Maximizing life expectancy/enjoyment



DZ <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]
> 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.

Something for which there is no evidence is no answer to anything. You
don't need to invent nonexistent anthropomorphic deities to build
comprehensive ethical systems.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:15:34 GMT, DZ <[email protected]> wrote:

>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".

How about social isolation and resultant punishment?

>
>God is the answer.
>
>DZ
 
"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.

I never thought we did. I wasn't talking to you. I was talking
about you. There's a difference.
 
John M. Williams <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]
> "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> I never thought we did. I wasn't talking to you. I was talking
> about you. There's a difference.

You responded to my post and to what I said in it. That's a pretty fair
indicator you were talking to me. Talking ****, though, but still talking
to me.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
> But if you're not a believer why would you be defending their lies?

My cat "thinks" shrimp occurs by a process in some ways similar to the
big bang theory of creation of the Universe. But in fact I buy it at
Farmer's Market. Humans are like cats, only somewhat smarter. There
are limits beyond which we cannot grasp things, even if the
explanation was presented. I think of religion as a way to live with
that.

DZ

--
Wheel discovery department
 
"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote:
> John M. Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > I never thought we did. I wasn't talking to you. I was talking
> > about you. There's a difference.
>
> You responded to my post and to what I said in it. That's a pretty fair
> indicator you were talking to me. Talking ****, though, but still talking
> to me.

Your whining is hurting my ears.
 
"DZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

for some people who can't find other answers
 
"John HUDSON" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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)
>
I'll be a Christian tonight
>
 
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:43:30 -0400, "John M. Williams"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> John M. Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > I never thought we did. I wasn't talking to you. I was talking
>> > about you. There's a difference.
>>
>> You responded to my post and to what I said in it. That's a pretty fair
>> indicator you were talking to me. Talking ****, though, but still talking
>> to me.
>
>Your whining is hurting my ears.

How is it when you defend yourself it's a universal truth, and when
others do the same thing they are "whining"? ;o)

>
 
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:28:45 -0400, "John M. Williams"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
>I never thought we did. I wasn't talking to you. I was talking
>about you. There's a difference.

You are wriggling here john boy (which is a euphemism for lying). It
is quite clear that you made a direct response to DRS's post.

>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote:

>Christ lives.
>
>--
>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>Board-Certified Cardiologist
>http://www.heartmdphd.com/

Really? What's his pulse rate?

Or does a "cardiologist" have a really strange meaning for "lives"?

Seth
--
most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- Lyle
 
DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
> DZ <[email protected]> wrote in message
> [email protected]
> > 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.
>
> Something for which there is no evidence is no answer to anything. You
> don't need to invent nonexistent anthropomorphic deities

Anthropomorphism is a "language" and only on the surface of religion.

> to build comprehensive ethical systems.

What makes you obey rules of such a system?

DZ

--
Wheel discovery department
 
John HUDSON <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:15:34 GMT, DZ <[email protected]> wrote:
> >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".
>
> How about social isolation and resultant punishment?
> >
> >God is the answer.

So my FUNDAMENTAL desire may result in punishment and isolation? NOT
good enough, John. What about the needed sense of comfort, integrity,
and lack of contradiction.

DZ

--
Wheel discovery department
 
In article <[email protected]>,
DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
>Bill Lumberg <[email protected]> wrote in message
>[email protected]
>
>> I think the japanese have the highest longevity now. Perhaps we need
>> to sit down next to one of those 114 year old guys and write down
>> everything he does.
>
>Been tried, doesn't work. For every one who says their longevity is due to
>moderation and clean living there's another who'll swear it's due to a
>bottle of gin a day. All other things being equal, genetics is clearly very
>important here.

Mostly it's due to lying about their age, often taking their
grandfather's identity in order to avoid the draft.

Seth
--
Of course, common logic fails to hold up here on mfw, as a general rule
of thumb. -- Lyle McDonald
 
In article <[email protected]>,
David Cohen <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote
>> Ignoramus20526 writes:
>>
>> > Does anyone have any comments or book suggestions?
>>
>> Moderation in all things.
>
>Really? Moderately happy? Moderately healthy? Moderately wealthy?
>Moderately intelligent? Moderately attractive?

