Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment



On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:01:38 GMT, Andi B.
<anbo23@_nospam_.my-deja.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:10:16 GMT, roger<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:47:51 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> >>> Christ lives.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Prove it.
>>>> >
>>>> > Why should I?
>>>>
>>>> Because you claimed it to be so. Put up or shut up.
>>>
>>>It is not my claim but the Word of God.

>>
>>Please provide proof that it is the Word of God and not the word or
>>someone who claims that it is the Word of God.

>
>Excellent point.
>
>He'll probably come back and say that it is "established scientific
>knowledge" or something.


I doubt it. If Chung is really an MD/PhD he realizes that there is
absolutely no scientific evidence of the existence of God. He is just
talking out of his ass. Perhaps he is really a proctologist:))

Roger
 
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:52:27 GMT, roger<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>I doubt it. If Chung is really an MD/PhD..


What part of this are yo having trouble comprehending?

http://www.heartmdphd.com/ac_cv1.asp

Where is your proof Chung has failed to meet the standards?

> he realizes that there is
>absolutely no scientific evidence of the existence of God.


Neither Chung nor I need scientific proof. Faith is not resolved
logically and your insistence on God meeting your defining terms is
what the definition of Pride is all about.

> He is just
>talking out of his ass. Perhaps he is really a proctologist:))


No, Chung is a cardiologist. The fellow that sticks his fingers up
your butt is a proctologist. Well, not the one who lives with you, He
doesn't count, medically speaking.

Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"OmegaZero2003" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Please establish how qualia are linked to neuronal events (neurochemical,
>electrical or other eventings). You may use an extra sheet of virtual paper.
>
>Do you deny (absurdly) that there are several known states of consciousness
>(SOC).


No, I deny it rationally.
Science and philosophy talk different languages; philosophy does not
require the reality checks that science does.

Incidentally, anyone posting to this many groups is probably trolling.

--
* PAUL K. BRANDON [email protected] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
 
Full Mu_n <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:52:27 GMT, roger<[email protected]> wrote:


[...]

>> he realizes that there is
>> absolutely no scientific evidence of the existence of God.

>
> Neither Chung nor I need scientific proof. Faith is not resolved
> logically and your insistence on God meeting your defining terms is
> what the definition of Pride is all about.


No, it's the definition of sanity. Chung made a claim of empirical fact
despite the fact that he has exactly zero evidence to support his claim.
We'd be fools to take him seriously.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:38:39 -0400, "Jim Horne" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Julianne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:%hAhb.30751$k74.13136@lakeread05...


>: This is not true of dogs. Irritating little chihahuas and poodles live
>for
>: like 20 years and really good dogs like great danes only live for 6 or 8.
>:
>my Dane turns 11 this November...she shows signs of aging, but not dead
>yet...
>


that is fantastic. I hope your luck holds out and that I may have some
of it with my Irish Wolfhound, Seamus.



dan finn
mfw : this ain't spa lady
 
"OmegaZero2003" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > OmegaZero2003 <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > [email protected]
> > > "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > >> OmegaZero2003 <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >> [email protected]
> > >>
> > >> [...]
> > >>
> > >>> It is a state of consciousness that has been reached by these
> > >>> people; one that has been called: God Consciousness, Christ
> > >>> Consciosness, enlightenment, Nirvana/Paranirvana, Consciousness
> > >>> Without and Object/Subject etc. etc.
> > >>>
> > >>> It is emminently reachable although most always ineffable to normal
> > >>> waking consciousness.
> > >>
> > >> Another word for it is psychosis: the state in which the mind loses
> > >> contact with reality.
> > >
> > > You cannot define mind, psychosis or reality so for you to use all
> > > three words in a sentence is evidence your reality is not in your
> > > mind but in a psychotic state (like New York).

> >
> > Stop right there. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking

about.
> > We can define those things, we have defined those things, we continue to
> > refine our understanding of them and simple-minded New Age twaddle like
> > yours benefits nobody.

>
> PS - If you can read and understand what you read, you will notice that I
> said nothing about the relative sunstantiality of the reality which our
> sciences have so-far described. I take it you cannot keep up with subtle
> arguments.
>
>
> >We do know there is an external reality because

>
> External to what?
>
> > solipsism has been disproved (it's logically incoherent, see

>
> Strawman.


