How do ants know when you're dead?

[popinjay]

Ants seem to notice the MOMENT a body is dead. Rig has not set in. The body is still soft and warm, but the ants KNOW when there is still life, and then they know exactly when there is not. And then they will form a line and start going for your eyes and stuff.

[VegasJerry]

Post by popinjay
Ants seem to notice the MOMENT a body is dead. Rig has not set in. The body is still soft and warm, but the ants KNOW when there is still life, and then they know exactly when there is not. And then they will form a line and start going for your eyes and stuff.

They don’t care if you’re dead or alive. Hell, when I’m passed out drunk, laying in the gutter, they still go for my eyes and stuff. Where did you get that fake news? Did you make that up? Where’s your morals and decency?

[popinjay]

Post by VegasJerry

Post by popinjay
Ants seem to notice the MOMENT a body is dead. Rig has not set in. The body is still soft and warm, but the ants KNOW when there is still life, and then they know exactly when there is not. And then they will form a line and start going for your eyes and stuff.

They don’t care if you’re dead or alive. Hell, when I’m passed out drunk, laying in the gutter, they still go for my eyes and stuff. Where did you get that fake news? Did you make that up? Where’s your morals and decency?

It's not fake news. It's my real life experience, so I know it's true.

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Post by popinjay
...
It's not fake news. It's my real life experience, so I know it's true.

I doubt the ants beat the blowflies to the corpse, but it's
likely the attractant is dimethyl trisulfide which is a
byproduct of bacteria attacking the dead tissue. The
bacteria get there first because your body is teeming with
bacteria even while alive.

--bks

[popinjay]

Post by Bradley K. Sherman
I doubt the ants beat the blowflies to the corpse, but it's
likely the attractant is dimethyl trisulfide which is a
byproduct of bacteria attacking the dead tissue. The
bacteria get there first because your body is teeming with
bacteria even while alive.
--bks

That's quite interesting. Even though I think you're a dope, perhaps someone else filled in and wrote it for you. Because it sounds like it makes sense and addresses my question. I do find it interesting. Thanks to whoever wrote it for you.

[Mossingen]

Post by Bradley K. Sherman
I doubt the ants beat the blowflies to the corpse, but it's
likely the attractant is dimethyl trisulfide which is a
byproduct of bacteria attacking the dead tissue. The
bacteria get there first because your body is teeming with
bacteria even while alive.
--bks

That's quite interesting. Even though I think you're a dope, perhaps
someone else filled in and wrote it for you. Because it sounds like it
makes sense and addresses my question. I do find it interesting. Thanks to
whoever wrote it for you.

______________


I just finished reading "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. It's pretty
interesting, and gives a good framework for understanding the process of
evolution by natural selection. If ants recognize a corpse as such quickly,
there is an evolutionary reason reason for it based on biology. Every
living thing on this planet has its goal of passing on its genes and
surviving by using and consuming the other living things on this planet.

[popinjay]

Post by popinjay

Post by Bradley K. Sherman
I doubt the ants beat the blowflies to the corpse, but it's
likely the attractant is dimethyl trisulfide which is a
byproduct of bacteria attacking the dead tissue. The
bacteria get there first because your body is teeming with
bacteria even while alive.
--bks

That's quite interesting. Even though I think you're a dope, perhaps
someone else filled in and wrote it for you. Because it sounds like it
makes sense and addresses my question. I do find it interesting. Thanks to
whoever wrote it for you.
______________
I just finished reading "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. It's pretty
interesting, and gives a good framework for understanding the process of
evolution by natural selection. If ants recognize a corpse as such quickly,
there is an evolutionary reason reason for it based on biology. Every
living thing on this planet has its goal of passing on its genes and
surviving by using and consuming the other living things on this planet.

Sounds reasonable, and maybe something I'd like to read. Does he address the existence of God?

[Mossingen]

Post by popinjay
Sounds reasonable, and maybe something I'd like to read. Does he address
the existence of God?

Not in that book, but he is an outspoken atheist. Evolution by natural
selection works without the presupposition of a Creator. The great French
mathematician Pierre Laplace told the same thing to Napoleon when the
Emperor reviewed the work that LaPlace had done on the planets. Napoleon
asked where was God in all of it, LaPlace replied that it all works just
fine without that assumption.

[popinjay]

Post by Mossingen

Post by popinjay
Sounds reasonable, and maybe something I'd like to read. Does he address
the existence of God?

Not in that book, but he is an outspoken atheist. Evolution by natural
selection works without the presupposition of a Creator. The great French
mathematician Pierre Laplace told the same thing to Napoleon when the
Emperor reviewed the work that LaPlace had done on the planets. Napoleon
asked where was God in all of it, LaPlace replied that it all works just
fine without that assumption.

Oh well shit. Then I ain't reading it.

[risky biz]

Post by Mossingen

Post by popinjay
Sounds reasonable, and maybe something I'd like to read. Does he address
the existence of God?

Not in that book, but he is an outspoken atheist. Evolution by natural
selection works without the presupposition of a Creator. The great French
mathematician Pierre Laplace told the same thing to Napoleon when the
Emperor reviewed the work that LaPlace had done on the planets. Napoleon
asked where was God in all of it, LaPlace replied that it all works just
fine without that assumption.

Who else in the universe could possibly know except LaPlace?

[Mossingen]

Post by Mossingen

Post by popinjay
Sounds reasonable, and maybe something I'd like to read. Does he address
the existence of God?

Not in that book, but he is an outspoken atheist. Evolution by natural
selection works without the presupposition of a Creator. The great French
mathematician Pierre Laplace told the same thing to Napoleon when the
Emperor reviewed the work that LaPlace had done on the planets. Napoleon
asked where was God in all of it, LaPlace replied that it all works just
fine without that assumption.
Who else in the universe could possibly know except LaPlace?

Uh, what does that mean? LaPlace did the math and it worked out in
explaining the orbits and positions of the planets without resort to
supernatural superstitious nonsense. That's what LaPlace was saying. What
does your rhetorical question mean?

And, please don't dodge the evolution question. Do you believe in evolution
by natural selection as a scientific fact?

I have a feeling you might be a whackjob, risky (well, I mean, of course, an
even bigger whackjob than your posts and opinions portray you normally).
Whenever I engage in arguments with religious nutjobs, my standard question
is, how old is the Earth? If the answer is 6,000 years, then you know that
further conversation on the topic is completely futile.

How old is the Earth, risky?

[popinjay]

Post by Mossingen
Whenever I engage in arguments with religious nutjobs, my standard question
is, how old is the Earth? If the answer is 6,000 years, then you know that
further conversation on the topic is completely futile.

Oh, of course, it's 4-1/2 billion. That makes so much more sense. No dogma in that statistic.

[risky biz]

Post by Mossingen

Post by Mossingen

Post by popinjay
Sounds reasonable, and maybe something I'd like to read. Does he address
the existence of God?

Not in that book, but he is an outspoken atheist. Evolution by natural
selection works without the presupposition of a Creator. The great French
mathematician Pierre Laplace told the same thing to Napoleon when the
Emperor reviewed the work that LaPlace had done on the planets. Napoleon
asked where was God in all of it, LaPlace replied that it all works just
fine without that assumption.
Who else in the universe could possibly know except LaPlace?

Uh, what does that mean? LaPlace did the math and it worked out in
explaining the orbits and positions of the planets without resort to
supernatural superstitious nonsense. That's what LaPlace was saying. What
does your rhetorical question mean?
And, please don't dodge the evolution question. Do you believe in evolution
by natural selection as a scientific fact?
I have a feeling you might be a whackjob, risky (well, I mean, of course, an
even bigger whackjob than your posts and opinions portray you normally).
Whenever I engage in arguments with religious nutjobs, my standard question
is, how old is the Earth? If the answer is 6,000 years, then you know that
further conversation on the topic is completely futile.
How old is the Earth, risky?

I'm much more familiar with my own age- about 1 billion years old, give or take a million.

[Mossingen]

Post by risky biz
I'm much more familiar with my own age- about 1 billion years old, give or take a million.

Dodge number two. LOL...holy shit, risky is a nutcase.

[fffurken]

Post by Mossingen
LOL...holy shit, risky is a nutcase.

It's hilarious that he tries to pass himself off as an atheist on RGP. He despises atheists, particularly those who speak out against the supremacist hate cult (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris..)

I doubt Dawkins has much of an interest in religion or knows much about it but he is obviously capable of observing that not all (so-called) religions are the same and that Islam is the worst.

Here he (Dawkins) is dumbfounded that the Muslim Mehdi Hasan (https://archive.org/details/MehdiHasan_201601) and darling of the left believes Muhammad (piss be upon him) flew to heaven on a winged horse -

[Tim Norfolk]

Post by fffurken

Post by Mossingen
LOL...holy shit, risky is a nutcase.

It's hilarious that he tries to pass himself off as an atheist on RGP. He despises atheists, particularly those who speak out against the supremacist hate cult (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris..)
I doubt Dawkins has much of an interest in religion or knows much about it but he is obviously capable of observing that not all (so-called) religions are the same and that Islam is the worst.
Here he (Dawkins) is dumbfounded that the Muslim Mehdi Hasan (https://archive.org/details/MehdiHasan_201601) and darling of the left believes Muhammad (piss be upon him) flew to heaven on a winged horse - http://youtu.be/bHvxiQbQ37I

Dawkins has a great deal of interest in religion, having made at least one documentary on the subject, and having written 'The God Delusion'. He does not find all religions equally toxic, and considers the Anglican church to be moderately benign.

[fffurken]

Post by Tim Norfolk

Post by fffurken
I doubt Dawkins has much of an interest in religion or knows much about it

Dawkins has a great deal of interest in religion,

I seriously doubt it, why would he? He's an atheist.

Post by Tim Norfolk
having made at least one documentary on the subject, and having written 'The God Delusion'.

I have not read 'The God Delusion', did you get the impression after reading it that Dawkins is a scholar of religions, like Reza Aslan is?

I have seen, in documentary format, film of him disputing with creationists.. using contrary evidence, i.e. his area of expertise.

Post by Tim Norfolk
He does not find all religions equally toxic, and considers the Anglican church to be moderately benign.

Yes, as I said, I am aware that he is not so stupid to think all (so-called) religions are the same and that he has used that word (benign) to describe "the Anglican church" as well as appraising its teaching from an historical perspective.

By the way, have you read 'The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam' by Douglas Murray? I plan on giving that a read.

[Tim Norfolk]

Post by fffurken

Post by Tim Norfolk

Post by fffurken
I doubt Dawkins has much of an interest in religion or knows much about it

Dawkins has a great deal of interest in religion,

I seriously doubt it, why would he? He's an atheist.

Post by Tim Norfolk
having made at least one documentary on the subject, and having written 'The God Delusion'.

I have not read 'The God Delusion', did you get the impression after reading it that Dawkins is a scholar of religions, like Reza Aslan is?
I have seen, in documentary format, film of him disputing with creationists.. using contrary evidence, i.e. his area of expertise.

Post by Tim Norfolk
He does not find all religions equally toxic, and considers the Anglican church to be moderately benign.

Yes, as I said, I am aware that he is not so stupid to think all (so-called) religions are the same and that he has used that word (benign) to describe "the Anglican church" as well as appraising its teaching from an historical perspective.
By the way, have you read 'The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam' by Douglas Murray? I plan on giving that a read.

Afraid not.

[risky biz]

Post by Tim Norfolk

Post by fffurken

Post by Mossingen
LOL...holy shit, risky is a nutcase.

