On 05/29/2017 03:55 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 9:11:48 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 05/28/2017 06:21 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 4:28:53 AM UTC-4, T wrote:

And evolution was never meant to be anything other than
science and as such is a moving target. 200 years from
today, there will be a theory to replace it and everyone
will laugh at evolution just as today we laugh at "caloric" and
the "first law of thermodynamics" (matter and energy can
neither be created or destroyed -- obviously not true).

Can you elaborate a little on this?

You elaborated a little more than expected.

1st law of Thermodynamics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics is an expression of the
principle of conservation of energy. It states that energy
can be transformed (changed from one form to another),
but cannot be created or destroyed

Obviously this is not the case. Einstein's equation
Energy = Mass x (Universal Constant [speed of light]) squared
Put that to rest.

Examples:
Q. What is being transformed in a nuclear power plant?
A. Mass is being transformed into energy

Q. How are Transuranic elements formed?
A. By applying energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transuranium_element

The way I was taught, the First Law of Thermodynamics is:

Neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed; only
converted from one form to another. Conversion of matter
into energy follows the law.

Cindy Hamilton


Hi Cindy,

This first law states:

The first law, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy,
states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an
isolated system.

not that you are transforming energy into matter or
matter into energy. Energy can be converted into
another form of energy, but not into matter.

-T

On Mon, 29 May 2017 08:03:41 -0400, Meanie wrote:

On 5/29/2017 1:14 AM, Bod wrote:

Many "religions" or churches provide social services and education,
and health care free of charge to those who cannot afford these
services, irrespective of their beliefs or lack there of. It was
religions that established schools and hospitals in most of the world.

One of the most effective "relief agencies" in the world is a church
organization called the "mennonite central committee"

Another "faith based organization" that is very well known to
survivors of natural disasters across North America from the hollers
of Kentucky (Whitesburg/Hazzard etc), to the flood-ravaged vallets of
New York State (Elmira/Corning etc) to hurricane ravaged New Orleans,
is "MDS" - Mennonite Disaster Service.

All volunteer labour, helping those in need due to no fault of their
own - entirely out of their "religious beliefs"

No question of faith or creed - the help is available to all who need
it.

The church of England is one of the biggest landowners in the UK and
make millions each year. They are a very large *business* and invest in
the stock market, yet still beg for money at their services.
They could also eliminate homelessness at a stroke, but choose not to.

A guide to the Church of England's huge investments - BBC News
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23467750
26 Jul 2013 - The Church of England's investments are wide-ranging and
complex, with ... The remaining £2.8bn is invested in stock markets, in
major ...

Are they tax exempt?
The "Church of England" is a "state church" and is a Theocracy - Like
the Catholic Church. The big difference is the CoE has the Archbishop
of Canterbury and the RCs have the Pope. Otherwise they are pretty
much the same - they ARE big business.

They are NOT representative of the "Christian Church" as a whole.
Particularly not representative of the "reformation " churches that
broke out from under the authority of the state church Theocracies.
Nor are the "TV Evangelist Money Grabbers"

Look instead at men like Billy Graham for an example. Look to groups
like the Brethren, and the Brethren In Christ, and the United Brethren
in Christ (all totally separate) and the Mennonites, The Mennonite
Brethren, the Baptists (Fellowship Baptist much more-so than the
Southern Baptist Convention - who have swallowed the Republican Cool
aid in a big way) - and the Pentecostal, to a large extent -although
there are some pretty radical groups under that name who push
the"wealth gospel" - "Give 'till it hurts and you will be blessed in
like manner" - putting money into Charlatans' hands. Also look at the
Nazareens, and the United Missionary Churches.

Working towards peace, showing love to their fellow man, etc etc.

There are bad apples in every barrel - but certainly no less in the
"non-christian", or "secular" world.

And anyone who considers the KKK to be a "Christian" organization is
sure bending the definition - - -

On Mon, 29 May 2017 08:04:33 -0400, Meanie wrote:

On 5/28/2017 11:07 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Sun, 28 May 2017 21:36:45 -0400, wrote:


Religions across time and the entire planet have been victimizing
their followers in the name of non-existent deities. Every religion
from evangelical christianity to scientology is nothing but a cult. In
fact, the only difference between a cult and a religion is the size of
the membership.

Whereas I would not want to prevent anyone from believing in their
personal fairy tales, I do advocate fully taxing all religions as one
would tax any business. There should be no special treatment of
religions.


Amen!, er, I mean, I agree.
Tax all "non-religious use assets" or all "non charitable assets" ?-
that's fine with me, perhaps

Don't tax hospitals and charitable homes for the aged, or orphans, or
the mentally disadvantaged. Don't tax the homeless shelters and
addiction treatment centers,that operate as not-for-profit charities.
And don't tax those "for profit" entities that can demonstrate all
the profits go to supporting the not-for-profit charities operated
under the same umbrella. There IS a case to be made for "tax free
charities" as long as that is what they are.

I agree having huge real-estate holdings and large war chests and huge
expensive oppulent homes for the "elite" or "ruling class" tax free is
a problem.

Where to draw the line to be "fair" is the problem - - -

On Mon, 29 May 2017 08:10:48 -0400, Meanie wrote:

On 5/28/2017 11:13 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/28/2017 7:02 PM, Meanie wrote:

you cannot prove the existence of a supreme being.

You cannot prove the existence of love, hate, envy, etc. You can only
show examples of what you think is a result of it.



They are emotions/mental state and proved when displaying the act of
that emotion. Religious belief is also a mental state and simply proves
ones belief in indoctrinated dogma. Apples to oranges comparison when
trying to prove it to a physical entity.
You are entirled to your strong opinion. That said, so are all those
who would respectfully dissagree with you. Have the courtesy to
"respectfully" disagree instead of disrespecting and trashing
everything you do not understand or agree with.

