Why do women have orgasms?

[Waldo Tunnel]

... evolutionarily speaking.


http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/b0f049bc-e553-11e1-b758-00144feab49a.html#axzz23ssL9tLw

[Jenny6833A]

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 6:00:56 PM UTC+2, Waldo Tunnel wrote:
> ... evolutionarily speaking. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/b0f049bc-e553-11e1-b758-00144feab49a.html#axzz23ssL9tLw

Good article. I chuckled at giving Dawkins equal billing with Darwin.

[Yap]

On Aug 30, 12:00 am, Waldo Tunnel <waldotun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ... evolutionarily speaking.
>

> http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/b0f049bc-e553-11e1-b758-00144feab49a.h...

Are you inspired by the review article to take up the job to find out
why?
Don't you feel that you may have an obligation to help fill the gaps
as well?

[Alex W.]

Good question, and a very nicely dirty pun.

[Waldo Tunnel]

On Oct 10, 12:32 am, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 30, 12:00 am, Waldo Tunnel <waldotun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ... evolutionarily speaking.
>
> >http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/b0f049bc-e553-11e1-b758-00144feab49a.h...
>
> Are you inspired by the review article to take up the job to find out
> why?

I have, in fact, taken up that job -- at $50 a week. That may not
sound like much, but it's all I can afford.

[David Dalton]

women have orgasms so they will like sex

--
David Dalton dal...@nfld.com http://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/nf.html Newfoundland&Labrador Travel & Music
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
"Here I go again...back into the flame" (Sarah McLachlan)

[Don Martin]

David Dalton <dal...@nfld.com> wrote:
> women have orgasms so they will like sex

As a mechanism for reproduction of the species, it is a pity then that
males are so poor at inducing them with vaginal sex. The penis comes in
third in this event. (So much for the god of the gaps, eh Alex?)

--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[Yap]

Well then, please tell us about some of your experience....it would be
quite interesting.

[Dakota]

On 10/11/2012 7:40 AM, Don Martin wrote:
> David Dalton <dal...@nfld.com> wrote:
>> women have orgasms so they will like sex
>
> As a mechanism for reproduction of the species, it is a pity then that
> males are so poor at inducing them with vaginal sex. The penis comes in
> third in this event. (So much for the god of the gaps, eh Alex?)
>

It may be that natural selection favored males with more easily
achieved orgasms because pleasure was their primary motivation for
initiating sex. In male dominated societies, females had little choice
in the matter. Fitness was selected by competition among men for
dominance. Female orgasm may simply have been a result of random
mutation that continued because it's impact was also beneficial
although to a lesser degree. It seems likely that the selection took
hold long before the sex act was associated with procreation by the
participants.

The creator god of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions is a male who
clearly directed women to be subservient to men. One male was allowed
as many wives as he could support. No such god would have made the sex
act pleasurable for females as doing so could encourage promiscuity.
Some Islamic sects continue to mutilate female children to brutally
remove the sensitive tissues primarily responsible for female orgasm.

[Yap]

Most Muslim society tolerates circumcision of male and female.
Where is their benefits if Indians, Chinese and Japanese do not
practice it?

The barbaric act may be just the result of teaching of ancient
religion.
However, the West still indulge in this nonsense while being highly
civilized, why?

[Dakota]

Female circumcision is not practiced in the West. Male circumcision is
profitable for the medical profession and is still regarded as
acceptable by the majority. Western civilizations are comparatively
civilized when weighed against many other civilizations but we have a
long way to go before we earn the right to call ourselves highly
civilized.

[Wayne Mitchell]

Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:

> Western civilizations are comparatively civilized when
> weighed against many other civilizations but we have a
> long way to go before we earn the right to call ourselves
> highly civilized.

Someone -- I wish I could remember who -- has said that "civilization"
is the process through which mankind has evolved from a lowly predatory
species into a highly predatory species.
--

Wayne M.

[Dakota]

I like it. Thanks.

[Yap]

You mean the West is now armed with a level of sophistication that
others would not
know how they are misled or conned?

> --
>
> Wayne M.

[Florian Kutscherauer]

Waldo Tunnel wrote:

> ... evolutionarily speaking.

If you're still asking “why,” you apparently don't understand evolution.

You could also ask why do we have five fingers (as opposed to four or
six) or anything thelike. But you'll never find a satisfying answer --
other than just-so stories, that is.

The theory of evolution tells us that there is no planing or reasoning
involved -- that would be Intelligent Design (which we all know us
crap).

In fact, it shows that there is no need for any reasons or plans.
That's probably the part that is hardest to get about evolution. There
is no need for any “why.” Things just happen; without reason. There is
no goal to reach or expectation to satisfy.

> http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/b0f049bc-e553-11e1-
b758-00144feab49a.html#axzz23ssL9tLw

Apparently I'm not the only one struggling with letting go of the notion
that there must be reasons (like this: “in order to reach a certain goal
... is required, so evolution ‘created’ it”) involved -- probably a
residue of the Christian doctrines I was raised with.

--
Ceterum censeo Creationismum esse delendam.

[Waldo Tunnel]

On Nov 2, 12:00 am, Florian Kutscherauer <florian.kutschera...@gmx.at>
wrote:

> Waldo Tunnel wrote:

> > ... evolutionarily speaking.
>
> If you're still asking “why,” you apparently don't understand evolution.

You do yourself an injustice when you say "apparently" regarding an
article you clearly haven't read.

>
> You could also ask why do we have five fingers (as opposed to four or
> six) or anything thelike.

Except your analogy isn't apt. Read the article. Maybe you could add
something to your vast personal knowledge of evolution in the process.

>But you'll never find a satisfying answer --
> other than just-so stories, that is.
>
> The theory of evolution tells us

"_The_" theory of evolution?

> that there is no planing or reasoning involved --
> that would be Intelligent Design (which we all know us
> crap).

Your certainty here is unjustified by "the" theory of evolution. I
assume you accept methodological naturalism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Methodological_naturalism

> In fact, it shows that there is no need for any reasons or plans.
> That's probably the part that is hardest to get about evolution.  There
> is no need for any “why.”

"No need for _any_ why"? Geeze. Maybe you should read "Origin..." or
some of Gould's stuff.

> Things just happen; without reason.

dOOd I'm sure your heart's in the right place but your knowledge of
evolution (and logic) are a bit lacking.

In the future please don't presume to speak with authority about
evolution to the plebes if you can't back up your claims with
references as you clearly can not do here.

 >There is no goal to reach or expectation to satisfy.

"Things just happen; without reason" & "There is no goal to reach or
expectation to satisfy" are entirely distinct things.

>
> >http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/b0f049bc-e553-11e1-
>
> b758-00144feab49a.html#axzz23ssL9tLw
>
> Apparently I'm not the only one struggling with letting go of the notion
> that there must be reasons

No, I think it's just you.

>(like this: “in order to reach a certain goal
> ... is required, so evolution ‘created’ it”)

If it isn't obvious by now, this characterization of my position is a
straw man: No one here, let alone me or the article, made this
assertion.

> involved -- probably a
> residue of the Christian doctrines I was raised with.

In that case, consider your hasty evaluation of the article an example
of "projection."

Cheers!

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/b0f049bc-e553-11e1-b758-00144feab49a.html#axzz23ssL9tLw

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <0ot798h8b1sthidj2...@4ax.com>,
Robert Parker <robpa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If women did not have orgasms then they would not enjoy sex, so there would
> not be any babies. So women who did not enjoy sex did not have children.

It's too bad that's not true at all, because it would mean that men
would have no choice but to satisfy their women. But we know that too
many men aren't interested in anything but getting themselves off.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Jenny6833A]

On Friday, November 2, 2012 6:30:21 PM UTC-7, Jeanne Douglas wrote:

<snip>

> But we know that too many men aren't interested in anything but getting
> themselves off.

leading too many women to just wanting to get it over with.

Well it could also be:

Too many women just wanting to get it over with leads to too many men just wanting to get themselves off.

Let's all discuss that one.

<G>

Jenny

[WangoTango]

In article <hlwdjsd2-C4A610...@news.giganews.com>, hlwdjsd2
@NOSPAMgmail.com says...

> In article <0ot798h8b1sthidj2...@4ax.com>,
> Robert Parker <robpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 08:00:37 +0100 (CET), Florian Kutscherauer
> > <florian.ku...@gmx.at> wrote:
> >
> > >Waldo Tunnel wrote:
> > >
> > >> ... evolutionarily speaking.
> > >

> > >If you're still asking ï¿=3Fwhy,ï¿=3F you apparently don't understand evolution.

> > >
> > >You could also ask why do we have five fingers (as opposed to four or
> > >six) or anything thelike. But you'll never find a satisfying answer --
> > >other than just-so stories, that is.
> > >
> > >The theory of evolution tells us that there is no planing or reasoning
> > >involved -- that would be Intelligent Design (which we all know us
> > >crap).
> > >
> > >In fact, it shows that there is no need for any reasons or plans.
> > >That's probably the part that is hardest to get about evolution. There

> > >is no need for any ï¿=3Fwhy.ï¿=3F Things just happen; without reason. There is

> > >no goal to reach or expectation to satisfy.
> > >
> > >> http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/b0f049bc-e553-11e1-
> > >b758-00144feab49a.html#axzz23ssL9tLw
> > >
> > >Apparently I'm not the only one struggling with letting go of the notion

> > >that there must be reasons (like this: ï¿=3Fin order to reach a certain goal
> > >... is required, so evolution ï¿=3Fcreatedï¿=3F itï¿=3F) involved -- probably a

> > >residue of the Christian doctrines I was raised with.
> >
> > If women did not have orgasms then they would not enjoy sex, so there would

> > not be any babies. So women who did not enjoy sex did not have children..

>
> It's too bad that's not true at all, because it would mean that men
> would have no choice but to satisfy their women. But we know that too
> many men aren't interested in anything but getting themselves off.

And that's why the ones (the men) that *DO* take the time are the ones
that have, and keep, more sexual partners. Increasing their chance of
reproducing.

[Maggsy]

On Friday, 2 November 2012 07:00:37 UTC, Florian Kutscherauer wrote:
> Waldo Tunnel wrote:
>
>
>
> > ... evolutionarily speaking.
>
>
>
> If you're still asking “why,” you apparently don't understand evolution.
>
>
>
> You could also ask why do we have five fingers (as opposed to four or
>
> six) or anything thelike. But you'll never find a satisfying answer --
>
> other than just-so stories, that is.
>
>
>
> The theory of evolution tells us that there is no planing or reasoning
>
> involved -- that would be Intelligent Design (which we all know us
>
> crap).

speak for yourself. evolution also tells us that life has no real meaning,its irrational+has no real purpose,these are just a few of the problems with it. in fact it creates far more questions than it answers.what makes me laugh is that those who believe in evolution act like they live in a rational universe,going against their own belief,skeptics like to think of them selves as rational + superior to christians.from my experience of talking to them,this is a myth.

>
>
>
> In fact, it shows that there is no need for any reasons or plans.
>
> That's probably the part that is hardest to get about evolution. There
>
> is no need for any “why.” Things just happen; without reason. There is
>
> no goal to reach or expectation to satisfy.

no why? this is nonsense. why do you get out of bed in a morning? with out a why there is no reason to do anything,no reason to do nothing,no reason for you to write on this group,no reason for you to believe what you believe,no reason to have morals. your beliefs debunk themselves,think about it.

[Maggsy]

On Friday, 12 October 2012 11:40:55 UTC+1, Dakota wrote:
> On 10/11/2012 7:40 AM, Don Martin wrote:
>
> > David Dalton <dal...@nfld.com> wrote:
>
> >> women have orgasms so they will like sex
>
> >
>
> > As a mechanism for reproduction of the species, it is a pity then that
>
> > males are so poor at inducing them with vaginal sex. The penis comes in
>
> > third in this event. (So much for the god of the gaps, eh Alex?)
>
> >
>
> It may be that natural selection favored males with more easily
>
> achieved orgasms because pleasure was their primary motivation for
>
> initiating sex. In male dominated societies, females had little choice
>
> in the matter.

but why were they male dominated societies,often in the animal kingdom its the males that have to fight+the winner gets to mate with the female.

Fitness was selected by competition among men for
>
> dominance. Female orgasm may simply have been a result of random
>
> mutation that continued because it's impact was also beneficial
>
> although to a lesser degree. It seems likely that the selection took
>
> hold long before the sex act was associated with procreation by the
>
> participants.

why would you think that?

>
>
>
> The creator god of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions is a male who
>
> clearly directed women to be subservient to men.

he is not male,he is Spirit. language breaks down when talking about God,he is so far beyond our experience that language cannot do him justice,when we use the word he we use it metaphorically,much in the same way as some one might refer to a car as a he or she.

One male was allowed
>
> as many wives as he could support. No such god would have made the sex
>
> act pleasurable for females as doing so could encourage promiscuity.

the same could be said for men. its pleasurable for men also,so would be unfair for it not to be pleasurable for both sexes.

>
> Some Islamic sects continue to mutilate female children to brutally
>
> remove the sensitive tissues primarily responsible for female orgasm.

yes Islam is a barbaric religion,Jesus on the other hand said love your enemies,forgive your enemies,completly opposite of what many Muslims do.and so called Christians who claim to follow Jesus,but actaully go the other way.

[Maggsy]

well thats debatable,millions of unborn babies killed just because they are an inconvenience to the Mothers+here in the UK the government has taken away my human rights to a family life+want to scrap the human right laws.

[Maggsy]

so I've heard,hehe.


Thanks.

[Maggsy]

i think this is rather simplistic,there are many factors that lead to which men have more sexual partners. some men simply don't want them+are happy with their wife.some men +women don't even have any desire to have sex,these of course should have died out long ago if evolution were true.all animals want to have sex+will do with male+female,only some humans don't want to have sex,this again makes us unique+different from animals that some assert we are.

[sbalneav]

Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 October 2012 08:05:40 UTC+1, Yap wrote:

>> On Oct 12, 6:40ï¿œpm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On 10/11/2012 7:40 AM, Don Martin wrote:> David Dalton <dal...@nfld.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> women have orgasms so they will like sex
>>
>> >
>>
>> > > As a mechanism for reproduction of the species, it is a pity then that
>>

>> > > males are so poor at inducing them with vaginal sex. ï¿œThe penis comes in
>>
>> > > third in this event. ￜ(So much for the god of the gaps, eh Alex?)

>>
>> >
>>
>> > It may be that natural selection favored males with more easily
>>
>> > achieved orgasms because pleasure was their primary motivation for
>>
>> > initiating sex. In male dominated societies, females had little choice
>>
>> > in the matter. Fitness was selected by competition among men for
>>
>> > dominance. Female orgasm may simply have been a result of random
>>
>> > mutation that continued because it's impact was also beneficial
>>
>> > although to a lesser degree. It seems likely that the selection took
>>
>> > hold long before the sex act was associated with procreation by the
>>
>> > participants.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > The creator god of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions is a male who
>>
>> > clearly directed women to be subservient to men. One male was allowed
>>
>> > as many wives as he could support. No such god would have made the sex
>>
>> > act pleasurable for females as doing so could encourage promiscuity.
>>
>> > Some Islamic sects continue to mutilate female children to brutally
>>
>> > remove the sensitive tissues primarily responsible for female orgasm.
>>
>>
>>
>> Most Muslim society tolerates circumcision of male and female.
>>
>> Where is their benefits if Indians, Chinese and Japanese do not
>>
>> practice it?
>>
>>
>>
>> The barbaric act may be just the result of teaching of ancient
>>
>> religion.
>>
>> However, the West still indulge in this nonsense while being highly
>>
>> civilized, why?
>
> well thats debatable,millions of unborn babies killed just because they are
> an inconvenience to the Mothers

No "babies" are "killed" in an abortion. A foetus which has no life
independent of it's host organism is removed.

> +here in the UK the government has taken away
> my human rights to a family life+want to scrap the human right laws.

How so?

--
(` |) | Always do right. This will gratify some people
_) |) | and astonish the rest.
a.a #2171 | -- Mark Twain

[sbalneav]

Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 12 October 2012 11:40:55 UTC+1, Dakota wrote:
>> On 10/11/2012 7:40 AM, Don Martin wrote:
>>
>> > David Dalton <dal...@nfld.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> women have orgasms so they will like sex
>>
>> >
>>
>> > As a mechanism for reproduction of the species, it is a pity then that
>>
>> > males are so poor at inducing them with vaginal sex. The penis comes in
>>
>> > third in this event. (So much for the god of the gaps, eh Alex?)
>>
>> >
>>
>> It may be that natural selection favored males with more easily
>>
>> achieved orgasms because pleasure was their primary motivation for
>>
>> initiating sex. In male dominated societies, females had little choice
>>
>> in the matter.
>
>
> but why were they male dominated societies,often in the animal kingdom its
> the males that have to fight+the winner gets to mate with the female.

Seeing as how the male is often the primary hunter, this ensures that only
"fit" males reproduce. However, "fitness" does not always depend on strength,
but rather, what the female finds attractive.

>> Fitness was selected by competition among men for
>> dominance. Female orgasm may simply have been a result of random
>> mutation that continued because it's impact was also beneficial
>> although to a lesser degree. It seems likely that the selection took
>> hold long before the sex act was associated with procreation by the
>> participants.
>
>
> why would you think that?

An interpretation of the evolutionary evidence?

>> The creator god of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions is a male who
>>
>> clearly directed women to be subservient to men.
>
>
> he is not male,he is Spirit.

Not according to the Abrahamic religions who portray him as distinctly male.
Of course, like many fables, there's no evidence of "him" existing at all.

> language breaks down when talking about God,he
> is so far beyond our experience that language cannot do him justice,when we
> use the word he we use it metaphorically,much in the same way as some one
> might refer to a car as a he or she.

Well, you can talk whatever way you want about things that don't exist.

> One male was allowed
>>
>> as many wives as he could support. No such god would have made the sex
>>
>> act pleasurable for females as doing so could encourage promiscuity.
>
>
>
> the same could be said for men. its pleasurable for men also,so would be unfair for it not to be pleasurable for both sexes.
>
>
>>
>> Some Islamic sects continue to mutilate female children to brutally
>>
>> remove the sensitive tissues primarily responsible for female orgasm.
>
>

> yes Islam is a barbaric religion,

As is it's blood-sacrifice based sister religion, Christianity.

