Science and Technology news... :: View topic

~ MaryAnn Livingston ~ · Guest

"--sexkitten--" <not@naddress.com> wrote in message
news:bh9s3l$vls7e$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...
[quote]Kooter???Where did you find this fucking moron??? ---
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com
=========================[/quote]
Jabriol comes from the fundamentalist NG called alt.religion.jehovah>s-witn
and considers himself a religious person and an intellectual. Never mind he
believes in beating women into submission, forcing wives to "service" their
husbands, feels rape is justified and worse.
He>s suffering from severe brain damage caused by all the seizures he
suffers and all the meds he>s on. His warped thinking is also encouraged by
the endless "gloom & doom" literature his cult (the Watchtower Society &
Publishing House) requires him to read.
--
Zims said:
Invite them in and say...
"I was wondering if you have ever read Ray Franz
book 'Crisis of Conscience'?"
Also have them check out this website
www.jwfiles.com/
<<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>> <<<>>>

jabriol · Guest

So says a bonifide self confessed and admitted liar..

your reply look like the articles from the tabloid "Globe"

"~ MaryAnn Livingston ~" <AllFreaks@theKHs.net> wrote in message
news:jEu_a.678$Q5.498@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
[quote]
"--sexkitten--" <not@naddress.com> wrote in message
news:bh9s3l$vls7e$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...
Kooter???Where did you find this fucking moron??? ---
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com
=========================
Jabriol comes from the fundamentalist NG called
alt.religion.jehovah>s-witn
and considers himself a religious person and an intellectual. Never mind
he
believes in beating women into submission, forcing wives to "service"
their
husbands, feels rape is justified and worse.
He>s suffering from severe brain damage caused by all the seizures he
suffers and all the meds he>s on. His warped thinking is also encouraged
by
the endless "gloom & doom" literature his cult (the Watchtower Society &
Publishing House) requires him to read.
--
Zims said:
Invite them in and say...
"I was wondering if you have ever read Ray Franz
book 'Crisis of Conscience'?"
Also have them check out this website
www.jwfiles.com/

[/quote]

Doug Semler · Guest

At some point in the past, junegill <junegill@btinternet.com> slavered,
and posted this:
[quote]"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:qrOcnSWLtvKLuaSiXTWJkw@wideopenwest.com...

Religion is defined as relating to or manifesting faithful devotion
to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.
Theism is defined by the belief in a god or gods.

They sound like pretty good definitions to me although my dictionary
puts it rather differently (don>t you find it somewhat surreal to
look up, for the first time, a word that you>ve known nearly all of
your life?) I>m just having a bit of difficulty in imagining an
ultimate reality that doesn>t include a deity. It seems to me that
if there were an ultimate reality then it follows that there must be
some kind of force responsible for it, and what are you going to call
that force?
[/quote]
Mmmm, I don>t know that I can accept the logic that concludes there must be
a force responsible for the ultimate reality, in the same vein that I cannot
accept that there must be a force responsible for our (objective) reality.
I know my pagan friend believes that upon death of the body (whether it be
animal, plant, or whatever), the energy which caused the body to be defined
as "living" in our world is returned to the overall energy of the universe;
this energy can coalesce into a new being in the future. She also considers
herself to be atheist, as she doesn>t believe there is a supreme being.

[quote]
Buddhism is a religion, but the Buddhists who don>t believe in
deities are atheists.
Seems counter-intuitive doesn>t it?

Very much so.
[/quote]
--
Doug Semler
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~doug_semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
I hate spam, standard email address munging applied.
42
DNRC o-

junegill · Guest

"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f396513$0$34974$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
[quote]
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bhbbtm$d36$1@sparta.btinternet.com...

[snip]

There>s evil all right: it goes by the name of religion.

religion in some apsect are against abortion
homosexuality
fornication
etc..

things that are demmed ok and moral by athiest.

Abortion is natural - animals in the wild abort when resources are
scant,
so
it>s perfectly reasonable that human beings should do the same in
similar
circumstances.

actualy animal just leave their young to die.. never seen a kangaroo
with
a
coat hanger.

Not so - they actually abort them, albeit not with a coat hanger..

no.. they actually use a boomerang.
[/quote]
LOL. Good one.

[quote]At least one religion, the Roman Catholic Church, forbids an
abortion even when the pregnancy will certainly kill the woman, eg
an
ectopic pregnancy, which the foetus can>t survive either - how evil
can
you
get?

no such thing nas evil in evolution.

No, there isn>t. I have to wonder if you know what evolution is.

of course.
[/quote]
Tell me what you think it is.

[quote]Homosexuality? In another post in this thread you mention the gene
for
homosexuality. If it>s a genetic condition how can it be immoral?

No comment?

let see.. cause the bible says so?
[/quote]
Well, you believe that God created people, right? So why would he create
people who have a gene that makes them homosexual?

[quote]What harm does fornication do to anyone?

let see, HIV, Siphilis, Gonorea, hepititis type b.

Yes, there are STDs, which can be avoided, but they only affect the ones
who
have sex.

no.. STD can be passed to unborn children, Blood transfusions etc.
[/quote]
Donated blood is tested before use in order to avoid the transmission of
STDs. Pregnancies can be avoided too.

[quote]What harm do two people having sex outside of marriage do to you
or to anyone else?

what about passing of STD, this means my health insurance goes up. My
taxes
pay for either state abortions, or the support of unwanted children, for
18yrs each etc.

well you did ask.
[/quote]
I did indeed. I was under the impression that people paid for their own
abortions in the US.

