BS: The God Delusion 2010

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 03:28 PM

Guest Pete, Stalin as atheist was an anomaly. He was one in say maybe thousands or even a million. Besides, Communism can be defined as kind of a "religion". And Stalin as a young person had a theological and clerical background. This helped him in becoming a "god".

As to the issue of abortion being "painful" particularly to the fetus at the beginning stages,
prove it scientifically.

Ebbie, rigid materialists do not exist. What you call "rigid materialists" are those who don't accept spiritism or theological otherworldlyness and they are just as capable (if not more so) of nuance and depth. This statement not only doesn't add up but is an intolerant assessment.

As for the exalted "experience" of those who believe, much of this is responsible for wars and devastation in the name of their belief. Bush "experienced" us into Iraq. Bush would have probably referred to his "experience" as "spiritual gifts".

Those who claim "spiritual gifts" as if they were some exalted and privileged few are perpetrating a kind of hoax. This kind of otherworldly superiority is offensive.

Jack, to compare abortion to capital punishment is specious. It's the anti-choice line of propaganda today.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 01:52 PM

It's hardly blithe, and there are data shold you care to look for them.

Right, oysters twitch when lemon juiced, but we still eat them up, yum.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 11:28 AM

pete

Obviously pain does not mean person hood. Any organism able to twitch when you poke it is experiencing some level of pain.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 11:21 AM

thanks ebbie for something helpful on feotal pain as opposed to all the other evasions.    stringsinger-just to clarify,it was,nt a "religionist"who introduced the subject of abortion to this thread as i recall .now i see executions is added to the mix with the charge of this being a religious issue-well if so i hope you are including atheistic communism,as numerous political and religious people have been executed only for beleiving what the state outlawed on philosophical grounds.   mrrzy-you did,nt reference your asertion on feotal pain,unless it was on another post!...jack-i thought your comment very insightful,though the issue of pain is relevant,i believe,as the "pro choice"have been claiming absence of pain and by extension lack of personhood.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 11:16 AM

Rigid materialists, Fooles, to my mind, are sadly impoverished, unable to feel and absorb nuance and depth. When it comes down to it, what harm is done by those who do believe there is much more to be experienced than is discerned or admitted by a-theists?

Like anything else, the misuse of 'spiritual' gifts is the issue. NO ONE should go to war, for instance, in the name of their god nor, on a smaller scale, should anyone resort to violence in arguing their belief.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 01:40 AM

Spiritualists, you see, believe that some magic sky fairy from some other realm/plane in some way beyond all human understanding, at some undetermined time, steps into the invisible drivers seat (but the controls are magically invisible) inside the human brain and pushes the start button, then floats out in some form of magical ectoplasm when the organism stops functioning (this only applies in some magic way beyond all human understanding to just humans [they are 'special' you see!], not any other living organism - and by extension this can not happen to any alien life form too).

A-spiritualists don't.

That was one line of thought in philosophy a long time ago, but has fallen out of favor.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 01:31 AM

1500!

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 01:12 AM

Pain is just your body telling you to try to stop something which may be harmful. You get over pain. You don't get over death. In my opinion, in capital punishment and in abortion, pain is the smallest consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 01:04 AM

I don't know, Frank. I hope the answer is "nothing". I don't know that, though.

Just as there are reported near-death experiences, might there be 'near-life experiences'?

I don't have a real problem with abortion- as many spontaneous abortions as there are, I have no doubt but that if a person is meant to be born, that person will be born some time, and I do feel strongly that an abortion is between a woman and her doctor- and her beliefs. Like they say, if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. But if a fetus is aware and sensitive I dislike very much the idea that it feels pain.

We know that a fish feels pain, for that matter, I have no doubt but that an earthworm feels pain. Incidentally, I should mention that in my opinion Mrrzy's blithe dismissal of the fetal process is just a touch over the top.

See, our problem, Stringsinger, is that we are not only not on the same page, we're not in the same book.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 11:29 PM

"Does it follow that when one does have a brain that there is thought and experience?"

More semantic 'angels dancing on the head of a pin' games.

What 'experiences' will the fetus itse;f tell you about when you ask it questions?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 11:20 PM

Here is an interesting report:

"Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, "appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation," or six weeks after conception. J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain," New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564"

Who once claimed that there can be no thought, no experience, without the brain? Does it follow that when one does have a brain that there is thought and experience?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:57 PM

There is nothing odd about questioning capital punishment. It has been shown not to work
since it has not deterred people from killing one another but made it excusable to do so.

"executions" are the stock and trade of institutionalized religions.