> Jesus on the other hand said love your
> enemies,forgive your enemies,completly opposite of what many Muslims do.

The God of the old testament wiped out the entire earth, supposedly. Seems
pretty blood thirsty to me.

> and
> so called Christians who claim to follow Jesus,but actaully go the other way.

No True Scotsman fallacy.

--
(` |) | No man is free who is not master of himself.
_) |) | -- Epictetus
a.a #2171 |

[sbalneav]

Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 2 November 2012 07:00:37 UTC, Florian Kutscherauer wrote:
>> Waldo Tunnel wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > ... evolutionarily speaking.
>>
>>
>>

>> If you're still asking ???why,??? you apparently don't understand evolution.

>>
>>
>>
>> You could also ask why do we have five fingers (as opposed to four or
>>
>> six) or anything thelike. But you'll never find a satisfying answer --
>>
>> other than just-so stories, that is.
>>
>>
>>
>> The theory of evolution tells us that there is no planing or reasoning
>>
>> involved -- that would be Intelligent Design (which we all know us
>>
>> crap).
>
>
>
> speak for yourself. evolution also tells us that life has no real meaning,its
> irrational+has no real purpose,these are just a few of the problems with it.

That life has no pre-destined purpose is it's finest feature; it means you are
free to pick your own purpose in life. Would it be better that your life run
on a set of steel rails you couldn't get off of?

> in fact it creates far more questions than it answers.

Name one. Just one.

> what makes me laugh is
> that those who believe in evolution act like they live in a rational
> universe,

Straw man. We don't live in a RATIONAL universe, we live in a universe that
has some physical LAWS. There's a difference.

> going against their own belief,skeptics like to think of them selves
> as rational + superior to christians.from my experience of talking to
> them,this is a myth.

If your reasoning in these series of posts is anything to go by, your
experience and 25 cents will buy me a cup of coffee in the canteen.

>> In fact, it shows that there is no need for any reasons or plans.
>>
>> That's probably the part that is hardest to get about evolution. There
>>

>> is no need for any ???why.??? Things just happen; without reason. There is

>>
>> no goal to reach or expectation to satisfy.
>
>
>
> no why? this is nonsense. why do you get out of bed in a morning?

Because I am not the natural process of evolution. I am an individual human
being who has goals he has laid out for himself, and if I don't get out of bed,
I don't accomplish them.

Why is it every christian seems to be a closet nihilist; without their
imaginary friend, they'd starve to death in their own beds, or alternatively,
run around raping and killing. What a sad lot you appear to be.

> with out a
> why there is no reason to do anything,no reason to do nothing,no reason for
> you to write on this group,

Pointing out your lack of critical thinking skills is brining me some degree of
pleasure.

> no reason for you to believe what you believe,no
> reason to have morals. your beliefs debunk themselves,think about it.

We did, and we reject your nihilist worldview.


--
(` |) | If evil be spoken of you and it be true, correct yourself,
_) |) | if it be a lie, laugh at it.
a.a #2171 | -- Epictetus

[Dakota]

On 3/9/2013 12:51 PM, Maggsy wrote:
> On Friday, 2 November 2012 07:00:37 UTC, Florian Kutscherauer wrote:
>> Waldo Tunnel wrote:
>>
>>> ... evolutionarily speaking.
>>
>> If you're still asking “why,” you apparently don't understand evolution.
>>
>> You could also ask why do we have five fingers (as opposed to four or
>> six) or anything thelike. But you'll never find a satisfying answer --
>> other than just-so stories, that is.
>>
>> The theory of evolution tells us that there is no planing or reasoning
>> involved -- that would be Intelligent Design (which we all know us
>> crap).
>
> speak for yourself. evolution also tells us that life has no real meaning,its irrational+has no real purpose,these are just a few of the problems with it. in fact it creates far more questions than it answers.what makes me laugh is that those who believe in evolution act like they live in a rational universe,going against their own belief,skeptics like to think of them selves as rational + superior to christians.from my experience of talking to them,this is a myth.
>

Evolution doesn't tell us that life has no meaning or purpose.
Evolution doesn't tell us anything at all. Evolution is an simple,
unguided process with no goals, no ability to predict, and no means of
conveying meaning or purpose.

It would really be better if you actually learned what the theory of
evolution is before exposing your ignorance for all to see.
Creationists may have given you a distorted and inaccurate impression
of what evolution is.

>>
>> In fact, it shows that there is no need for any reasons or plans.
>>
>> That's probably the part that is hardest to get about evolution. There
>> is no need for any “why.” Things just happen; without reason. There is
>> no goal to reach or expectation to satisfy.
>

I agree with that except for the part about things happening without
reason. While it's true that some changes are the result of random
mutations, for organisms that reproduce sexually, there is always a
difference between parent and offspring. This variation and that
caused by random mutations may have an effect on the ability of the
organism to reproduce it their environment. Those with changes that
enhance that ability are passed down in greater numbers than those
with changes that do not enhance that ability.

Variability is the reason evolution works. Natural selection is the
process by which it works.

>
> no why? this is nonsense. why do you get out of bed in a morning? with out a why there is no reason to do anything,no reason to do nothing,no reason for you to write on this group,no reason for you to believe what you believe,no reason to have morals. your beliefs debunk themselves,think about it.
>

I'm so glad you asked that. Just as our evolved brains are very quick
to recognize patterns, they are also well adapted to seeing purpose.
Those patterns and/or purposes don't always match reality, but do so
far more often than not. By assigning purpose to much of what we see
and do, our brains greatly increased our ability to reproduce when
compared to those who lack those abilities. A person unable to
recognize patterns or who had no sense of purpose would have a very
difficult time finding a mate. Therefore, such persons are far less
likely to pass that deficiency along to future generations.

In other word, we have purpose in our lives because having purpose
conveys reproductive advantages. It works.

>
>>> http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/b0f049bc-e553-11e1-
>>
>> b758-00144feab49a.html#axzz23ssL9tLw
>>
>> Apparently I'm not the only one struggling with letting go of the notion
>> that there must be reasons (like this: “in order to reach a certain goal
>> ... is required, so evolution ‘created’ it”) involved -- probably a
>> residue of the Christian doctrines I was raised with.
>>
>>

[Dakota]

Maggsy is either a troll or a victim of a deliberate plot to keep him
ignorant of what evolution is and how it works. Until he learns the
basics, there will be no convincing him.

[Dakota]

The speaker at this TED presentation tells us "10 things you didn't
know about orgasm" in an informative and amusing way.

View the presentation at this link.

http://www.ted.com/talks/mary_roach_10_things_you_didn_t_know_about_orgasm.html

[Dakota]

What has the UK government done to take away your right to a family life?

[Florian Kutscherauer]

Dakota wrote:
> Maggsy wrote:

>> Florian Kutscherauer wrote:
>>> If you're still asking “why,” you apparently don't understand
>>> evolution.
>>>

>>> The theory of evolution tells us that there is no planing or
>>> reasoning involved -- that would be Intelligent Design (which we all
>>> know us crap).
>>>

>>> In fact, it shows that there is no need for any reasons or plans.
>>>
>>> That's probably the part that is hardest to get about evolution.
>>> There is no need for any “why.” Things just happen; without reason.
>>> There is no goal to reach or expectation to satisfy.
>
> I agree with that except for the part about things happening without
> reason.

You're right. I shouldn't have used the term "reason," it is far to
generic. "Purpose" would have been more appropriate.

--

[Maggsy]

On Sunday, 10 March 2013 00:35:31 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 12 October 2012 11:40:55 UTC+1, Dakota wrote:
>
> >> On 10/11/2012 7:40 AM, Don Martin wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > David Dalton <dal...@nfld.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> women have orgasms so they will like sex
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > As a mechanism for reproduction of the species, it is a pity then that
>
> >>
>
> >> > males are so poor at inducing them with vaginal sex. The penis comes in
>
> >>
>
> >> > third in this event. (So much for the god of the gaps, eh Alex?)
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> It may be that natural selection favored males with more easily
>
> >>
>
> >> achieved orgasms because pleasure was their primary motivation for
>
> >>
>
> >> initiating sex. In male dominated societies, females had little choice
>
> >>
>
> >> in the matter.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > but why were they male dominated societies,often in the animal kingdom its
>
> > the males that have to fight+the winner gets to mate with the female.
>
>
>
> Seeing as how the male is often the primary hunter, this ensures that only
>
> "fit" males reproduce. However, "fitness" does not always depend on strength,
>
> but rather, what the female finds attractive.

yes and what a female finds attractive is often a
mystery to men,many women find bad boys attractive,many of these end up getting beat up,eyes gouged out,killed by their boy friends or on the back of partners motorbikes. perhaps you could explain how selecting that type of partner is beneficial to them passing on their genes?

>
>
>
> >> Fitness was selected by competition among men for
>
> >> dominance. Female orgasm may simply have been a result of random
>
> >> mutation that continued because it's impact was also beneficial
>
> >> although to a lesser degree. It seems likely that the selection took
>
> >> hold long before the sex act was associated with procreation by the
>
> >> participants.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > why would you think that?
>
>
>
> An interpretation of the evolutionary evidence?

could you explain in more detail?

>
>
>
> >> The creator god of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions is a male who
>
> >>
>
> >> clearly directed women to be subservient to men.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > he is not male,he is Spirit.
>
>
>
> Not according to the Abrahamic religions who portray him as distinctly male.

you have misunderstood them,as i have said they are speaking
metaphorically,you should not take the bible so literally,the bible makes it very clear God is not a man,but Spirit.◄►


New International Version (©1984)
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? Numbers 23:19

>
> Of course, like many fables, there's no evidence of "him" existing at all.

so you say,what do you mean by evidence?

>
>
>
> > language breaks down when talking about God,he
>
> > is so far beyond our experience that language cannot do him justice,when we
>
> > use the word he we use it metaphorically,much in the same way as some one
>
> > might refer to a car as a he or she.
>
>
>
> Well, you can talk whatever way you want about things that don't exist.

that is your belief,do you have any evidence to back it up though?

>
>
>
> > One male was allowed
>
> >>
>
> >> as many wives as he could support. No such god would have made the sex
>
> >>
>
> >> act pleasurable for females as doing so could encourage promiscuity.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > the same could be said for men. its pleasurable for men also,so would be unfair for it not to be pleasurable for both sexes.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >> Some Islamic sects continue to mutilate female children to brutally
>
> >>
>
> >> remove the sensitive tissues primarily responsible for female orgasm.
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> > yes Islam is a barbaric religion,
>
>
>
> As is it's blood-sacrifice based sister religion, Christianity.

you have no evidence for this,in fact Jesus had the highest moral teaching.with out christians in the world,the world would be a much worse place,many christians all over the world help the poor+help their community.and when i say Christians i mean those that actually follow Jesus,practicing Christians,not those who claim to be christians ,but do the opposite of everything Jesus stood for like loving your enemies+forgiving ppl.

>
>
>
> > Jesus on the other hand said love your
>
> > enemies,forgive your enemies,completly opposite of what many Muslims do.
>
>
>
> The God of the old testament wiped out the entire earth, supposedly. Seems
>
> pretty blood thirsty to me.

God can do what ever he wants,he God,its very arrogant to question God.God gives+God takes away,thats fair,only he has the right to do that.

>
>
>
> > and
>
> > so called Christians who claim to follow Jesus,but actaully go the other way.
>
>
>
> No True Scotsman fallacy.

this is not a good comparison.a Scotsman are not by definition a good person,they are the same as any other nation,they have good+bad ppl. a Christian by definition is a follower of Jesus. any one who follows Jesus loves their enemies,forgives their enemies,as Jesus said you will no them by their fruits. just because some one says I'm a Christian does not make them one.you should not believe everything ppl claim to be my friend.

[Maggsy]

premature babies can survive outside of the Mother now,so you think they are a foetus+not a baby. when a woman is having a baby,she says I'm having a baby,not I'm having a foetus,no one talks like that,only when they want rid of it,then they say foetus to ease their guilt,then they try to make out its not human.

>
>
>
> > +here in the UK the government has taken away
>
> > my human rights to a family life+want to scrap the human right laws.
>
>
>
> How so?

my wife is a Filipina,they will not give her a visa because i don't earn enough,even though EU immigrants can bring their family to the UK,they have more rights than i do a British citizen in my own country.and now the UK government plan to scrap the human right laws,this is the UK in the 21st century.http://news.sky.com/story/1062593/qatada-may-pledges-to-scrap-human-rights-act

[Dakota]

A first or second semester fetus cannot survive outside the woman's
body. It is not a baby in any sense of the word. Women who seek late
term abortions do so only because of serious complications that risk
the life of the pregnant woman. Those women truly want to have a child
but in some cases are unable to do so. They do want to live so they
can try again.

>>
>>> +here in the UK the government has taken away
>>
>>> my human rights to a family life+want to scrap the human right laws.
>>
>>
>>
>> How so?
>
>
> my wife is a Filipina,they will not give her a visa because i don't earn enough,even though EU immigrants can bring their family to the UK,they have more rights than i do a British citizen in my own country.and now the UK government plan to scrap the human right laws,this is the UK in the 21st century.http://news.sky.com/story/1062593/qatada-may-pledges-to-scrap-human-rights-act
>

I suspect that your earnings are not the reason the visa has not been
granted. Did they specify a statute or cite the policy that has
blocked the visa? If so, please post a link to it. Thank you.

[sbalneav]

Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 March 2013 00:35:31 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
>> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Friday, 12 October 2012 11:40:55 UTC+1, Dakota wrote:
>>
>> >> On 10/11/2012 7:40 AM, Don Martin wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > David Dalton <dal...@nfld.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> women have orgasms so they will like sex
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > As a mechanism for reproduction of the species, it is a pity then that
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > males are so poor at inducing them with vaginal sex. The penis comes in
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > third in this event. (So much for the god of the gaps, eh Alex?)
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> It may be that natural selection favored males with more easily
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> achieved orgasms because pleasure was their primary motivation for
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> initiating sex. In male dominated societies, females had little choice
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> in the matter.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > but why were they male dominated societies,often in the animal kingdom its
>>
>> > the males that have to fight+the winner gets to mate with the female.
>>
>>
>>
>> Seeing as how the male is often the primary hunter, this ensures that only
>>
>> "fit" males reproduce. However, "fitness" does not always depend on strength,
>>
>> but rather, what the female finds attractive.

> yes and what a female finds attractive is often a mystery to men,many women
> find bad boys attractive,many of these end up getting beat up,eyes gouged
> out,killed by their boy friends or on the back of partners motorbikes.

"Many"?

Quit slinging anecdote and stereotypes around, and deal in reality please. And
if you want to find out what women find attractive, I find interacting with
them in a mature fashion tends to reveal what I need to know.

> perhaps you could explain how selecting that type of partner is beneficial
> to them passing on their genes?

They're not, in that instance. So, as time goes along, society should become
less violent, and more civilized. Whaddaya know, just like history shows!

>> >> Fitness was selected by competition among men for
>>
>> >> dominance. Female orgasm may simply have been a result of random
>>
>> >> mutation that continued because it's impact was also beneficial
>>
>> >> although to a lesser degree. It seems likely that the selection took
>>
>> >> hold long before the sex act was associated with procreation by the
>>
>> >> participants.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > why would you think that?
>>
>>
>>
>> An interpretation of the evolutionary evidence?
>
>
> could you explain in more detail?

Read a book on evolution, then get back to us. I'm not here to give you an
education because you slept though it the first time.

>> >> The creator god of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions is a male who
>> >> clearly directed women to be subservient to men.
>>
>> > he is not male,he is Spirit.
>>
>> Not according to the Abrahamic religions who portray him as distinctly male.
>
> you have misunderstood them,as i have said they are speaking
> metaphorically,you should not take the bible so literally,the bible makes it

> very clear God is not a man,but Spirit.??????

Can you cite passages? And why should I take your word for it that they're
speaking metaphorically, when there's quite a number of people who advocate for
a literal interpretation of the bible?

Personally, I don't think God is male OR female; I don't think God exists at
all.

> New International Version (ￜ1984)

> God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? Numbers 23:19

Your quote is wrong:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+23%3A19&version=NIV

God is not HUMAN.

And that's just ONE of many translations. KJV:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2023:19&version=GNT

God is not like PEOPLE.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2023:19&version=CEV

God is no mere HUMAN.

So pick your poison. You can make the bible say anything you want; just quote
whatever translation you like best. That's why it's useless as a way of
gaining knowledge.

>> Of course, like many fables, there's no evidence of "him" existing at all.
>
> so you say,what do you mean by evidence?

No testable, verifiable, repeatable means by which we may ascertain "he"
exists.

>> > language breaks down when talking about God,he
>>
>> > is so far beyond our experience that language cannot do him justice,when we
>>
>> > use the word he we use it metaphorically,much in the same way as some one
>>
>> > might refer to a car as a he or she.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, you can talk whatever way you want about things that don't exist.
>
>
>
> that is your belief,do you have any evidence to back it up though?

Yup.

1) The complete lack of any testable, verifiable, repeatable evidence for God.
2) The 2500+ year failure of theists to provide any such evidence.
3) Studies undertaken showing intercessionary prayer does no good.
4) Scientific and archeological evidence that refutes many of the so-called
"miracles" in the bible.
5) The failure of every logical argument brought forward for God's existance.
6) Science's resounding success of explaining large portions of phenomena that
used to be attributed to God, but we know recognize happen by naturalistic
phenomenon.

There's more, but that will do to go on.

>> > One male was allowed
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> as many wives as he could support. No such god would have made the sex
>> >> act pleasurable for females as doing so could encourage promiscuity.
>>
>> > the same could be said for men. its pleasurable for men also,so would be unfair for it not to be pleasurable for both sexes.
>>
>> >> Some Islamic sects continue to mutilate female children to brutally
>> >> remove the sensitive tissues primarily responsible for female orgasm.
>>
>> > yes Islam is a barbaric religion,
>>
>> As is it's blood-sacrifice based sister religion, Christianity.
>
> you have no evidence for this,

Sure I do. Was there not a sacrifice in Christianity? Is being Crucified not
Bloody? "This is my body, eat it in rememberance of me, this is my blood,
drink it in rememberance of me". Remember those bits?

You *HAVE* actually read this book called "The Bible", haven't you?