It's hilarious that he tries to pass himself off as an atheist on RGP. He despises atheists, particularly those who speak out against the supremacist hate cult (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris..)
I doubt Dawkins has much of an interest in religion or knows much about it but he is obviously capable of observing that not all (so-called) religions are the same and that Islam is the worst.
Here he (Dawkins) is dumbfounded that the Muslim Mehdi Hasan (https://archive.org/details/MehdiHasan_201601) and darling of the left believes Muhammad (piss be upon him) flew to heaven on a winged horse - http://youtu.be/bHvxiQbQ37I

Dawkins has a great deal of interest in religion, having made at least one documentary on the subject, and having written 'The God Delusion'. He does not find all religions equally toxic, and considers the Anglican church to be moderately benign.

You do realize, don't you, that you're conversing with an imbecile?

[Mossingen]

Post by risky biz
You do realize, don't you, that you're conversing with an imbecile?

I'm pretty sure fffffurkin accepts that the Earth is roughly 4 billion years
old. Do you?

[risky biz]

Post by Mossingen

Post by risky biz
You do realize, don't you, that you're conversing with an imbecile?

I'm pretty sure fffffurkin accepts that the Earth is roughly 4 billion years
old. Do you?

When did what you're referring to become 'the Earth'? Isn't it just part of the universe (small u)? Isn't that kind of like asking someone when their leg was born?

[BillB]

Post by risky biz
When did what you're referring to become 'the Earth'? Isn't it just part of the universe (small u)? Isn't that kind of like asking someone when their leg was born?

I think the universe is supposed to be about three times older than Earth. But like Mossingen said, proving something happened 2000 years ago is pretty hard, so you can imagine how skeptical we should be of something that they are claiming happened 13,000,000,000 years ago.

[risky biz]

Post by Mossingen

Post by risky biz
I'm much more familiar with my own age- about 1 billion years old, give or
take a million.

Dodge number two. LOL...holy shit, risky is a nutcase.

Correction: give or take a billion.

[Mossingen]

Post by risky biz
Correction: give or take a billion.

Dodge number 3. So, risky, the Earth is 6,000 years old, eh? Do you mind
telling us your opinion about the Earth being round or do you think it's
flat?

[risky biz]

Post by Mossingen

Post by risky biz
Correction: give or take a billion.

Dodge number 3. So, risky, the Earth is 6,000 years old, eh? Do you mind
telling us your opinion about the Earth being round or do you think it's
flat?

I've heard that it's neither round nor flat. Or are you referring to a specific part of it?

[risky biz]

Post by popinjay

Post by Bradley K. Sherman
I doubt the ants beat the blowflies to the corpse, but it's
likely the attractant is dimethyl trisulfide which is a
byproduct of bacteria attacking the dead tissue. The
bacteria get there first because your body is teeming with
bacteria even while alive.
--bks

That's quite interesting. Even though I think you're a dope, perhaps
someone else filled in and wrote it for you. Because it sounds like it
makes sense and addresses my question. I do find it interesting. Thanks to
whoever wrote it for you.
______________
I just finished reading "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. It's pretty
interesting, and gives a good framework for understanding the process of
evolution by natural selection. If ants recognize a corpse as such quickly,
there is an evolutionary reason reason for it based on biology. Every
living thing on this planet has its goal of passing on its genes and
surviving by using and consuming the other living things on this planet.

What if one of those ants was a freak who didn't want to pass on genes? Would it's organism still experience hunger? Or is it Dawkin's goal to pass on BS as a career option?

[Mossingen]

Post by risky biz
What if one of those ants was a freak who didn't want to pass on genes?

Then it wouldn't breed and it would die out. The ants who had genes that
wanted to spread would procreate and spread those genes.

Post by risky biz
Would it's organism still experience hunger?

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Post by risky biz
Or is it Dawkin's goal to pass on BS as a career option?

Holy shit. Back up the truck. Risky, please answer one question: do you
believe in the theory of evolution?

This might explain a lot.

[popinjay]

Post by Mossingen
Holy shit. Back up the truck. Risky, please answer one question: do you
believe in the theory of evolution?
This might explain a lot.

Do you believe that Jesus was really dead, and then a few days later He wasn't?

[Mossingen]

Post by popinjay
Do you believe that Jesus was really dead, and then a few days later He wasn't?

Of course not. It's not biologically possible, nor is there any credible
evidence of it in the case of Jesus of Nazareth. You can choose to believe
Bronze Age myths passed down by word of mouth decades after the supposed
event, but a claim like that requires extraordinary evidence. There is
none.

You’ve lived in this world for a long time, paul. You know how men deceive
and manipulate others for power. Is there anything in your life experience
that you've witnessed that would lead you to believe that a dead human can
be alive three days later?

If you saw a friend of yours "die" and then saw him walking down the street
three days later, what would your thought process be? Which would be more
likely, that the laws of nature had been suspended, in your favor, or that
you had simply made a mistake in believing that your friend was actually
dead?

[popinjay]

Post by Mossingen
Of course not. It's not biologically possible, nor is there any credible
evidence of it in the case of Jesus of Nazareth. You can choose to believe
Bronze Age myths passed down by word of mouth decades after the supposed
event, but a claim like that requires extraordinary evidence. There is
none.
You’ve lived in this world for a long time, paul. You know how men deceive
and manipulate others for power. Is there anything in your life experience
that you've witnessed that would lead you to believe that a dead human can
be alive three days later?
If you saw a friend of yours "die" and then saw him walking down the street
three days later, what would your thought process be? Which would be more
likely, that the laws of nature had been suspended, in your favor, or that
you had simply made a mistake in believing that your friend was actually
dead?

Is our very existence believable? Seriously, no.

Yet we do exist.

[popinjay]

Post by popinjay

Post by Mossingen
Of course not. It's not biologically possible, nor is there any credible
evidence of it in the case of Jesus of Nazareth. You can choose to believe
Bronze Age myths passed down by word of mouth decades after the supposed
event, but a claim like that requires extraordinary evidence. There is
none.
You’ve lived in this world for a long time, paul. You know how men deceive
and manipulate others for power. Is there anything in your life experience
that you've witnessed that would lead you to believe that a dead human can
be alive three days later?
If you saw a friend of yours "die" and then saw him walking down the street
three days later, what would your thought process be? Which would be more
likely, that the laws of nature had been suspended, in your favor, or that
you had simply made a mistake in believing that your friend was actually
dead?

Is our very existence believable? Seriously, no.
Yet we do exist.

So let's say there is a lone, rogue, boy hydrogen atom floating around in space. The hydrogen atom has no eyes, no lips, no ears, no senses. One day he runs into a girl hydrogen atom. For the sake of this hypothetical, let's say they can talk to each other. He thinks she's cute and wants to impress her, so he starts telling her about the universe and all the stars and nuclear fusion, etc., he even tells her about Earth and some of Earth's history. Remember, neither one of them have any eyes or ears or other senses. She listens patiently while he explains, and just as he's starting to tell her about the invention of the internal combustion engine, she's had enough and says, "Get the fuck oudda here".

She don't believe a word he says. But that don't mean it wasn't true.

Finally, the boy hydrogen atom decides he ain't going to get nowhere arguing with a girl hydrogen atom. So he fucks her and they make helium.

[Mossingen]

"popinjay" wrote in message news:6ddf5dc0-e034-4ff4-b735-***@googlegroups.com...



So let's say there is a lone, rogue, boy hydrogen atom floating around in
space. The hydrogen atom has no eyes, no lips, no ears, no senses. One day
he runs into a girl hydrogen atom. For the sake of this hypothetical, let's
say they can talk to each other. He thinks she's cute and wants to impress
her, so he starts telling her about the universe and all the stars and
nuclear fusion, etc., he even tells her about Earth and some of Earth's
history. Remember, neither one of them have any eyes or ears or other
senses. She listens patiently while he explains, and just as he's starting
to tell her about the invention of the internal combustion engine, she's had
enough and says, "Get the fuck oudda here".

She don't believe a word he says. But that don't mean it wasn't true.

Finally, the boy hydrogen atom decides he ain't going to get nowhere arguing
with a girl hydrogen atom. So he fucks her and they make helium.

______________________



Incredibly enough, that is pretty much how it works.

[popinjay]

Post by Mossingen
Incredibly enough, that is pretty much how it works.

Unbelievable, but I have to get going to the casino. Nice talking with you, cya later.

[risky biz]

Post by popinjay
So let's say there is a lone, rogue, boy hydrogen atom floating around in
space. The hydrogen atom has no eyes, no lips, no ears, no senses. One day
he runs into a girl hydrogen atom. For the sake of this hypothetical, let's
say they can talk to each other. He thinks she's cute and wants to impress
her, so he starts telling her about the universe and all the stars and
nuclear fusion, etc., he even tells her about Earth and some of Earth's
history. Remember, neither one of them have any eyes or ears or other
senses. She listens patiently while he explains, and just as he's starting
to tell her about the invention of the internal combustion engine, she's had
enough and says, "Get the fuck oudda here".
She don't believe a word he says. But that don't mean it wasn't true.
Finally, the boy hydrogen atom decides he ain't going to get nowhere arguing
with a girl hydrogen atom. So he fucks her and they make helium.
______________________
Incredibly enough, that is pretty much how it works.

Hankins likes happy endings, too.

[da pickle]

Post by risky biz

Post by popinjay
So let's say there is a lone, rogue, boy hydrogen atom floating around in
space. The hydrogen atom has no eyes, no lips, no ears, no senses. One day
he runs into a girl hydrogen atom. For the sake of this hypothetical, let's
say they can talk to each other. He thinks she's cute and wants to impress
her, so he starts telling her about the universe and all the stars and
nuclear fusion, etc., he even tells her about Earth and some of Earth's
history. Remember, neither one of them have any eyes or ears or other
senses. She listens patiently while he explains, and just as he's starting
to tell her about the invention of the internal combustion engine, she's had
enough and says, "Get the fuck oudda here".
She don't believe a word he says. But that don't mean it wasn't true.
Finally, the boy hydrogen atom decides he ain't going to get nowhere arguing
with a girl hydrogen atom. So he fucks her and they make helium.
______________________
Incredibly enough, that is pretty much how it works.

Hankins likes happy endings, too.

Don't we all?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[risky biz]

Post by popinjay

Post by popinjay

Post by Mossingen
Of course not. It's not biologically possible, nor is there any credible
evidence of it in the case of Jesus of Nazareth. You can choose to believe
Bronze Age myths passed down by word of mouth decades after the supposed
event, but a claim like that requires extraordinary evidence. There is
none.
You’ve lived in this world for a long time, paul. You know how men deceive
and manipulate others for power. Is there anything in your life experience
that you've witnessed that would lead you to believe that a dead human can
be alive three days later?
If you saw a friend of yours "die" and then saw him walking down the street
three days later, what would your thought process be? Which would be more
likely, that the laws of nature had been suspended, in your favor, or that
you had simply made a mistake in believing that your friend was actually
dead?

Is our very existence believable? Seriously, no.
Yet we do exist.