[quote]Would you ban all activities which have a risk to the
persons choosing to participate in them, eg skiing?

of course, and driving, and flying airplanes.. but you have to be a llon
[/quote]
A llon? I don>t know that word.

to
[quote]compare
the risk of spreading diease, over a ski accident, that will kill.. I
guess
only the skier.
[/quote]
The comparison is valid in that society pays the price of rescuing
mountaineers, spelunkers etc, and anyone who sustains injuries from skiing
will presumably have the same effect on your health insurance as do STDs.
So you>d ban driving and other forms of transport no doubt, because they all
carry a risk. Mining would have to go too, I guess, because it>s a
dangerous occupation, and work with any machinery has its hazards,
especially tractors, so it>s back to ox-drawn ploughs ... you>d have us back
in the Stone Age in no time.

[snip]

[quote]Co-operation within society does work,

yup.. bill gates know this is a fact.. yup

only when it works for you, when it doesnt, you stop cooperating.

And you know that how? Personally I>ve almost invariably found that
co-operation works.

yup. it works for the mafia very well. ask Jimmy Hoffa.
[/quote]
So you>re saying that if I help a neighbour or friend that I>m employing
Mafia tactics?

[quote]but personally I don>t think of
personal gain when I help anyone. I just think I>m lucky to be in a
position that allows me to do so. However, I don>t help people just
to
appease some deity - to me it>s the people who matter.

yup sure..

How can it be to appease a deity when I don>t believe that there>s any
such
being?

then your question is oxymoronic.
[/quote]
Please point out the oxymoron, because I don>t see it.

[quote]look
atthe latest scandal of the NBA.

what the big deal, per evolution Colby wanted to spread african
genes
in
colorado.

I don>t know what NBA means and I don>t know who or what Colby is -
don>t
assume that all posters on newsgroups are in the US.

what.. great britain is suppose to be the great american imitator,

Really? :) Who told you that?

Tony Blair.. :-) well he does....
[/quote]
Touché, but he doesn>t really represent the British.

[quote]except
for dentistry.

Now you>re being insulting. Why?
[/quote]
You didn>t answer that question.

There may have been a kernel of truth
[quote]in
your statement 50 years ago when war-torn Britain was rebuilding, but
those
days are long gone ... and our dentistry is free for children and
pregnant
or nursing mothers - is yours?

not in america.. you gotta pay. and for free in the uk, is not truhtful,
you
guys pay via taxes to the crown.
[/quote]
As I>m sure you do, but non-taxpayers receive free medical care too.

--
June G
# 364
http://www.jgdodworth.demon.co.uk

Kooter · Guest

"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:Q6mcnWq_baUkCKaiXTWJiQ@wideopenwest.com...
[quote]At some point in the past, junegill <junegill@btinternet.com> slavered,
and posted this:
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:qrOcnSWLtvKLuaSiXTWJkw@wideopenwest.com...

Religion is defined as relating to or manifesting faithful devotion
to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.
Theism is defined by the belief in a god or gods.

They sound like pretty good definitions to me although my dictionary
puts it rather differently (don>t you find it somewhat surreal to
look up, for the first time, a word that you>ve known nearly all of
your life?) I>m just having a bit of difficulty in imagining an
ultimate reality that doesn>t include a deity. It seems to me that
if there were an ultimate reality then it follows that there must be
some kind of force responsible for it, and what are you going to call
that force?

Mmmm, I don>t know that I can accept the logic that concludes there must
be
a force responsible for the ultimate reality, in the same vein that I
cannot
accept that there must be a force responsible for our (objective) reality.
I know my pagan friend believes that upon death of the body (whether it be
animal, plant, or whatever), the energy which caused the body to be
defined
as "living" in our world is returned to the overall energy of the
universe;
this energy can coalesce into a new being in the future. She also
considers
herself to be atheist, as she doesn>t believe there is a supreme being.
[/quote]
While it>s true that your friend>s body will be recycled there is no
evidence for the idea that some metaphysical energy will remain to be
reintegrated as another organism. His/her body will reintegrate into the
ecosystem as amino acids for billions of other organisms.

'Energy' is defined as the capacity to do work. There has been no verifiable
indication thruout the course of human history that any remnant of a living
being is left over after an organism dies. No aura or spirit has ever been
detected by physical means in any consistent manner. That>s not saying that
there isn>t one. It>s just that we haven>t found it.

If there is a metaphysical component to living organisms then characterizing
that component as 'energy' probably wouldn>t be accurate from the
perspective of classical physics. The same goes for force which is simply
directed energy. Keeping that in mind, I>d be more inclined to call your
friend>s energy 'spirit' since we really have no idea what it is.

Taking a leap of faith and assuming for the sake of arguement that there is
some validity to the theory there must be some interaction between the
metaphysical and physical realms that would indicate a continuity between
manifestations. In other words, there must be some correlation in the
behavior or characteristics of the body that is currently inhabited by the
spirit and the previous host. Is there some commonality between two beings
that would indicate a spiritual connection? Do the two share the same values
and beliefs? The same habits or behavior? The same memories? Despite the
best efforts of researchers, we still don>t have any evidence of this type
of connection.