Have you noticed it is all the "non-believers" and the "godless" and
the "atheists" and "non-theists" and "anti-theists" that are
CONSTANTLY bringing up the topic of God or Non-God, and "religion",
and almost always with total disrespect and animosity???

Why is this????
The "religious", "Godly", "Believers", "Christians" or whatever are
not starting threads on places like "alt Home Repair" titled "are
atheists really as stupid as they sound" or "are atheists dummer than
a rock" or "does one's belief in Evolution mean he's a Monkey's
Uncle?"

Why? Because THEY have repect for the beliefs or non-beliefs of others
and have enough confidence in their own beliefs they don't need to
downgrade everyone else in order to feel good about themselves.

You want respect?
Show respect.

On Mon, 29 May 2017 13:55:38 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Mon, 29 May 2017 00:54:54 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 29 May 2017 03:07:44 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Sun, 28 May 2017 21:36:45 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 29 May 2017 01:12:54 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:



Don't forget, all religions exist as tools for one group of people to
influence, control and extract resources from another, much larger
group of people.

Deities are inventions of humans, little different than a pry bar,
tools to separate people from their valuables and gain control over
their free will.

Religions are tools of the unscrupulous and a refuge for the weak of
mind.


I am sorry you have had such a bad experience with "religions"
Some organizations may indeed be as you say - but most certainly not
all. What you describe is a theocracy, like the catholic church.

There are religeous organizations that have no "elite class" that
"lives off the masses"

You are sorry I have had bad experiences with religions? That is
pretty funny, but not unexpected.

Religions across time and the entire planet have been victimizing
their followers in the name of non-existent deities. Every religion
from evangelical christianity to scientology is nothing but a cult. In
fact, the only difference between a cult and a religion is the size of
the membership.

A total fallacy, as there are cults larger than some religions.

Son, what is fallacious is your implication there is any difference
between a religion and a cult. There is no difference. However, I do
admire your Kellyanne Conway style propaganda in attempting to declare
my assertions, "a total fallacy".

Simply because the lies of your cult are older or believed by more
people than the lies of another cult, this does not legitimize your
cult. All cults are invalid and built on a foundation of lies.

If any cult were able to produce empirical evidence to substantiate
the existence of their particular flavor of deities, that evidence
would have been produced thousands of years ago and there would be
little resistance to the assertions of that cult.

As education spreads, the fables and superstitions of ancient, middle
eastern goat herders, continue to fade from the collective memory of
the human race.




Whereas I would not want to prevent anyone from believing in their
personal fairy tales, I do advocate fully taxing all religions as one
would tax any business. There should be no special treatment of
religions.
Many "religions" or churches provide social services and education,
and health care free of charge to those who cannot afford these
services, irrespective of their beliefs or lack there of. It was
religions that established schools and hospitals in most of the world.

One of the most effective "relief agencies" in the world is a church
organization called the "mennonite central committee"

Another "faith based organization" that is very well known to
survivors of natural disasters across North America from the hollers
of Kentucky (Whitesburg/Hazzard etc), to the flood-ravaged vallets of
New York State (Elmira/Corning etc) to hurricane ravaged New Orleans,
is "MDS" - Mennonite Disaster Service.

All volunteer labour, helping those in need due to no fault of their
own - entirely out of their "religious beliefs"

No question of faith or creed - the help is available to all who need
it.

There is no doubt that some cults provide rare, truly charitable
services and assistance. Those services should be separate and
distinct 501c3 entities in the USA and should enjoy tax exemption,
IMHO.

However, things such as support of cult missionaries, proselytizing,
property used for cult purposes, all income not used for legitimate,
charitable services, should (IMHO) be taxed at a business rate.
Additionally, clergy should all pay the same income tax rates as any
typical citizens. In the USA, clergy receive an approximate 30%, off
the top, discount on income taxes and I believe they can also receive
a tax free housing allowance from the cult.
Well, since you are contributing NOTHING to "Alt.HomeRepair, I'm
putting you in the bit bucket along with Meanie and a bunch of others.
Sorry, but to be fair, I have to put Muggles in there too. Nothing of
value? Down the drain. FLUSH!!!!

On 5/29/2017 1:20 PM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2017 18:18, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2017 6:21 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2017 11:51, T wrote:
On 05/28/2017 10:12 PM, Muggles wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017 05:58:27 +0100, Bod wrote:
Prove love exists.
Simply telling me you SHOW love is not proof. It's
simply your interpretation of something you feel
exists.

How is that any different from a belief in God?

Because my wife is real.

God is real.
Kindness is closely linked to love and that is easily *physically*
proven in the real world, with real
people.

Who told you that? How do you know? Do you believe that because you
feel it, or because you were taught it?

Prove what you said. If it exists you should bed able to prove it.
According to your own words.

She's got you there Bod. :-)


If none of you two do not know what the feeling of love and hate feels
and looks like,

The point of me asking you to prove "love" exists is because you said:

"*you state that something exists, but cannot give me proof that it
does*. If I said that I see fairies every day in my garden, but no one
else can see them, I would probably end up in an asylum and quite
rightly so."

YOU stated "love" exists, so, give proof that it does.

Don't you back up what you say?

What I or T knows about love or hate is irrelevant to the point you made
and need to back up.

then I doubt both of your intelligences or you're both
devoid of normal feelings and are just trying to score a cheap point.


Cheap point?? No.

You've been ragging on people who believe in a God for a long time. You
stated that when something exists there should be proof provided that it
does exist.

Back up your own words, and prove "love" exists, or stop ragging on
people who believe in a God to provide proof a God exists.