So let's say there is a lone, rogue, boy hydrogen atom floating around in space. The hydrogen atom has no eyes, no lips, no ears, no senses. One day he runs into a girl hydrogen atom. For the sake of this hypothetical, let's say they can talk to each other. He thinks she's cute and wants to impress her, so he starts telling her about the universe and all the stars and nuclear fusion, etc., he even tells her about Earth and some of Earth's history. Remember, neither one of them have any eyes or ears or other senses. She listens patiently while he explains, and just as he's starting to tell her about the invention of the internal combustion engine, she's had enough and says, "Get the fuck oudda here".
She don't believe a word he says. But that don't mean it wasn't true.
Finally, the boy hydrogen atom decides he ain't going to get nowhere arguing with a girl hydrogen atom. So he fucks her and they make helium.

I like stories with happy endings.

[Mossingen]

Post by popinjay
Is our very existence believable? Seriously, no.
Yet we do exist.

It's more than believable, it's true. I think what you mean is the
mechanism of how we came to exist believable. Yes. Yes, it is.
Improbable, surely, but entirely logical and based on science and not
superstition. The most abundant elements in the universe are hydrogen,
helium, oxygen and carbon. Helium is inert to life, but life on Earth is
made up of the other three; which didn't magically appear on Earth, these
elements are manufactured by chemical processes in stars, which are
disseminated when stars explode. The physicist Lawrence Krauss (who has
several fascinating videos on YouTube, but is a personally annoying little
dipshit) said that we are all literally stardust, and that the atoms that
make up your right arm are likely from a star different than the one that
produced the atoms that make up your left arm.

These atoms bounced around primordial Earth about four billion years ago,
taking a long time to form molecules, until one of these tiny structures
eventually formed the ability to replicate itself; which went on for another
long period of time until imperfections in the replicating process created
more than one structure that could replicate, and it went on from there,
over billions of years of evolution, growing into more complex structures,
and eventually plants, fish, birds and other animals.

Or, you know, some white-bearded dude who lives in the clouds in the sky
just created it all about 6,000 years ago. Take your pick.

[popinjay]

Post by Mossingen

Post by popinjay
Is our very existence believable? Seriously, no.
Yet we do exist.

It's more than believable, it's true. I think what you mean is the
mechanism of how we came to exist believable. Yes. Yes, it is.
Improbable, surely, but entirely logical and based on science and not
superstition. The most abundant elements in the universe are hydrogen,
helium, oxygen and carbon. Helium is inert to life, but life on Earth is
made up of the other three; which didn't magically appear on Earth, these
elements are manufactured by chemical processes in stars, which are
disseminated when stars explode. The physicist Lawrence Krauss (who has
several fascinating videos on YouTube, but is a personally annoying little
dipshit) said that we are all literally stardust, and that the atoms that
make up your right arm are likely from a star different than the one that
produced the atoms that make up your left arm.
These atoms bounced around primordial Earth about four billion years ago,
taking a long time to form molecules, until one of these tiny structures
eventually formed the ability to replicate itself; which went on for another
long period of time until imperfections in the replicating process created
more than one structure that could replicate, and it went on from there,
over billions of years of evolution, growing into more complex structures,
and eventually plants, fish, birds and other animals.
Or, you know, some white-bearded dude who lives in the clouds in the sky
just created it all about 6,000 years ago. Take your pick.

I never said God looks like George Burns. But our existence is so unbelievable, that it's unbelievable. C'mon, isn't it a wee bit arrogant to say, "Oh, of course we exist, and I knew we were going to exist." Sounds like Jerry.

Where do the intangibles come from, James? Emotion, love, bravery, integrity? Conscience? The Kuiper Belt?

[Mossingen]

Post by popinjay
I never said God looks like George Burns. But our existence is so
unbelievable, that it's unbelievable. C'mon, isn't it a wee bit arrogant
to say, "Oh, of course we exist, and I knew we were going >to exist."
Sounds like Jerry.

It's not arrogant to say we exist because we do.

Post by popinjay
Where do the intangibles come from, James? Emotion, love, bravery,
integrity? Conscience? The Kuiper Belt?

They come from humans, who are evolved creatures the same as all other
creatures on this planet. We feel things in our brains and, because we have
the capacity for language, we assign words to describe them.

[popinjay]

Post by Mossingen

Post by popinjay
Do you believe that Jesus was really dead, and then a few days later He wasn't?

Of course not. It's not biologically possible, nor is there any credible
evidence of it in the case of Jesus of Nazareth. You can choose to believe
Bronze Age myths passed down by word of mouth decades after the supposed
event, but a claim like that requires extraordinary evidence. There is
none.
You’ve lived in this world for a long time, paul. You know how men deceive
and manipulate others for power. Is there anything in your life experience
that you've witnessed that would lead you to believe that a dead human can
be alive three days later?
If you saw a friend of yours "die" and then saw him walking down the street
three days later, what would your thought process be? Which would be more
likely, that the laws of nature had been suspended, in your favor, or that
you had simply made a mistake in believing that your friend was actually
dead?

So no matter how good you think you may be as a lawyer, I assume you would not be able to argue before a jury, effectively and convincingly, the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus. If you were offered a lot of money to argue the case, but your pay depended on you winning, you would just pass. Is that correct, my fellow Catholic?

[Mossingen]

Post by popinjay
So no matter how good you think you may be as a lawyer, I assume you would
not be able to argue before a jury, effectively and convincingly, the
existence of God and the resurrection of >Jesus. If you were offered a lot
of money to argue the case, but your pay depended on you winning, you would
just pass. Is that correct, my fellow Catholic?

Correct. It's not that I would pass, it's just the case that there is no
compelling evidence to believe any Bible story, much less one that describes
supernatural acts that violate the laws of the natural world.

I have been studying this for several years now, and believe me, I tried to
convince myself of it, but the more I dug into the more I found myself
doubting. Bible stories about Jesus were not written down when they
happened. They were passed from one generation to the next orally for 50 to
100 years after the events, only then did anonymous scribes write them down.
You know that this method is not reliable. This is how myths are created.

The worlds religions are not compatible. When Richard Dawkins gave a
lecture, during the Q&A after, a girl asked him, "what if you're wrong?"
The implication being that he was making a high stakes bet by being an
atheist, and if it turned out he was wrong, then he was screwed. He replied
by ascertaining that the girl was a Christian, and then he reminded her that
she was an atheist as to Islam, as to Judaism, as to Hinduism, as to every
other religion in the world, she was an atheist from the point of view of
adherents to other religions. Then he asked her, what if *you're* wrong?

Have you considered that? What if the Muslims are correct and you're wrong
about Christ? The proliferation of religions in the world, each compatible
with the other, tells me that they are man-made. There is no right one.

I read a horrific news story several months ago about a mother who lived in
a slum in either South Africa or Brazil. She went out to get drunk and left
her female infant alone in a shanty shack. While she was gone, giant rats
ate the little girl alive, feasting on her eyes, lips and other soft spots
first. The infant died. Whenever I read stories like that, I try to think
of any justification for a just God to allow that. I cannot think of any.
Mysterious ways does not excuse a being from having the power to prevent
atrocity but failing to do so. If God does exist, he is an old testament
tyrant.

[popinjay]

Post by Mossingen

Post by popinjay
So no matter how good you think you may be as a lawyer, I assume you would
not be able to argue before a jury, effectively and convincingly, the
existence of God and the resurrection of >Jesus. If you were offered a lot
of money to argue the case, but your pay depended on you winning, you would
just pass. Is that correct, my fellow Catholic?

Correct. It's not that I would pass, it's just the case that there is no
compelling evidence to believe any Bible story, much less one that describes
supernatural acts that violate the laws of the natural world.
I have been studying this for several years now, and believe me, I tried to
convince myself of it, but the more I dug into the more I found myself
doubting. Bible stories about Jesus were not written down when they
happened. They were passed from one generation to the next orally for 50 to
100 years after the events, only then did anonymous scribes write them down.
You know that this method is not reliable. This is how myths are created.
The worlds religions are not compatible. When Richard Dawkins gave a
lecture, during the Q&A after, a girl asked him, "what if you're wrong?"
The implication being that he was making a high stakes bet by being an
atheist, and if it turned out he was wrong, then he was screwed. He replied
by ascertaining that the girl was a Christian, and then he reminded her that
she was an atheist as to Islam, as to Judaism, as to Hinduism, as to every
other religion in the world, she was an atheist from the point of view of
adherents to other religions. Then he asked her, what if *you're* wrong?
Have you considered that? What if the Muslims are correct and you're wrong
about Christ? The proliferation of religions in the world, each compatible
with the other, tells me that they are man-made. There is no right one.
I read a horrific news story several months ago about a mother who lived in
a slum in either South Africa or Brazil. She went out to get drunk and left
her female infant alone in a shanty shack. While she was gone, giant rats
ate the little girl alive, feasting on her eyes, lips and other soft spots
first. The infant died. Whenever I read stories like that, I try to think
of any justification for a just God to allow that. I cannot think of any.
Mysterious ways does not excuse a being from having the power to prevent
atrocity but failing to do so. If God does exist, he is an old testament
tyrant.

I'm glad you put the rat story in there. I had never thought of that point before accepting my belief in God. Is that your closing argument?

Maybe I should stop believing in God too, since He allows all the people of Oregon to get free abortions.

[fffurken]

Post by popinjay
I'm glad you put the rat story in there. I had never thought of that point before accepting my belief in God.

It's not new.

Somewhat more eloquently by Stephen Fry: "Bone cancer in children, what's that about?" -

Btw, that's what caused Stephen Fry to be investigated under Ireland's archaic blasphemy law following a complaint, an investigation which was subsequently forgotten about.

[Mossingen]

Post by popinjay
I'm glad you put the rat story in there. I had never thought of that point
before accepting my belief in God. Is that your closing argument?
Maybe I should stop believing in God too, since He allows all the people of
Oregon to get free abortions.

You're not the least bit skeptical of another human who claims that he knows
what God wants and that God wants punishment inflicted upon other humans if
they don't do what he says? Study religion like you would a Government
claim that flouride in the water is good.

It's complicated and there are many facets of it. Start with "god is Not
Great" by Christopher Hitchens and watch his debates on YouTube with
theists, also Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty. That will get you started,
then when they reference another person, look up that person and read what
he had to say about religion. You will conclude it's man-made superstitious
nonsense, born in the infancy of our species when humans didn't know about
the natural world or biology, but sought answers about those things.

[popinjay]

Post by Mossingen

Post by popinjay
I'm glad you put the rat story in there. I had never thought of that point
before accepting my belief in God. Is that your closing argument?
Maybe I should stop believing in God too, since He allows all the people of
Oregon to get free abortions.

You're not the least bit skeptical of another human who claims that he knows
what God wants and that God wants punishment inflicted upon other humans if
they don't do what he says? Study religion like you would a Government
claim that flouride in the water is good.
It's complicated and there are many facets of it. Start with "god is Not
Great" by Christopher Hitchens and watch his debates on YouTube with
theists, also Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty. That will get you started,
then when they reference another person, look up that person and read what
he had to say about religion. You will conclude it's man-made superstitious
nonsense, born in the infancy of our species when humans didn't know about
the natural world or biology, but sought answers about those things.

Just to be clear, Mossingen:

1. You were Catholic, but now you're not?

2. Yes or no, the universe has always been?

3. After-life, yes or no?

Btw, from now on I think I will spell mossingen with a small-case 'm', if you have no problem with that.

[Mossingen]

Post by popinjay
1. You were Catholic, but now you're not?

Correct. I have studied Catholicism and other religions for a long time
now, and I can't conclude that any of them is supported by an facts
sufficient to confirm their truth.

Post by popinjay
2. Yes or no, the universe has always been?