No, that's too much moderation. You should have only a moderate
amount of moderation.

Seth
--
This is mfw, nobody wants to raise the quality of the
discourse. -- Lyle McDonald
 
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:18:10 -0400, Seth Breidbart wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, William Sakovich
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I described one of the
>>exercises in the book to a doctor, and he said, "If you do that, you're
>>going to lose weight."
>
> Really? What's this magic exercise that guarantees weight loss?
>
> Seth

Table push-aways.

Anna
--
Bottom line: ignore your body, it's most likely doing you harm.

Lyle McDonald, mfw
 
DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

We're like ants exploring the kitchen. At this point in our
unsupervised brain evolution we know ZERO about what it is we're
exploring, and worse, unable to understand the picture even after
collecting the facts. Appealing to looking and not finding is quite
naive.

DZ

> 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.

--
Wheel discovery department
 
Julianne wrote:

> "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote...
>
>> Since larger animals tend to live longer than tiny animals
>> anyway I want to see the research done on elephants.
>
> 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.

There are very good reasons for this. For one, Danes have been
bred for size, and their hearts aren't commensurately larger.
For another (speaking of hearts), hearts below a threshold size
basically can't fibrillate, eliminating one source of sudden
death. Large dogs (and humans) are on one side of this
threshold, and small dogs on the other.

Really, there are so many differences between humans and other
mammals that I'm leary of extrapolating CR research on small
mammals to humans. For example, many mammals are strongly
predisposed to gain/retain muscle mass compared to humans, and
few mammals develop the problems with mobility that elderly
humans do.

--
-Wayne
 
"John M. Williams" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Well, according to the reference which Chung cites, God IS The
> Word. And The Word has been around since the beginning.
>
> But that invites the question, "What is The Word?"
>
> Chung would probably say that The Word is the reference from
> which he cites. However, that reference, particularly that part
> which describes God as The Word and The Word being
> around in the beginning, was written a few centuries after the
> death of Jesus of Nazareth.

Coupla quibbles: Latest research has John being written towards the end of
the first century. So within living memory of Jesus' death (barely).

> And Jesus lived, even according
> to The Word, at least a couple of millennia after The Beginning.
> And the exact parameters of The Word weren't determined
> until the Council of Rome, about 350 years after Jesus died,
> and even then, The Word didn't become immutable until the
> Council of Trent, less than 500 years ago.
>
> So how is it that The Word been around since The Beginning,
> in a form that is "expressed in apt words and with infallible
> truth"? (Pope Leo XIII, 1893) The circularity of that
> reasoning is almost staggering.
>
> Of course, none if this precludes a belief in God; it just
> makes it nearly impossible to believe in the infallible
> accuracy of The Book, which seems to be the standard
> definition for The Word.

Not even the fundamentalists would agree with that. The Word's the Word;
the Book is the history of the Word's action in time. Infallable if you're
into that; but not the same as the Word.

dogsbody
 
Andi B. wrote ...
> Luna wrote:
>
> >One rule of thumb I read for determining if you
> >are getting enough sleep is if can you wake up on time without an alarm
> >clock.

I guess it doesn't count if you have a wakeful night and are awake well
before the alarm goes off ...


> That is easily archiveable for some friends of mine with 200-400mg
> SAMe plus a B complex late in the evening. Not too much B, though, as
> this will get you quite vivid dreams otherwise.

I've been taking extra magnesium for muscle cramps, but it also seems to
help me to sleep - I have no idea why.

But I wonder if a person can have too much magnesium, and if so what would
the effect be - I've had a squishy tummy all week and I've been taking two
magnesium pills at night for bad lower leg cramps.

I'd still rather have the squishy tummy than the cramps though. Easier to
take an imodium than to be up and down every half hour throughout the night
walking off cramp.


Rachel
(New Zealand)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back