Finally, the idea that the spirit somehow breaths life into the organism. If
this is the case, then every single organism on the planet - birds, trees,
and bacteria - has a spirit since fundamentally speaking all living cells
work the same way. So far, work in microbiology indicates that if there is a
spirit that keeps living cells functioning then it is probably a useless
appendage. Right now we know how cells work at a very fundamental level. I
can describe for you the contents of neuron. The organelles, the
mitochondria that provide energy and the mechanism for energy distribution,
the polizarition sequence that causes the cell to fire an action potential,
the construction of the walls surrounding the cell, etc.

The bottom line is that we know a lot about living organisms and there is no
indication that a spirit is needed to make the organism live.

If there is a spirit then as far as we know it doesn>t change the thoughts
or behavior of an organism and it isn>t necessary for sustaining life. This
would seem to indicate that the spirit is an independent entity that isn>t
necessary for the survival of the organism. If this is the case then what
reason might there be for the existance of a spirit? The reasons above have
ruled out everything I can think of that would define the relationship
between the spirit and the organism as a symbiotic relationship. That only
leaves a parasitic relationship.

Think about this:

The basic equation for life is resources. The more efficiently organisms can
allocate and use resources the more viable life is. From an evolutionary
perspective wouldn>t longevity be a direct indicator of the structural
integrity and efficiency of an organism? The longer an organism lives the
better built it is. The better built it is the better it>s efficiency at
allocating and utilizing resources.

Why do living organisms have such short lives? The Earth is around four and
a half billion years old. The average lifespan for all organisms on the
planet is less than 100 years. On a geological scale that span of time is
miniscule - less than a drop in a bucket. Yet the overwhelming population of
bacteria and smaller organisms live lifespans that number in the minutes or
days and humans rarely live to be a hundred. Why is this? In 4 and a half
billion years evolution hasn>t managed to come up with a better design?

Maybe there is another reason The food chain begins with elements leached
from the ground by plants and single celled creatures. These organisms are
in turn consumed by other organisms and so on. In order for organisms higher
in the food chain to sustain themselves there must be a steady supply of
lower organisms to keep them fed. What if we are not at the top of the food
chain...

Heh heh. Gotcha!

junegill · Guest

"Kooter" <chuckbowlingNOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:0im_a.24236$Vx2.10924879@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
[quote]
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bhcf66$cl3$1@titan.btinternet.com...

"Kooter" <cbowlingNOSPAM@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bh8tqi$9dd$1@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...

snip

My point is that good and evil are subjective, not objective concepts.
In
the example of the cat and mouse above from the cat>s perspective
there
is
no malice and therefore no evil. From the mouse>s viewpoint the cat>s
goal
is to cause fear which in turn will cause the mouse to run faster,
which
in
turn makes the game more entertaining for the cat. From the mouse>s
perspective the cat>s motivation is evil.

I>m not sure that I can agree with that: are all predators seen as evil
by
the prey? Maybe so, but carnivores have to eat to stay alive; and I
wonder
whether a hungry feral cat would play with a mouse or just catch it and
eat
it, or whether the only way they can kill their prey is to exhaust it
first.

Actually, as far as animals go, the concept of good and evil are
irrelevant.[/quote]

I agree, which is why I couldn>t accept the Buddhist premise of animals
committing evil acts.

[quote]The cat is playing with it>s food and I>m sure the mouse isn>t pondering
the
philosophical difference between good and evil.

What I was trying to say was that whether an act is good or evil is
relative. An example might be the war in Iraq. From my perspective the war
was a good thing and I>m sure many other people feel the same way.
However,
there>s no denying that there are people who feel that the war was an
unjustified aggression by an evil superpower.

If good and evil are absolute values then somebody has to be right and
sombody has to be wrong. What I>m getting at is that good and evil aren>t
universal. The rule that one society uses to measure evil is different
than
the rule used by another. There really is no good and evil. Just the
beliefs
of a society. Should the beliefs of one society clash with those of
another
then each society sees the other as evil and sees itself as good.
[/quote]
Right, and since no-one>s demonstrated that there is an absolute morality,
that>s what we have to accept.

[snip]

[quote]Don>t you think that a religion must have a deity?

It seems to me that in order to qualify as a religion the only real
requirement is that one have faith in a meta-reality to the universe
beyond
a physical reality that can be directly or indirectly measured. If
Buddists
believe in a universal good and a universal bad and are convinced that
they
can navigate up or down in this meta-reality by means of good and bad
deeds
then they have attached a meaning to the universe beyond what is
apparent
by
empirical evidence. To me any faith not grounded in physical reality
is
a
religion.

I would have thought that a belief in a controlling power would be
necessary
for it to qualify as a religion, otherwise you>d have to include the
irrational beliefs in astrology, clairvoyance etc, and I don>t think
they
can be described as religions, even though many have a touching faith in
them. As for Buddhists, as Doug pointed out, there are Buddhist
atheists
as
well as Buddhist theists.

Aren>t the levels of Buddism a controlling power?
[/quote]
I>m no authority on Buddhism - I just read a couple of books about it a few
years ago: certainly no in-depth study.

When you think about it
[quote]Buddism says that if you behave in a positive manner then you will advance
in the next life. If you behave in a negative manner your next life will
be
a regression. In order to behave in a positive manner you have to have a
set
of values and beliefs that guide you along a positive path. Presumably
those
values and beliefs are instilled by way of the Buddist doctrine.

In that regard, the only difference between Buddism and other religions is
that the controlling power isn>t seen as an autonomous entity that
resembles
a human being.
[/quote]
Don>t you think it>s arrogant of human beings to imagine that if there were
a god it would be human-like? If quantity of 'creations' were anything to
go by, God would surely be a bug.