I don't know. We do not have evidence to support a view on that. So, I'm
content with the fact that we don't know, which means that there is no need
to make up a bunch of superstitious nonsense to make sense of it. Just
accept that at this point in our history, we do not know the answer to that.
More importantly, I know that priests do not know, either. No one knows.
That's the primary failing of ancient man: making up superstitious nonsense
to explain things they don't know.

The people who wrote the Bible thought the Earth was flat, was the center of
the universe, and that stars were fixed points of light in the sky. They
were ignorant of pretty much all aspects of the natural world, and when they
tried to explain things in nature invariably got it entirely wrong. These
men knew less, much less, about the universe and the natural world than you
do. They had no special insight or supernatural power or any mode of
thinking that is not available to you.

What makes them special that God would impart wisdom to them and not to you?
Does that sound like men trying to control other men to you?

Post by popinjay
3. After-life, yes or no?

I don't know. There is no persuasive evidence to support that notion.
Again, it is an unknowable thing; and any human who claims to know should
have extraordinary evidence to support such an extraordinary claim. There
is no such evidence. Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris discuss this topic
with two clergymen in a very interesting discussion:

Watch this and see which you think is more persuasive. Hitchens nails it,
in my opinion. The thought of an afterlife is a man-made concept to sooth
our fear of death, nothing more.

Post by popinjay
Btw, from now on I think I will spell mossingen with a small-case 'm', if
you have no problem with that.

I object to that.

[fffurken]

Post by Mossingen
Correct. I have studied Catholicism and other religions for a long time
now, and I can't conclude that any of them is supported by an facts
sufficient to confirm their truth.

lol What a waste of time

[Mossingen]

Post by Mossingen
Correct. I have studied Catholicism and other religions for a long time
now, and I can't conclude that any of them is supported by an facts
sufficient to confirm their truth.
lol What a waste of time

Studying religion is a waste of time? On the contrary, it's one of the most
enlightening experiences I've ever had. Religion permeates most every
aspect of human culture. Understanding it, and how adherents think, is a
worthwhile endeavor.

[fffurken]

Post by Mossingen

Post by Mossingen
Correct. I have studied Catholicism and other religions for a long time
now, and I can't conclude that any of them is supported by an facts
sufficient to confirm their truth.
lol What a waste of time

Studying religion is a waste of time?

I've always been a fan of Bill Murray.

Post by Mossingen
Religion permeates most every aspect of human culture. Understanding it, and how adherents think, is a worthwhile endeavor.

You appear to have concluded that they all think the same.

[da pickle]

Post by fffurken

Post by Mossingen
Religion permeates most every aspect of human culture. Understanding it, and how adherents think, is a worthwhile endeavor.

You appear to have concluded that they all think the same.

I think just the opposite.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[fffurken]

Post by da pickle

Post by fffurken

Post by Mossingen
Religion permeates most every aspect of human culture. Understanding it, and how adherents think, is a worthwhile endeavor.

You appear to have concluded that they all think the same.

I think just the opposite.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Superstitious fairy tales? The only specific belief I recall being mentioned is transubstantiation.

[da pickle]

Post by fffurken

Post by da pickle

Post by fffurken

Post by Mossingen
Religion permeates most every aspect of human culture. Understanding it, and how adherents think, is a worthwhile endeavor.

You appear to have concluded that they all think the same.

I think just the opposite.

Superstitious fairy tales? The only specific belief I recall being mentioned is transubstantiation.

You seem to have a somewhat unique definition of "religion" and what
others might mean when they use the word. I will let James speak for
himself, but I doubt he was limiting the discussion to transubstantiation.

[My own personal favorite transubstantiation story was told to me by a
nun ... very early in my elementary school days. A "bad" boy secretly
took the host from his tongue and took it home with him to prove to
himself that it was NOT the literal body of Christ. He carefully took a
large butcher knife from the rack and sliced the host BUT the blood
flowed and flowed and flowed and he could not stop it. It filled the
floor of the kitchen and he ran to church to confess to the priest what
he had done. It changed his life and he no longer acted like the "bad"
boy he had been before the miracle.}

Not the only scary story told to us to make us behave like good Catholic
boys. I hate to admit how old I was when I first ... you know ...
touched myself ... you know ...


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[fffurken]

Post by fffurken
Superstitious fairy tales? The only specific belief I recall being mentioned is transubstantiation.

I will let James speak for himself, but I doubt he was limiting the discussion to transubstantiation.

Reading comprehension fail

[risky biz]

Post by fffurken

Post by fffurken
Superstitious fairy tales? The only specific belief I recall being mentioned is transubstantiation.

I will let James speak for himself, but I doubt he was limiting the discussion to transubstantiation.

Reading comprehension fail

Did you get a reading certificate recently?

[popinjay]

Post by Mossingen

Post by popinjay
2. Yes or no, the universe has always been?

I don't know. We do not have evidence to support a view on that.

Ok, I was starting to think you thought you know everything. I will put you down as "on the fence" about how something came out of nothing.

Post by Mossingen

Post by popinjay
3. After-life, yes or no?

I don't know. There is no persuasive evidence to support that notion.
Again, it is an unknowable thing; and any human who claims to know should
have extraordinary evidence to support such an extraordinary claim.

I do. I've seen the other side.

Post by Mossingen

Post by popinjay
Btw, from now on I think I will spell mossingen with a small-case 'm', if
you have no problem with that.

I object to that.

It's just that I am questioning my faith.

[poopiejay]

Post by popinjay
I do. I've seen the other side.

me too. i was living in a house near fallbrook, ca that was also occupied by several ghosts. one night they talked me into driving out to the desert so off we went. (they said they needed a ride, but later i found out that was just one of their funny jokes as they actually could transport themselves anywhere they wanted instantaneously). they gave directions where to turn, etc. and we ended up way off the paved roads not too far from Desert Center. while there, i saw hundreds of ghost people wandering aimlessly through the desert and several large fires burning here and there. at one point, about a dozen of these desert ghosts lined up at my van and i asked my fellow traveler ghosts what they wanted. "food". they're hungry". i stayed there all night and saw many incredible things i wont bother to go into.
the next day after i got home,, i looked up the area i was in on a map and saw that i was halfway between "Hell, CA and "Tierra del Muerte" (land of the dead) near the arizona border. both real places.


i was not religious at the time, but i know what i saw. that was 27 years ago and i doubt if ive ever spent a day since that i didnt think about what happened out there.

just as an aside, this house i lived in was part of a complex of several houses that included the oldest house in the fallbrook area and was once a stagecoach stop. i found quite a few old artifacts digging thru the brush, old wagon parts, etc. later, in the 20's and 30's, it became a retreat for hollywood types. it was also the house where the little girl from the tv show "family affair" od'ed on drugs.

[da pickle]

Post by poopiejay

Post by popinjay
I do. I've seen the other side.

me too. i was living in a house near fallbrook, ca that was also occupied by several ghosts. one night they talked me into driving out to the desert so off we went. (they said they needed a ride, but later i found out that was just one of their funny jokes as they actually could transport themselves anywhere they wanted instantaneously). they gave directions where to turn, etc. and we ended up way off the paved roads not too far from Desert Center. while there, i saw hundreds of ghost people wandering aimlessly through the desert and several large fires burning here and there. at one point, about a dozen of these desert ghosts lined up at my van and i asked my fellow traveler ghosts what they wanted. "food". they're hungry". i stayed there all night and saw many incredible things i wont bother to go into.
the next day after i got home,, i looked up the area i was in on a map and saw that i was halfway between "Hell, CA and "Tierra del Muerte" (land of the dead) near the arizona border. both real places.
i was not religious at the time, but i know what i saw. that was 27 years ago and i doubt if ive ever spent a day since that i didnt think about what happened out there.
just as an aside, this house i lived in was part of a complex of several houses that included the oldest house in the fallbrook area and was once a stagecoach stop. i found quite a few old artifacts digging thru the brush, old wagon parts, etc. later, in the 20's and 30's, it became a retreat for hollywood types. it was also the house where the little girl from the tv show "family affair" od'ed on drugs.

One cannot really argue with personal experience. One can decide
whether a lesson can be learned from the experience of others.

Interesting story.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[risky biz]

Post by poopiejay

Post by popinjay
I do. I've seen the other side.

me too. i was living in a house near fallbrook, ca that was also occupied by several ghosts. one night they talked me into driving out to the desert so off we went. (they said they needed a ride, but later i found out that was just one of their funny jokes as they actually could transport themselves anywhere they wanted instantaneously). they gave directions where to turn, etc. and we ended up way off the paved roads not too far from Desert Center. while there, i saw hundreds of ghost people wandering aimlessly through the desert and several large fires burning here and there. at one point, about a dozen of these desert ghosts lined up at my van and i asked my fellow traveler ghosts what they wanted. "food". they're hungry". i stayed there all night and saw many incredible things i wont bother to go into.
the next day after i got home,, i looked up the area i was in on a map and saw that i was halfway between "Hell, CA and "Tierra del Muerte" (land of the dead) near the arizona border. both real places.
i was not religious at the time, but i know what i saw. that was 27 years ago and i doubt if ive ever spent a day since that i didnt think about what happened out there.
just as an aside, this house i lived in was part of a complex of several houses that included the oldest house in the fallbrook area and was once a stagecoach stop. i found quite a few old artifacts digging thru the brush, old wagon parts, etc. later, in the 20's and 30's, it became a retreat for hollywood types. it was also the house where the little girl from the tv show "family affair" od'ed on drugs.

I've slept many nights in empty, remote desert areas of California and Nevada and I've never seen a ghost. I remember asking some guy in a van for food once.

[popinjay]

Post by poopiejay

Post by popinjay
I do. I've seen the other side.

me too. i was living in a house near fallbrook, ca that was also occupied by several ghosts. one night they talked me into driving out to the desert so off we went. (they said they needed a ride, but later i found out that was just one of their funny jokes as they actually could transport themselves anywhere they wanted instantaneously). they gave directions where to turn, etc. and we ended up way off the paved roads not too far from Desert Center. while there, i saw hundreds of ghost people wandering aimlessly through the desert and several large fires burning here and there. at one point, about a dozen of these desert ghosts lined up at my van and i asked my fellow traveler ghosts what they wanted. "food". they're hungry". i stayed there all night and saw many incredible things i wont bother to go into.
the next day after i got home,, i looked up the area i was in on a map and saw that i was halfway between "Hell, CA and "Tierra del Muerte" (land of the dead) near the arizona border. both real places.
i was not religious at the time, but i know what i saw. that was 27 years ago and i doubt if ive ever spent a day since that i didnt think about what happened out there.
just as an aside, this house i lived in was part of a complex of several houses that included the oldest house in the fallbrook area and was once a stagecoach stop. i found quite a few old artifacts digging thru the brush, old wagon parts, etc. later, in the 20's and 30's, it became a retreat for hollywood types. it was also the house where the little girl from the tv show "family affair" od'ed on drugs.

I did not see the ghost, but I saw what he was doing. His coffin was not buried yet. I am sure I saw the "other side", and it is the only such observance in my life. A priest saw the same thing as I did, and commented on it. I would like to look him up, if he is still alive. I am absolutely convinced from this experience that there is something after.

Btw, I processed avocados in Fallbrook.

And I also went to school with the little girl you mentioned, it was near Playa Del Rey.

[Mossingen]

Post by popinjay
I do. I've seen the other side.

When you make a statement like that without any details it makes you look
less credible, not more.

What do you mean by that exactly?

[popinjay]

Post by Mossingen

Post by popinjay
I do. I've seen the other side.