Abortions are not executions in the sense of taking a sentient life of a human being.
This is anti-abortion rhetoric. Abortion has to happen sometimes. I don't like it but I think that it is often necessary for the survival of the mother both physically and psychologically.
The reason we are talking about abortion here on this thread is because the issue has been co-opted by religionists.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 07:30 PM

I find it also odd that there is a movement to suppress *executions*...even with drugs...on the 'moral' grounds that it 'may' be painful.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 07:27 PM

In Queensland, Australia, a man and a woman have just been found not guilty by a jury on a charge of attempting to obtain an abortion.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 06:11 PM

Every abortion thread gets this stuff about foetal pain. It is simply not the issue. It's the unanswerable question. It is an appeal to emotion. We need to discuss the nitty-gritty, the practicalities, why young women in socially-disadvantaged setups (which can have many hues) become pregnant in the first place and how we can best address that, without moralising and preaching godly shite at them. If I were demented enough I could well begin to believe that Ratzinger and his benighted crew actually rather like the high abortion figures, as it gives them something solid to moralise against. For what is Catholicism if it can't harangue us all (from birth - original sin, anyone?) about what worms we all are?   Grrr.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 03:50 PM

Oh, yeah, and I teach most mornings, Mudcat time.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 02:11 PM

Have not seen any inquiries directed to me, sorry! What is your question? Is there one about abortion rates?

Meanwhile, 'twas I who posted that fetuses, *at the stage of most abortions* (stress original), lack any capacity to feel pain. That's because they are still unformed. I also asked you to google the reference yourself - a pedagogical fault of mine, perhaps.

Joe darling, what is unfair about these threads? It can't be that most atheists consider the rational point of view distinct from that of faith, such that discussions about faith are hard to make rational. At least, that's not unfair of the humans doing the discussing. It may be the case that it's unfair of life to make faith a matter of, well, faith, but that's like saying that it's sexist of life to only let women have wombs.

If there is something else that you find unfair, though, please let us know.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 01:34 PM

as i said,its relative.i note mrrzy not quite agreeing with steves assertion on abortion rates ,though qualifying the outcome of legal or not.not much more to add except the poster who asserted it as fact that babes in the womb/feotus feel no pain, has not replied to my enquiry as to wether all experts take that position.as yet i dont know the answer but may research it depending on response or otherwise.       joe-hopefully nothing i,ve posted has been unfair,though i know you dont share my stand on biblical authority etc.for myself i can take insults and keep sharing my faith all the time unbelievers keep coming back to me-bless em !

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:26 AM

The logic breaks down when you try to defend the "life" of a sperm that doesn't make it to the Ovum. This is a religious issue, not a moral one. Here is a case where religion runs counter to morality.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:19 AM

Here's an eye opener.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_0kFU7IfPM

Joe, as a non-religious person I think these posts have been fair. Your pleas
are unnecessary.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 08:08 PM

Agreed. Which is why abortion should be available on demand, no time limits (so much is made of the minuscule numbers of late abortions), no preachifying, no limitation according to means. But the real key is good education which nurtures and celebrates tolerance and self-respect.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 05:55 PM

Rates of abortion are fairly steady whether they are legal or not (I have seen data on this - google it). What changes is the proportion of women dying in botched illegal ones, which should be 0.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 05:42 PM

SianH asks:

Aren't religion based discussions such as this banned on Mudcat? Shouldn't they be? They are banned on progressive music forums.

We do not allow religion-based discussions in the music section of the Mudcat Discussion Forum. If they pop up, we move them to the non-music (BS) section. Still, as a religious person, I have a near-uniform dislike of the religion threads here. I post to them quite frequently to plead for fairness, but I find my pleas unheeded.

-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator-

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 05:04 PM

"its all relative but i would say that here in the UK[except S.ireland]where abortion is legal, and often encouraged, it is pretty rampant!"

Abortion is not encouraged. That is a dreadful misrepresentation. It is very common (though not "rampant"). That is something that we all need to address. Making abortion illegal and all the moralising in the world do not reduce the incidence of abortion. The only thing that will work is good education for girls, good sex education (free of moralising and religion-inspired hectoring), including free access to and advice on contraception, and education, through the whole school curriculum, to give young people self-respect and respect for others so that they can all make good life choices. And a drive to end poverty and social inequality would be good. Call me idealistic, but better that than sterile, repressive pronouncements from stupid right-wing popes and their intellectual-dullard fellow travellers from whatever religion you care to name.

"steve-i[and probably most women]believe that when a woman is pregnant,another life ,dependant on the mother is involved so it is not just the womans body in question."

Yes, but the obstinate fact from your point of view is that it isn't your body. You have no say, and that's exactly as it should be.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 03:06 PM

its all relative but i would say that here in the UK[except S.ireland]where abortion is legal, and often encouraged, it is pretty rampant!    steve-i[and probably most women]believe that when a woman is pregnant,another life ,dependant on the mother is involved so it is not just the womans body in question.many may not question aborting their child/feotus but many suffer pychologically afterwards especially if they have been pressurized into the "operation",though i accept others may think their life ruined by having the child.on a lighter note-we finally have something in common, as i also tend to rescue spiders and bugs

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 11:52 AM

Steve Shaw makes the point that you can't legislate morality but some bad laws impose
it on others.