--
June G
# 364
http://www.jgdodworth.demon.co.uk

Kermit · Guest

"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3f364be5$0$1280$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>...
[quote]"Justin & Mona Lee Bradley" <false-prophets@TheEvil.WTs.net> wrote in
message news:3f35f962@news.isdn.net...
In the last exciting spine tingling chapter: jabriol picked up the
keyboard and pecked out:
::: ## One man who disagrees with everyone else is a crowd? A crowd
::: of ONE????
::
:: you did not answer the question, Did I kill Chris Dubose or not?

$$ Did you? You tell us.

why are you afraid to anwser? oh that right, because you would exposed as
the liar you ARE..

snippity snip with the off-topic comment.
[/quote]
For pure evil and perversity, the only name that rivals yours is
Jeffry Dahmer.
Sorry; I meant to ask if you had a cite for your frequent claim that
evolutionary science teaches anything about morality.

I expect that you turn to children to satisfy your beastial urges,
rather than grown women, because they struggle less violently.
Excuse me! I meant to type: if a Christian upbringing influences moral
behavior for the better, how do you explain the high child molestation
rate of the Jehovah>s Winesses? Or, for that matter, your existence?

If you weren>t a souless sociopath, you would show sympathy - or at
least restrained behavior - around folks who have lost family members.
Whoops! I meant to say... no, I guess I said it plainly enough.

Usually, I find a hostility to science and knowledge more disturbing
than a hostile attitude, but in your case your persersity and cowardly
little cruelties so outweigh your disdain for learning that I suffer
an urge to simply "walk around" your posts when I encounter them, as
one might a week-old roadkill near the sidewalk. I can>t even find
pity for your sad life, but I will try to act as though I feel it,
should we ever meet.

--- Kermit

Prominent Bethelite · Guest

DEVOUT JEHOVAH>S WITNESS "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote...

[quote]but the truth is, the more you lie, the more you belive the lie.
[/quote]

And you are totally correct!

Which is why the Watchtower Cult insists the JW drones endlessly repeat
their carefully contrived "truths"... at the:

2-5 times a week (depending on locale) "Kingdom Hall meetings"

Multiple Bible Studies

Theocratic (Warfare) Ministry School (i.e. convincing lying techniques)

Door-to-door kingdom preaching and disciple-making (i.e. conning)

Prescribed (WT literature only, never the Bible alone) reading sessions

As JW Jabriol Mr Antonion L. Santana (Manuel to his fiends) admitted:
[quote]but the truth is, the more you lie, the more you belive the lie.
[/quote]
For:

***************************************************************************
The Watchtower Society and the Jehovah>s Witnesses Cult is an embodiment of
SPIRITUAL PORNOGRAPHY, a WOLFISH TRICK, a MOST FILTHY LIE, a CHEAT, a SCAM,
a DISGUSTING ABOMINATION, a BLASPHEMOUS INSULT, a WICKED FRAUD, a DISGRACE,
a SCANDAL, a PEDOPHILE PARADISE - and a DAMNED OUTRAGE from start to finish
***************************************************************************

Love

Prominent Bethelite.

Examples of FINE SPIRITUAL FOOD AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME FROM "THE SLAVE":
"We need not here repeat the evidences that the 'seventh trump' began its
sounding in A.D. 1840, and will continue until the end of the time of
trouble" {WT Nov 1880 p1}; "masturbation is no mere innocent pastime but
rather a practice that can lead to homosexual acts" {WT May 15 1970 p315;
also WT Oct 1 1970 p604}; "If heaven were made the receptacle of the
heathen, savages, barbarians, the idiotic, simple, insane and INFANTS, it
would cease to be heaven to a considerable extent, and become a pandemonium
.. billions of ignorant, imbecile and degraded .. never formed characters
[not] fit companions for saints" {WT Oct 15 1896 p245} Fine JW Wisdom!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

THE LIST OF AMAZING JEHOVAH>S WITNESSES' CLAIMS, BELIEFS & PREDICTIONS
Prepared by MYSELF may be found at the following websites:-
http://www.freeminds.org/history/part1.htm
http://www1.tip.nl/~t661020/wtcitaten/part1.htm
http://localsonly.wilmington.net/jmalik/TheList.zip
http://www.concordance.com/watchtower.htm

jabriol · Guest

"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bhh0p4$mrs$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
[quote]"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f396513$0$34974$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bhbbtm$d36$1@sparta.btinternet.com...

[snip]

There>s evil all right: it goes by the name of religion.

religion in some apsect are against abortion
homosexuality
fornication
etc..

things that are demmed ok and moral by athiest.

Abortion is natural - animals in the wild abort when resources are
scant,
so
it>s perfectly reasonable that human beings should do the same in
similar
circumstances.

actualy animal just leave their young to die.. never seen a kangaroo
with
a
coat hanger.

Not so - they actually abort them, albeit not with a coat hanger..

no.. they actually use a boomerang.

LOL. Good one.

At least one religion, the Roman Catholic Church, forbids an
abortion even when the pregnancy will certainly kill the woman, eg
an
ectopic pregnancy, which the foetus can>t survive either - how
evil
can
you
get?

no such thing nas evil in evolution.

No, there isn>t. I have to wonder if you know what evolution is.

of course.

Tell me what you think it is.
[/quote]
The theory I refer to as taught to be the absolute origin of man, and all
life on this planet.. now are you referring to the science defintion, that
hasnt much to the above?