You have a problem with sentience if you can't see and recognise love
when it is shown.

I feel the same way about people who can't see and recognize God exists.

--
Maggie

On 5/29/2017 2:12 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/29/2017 1:20 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2017 7:10 AM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/28/2017 11:13 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/28/2017 7:02 PM, Meanie wrote:

you cannot prove the existence of a supreme being.

You cannot prove the existence of love, hate, envy, etc. You can only
show examples of what you think is a result of it.


They are emotions/mental state and proved when displaying the act of
that emotion.

So, belief in a God can be either or both an emotion/mental state and is
proved when displaying that belief, according to your reasoning.

I'm not disputing the "belief" in God. Anyone can believe as they wish,
it doesn't mean it's true. Many people once believed the world was flat,
but it wasn't true. Kids believe in Santa Clause and the tooth fairy
until they discover its not true. Unfortunately, adults who are raised
to believe in a God can't accept the truth he doesn't exist. Therefore,

How do you explain adults who weren't raised to believe in a God, yet,
they still do?


believe as you want and if you act in kindness due to your belief, it's
an emotional outcome based on what you feel to be good and wholesome of
your belief. It still doesn't prove the existence of a physical supreme
being. It's all a state of mind.



--
Maggie

What I or T knows about love or hate is irrelevant to the point you made
and need to back up.

then I doubt both of your intelligences or you're both
devoid of normal feelings and are just trying to score a cheap point.


Cheap point?? No.

You've been ragging on people who believe in a God for a long time. You
stated that when something exists there should be proof provided that it
does exist.

Back up your own words, and prove "love" exists, or stop ragging on
people who believe in a God to provide proof a God exists.


You have a problem with sentience if you can't see and recognise love
when it is shown.

I feel the same way about people who can't see and recognize God exists.

Love for another human is tangible, believing in a non physical being is
not.

On 30/05/2017 04:39, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2017 1:20 PM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2017 18:18, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2017 6:21 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2017 11:51, T wrote:
On 05/28/2017 10:12 PM, Muggles wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017 05:58:27 +0100, Bod wrote:
Prove love exists.
Simply telling me you SHOW love is not proof. It's
simply your interpretation of something you feel
exists.

How is that any different from a belief in God?

Because my wife is real.

God is real.
Kindness is closely linked to love and that is easily *physically*
proven in the real world, with real
people.

Who told you that? How do you know? Do you believe that because you
feel it, or because you were taught it?

Prove what you said. If it exists you should bed able to prove it.
According to your own words.

She's got you there Bod. :-)


If none of you two do not know what the feeling of love and hate feels
and looks like,

The point of me asking you to prove "love" exists is because you said:

"*you state that something exists, but cannot give me proof that it
does*. If I said that I see fairies every day in my garden, but no one
else can see them, I would probably end up in an asylum and quite
rightly so."

YOU stated "love" exists, so, give proof that it does.

Don't you back up what you say?

What I or T knows about love or hate is irrelevant to the point you made
and need to back up.

then I doubt both of your intelligences or you're both
devoid of normal feelings and are just trying to score a cheap point.


Cheap point?? No.

You've been ragging on people who believe in a God for a long time. You
stated that when something exists there should be proof provided that it
does exist.

Back up your own words, and prove "love" exists, or stop ragging on
people who believe in a God to provide proof a God exists.


You have a problem with sentience if you can't see and recognise love
when it is shown.

I feel the same way about people who can't see and recognize God exists.

The big difference is, that there can be no argument that humans exist
and acts of love can be physically shared. The same cannot be be true by
simply believing in something that is by all accounts not there.....
and without a physical presence of a god, cannot ever be proved
without physical evidence.

On Tue, 30 May 2017 05:13:14 +0100, Bod wrote:
You have a problem with sentience if you can't
see and recognise love when it is shown.

I feel the same way about people who can't see
and recognize God exists.

Love for another human is tangible,

To a Christian, God is tangible. Why can't you accept that?

believing in a non physical being is not.

You believe in love, which is equally a non physical entity.

Why is it so difficult for you to accept?

--
Maggie

On 30/05/2017 05:29, Muggles wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2017 05:13:14 +0100, Bod wrote:
You have a problem with sentience if you can't
see and recognise love when it is shown.

I feel the same way about people who can't see
and recognize God exists.

Love for another human is tangible,

To a Christian, God is tangible. Why can't you accept that?

believing in a non physical being is not.

You believe in love, which is equally a non physical entity.

Why is it so difficult for you to accept?

Eh!? Are you saying that you've never physically exchanged love with a
human and also are you telling me that you can't detect and physically
feel someone's love for you by their actions and demeanour?

Love for a human being is physically expressed by numerous gestures by
words exchanged/ by physical touch etc. Love for a god can *never* be
tangible.

Definition of the word *tangible*

"a thing that is perceptible by touch"

Muggles news:almarsoft.4035726499852484014
@reader443.eternal-september.org Mon, 29 May 2017 04:41:00 GMT in
alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Mon, 29 May 2017 05:28:46 +0100, Bod wrote:
Did the voices in your head tell you this?

Did the voice in your head tell you that you love
your wife?


I don't have voices in my head. I show my love both
physically and emotionally. Something that you don't
appear to understand.

Prove you love your wife.

Prove love exists.

Love is a chemical reaction...
http://people.howstuffworks.com/love6.htm
http://www.youramazingbrain.org/lovesex/sciencelove.htm



--
Nope, I can't go to hell.
Satan still has a restraining order against me.
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

Muggles news:almarsoft.1479249131625659202
@reader443.eternal-september.org Mon, 29 May 2017 05:12:03 GMT in
alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Mon, 29 May 2017 05:58:27 +0100, Bod wrote:
Prove love exists.
Simply telling me you SHOW love is not proof. It's
simply your interpretation of something you feel
exists.