> in fact Jesus had the highest moral
> teaching.with out christians in the world,the world would be a much worse
> place,

Says who? The Greeks were getting pretty tame towards the end, witness
Epicurianism.

> many christians all over the world help the poor+help their
> community.

As do Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists; Christians don't have a lock on
being kind, you know.

> and when i say Christians i mean those that actually follow
> Jesus,practicing Christians,not those who claim to be christians ,but do the
> opposite of everything Jesus stood for like loving your enemies+forgiving
> ppl.

Again with the "No true scotsman" fallacy.

>> > Jesus on the other hand said love your
>> > enemies,forgive your enemies,completly opposite of what many Muslims do.
>>
>> The God of the old testament wiped out the entire earth, supposedly. Seems
>> pretty blood thirsty to me.
>
> God can do what ever he wants,he God,its very arrogant to question God.God
> gives+God takes away,thats fair,only he has the right to do that.

Ah, so you're one of those "Whatever God does is right by definition" people.
Better hope your God doesn't decide that pedophilia is a "Good" thing.

>> > and
>> > so called Christians who claim to follow Jesus,but actaully go the other way.
>>
>>
>>
>> No True Scotsman fallacy.
>
>
> this is not a good comparison.a Scotsman are not by definition a good
> person,they are the same as any other nation,they have good+bad ppl. a
> Christian by definition is a follower of Jesus.

Correct. That doesn't mean he's necessarily a Good Person, though.

> any one who follows Jesus
> loves their enemies,forgives their enemies,as Jesus said you will no them by
> their fruits. just because some one says I'm a Christian does not make them
> one.you should not believe everything ppl claim to be my friend.

I don't. That's why I don't believe in God.

--
(` |) | I have loved the stars too fondly
_) |) | to be fearful of the night.
a.a #2171 | -- Galileo Galilei

[Maggsy]

On Sunday, 10 March 2013 00:43:57 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 2 November 2012 07:00:37 UTC, Florian Kutscherauer wrote:
>
> >> Waldo Tunnel wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> > ... evolutionarily speaking.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> If you're still asking ???why,??? you apparently don't understand evolution.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You could also ask why do we have five fingers (as opposed to four or
>
> >>
>
> >> six) or anything thelike. But you'll never find a satisfying answer --
>
> >>
>
> >> other than just-so stories, that is.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> The theory of evolution tells us that there is no planing or reasoning
>
> >>
>
> >> involved -- that would be Intelligent Design (which we all know us
>
> >>
>
> >> crap).
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > speak for yourself. evolution also tells us that life has no real meaning,its
>
> > irrational+has no real purpose,these are just a few of the problems with it.
>
>
>
> That life has no pre-destined purpose is it's finest feature; it means you are
>
> free to pick your own purpose in life.

like Hitler did,killing millions of Jews or Stalin killing christians +millions of his own ppl.

Would it be better that your life run
>
> on a set of steel rails you couldn't get off of?

no i believe in free will,we can do what ever we want with in reason,we can't do some things.

>
>
>
> > in fact it creates far more questions than it answers.
>
>
>
> Name one. Just one.

1 if evolution is true then as i have already said everything is random,we are only here now because the dinosaurs got wiped out by a random event like an asteroid hitting the earth.


2 if evolution is true and( there are more than one theory,the experts can't agree. we have punctuated equilibrium.or Theistic evolution or quantum evolution.)then why do we have ppl who have no desire to live or survive.why do we have ppl who have no desire to pass on their genes,these kind of ppl should have died out long ago. you do not see these desires in the animal kingdom + they are supposed to be lower than us.

>
>
>
> > what makes me laugh is
>
> > that those who believe in evolution act like they live in a rational
>
> > universe,
>
>
>
> Straw man. We don't live in a RATIONAL universe, we live in a universe that
>
> has some physical LAWS. There's a difference.

so these laws are not rational then,if that was so they could not be understood. science is based on the assumption that we live in a rational universe.and if we don't live in a rational universe as you assert then why do you claim that ppl like you are rational,nothing in this universe is rational according to you+that includes you.

>
>
>
> > going against their own belief,skeptics like to think of them selves
>
> > as rational + superior to christians.from my experience of talking to
>
> > them,this is a myth.
>
>
>
> If your reasoning in these series of posts is anything to go by, your
>
> experience and 25 cents will buy me a cup of coffee in the canteen.
>

^roughly translated i don't know how to respond to what i said.

>
>
> >> In fact, it shows that there is no need for any reasons or plans.
>
> >>
>
> >> That's probably the part that is hardest to get about evolution. There
>
> >>
>
> >> is no need for any ???why.??? Things just happen; without reason. There is
>
> >>
>
> >> no goal to reach or expectation to satisfy.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > no why? this is nonsense. why do you get out of bed in a morning?
>
>
>
> Because I am not the natural process of evolution. I am an individual human

you are a product of evolution according to you.living in an irrational universe,with no intrinsic purpose,you have no reason to do anything.

>
> being who has goals he has laid out for himself, and if I don't get out of bed,
>
> I don't accomplish them.

these goals are random goals they are a product of your back ground of random mutations over millions of years,everything you do ,say+think was caused by a random irrational universe according to you.

>
>
>
> Why is it every christian seems to be a closet nihilist

i am not a nihilist,you are.

; without their
>
> imaginary friend, they'd starve to death in their own beds, or alternatively,

with out God we would all starve to death,thats true.there would be nothing with out him.

>
> run around raping and killing.

Christians dont do this,as Jesus said you will know them by their fruits.

What a sad lot you appear to be.

sad? the best thing that ever happened to me was becoming a christian,you don't know what you are missing mate.

>
>
>
> > with out a
>
> > why there is no reason to do anything,no reason to do nothing,no reason for
>
> > you to write on this group,
>
>
>
> Pointing out your lack of critical thinking skills is brining me some degree of
>
> pleasure.

please has no meaning according to ,nothing in your world view really has any intrinsic meaning,your not getting it are you.

>
>
>
> > no reason for you to believe what you believe,no
>
> > reason to have morals. your beliefs debunk themselves,think about it.
>
>
>
> We did, and we reject your nihilist worldview.

you seem confused what the word nihilist means,it means Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic valuehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

this is your worldview,not mine,i believe in God,the universe has intrinsic meaning.

[Maggsy]

On Sunday, 10 March 2013 06:31:36 UTC, Dakota wrote:
> On 3/9/2013 12:51 PM, Maggsy wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 2 November 2012 07:00:37 UTC, Florian Kutscherauer wrote:
>
> >> Waldo Tunnel wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> ... evolutionarily speaking.
>
> >>
>
> >> If you're still asking “why,” you apparently don't understand evolution.
>
> >>
>
> >> You could also ask why do we have five fingers (as opposed to four or
>
> >> six) or anything thelike. But you'll never find a satisfying answer --
>
> >> other than just-so stories, that is.
>
> >>
>
> >> The theory of evolution tells us that there is no planing or reasoning
>
> >> involved -- that would be Intelligent Design (which we all know us
>
> >> crap).
>
> >
>
> > speak for yourself. evolution also tells us that life has no real meaning,its irrational+has no real purpose,these are just a few of the problems with it. in fact it creates far more questions than it answers.what makes me laugh is that those who believe in evolution act like they live in a rational universe,going against their own belief,skeptics like to think of them selves as rational + superior to christians.from my experience of talking to them,this is a myth.
>
> >
>
> Evolution doesn't tell us that life has no meaning or purpose.
>
> Evolution doesn't tell us anything at all. Evolution is an simple,
>
> unguided process with no goals, no ability to predict, and no means of
>
> conveying meaning or purpose.

so you start by saying Evolution doesn't tell us that life has no meaning or purpose+end by saying and end Evolution has no means of
>
conveying meaning or purpose.you have contradicted yourself.

>
>
>
> It would really be better if you actually learned what the theory of
>
> evolution is before exposing your ignorance for all to see.

not this old chestnut again,why do you guys all say the same rubbish+then you accuse us of being brainwashed,hehe.

>
> Creationists may have given you a distorted and inaccurate impression
>
> of what evolution is.

tell me then what do you think i think evolution is? i have not even said what i think it is,so are you a mind reader now?hehe

>
> >>
>
> >> In fact, it shows that there is no need for any reasons or plans.
>
> >>
>
> >> That's probably the part that is hardest to get about evolution. There
>
> >> is no need for any “why.” Things just happen; without reason. There is
>
> >> no goal to reach or expectation to satisfy.
>
> >
>
> I agree with that except for the part about things happening without
>
> reason. While it's true that some changes are the result of random
>
> mutations, for organisms that reproduce sexually, there is always a
>
> difference between parent and offspring. This variation and that
>
> caused by random mutations may have an effect on the ability of the
>
> organism to reproduce it their environment. Those with changes that
>
> enhance that ability are passed down in greater numbers than those
>
> with changes that do not enhance that ability.
>
>
>
> Variability is the reason evolution works. Natural selection is the
>
> process by which it works.

i'm not using the word reason in that way,i mean there is no intrinsic reason for anything,to do anything if evolution is true. there would be no why,no reason to survive ,no reason to pass on your genes,why would you want to? life would be meaningless,you can make it mean what ever you want it to mean,thats nonsense.

>
> >
>
> > no why? this is nonsense. why do you get out of bed in a morning? with out a why there is no reason to do anything,no reason to do nothing,no reason for you to write on this group,no reason for you to believe what you believe,no reason to have morals. your beliefs debunk themselves,think about it.
>
> >
>
> I'm so glad you asked that. Just as our evolved brains are very quick
>
> to recognize patterns, they are also well adapted to seeing purpose.
>
> Those patterns and/or purposes don't always match reality, but do so
>
> far more often than not. By assigning purpose to much of what we see
>
> and do, our brains greatly increased our ability to reproduce when
>
> compared to those who lack those abilities. A person unable to
>
> recognize patterns or who had no sense of purpose would have a very
>
> difficult time finding a mate.

animals do it well enough,what purpose do you think insects have when they are mating+eating? what are they thinking? what purpose does an animal have when its killing its prey,what is going through its brain,i'm hungry i want to eat?

Therefore, such persons are far less
>
> likely to pass that deficiency along to future generations.
>
>
>
> In other word, we have purpose in our lives because having purpose
>
> conveys reproductive advantages. It works.

i'm talking about intrinsic purpose,not a subjective purpose.for some ppl their purpose in life is to rape kids+torture them,that gives them purpose,do you think thats ok? i mean according to evolution it most serve some purpose or why has it not died out by now,animals don't do it,only humans.

[Maggsy]

you have no evidence for either.a troll is some one who abuses another or goes off topic,i have done neither.as for being ignorant of evolution,again you have no evidence of this assertion.i know the basics well enough,i've spent enough time talking to ppl like you+reading books about evolution both for +against.

[Maggsy]

we have not applied for the visa,because we know we will be refused,you are not aware that the immigration rules were changed last July for Non Europeans coming to the UK. no many ppl know this.


09 July 2012

A number of changes to the Immigration Rules come into effect on 9 July 2012. These changes will affect non-European Economic Area (non-EEA) nationals applying to enter or remain in the UK under the family migration route.

These changes will define the basis on which a person can enter or remain in the UK on the basis of their family or private life, unifying consideration under the rules and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

If you already have leave to enter or remain in the UK, on the basis of being the spouse or partner of a settled person, you will need to meet the rules which were in force before 9 July 2012 if you apply for settlement.

The changes include:
introducing a new minimum income threshold of £18,600 for sponsoring the settlement in the UK of a spouse or partner, or fiancé(e) or proposed civil partner of non-European Economic Area (EEA) nationality, with a higher threshold for any children also sponsored; £22,400 for one child and an additional £2,400 for each further child;
publishing, in casework guidance, a list of factors associated with genuine and non-genuine relationships, to help UK Border Agency caseworkers to focus on these issues;
extending the minimum probationary period for settlement for non-EEA spouses and partners from two years to five years, to test the genuineness of the relationship;
abolishing immediate settlement for the migrant spouses and partner where a couple have been living together overseas for at least 4 years, and requiring them to complete a 5 year probationary period;
from October 2013, requiring all applicants for settlement to pass the Life in the UK Test and present an English language speaking and listening qualification at B1 level or above of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages unless they are exempt; and
allowing adult and elderly dependants to settle in the UK only where they can demonstrate that, as a result of age, illness or disability, they require a level of long-term personal care that can only be provided by a relative in the UK, and requiring them to apply from overseas rather than switch in the UK from another category, for example as a visitor.

The changes to the Immigration Rules were announced by the Government on 11 June 2012 and they form part of the Government's programme of reform of the immigration routes. The changes are being introduced following wide consultation and expert advice from the Migration Advisory Committee.

A more detailed summary of the changes can be found in the UK Border Agency news story published on 13 June 2012.



http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/newsarticles/2012/july/15-family-mig

[Maggsy]

whats wrong with anecdotel evidence,its accepted in a court of law.stereotypes? what do you mean by that,why can't you just address my points.

And
>
> if you want to find out what women find attractive, I find interacting with
>
> them in a mature fashion tends to reveal what I need to know.

are you saying i can't or do this? i'm telling you what i've seen,my experience,you have ignored this.

>
>
>
> > perhaps you could explain how selecting that type of partner is beneficial
>
> > to them passing on their genes?
>
>
>
> They're not, in that instance. So, as time goes along, society should become
>
> less violent, and more civilized. Whaddaya know, just like history shows!

actaully plenty of women still are attracted to the bad boys,they should have of course died out long ago.more civilized? last century we had 2 world wars+they were not religious wars,we had 6 millions jews killed,we had the worst crimes against humanity in the history of the world+you think we are becoming more civilized,this is wishful thinking on your part.

>
>
>
> >> >> Fitness was selected by competition among men for
>
> >>
>
> >> >> dominance. Female orgasm may simply have been a result of random
>
> >>
>
> >> >> mutation that continued because it's impact was also beneficial
>
> >>
>
> >> >> although to a lesser degree. It seems likely that the selection took
>
> >>
>
> >> >> hold long before the sex act was associated with procreation by the
>
> >>
>
> >> >> participants.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > why would you think that?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> An interpretation of the evolutionary evidence?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > could you explain in more detail?
>
>
>
> Read a book on evolution, then get back to us.

i have read plenty,why would you assume i haven't.please get over you preconceptions.

I'm not here to give you an
>
> education because you slept though it the first time.

i've been trying to educate skeptics for years,its hard work,but some ones got to do it.

>
>
>
> >> >> The creator god of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions is a male who
>
> >> >> clearly directed women to be subservient to men.
>
> >>
>
> >> > he is not male,he is Spirit.
>
> >>
>
> >> Not according to the Abrahamic religions who portray him as distinctly male.
>
> >
>
> > you have misunderstood them,as i have said they are speaking
>
> > metaphorically,you should not take the bible so literally,the bible makes it
>
> > very clear God is not a man,but Spirit.??????
>
>
>
> Can you cite passages?

i already did.Numbers 23:19.

And why should I take your word for it that they're
>
> speaking metaphorically, when there's quite a number of people who advocate for
>
> a literal interpretation of the bible?
>
>
>
> Personally, I don't think God is male OR female; I don't think God exists at
>
> all.

why should i take your word for God not existing? to know such a thing you would have to search the entire universe+any other universe that exists,have you done this? only then can you be sure.

>
>
>
> > New International Version (ￜ1984)
>
> > God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? Numbers 23:19
>
>
>
> Your quote is wrong:






>
>
>
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+23%3A19&version=NIV
>
>
>
> God is not HUMAN.
>

so you think he can be not human,but still be a man,think about it please.please learn to think.

>
>
> And that's just ONE of many translations. KJV:
>
>
>
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2023:19&version=GNT
>
>
>
> God is not like PEOPLE.
>
>
>
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2023:19&version=CEV
>
>
>
> God is no mere HUMAN.
>
>
>
> So pick your poison. You can make the bible say anything you want; just quote
>
> whatever translation you like best. That's why it's useless as a way of
>
> gaining knowledge.

you can say that about any book,infact the meaning of words can be slightly different,but the translation makes no difference to the important beliefs that Christians have.

>
>
>
>
>
> >> Of course, like many fables, there's no evidence of "him" existing at all.
>
> >
>
> > so you say,what do you mean by evidence?
>
>
>
> No testable, verifiable, repeatable means by which we may ascertain "he"
>
> exists.

so anything that does not meet this test,you don't believe in? it must make your life very hard to live if this is your standard for believing something. i suspect this is your standard only when you don't want to believe in something.

>
>
>
> >> > language breaks down when talking about God,he
>
> >>
>
> >> > is so far beyond our experience that language cannot do him justice,when we
>
> >>
>
> >> > use the word he we use it metaphorically,much in the same way as some one
>
> >>
>
> >> > might refer to a car as a he or she.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Well, you can talk whatever way you want about things that don't exist.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > that is your belief,do you have any evidence to back it up though?
>
>
>
> Yup.
>
>
>
> 1) The complete lack of any testable, verifiable, repeatable evidence for God.

you could say this about many things,the axioms or assumptions that science is based on for example.

>
> 2) The 2500+ year failure of theists to provide any such evidence.

so you say,the evidence that you require is set high because you dont want to believe,you will believe many other things with out a scrap of evidence though.

>
> 3) Studies undertaken showing intercessionary prayer does no good.

God said do not test me,he was not asked to take part. you assume you can treat God like any other object or thing,another false premise.

>
> 4) Scientific and archeological evidence that refutes many of the so-called
>
> "miracles" in the bible.

science does not rule out miracles,please provide this archeological evidence ?

>
> 5) The failure of every logical argument brought forward for God's existance.

this is your belief+you have no evidence for it.

>
> 6) Science's resounding success of explaining large portions of phenomena that
>
> used to be attributed to God, but we know recognize happen by naturalistic
>
> phenomenon.

science can never answer the ultimate questions like why are we here+who created the universe.

>
>
>
> There's more, but that will do to go on.
>
>
>
> >> > One male was allowed
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> as many wives as he could support. No such god would have made the sex
>
> >> >> act pleasurable for females as doing so could encourage promiscuity.
>
> >>
>
> >> > the same could be said for men. its pleasurable for men also,so would be unfair for it not to be pleasurable for both sexes.
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Some Islamic sects continue to mutilate female children to brutally
>
> >> >> remove the sensitive tissues primarily responsible for female orgasm.
>
> >>
>
> >> > yes Islam is a barbaric religion,
>
> >>
>
> >> As is it's blood-sacrifice based sister religion, Christianity.
>
> >
>
> > you have no evidence for this,
>
>
>
> Sure I do. Was there not a sacrifice in Christianity? Is being Crucified not

i was referring to christians being barbaric,that is a contradiction in terms.

