equal.

God loves each and every one of us.

What a load of crap!!

Watch out what you do unto the least of you. You
are also doing it unto God. That included the
rivers of blood from the abortionist's knife.

Guess you have never looked into someone's eyes and
seen the love of God.

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

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

Where did you get that idea from? I used to work in a school which had
autistic kids, and they had perfectly normal conversations with me.

Because I know about Autism and you haven't got a clue.

https://www.autismspeaks.org/blog/20...ke-eye-contact

--
Bod