How is that any different from a belief in God?

Because my wife is real.

God is real.

Perhaps, perhaps not. No definitive proof of any kind, either way.



--
Nope, I can't go to hell.
Satan still has a restraining order against me.
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 7:54:11 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017 08:04:33 -0400, Meanie wrote:

On 5/28/2017 11:07 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Sun, 28 May 2017 21:36:45 -0400, wrote:


Religions across time and the entire planet have been victimizing
their followers in the name of non-existent deities. Every religion
from evangelical christianity to scientology is nothing but a cult. In
fact, the only difference between a cult and a religion is the size of
the membership.

Whereas I would not want to prevent anyone from believing in their
personal fairy tales, I do advocate fully taxing all religions as one
would tax any business. There should be no special treatment of
religions.


Amen!, er, I mean, I agree.
Tax all "non-religious use assets" or all "non charitable assets" ?-
that's fine with me, perhaps

Don't tax hospitals and charitable homes for the aged, or orphans, or
the mentally disadvantaged. Don't tax the homeless shelters and
addiction treatment centers,that operate as not-for-profit charities.
And don't tax those "for profit" entities that can demonstrate all
the profits go to supporting the not-for-profit charities operated
under the same umbrella. There IS a case to be made for "tax free
charities" as long as that is what they are.

I agree having huge real-estate holdings and large war chests and huge
expensive oppulent homes for the "elite" or "ruling class" tax free is
a problem.

Where to draw the line to be "fair" is the problem - - -


Religious organizations should be free of taxation and government intrusion as long as long as they don't try to influence government and stay the hell (no pun) out of politics. Christianity seems to have evolved out of savagery and become more or less civilized. Islam, not so much. Christianity has a savage past like that period of time when the Catholics tried to forcibly convert Jews. A few centuries later the Catholic church went after Protestants. Muslims are still mad about The Crusades which happened centuries ago and they seem to be stuck there. As far as I know, The Pope hasn't called for a holy war lately but it seems like every other imam is calling for jihad against nonbelievers. I don't want to live in a theocracy no matter what flavor of religion is in charge. If ANY religious organization calls for death and destruction, roundup the members, put the FEMA camps to use and bulldoze the church, temple or mosque. It's the job of the government to protect the citizenry from threats both internal and external. Jihadis don't respond to hugs and flowers, intracranial lead poisoning by multiple fast moving projectiles works best. (　-_ï½¥) ︻デ•�一 –¸

[8~{} Uncle Intolerant Monster

On 30/05/2017 05:55, Diesel wrote:
Muggles news:almarsoft.4035726499852484014
@reader443.eternal-september.org Mon, 29 May 2017 04:41:00 GMT in
alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Mon, 29 May 2017 05:28:46 +0100, Bod wrote:
Did the voices in your head tell you this?

Did the voice in your head tell you that you love
your wife?


I don't have voices in my head. I show my love both
physically and emotionally. Something that you don't
appear to understand.

Prove you love your wife.

Prove love exists.

Love is a chemical reaction...
http://people.howstuffworks.com/love6.htm
http://www.youramazingbrain.org/lovesex/sciencelove.htm



So there we have it; physical love is *detectable* and has been proved.

On 30/05/2017 05:29, Muggles wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2017 05:13:14 +0100, Bod wrote:
You have a problem with sentience if you can't
see and recognise love when it is shown.

I feel the same way about people who can't see
and recognize God exists.

Love for another human is tangible,

To a Christian, God is tangible. Why can't you accept that?

believing in a non physical being is not.

You believe in love, which is equally a non physical entity.

Why is it so difficult for you to accept?

Another religious crackpot: :-)

NASA Astronaut Says God Lives On The Moon

A NASA astronaut has come forward claiming that God actually lives on
the Moon, and that the NASA have been hiding this fact for years.

Multiple NASA personnel have made some pretty shocking claims about the
Moon. George Leonard is one of the latest NASA personnel to come forward
suggesting such a theory.

He and others claim that they felt and saw the overwhelming presence of
God on the Moon, and that photographs and film footage were hidden or
destroyed by NASA in an attempt to cover-up this information from the
public.

He and others claim that they felt and saw the overwhelming presence of
God on the Moon, and that photographs and film footage were hidden or
destroyed by NASA in an attempt to cover-up this information from the
public.

http://naijapicks.com/posts/992/nasa...es-on-the-moon

On 05/29/2017 08:54 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017 08:04:33 -0400, Meanie wrote:

On 5/28/2017 11:07 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Sun, 28 May 2017 21:36:45 -0400, wrote:
Religions across time and the entire planet have been victimizing
their followers in the name of non-existent deities. Every religion
from evangelical christianity to scientology is nothing but a cult. In
fact, the only difference between a cult and a religion is the size of
the membership.

Whereas I would not want to prevent anyone from believing in their
personal fairy tales, I do advocate fully taxing all religions as one
would tax any business. There should be no special treatment of
religions.

Amen!, er, I mean, I agree.
Tax all "non-religious use assets" or all "non charitable assets" ?-
that's fine with me, perhaps

Don't tax hospitals and charitable homes for the aged, or orphans, or
the mentally disadvantaged. Don't tax the homeless shelters and
addiction treatment centers,that operate as not-for-profit charities.
And don't tax those "for profit" entities that can demonstrate all
the profits go to supporting the not-for-profit charities operated
under the same umbrella. There IS a case to be made for "tax free
charities" as long as that is what they are.

I agree having huge real-estate holdings and large war chests and huge
expensive oppulent homes for the "elite" or "ruling class" tax free is
a problem.