>
> Bloody? "This is my body, eat it in rememberance of me, this is my blood,
>
> drink it in rememberance of me". Remember those bits?
>
>
>
> You *HAVE* actually read this book called "The Bible", haven't you?
>
>
>
> > in fact Jesus had the highest moral
>
> > teaching.with out christians in the world,the world would be a much worse
>
> > place,
>
>
>
> Says who? The Greeks were getting pretty tame towards the end, witness
>
> Epicurianism.

Epicureanism is a form of hedonism,so you think that getting pleasure is the higest moral virtue,even if that pleasure comes from torturing kids,you have a strange sense of morals.

>
>
>
> > many christians all over the world help the poor+help their
>
> > community.
>
>
>
> As do Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists; Christians don't have a lock on
>
> being kind, you know.

of course others do ,but they do it because they have to christians don't ,God loves us anyway,our motives are different.

>
>
>
> > and when i say Christians i mean those that actually follow
>
> > Jesus,practicing Christians,not those who claim to be christians ,but do the
>
> > opposite of everything Jesus stood for like loving your enemies+forgiving
>
> > ppl.
>
>
>
> Again with the "No true scotsman" fallacy.

i have already debunked that,are you reading my posts? or just ignoring my arguments?

>
>
>
> >> > Jesus on the other hand said love your
>
> >> > enemies,forgive your enemies,completly opposite of what many Muslims do.
>
> >>
>
> >> The God of the old testament wiped out the entire earth, supposedly. Seems
>
> >> pretty blood thirsty to me.
>
> >
>
> > God can do what ever he wants,he God,its very arrogant to question God.God
>
> > gives+God takes away,thats fair,only he has the right to do that.
>
>
>
> Ah, so you're one of those "Whatever God does is right by definition" people.
>
> Better hope your God doesn't decide that pedophilia is a "Good" thing.

God is a God of love so he would never decide that.the reason God said kill the Canaanites was because they were sacrificing their own kids.

>
>
>
> >> > and
>
> >> > so called Christians who claim to follow Jesus,but actaully go the other way.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> No True Scotsman fallacy.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > this is not a good comparison.a Scotsman are not by definition a good
>
> > person,they are the same as any other nation,they have good+bad ppl. a
>
> > Christian by definition is a follower of Jesus.
>
>
>
> Correct. That doesn't mean he's necessarily a Good Person, though.

how can you not be a good person if you follow Jesus teaching,loving others,loving your enemies,feeding the poor,turning the other cheek.

>
>
>
> > any one who follows Jesus
>
> > loves their enemies,forgives their enemies,as Jesus said you will no them by
>
> > their fruits. just because some one says I'm a Christian does not make them
>
> > one.you should not believe everything ppl claim to be my friend.
>
>
>
> I don't. That's why I don't believe in God.

you don't believe in God because you ignore the evidence. life makes no sense with out God,if he did not exist you would have to invent him to make sense of life.

[sbalneav]

Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 March 2013 00:43:57 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
>> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Friday, 2 November 2012 07:00:37 UTC, Florian Kutscherauer wrote:
>>
>> >> Waldo Tunnel wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > ... evolutionarily speaking.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> If you're still asking ???why,??? you apparently don't understand evolution.
>>
>> >> You could also ask why do we have five fingers (as opposed to four or
>>
>> >> six) or anything thelike. But you'll never find a satisfying answer --
>> >> other than just-so stories, that is.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> The theory of evolution tells us that there is no planing or reasoning
>> >> involved -- that would be Intelligent Design (which we all know us
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> crap).
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > speak for yourself. evolution also tells us that life has no real meaning,its
>> > irrational+has no real purpose,these are just a few of the problems with it.
>>
>>
>>
>> That life has no pre-destined purpose is it's finest feature; it means you are
>> free to pick your own purpose in life.
>
> like Hitler did,killing millions of Jews or Stalin killing christians +millions of his own ppl.

Yes. People make bad choices. That's something we have to live with. Hitler,
by the way, was a Catholic. And the Nazi's? All had "Gott Mit Uns" (God with
us" on their belts.

>> Would it be better that your life run
>> on a set of steel rails you couldn't get off of?
>
> no i believe in free will,we can do what ever we want with in reason,we can't do some things.

Well, current neurological research may be showing our "will" may not be as
"free" as we think, but I'm with you philosophically. But part of free will is
that people will sometimes make bad choices.

>> > in fact it creates far more questions than it answers.
>>
>> Name one. Just one.
>
> 1 if evolution is true then as i have already said everything is random,we
> are only here now because the dinosaurs got wiped out by a random event like
> an asteroid hitting the earth.

How's that a question? We *are* only here because of chance occurrances in the
past. Mammals did a lot of hiding in the underbrush until the dinosaurs were
gone.

> 2 if evolution is true and( there are more than one theory,the experts can't
> agree.

Says who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Scientific_support

"The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports
evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for
observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology,
genetics, anthropology, and others.[22][23][24][25][26] One 1987 estimate found
that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life
scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[27]"

700/480000 * 100 = .14%. That means that, as of that cite, 99.86% supported
the Theory of Evolution.

> we have punctuated equilibrium.or Theistic evolution or quantum
> evolution.)then why do we have ppl who have no desire to live or survive.why
> do we have ppl who have no desire to pass on their genes,these kind of ppl
> should have died out long ago. you do not see these desires in the animal
> kingdom + they are supposed to be lower than us.

Evolution acts on populations. Individuals can be born with mutations or
quirks that may lead them to not pass on their specific genes. But there's a
difference between a process that acts on large aggregate numbers, and
individual data points.

It's like the stock market. If you buy one share of one stock, how your one
share will be performing on any given day will have little to nothing to do
with what the Dow Jones Industrial Average is doing.

>> > what makes me laugh is
>>
>> > that those who believe in evolution act like they live in a rational
>>
>> > universe,
>>
>>
>>
>> Straw man. We don't live in a RATIONAL universe, we live in a universe that
>>
>> has some physical LAWS. There's a difference.
>
>
>
> so these laws are not rational then,if that was so they could not be
> understood.

Quantum physics defies normal "rational" science. We've discovered that, on
the smallest levels, the universe is pretty wierd.

> science is based on the assumption that we live in a rational
> universe.

The universe doesn't, itself, think, and is therefore not "rational". It has
laws. WE are rational. WE reason.

> and if we don't live in a rational universe as you assert then why
> do you claim that ppl like you are rational,

I am rational, because I reason. Words mean things, you should look them up in
a dictionary.

> nothing in this universe is
> rational according to you+that includes you.

Incorrect. Straw man fallacy.

I said the universe has LAWS, which it does. I am rational, because I reason.

>> > going against their own belief,skeptics like to think of them selves
>> > as rational + superior to christians.from my experience of talking to
>> > them,this is a myth.
>>
>>
>> If your reasoning in these series of posts is anything to go by, your
>> experience and 25 cents will buy me a cup of coffee in the canteen.
>>
>
> ^roughly translated i don't know how to respond to what i said.

I've shown you haven't the foggiest clue of what you're talking about. You
basically thow out a lot of anecdote and flawed reasoning, and figure you've
scored some point. Sorry, but you haven't. You haven't the first clue of what
you're talking about. You don't understand evolution, that it works on
populations, and not individuals, you don't understand what terms like
"rational" mean. You're an intellectual mess.

>> >> In fact, it shows that there is no need for any reasons or plans.
>> >> That's probably the part that is hardest to get about evolution. There
>> >> is no need for any ???why.??? Things just happen; without reason. There is
>> >> no goal to reach or expectation to satisfy.
>>
>> > no why? this is nonsense. why do you get out of bed in a morning?
>>
>>
>>
>> Because I am not the natural process of evolution. I am an individual human

> you are a product of evolution according to you.living in an irrational
> universe,with no intrinsic purpose,you have no reason to do anything.

That I am a product of the evolutionary process is correct. However, I am a
rational being who lives in a universe with laws that are knowable and
understandable. I have purpose and meaning in my life; the purpose and meaning
I choose to give it with my free will. I have reasons to do most of the things
that I do *because* I am rational.

Stop putting words in my mouth. It's dishonest. If you can't engage with what
I'm actually saying, as opposed to what you wish I'd say so that you can score
some grand "point", let me know, and I won't waste my time with you anymore.

>> being who has goals he has laid out for himself, and if I don't get out of bed,
>> I don't accomplish them.
>
>
> these goals are random goals

My goals are very deliberate.

> they are a product of your back ground

This is true.

> of random
> mutations over millions of years,

Random mutation is raw material of evolution. Natural selection through
differential reproductive success is the process by which these mutations get
selected to be passed on to my offspring.

> everything you do ,say+think was caused by a
> random irrational universe according to you.

Again, you're dishonestly putting words in my mouth. Is your case so poor you
have to lie to try to make it?

>> Why is it every christian seems to be a closet nihilist
> i am not a nihilist,you are.
>
>
> ; without their
>>
>> imaginary friend, they'd starve to death in their own beds, or alternatively,

> with out God we would all starve to death,thats true.there would be nothing with out him.

Well, first, you've got to establish this God of your exist, which, so far, you
haven't done. Before you begin to do that, perhaps you could define what you
mean by "God"?

>> run around raping and killing.
>
>
> Christians dont do this,as Jesus said you will know them by their fruits.

I hear bagpipes.

> What a sad lot you appear to be.
>
> sad? the best thing that ever happened to me was becoming a christian,you don't know what you are missing mate.

Was one. Don't miss it an iota.

>> > with out a
>> > why there is no reason to do anything,no reason to do nothing,no reason for
>> > you to write on this group,
>>
>> Pointing out your lack of critical thinking skills is brining me some degree of
>> pleasure.
>
> please has no meaning according to ,nothing in your world view really has any intrinsic meaning,your not getting it are you.

On what basis do you make the assertion that nothing has any intrinsic meaning
to me?

>> > no reason for you to believe what you believe,no
>> > reason to have morals. your beliefs debunk themselves,think about it.
>>
>> We did, and we reject your nihilist worldview.
>
> you seem confused what the word nihilist means,it means Most commonly,
> nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that
> life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic
> valuehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

I know exactly what it means. My life has MUCH value to me; it's the only one
I have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity_value

As, in the entire 13.7 billion year universe, and of all the people in the
world, *this life* is the only one I have, or will ever have, it has a LOT of
intrinsic value to me. I am not the one asserting my life has no meaning. YOU
are.

> this is your worldview,not mine,i believe in God,the universe has intrinsic meaning.

You may assert your life has meaning. You are not able to assert the universe
has meaning without providing some evidence for God, which you have not done.

--
(` |) | Silence is safer than speech.

[sbalneav]

Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 March 2013 17:03:06 UTC, Dakota wrote:
>> On 3/10/2013 8:09 AM, Maggsy wrote:
>>
>> > On Sunday, 10 March 2013 00:27:37 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>> >> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip for brevity>

>> > my wife is a Filipina,they will not give her a visa because i don't earn enough,even though EU immigrants can bring their family to the UK,they have more rights than i do a British citizen in my own country.and now the UK government plan to scrap the human right laws,this is the UK in the 21st century.http://news.sky.com/story/1062593/qatada-may-pledges-to-scrap-human-rights-act
>>
>> >
>>
>> I suspect that your earnings are not the reason the visa has not been
>> granted. Did they specify a statute or cite the policy that has
>> blocked the visa? If so, please post a link to it. Thank you.
>
>
> we have not applied for the visa,because we know we will be refused,you are not aware that the immigration rules were changed last July for Non Europeans coming to the UK. no many ppl know this.

Dude, if you haven't applied for the visa, how do you know they won't GIVE her
one?

Maggsy: "They won't give my wife a visa"
Dakota: "Under what policy?"
Maggsy: "We didn't actually apply"

*rolls eyes*

--
(` |) | The human race has one really effective weapon,
_) |) | and that is laughter.

[walksalone]

Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:f591925f-80f4-4330...@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, 10 March 2013 00:35:31 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
>> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On Friday, 12 October 2012 11:40:55 UTC+1, Dakota wrote:
>> >> On 10/11/2012 7:40 AM, Don Martin wrote:
>> >> > David Dalton <dal...@nfld.com> wrote:

snip

>> > but why were they male dominated societies,often in the animal
>> > kingdom
> its the males that have to fight+the winner gets to mate with the
>> > female.

>> Seeing as how the male is often the primary hunter, this ensures that
>> only
>> "fit" males reproduce. However, "fitness" does not always depend on
>> strength,
>> but rather, what the female finds attractive.

> yes and what a female finds attractive is often a
> mystery to men,many women find bad boys attractive,many of these end
> up getting beat up,eyes gouged out,killed by their boy friends or on
> the back of partners motorbikes. perhaps you could explain how
> selecting that type of partner is beneficial to them passing on their
> genes?

The syndrome is understood, no big deal. It's like religion in that if you
can convince them, through example or peers, they will be enablers all
their life without very good help.


snip

>> >> The creator god of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions is a male
>> >> who
>> >> clearly directed women to be subservient to men.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > he is not male,he is Spirit.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not according to the Abrahamic religions who portray him as
>> distinctly male.


> you have misunderstood them,as i have said they are speaking

In spite, or to spite, your wishes, you are the confused one here.

> metaphorically,you should not take the bible so literally,the bible

The evidence provided by the verses say otherwise. Not evidence of
validity, evidence of concept. To be blunt, there was no practical choice
if men were to become rulers & powermongers. The mother goddessess had to
go, & that included their stature as equal to or superior to the gods.

> makes it very clear God is not a man,but Spirit.�-��-�

It's ambigious. He can be either.

> New International Version (©1984)

Whyy that one, what makes it better or more accurate than any of the other
100 plus anthologies. Such as the following.
AAT The Complete Bible: An American Translation, by Edgar Goodspeed and
J. M. Powis Smith, 1939.
ABT The Afro Bible Translation
ATB The Alternate Translation Bible
ASV American Standard Version purchase ASV
AB The Amplified Bible editions for sale
ALT Analytical-Literal Translation
ASL American Sign Language Translation
Bar The New Testament: A New Translation, by William Barclay
BB The Biker Bible
BWE Bible in WorldWide English The Bible Gateway Translation Information
see BWE description
CCB Christian Community Bible
CE The Common Edition: New Testament
CE Covenant Edition New Testament
CJB Complete Jewish Bible
CV Concordant Version
CEV Contemporary English Version
Dar Darby
DR Douay-Rheims
DRP David Robert Palmer's translations of the gospels
EMTV English Majority Text Version
ENT Extreme New Testament revision of Simple English Bible, below
ERV Easy-to-Read Version
ESV English Standard Version
FF Ferrar Fenton Bible
GLW God's Living Word
GNC God's New Covenant: A New Testament Translation, by Heinz W. Cassirer
GNT Good News Translation [formerly,
GNB Good News Bible
TEV Today's English Version
GW God's Word
HCSB Holman Christian Standard Bible
ICB International Children's Bible children's version of the NCV
ISB International Standard Bible formerly titled The Simple English Bible
ISV The International Standard Version
ISV Naturalness and Comprehension Survey, by Phil Fields
JBP New Testament in Modern English, by J.B. Phillips New Testament in
Modern English, Revised, by J.B. Phillips Student edition
JNT Jewish New Testament: A Translation of the New Testament That
Expresses Its Jewishness see Complete Jewish Bible
JPS Jerusalem Publication Society: Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, The New
JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text
KJV King James Version and recent revisions
DKJB Defined King James Bible
KJII King James Version II renamed to Literal Translation of the Holy
Bible
KJ21 King James for the 21st Century
KJ2000 King James 2000
LITV The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible formerly named King James
II
MKJV Modern King James Version
NKJV New King James Version
RAV Revised Authorised Version British edition of the NKJV), review
RKJV Revised King James New Testament
TMB The Third Millennium Bible
UKJV Updated King James Version
LITV The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible see under KJV and recent
revisions
LB Living Bible
MAEV Modern American English Vernacular
MLB Modern Language Bible: New Berkeley Version
Mof Bible: James Moffatt Translation amazon.com
NAB New American Bible
NASB New American Standard Bible
NCV New Century Version
NEB New English Bible
NET New English Translation
NET New Evangelical Translation
NIRV New Internation Reader's Version
NIV New International Version
NJB New Jerusalem Bible
NKJV New King James Version see under KJV and recent revisions
NLV New Life Version
NLT New Living Translation
NRSV New Revised Standard Bible
NWT New World Translation published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society of the Jehovah's Witnesses
OBP The Original Bible Project
OSB Orthodox Study Bible
ONT The Original New Testament: The First Definitive Translation of the
New Testament in 2000 Years, by Hugh Schonfield
PB Phillips Bible New testament only
PMB Postmodern Bible
RDB Readers digest edition
Rec Recovery Version
REB The Revised English Bible revision of NEB
RSV Revised Standard Version
RV Revised Version, 1885
Sch The Schocken Bible
SEB The Simple English Bible
TM The Message
TMB The Third Millennium Bible
TEV Today's English Version [see GNT Good News Translation]
TNIV Today's New International Version
Tyn Tyndale
Wey Weymouth
WEB World English Bible
Wms The New Testament in the Language of the People, by Charles B.
Williams another website
WNT Wesley's New Testament
Wuest The New Testament An Expanded Translation purchase
Wyc Wycliffe
YLT Young's Literal Translation of the Bible download entire text

> God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should

But he has lied, & IIRC, asked who would tell a lie for him.

> change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and
> not fulfill? Numbers 23:19

All ewrrors of course. Do you remember the flood, there have been floods.
Not like the one that is a no show, so that is a lie. Do you remember Jonah
& the lie told there. As well as the change of mind? Why not, or are
those, according to you, metaphors? Failed prophesy is what they are,
among other things.

>> Of course, like many fables, there's no evidence of "him" existing at
>> all

> so you say,what do you mean by evidence?

No, so the evidence says. true, the concept is not agreeable to you, so
you lok for alternate definitiopns that stroke your ego. But evidence does
not change. A dead skunk in the middle of the road does not become a dead
lawyer just because someone wants the carcass to be ran over.