Abortion is like Prohibition. Once you ban it, it will be rampant.

Drugs are a big business precisely because they are banned by law.

So don't try to ban religion or atheism unless you support a civil war.

Banning pornography makes it more alluring to porn addicts.

If you want a lot of people to read a book, ban it. (Salman Rushdie for ex.)

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 07:37 PM

Interesting thing from the Global Warming thread ...

Those of you who can see the relevance will smile, others may howl ...

Posted by GUEST TIA
QUOTE
Sorry it's so long, but it has beautiful metaphors describing the nonsensical nature of the denialist arguments...

"Suppose a bloke drifts up to you and says, "Apples don't exist"... While your eyebrows are still rising, he adds, "but they grow naturally on trees!"

What?

"Apples don't exist but they grow naturally on trees?" Surely you wouldn't trust that bloke with the lives of your children if their future depended on logical coherence.

Now suppose you walk down the street and some other bloke sidles up and says, "The price of sheep is unknown, but I'd buy some now because they are cheap."

'Scuse me?

The price of sheep is unknown but they are cheap? No point trusting that bloke with your kids' lives either, if their future depended on logical coherence.

Now here's a surprising fact: Your kids' future, and the future of their kids, very much depends on logical coherence—very much hinges on protecting them and their future from the incoherent claims of so-called climate "skeptics."

One of the reliable insights of philosophy of science is that scientific knowledge is virtually never incoherent. In science, a hallmark criterion of whether you can possibly be right is whether or not you are coherent. If you are coherent, you might be right. If you are incoherent or contradict yourself, then you are most likely wrong.

The beauty of this is that you don't even need data or peer-reviewed science to be sure: If an argument is incoherent or mutually contradictory, then you can be fairly confident that it is wrong or stated for entertainment purposes only.

What does this have to do with so-called climate "skeptics?"

Everything.

Because the sum total of so-called "skeptic" arguments is an incoherent muddle of contradictions.

On a Monday morning your resident "skeptic" might tell you that global warming does not exist. On the Monday afternoon, she may tell you that the warming is all natural, just the same way that non-existent apples grow on trees.

Nothing this incoherent can be right.

And on Tuesday, a so-called "skeptic" may drift into town and make claims about the temperature record not being accurate. He might also assure you that there is nothing to worry about because it hasn't been warming in the last 23 days anyhow. So the sheep are cheap but no one knows their price.

Nothing this incoherent can be right.

By Wednesday morning, your excited "skeptic" may have invented the possibility that the sun is causing global warming, and by afternoon tea time it might be cosmic rays, or El Niño, or Inspector Clouseau or whatever.

Now, you may find it hard to believe that anyone could be so muddled, but in fact, it takes little effort to go to a "skeptic" website and dig out dozens if not hundreds such contradictions. Hundreds of instances in which apples were said not to exist but then happily grow on trees. Hundreds of clear indications that this so-called "skepticism" amounts to little more than muddled mutterings.

There is, of course, a coherent alternative. It is the coherent and overwhelmingly supported scientific fact that the Earth's climate is warming and that humans are largely responsible for it. That is coherent, backed by peer-reviewed science, and endorsed by all major scientific organizations in the world."

source text and podcast
UNQUOTE

So you might guess why i posted this in this 'delusion' thread, not in the 'true atheist' thread.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 06:33 PM

Oh, I forgot. I never kill spiders. I've just picked up a huge black ground beetle from my rug and put him gently outside the front door.

I would not enter on my list of friends,
(Though graced with polish'd manners and fine sense,
Yet wanting sensibility) the man
Who needlessly sets foot upon a worm.
An inadvertent step may crush the snail
That crawls at evening in the public path;
But he that has humanity, forewarn'd,
Will tread aside, and let the reptile live.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 06:02 PM

"though my reasons for being pro life are mainly theological"

Might I suggest that you dump the theology and actually address the needs of those real human beings who constitute half the world's population, aka women? Incidentally, I'm just as pro-life as you are. I oppose the culling of badgers, I belong to three conservation bodies in the UK, I garden organically, I oppose the death penalty. I even think, shock bloody horror, that abortion is a very bad thing and that we should be doing our utmost to reduce its incidence. Unlike you and the pope, however, I happen to know that banning it is just about the least effective way of doing it. It's been tried and it does a lot worse than not work. And apart from that I don't think it's a matter for anyone to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her own body. That would be immoral.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Sian H
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 05:38 PM

Aren't religion based discussions such as this banned on Mudcat? Shouldn't they be? They are banned on progressive music forums.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 04:32 PM

Sex is not a *moral* issue unless you believe in a deity whose followers claimn it's sinful.