Where to draw the line to be "fair" is the problem - - -



Every time some do-gooder group gets tax-free status, the US tax burden
gets shifted a little bit more to the taxpayer...and it's breakin' my back.

On 05/29/2017 09:13 PM, Bod wrote:


What I or T knows about love or hate is irrelevant to the point you
made
and need to back up.

then I doubt both of your intelligences or you're both
devoid of normal feelings and are just trying to score a cheap point.


Cheap point?? No.

You've been ragging on people who believe in a God for a long time. You
stated that when something exists there should be proof provided
that it
does exist.

Back up your own words, and prove "love" exists, or stop ragging on
people who believe in a God to provide proof a God exists.


You have a problem with sentience if you can't see and recognise love
when it is shown.

I feel the same way about people who can't see and recognize God exists.

Love for another human is tangible, believing in a non physical being is
not.

Bod,

What makes you think what we feel from the Lord is not tangible?
He makes his presence in my life very apparent.

-T

On 05/29/2017 09:25 PM, Bod wrote:
On 30/05/2017 04:39, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2017 1:20 PM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2017 18:18, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2017 6:21 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2017 11:51, T wrote:
On 05/28/2017 10:12 PM, Muggles wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017 05:58:27 +0100, Bod
wrote:
Prove love exists.
Simply telling me you SHOW love is not proof. It's
simply your interpretation of something you feel
exists.

How is that any different from a belief in God?

Because my wife is real.

God is real.
Kindness is closely linked to love and that is easily *physically*
proven in the real world, with real
people.

Who told you that? How do you know? Do you believe that because you
feel it, or because you were taught it?

Prove what you said. If it exists you should bed able to prove it.
According to your own words.

She's got you there Bod. :-)


If none of you two do not know what the feeling of love and hate feels
and looks like,

The point of me asking you to prove "love" exists is because you said:

"*you state that something exists, but cannot give me proof that it
does*. If I said that I see fairies every day in my garden, but no one
else can see them, I would probably end up in an asylum and quite
rightly so."

YOU stated "love" exists, so, give proof that it does.

Don't you back up what you say?

What I or T knows about love or hate is irrelevant to the point you
made
and need to back up.

then I doubt both of your intelligences or you're both
devoid of normal feelings and are just trying to score a cheap point.


Cheap point?? No.

You've been ragging on people who believe in a God for a long time. You
stated that when something exists there should be proof provided
that it
does exist.

Back up your own words, and prove "love" exists, or stop ragging on
people who believe in a God to provide proof a God exists.


You have a problem with sentience if you can't see and recognise love
when it is shown.

I feel the same way about people who can't see and recognize God exists.

The big difference is, that there can be no argument that humans exist
and acts of love can be physically shared. The same cannot be be true by
simply believing in something that is by all accounts not there.....
and without a physical presence of a god, cannot ever be proved
without physical evidence.

Bod,

There is a zillions more to the love I feel from my wife
that just the physical touch.

And why do you care? No one is harming you.

-T

On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 11:40:34 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2017 2:12 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/29/2017 1:20 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2017 7:10 AM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/28/2017 11:13 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/28/2017 7:02 PM, Meanie wrote:

you cannot prove the existence of a supreme being.

You cannot prove the existence of love, hate, envy, etc. You can only
show examples of what you think is a result of it.


They are emotions/mental state and proved when displaying the act of
that emotion.

So, belief in a God can be either or both an emotion/mental state and is
proved when displaying that belief, according to your reasoning.

I'm not disputing the "belief" in God. Anyone can believe as they wish,
it doesn't mean it's true. Many people once believed the world was flat,
but it wasn't true. Kids believe in Santa Clause and the tooth fairy
until they discover its not true. Unfortunately, adults who are raised
to believe in a God can't accept the truth he doesn't exist. Therefore,

How do you explain adults who weren't raised to believe in a God, yet,
they still do?

Some people just need Somebody to lean on. They come to belief later
in life.

Cindy Hamilton

On 5/29/2017 11:40 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2017 2:12 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/29/2017 1:20 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2017 7:10 AM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/28/2017 11:13 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/28/2017 7:02 PM, Meanie wrote:

you cannot prove the existence of a supreme being.

You cannot prove the existence of love, hate, envy, etc. You can only
show examples of what you think is a result of it.


They are emotions/mental state and proved when displaying the act of
that emotion.

So, belief in a God can be either or both an emotion/mental state and is
proved when displaying that belief, according to your reasoning.

I'm not disputing the "belief" in God. Anyone can believe as they wish,
it doesn't mean it's true. Many people once believed the world was flat,
but it wasn't true. Kids believe in Santa Clause and the tooth fairy
until they discover its not true. Unfortunately, adults who are raised
to believe in a God can't accept the truth he doesn't exist. Therefore,

How do you explain adults who weren't raised to believe in a God, yet,
they still do?




Free will.

How one came to believe is irrelevant. Many people feel the need for
guidance in their life. It still doesn't prove the existence of a
physical/supreme being.

On 05/29/2017 09:55 PM, Diesel wrote:
Muggles news:almarsoft.1479249131625659202
@reader443.eternal-september.org Mon, 29 May 2017 05:12:03 GMT in
alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Mon, 29 May 2017 05:58:27 +0100, Bod wrote:
Prove love exists.
Simply telling me you SHOW love is not proof. It's
simply your interpretation of something you feel
exists.

How is that any different from a belief in God?

Because my wife is real.

God is real.

Perhaps, perhaps not. No definitive proof of any kind, either way.




Hi Diesel,

There is no argument or physical equation that can prove,
or conversely, disprove that God exists.

The only thing I can do is to tell you my personal experience
and how I got there.