[quote]
Homosexuality? In another post in this thread you mention the
gene
for
homosexuality. If it>s a genetic condition how can it be immoral?

No comment?
[/quote]
nah.. I think that is still in debate. There is much more than genetics, I
was parroting an old argument.

[quote]
let see.. cause the bible says so?

Well, you believe that God created people, right? So why would he create
people who have a gene that makes them homosexual?
[/quote]
Interesting, a better question would be, why do bad things happen to good
people?
or how can a God allow 2 airplanes to kill 4,000 people.
that is a theological question in a science discussion, are you sure you
want to talk about theology now?

[quote]
What harm does fornication do to anyone?

let see, HIV, Siphilis, Gonorea, hepititis type b.

Yes, there are STDs, which can be avoided, but they only affect the
ones
who
have sex.

no.. STD can be passed to unborn children, Blood transfusions etc.

Donated blood is tested before use in order to avoid the transmission of
STDs. Pregnancies can be avoided too.

Let be real, Many times I read in the press about tainted blood.[/quote]
preganacies can be avoided, but to an innocent women, who wants a child, and
her husband has been unfaithful, it not going to know until diagnosotics
test has proven her to be infected.

[quote]What harm do two people having sex outside of marriage do to you
or to anyone else?

what about passing of STD, this means my health insurance goes up. My
taxes
pay for either state abortions, or the support of unwanted children,
for
18yrs each etc.

well you did ask.

I did indeed. I was under the impression that people paid for their own
abortions in the US.
[/quote]
only the wealthy, many states via welfare will pay for an abortion, in the
long run
it is cheaper than paying for the maintenance of unwanted children for 21.

[quote]
Would you ban all activities which have a risk to the
persons choosing to participate in them, eg skiing?

of course, and driving, and flying airplanes.. but you have to be a llon

A llon? I don>t know that word.
[/quote]
typo.. a loon :-)
[quote]
to
compare
the risk of spreading diease, over a ski accident, that will kill.. I
guess
only the skier.

The comparison is valid in that society pays the price of rescuing
mountaineers, spelunkers etc, and anyone who sustains injuries from skiing
will presumably have the same effect on your health insurance as do STDs.
[/quote]
it does...but not like diease, where it can be an epidemic...

[quote]So you>d ban driving and other forms of transport no doubt, because they
all
carry a risk. Mining would have to go too, I guess, because it>s a
dangerous occupation, and work with any machinery has its hazards,
especially tractors, so it>s back to ox-drawn ploughs ... you>d have us
back
in the Stone Age in no time.
[/quote]

And what wron with that? :-) Stone work preety well for mankind for
milenias, if you believe in evolution.

[quote]
[snip]

Co-operation within society does work,

yup.. bill gates know this is a fact.. yup

only when it works for you, when it doesnt, you stop cooperating.

And you know that how? Personally I>ve almost invariably found that
co-operation works.

yup. it works for the mafia very well. ask Jimmy Hoffa.

So you>re saying that if I help a neighbour or friend that I>m employing
Mafia tactics?
[/quote]
no... But if your neighbour who you helped, see you in a similar situation
and becomes rude, would you help him the next time?

[quote]
but personally I don>t think of
personal gain when I help anyone. I just think I>m lucky to be in
a
position that allows me to do so. However, I don>t help people
just
to
appease some deity - to me it>s the people who matter.

yup sure..

How can it be to appease a deity when I don>t believe that there>s any
such
being?

then your question is oxymoronic.

Please point out the oxymoron, because I don>t see it.
[/quote]
you can>t please a deity, when you don>t believe in a deity.

[quote]
look
atthe latest scandal of the NBA.

what the big deal, per evolution Colby wanted to spread african
genes
in
colorado.

I don>t know what NBA means and I don>t know who or what Colby
is -
don>t
assume that all posters on newsgroups are in the US.

what.. great britain is suppose to be the great american imitator,

Really? :) Who told you that?

Tony Blair.. :-) well he does....

Touché, but he doesn>t really represent the British.
[/quote]

as far as America concern he does.. yes I know his politicals woes and the
public opion of UK, but his words are the bottom line over there..

[quote]
except
for dentistry.

Now you>re being insulting. Why?

You didn>t answer that question.
[/quote]
sterotyping.. don>t feel bad, i am a black PuertoRican, and I still get
followed in dept stores ran by black puerto ricans...

[quote]
There may have been a kernel of truth
in
your statement 50 years ago when war-torn Britain was rebuilding, but
those
days are long gone ... and our dentistry is free for children and
pregnant
or nursing mothers - is yours?

not in america.. you gotta pay. and for free in the uk, is not truhtful,
you
guys pay via taxes to the crown.

As I>m sure you do, but non-taxpayers receive free medical care too.
[/quote]
And I am sure that does not sit well with taxpayers... not that in the UK
anything can be done about it.

junegill · Guest

"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f3d7eaf$0$423$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
[quote]
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bhh0p4$mrs$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
[/quote]
[snip]

[quote]no such thing nas evil in evolution.

No, there isn>t. I have to wonder if you know what evolution is.

of course.

Tell me what you think it is.