>> > language breaks down when talking about God,he
>> > is so far beyond our experience that language cannot do him
>> > justice,when we use the word he we use it metaphorically,much in the
same way as some one might refer to a car as a he or she.

It's called anthromorphication & is done to humanise things, whether they
are real or not.

>> Well, you can talk whatever way you want about things that don't
>> exist.

<Cliff>True dat</Cliff>

> that is your belief,do you have any evidence to back it up though?

That you can accept, probably not. But then, when one's theme song for
life is the equivalent of once upon a time evidence is of no matter. Close
your eyes & it goes away.

>> > One male was allowed as many wives as he could support. No such god
would have made the sex act pleasurable for females as doing so could
encourage promiscuity.

Which is reserved for males?

>> > the same could be said for men. its pleasurable for men also,so
>> > would be unfair for it not to be pleasurable for both sexes.

The senior revealed god of the desert is not noted for being fair to
haumainty according to its an thology.

>> >> Some Islamic sects continue to mutilate female children to
>> >> brutally remove the sensitive tissues primarily responsible for
female orgasm.

>> > yes Islam is a barbaric religion,

As is Judaism & xianity. Same god you see. Just confusion about the name.

>> As is it's blood-sacrifice based sister religion, Christianity.


> you have no evidence for this,in fact Jesus had the highest moral

But we do, or as much evidence for that as you have for bubba & big daddy,
llc. One piece of evidence is the history of xianity, which is as bloody
as Islam ever was.

> teaching.with out christians in the world,the world would be a much
> worse place,many christians all over the world help the poor+help

Right, pull the other one. Around here, if you need food you had best join
the church or forget it.

> their community.and when i say Christians i mean those that actually
> follow Jesus,practicing Christians,not those who claim to be

Ah, Angus, can you hear the bagpipes playing Auld Lang Syne, or would that
be
http://caber-records.com/music/. Either way, that is a judgement saved for
bubba & big daddy. After Adam screens them of course.

> christians ,but do the opposite of everything Jesus stood for like
> loving your enemies+forgiving ppl.

Sigh, the romance of ancient lore, never mind what was taught, or when.

>> > Jesus on the other hand said love your
>> > enemies,forgive your enemies,completly opposite of what many
>> > Muslims do.

A trait not exclusive to xians, or Islamics.

>> The God of the old testament wiped out the entire earth, supposedly.
>> Seems
>> pretty blood thirsty to me.

> God can do what ever he wants,he God,its very arrogant to question

IOW, might makes right. Thank you, you may turn in your pop quiz to the
hall monitor on your way out.

> God.God gives+God takes away,thats fair,only he has the right to do
> that.

According to spineless individuals, who you seem to associate yourself
with. But then, that makes sense when you recall the gods were invented in
mans image, for the sole puirpose of control over others. At least, that
is the message from the mid-eastern revealed gods. From Zorastor to �l, to
ba'al, to yahweh, to allah. How can that be said, the evidence left behind
by the believers.

>> > and so called Christians who claim to follow Jesus,but actaully go the
other way.

>> No True Scotsman fallacy.

> this is not a good comparison.a Scotsman are not by definition a good
> person,they are the same as any other nation,they have good+bad ppl. a
> Christian by definition is a follower of Jesus. any one who follows
> Jesus loves their enemies,forgives their enemies,as Jesus said you
> will no them by their fruits. just because some one says I'm a
> Christian does not make them one.you should not believe everything ppl
> claim to be my friend.

Oh boy, we have a live one on chanel 1 for sure.

Still, it's been slow in the feeding pits lately. Likely to remain so if
this is the caliber of bleater this group attracts.

walksalone who has no doubt that the OP is a believer, it ozzes out of
every pretensious claim. Now a believer that would be a boon
conversational companion, there I have sincere & deep doubts.


82:1 A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of God; in the
midst of the judges He judgeth:
82:2 'How long will ye judge unjustly, and respect the persons of the
wicked? Selah
82:3 Judge the poor and fatherless; do justice to the afflicted and
destitute.
82:4 Rescue the poor and needy; deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.
82:5 They know not, neither do they understand; they go about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are moved.
82:6 I said: Ye are godlike beings, and all of you sons of the Most High.
82:7 Nevertheless ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the
princes.'
82:8 Arise, O God, judge the earth; for Thou shalt possess all nations.

[sbalneav]

The standards for a court of law are lower than scientific standards. You
can't use legal standards to establish the existance of things.

> stereotypes? what do you mean by that,why can't you just address my points.

Women dating "bad boys". Does it happen? Sure. Is it a "rule"? No, of course
not.

> And
>>
>> if you want to find out what women find attractive, I find interacting with
>>
>> them in a mature fashion tends to reveal what I need to know.
>
>
> are you saying i can't or do this? i'm telling you what i've seen,my experience,you have ignored this.

I said what *I* find helpful. I don't *care* about your experience; it's not a
valid basis for determining overall reality. If you happen to be part of a
biker gang, you're probably going to see all kinds of women who are attracted
to bad boys; they're the only kind that'll hang out with you. If you live in a
Quaker community, you'll likely find very few women attracted to bad boys.

That's why your anecdotal experience is worthless for the purposes of providing
a model of reality; you're ONE data point.

>> > perhaps you could explain how selecting that type of partner is beneficial
>> > to them passing on their genes?
>>
>> They're not, in that instance. So, as time goes along, society should become
>> less violent, and more civilized. Whaddaya know, just like history shows!
>
> actaully plenty of women

HOW MANY, FUCKNUTS?! Start giving some fucking REFERENCES for your bald
assertions! GEEZ are you a sloppy thinker.

It's been my own personal experience that everyone named Maggsy is a moron.
Should we use that as a basis for reality? "100% of all the Maggsy's I know
are drooling mouthbreathers!"

> still are attracted to the bad boys,they should have
> of course died out long ago.more civilized? last century we had 2 world
> wars+they were not religious wars,we had 6 millions jews killed,

The Jews were killed BECAUSE of their religion. How, exactly, are you saying
this wasn't religious in nature? Have you actually READ "Mein Kampf"? Hitler
makes it pretty clear WHY he's killing the Jews in that book.

> we had the
> worst crimes against humanity in the history of the world+you think we are
> becoming more civilized,this is wishful thinking on your part.

No, it's not:

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CFYQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.warwick.ac.uk%2Ffac%2Farts%2Fhistory%2Fpostgraduate%2Fma_studies%2Fmamodules%2Fhi971%2Ftopics%2Finterpersonal%2Flong-term-historical-trends-of-violent-crime.pdf&ei=wuo8UcSLO-T82gXOxYCACQ&usg=AFQjCNFj3jnqhgx5Gx6MoIZTgL3b3-CEsQ&bvm=bv.43287494,d.b2I&cad=rja

>> >> >> Fitness was selected by competition among men for
>> >> >> dominance. Female orgasm may simply have been a result of random
>> >> >> mutation that continued because it's impact was also beneficial
>> >> >> although to a lesser degree. It seems likely that the selection took
>> >> >> hold long before the sex act was associated with procreation by the
>> >> >> participants.
>>
>> >> > why would you think that?

>> >> An interpretation of the evolutionary evidence?
>>
>> > could you explain in more detail?
>>
>> Read a book on evolution, then get back to us.
>
> i have read plenty,why would you assume i haven't.please get over you preconceptions.

Try reading for comprehension this time. You've already proven you don't
understand that evolution operates on populations, not individuals, which is
what they teach you day 1 at 9:01 in the morning in a course on evolution.

> I'm not here to give you an
>> education because you slept though it the first time.
>
> i've been trying to educate skeptics for years,its hard work,but some ones got to do it.

I can see why you've been failing; you don't understand the subject material.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIENaturalSelection.shtml

>> >> >> The creator god of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions is a male who
>> >> >> clearly directed women to be subservient to men.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > he is not male,he is Spirit.
>>
>> >> Not according to the Abrahamic religions who portray him as distinctly male.
>>
>> > you have misunderstood them,as i have said they are speaking
>> > metaphorically,you should not take the bible so literally,the bible makes it
>> > very clear God is not a man,but Spirit.??????
>>
>> Can you cite passages?
>
> i already did.Numbers 23:19.

And I already provided several other translations of that passage that make it
clean they mean God is not Human. That doesn't mean he's not MALE.

> And why should I take your word for it that they're
>> speaking metaphorically, when there's quite a number of people who advocate for
>> a literal interpretation of the bible?
>>
>> Personally, I don't think God is male OR female; I don't think God exists at
>> all.
>
> why should i take your word for God not existing?

I assert no such thing. There's a difference between me not believing that a
God exists, and me asserting that no God exists. I don't assert no God exists;
I can't prove a negative. What I *can* say is that, in light of the astounding
lack of evidence for God's existance, I don't believe theistic claims that a
God exists.

> to know such a thing you
> would have to search the entire universe+any other universe that exists,have
> you done this? only then can you be sure.

What, God hides behind Jupiter? Really?

>> > New International Version (ￜ1984)
>>
>> > God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? Numbers 23:19
>>
>>
>>
>> Your quote is wrong:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+23%3A19&version=NIV
>>
>>
>>
>> God is not HUMAN.
>>
>
> so you think he can be not human,but still be a man,think about it please.please learn to think.

I never said he was depicted as a MAN. I said he's depicted as MALE. Stop
moving the goalposts.

Are there male and female dogs? Are dogs men?

>> And that's just ONE of many translations. KJV:
>>
>> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2023:19&version=GNT
>>
>> God is not like PEOPLE.
>>
>> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2023:19&version=CEV
>>
>> God is no mere HUMAN.
>>
>> So pick your poison. You can make the bible say anything you want; just quote
>> whatever translation you like best. That's why it's useless as a way of
>> gaining knowledge.
>
> you can say that about any book,infact the meaning of words can be slightly
> different,but the translation makes no difference to the important beliefs
> that Christians have.

Christians are welcome to whatever they want to believe. So long as they don't
expect me to believe it, or assert it as if it was fact, we get along just
fine.

>> >> Of course, like many fables, there's no evidence of "him" existing at all.
>>
>> > so you say,what do you mean by evidence?
>>
>> No testable, verifiable, repeatable means by which we may ascertain "he"
>> exists.
>
>
> so anything that does not meet this test,you don't believe in?

Pretty much, yeah.

> it must make
> your life very hard to live if this is your standard for believing something.

Not really, no. It makes it rather easy to deal with; there's a bunch of stuff
I don't have to worry about anymore.

> i suspect this is your standard only when you don't want to believe in
> something.

Tell you what, why don't you name some thing you think I may believe in without
evidnce, and I'll tell you wether I do or don't.

>> >> > language breaks down when talking about God,he
>> >> > is so far beyond our experience that language cannot do him justice,when we
>> >> > use the word he we use it metaphorically,much in the same way as some one
>> >> > might refer to a car as a he or she.
>>
>> >> Well, you can talk whatever way you want about things that don't exist.
>>
>> > that is your belief,do you have any evidence to back it up though?
>>
>> Yup.
>>
>> 1) The complete lack of any testable, verifiable, repeatable evidence for God.
>
> you could say this about many things,the axioms or assumptions that science is based on for example.

Name a few. I can think of only 3:

1) That inference is a useful tool, though philosophically not guarenteed to be
valid.
2) That our senses, or their mechanical extentions, relay, within limits,
accurate information to us about the universe.
3) That reason can produce useful models of the universe.

Outside of that, Science doesn't really take anything for granted. And the
entire POINT of science is to find testable, verifiable, repeatable evidence
for things.

>> 2) The 2500+ year failure of theists to provide any such evidence.
>
> so you say,the evidence that you require is set high because you dont want to
> believe,you will believe many other things with out a scrap of evidence
> though.

Like what? What do you think I'll believe without a scrap of evidence? Name
some things.

>> 3) Studies undertaken showing intercessionary prayer does no good.
>
> God said do not test me,he was not asked to take part. you assume you can
> treat God like any other object or thing,another false premise.

How convenient for God that he added in the "do not test me" passage in "his"
"book". Makes it kind of hard to distinguish anything "he" does from random
chance, no?

>> 4) Scientific and archeological evidence that refutes many of the so-called
>> "miracles" in the bible.
>
> science does not rule out miracles,please provide this archeological evidence ?

No evidence of a biblical flood, no evidence of the exodus, earth much older
than 6000 years, etc.

>> 5) The failure of every logical argument brought forward for God's existance.
>
> this is your belief+you have no evidence for it.

Please name one logical argument that holds up. The ontological argument, etc,
have all been shown to have flaws.

>> 6) Science's resounding success of explaining large portions of phenomena that
>> used to be attributed to God, but we know recognize happen by naturalistic
>> phenomenon.
>
> science can never answer the ultimate questions like why are we here+who created the universe.

That's a pretty amazing assetion you make there, chock full of assumptions.
"Why we are here" implies purpose. "Who created the universe" implies agency.
And how do you know that at some point in the future science WON'T prove these
things, hmmm?

>> There's more, but that will do to go on.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > One male was allowed
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> as many wives as he could support. No such god would have made the sex
>>
>> >> >> act pleasurable for females as doing so could encourage promiscuity.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > the same could be said for men. its pleasurable for men also,so would be unfair for it not to be pleasurable for both sexes.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> Some Islamic sects continue to mutilate female children to brutally
>>
>> >> >> remove the sensitive tissues primarily responsible for female orgasm.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > yes Islam is a barbaric religion,
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> As is it's blood-sacrifice based sister religion, Christianity.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > you have no evidence for this,
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure I do. Was there not a sacrifice in Christianity? Is being Crucified not
>
>
> i was referring to christians being barbaric,that is a contradiction in terms.

*Cough* the crusades, *cough* the spanish inquisition's torture devices
*cough*.

>> Bloody? "This is my body, eat it in rememberance of me, this is my blood,
>> drink it in rememberance of me". Remember those bits?
>>
>> You *HAVE* actually read this book called "The Bible", haven't you?

*silence*

>> > in fact Jesus had the highest moral
>> > teaching.with out christians in the world,the world would be a much worse
>> > place,
>>
>> Says who? The Greeks were getting pretty tame towards the end, witness
>> Epicurianism.
>
> Epicureanism is a form of hedonism,so you think that getting pleasure is the
> higest moral virtue,even if that pleasure comes from torturing kids,you have
> a strange sense of morals.

Here's a page I wrote on Epicurus. Epicurus would have been appalled at
torturing kids.

http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:epicurus

>> > many christians all over the world help the poor+help their
>> > community.
>>
>> As do Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists; Christians don't have a lock on
>> being kind, you know.
>
> of course others do ,but they do it because they have to

On what do you base this assertion?

> christians don't ,God loves us anyway,our motives are different.

Praytell, what happens to you if you don't follow God's rules?

>> > and when i say Christians i mean those that actually follow
>> > Jesus,practicing Christians,not those who claim to be christians ,but do the
>> > opposite of everything Jesus stood for like loving your enemies+forgiving
>> > ppl.
>>
>>
>> Again with the "No true scotsman" fallacy.
>
> i have already debunked that,are you reading my posts? or just ignoring my arguments?

No you haven't. You've done no such thing. I refuted your "debunking".

>> >> > Jesus on the other hand said love your
>> >> > enemies,forgive your enemies,completly opposite of what many Muslims do.
>>
>> >> The God of the old testament wiped out the entire earth, supposedly. Seems
>> >> pretty blood thirsty to me.
>>
>> > God can do what ever he wants,he God,its very arrogant to question God.God
>> > gives+God takes away,thats fair,only he has the right to do that.
>>
>> Ah, so you're one of those "Whatever God does is right by definition" people.
>> Better hope your God doesn't decide that pedophilia is a "Good" thing.
>
> God is a God of love so he would never decide that.

But he did decide to wipe out all of earth's population, according to the
bible, including women and children and babies. On what, exactly, do you base
the assertion that God would NEVER do that, when God has:

1) Accepted Human Sacrifice.
2) Ordered the Genocide of entire races,
3) Killed off almost the entire earth's population.
4) Put a tree he didn't want Adam and Eve touching smack-dab in the middle of
the garden of Eden, then failed to keep an eye out for serpents.

He seems to swing between genocidal maniac, and incompetent administrator.
Pedophilia would be a step UP.

> Seems

> the reason God said kill the Canaanites was because they were sacrificing their own kids.

Ah, so of course, the way a loving, omnipotent, omniscient God deals with that
is... have them all killed?

>> >> > and
>> >> > so called Christians who claim to follow Jesus,but actaully go the other way.
>>
>> >> No True Scotsman fallacy.
>>
>> > this is not a good comparison.a Scotsman are not by definition a good
>> > person,they are the same as any other nation,they have good+bad ppl. a
>> > Christian by definition is a follower of Jesus.
>>
>> Correct. That doesn't mean he's necessarily a Good Person, though.
>
> how can you not be a good person if you follow Jesus teaching,loving others,loving your enemies,feeding the poor,turning the other cheek.

Jesus said lots of other things too, though:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

>> > any one who follows Jesus
>> > loves their enemies,forgives their enemies,as Jesus said you will no them by
>> > their fruits. just because some one says I'm a Christian does not make them
>> > one.you should not believe everything ppl claim to be my friend.
>>
>> I don't. That's why I don't believe in God.
>
> you don't believe in God because you ignore the evidence. life makes no sense
> with out God,if he did not exist you would have to invent him to make sense
> of life.

What evidence? Present it here:

--
(` |) | No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking
_) |) | into account not only the world as it is, but the world
a.a #2171 | as it will be. -- Isaac Asimov

[Dakota]

On 3/10/2013 12:51 PM, Maggsy wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 March 2013 06:31:36 UTC, Dakota wrote:
>> On 3/9/2013 12:51 PM, Maggsy wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, 2 November 2012 07:00:37 UTC, Florian Kutscherauer wrote:
>>
>>>> Waldo Tunnel wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> ... evolutionarily speaking.
>>
>>>>
>>

>>>> If you're still asking �why,� you apparently don't understand evolution.