And since you did not ask me, I will only say that I have had a
personal relationship with my creator (Jesus) for as long as
I can remember and I also have a personal relationship
with a saint that chose me. The love I feel from them
is very obvious.

So, you mileage may vary :-)

-T

On 05/29/2017 09:55 PM, Diesel wrote:
Muggles news:almarsoft.4035726499852484014
@reader443.eternal-september.org Mon, 29 May 2017 04:41:00 GMT in
alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Mon, 29 May 2017 05:28:46 +0100, Bod wrote:
Did the voices in your head tell you this?

Did the voice in your head tell you that you love
your wife?


I don't have voices in my head. I show my love both
physically and emotionally. Something that you don't
appear to understand.

Prove you love your wife.

Prove love exists.

Love is a chemical reaction...
http://people.howstuffworks.com/love6.htm
http://www.youramazingbrain.org/lovesex/sciencelove.htm

Hi Diesel,

I did not read the links, but I get the gist as I have
seen similar documentaries on the subject and they
were fascinating.

Okay here is the problem with your response. Not the love
were were taking about. The English language sucks
at the word love.

The Greeks did "love" best:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love

Agápe
Éros
Philia
Storge

Your links were for "Eros". What Maggie and I speak
of is "Agápe". When we say "God is Love", we mean
"God is Agápe". It is also what we mean when we say
we love our spouses. You can not measure it with
instruments as you can Eros. (We do that towards our
spouses too and, indeed, it can be measured.)

Agápe:
(ἀγάπη agápē) means "love: esp. charity; the
love of God for man and of man for God." Agape
is used in ancient texts to denote feelings for
one's children and the feelings for a spouse, and
it was also used to refer to a love feast. Agape
is used by Christians to express the unconditional
love of God for his children. This type of
love was further explained by Thomas Aquinas as
"to will the good of another."

Thomas Aquinas stated it very well.

I hope that clears up the confusion.

-T

On 05/29/2017 10:01 PM, Bod wrote:
On 30/05/2017 05:55, Diesel wrote:
Muggles news:almarsoft.4035726499852484014
@reader443.eternal-september.org Mon, 29 May 2017 04:41:00 GMT in
alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Mon, 29 May 2017 05:28:46 +0100, Bod wrote:
Did the voices in your head tell you this?

Did the voice in your head tell you that you love
your wife?


I don't have voices in my head. I show my love both
physically and emotionally. Something that you don't
appear to understand.

Prove you love your wife.

Prove love exists.

Love is a chemical reaction...
http://people.howstuffworks.com/love6.htm
http://www.youramazingbrain.org/lovesex/sciencelove.htm


So there we have it; physical love is *detectable* and has been proved.

Hi Bod,

Wrong love. See my response to Diesel. In short
Eros can indeed be measured with instruments. Agápe, the
one Maggie and I speak of, can not. You got the wrong
love.

-T

Back up your own words, and prove "love" exists, or stop ragging on
people who believe in a God to provide proof a God exists.


You have a problem with sentience if you can't see and recognise love
when it is shown.

I feel the same way about people who can't see and recognize God exists.

Love for another human is tangible, believing in a non physical being
is not.

Bod,

What makes you think what we feel from the Lord is not tangible?
He makes his presence in my life very apparent.

-T



*tangible*

adjective

perceptible by touch.

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 6:10:44 AM UTC-5, Bod wrote:
Back up your own words, and prove "love" exists, or stop ragging on
people who believe in a God to provide proof a God exists.

You have a problem with sentience if you can't see and recognise love
when it is shown.

I feel the same way about people who can't see and recognize God exists.

Love for another human is tangible, believing in a non physical being
is not.

Bod,

What makes you think what we feel from the Lord is not tangible?
He makes his presence in my life very apparent.

-T

*tangible*

adjective

perceptible by touch.


Why is it that atheist soldiers always pray to God when they're in a foxhole and being shot at? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[8~{} Uncle Foxy Monster

On 30/05/2017 12:36, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 6:10:44 AM UTC-5, Bod wrote:
Back up your own words, and prove "love" exists, or stop ragging on
people who believe in a God to provide proof a God exists.

You have a problem with sentience if you can't see and recognise love
when it is shown.

I feel the same way about people who can't see and recognize God exists.

Love for another human is tangible, believing in a non physical being
is not.

Bod,

What makes you think what we feel from the Lord is not tangible?
He makes his presence in my life very apparent.

-T

*tangible*

adjective

perceptible by touch.


Why is it that atheist soldiers always pray to God when they're in a foxhole and being shot at? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[8~{} Uncle Foxy Monster

I've heard that *all* soldiers call out for their mum.

Before death, all soldiers call for their mothers - Euromaidan Press
euromaidanpress.com/.../surgeon-from-the-ato-zone-before-death-all-soldiers-call-for...
4 Aug 2014 - Surgeon from the ATO zone: Before death, all soldiers call
for their mothers.

On 30/05/2017 12:57, Bod wrote:
On 30/05/2017 12:36, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 6:10:44 AM UTC-5, Bod wrote:
Back up your own words, and prove "love" exists, or stop ragging on
people who believe in a God to provide proof a God exists.

You have a problem with sentience if you can't see and recognise
love
when it is shown.

I feel the same way about people who can't see and recognize God
exists.

Love for another human is tangible, believing in a non physical being
is not.

Bod,

What makes you think what we feel from the Lord is not tangible?
He makes his presence in my life very apparent.

-T

*tangible*

adjective

perceptible by touch.


Why is it that atheist soldiers always pray to God when they're in a
foxhole and being shot at? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[8~{} Uncle Foxy Monster

I've heard that *all* soldiers call out for their mum.