The theory I refer to as taught to be the absolute origin of man, and all
life on this planet.. now are you referring to the science defintion, that
hasnt much to the above?
[/quote]
That is not evolution, that>s abiogenesis. Evolution says nothing about the
origin of man nor of any other organism. All that evolution is is the
change in the frequency of alleles in the gene pool. For instance, a
gazelle may have a mutant gene which makes its legs slightly longer than
normal and therefore it can run faster. This gazelle has a much better
chance than the rest of the herd of outrunning a predator, so it will
survive to reproduce, passing on the mutant gene. Similarly its offspring
will survive and reproduce until eventually the majority of gazelles will
have the mutant gene, because the ones without it didn>t survive long enough
to reproduce: hence the change in the frequency of alleles. Genetic
mutations for the most part are not advantageous and are even harmful, so
the organism doesn>t get to reproduce and those genes are quite rare.
Mutations which have a neutral effect tend to hang around and they can
sometimes become advantageous if the environment undergoes a radical change.
Multiply these slight changes thousands of times over millions of years and
you get speciation.

[quote]Homosexuality? In another post in this thread you mention the
gene
for
homosexuality. If it>s a genetic condition how can it be
immoral?

No comment?

nah.. I think that is still in debate. There is much more than genetics,
I
was parroting an old argument.
[/quote]
Ah well, see where parroting gets you!

[quote]let see.. cause the bible says so?

Well, you believe that God created people, right? So why would he
create
people who have a gene that makes them homosexual?

Interesting, a better question would be, why do bad things happen to good
people?
or how can a God allow 2 airplanes to kill 4,000 people.
that is a theological question in a science discussion, are you sure you
want to talk about theology now?
[/quote]
If you wish, but I don>t think you>d care to do so considering that I>m an
atheist, and could never agree that there even is a God, let alone one who
allows bad things to happen.

[quote]What harm does fornication do to anyone?

let see, HIV, Siphilis, Gonorea, hepititis type b.

Yes, there are STDs, which can be avoided, but they only affect the
ones
who
have sex.

no.. STD can be passed to unborn children, Blood transfusions etc.

Donated blood is tested before use in order to avoid the transmission of
STDs. Pregnancies can be avoided too.

Let be real, Many times I read in the press about tainted blood.
[/quote]
Recently? I haven>t heard of that happening over here for years.

[quote]preganacies can be avoided, but to an innocent women, who wants a child,
and
her husband has been unfaithful, it not going to know until diagnosotics
test has proven her to be infected.
[/quote]
Now you>re talking about adultery, not fornication, which is a completely
different thing.

[quote]What harm do two people having sex outside of marriage do to you
or to anyone else?

what about passing of STD, this means my health insurance goes up. My
taxes
pay for either state abortions, or the support of unwanted children,
for
18yrs each etc.

well you did ask.

I did indeed. I was under the impression that people paid for their own
abortions in the US.

only the wealthy, many states via welfare will pay for an abortion, in the
long run
it is cheaper than paying for the maintenance of unwanted children for 21.
[/quote]
OK, so you prefer that unwanted foetuses should be aborted then?

[quote]Would you ban all activities which have a risk to the
persons choosing to participate in them, eg skiing?

of course, and driving, and flying airplanes.. but you have to be a
llon

A llon? I don>t know that word.

typo.. a loon :-)

to
compare
the risk of spreading diease, over a ski accident, that will kill.. I
guess
only the skier.

The comparison is valid in that society pays the price of rescuing
mountaineers, spelunkers etc, and anyone who sustains injuries from
skiing
will presumably have the same effect on your health insurance as do
STDs.

it does...but not like diease, where it can be an epidemic...
[/quote]
Hardly. You can>t avoid airborne diseases, but you can avoid STDs.

[quote]So you>d ban driving and other forms of transport no doubt, because they
all
carry a risk. Mining would have to go too, I guess, because it>s a
dangerous occupation, and work with any machinery has its hazards,
especially tractors, so it>s back to ox-drawn ploughs ... you>d have us
back
in the Stone Age in no time.

And what wron with that? :-)
[/quote]
Well, you wouldn>t be able to have a Usenet conversation with a fascinating
person like me, for a start. :)

Stone work preety well for mankind for
[quote]milenias, if you believe in evolution.
[/quote]
So did the Bronze Age - want to go through all that again?

[quote][snip]

Co-operation within society does work,

yup.. bill gates know this is a fact.. yup

only when it works for you, when it doesnt, you stop cooperating.

And you know that how? Personally I>ve almost invariably found that
co-operation works.

yup. it works for the mafia very well. ask Jimmy Hoffa.

So you>re saying that if I help a neighbour or friend that I>m employing
Mafia tactics?

no... But if your neighbour who you helped, see you in a similar situation
and becomes rude, would you help him the next time?
[/quote]
I most certainly have done, on quite a few occasions, eg my next-door
neighbour was almost invariably unpleasant to my son when he was little,
often accusing him falsely of damaging her property. When she had to go
into hospital, I visited her - much to her surpise - and continued visiting
her when she came home. She apologised for her attitude to my son, saying
it was because she wasn>t used to children. It works for me.

[quote]but personally I don>t think of
personal gain when I help anyone. I just think I>m lucky to be
in
a
position that allows me to do so. However, I don>t help people
just
to
appease some deity - to me it>s the people who matter.

yup sure..

How can it be to appease a deity when I don>t believe that there>s
any
such
being?

then your question is oxymoronic.

Please point out the oxymoron, because I don>t see it.

you can>t please a deity, when you don>t believe in a deity.
[/quote]
Exactly, which is why I say that it>s people who matter to me, not a deity.

[snip]

[quote]except
for dentistry.

Now you>re being insulting. Why?