When you make a statement like that without any details it makes you look
less credible, not more.

So what? I obviously didn't feel like elaborating at the moment. I may have been getting ready to go to the casino. I'm not in a credibility contest here. For what it's worth, my word is pretty fucking good. I don't wear a Rolex either. I don't give a fuck what time it is, and I am not pretentious. If I was faking it, I might have said I had several similar experiences, but I didn't, I said I had one, and that's all I've had. I've also got a priest, somewhere, who saw it with me. It was years ago, he may be dead by now, so I'll ask him about it later.

[risky biz]

Post by Mossingen

Post by popinjay
1. You were Catholic, but now you're not?

Correct. I have studied Catholicism and other religions for a long time
now, and I can't conclude that any of them is supported by an facts
sufficient to confirm their truth.

Post by popinjay
2. Yes or no, the universe has always been?

I don't know. We do not have evidence to support a view on that. So, I'm
content with the fact that we don't know, which means that there is no need
to make up a bunch of superstitious nonsense to make sense of it. Just
accept that at this point in our history, we do not know the answer to that.
More importantly, I know that priests do not know, either. No one knows.
That's the primary failing of ancient man: making up superstitious nonsense
to explain things they don't know.

Like claiming to know the birth date of the Earth.

Post by Mossingen
The people who wrote the Bible thought the Earth was flat, was the center of
the universe, and that stars were fixed points of light in the sky. They
were ignorant of pretty much all aspects of the natural world, and when they
tried to explain things in nature invariably got it entirely wrong. These
men knew less, much less, about the universe and the natural world than you
do. They had no special insight or supernatural power or any mode of
thinking that is not available to you.
What makes them special that God would impart wisdom to them and not to you?
Does that sound like men trying to control other men to you?

Post by popinjay
3. After-life, yes or no?

I don't know. There is no persuasive evidence to support that notion.
Again, it is an unknowable thing; and any human who claims to know should
have extraordinary evidence to support such an extraordinary claim. There
is no such evidence. Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris discuss this topic
http://youtu.be/UjKJ92b9Y04
Watch this and see which you think is more persuasive. Hitchens nails it,
in my opinion. The thought of an afterlife is a man-made concept to sooth
our fear of death, nothing more.

Post by popinjay
Btw, from now on I think I will spell mossingen with a small-case 'm', if
you have no problem with that.

I object to that.

[Mossingen]

Post by risky biz
Like claiming to know the birth date of the Earth.

Seriously?

[fffurken]

Post by popinjay
Btw, from now on I think I will spell mossingen with a small-case 'm', if you have no problem with that.

On the bright side for mossingen that's about the worst that will happen if you're an apostate of Catholicism.

[Tim Norfolk]

Post by Mossingen

Post by popinjay
So no matter how good you think you may be as a lawyer, I assume you would
not be able to argue before a jury, effectively and convincingly, the
existence of God and the resurrection of >Jesus. If you were offered a lot
of money to argue the case, but your pay depended on you winning, you would
just pass. Is that correct, my fellow Catholic?

Correct. It's not that I would pass, it's just the case that there is no
compelling evidence to believe any Bible story, much less one that describes
supernatural acts that violate the laws of the natural world.
I have been studying this for several years now, and believe me, I tried to
convince myself of it, but the more I dug into the more I found myself
doubting. Bible stories about Jesus were not written down when they
happened. They were passed from one generation to the next orally for 50 to
100 years after the events, only then did anonymous scribes write them down.
You know that this method is not reliable. This is how myths are created.
The worlds religions are not compatible. When Richard Dawkins gave a
lecture, during the Q&A after, a girl asked him, "what if you're wrong?"
The implication being that he was making a high stakes bet by being an
atheist, and if it turned out he was wrong, then he was screwed. He replied
by ascertaining that the girl was a Christian, and then he reminded her that
she was an atheist as to Islam, as to Judaism, as to Hinduism, as to every
other religion in the world, she was an atheist from the point of view of
adherents to other religions. Then he asked her, what if *you're* wrong?
Have you considered that? What if the Muslims are correct and you're wrong
about Christ? The proliferation of religions in the world, each compatible
with the other, tells me that they are man-made. There is no right one.
I read a horrific news story several months ago about a mother who lived in
a slum in either South Africa or Brazil. She went out to get drunk and left
her female infant alone in a shanty shack. While she was gone, giant rats
ate the little girl alive, feasting on her eyes, lips and other soft spots
first. The infant died. Whenever I read stories like that, I try to think
of any justification for a just God to allow that. I cannot think of any.
Mysterious ways does not excuse a being from having the power to prevent
atrocity but failing to do so. If God does exist, he is an old testament
tyrant.

No matter which religion (if any) are the 'truth', the majority of people in the world are wrong about it.

[Mossingen]

Post by Tim Norfolk
No matter which religion (if any) are the 'truth', the majority of people
in the world are wrong about it.

Yeah, Sam Harris pointed that out in discussing Pascal's Wager. A religious
person is likely wrong just by simple odds that he or she picked the wrong
one.

[da pickle]

Post by popinjay
So no matter how good you think you may be as a lawyer, I assume you
would not be able to argue before a jury, effectively and
convincingly, the existence of God and the resurrection of >Jesus.  If
you were offered a lot of money to argue the case, but your pay
depended on you winning, you would just pass.  Is that correct, my
fellow Catholic?

Correct.  It's not that I would pass, it's just the case that there is
no compelling evidence to believe any Bible story, much less one that
describes supernatural acts that violate the laws of the natural world.
I have been studying this for several years now, and believe me, I tried
to convince myself of it, but the more I dug into the more I found
myself doubting.  Bible stories about Jesus were not written down when
they happened.  They were passed from one generation to the next orally
for 50 to 100 years after the events, only then did anonymous scribes
write them down. You know that this method is not reliable.  This is how
myths are created.
The worlds religions are not compatible.  When Richard Dawkins gave a
lecture, during the Q&A after, a girl asked him, "what if you're wrong?"
The implication being that he was making a high stakes bet by being an
atheist, and if it turned out he was wrong, then he was screwed.  He
replied by ascertaining that the girl was a Christian, and then he
reminded her that she was an atheist as to Islam, as to Judaism, as to
Hinduism, as to every other religion in the world, she was an atheist
from the point of view of adherents to other religions.  Then he asked
her, what if *you're* wrong?
Have you considered that?  What if the Muslims are correct and you're
wrong about Christ?  The proliferation of religions in the world, each
compatible with the other, tells me that they are man-made.  There is no
right one.
I read a horrific news story several months ago about a mother who lived
in a slum in either South Africa or Brazil.  She went out to get drunk
and left her female infant alone in a shanty shack.  While she was gone,
giant rats ate the little girl alive, feasting on her eyes, lips and
other soft spots first.  The infant died.  Whenever I read stories like
that, I try to think of any justification for a just God to allow that.
I cannot think of any. Mysterious ways does not excuse a being from
having the power to prevent atrocity but failing to do so.  If God does
exist, he is an old testament tyrant.

I remember the "GOD IS DEAD" magazine cover ... TIME? [Do they still
print TIME magazine?]

I am much older that maybe everyone still posting on this group. I was
raised Roman Catholic and was a "believer" until likely in college ...
so long ago. I insisted that my fiance convert so we could be married
in the One True Church ... it still amazes me that she agreed. After I
finally came to the realization that I could not continue to deceive
myself about every detail of the whole thing (to "doubt" is to "sin"), I
became not only anti RC but anti "religion". [I put the quotes because
all of us do not mean the same thing when we use the word "religion".]

During my raging atheist period, I simply did not think much about it.
Since I had given up my entire moral code, I needed to come up with
something new. I did a lot of reading about all sorts of things and
eventually rediscovered an interest in the numinous. My studies in
science all seemed to be trying to expand an understanding of the
"unknown" and provide explanations that "made sense" to someone who
needed a new framework to live by.

There are so many "unknowns" still available to be discovered or
explained so that scientists can agree on the truth ... not! I just
finished the other day with the series "Genius" about the life of Albert
Einstein. What a great documentary/story. [Still used the word "God"
in a very special way. I was a bit surprised. I do believe his idea of
God is close to my current version.]

So, eventually, I decided that some sort of church-like group might be
interesting as long as it wasn't anything like a real church ... I met
someone who invited me to a Unitarian-Universalist fellowship. One did
not have to believe in any version of "God" to be a member ... it was
very interesting. It was definitely a liberal/progressive political
group and very active in the civil rights movement.

I attended quite some time and found it much like a country club for
quite interesting folks. Most interesting was the idea that everyone
should not be "grouped" into only one way of looking at things.
Everyone had ideas and just because they attended one fellowship, one
could not say that anyone agreed on much of any one thing. It was a
safe place for all ideas. Until the ERA was being considered ... a
political question ... not any sort of "religious" question ... at least
to me. The board of directors wanted to "go on record" for supporting
the ERA and publish a letter in the local newspaper. I said I would
agree with such a thing if everyone (every single person) said that they
agreed with such an action. [I pointed out that everyone might not be
able to say that they believed in god and they were attending a group
that might be called a church even though they would never actually call
the building a church.] I also said that there were many, many groups
that anyone who wanted to could join and support the ERA ... why would
anyone want the fellowship to did it if even one person did not want the
fellowship to be a political action committee? Would not the only
reason be to make the public believe that everyone at the fellowship
agreed with the letter, even though that might not be true? [And the
letter would not be of any importance anyway.]

All groups are interesting ... I have been a registered Democrat my
whole adult life ... but I cannot say that that registration identifies
me in any meaningful way. Later, we left the Unitarian group and moved
to where I have lived since the late 70s ... and we found a good day
school for the kids at the oldest Episcopal Church in town. Met
interesting people and settled in. Not really a high church but
certainly not a low church ... a real country club church. Sort of
Catholic-Lite. Twice the fun with half the guilt trip. It was an
interesting time for me ... spiritually. Eight or nine summers at
Kanuga in North Carolina ... kids at camp and adults at Christian
Spiritual Activities. Met marvelous teachers exposing me to all sorts
of new ideas. All sorts of religious ideas explored and discussed ...
one of my favorites sill is Sufism. I decided on four years of more
formal seminary studies as well. The bible took on new meaning for me
as an excellent guide to developing a moral code that seems quite
suitable for me.

I no longer attend any church of any kind ... I really do not "study"
religion any more. I am quite content at the moment ... spiritually.
Still many unknowns; still many questions ... but I have decided (for
the moment) to go with God=Love. Explains a lot for me. Love can move
mountains if you get enough like minded folks to help. Non-love=Evil
Seems to work for me. God has nothing to do with the evil in the world
... not in the definition. My God=Love does not meddle in the world,
only helps where a person can help. God=Love is not science and has no
explanation for anything that science argues about. God is simply Love.

Love is not dead. Love is all there is. All you need is love. Put a
little love in your heart.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[risky biz]

Post by Mossingen

Post by popinjay
So no matter how good you think you may be as a lawyer, I assume you would
not be able to argue before a jury, effectively and convincingly, the
existence of God and the resurrection of >Jesus. If you were offered a lot
of money to argue the case, but your pay depended on you winning, you would
just pass. Is that correct, my fellow Catholic?