Before death, all soldiers call for their mothers - Euromaidan Press
euromaidanpress.com/.../surgeon-from-the-ato-zone-before-death-all-soldiers-call-for...

4 Aug 2014 - Surgeon from the ATO zone: Before death, all soldiers call
for their mothers.

Which makes sense because their mothers are real.

On 05/28/2017 08:12 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:

[snip]

Don't forget, all religions exist as tools for one group of people to
influence, control and extract resources from another, much larger
group of people.

While I can't PROVE it, religions like Christianity look like they were
created for that purpose.

Deities are inventions of humans, little different than a pry bar,
tools to separate people from their valuables and gain control over
their free will.

Religions are tools of the unscrupulous and a refuge for the weak of
mind.

On 05/28/2017 10:07 PM, Stormin' Norman wrote:

[snip]

Religions across time and the entire planet have been victimizing
their followers in the name of non-existent deities.

Even the ones with impossible attributes (like omniscience).

Every religion
from evangelical christianity to scientology is nothing but a cult. In
fact, the only difference between a cult and a religion is the size of
the membership.

The difference I heard is that a religion survives the death of it's
creator. This is still true for those that "teach" that death isn't real.

Whereas I would not want to prevent anyone from believing in their
personal fairy tales, I do advocate fully taxing all religions as one
would tax any business. There should be no special treatment of
religions.


Yes. I don't have anything against personal beliefs. I really don't want
those people trying to INFECT me with the associated anti-intellectual
nonsense.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"And all the good you've done will soon be swept away, You've begun to
matter more than the things you say" [Tim Rice/Andrew Lloyd Weber,
_Jesus Christ Superstar_]

On 05/29/2017 12:39 AM, Muggles wrote:

[snip]

Millions of people also agree a God exists, so why is that also not valid?

Lt. Cmdr. Data: Would you choose one life over one thousand, sir?

Captain Jean-Luc Picard: I refuse to let arithmetic decide questions
like that.

Millions of people believing in something has NOTHING to do with the
reality of that thing.

On Mon, 29 May 2017 21:03:23 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 29 May 2017 08:10:48 -0400, Meanie wrote:

On 5/28/2017 11:13 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/28/2017 7:02 PM, Meanie wrote:

you cannot prove the existence of a supreme being.

You cannot prove the existence of love, hate, envy, etc. You can only
show examples of what you think is a result of it.



They are emotions/mental state and proved when displaying the act of
that emotion. Religious belief is also a mental state and simply proves
ones belief in indoctrinated dogma. Apples to oranges comparison when
trying to prove it to a physical entity.
You are entirled to your strong opinion. That said, so are all those
who would respectfully dissagree with you. Have the courtesy to
"respectfully" disagree instead of disrespecting and trashing
everything you do not understand or agree with.

Have you noticed it is all the "non-believers" and the "godless" and
the "atheists" and "non-theists" and "anti-theists" that are
CONSTANTLY bringing up the topic of God or Non-God, and "religion",
and almost always with total disrespect and animosity???

Why is this????
The "religious", "Godly", "Believers", "Christians" or whatever are
not starting threads on places like "alt Home Repair" titled "are
atheists really as stupid as they sound" or "are atheists dummer than
a rock" or "does one's belief in Evolution mean he's a Monkey's
Uncle?"

Why? Because THEY have repect for the beliefs or non-beliefs of others
and have enough confidence in their own beliefs they don't need to
downgrade everyone else in order to feel good about themselves.

You want respect?
Show respect.

Your comments about respect are absurd. Respect is earned among
rational people based upon people's behavior and words.

If you insist on promoting or advocating for the existence of
invisible friends, then, rational, intelligent people will harbor
little respect for you.

Additionally, if a person doesn't respect you, odds are they do not
care whether you respect them or not.

Lastly, you need to learn, there are people who "believe" or accept
without empirical evidence and then there are rational people who
demand empirical evidence to prove the existence of invisible friends.
The reason you need to resort to "believing" is because there is no
evidence and you are OK with that, which is one sign of a weak mind.

Willingness to accept such cock and bull stories, and even insist your
fairy tales are the true fairy tales and the other cock and bull
stories are fallacious, that behavior is either a sign of insanity or
of devious, malicious intent.

Keep your respect, let's just talk about facts. You know what those
are, right? Facts are assertions which can be substantiated with
empirical evidence.

On Mon, 29 May 2017 21:08:12 -0400, wrote:

However, things such as support of cult missionaries, proselytizing,
property used for cult purposes, all income not used for legitimate,
charitable services, should (IMHO) be taxed at a business rate.
Additionally, clergy should all pay the same income tax rates as any
typical citizens. In the USA, clergy receive an approximate 30%, off
the top, discount on income taxes and I believe they can also receive
a tax free housing allowance from the cult.


Well, since you are contributing NOTHING to "Alt.HomeRepair, I'm
putting you in the bit bucket along with Meanie and a bunch of others.
Sorry, but to be fair, I have to put Muggles in there too. Nothing of
value? Down the drain. FLUSH!!!!

Interesting, Clare voluntarily chooses to participate in an off topic
discussion, but, when he is bested by logic, he claims to put people
in the "bit bucket" because they are participating in off topic
discussions.

I accept your surrender.

ROFLMAO!

On Tue, 30 May 2017 12:10:41 +0100, Bod wrote:


Back up your own words, and prove "love" exists, or stop ragging on
people who believe in a God to provide proof a God exists.


You have a problem with sentience if you can't see and recognise love
when it is shown.

I feel the same way about people who can't see and recognize God exists.

Love for another human is tangible, believing in a non physical being
is not.

Bod,

What makes you think what we feel from the Lord is not tangible?
He makes his presence in my life very apparent.