You didn>t answer that question.

sterotyping.. don>t feel bad, i am a black PuertoRican, and I still get
followed in dept stores ran by black puerto ricans...
[/quote]
Really? Why would they do that?

[quote]There may have been a kernel of truth
in
your statement 50 years ago when war-torn Britain was rebuilding,
but
those
days are long gone ... and our dentistry is free for children and
pregnant
or nursing mothers - is yours?

not in america.. you gotta pay. and for free in the uk, is not
truhtful,
you
guys pay via taxes to the crown.

As I>m sure you do, but non-taxpayers receive free medical care too.

And I am sure that does not sit well with taxpayers... not that in the UK
anything can be done about it.
[/quote]
It does actually - what we object to is the abuse of the welfare state, eg
people who claim unemployment benefit but earn money doing jobs which aren>t
disclosed to the tax authorities.

--
June G
# 364
http://www.jgdodworth.demon.co.uk

junegill · Guest

"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:Q6mcnWq_baUkCKaiXTWJiQ@wideopenwest.com...
[quote]At some point in the past, junegill <junegill@btinternet.com> slavered,
and posted this:
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:qrOcnSWLtvKLuaSiXTWJkw@wideopenwest.com...

Religion is defined as relating to or manifesting faithful devotion
to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.
Theism is defined by the belief in a god or gods.

They sound like pretty good definitions to me although my dictionary
puts it rather differently (don>t you find it somewhat surreal to
look up, for the first time, a word that you>ve known nearly all of
your life?) I>m just having a bit of difficulty in imagining an
ultimate reality that doesn>t include a deity. It seems to me that
if there were an ultimate reality then it follows that there must be
some kind of force responsible for it, and what are you going to call
that force?

Mmmm, I don>t know that I can accept the logic that concludes there must
be
a force responsible for the ultimate reality, in the same vein that I
cannot
accept that there must be a force responsible for our (objective) reality.
[/quote]
Yes, I wouldn>t like to argue the logic of my conclusion above, and I think
my difficulty is trying to imagine an ultimate reality - our objective
reality, as you put it, seems totally real to me.

[quote]I know my pagan friend believes that upon death of the body (whether it be
animal, plant, or whatever), the energy which caused the body to be
defined
as "living" in our world is returned to the overall energy of the
universe;
this energy can coalesce into a new being in the future. She also
considers
herself to be atheist, as she doesn>t believe there is a supreme being.
[/quote]
Well, our atoms return to the world or universe one way or another and will
take their energy with them. I can>t see how they could spontaneously
coalesce into a new being, but I remember once reading a 'proof' that any
one of us could have one or more of the atoms which once occupied the thumb
of Moses or Julius Caesar ... it was tempting to believe it.

--
June G
# 364
http://www.jgdodworth.demon.co.uk

J.R. · Guest

"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<bhs2kn$4k7$1@titan.btinternet.com>...
[quote]"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:Q6mcnWq_baUkCKaiXTWJiQ@wideopenwest.com...
At some point in the past, junegill <junegill@btinternet.com> slavered,
and posted this:
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:qrOcnSWLtvKLuaSiXTWJkw@wideopenwest.com...

Religion is defined as relating to or manifesting faithful devotion
to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.
Theism is defined by the belief in a god or gods.

They sound like pretty good definitions to me although my dictionary
puts it rather differently (don>t you find it somewhat surreal to
look up, for the first time, a word that you>ve known nearly all of
your life?) I>m just having a bit of difficulty in imagining an
ultimate reality that doesn>t include a deity. It seems to me that
if there were an ultimate reality then it follows that there must be
some kind of force responsible for it, and what are you going to call
that force?

Mmmm, I don>t know that I can accept the logic that concludes there must
be
a force responsible for the ultimate reality, in the same vein that I
cannot
accept that there must be a force responsible for our (objective) reality.

Yes, I wouldn>t like to argue the logic of my conclusion above, and I think
my difficulty is trying to imagine an ultimate reality - our objective
reality, as you put it, seems totally real to me.

I know my pagan friend believes that upon death of the body (whether it be
animal, plant, or whatever), the energy which caused the body to be
defined
as "living" in our world is returned to the overall energy of the
universe;
this energy can coalesce into a new being in the future. She also
considers
herself to be atheist, as she doesn>t believe there is a supreme being.

Well, our atoms return to the world or universe one way or another and will
take their energy with them. I can>t see how they could spontaneously
coalesce into a new being, but I remember once reading a 'proof' that any
one of us could have one or more of the atoms which once occupied the thumb
of Moses or Julius Caesar ... it was tempting to believe it.
[/quote]
I know that Bush has a head that once occupied the butt of a moron.

--sexkitten-- · Guest

"J.R." <hey-joe@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:54de13e7.0308182203.27aabbfa@posting.google.com...
[quote]"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<bhs2kn$4k7$1@titan.btinternet.com>...
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:Q6mcnWq_baUkCKaiXTWJiQ@wideopenwest.com...
At some point in the past, junegill <junegill@btinternet.com
slavered,
and posted this:
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in
message
news:qrOcnSWLtvKLuaSiXTWJkw@wideopenwest.com...

Religion is defined as relating to or manifesting faithful devotion
to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.
Theism is defined by the belief in a god or gods.

They sound like pretty good definitions to me although my dictionary
puts it rather differently (don>t you find it somewhat surreal to
look up, for the first time, a word that you>ve known nearly all of
your life?) I>m just having a bit of difficulty in imagining an
ultimate reality that doesn>t include a deity. It seems to me that
if there were an ultimate reality then it follows that there must be
some kind of force responsible for it, and what are you going to
call
that force?