>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> You could also ask why do we have five fingers (as opposed to four or
>>>> six) or anything thelike. But you'll never find a satisfying answer --
>>>> other than just-so stories, that is.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> The theory of evolution tells us that there is no planing or reasoning
>>>> involved -- that would be Intelligent Design (which we all know us
>>>> crap).
>>
>>> speak for yourself. evolution also tells us that life has no real meaning,its irrational+has no real purpose,these are just a few of the problems with it. in fact it creates far more questions than it answers.what makes me laugh is that those who believe in evolution act like they live in a rational universe,going against their own belief,skeptics like to think of them selves as rational + superior to christians.from my experience of talking to them,this is a myth.
>>
>> Evolution doesn't tell us that life has no meaning or purpose.

>> Evolution is an >> unguided process with no goals, no ability to

predict, and no means of
>> conveying meaning or purpose.
>
>
> so you start by saying Evolution doesn't tell us that life has no meaning or purpose+end by saying and end Evolution has no means of
> conveying meaning or purpose.you have contradicted yourself.
>

I posted that evolution doesn't tell us anything because it has no way
of telling us anything.

What is your first language?

>>
>>
>> It would really be better if you actually learned what the theory of
>> evolution is before exposing your ignorance for all to see.

>
> not this old chestnut again,why do you guys all say the same rubbish+then you accuse us of being brainwashed,hehe.
>

>> Creationists may have given you a distorted and inaccurate impression
>> of what evolution is.
>
> tell me then what do you think i think evolution is? i have not even said what i think it is,so are you a mind reader now?hehe
>
>

No mind reading necessary. I just looked at what you posted. It
clearly demonstrates that you have a lack of basic understanding of
the theory of evolution.

Here it is again:

evolution also tells us that life has no real meaning,its
irrational+has no real purpose,these are just a few of the problems
with it. in fact it creates far more questions than it answers.what
makes me laugh is that those who believe in evolution act like they
live in a rational universe,going against their own belief,skeptics
like to think of them selves as rational + superior to christians.from
my experience of talking to them,this is a myth.
>>
>>

>>>> In fact, it shows that there is no need for any reasons or plans.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> That's probably the part that is hardest to get about evolution. There

>>>> is no need for any �why.� Things just happen; without reason. There is

>>>> no goal to reach or expectation to satisfy.
>>
>>>
>>
>> I agree with that except for the part about things happening without
>> reason. While it's true that some changes are the result of random
>> mutations, for organisms that reproduce sexually, there is always a
>> difference between parent and offspring. This variation and that
>> caused by random mutations may have an effect on the ability of the
>> organism to reproduce it their environment. Those with changes that
>> enhance that ability are passed down in greater numbers than those
>> with changes that do not enhance that ability.
>>
>>
>>
>> Variability is the reason evolution works. Natural selection is the
>> process by which it works.
>
> i'm not using the word reason in that way,i mean there is no intrinsic reason for anything,to do anything if evolution is true. there would be no why,no reason to survive ,no reason to pass on your genes,why would you want to? life would be meaningless,you can make it mean what ever you want it to mean,thats nonsense.
>

Please explain what you mean by 'intrinsic reason'. To what exactly it
it intrinsic? (I've posted a definition of intrinsic below.)

in�trin�sic

adjective
1. belonging to a thing by its very nature: the intrinsic value of a
gold ring.

>>
>>
>>> no why? this is nonsense. why do you get out of bed in a morning? with out a why there is no reason to do anything,no reason to do nothing,no reason for you to write on this group,no reason for you to believe what you believe,no reason to have morals. your beliefs debunk themselves,think about it.
>>
>> I'm so glad you asked that. Just as our evolved brains are very quick
>> to recognize patterns, they are also well adapted to seeing purpose.
>> Those patterns and/or purposes don't always match reality, but do so
>> far more often than not. By assigning purpose to much of what we see
>> and do, our brains greatly increased our ability to reproduce when
>> compared to those who lack those abilities. A person unable to
>> recognize patterns or who had no sense of purpose would have a very
>> difficult time finding a mate.
>
>
> animals do it well enough,what purpose do you think insects have when they are mating+eating? what are they thinking? what purpose does an animal have when its killing its prey,what is going through its brain,i'm hungry i want to eat?
>

The point is that people have evolved to see meaning and purpose to
life though it is purely subjective. Those who are unable to do so are
considered mentally ill and are less likely to pass on their genes.

Most animals are primarily guided by evolved instincts. Humans and
other higher animals have learned to relate actions to rewards and to
work out ways of solving problems. And, yes. When an predatory animal
is hungry, it will seek, chase, kill, and gorge itself on it's prey.
When it's not hungry it won't. Some animals have evolved highly
developed skills for doing so. Cats have evolved stealth, speed, and
agility. Eagles, owls, and hawks, among other beasts, have evolved
excellent vision. Wolves and dolphins are among the animals that have
evolved to hunt in groups.

Prey animals have also evolved special traits and skills that make
them more difficult targets for the predators. Excellent hearing is
one such skill. Speed and agility are common as is camouflage.
Porcupines and skunks have interesting ways of discouraging predators.
Armadillos make it difficult for predators to access the soft parts.
Opossums have evolved to 'play dead' as a defense mechanism. It works
because many predators have evolved to prefer fresh kills.

Animals, insects, plants, fungi, bacteria, and all other organisms
reached the level they are today through a succession of generation
after generation passing along the genes of those best adapted to
their environments. As environments changed over millions of years,
the adaptations that were successful in the past were gradually
replaced by those better adapted for the new environments. Those
adaptations that were were neither beneficial nor harmful tended to
stick around. This explains, for example, why whales, which have no
external hind limbs, do have skeletal remnant of a pelvic cradle and
hind limbs. Evolution explains those remnants far better than does an
intelligent design theory. After all, why would an intelligent
designer include worthless parts?

>
>> Therefore, such persons are far less
>>
>> likely to pass that deficiency along to future generations.
>>
>>
>>
>> In other word, we have purpose in our lives because having purpose
>>
>> conveys reproductive advantages. It works.
>
>
>
>
> i'm talking about intrinsic purpose,not a subjective purpose.for some ppl their purpose in life is to rape kids+torture them,that gives them purpose,do you think thats ok? i mean according to evolution it most serve some purpose or why has it not died out by now,animals don't do it,only humans.
>

Aha. You've expanded upon the 'intrinsic' theme. Now we have intrinsic
reason and intrinsic purpose. I asked above what you mean by intrinsic
reason and to what it is intrinsic. I ask now those same questions
about intrinsic purpose.

I keenly await your response.

>
>>>>> http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/b0f049bc-e553-11e1-
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> b758-00144feab49a.html#axzz23ssL9tLw
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Apparently I'm not the only one struggling with letting go of the notion
>>

>>>> that there must be reasons (like this: �in order to reach a certain goal
>>
>>>> ... is required, so evolution �created� it�) involved -- probably a

[Dakota]

A troll is also a poster whose primary purpose is the continuation of
a thread. This is often done by evading questions when responding to
posts.

[Dakota]

> introducing a new minimum income threshold of �18,600 for sponsoring the settlement in the UK of a spouse or partner, or fianc�(e) or proposed civil partner of non-European Economic Area (EEA) nationality, with a higher threshold for any children also sponsored; �22,400 for one child and an additional �2,400 for each further child;

> publishing, in casework guidance, a list of factors associated with genuine and non-genuine relationships, to help UK Border Agency caseworkers to focus on these issues;
> extending the minimum probationary period for settlement for non-EEA spouses and partners from two years to five years, to test the genuineness of the relationship;
> abolishing immediate settlement for the migrant spouses and partner where a couple have been living together overseas for at least 4 years, and requiring them to complete a 5 year probationary period;
> from October 2013, requiring all applicants for settlement to pass the Life in the UK Test and present an English language speaking and listening qualification at B1 level or above of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages unless they are exempt; and
> allowing adult and elderly dependants to settle in the UK only where they can demonstrate that, as a result of age, illness or disability, they require a level of long-term personal care that can only be provided by a relative in the UK, and requiring them to apply from overseas rather than switch in the UK from another category, for example as a visitor.
>
> The changes to the Immigration Rules were announced by the Government on 11 June 2012 and they form part of the Government's programme of reform of the immigration routes. The changes are being introduced following wide consultation and expert advice from the Migration Advisory Committee.
>
> A more detailed summary of the changes can be found in the UK Border Agency news story published on 13 June 2012.
>

I didn't know any of that. Thanks.

I do have two questions though. How long have you been married? Would
she have been eligible under the earlier rules?

[Burkhard]

On 9 Mar, 20:25, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 November 2012 18:59:25 UTC, WangoTango  wrote:

> > In article <hlwdjsd2-C4A610.18302102112...@news.giganews.com>, hlwdjsd2
>
> > @NOSPAMgmail.com says...
>
> > > In article <0ot798h8b1sthidj2bi2d6fbu5hu6ad...@4ax.com>,

>
> > >  Robert Parker <robpar1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 08:00:37 +0100 (CET), Florian Kutscherauer
>

Yes, I'd agree with that. A very balanced evaluation of the evidence
is by Puts, Dawood and Welling, "Why women have orgasms: an
evolutionary analysis", Arch Sex Behav. 2012 Oct;41(5):1127-43.

There are two competing approaches - one sees the female orgasm as
adaptive, and one group within this are "mate bonding theories" like
the one proposed by Wango above. The other group sees it as a mere
neutral byproduct that doesn't have a direct evolutionary function.
So the male orgasm is adaptive , because it encourages man to spread
their seeds. Now, man and woman are born with pretty much the same
anatomical structure, and the genitals are undifferentiated until
about month 2 after conception. So because male and female genitals
are developed out of the same structure, women "piggy back" on that
part of the structure whose evolutionary benefits only apply to males.
(the same with male nipples, just the other way round) A good
exposition of this theory is Elisabeth A. Lloyd's "The Case of the
Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution ".

Things get further complicated when we deal with humans, and their
ability to make intentional choices, especially for the mate bonding
theory. Kaighobadi F, Shackelford TK, Weekes-Shackelford VA.Do women
pretend orgasm to retain a mate? Arch Sex Behav. for instance argues
that there is evidence that shows that even faked orgasms lead to
increased offspring in the log run, which on the one hand is evidence
for the mate choice theory, but woudl require a much more complex one
when you come to the details.

One argument for the byproduct theory is the high degree of
variability of female orgasms between woman, and also its relative
rarity. If there were strong elective pressure, you'd expect a much
more levelled distribution. personally, I tend to favour the byproduct
theory, with maybe weak selective pressures. Unfortunately, a recent
study claims to have found strong evidence against this approach,
though a sibling study:

Zietsch, Brendan P., and Pekka Santtila. "Genetic analysis of orgasmic
function in twins and siblings does not support the by-product theory
of female orgasm." Animal Behaviour 82.5 (2011): 1097-1101.

I remain unconvinced though, as I just can't see how give the
methodology they have chosen, they can possibly come to the results
they claim

Whatever the answer though, asking the question through an
evolutionary framework has already yielded massive new insights into
human anatomy, genetics and several sexual illnesses (with the
potential for better interventions), as a "by product" so to speak.
Scientific theories generally are only as good as the next good
question they allow us to ask, and the ToE, applied to the issue of
female orgasms, has come up with quite a yield.

>there are many factors that lead to which men have more sexual partners. some men simply don't want them+are happy with their wife.some men +women don't even have any desire to have sex,these of course >should have died out long ago if evolution were true.

Why on earth would that be the case? First, it assumes that sexual
dysfunctions are all or mainly genetic. That is obviously wrong. In a
large number of cases, disinterest in sex will be caused by
environmental factors, not genetics (ranging from psychological trauma
to exposure to hormones in our drinking water).

Second, the mere fact that a trait is under negative selective
pressure does not mean it will disappear entirely - if that were the
case, there would be no genetic illnesses. Rather, it depends on the
degree of pressure, and the amount of drift. What the ToE rules out is
only that the trait increases or becomes dominant - simple example,
though a bit misleading as not genetic in origin, are the Shakers, who
died out pretty quickly and never became a serious player in the field
of religious groups, due to them not reproducing.

In the case of abstinence from reproductive sex, the situation is even
more complicated than say in lethal genetic diseases (which also do
not entirely disappear) Here, there is a potential secondary
benefit, since we can often observe people without offspring investing
time and resources in supporting the children of their siblings or
other close relatives. That also increases chances of their genes,
albeit indirectly, to be passed on - especially in situations of
scarcity of resources.

>all animals want to have sex+will do with male+female,only some humans don't want to have sex,this again makes us unique+different from animals that some assert we are.

Ehhh., no? First, if at all then humans are more, not less interested
in sex than many other animals - we are fertile all year round, which
especially amongst mammals is the exception rather than the norm. and
of course there are lots of animals that also for various reasons are
not into sex - which is why any good cattle breeder will take out up
to hundreds of thousands pounds worth of insurance when buying a new
bull for breeding, in case it is not interested in lady cows.

The reasons for not wanting sex are almost as diverse as amongst
humans, from genetic conditions to environmental influences such as
hormone exposure.
Here a few studies:
Seethalakshmi, L., M. Menon, and D. Diamond. "The effect of
streptozotocin-induced diabetes on the neuroendocrine-male
reproductive tract axis of the adult rat." The Journal of urology
138.1 (1987): 190.
2103-2109.
Bakaricioglu, M.E. et al. "The effect of adeno-associated virus
mediated brain derived neurotrophic factor in an animal model of
neurogenic impotence." The Journal of urology 165.6 (2001): 2103-2109.
Ashdown, R. R., S. W. Barnett, and G. Ardalani. "Impotence in the boar
2: Clinical and anatomical studies on impotent boars." Veterinary
Record 110.15 (1982): 349-356.

The one thing other animals do not do (as far as we know) is to make a
conscious decision not to have sex, for some sort of ideological,
political, ethical etc reason.

[Burkhard]

On 9 Mar, 18:51, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Friday, 2 November 2012 07:00:37 UTC, Florian Kutscherauer  wrote:
> > Waldo Tunnel wrote:
>
> > > ... evolutionarily speaking.
>

> > If you're still asking “why,” you apparently don't understand evolution.

>
> > You could also ask why do we have five fingers (as opposed to four or
>
> > six) or anything thelike.  But you'll never find a satisfying answer --
>
> > other than just-so stories, that is.
>
> > The theory of evolution tells us that there is no planing or reasoning
>
> > involved -- that would be Intelligent Design (which we all know us
>
> > crap).
>

> speak for yourself. evolution also tells us that life has no real meaning,its irrational+has no real purpose,

Really? Where does the ToE opine about "meaning"? That is pretty much
outside its remit, just as it is outside the remit of the theory of
particle mechanics, the theory of ideal gases, set theory or
electromagnetic theory


>these are just a few of the problems with it. in fact it creates far more questions than it answers.what makes me laugh is that those who believe in evolution act like they live in a rational universe,

Not sure what you mean with "rational" universe. If you think of the
universe itself as a rational agent that does things, well, that is a
metaphysical belief out with the remit of evolutionary biology. If you
mean with "intelligible", then the ToE is of course a prime example
that it is intelligible - it is one more way in which we managed to
make sense of a vast amount of (biological) data, so no contradiction
there at all.

>going against their own >belief,skeptics like to think of them selves as rational + superior to christians.from my experience of talking to them,this is a myth.
>
>
>

> > In fact, it shows that there is no need for any reasons or plans.
>
> > That's probably the part that is hardest to get about evolution.  There
>

> > is no need for any “why.”  Things just happen; without reason.  There is

>
> > no goal to reach or expectation to satisfy.
>

> no why? this is nonsense. why do you get out of bed in a morning?

For all sorts of reasons, some of them have evolutionary roots (I tend
to be hungry in the morning, for instance) others don't. What I don;t
do is to think carefully why in bed: what sort of reason does the ToE
give me to stand up - or the theory of gravity for that matter, and
the theory of quantum electrodynamics also does not figure in my
deliberative process.


>with out a why there is no reason to do anything,no reason to do nothing,no reason for you to write on this group,no reason for you to believe what >you believe,no reason to have morals. your beliefs debunk themselves,think about it.

Possibly, but no reason why one should expect a scientific theory to
supply these answers.

>
> > >http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/b0f049bc-e553-11e1-
>
> > b758-00144feab49a.html#axzz23ssL9tLw
>
> > Apparently I'm not the only one struggling with letting go of the notion
>

> > that there must be reasons (like this: “in order to reach a certain goal
>
> > ... is required, so evolution ‘created’ it”) involved -- probably a

>
> > residue of the Christian doctrines I was raised with.
>

> > --

[Maggsy]

On Sunday, 10 March 2013 20:05:07 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, 10 March 2013 17:03:06 UTC, Dakota wrote:
>
> >> On 3/10/2013 8:09 AM, Maggsy wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > On Sunday, 10 March 2013 00:27:37 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> <snip for brevity>
>
>
>
> >> > my wife is a Filipina,they will not give her a visa because i don't earn enough,even though EU immigrants can bring their family to the UK,they have more rights than i do a British citizen in my own country.and now the UK government plan to scrap the human right laws,this is the UK in the 21st century.http://news.sky.com/story/1062593/qatada-may-pledges-to-scrap-human-rights-act
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> I suspect that your earnings are not the reason the visa has not been
>
> >> granted. Did they specify a statute or cite the policy that has
>
> >> blocked the visa? If so, please post a link to it. Thank you.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > we have not applied for the visa,because we know we will be refused,you are not aware that the immigration rules were changed last July for Non Europeans coming to the UK. no many ppl know this.
>
>
>
> Dude, if you haven't applied for the visa, how do you know they won't GIVE her

because i know the rules,i posted a link and the rules,you did not read.

>
> one?
>
>
>
> Maggsy: "They won't give my wife a visa"
>
> Dakota: "Under what policy?"
>
> Maggsy: "We didn't actually apply"
>
>
>
> *rolls eyes*

why are you rolling your eyes,you don't have a clue about the situation.it costs £900 to apply for the visa,you don't pay that kind of money when you know you will be refused,that would be crazy.