See Rene Descartes
>
> > http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/solipsis.htm for a synopsis). That

our
> > understanding isn't absolute in no way invalidates what we do know, and

we
> > know enough that its fundamental coherence is established, so you're on

a
>
>
> I have more years in the scientific disciplines than you will ever have
> son - so do not lecture me about what can be deemed fundementally coherent
> or not. I did not argue the what we know should be invalidated (there's

that
> understanding thing again - of which you are sorely deficient), but
> augmented appropriately when evidence so dictates.
>
> > hiding to nothing when you post nonsense like that.

>
>
>
> A: Arrogant pretend scientist
> Q: What someone with the email address [email protected] is
>
>
 
Julianne <[email protected]> wrote in message
wdChb.30771$k74.15690@lakeread05

[...]

> See Rene Descartes


About what?

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Full Mu_n <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> he realizes that there is
> >> absolutely no scientific evidence of the existence of God.

> >
> > Neither Chung nor I need scientific proof. Faith is not resolved
> > logically and your insistence on God meeting your defining terms is
> > what the definition of Pride is all about.

>
> No, it's the definition of sanity. Chung made a claim of empirical fact
> despite the fact that he has exactly zero evidence to support his claim.
> We'd be fools to take him seriously.


Faith IS about sanity and consistency (I'm not a believer, which just
makes everything more complicated). There are smart and well adjusted
people who do genetics using evolutionary models and believe in
Creation of species at the same time. Depends on which hat you're
wearing at a time. This is neither contradictory nor dishonest.

DZ

--
Wheel discovery department
 
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:35:10 GMT, DZ <[email protected]> wrote:

>Faith IS about sanity and consistency (I'm not a believer, which just
>makes everything more complicated).


As an unbeliever, the faith I speak of is unknown to you.


Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
 
DZ <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]
> DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Full Mu_n <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> he realizes that there is
>>>> absolutely no scientific evidence of the existence of God.
>>>
>>> Neither Chung nor I need scientific proof. Faith is not resolved
>>> logically and your insistence on God meeting your defining terms is
>>> what the definition of Pride is all about.

>>
>> No, it's the definition of sanity. Chung made a claim of empirical
>> fact despite the fact that he has exactly zero evidence to support
>> his claim. We'd be fools to take him seriously.

>
> Faith IS about sanity and consistency (I'm not a believer, which just


Religious faith is fundamentally insane. It expects you to believe the
impossible for no good reason based on a mixture of threats and promises
which have no substance.

> makes everything more complicated). There are smart and well adjusted
> people who do genetics using evolutionary models and believe in
> Creation of species at the same time. Depends on which hat you're
> wearing at a time. This is neither contradictory nor dishonest.


It is absolutely both! Science starts from the evidence. Creationism
starts from an unquestionable premise and ignores all of the overwhelming
evidence against it. Creationism is a pack of lies from start to finish.
You cannot be a scientist and a Creationist at the same time because
believing in Creationism forces you to contradict the fundamentals of
science itself.

But you already knew that and just wanted to be provocative.

See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html for a more a more
detailed destruction of the absurd notion that science and Creationism are
in any way compatible. See the many other links on Creationism on that site
for a complete demolition of Creationism per se.

Religious liars like you just make me hate religion more than ever.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
Full Mu_n <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:35:10 GMT, DZ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Faith IS about sanity and consistency (I'm not a believer, which just
>> makes everything more complicated).

>
> As an unbeliever, the faith I speak of is unknown to you.


I know it. It's a heap of ****.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
In article <[email protected]>, DZ wrote:
> DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Full Mu_n <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> he realizes that there is
>> >> absolutely no scientific evidence of the existence of God.
>> >
>> > Neither Chung nor I need scientific proof. Faith is not resolved
>> > logically and your insistence on God meeting your defining terms is
>> > what the definition of Pride is all about.

>>
>> No, it's the definition of sanity. Chung made a claim of empirical fact
>> despite the fact that he has exactly zero evidence to support his claim.
>> We'd be fools to take him seriously.

>
> Faith IS about sanity and consistency (I'm not a believer, which just
> makes everything more complicated). There are smart and well adjusted
> people who do genetics using evolutionary models and believe in
> Creation of species at the same time. Depends on which hat you're
> wearing at a time. This is neither contradictory nor dishonest.