Mmmm, I don>t know that I can accept the logic that concludes there
must
be
a force responsible for the ultimate reality, in the same vein that I
cannot
accept that there must be a force responsible for our (objective)
reality.

Yes, I wouldn>t like to argue the logic of my conclusion above, and I
think
my difficulty is trying to imagine an ultimate reality - our objective
reality, as you put it, seems totally real to me.

I know my pagan friend believes that upon death of the body (whether
it be
animal, plant, or whatever), the energy which caused the body to be
defined
as "living" in our world is returned to the overall energy of the
universe;
this energy can coalesce into a new being in the future. She also
considers
herself to be atheist, as she doesn>t believe there is a supreme
being.

Well, our atoms return to the world or universe one way or another and
will
take their energy with them. I can>t see how they could spontaneously
coalesce into a new being, but I remember once reading a 'proof' that
any
one of us could have one or more of the atoms which once occupied the
thumb
of Moses or Julius Caesar ... it was tempting to believe it.

I know that Bush has a head that once occupied the butt of a moron.
[/quote]
:)) :)) :))

John Wilkins · Guest

J.R. <hey-joe@swbell.net> wrote:

[quote]"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote:
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:Q6mcnWq_baUkCKaiXTWJiQ@wideopenwest.com...
At some point in the past, junegill <junegill@btinternet.com> slavered,
and posted this:
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:qrOcnSWLtvKLuaSiXTWJkw@wideopenwest.com...

Religion is defined as relating to or manifesting faithful devotion
to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.
Theism is defined by the belief in a god or gods.

They sound like pretty good definitions to me although my dictionary
puts it rather differently (don>t you find it somewhat surreal to
look up, for the first time, a word that you>ve known nearly all of
your life?) I>m just having a bit of difficulty in imagining an
ultimate reality that doesn>t include a deity. It seems to me that
if there were an ultimate reality then it follows that there must be
some kind of force responsible for it, and what are you going to call
that force?

Mmmm, I don>t know that I can accept the logic that concludes there must
be
a force responsible for the ultimate reality, in the same vein that I
cannot
accept that there must be a force responsible for our (objective) reality.

Yes, I wouldn>t like to argue the logic of my conclusion above, and I think
my difficulty is trying to imagine an ultimate reality - our objective
reality, as you put it, seems totally real to me.

I know my pagan friend believes that upon death of the body (whether it be
animal, plant, or whatever), the energy which caused the body to be
defined
as "living" in our world is returned to the overall energy of the
universe;
this energy can coalesce into a new being in the future. She also
considers
herself to be atheist, as she doesn>t believe there is a supreme being.

Well, our atoms return to the world or universe one way or another and will
take their energy with them. I can>t see how they could spontaneously
coalesce into a new being, but I remember once reading a 'proof' that any
one of us could have one or more of the atoms which once occupied the thumb
of Moses or Julius Caesar ... it was tempting to believe it.

I know that Bush has a head that once occupied the butt of a moron.
[/quote]
Once?
--
John Wilkins - wilkins.id.au
[I]magine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "...interesting
hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn>t it? ...
must have been made to have me in it." Douglas Adams, Salmon of Doubt

OldguyTeck · Guest

"J.R." <hey-joe@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:54de13e7.0308182203.27aabbfa@posting.google.com...
[quote]"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<bhs2kn$4k7$1@titan.btinternet.com>...
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in message
news:Q6mcnWq_baUkCKaiXTWJiQ@wideopenwest.com...
At some point in the past, junegill <junegill@btinternet.com
slavered,
and posted this:
"Doug Semler" <doug_semler@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in
message
news:qrOcnSWLtvKLuaSiXTWJkw@wideopenwest.com...

Religion is defined as relating to or manifesting faithful devotion
to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.
Theism is defined by the belief in a god or gods.

They sound like pretty good definitions to me although my dictionary
puts it rather differently (don>t you find it somewhat surreal to
look up, for the first time, a word that you>ve known nearly all of
your life?) I>m just having a bit of difficulty in imagining an
ultimate reality that doesn>t include a deity. It seems to me that
if there were an ultimate reality then it follows that there must be
some kind of force responsible for it, and what are you going to
call
that force?

Mmmm, I don>t know that I can accept the logic that concludes there
must
be
a force responsible for the ultimate reality, in the same vein that I
cannot
accept that there must be a force responsible for our (objective)
reality.

Yes, I wouldn>t like to argue the logic of my conclusion above, and I
think
my difficulty is trying to imagine an ultimate reality - our objective
reality, as you put it, seems totally real to me.

I know my pagan friend believes that upon death of the body (whether
it be
animal, plant, or whatever), the energy which caused the body to be
defined
as "living" in our world is returned to the overall energy of the
universe;
this energy can coalesce into a new being in the future. She also
considers
herself to be atheist, as she doesn>t believe there is a supreme
being.

Well, our atoms return to the world or universe one way or another and
will
take their energy with them. I can>t see how they could spontaneously
coalesce into a new being, but I remember once reading a 'proof' that
any
one of us could have one or more of the atoms which once occupied the
thumb
of Moses or Julius Caesar ... it was tempting to believe it.

I know that Bush has a head that once occupied the butt of a moron.
[/quote]
Tripping is bad for your health !

Ed.....................(OldguyTeck)
Back from the hospital


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Anthropology - Paleo Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 6 of 7