Correct. It's not that I would pass, it's just the case that there is no
compelling evidence to believe any Bible story, much less one that describes
supernatural acts that violate the laws of the natural world.
I have been studying this for several years now, and believe me, I tried to
convince myself of it, but the more I dug into the more I found myself
doubting. Bible stories about Jesus were not written down when they
happened. They were passed from one generation to the next orally for 50 to
100 years after the events, only then did anonymous scribes write them down.
You know that this method is not reliable. This is how myths are created.
The worlds religions are not compatible. When Richard Dawkins gave a
lecture, during the Q&A after, a girl asked him, "what if you're wrong?"
The implication being that he was making a high stakes bet by being an
atheist, and if it turned out he was wrong, then he was screwed. He replied
by ascertaining that the girl was a Christian, and then he reminded her that
she was an atheist as to Islam, as to Judaism, as to Hinduism, as to every
other religion in the world, she was an atheist from the point of view of
adherents to other religions. Then he asked her, what if *you're* wrong?
Have you considered that? What if the Muslims are correct and you're wrong
about Christ? The proliferation of religions in the world, each compatible
with the other, tells me that they are man-made. There is no right one.

You probably meant to type 'incompatible' but if Dawkins actually made that statement then he is abysmally ignorant of the differences between Christianity and Islam.

Post by Mossingen
I read a horrific news story several months ago about a mother who lived in
a slum in either South Africa or Brazil. She went out to get drunk and left
her female infant alone in a shanty shack. While she was gone, giant rats
ate the little girl alive, feasting on her eyes, lips and other soft spots
first. The infant died. Whenever I read stories like that, I try to think
of any justification for a just God to allow that. I cannot think of any.
Mysterious ways does not excuse a being from having the power to prevent
atrocity but failing to do so. If God does exist, he is an old testament
tyrant.

[Mossingen]

Post by risky biz
You probably meant to type 'incompatible' but if Dawkins actually made that
statement then he is abysmally ignorant of the differences between
Christianity and Islam.

He certainly is not, neither is Sam Harris, neither was Christopher
Hitchens. Would you consider yourself a religious fundamentalist? It
appears that you are.

[BTSinAustin]

Post by Mossingen

Post by popinjay
Do you believe that Jesus was really dead, and then a few days later He wasn't?

Of course not. It's not biologically possible, nor is there any credible
evidence of it in the case of Jesus of Nazareth. You can choose to believe
Bronze Age myths passed down by word of mouth decades after the supposed
event, but a claim like that requires extraordinary evidence. There is
none.
You’ve lived in this world for a long time, paul. You know how men deceive
and manipulate others for power. Is there anything in your life experience
that you've witnessed that would lead you to believe that a dead human can
be alive three days later?
If you saw a friend of yours "die" and then saw him walking down the street
three days later, what would your thought process be? Which would be more
likely, that the laws of nature had been suspended, in your favor, or that
you had simply made a mistake in believing that your friend was actually
dead?

Most likely, if he even existed at all which I doubt, that his followers said: "Oh shit, he's dead, let's reuse another of the old stories and say he came back". How that evolved into a bunch of old perverts who like to fuck little boys is anyone's guess.

[risky biz]

Post by BTSinAustin

Post by Mossingen

Post by popinjay
Do you believe that Jesus was really dead, and then a few days later He wasn't?

Of course not. It's not biologically possible, nor is there any credible
evidence of it in the case of Jesus of Nazareth. You can choose to believe
Bronze Age myths passed down by word of mouth decades after the supposed
event, but a claim like that requires extraordinary evidence. There is
none.
You’ve lived in this world for a long time, paul. You know how men deceive
and manipulate others for power. Is there anything in your life experience
that you've witnessed that would lead you to believe that a dead human can
be alive three days later?
If you saw a friend of yours "die" and then saw him walking down the street
three days later, what would your thought process be? Which would be more
likely, that the laws of nature had been suspended, in your favor, or that
you had simply made a mistake in believing that your friend was actually
dead?

Most likely, if he even existed at all which I doubt, that his followers said: "Oh shit, he's dead, let's reuse another of the old stories and say he came back". How that evolved into a bunch of old perverts who like to fuck little boys is anyone's guess.

I don't think there's any question at all that Jesus actually existed.

[Tim Norfolk]

Post by risky biz

Post by BTSinAustin

Post by Mossingen

Post by popinjay
Do you believe that Jesus was really dead, and then a few days later He wasn't?

Of course not. It's not biologically possible, nor is there any credible
evidence of it in the case of Jesus of Nazareth. You can choose to believe
Bronze Age myths passed down by word of mouth decades after the supposed
event, but a claim like that requires extraordinary evidence. There is
none.
You’ve lived in this world for a long time, paul. You know how men deceive
and manipulate others for power. Is there anything in your life experience
that you've witnessed that would lead you to believe that a dead human can
be alive three days later?
If you saw a friend of yours "die" and then saw him walking down the street
three days later, what would your thought process be? Which would be more
likely, that the laws of nature had been suspended, in your favor, or that
you had simply made a mistake in believing that your friend was actually
dead?

Most likely, if he even existed at all which I doubt, that his followers said: "Oh shit, he's dead, let's reuse another of the old stories and say he came back". How that evolved into a bunch of old perverts who like to fuck little boys is anyone's guess.

I don't think there's any question at all that Jesus actually existed.

The best evidence that we can find suggests that Jesus is a composite character.

[popinjay]

Post by Tim Norfolk
The best evidence that we can find suggests that Jesus is a composite character.

You're lucky he didn't make YOU a composite character on the operating table.

[risky biz]

Post by Tim Norfolk

Post by risky biz

Post by BTSinAustin

Post by Mossingen

Post by popinjay
Do you believe that Jesus was really dead, and then a few days later He
wasn't?

Of course not. It's not biologically possible, nor is there any credible
evidence of it in the case of Jesus of Nazareth. You can choose to believe
Bronze Age myths passed down by word of mouth decades after the supposed
event, but a claim like that requires extraordinary evidence. There is
none.
You’ve lived in this world for a long time, paul. You know how men deceive
and manipulate others for power. Is there anything in your life experience
that you've witnessed that would lead you to believe that a dead human can
be alive three days later?
If you saw a friend of yours "die" and then saw him walking down the street
three days later, what would your thought process be? Which would be more
likely, that the laws of nature had been suspended, in your favor, or that
you had simply made a mistake in believing that your friend was actually
dead?

Most likely, if he even existed at all which I doubt, that his followers said: "Oh shit, he's dead, let's reuse another of the old stories and say he came back". How that evolved into a bunch of old perverts who like to fuck little boys is anyone's guess.

I don't think there's any question at all that Jesus actually existed.

The best evidence that we can find suggests that Jesus is a composite character.

The Jesus of the bible may be a composite but, contrary to your assertion, the evidence suggests that Jesus was an actual, individual man.

[Tim Norfolk]

Post by risky biz

Post by Tim Norfolk

Post by risky biz

Post by BTSinAustin

Post by Mossingen

Post by popinjay
Do you believe that Jesus was really dead, and then a few days later He
wasn't?

Of course not. It's not biologically possible, nor is there any credible
evidence of it in the case of Jesus of Nazareth. You can choose to believe
Bronze Age myths passed down by word of mouth decades after the supposed
event, but a claim like that requires extraordinary evidence. There is
none.
You’ve lived in this world for a long time, paul. You know how men deceive
and manipulate others for power. Is there anything in your life experience
that you've witnessed that would lead you to believe that a dead human can
be alive three days later?
If you saw a friend of yours "die" and then saw him walking down the street
three days later, what would your thought process be? Which would be more
likely, that the laws of nature had been suspended, in your favor, or that
you had simply made a mistake in believing that your friend was actually
dead?

Most likely, if he even existed at all which I doubt, that his followers said: "Oh shit, he's dead, let's reuse another of the old stories and say he came back". How that evolved into a bunch of old perverts who like to fuck little boys is anyone's guess.

I don't think there's any question at all that Jesus actually existed.

The best evidence that we can find suggests that Jesus is a composite character.

The Jesus of the bible may be a composite but, contrary to your assertion, the evidence suggests that Jesus was an actual, individual man.

What evidence?

[risky biz]

Post by Tim Norfolk

Post by risky biz

Post by Tim Norfolk

Post by risky biz

Post by BTSinAustin

Post by Mossingen

Post by popinjay
Do you believe that Jesus was really dead, and then a few days later He
wasn't?

Of course not. It's not biologically possible, nor is there any credible
evidence of it in the case of Jesus of Nazareth. You can choose to believe
Bronze Age myths passed down by word of mouth decades after the supposed
event, but a claim like that requires extraordinary evidence. There is
none.
You’ve lived in this world for a long time, paul. You know how men deceive
and manipulate others for power. Is there anything in your life experience
that you've witnessed that would lead you to believe that a dead human can
be alive three days later?
If you saw a friend of yours "die" and then saw him walking down the street
three days later, what would your thought process be? Which would be more
likely, that the laws of nature had been suspended, in your favor, or that
you had simply made a mistake in believing that your friend was actually
dead?

Most likely, if he even existed at all which I doubt, that his followers said: "Oh shit, he's dead, let's reuse another of the old stories and say he came back". How that evolved into a bunch of old perverts who like to fuck little boys is anyone's guess.

I don't think there's any question at all that Jesus actually existed.

The best evidence that we can find suggests that Jesus is a composite character.

The Jesus of the bible may be a composite but, contrary to your assertion, the evidence suggests that Jesus was an actual, individual man.

What evidence?

The plainly obvious fact that there were numerous, separate churches which worshipped in the name (the same name) of one person who was crucified.

[Tim Norfolk]

Post by risky biz

Post by Tim Norfolk

Post by risky biz

Post by Tim Norfolk

Post by risky biz

Post by BTSinAustin

Post by Mossingen

Post by popinjay
Do you believe that Jesus was really dead, and then a few days later He
wasn't?

Of course not. It's not biologically possible, nor is there any credible
evidence of it in the case of Jesus of Nazareth. You can choose to believe
Bronze Age myths passed down by word of mouth decades after the supposed
event, but a claim like that requires extraordinary evidence. There is
none.
You’ve lived in this world for a long time, paul. You know how men deceive
and manipulate others for power. Is there anything in your life experience
that you've witnessed that would lead you to believe that a dead human can
be alive three days later?
If you saw a friend of yours "die" and then saw him walking down the street
three days later, what would your thought process be? Which would be more
likely, that the laws of nature had been suspended, in your favor, or that
you had simply made a mistake in believing that your friend was actually
dead?

Most likely, if he even existed at all which I doubt, that his followers said: "Oh shit, he's dead, let's reuse another of the old stories and say he came back". How that evolved into a bunch of old perverts who like to fuck little boys is anyone's guess.

I don't think there's any question at all that Jesus actually existed.

The best evidence that we can find suggests that Jesus is a composite character.

The Jesus of the bible may be a composite but, contrary to your assertion, the evidence suggests that Jesus was an actual, individual man.

What evidence?

The plainly obvious fact that there were numerous, separate churches which worshipped in the name (the same name) of one person who was crucified.

There is no evidence of which I am aware that the specific crucifixion took place. The fact that a number of people believed that he existed, quite a time after the fact, does not make him exist.

[Mossingen]

Post by Tim Norfolk
There is no evidence of which I am aware that the specific crucifixion took
place. The fact that a number of people believed that he existed, quite a
time after the fact, does not make him exist.

It's like accepting as fact some event that happened in the Congo fifty
years ago by reading an account of it in a book published yesterday. There
would be no technology to record the event, no physical evidence that it
happened, and no scientific measures that one could take to prove the past
event. You either have to believe the account passed down through
generations of people in the area by oral tradition or you don't.