OftEntiMes sUCh people have eXtremELY vAgue idea ABOut just what god
is likE, to tHe point that THeir "bEliefs" CannOt lEAd to anY
praCTiCal cOnCluSionS anD cannot influence any deCisions.

i
 
Full Mu_n <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:35:10 GMT, DZ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Faith IS about sanity and consistency (I'm not a believer, which just
> >makes everything more complicated).


> As an unbeliever, the faith I speak of is unknown to you.


I already suspected this could be the case.

DZ

--
Wheel discovery department
 
"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> DZ <[email protected]> wrote in message
> [email protected]
> > DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Full Mu_n <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>> he realizes that there is
> >>>> absolutely no scientific evidence of the existence of God.
> >>>
> >>> Neither Chung nor I need scientific proof. Faith is not resolved
> >>> logically and your insistence on God meeting your defining terms is
> >>> what the definition of Pride is all about.
> >>
> >> No, it's the definition of sanity. Chung made a claim of empirical
> >> fact despite the fact that he has exactly zero evidence to support
> >> his claim. We'd be fools to take him seriously.

> >
> > Faith IS about sanity and consistency (I'm not a believer, which just

>
> Religious faith is fundamentally insane. It expects you to believe the
> impossible for no good reason based on a mixture of threats and promises
> which have no substance.
>
> > makes everything more complicated). There are smart and well adjusted
> > people who do genetics using evolutionary models and believe in
> > Creation of species at the same time. Depends on which hat you're
> > wearing at a time. This is neither contradictory nor dishonest.

>
> It is absolutely both! Science starts from the evidence. Creationism
> starts from an unquestionable premise and ignores all of the overwhelming
> evidence against it. Creationism is a pack of lies from start to finish.
> You cannot be a scientist and a Creationist at the same time because
> believing in Creationism forces you to contradict the fundamentals of
> science itself.
>
> But you already knew that and just wanted to be provocative.
>
> See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html for a more a more
> detailed destruction of the absurd notion that science and Creationism are
> in any way compatible. See the many other links on Creationism on that si

te
> for a complete demolition of Creationism per se.
>
> Religious liars like you just make me hate religion more than ever.
>

AMEN!
 
DRS <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]
> DZ <[email protected]> wrote in message


[...]

>> (I'm not a believer, which just


[...]

> Religious liars like you just make me hate religion more than ever.


OK, I take that back. I misread. But if you're not a believer why would
you be defending their lies?

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
> DZ <[email protected]> wrote in message


> Religious liars like you just make me hate religion more than ever.


I would lie on occasion, but I'm not religious. Hatred is a natural
evolutionary force that prevents interbreeding of subspecies, in my
view of the Nature, so you're entitled to that.

DZ

--
Wheel discovery department
 
"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Religious liars like you just make me hate religion more than ever.


They're no worse than dogmatic atheists.

I prefer agnostics, who are intellectually honest enough
to admit that they don't know any universal truths.
 
John M. Williams <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]
> "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Religious liars like you just make me hate religion more than ever.

>
> They're no worse than dogmatic atheists.
>
> I prefer agnostics, who are intellectually honest enough
> to admit that they don't know any universal truths.


Yeah, yeah, yeah. In the entire history of our species we have found
exactly zero credible evidence of any supernatural being who created the
universe. Moreover, the more we learn about the universe the less necessary
we find any such creator. Why then should I or anyone else give theism so
much as the time of day? The only dogmatic thing about my position is an
absolute insistence on credible, reliable evidence. If you've got a problem
with that we've got nothing to talk about.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
Ignoramus19432 <[email protected]> wrote:
> OftEntiMes sUCh people have eXtremELY vAgue idea ABOut just what god
> is likE, to tHe point that THeir "bEliefs" CannOt lEAd to anY
> praCTiCal cOnCluSionS anD cannot influence any deCisions.


Sometimes the fundamental question comes to "Why shouldn't I go ahead
and maul the neighbour".

God is the answer.

DZ

--
Wheel discovery department
 
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:09:49 -0400, "John M. Williams"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Religious liars like you just make me hate religion more than ever.

>
>They're no worse than dogmatic atheists.
>
>I prefer agnostics, who are intellectually honest enough
>to admit that they don't know any universal truths.


As a confirmed and oft-stated "Hopeful Agnostic" of long-standing,
possessing just the virtues you have proposed, I accept your proffered
'olive branch'! ;o)

>