[Burkhard]

On 10 Mar, 17:51, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 March 2013 06:31:36 UTC, Dakota  wrote:
> > On 3/9/2013 12:51 PM, Maggsy wrote:
>
> > > On Friday, 2 November 2012 07:00:37 UTC, Florian Kutscherauer  wrote:
>
> > >> Waldo Tunnel wrote:
>
> > >>> ... evolutionarily speaking.
>
> > >> If you're still asking “why,” you apparently don't understand evolution.
>
> > >> You could also ask why do we have five fingers (as opposed to four or
>
> > >> six) or anything thelike.  But you'll never find a satisfying answer --
>
> > >> other than just-so stories, that is.
>
> > >> The theory of evolution tells us that there is no planing or reasoning
>
> > >> involved -- that would be Intelligent Design (which we all know us
>
> > >> crap).
>
> > > speak for yourself. evolution also tells us that life has no real meaning,its irrational+has no real purpose,these are just a few of the problems with it. in fact it creates far more questions than it answers.what makes me laugh is that those who believe in evolution act like they live in a rational universe,going against their own belief,skeptics like to think of them selves as rational + superior to christians.from my experience of talking to them,this is a myth.
>
> > Evolution doesn't tell us that life has no meaning or purpose.
>
> > Evolution doesn't tell us anything at all. Evolution is an simple,
>
> > unguided process with no goals, no ability to predict, and no means of
>
> > conveying meaning or purpose.
>
> so you start by saying Evolution doesn't tell us that life has no meaning or purpose+end by saying  and end Evolution has no means of
>
>  conveying meaning or purpose.you have contradicted yourself.
>
>

No contradiction there, the two phrases have a different scope of the
negation.
The first sentence says: Evolution does not tell us life has no
purpose - but not because it says life has a purpose, but because it
says nothing about purposes at all. .The
second sentence repeats this claim.

This ambiguity in the negation was btw first described by Bertrand
Russel, so maybe of interest to this group. He uses the example
sentence: The present King of France is not bald.
This can mean either that he has hair, or that the sentence is wrong
because there is no King of France. The first is a case of strong
negation with narrow scope, the second weak negation with wide scope.

The evolution example is the same: it is a weak negation It does not
tell us life has no purpose, because it does not talk about purposes
at all, neither positively nor negatively.

[Dakota]

On 3/11/2013 1:20 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> On 10 Mar, 17:51, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, 10 March 2013 06:31:36 UTC, Dakota wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2013 12:51 PM, Maggsy wrote:
>>
>>>> On Friday, 2 November 2012 07:00:37 UTC, Florian Kutscherauer wrote:
>>
>>>>> Waldo Tunnel wrote:
>>
>>>>>> ... evolutionarily speaking.
>>

>>>>> If you're still asking �why,� you apparently don't understand evolution.

You've correctly sussed out my intent and educated me about it as
well. I had never heard of the strong and weak negations explanation.
Thanks.

[sbalneav]

Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 March 2013 20:05:07 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
>> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sunday, 10 March 2013 17:03:06 UTC, Dakota wrote:
>>
>> >> On 3/10/2013 8:09 AM, Maggsy wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > On Sunday, 10 March 2013 00:27:37 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> <snip for brevity>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > my wife is a Filipina,they will not give her a visa because i don't earn enough,even though EU immigrants can bring their family to the UK,they have more rights than i do a British citizen in my own country.and now the UK government plan to scrap the human right laws,this is the UK in the 21st century.http://news.sky.com/story/1062593/qatada-may-pledges-to-scrap-human-rights-act
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> I suspect that your earnings are not the reason the visa has not been
>>
>> >> granted. Did they specify a statute or cite the policy that has
>>
>> >> blocked the visa? If so, please post a link to it. Thank you.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > we have not applied for the visa,because we know we will be refused,you are not aware that the immigration rules were changed last July for Non Europeans coming to the UK. no many ppl know this.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dude, if you haven't applied for the visa, how do you know they won't GIVE her
>
>
> because i know the rules,i posted a link and the rules,you did not read.

Dude, in real life, I *work* for a government agency. Exceptions to rules are
made ALL THE TIME, if there's a reason to do so. Until you actually apply, you
don't know if they'll reject you or not.

Government regulations are a guideline, they're not cast in stone. And any
government agency usually has several levels of appeals if you get rejected the
first time.

You have to *try*, dude. If you just read the regs and conclude "I won't get
it", you won't get half of what you could get. You're a taxpayer, man! Get
your monies worth and APPLY.

>> one?
>>
>>
>>
>> Maggsy: "They won't give my wife a visa"
>>
>> Dakota: "Under what policy?"
>>
>> Maggsy: "We didn't actually apply"
>>
>>
>>
>> *rolls eyes*

> why are you rolling your eyes,you don't have a clue about the situation.it costs ￜ900 to apply for the visa,you don't pay that kind of money when you know you will be refused,that would be crazy.

Here in Canada, at least, they'll waive application fees for low income people
if you can show that the separation is causing hardship. But that aside, she's
your *wife*. Isn't she worth 900 GBP to *try*?

And, also, bluntly, YOU are the one who brought up how the governments screwing
you around in a public newsgroup. If you don't want constructive criticism,
don't bring the topic up.

--
(` |) | Nothing sickens me more than the closed door of a library.
_) |) | -- Barbara Tuchman
a.a #2171 |

[Burkhard]

On 10 Mar, 17:35, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>

>
> > > in fact it creates far more questions than it answers.
>
> > Name one.  Just one.
>
> 1  if evolution is true then as i have already said everything is random,we are only here now because the dinosaurs got wiped out by a random event like an asteroid hitting the earth.
>
> 2  if evolution is true and( there are more than one theory,the experts can't agree. we have  punctuated equilibrium.or Theistic evolution or quantum evolution.)

That is a bit of an odd ensemble. Punctuated equilibrium is just a
disagreement about details of the type that you find in all sciences
- that's why there is research, to fill in gaps and to decide between
theories that at a given point are equally well supported. Both
Gould's model and the mainstream are clearly darwinian theories of
evolution. Both even agree that almost all evolution, including
punctuations, is gradual in ordinary terms; that is, changes happen
through multiple
alleles spreading through a population, not in any sort of saltation,
an dtales at least tens of thousands of years. The disagreement is
merely about the role of "coadapted gene complexes" - for Mayr (and
following him Gould) they play a crucial role in almost all sepciation
events and explain the discontintinuity in the fossil record, for most
biologists, the discontinuity is simply the result of sampling and
coadaped genes play rarely a role. The issue has been settled pretty
much for the mainsteram, once more genetic data came in, though there
are some valid examples of punctuated speciation,
- all forms of polyploid speciation, there's Stephanomeria
malheurensis, which seems to be a descent candidate for peripatric
speciation, and Verne Grant gives a few other candidates in Gilia and/
or Clarkia.

To use an analogy you may find helpful, the difference between
punktuated equilibrium and mainstream theory of evolution are if
anything less wide than the disagreement between different forms of
protestant christianity about the legitimacy of singing in church -
and unlike these there is a pretty clear idea what sort of evidence
decides who is right.

Theistic evolution: that is not a competitor theory to the theory of
evolution, that is the term for a whole range of metaphysical
interpretations of the ToE. Just as different theories of science will
give the same scientific theories (all theories, not just biological
ones) different philosophical interpretations, even though they are
talking about the same theories, with the same empirical content.
Theists of different hues may interpret the ToE as the way their
preferred deitie(s) created species diversity, as long as the
empirical content of the theory remains the same, it is simply the
theory of evolution.

Quantum evolution: That's a term coined by Gaylord Simpson in the 40s,
and if anything even more "orthodox" than the PE notion of his student
Gould, whom he influenced. In many ways, it anticipated the neutral
theories of today, but before there was sufficient genetic data to
really understand what was going on. Hence his by now disproven notion
that speciation happens mainly in small populations. So again not an
alternative to the theory of evolution, simply a hypothesis regarding
one detail, which has been largely incorporated, and parts of it
rejected when the data disproved it. That's how sciences generally
progresses.

>then why do we have ppl who have no desire to live or survive.

Why not? Do we have reasons to believe their desire to die is genetic
and inherited? If not, then it is really not an issue for the ToE.
There are lots of traits we have that are not genetic. And even if it
were, yes, the ToE is perfectly consistent with genetic illnesses, as
long as the selective pressure is offset by drift.

>why do we have ppl who have no desire to pass on their genes,these kind of ppl should have died out long ago. you do not see these desires in the animal kingdom + they are supposed to be lower than us.

Eh, "lower" is not a term a biologist would use, that is premodern
thinking. And if at all, peope withno desire to pass on thier genes
woudl only be an issue if this desire was itself based on genes (no
real evidence for this) and yes, we find sterility impotence and
general disinterest to procreate also amongst other animals - always
though in percentages low enough to not jeopardise the survival of the
species.

>
>>
> > > what makes me laugh is
>
> > > that those who believe in evolution act like they live in a rational
>
> > > universe,
>
> > Straw man.  We don't live in a RATIONAL universe, we live in a universe that
>
> > has some physical LAWS.  There's a difference.
>
> so these laws are not rational then,if that was so they could not be understood. science is based on the assumption that >we live in a rational universe.and if we don't live in a rational universe as you assert then why do you claim that ppl like you >are rational,nothing in this universe is rational according to you+that includes you.

Some vinaigrette with this word salad? All this seems to be based on
equivocation of the term "rational"

>
>
> > > going against their own belief,skeptics like to think of them selves
>
> > > as rational + superior to christians.from my experience of talking to
>
> > > them,this is a myth.
>
> > If your reasoning in these series of posts is anything to go by, your
>
> > experience and 25 cents will buy me a cup of coffee in the canteen.
>
> ^roughly translated i don't know how to respond to what i  said.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> In fact, it shows that there is no need for any reasons or plans.
>
> > >> That's probably the part that is hardest to get about evolution.  There
>
> > >> is no need for any ???why.???  Things just happen; without reason.  There is
>
> > >> no goal to reach or expectation to satisfy.
>
> > > no why? this is nonsense. why do you get out of bed in a morning?
>
> > Because I am not the natural process of evolution.  I am an individual human
>
> you are a product of evolution according to you.living in an irrational universe,with no intrinsic purpose,you have no reason to do anything.

"Irrational universe", what ever that means, does not imply "without
intrinsic purpose", and lack of intrinsic purpose (whatever that may
mean) does not imply lack of personal purpose. Why should I only be
able to act on purposes external to me, that are imposed on me rather
than self-created and chosen by me?

> > being who has goals he has laid out for himself, and if I don't get out of bed,
>
> > I don't accomplish them.
>
> these goals are random goals they are a product of your back ground of random mutations over millions of years,everything you do ,say+think was caused by a random irrational universe according to you.

Even if we assumed this were true (does not follow from the ToE, see
above, theistic evolution ) why would it have any implications for how
I see myself?

<snip more cod metaphysics withou bearing on the ToE>

[Maggsy]

translation in English please?

>
>
>
>
>
> snip
>
>
>
> >> >> The creator god of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions is a male
>
> >> >> who
>
> >> >> clearly directed women to be subservient to men.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > he is not male,he is Spirit.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Not according to the Abrahamic religions who portray him as
>
> >> distinctly male.
>
>
>
>
>
> > you have misunderstood them,as i have said they are speaking
>
>
>
> In spite, or to spite, your wishes, you are the confused one here.
>
>
>
> > metaphorically,you should not take the bible so literally,the bible
>
>
>
> The evidence provided by the verses say otherwise. Not evidence of
>
> validity, evidence of concept. To be blunt, there was no practical choice
>
> if men were to become rulers & powermongers. The mother goddessess had to
>
> go, & that included their stature as equal to or superior to the gods.
>

you have no evidence for these baseless assertions.

>
>
> > makes it very clear God is not a man,but Spirit.�-��-�
>
>
>
> It's ambigious. He can be either.

he can take the form of a man,yes,he has done before.

>
>
>
>
>
> > New International Version (©1984)
>
>
>
> Whyy that one, what makes it better or more accurate than any of the other
>
> 100 plus anthologies. Such as the following.

its not more accurate,no bible translation is 100% correct,but it does not have to be,it changes no major doctrine,its not like one traslation says Jesus rose from the dead+another translates it he didn't.you are making mountains out of molehills.

where has he lied?

>
>
>
> > change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and
>
> > not fulfill? Numbers 23:19
>
>
>
> All ewrrors of course. Do you remember the flood, there have been floods.
>
> Not like the one that is a no show,

what are you trying to say?

so that is a lie. Do you remember Jonah
>
> & the lie told there.

so you say,prove it?

As well as the change of mind? Why not, or are
>
> those, according to you, metaphors?

it was Jonah that changed his mind+the ppl of
Nineveh,not God,you badly mistaken.

Failed prophesy is what they are,
>
> among other things.

the prophecy was conditional on them repenting ,they did,so the judgemnet did not come,God is not unjust.you have alot to learn my friend.

>
>
>
>
>
> >> Of course, like many fables, there's no evidence of "him" existing at
>
> >> all
>
>
>
> > so you say,what do you mean by evidence?
>
>
>
> No, so the evidence says. true, the concept is not agreeable to you, so
>
> you lok for alternate definitiopns that stroke your ego.

what are you babbling about,i asled you for your definition of evidence,you as usual ignored my question.stop wasting my time.

But evidence does
>
> not change. A dead skunk in the middle of the road does not become a dead
>
> lawyer just because someone wants the carcass to be ran over.

ha?

>
>
>
> >> > language breaks down when talking about God,he
>
> >> > is so far beyond our experience that language cannot do him
>
> >> > justice,when we use the word he we use it metaphorically,much in the
>
> same way as some one might refer to a car as a he or she.
>
>
>
> It's called anthromorphication & is done to humanise things, whether they
>
> are real or not.
>
>
>
> >> Well, you can talk whatever way you want about things that don't
>
> >> exist.
>
>
>
> <Cliff>True dat</Cliff>
>
>
>
>
>
> > that is your belief,do you have any evidence to back it up though?
>
>
>
> That you can accept, probably not. But then, when one's theme song for
>
> life is the equivalent of once upon a time evidence is of no matter. Close
>
> your eyes & it goes away.

is English your first language? or are you deliberately trying to confuse because you have nothing to say?

>
>
>
> >> > One male was allowed as many wives as he could support. No such god
>
> would have made the sex act pleasurable for females as doing so could
>
> encourage promiscuity.
>
>
>
> Which is reserved for males?

of course not.

>
>
>
> >> > the same could be said for men. its pleasurable for men also,so
>
> >> > would be unfair for it not to be pleasurable for both sexes.
>
>
>
> The senior revealed god of the desert is not noted for being fair to
>
> haumainty according to its an thology.

so you say,as usual you have no evidence for your inane assertion.

>
>
>
> >> >> Some Islamic sects continue to mutilate female children to
>
> >> >> brutally remove the sensitive tissues primarily responsible for
>
> female orgasm.
>
>
>
> >> > yes Islam is a barbaric religion,
>
>
>
> As is Judaism & xianity. Same god you see. Just confusion about the name.

you are the one who is confused,the God i believe in very different from the Muslim God,Muslims dont believe Jesus was God for starters.you really need to read up on what christians and Muslims believe,you will not make yourself look so foolish then,hth.

>
>
>
> >> As is it's blood-sacrifice based sister religion, Christianity.
>
>
>
>
>
> > you have no evidence for this,in fact Jesus had the highest moral
>
>
>
> But we do, or as much evidence for that as you have for bubba & big daddy,
>
> llc. One piece of evidence is the history of xianity, which is as bloody
>
> as Islam ever was.

you should not believe every one that claims to be a christian is actaully a christian,this is your first mistake,as Jesus said,you will know them by their fruits.

>
>
>
> > teaching.with out christians in the world,the world would be a much
>
> > worse place,many christians all over the world help the poor+help
>
>
>
> Right, pull the other one. Around here, if you need food you had best join
>
> the church or forget it.
>
>
>
> > their community.and when i say Christians i mean those that actually
>
> > follow Jesus,practicing Christians,not those who claim to be
>
>
>
> Ah, Angus, can you hear the bagpipes playing Auld Lang Syne, or would that
>
> be
>
> http://caber-records.com/music/.

this is bad comparison,scots can be bad ppl.christians are followers of Jesus,if they are following jesus then they do not kill,torture or do evil things that some have done in Gods name,by definition these are not christians,they are actaully anti christs because they do the opposite of what Jesus said to do,they are not following Jesus.

Either way, that is a judgement saved for
>
> bubba & big daddy. After Adam screens them of course.

you do have a gift for talking bollocks+no thats not a compliment,i do know how your ilk have a gift for misunderstanding folk like me.

>
>
>
> > christians ,but do the opposite of everything Jesus stood for like
>
> > loving your enemies+forgiving ppl.
>
>
>
> Sigh, the romance of ancient lore, never mind what was taught, or when.

yet more nonsense,care to translate. probably not.

>
>
>
> >> > Jesus on the other hand said love your
>
> >> > enemies,forgive your enemies,completly opposite of what many
>
> >> > Muslims do.
>
>
>
> A trait not exclusive to xians, or Islamics.

provide evidence of others doing this?

>
>
>
> >> The God of the old testament wiped out the entire earth, supposedly.
>
> >> Seems
>
> >> pretty blood thirsty to me.
>
>
>
> > God can do what ever he wants,he God,its very arrogant to question
>
>
>
> IOW, might makes right. Thank you, you may turn in your pop quiz to the
>
> hall monitor on your way out.

another nonsense answer,why bother posting if your answers make no sense,is it because you believe we live in a nonsense universe?

>
>
>
> > God.God gives+God takes away,thats fair,only he has the right to do
>
> > that.
>
>
>
> According to spineless individuals, who you seem to associate yourself
>
> with.

spineless? christians are not spineless,many christains have great courage.like those who are being killed in North Korea by your fellow atheist who no doubt have the same mentality as you do+show the same hate for Christians that you do,those are the spineless individuals.

But then, that makes sense when you recall the gods were invented in
>
> mans image, for the sole puirpose of control over others.

again you have no evidence for this belief.

At least, that
>
> is the message from the mid-eastern revealed gods. From Zorastor to �l, to
>
> ba'al, to yahweh, to allah. How can that be said, the evidence left behind
>
> by the believers.

in English please?

>
>
>
> >> > and so called Christians who claim to follow Jesus,but actaully go the
>
> other way.
>
>
>
> >> No True Scotsman fallacy.

already debunked,dont ignore,but of course you will.

>
>
>
> > this is not a good comparison.a Scotsman are not by definition a good
>
> > person,they are the same as any other nation,they have good+bad ppl. a
>
> > Christian by definition is a follower of Jesus. any one who follows
>
> > Jesus loves their enemies,forgives their enemies,as Jesus said you
>
> > will no them by their fruits. just because some one says I'm a
>
> > Christian does not make them one.you should not believe everything ppl
>
> > claim to be my friend.
>
>
>
> Oh boy, we have a live one on chanel 1 for sure.

another nonsense response.