If the event happens to be something like a man ran 100 miles without
stopping, then I might just accept it. It's a difficult thing for a human
to do, but certainly not impossible, it doesn't violate the laws of nature,
or seek to control the behaviors of others, or otherwise make a claim that
is not possible to have occurred. I wouldn’t require extraordinary evidence
to believe such a story.

But, if you read a book that was published yesterday and relayed an account
of an event in the Congo that happened 50 years ago of a man being born of a
virgin mother, then being executed in his early 30s, then three days later
coming back to life and then ascending into the sky, what sort of evidence
would you require in order to believe that those events actually happened?

[BillB]

Post by Mossingen

Post by Tim Norfolk
There is no evidence of which I am aware that the specific crucifixion took
place. The fact that a number of people believed that he existed, quite a
time after the fact, does not make him exist.

It's like accepting as fact some event that happened in the Congo fifty
years ago by reading an account of it in a book published yesterday. There
would be no technology to record the event, no physical evidence that it
happened, and no scientific measures that one could take to prove the past
event. You either have to believe the account passed down through
generations of people in the area by oral tradition or you don't.
If the event happens to be something like a man ran 100 miles without
stopping, then I might just accept it. It's a difficult thing for a human
to do, but certainly not impossible, it doesn't violate the laws of nature,
or seek to control the behaviors of others, or otherwise make a claim that
is not possible to have occurred. I wouldn’t require extraordinary evidence
to believe such a story.
But, if you read a book that was published yesterday and relayed an account
of an event in the Congo that happened 50 years ago of a man being born of a
virgin mother, then being executed in his early 30s, then three days later
coming back to life and then ascending into the sky, what sort of evidence
would you require in order to believe that those events actually happened?

The reason I gave you that hypothetical five years ago is because I believe that almost nobody really believes that deep down inside. Religious people are like Andy Kaufman during a bit. It's almost impossible to get them to break character, and after a while you *almost* start to believe it's not all an act.

The best evidence for me that people don't really believe in Christ is the way they act in their everyday lives. If you were working toward an eternity in paradise, and all you had to do was be nice for 3 seconds (in universe time), people would be acting COMPLETELY differently. They would be devoting every waking moment to charity and good works. They wouldn't be speaking like a popinjay.

[fffurken]

Post by BillB

Post by Mossingen

Post by Tim Norfolk
There is no evidence of which I am aware that the specific crucifixion took
place. The fact that a number of people believed that he existed, quite a
time after the fact, does not make him exist.

It's like accepting as fact some event that happened in the Congo fifty
years ago by reading an account of it in a book published yesterday. There
would be no technology to record the event, no physical evidence that it
happened, and no scientific measures that one could take to prove the past
event. You either have to believe the account passed down through
generations of people in the area by oral tradition or you don't.
If the event happens to be something like a man ran 100 miles without
stopping, then I might just accept it. It's a difficult thing for a human
to do, but certainly not impossible, it doesn't violate the laws of nature,
or seek to control the behaviors of others, or otherwise make a claim that
is not possible to have occurred. I wouldn’t require extraordinary evidence
to believe such a story.
But, if you read a book that was published yesterday and relayed an account
of an event in the Congo that happened 50 years ago of a man being born of a
virgin mother, then being executed in his early 30s, then three days later
coming back to life and then ascending into the sky, what sort of evidence
would you require in order to believe that those events actually happened?

The reason I gave you that hypothetical five years ago is because I believe that almost nobody really believes that deep down inside. Religious people are like Andy Kaufman during a bit. It's almost impossible to get them to break character, and after a while you *almost* start to believe it's not all an act.
The best evidence for me that people don't really believe in Christ is the way they act in their everyday lives. If you were working toward an eternity in paradise, and all you had to do was be nice for 3 seconds (in universe time), people would be acting COMPLETELY differently. They would be devoting every waking moment to charity and good works. They wouldn't be speaking like a popinjay.

Dewd, I've hardly read a post on RGP this last couple of days since it became the Billb & Reza Risky shitshow, but no one gives a fuck about (white) Christianity, it's not important, get it through your thick fucking skull.

You're like atheism one point O, the people who emerged from which are serious players, talking about serious matters, not regressives like you or mossyingeneninin

[popinjay]

The reason I gave you that hypothetical five years ago ...

Oh, so you're the source of this bullshit. That explains it.

[popinjay]

Post by Mossingen
It's like accepting as fact some event that happened in the Congo fifty
years ago by reading an account of it in a book published yesterday. There
would be no technology to record the event, no physical evidence that it
happened, and no scientific measures that one could take to prove the past
event. You either have to believe the account passed down through
generations of people in the area by oral tradition or you don't.
If the event happens to be something like a man ran 100 miles without
stopping, then I might just accept it. It's a difficult thing for a human
to do, but certainly not impossible, it doesn't violate the laws of nature,
or seek to control the behaviors of others, or otherwise make a claim that
is not possible to have occurred. I wouldn’t require extraordinary evidence
to believe such a story.
But, if you read a book that was published yesterday and relayed an account
of an event in the Congo that happened 50 years ago of a man being born of a
virgin mother, then being executed in his early 30s, then three days later
coming back to life and then ascending into the sky, what sort of evidence
would you require in order to believe that those events actually happened?

What kind of bunch of shit is this? Maybe YOU don't know what was happening in Congo 50 years ago, but speak for yourself. Lumumba, Katanga, Moïse Tshombe, if these places and names mean little or nothing to you, unlike you doubting my credibility a few days ago, you really have lost credibility. Do you think Congo is a vacuum without a rich and detailed history? What the fuck's wrong with you? Did you get past 8th grade?

[da pickle]

Post by Mossingen

Post by Tim Norfolk
There is no evidence of which I am aware that the specific crucifixion
took place. The fact that a number of people believed that he existed,
quite a time after the fact, does not make him exist.

It's like accepting as fact some event that happened in the Congo fifty
years ago by reading an account of it in a book published yesterday.
There would be no technology to record the event, no physical evidence
that it happened, and no scientific measures that one could take to
prove the past event.  You either have to believe the account passed
down through generations of people in the area by oral tradition or you
don't.
If the event happens to be something like a man ran 100 miles without
stopping, then I might just accept it.  It's a difficult thing for a
human to do, but certainly not impossible, it doesn't violate the laws
of nature, or seek to control the behaviors of others, or otherwise make
a claim that is not possible to have occurred.  I wouldn’t require
extraordinary evidence to believe such a story.
But, if you read a book that was published yesterday and relayed an
account of an event in the Congo that happened 50 years ago of a man
being born of a virgin mother, then being executed in his early 30s,
then three days later coming back to life and then ascending into the
sky, what sort of evidence would you require in order to believe that
those events actually happened?

Confusing Jesus as a man with Jesus as the Son of God is not
particularly helpful. The "myth" of Jesus took on a lot power and
changed the world. Does one question the existence of a person
remembered as Muhammad? Does one have to believe "everything"
attributed to Muhammad to believe that he was a real person?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Mossingen]

Confusing Jesus as a man with Jesus as the Son of God is not particularly
helpful. The "myth" of Jesus took on a lot power and changed the world.
Does one question the existence of a person remembered as Muhammad? Does
one have to believe "everything" attributed to Muhammad to believe that he
was a real person?

I'm not "confusing" any aspect of the Jesus man/God, I'm reacting to, and
questioning, specific claims made about it him by Christians, claims that
involve the suspension of the natural laws of nature as we understand them.
Those are claims of fact made in the Bible and every week at church. Those
assertions of fact have virtually no supporting evidence that they are true,
and everything we know about the physical world indicates that they are
false.

Hitchens addressed this many times. One of his heroes was Socrates.
Hitchens admired the man's wisdom and insight, but Hitchens said that if
someone proved to him that Socrates was a myth and never existed as a man,
it really wouldn't bother Hitchens too much because what he admired was the
ideas and profound truths credited to the man, not necessarily the man
himself. Christians cannot say the same about Jesus. He *must* have been a
real man in order for their belief system to work. Same with Muslims.

[da pickle]

Post by Mossingen

Post by da pickle
Confusing Jesus as a man with Jesus as the Son of God is not
particularly helpful.  The "myth" of Jesus took on a lot power and
changed the world. Does one question the existence of a person
remembered as Muhammad?  Does one have to believe "everything"
attributed to Muhammad to believe that he was a real person?

I'm not "confusing" any aspect of the Jesus man/God, I'm reacting to,
and questioning, specific claims made about it him by Christians, claims
that involve the suspension of the natural laws of nature as we
understand them. Those are claims of fact made in the Bible and every
week at church.  Those assertions of fact have virtually no supporting
evidence that they are true, and everything we know about the physical
world indicates that they are false.
Hitchens addressed this many times.  One of his heroes was Socrates.
Hitchens admired the man's wisdom and insight, but Hitchens said that if
someone proved to him that Socrates was a myth and never existed as a
man, it really wouldn't bother Hitchens too much because what he admired
was the ideas and profound truths credited to the man, not necessarily
the man himself.  Christians cannot say the same about Jesus.  He *must*
have been a real man in order for their belief system to work.  Same
with Muslims.

So, I guess when you say you do not believe Jesus was the son of god
(and did all that miracle stuff like rising from the dead) that proves
he was not a person at all (a regular human person) that was so
influential that his name lives to this day.

Do you believe his brother, James, was a real person ... he was very
important in the development of what became the RC religion?

Or are all the human beings involved in the development of what is now
loosely called Christianity (with all of its differences of opinion
about the details) probably not real people at all?

I am not trying to be funny (and I am succeeding) but to me, the fact
that many Christians do NOT believe in the transubstantiation does not
prove to me that the human Jesus did not exist as a real man.

[I went through the phase you seem to be in right now, James, but it was
a long time ago. I was very, very anti-religion and very pro science.
I spoke quietly much like you do today. I have been through many
changes since that time and now find myself just less interested in
trying to prove stuff that seems quite unprovable. Negatives and all
that. Most religious people that I know are quite nice people ... my
mother died quite happily with her beliefs. I need not fight with them
any more. I found a long time ago that you cannot "discuss" anything
about their beliefs with them. That is OK.]

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Mossingen]

So, I guess when you say you do not believe Jesus was the son of god (and
did all that miracle stuff like rising from the dead) that proves he was
not a person at all (a regular human person) that was so influential that
his name lives to this day.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there is no good or credible
evidence to believe any of those things. Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence. The claim that Jesus was a man is ordinary. It
doesn't take much for me to believe that. A person by that name has
influenced many people for many years, so it's not a stretch for me to
believe that He existed. In order for me to believe that he was more than a
man like me or you, I would need some good evidence for that. I have not
found any.

Do you believe his brother, James, was a real person ... he was very
important in the development of what became the RC religion?
Or are all the human beings involved in the development of what is now
loosely called Christianity (with all of its differences of opinion about
the details) probably not real people at all?

I don't think it matters much, honestly. Without all of the supernatural
nonsense, if they were real people then they did the ordinary things that
real people do.

I am not trying to be funny (and I am succeeding) but to me, the fact that
many Christians do NOT believe in the transubstantiation does not prove to
me that the human Jesus did not exist as a real man.

Of course. That's an obvious truth. But, it does prove that the Church to
which they belong teaches supernatural nonsense and expects its adherence to
believe it. That doesn't give you pause to consider the nature of the rest
of the claims of the Church?