-T



*tangible*

adjective

perceptible by touch.

And there is the rub, the delusional, such as Todd, confuse a feeling,
an emotion, experienced within their own mind, they confuse that with
reality. It is truly a sign of mental illness.

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 9:26:34 AM UTC-4, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2017 12:10:41 +0100, Bod wrote:


Back up your own words, and prove "love" exists, or stop ragging on
people who believe in a God to provide proof a God exists.


You have a problem with sentience if you can't see and recognise love
when it is shown.

I feel the same way about people who can't see and recognize God exists.

Love for another human is tangible, believing in a non physical being
is not.

Bod,

What makes you think what we feel from the Lord is not tangible?
He makes his presence in my life very apparent.

-T



*tangible*

adjective

perceptible by touch.

And there is the rub, the delusional, such as Todd, confuse a feeling,
an emotion, experienced within their own mind, they confuse that with
reality. It is truly a sign of mental illness.

I've always viewed it as some sort of self-hypnosis, or akin
to cognitive psychotherapy.

Cindy Hamilton

On 5/29/2017 11:25 PM, Bod wrote:
On 30/05/2017 04:39, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2017 1:20 PM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2017 18:18, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2017 6:21 AM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2017 11:51, T wrote:
On 05/28/2017 10:12 PM, Muggles wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017 05:58:27 +0100, Bod
wrote:
Prove love exists.
Simply telling me you SHOW love is not proof. It's
simply your interpretation of something you feel
exists.

How is that any different from a belief in God?

Because my wife is real.

God is real.
Kindness is closely linked to love and that is easily *physically*
proven in the real world, with real
people.

Who told you that? How do you know? Do you believe that because you
feel it, or because you were taught it?

Prove what you said. If it exists you should bed able to prove it.
According to your own words.

She's got you there Bod. :-)


If none of you two do not know what the feeling of love and hate feels
and looks like,

The point of me asking you to prove "love" exists is because you said:

"*you state that something exists, but cannot give me proof that it
does*. If I said that I see fairies every day in my garden, but no one
else can see them, I would probably end up in an asylum and quite
rightly so."

YOU stated "love" exists, so, give proof that it does.

Don't you back up what you say?

What I or T knows about love or hate is irrelevant to the point you
made
and need to back up.

then I doubt both of your intelligences or you're both
devoid of normal feelings and are just trying to score a cheap point.


Cheap point?? No.

You've been ragging on people who believe in a God for a long time. You
stated that when something exists there should be proof provided
that it
does exist.

Back up your own words, and prove "love" exists, or stop ragging on
people who believe in a God to provide proof a God exists.


You have a problem with sentience if you can't see and recognise love
when it is shown.

I feel the same way about people who can't see and recognize God exists.


The big difference is, that there can be no argument that humans exist
and acts of love can be physically shared.

To a Christian, there can be no argument that God exists and His acts of
love can be shared with people in more ways than the physical, as in, we
can feel His love emotionally, and spiritually.

You should be able to accept that.

The same cannot be be true by
simply believing in something that is by all accounts not there.....
and without a physical presence of a god, cannot ever be proved without
physical evidence.


--
Maggie

On 5/29/2017 11:51 PM, Bod wrote:
On 30/05/2017 05:29, Muggles wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2017 05:13:14 +0100, Bod wrote:
You have a problem with sentience if you can't
see and recognise love when it is shown.

I feel the same way about people who can't see
and recognize God exists.

Love for another human is tangible,

To a Christian, God is tangible. Why can't you accept that?

believing in a non physical being is not.

You believe in love, which is equally a non physical entity.

Why is it so difficult for you to accept?


Eh!? Are you saying that you've never physically exchanged love with a
human and also are you telling me that you can't detect and physically
feel someone's love for you by their actions and demeanour?

That's a dumb question, Bod. Why ask it?

Love for a human being is physically expressed by numerous gestures by
words exchanged/ by physical touch etc. Love for a god can *never* be
tangible.

You're wrong.

Definition of the word *tangible*

"a thing that is perceptible by touch"



synonyms for tangible: touchable, *palpable*, material, *physical*,
*real*, substantial, corporeal, solid, concrete; visible, *noticeable*;
actual, definite, clear, clear-cut, *distinct*, *manifest*, *evident*,
*unmistakable*, *perceptible*, *discernible*

--
Maggie

On 5/30/2017 12:01 AM, Bod wrote:

So there we have it; physical love is *detectable* and has been proved.

Of course, physical love is "detectable" because you can measure a
response, but a response to chemicals doesn't prove "love" exists.

Prove it does.

--
Maggie

On 5/30/2017 2:19 AM, Bod wrote:
On 30/05/2017 05:29, Muggles wrote:
On Tue, 30 May 2017 05:13:14 +0100, Bod wrote:
You have a problem with sentience if you can't
see and recognise love when it is shown.

I feel the same way about people who can't see
and recognize God exists.

Love for another human is tangible,

To a Christian, God is tangible. Why can't you accept that?

believing in a non physical being is not.

You believe in love, which is equally a non physical entity.

Why is it so difficult for you to accept?


Another religious crackpot: :-)

NASA Astronaut Says God Lives On The Moon

A NASA astronaut has come forward claiming that God actually lives on
the Moon, and that the NASA have been hiding this fact for years.

[...]
So? What's that got to do with our discussion?

--
Maggie

On 30/05/2017 18:20, Muggles wrote:
On 5/30/2017 12:01 AM, Bod wrote:

So there we have it; physical love is *detectable* and has been proved.

Of course, physical love is "detectable" because you can measure a
response, but a response to chemicals doesn't prove "love" exists.

Prove it does.

Put the spade down and walk away from the hole.