>
>
>
> Still, it's been slow in the feeding pits lately. Likely to remain so if
>
> this is the caliber of bleater this group attracts.

i forgive you for your insults,its been noted you failed to respond to my argument again+started insulting me,roughly translated,i don't know how to respond so i will give up+start abusing you now.

>
>
>
> walksalone who has no doubt that the OP is a believer, it ozzes out of
>
> every pretensious claim. Now a believer that would be a boon
>
> conversational companion, there I have sincere & deep doubts.

if you are going to keep posting like this,i will stop replying,you can't educate pork.

[walksalone]

Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:50eeda03-c8e0-41f0...@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, 10 March 2013 20:26:09 UTC, walksalone wrote:
>> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>
>> news:f591925f-80f4-4330...@googlegroups.com:
>> > On Sunday, 10 March 2013 00:35:31 UTC, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>> >> Maggsy <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Friday, 12 October 2012 11:40:55 UTC+1, Dakota wrote:
>>
>> >> >> On 10/11/2012 7:40 AM, Don Martin wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > David Dalton <dal...@nfld.com> wrote:

There be snipping here

>> > yes and what a female finds attractive is often a
>> > mystery to men,many women find bad boys attractive,many of these
>> > end
>> > up getting beat up,eyes gouged out,killed by their boy friends or
>> > on
>> > the back of partners motorbikes. perhaps you could explain how
>> > selecting that type of partner is beneficial to them passing on
>> > their
>> > genes?

>> The syndrome is understood, no big deal. It's like religion in that
>> if you
>> can convince them, through example or peers, they will be enablers
>> all their life without very good help.

> translation in English please?

So human phsycology & soiacl dynamis are otehr fields you are ignorant of?
No shock, but ignorance can be cured, or at least, abated.
One time only. After all, according to less a personae as Herkules, the
gods help those that help themselves.

Start your web browser.
Go to a search engine site such as metacrawler.com & then go to the
advanced search page.
type the phrase emotional abuse in the appropriate block
hit the search button.
Start sorting.
Other searches, sure.
Drug dependcy/addiction.
Abusive relationships
Given the depth of thinking skills yiou associate with yourself, about
three minutes to exhaust those sources. Then you can start on chemical
addictions/dependencies.

>> snip

>> >> >> The creator god of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions is a
>> >> >> male
>> >> >> who
>> >> >> clearly directed women to be subservient to men.

>> >> > he is not male,he is Spirit.

>> >> Not according to the Abrahamic religions who portray him as
>>
>> >> distinctly male.

>> > you have misunderstood them,as i have said they are speaking

>> In spite, or to spite, your wishes, you are the confused one here.

>> > metaphorically,you should not take the bible so literally,the bible

>> The evidence provided by the verses say otherwise. Not evidence of
>> validity, evidence of concept. To be blunt, there was no practical
>> choice if men were to become rulers & powermongers. The mother >> >> >>
goddessess had to go, & that included their stature as equal to or >> >>
superior to the gods.

> you have no evidence for these baseless assertions.

Then I take it, your study of the religions of mankind are absent as well
as your knowledge of the founding & enforcement of the xian myth. Color me
not surprised at all.

>> > makes it very clear God is not a man,but Spirit.�-��
> ��-�

>> It's ambigious. He can be either.

> he can take the form of a man,yes,he has done before.

Not really, remember, no man has seen god. Well other than Moses being
mooned, the seventy elders, Enoch, such inconsequental persons. But your
gods, & it is gods, are as phoney as the rest of the lot. & a lot more
vicious.

Your problem is I can read in context, & am willing to find out what that
context is. Not what I want it to be, is. There is a difference you can't
deal with where you are concerned. But don't worry, you have an excuse,
you arfe a believer.

>> > New International Version (©1984)

>> Why that one, what makes it better or more accurate than any of the

>> othe
> r
>>
>> 100 plus anthologies. Such as the following.
>> its not more accurate,no bible translation is 100% correct,but it does

Then to call it the word of a god is more than a bit pretensious. Assuming
the lie, it was written for you, is not a lie.

> not have to be,it changes no major doctrine,its not like one
> traslation says Jesus rose from the dead+another translates it he
> didn't.you are making mountains out of molehills.

No, you are engageing in the standard apologeric BS of
That may what says but is not what it means. You are no ma'lk, let alone a
daemon.
Just another typical bleater who's hole card is, Jesus died for you, which
is not even unique to xianity. The dieing resurecting gods of the
Medterainian basin are well known to those that are educaed in the field.
A field most xians are unaware of. Are you sure you are not in Alabama,
USA, & using a proxy?

Ah, & I see you inserted your text ahead of the evidence that your version
is just one out of many. Not good usenet etiquitte, but that doesn't
matter to those that pretend they have the right to speak of their gods,
whether or not they are welcome to do so.

This is the proper way to indicate that text you Are not responding to has
been removed.

Snip

>> AAT The Complete Bible: An American Translation, by Edgar Goodspeed

>> Wyc Wycliffe
>>
>> YLT Young's Literal Translation of the Bible download entire text

>> > God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he
>> > should

>> But he has lied, & IIRC, asked who would tell a lie for him.

> where has he lied?

I take it you haven't read the Hebrew Bibnle in context. But wait,
apologetics rears its ugly head again. Blame the victim is the name of the
game you want, & a game I don't play.

Agakn your homework assignment is as follows. If you provide no critique,
you can be diamissed as a time waster.

Open your browser, the search for skeptics annotated bible or biblical
contradictions with a serach engine.
Failure to do so & verify you did more than open & close your browser will
defintely remove doubts about whether you are serious or just another droll
troll.
It's that simple.

>> > change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise
>> > and
>>
>> > not fulfill? Numbers 23:19

>> All errors of course. Do you remember the flood, there have been

>> floods.

>> Not like the one that is a no show,

> what are you trying to say?

Rather, what are you refusing to consider, & more importantly, why are you
refusing to consider.
The Noahcian flood, which is a retelling of the Gilgamesh flood story, did
not happen. Not that you will believe that if you nbeleive your god never
lies.

>> so that is a lie. Do you remember Jonah
>> & the lie told there.

> so you say,prove it?

Actually, you prove it for me.
You could have said yes, & posted it. You could have said many things.
Again open your browser.
Bilegateway.com is a good starting point, find the chapter where god
changes his miond, read it, do a history search, & don't tell that lie
anymore.

>> As well as the change of mind? Why not, or are
>> those, according to you, metaphors?

> it was Jonah that changed his mind+the ppl of
> Nineveh,not God,you badly mistaken.

No, I am not. This is typical of brainwashed people, & the subject of the
brainwashing is immaterial. A classioc edxample of the Stockholm Syndrome.

> Failed prophesy is what they are,

So, you now have changed the catergory from metaphor to prophesy?
Convienent.

>> among other things.

> the prophecy was conditional on them repenting ,they did,so the
> judgemnet did not come,God is not unjust.you have alot to learn my
> friend.

First of all, just so you know, we are not nor can we be friends. That is
a catergory of people you are unqualified to be in. You haven't done the
dance, you have not been in the right circumstances. Something you should
be grateful for.

Now, prophesy is not conditional. Threats are.
Do it the easy way, if you can.
Find out the best guess for the dates of the book of Jonah, & the fall of
Ninevah.
Study both events.
Get back to the group with your understanding & some kind soul will explain
it to you.
No homework, a failing grade.

>> >> Of course, like many fables, there's no evidence of "him" existing
>> >> at all

>> > so you say,what do you mean by evidence?

>> No, so the evidence says. true, the concept is not agreeable to you,
>> so
>
>>
>> you lok for alternate definitiopns that stroke your ego.

> what are you babbling about,i asled you for your definition of
> evidence,you as usual ignored my question.stop wasting my time.

You engaged in a standard xian tactic, trying to divert what is a standard
piece of information to an endless red herring. A game I won't live long
enough to finish considering all the But what ifs that generates.

>> But evidence does
>> not change. A dead skunk in the middle of the road does not become a
>> dead
>> lawyer just because someone wants the carcass to be ran over.

> ha?

I rather assumed you would not get it. Don't worry over it, it's a
mystery. Rather like your gods.

>> >> > language breaks down when talking about God,he
>> >> > is so far beyond our experience that language cannot do him
>> >> > justice,when we use the word he we use it metaphorically,much in
>> >> > the same way as some one might refer to a car as a he or she.

>> It's called anthromorphication & is done to humanise things, whether
>> they are real or not.

snip

>> That you can accept, probably not. But then, when one's theme song
>> for
>
>>
>> life is the equivalent of once upon a time evidence is of no matter.
>> Close your eyes & it goes away.

> is English your first language? or are you deliberately trying to
> confuse because you have nothing to say?

Why no, but I suspect I have a better grasp of it, & how to used it than
you have displayed. Are you from the Islands of the South Pacific? or are
you just mimiking someone from there because of their language skills.

>> >> > One male was allowed as many wives as he could support. No such
>> >> > god

>> would have made the sex act pleasurable for females as doing so could
>> encourage promiscuity. Which is reserved for males?

> of course not.

Your posting history says you lie. After all, part of the claim to shame
for the revealed god of the desert is go forth & multiply.

>> >> > the same could be said for men. its pleasurable for men also,so
>> >> > would be unfair for it not to be pleasurable for both sexes.

>> The senior revealed god of the desert is not noted for being fair to
>> haumainty according to its an thology.


> so you say,as usual you have no evidence for your inane assertion.

& so you continue the Polly want a cracker act. Or, is it an act. It's
all you have to offer, nothing new there if that is the case.

>> >> >> Some Islamic sects continue to mutilate female children to
>> >> >> brutally remove the sensitive tissues primarily responsible for
>> female orgasm.

>> >> > yes Islam is a barbaric religion,

>> As is Judaism & xianity. Same god you see. Just confusion about the
>> name.


> you are the one who is confused,the God i believe in very different
> from the Muslim God,Muslims dont believe Jesus was God for

The confusion is yours, & welcome to ikt you are. Xianity, or come to
that, any of the followers of the revealed gods of the desert don't even
pretend to follow their gods. They follow the priesthood, & it shows.

But then, I doubt you have what it takes to be an original follower of the
revealed gods of the desert. The later followers sure didn't, &
apologetics & confusion became the safe word of the day.

> starters.you really need to read up on what christians and Muslims
> believe,you will not make yourself look so foolish then,hth.

Now why do I want to be as confued as you make yourself out to be?

>> >> As is it's blood-sacrifice based sister religion, Christianity.

>> > you have no evidence for this,in fact Jesus had the highest moral

>> But we do, or as much evidence for that as you have for bubba & big
>> daddy, llc. One piece of evidence is the history of xianity, which is
>> as bloody as Islam ever was.

> you should not believe every one that claims to be a christian is
> actaully a christian,this is your first mistake,as Jesus said,you will
> know them by their fruits.

First of all, your myth says you are putting yourself above your gods.
Good luck with that one. I doubt if yiou m ake it past Adam with that
attitude. Remember, only the gods themselves know who the true beiever�
is.

>> > teaching.with out christians in the world,the world would be a much
>> > worse place,many christians all over the world help the poor+help

>> Right, pull the other one. Around here, if you need food you had
>> best join the church or forget it.

>> > their community.and when i say Christians i mean those that
>> > actually
>> > follow Jesus,practicing Christians,not those who claim to be

>> Ah, Angus, can you hear the bagpipes playing Auld Lang Syne, or would
>> that be
>> http://caber-records.com/music/.

> this is bad comparison,scots can be bad ppl.christians are followers

It's a logical fallacy you are commiting, & you are to obtuse, or ignorant,
to recognise it. But, then, bubba loves you & you love him. Does that
sound odd to the other members of the audience, or is it xianity's alpha
male song?

> of Jesus,if they are following jesus then they do not kill,torture or
> do evil things that some have done in Gods name,by definition these

But they do, & according to the priesthood, it's a good think to kill in
the name of god. Of course, if the churches get to keep the land, well so
much the better. The thing you are trying to excuse is the inherent greed
& what we call evil in humanity. Some of use don't neded the fear of
eternal punishment to be dewcent. Others, OTOH, are not so lucky. I
recommend you keep believing.
BTW, is that your definition, or gods definition?

> are not christians,they are actaully anti christs because they do the
> opposite of what Jesus said to do,they are not following Jesus.

According to you. But then, your grasp on the authenticity of the revealed
gods is somewhat teneous at best. & your understanding, well, that's not
so good either.

>> Either way, that is a judgement saved for
>> bubba & big daddy. After Adam screens them of course.

> you do have a gift for talking bollocks+no thats not a compliment,i do

Worse, I have the willingnes to write what I have learned & not sugar coat
it for those that like you, are blissfully ignorant of the actual history
of their so called religion.

> know how your ilk have a gift for misunderstanding folk like me.

Maybe that's because I don't mentally live on Fantasy Island?

>> > christians ,but do the opposite of everything Jesus stood for like
>> > loving your enemies+forgiving ppl.

>> Sigh, the romance of ancient lore, never mind what was taught, or
>> when.

> yet more nonsense,care to translate. probably not.

Odd, you are the only one needing spoken/written English to be translated
to a level you can accept. Sadly for you, I haven't visited that basement
since, if your demonstrated skills in English are accurate indicators,
since I was about 7 years of age. So the questioon becomes, woluld you
understand it if it was explained to you? According to what I have read,
not likely.

>> >> > Jesus on the other hand said love your
>> >> > enemies,forgive your enemies,completly opposite of what many
>> >> > Muslims do.

>> A trait not exclusive to xians, or Islamics.

> provide evidence of others doing this?

Read history, I get US$500.75 per 30 minute block to provide people, such
as yourself, that education. Paid in advance of course.

>> >> The God of the old testament wiped out the entire earth,
>> >> supposedly.

>> >> Seems pretty blood thirsty to me.

>> > God can do what ever he wants,he God,its very arrogant to question

>> IOW, might makes right. Thank you, you may turn in your pop quiz to
>> the hall monitor on your way out.

> another nonsense answer,why bother posting if your answers make no

It means you have relaibly demonstrated you have nothing to offer but
platitudes. I didn't realise how ignorant you were of colloquial language,
or its proper usage. Not that I am changeing for you.

> sense,is it because you believe we live in a nonsense universe?

It's nonsensed to you for a very real reason. You live in hopes of a
nonsense world that would inded be hell. Assuming the book of Revalation
is correct. But that is a goood thing in your mind.
No thanks, I agree with samuel Clemmins.
Heaven for climate
Hell for company.

>> > God.God gives+God takes away,thats fair,only he has the right to do
>> > that.

>> According to spineless individuals, who you seem to associate
>> yourself with.

> spineless? christians are not spineless,many christains have great

Spineless. When you take a stand to insure a one way ticket to paradise,
like the early martyrs of xianity, that is spineless.

> courage.like those who are being killed in North Korea by your fellow
> atheist who no doubt have the same mentality as you do+show the same

Erm, my fellow what? Atheism is an individual wo does not grant a free
ride to one of humanitys more ridiculous claims, God. & they claim they
even know which one out of the 20,000+ gods of humanity.
They have so much faith in their gods piower, that they have had to enact
laws to insure its santicy.

> hate for Christians that you do,those are the spineless individuals.

Do I, or is that your excuse for being a failure in your own mind. You
might want to watch that martyr complex, & forget trying to act humble.
You are just not that important.

>> But then, that makes sense when you recall the gods were invented in
>> mans image, for the sole puirpose of control over others.

> again you have no evidence for this belief.

According to you, but that doesn't count for anything to anyone but
yourself. Read your history, if you dare.

>> At least, that
>> is the message from the mid-eastern revealed gods. From Zorastor to

snip for correction that whichever newsreader is being used by the op may
be able to read. US & English ascii is not always identical.

>> el, to

>> ba'al, to yahweh, to allah. How can that be said, the evidence left
>> behind by the believers.

> in English please?

It was & is. I don't tutor for less than 5000 US dollars per 30 minute
session. Can you afford the airfare?

>> >> > and so called Christians who claim to follow Jesus,but actaully
>> >> > go the other way.

>> >> No True Scotsman fallacy.

> already debunked,dont ignore,but of course you will.

Actually, you showed you didn't understand it, & lacked the ability to
figure out what it meant. Hint, you will encounter many terms that you are
not familiar with, in fact are ignorant of. That can be cured but you will
have to do it. No one needs to cater to you, a standard class D acting
troll. If you are not, show the group. Get serious, learn & then discuss.

>> > this is not a good comparison.a Scotsman are not by definition a
>> > good
>> > person,they are the same as any other nation,they have good+bad
>> > ppl. a >> > Christian by definition is a follower of Jesus. any one >>
>> > who follows
>> > Jesus loves their enemies,forgives their enemies,as Jesus said you
>> > will no them by their fruits. just because some one says I'm a
>> > Christian does not make them one.you should not believe everything
>> > ppl claim to be my friend.

>> Oh boy, we have a live one on chanel 1 for sure.

> another nonsense response.

No, just an observation. Like a line I saw in a movie, Is it just me, or
are there more stupid people passing by lately? Without context,
meaningless. You are providing the context.

>> Still, it's been slow in the feeding pits lately. Likely to remain
>> so if this is the caliber of bleater this group attracts.

> i forgive you for your insults,its been noted you failed to respond to

Quite frequently, those receiving advice or observations they don't want to
hear play the injured innocent. If you should think that highly of
yourself, remember, insults can only be insuting to you if you accept them
as the truth.

> my argument again+started insulting me,roughly translated,i don't know
> how to respond so i will give up+start abusing you now.

I don't need to, but I do realise that comments on your conduct and the
lack of quality in your argumentation can leave those, such as yourself,
with that feeling. After all, you know you are right. If you were wrong,
you would change your song & keep singing.
In any event, all you can do is beat the headless drum & proclaim your
brand of snake oil does work, in spite of the appearance of it not working
for you.

walksalone who is of a mind that this is a good troll, or frightfully, the
real thing. Almost a case of identical twins thinking.

I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or
requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above
it.
-Benjamin Franklin, statesman, author, and inventor (1706-1790)
For maggsy, Franklin was a deitst.