[I went through the phase you seem to be in right now, James, but it was a
long time ago. I was very, very anti-religion and very pro science. I
spoke quietly much like you do today. I have been through many changes
since that time and now find myself just less interested in trying to prove
stuff that seems quite unprovable. Negatives and all that. Most religious
people that I know are quite nice people ... my mother died quite happily
with her beliefs. I need not fight with them any more. I found a long
time ago that you cannot "discuss" anything about their beliefs with them.
That is OK.]

I know many religious people that I consider good people, good friends of
mine. That has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether the
things in which they believe are true. Sam Harris gives the example of a
man who believes that he has a diamond the size of a refrigerator in his
back yard. You listen to him describe it, how beautiful and valuable it is,
how it gives his life meaning, makes him optimistic for the future, gives
him comfort in difficult times knowing that it's there, and gives him
self-esteem and a feeling of fulfillment. He seems like a better person
for believing in something that not's true, he's in fact delusionally crazy;
but it makes him nice people.

[da pickle]

Post by da pickle
So, I guess when you say you do not believe Jesus was the son of god
(and did all that miracle stuff like rising from the dead) that proves
he was not a person at all (a regular human person) that was so
influential that his name lives to this day.

That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying there is no good or credible
evidence to believe any of those things.  Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence.  The claim that Jesus was a man is ordinary.  It
doesn't take much for me to believe that.  A person by that name has
influenced many people for many years, so it's not a stretch for me to
believe that He existed.  In order for me to believe that he was more
than a man like me or you, I would need some good evidence for that.  I
have not found any.

Post by da pickle
Do you believe his brother, James, was a real person ... he was very
important in the development of what became the RC religion?
Or are all the human beings involved in the development of what is now
loosely called Christianity (with all of its differences of opinion
about the details) probably not real people at all?

I don't think it matters much, honestly.  Without all of the
supernatural nonsense, if they were real people then they did the
ordinary things that real people do.

Post by da pickle
I am not trying to be funny (and I am succeeding) but to me, the fact
that many Christians do NOT believe in the transubstantiation does not
prove to me that the human Jesus did not exist as a real man.

Of course.  That's an obvious truth.  But, it does prove that the Church
to which they belong teaches supernatural nonsense and expects its
adherence to believe it.  That doesn't give you pause to consider the
nature of the rest of the claims of the Church?

Post by da pickle
[I went through the phase you seem to be in right now, James, but it
was a long time ago.  I was very, very anti-religion and very pro
science. I spoke quietly much like you do today.  I have been through
many changes since that time and now find myself just less interested
in trying to prove stuff that seems quite unprovable.  Negatives and
all that.  Most religious people that I know are quite nice people ...
my mother died quite happily with her beliefs.  I need not fight with
them any more.  I found a long time ago that you cannot "discuss"
anything about their beliefs with them. That is OK.]

I know many religious people that I consider good people, good friends
of mine.  That has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether
the things in which they believe are true.  Sam Harris gives the example
of a man who believes that he has a diamond the size of a refrigerator
in his back yard.  You listen to him describe it, how beautiful and
valuable it is, how it gives his life meaning, makes him optimistic for
the future, gives him comfort in difficult times knowing that it's
there, and gives him self-esteem and a feeling of fulfillment.   He
seems like a better person for believing in something that not's true,
he's in fact delusionally crazy; but it makes him nice people.

Thanks for your response. I am no longer at the stage were I "know"
that I am correct that nothing super-natural exists ... I am not
convinced that anything super-natural exists and happens or has
happened, but I no longer believe that I am absolutely without a doubt
correct in my conviction.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[popinjay]

Post by da pickle
Thanks for your response. I am no longer at the stage were I "know"
that I am correct that nothing super-natural exists ... I am not
convinced that anything super-natural exists and happens or has
happened, but I no longer believe that I am absolutely without a doubt
correct in my conviction.

As I was trying to tell my ex-Catholic and know-it-all friend Mossingen earlier, OUR VERY EXISTENCE IS SUPER-NATURAL! I can believe anything. fucking duh

[Mossingen]

Post by risky biz
I don't think there's any question at all that Jesus actually existed.

Of course there is a question about it. Proving the existence of anything
2,000 years ago, you know right around the time the Earth was formed, is a
difficult chore. I can accept that he existed for the sake of argument, but
that doesn't prove anything about his divinity or miracle-works actually
happened.

[risky biz]

Post by Mossingen

Post by risky biz
I don't think there's any question at all that Jesus actually existed.

Of course there is a question about it. Proving the existence of anything
2,000 years ago, you know right around the time the Earth was formed, is a
difficult chore.

You seem to be a very indecisive person. First, you were indecisive about whether evolution was a theory or a fact. Now you can't decide if the Earth is 2,000 years old or 4 billion years old.

I can accept that he existed for the sake of argument, but

Post by Mossingen
that doesn't prove anything about his divinity or miracle-works actually
happened.

did someone say it did?

[risky biz]

Post by Mossingen

Post by risky biz
What if one of those ants was a freak who didn't want to pass on genes?

Then it wouldn't breed and it would die out. The ants who had genes that
wanted to spread would procreate and spread those genes.

You said the ants ate because they want to pass on their genes. I say they eat because their organism experiences hunger. Is that complicated to understand?

Post by Mossingen

Post by risky biz
Would it's organism still experience hunger?

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Post by risky biz
Or is it Dawkin's goal to pass on BS as a career option?

~ Holy shit. Back up the truck. Risky, please answer one question: do you

Post by Mossingen
believe in the theory of evolution?
This might explain a lot.

'Is evolution by natural selection a scientific fact?'
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/I-guLNd2t_c/rjDh5q0HAQAJ

Make up your mind. Is it a fact or a theory? It would be enlightening as to why you're confused on that point.

[Mossingen]

Post by risky biz
Make up your mind. Is it a fact or a theory? It would be enlightening as to
why you're confused on that point.

It's a fact. The colloquial "theory of evolution" is also correct because
"theory" has a specific scientific meaning. But, tell us your opinion of
it, risky. I can't wait to hear it.

[Tim Norfolk]

Post by risky biz

Post by Mossingen

Post by risky biz
What if one of those ants was a freak who didn't want to pass on genes?

Then it wouldn't breed and it would die out. The ants who had genes that
wanted to spread would procreate and spread those genes.

You said the ants ate because they want to pass on their genes. I say they eat because their organism experiences hunger. Is that complicated to understand?

Post by Mossingen

Post by risky biz
Would it's organism still experience hunger?

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Post by risky biz
Or is it Dawkin's goal to pass on BS as a career option?

~ Holy shit. Back up the truck. Risky, please answer one question: do you

Post by Mossingen
believe in the theory of evolution?
This might explain a lot.

'Is evolution by natural selection a scientific fact?'
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.gambling.poker/I-guLNd2t_c/rjDh5q0HAQAJ
Make up your mind. Is it a fact or a theory? It would be enlightening as to why you're confused on that point.

It is both. Evolution happens and has been observed and deduced, making it a fact. The mechanisms by which it happens are the Theory of Evolution.

[Mossingen]

.

Post by Tim Norfolk
It is both. Evolution happens and has been observed and deduced, making it
a fact. The mechanisms by which it happens are the Theory of Evolution.

A lot religious folk get hung up on the word "Theory" in this context, as if
it's still debatable. It's like the theory of gravity. Sometimes a
scientific theory acquires so much corroborating evidence in support of it
that it must be accepted as a fact.

Consider this point by Richard Dawkins: all that would be required to
disprove the theory of evolution is for one single fossil to be found "out
of order." Year after year, the fossil record uniformly supports evolution.
Every single one found thus far fits into what has been observed. All it
would take is one to upset the apple cart and it has not happened yet.

[risky biz]

Post by Mossingen
.

Post by Tim Norfolk
It is both. Evolution happens and has been observed and deduced, making it
a fact. The mechanisms by which it happens are the Theory of Evolution.

A lot religious folk get hung up on the word "Theory" in this context, as if
it's still debatable. It's like the theory of gravity. Sometimes a
scientific theory acquires so much corroborating evidence in support of it
that it must be accepted as a fact.

You're the one who has gotten hung up on it. First it was a theory, then a fact, then a theory, and now it's both. Are you going to claim, next, that the Earth is round? Oh! You already did. I just remembered.

Post by Mossingen
Consider this point by Richard Dawkins: all that would be required to
disprove the theory of evolution is for one single fossil to be found "out
of order." Year after year, the fossil record uniformly supports evolution.
Every single one found thus far fits into what has been observed. All it
would take is one to upset the apple cart and it has not happened yet.

[risky biz]

Post by Bradley K. Sherman

Post by popinjay
...
It's not fake news. It's my real life experience, so I know it's true.

I doubt the ants beat the blowflies to the corpse, but it's
likely the attractant is dimethyl trisulfide which is a
byproduct of bacteria attacking the dead tissue. The
bacteria get there first because your body is teeming with
bacteria even while alive.
--bks

That's way more than I needed to know.

[risky biz]

Post by popinjay
Ants seem to notice the MOMENT a body is dead. Rig has not set in. The body is still soft and warm, but the ants KNOW when there is still life, and then they know exactly when there is not. And then they will form a line and start going for your eyes and stuff.

Die in the desert and the coyotes will get to your body first. I guarantee it. If you're on the verge of starvation too weak to move, it's near dusk, and you hear a 'Yip! Yip!' sound you're going to have some visitors soon.

[popinjay]

Post by risky biz

Post by popinjay
Ants seem to notice the MOMENT a body is dead. Rig has not set in. The body is still soft and warm, but the ants KNOW when there is still life, and then they know exactly when there is not. And then they will form a line and start going for your eyes and stuff.

Die in the desert and the coyotes will get to your body first. I guarantee it. If you're on the verge of starvation too weak to move, it's near dusk, and you hear a 'Yip! Yip!' sound you're going to have some visitors soon.

I go for walks out in the country along the railroad track. One day I saw a dead goat. Maybe it got hit on the highway and struggled to the other side of the tracks, and died. (notice the comma?) So each day I noticed a little bit more of the goat missing. I figured it would start smelling badly, but they didn't give it much chance. And yes, I know the "yip yip". I like coyotes. They're just dogs. I like dogs. One day there was a dead white rabbit in town, in the middle of the street. I put it on the curb, it sat there for a few days and nobody gave a fuck. So I thought for a moment and decided to take him near where that goat had been. I was sorry the bunny was dead, but there was no use burying him. He wasn't MY pet. I left him near where the goat had been and sure enough in a few days, bit by bit, no more rabbit. Might as well put the meat to good use.

Two days ago I was driving to the casino, and I'm used to dead dogs, cats, possums, raccoons, but for cryin outloud, there was a dead HORSE on the side of the road. Geez. I got out and checked him, dead, rig had set in. Still had a few blades of grass in his teeth. He was eating dinner when something killed him. A few hours later I went home that way, horse was gone. I guess the owner found him. Sad.

[BTSinAustin]

Post by popinjay
Ants seem to notice the MOMENT a body is dead. Rig has not set in. The body is still soft and warm, but the ants KNOW when there is still life, and then they know exactly when there is not. And then they will form a line and start going for your eyes and stuff.

Dead bodies tend to leak. Ants like leakage.

[popinjay]

Post by BTSinAustin

Post by popinjay
Ants seem to notice the MOMENT a body is dead. Rig has not set in. The body is still soft and warm, but the ants KNOW when there is still life, and then they know exactly when there is not. And then they will form a line and start going for your eyes and stuff.

Dead bodies tend to leak. Ants like leakage.

You have difficulty reading plain English, Brian?