Nothing wrong with it in the real world.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 01:38 PM

steve-my point is that you also utilized emotion,appealing to womens misery and by attempting to belittle those opposed to your position on the subject-despite my having been very positive in the way you previously presented your position.if you cant debate without such tactics,you either already lost the argument or render it not worthy of consideration.to the other more civil posters-i condemn also those who resort to violence to anyone.while we are considering religious violence,how about the great atheist states records on the subject.on my original enquiry i have yet to get a straight answer,though my reasons for being pro life are mainly theological,though i found it interesting,jack,that you know an atheist disturbed by abortion.on islam-i understood the USmilitary were bending over backwards to not offend muslims?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 01:34 PM

Morals and ethics are fighting cousins; they are often mistaken for each other, but deep inside they are not all that compatible. Morals, generally, depend for their existence on agreement, and what is moral for a Yank may be abysmally immoral for a Hindu. Ethics depend for their existence on clarity of perception and individual thought about what makes right action, what constitutes good consequences, and what goals bring about the best long term broad survival for individuals, groups, species and life at large.

I recognize that this semantic distinction is not necessarily widely accepted, but I think the two things really need to be separated out from each other. Of the two the individual sense of ethics is by far the most important. Moral codes are a dime a dozen. You can get a new one just by packing up and moving to the Kalahari or Kandahar or Kalamazoo. But the sense of ethics is a precious channel of perception, which once sold out is very hard to restore and cannot be easily replaced.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 01:32 PM

"Abortion certainly is a moral issue.
So is reckless premarital sex."

Well, these things tend to be moral issues for people who think they're wrong. Moralise at people about them and they'll carry on doing them. Treat them as practical issues requiring practical solutions and you will reduce the incidence. And why did you put "premarital" into that sentence? Hmm...

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 01:26 PM

One of the points about this conversation is that no one is going to convince anyone else
that their position is the "right one". I agree that there are no easy answers to moral and personal problems and atheists are no different from believers on this. The inference that atheists are of a single mind (which may or may not have been stated) is simply not true.
Atheists can disagree sometimes vociferously on morals, or social issues. One of the advantages of being a free thinker is that you can sort through the dogma and come to your own conclusions.

Abortion has been made to be a moral issue due to conservative religious ideology. It is at the base of the "civil war" on morality. Actually, it needs to be restated that women do not prefer abortions. This is a myth generated by fundamentalist preachers as if women are trying to get away with something.

Morality should be tempered with a concern for ethics. A lot of what religion has to offer in my opinion is unethical. (Punishing gods, mass destruction, meaningless platitudes etc.)

The study of ethics is probably the most relevant part of philosophy. It informs how we behave in a society.

Morality (like beauty) in the "eye of the beholder" is subject to interpretation. I have no doubt that Hitler thought of himself as a moral person.

A few choice words by Frank Herbert (1920-1986) US writer

"Religion often partakes of the myth of progress that shields us from the terrors of an uncertain future."

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 09:44 PM

"The people who see easy, black and white answers to others' moral and personal problems on both side of the issue are the ones who scare me."

With you there Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 09:38 PM

Abortion certainly is a moral issue.
So is reckless premarital sex.
So is telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies.
So is bring and unwanted baby into the world and raising it as such.
So is getting pregnant to keep from losing a boyfriend.

I know a woman, and atheist, who got an abortion when young and regretted since on moral grounds.
I know another woman who got an abortion without a second thought, partly because she didn't know if the father was her boyfriend or the married man she was cheating with.

The people who see easy, black and white answers to others' moral and personal problems on both side of the issue are the ones who scare me.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 06:49 PM

Not to mention that it has been demonstrated that fetuses at the usual abortion ages lack any possible capacity to feel pain.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 06:13 PM

"steve-and you are not resorting to emotion?.would my enquiry have been answered if i used the nice clinical word "termination"?"

No, abortion is fine by me. As for not resorting to emotion, well I'm not Mr Spock as it happens. But if you want to talk to me about abortion I'll pick you up straight away if you start playing the emotion card. This is not an emotional nor even a moral matter. It's a practical issue that requires practical solutions. That means fighting inequality and sexism, confronting poverty, and ensuring that all young people have that best kind of sex education (and step away, pastor) that equips them to respect themselves and others and enables them to make good life-choices for themselves. It's bad enough that anti-abortionists (which is what they are but not what they want to be called) call themselves, utterly dishonestly, "pro-life." Yuk. Nasty people.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Stringsinger
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 05:22 PM

Being ripped out of a womb is a gross exaggeration about abortion. It's a projection of someone's opinion onto a fetus that has comparatively little neurology and feeling compared to that of a sentient being.

Rather than advocating an "atheist state", I would prefer that rather than forcing my opinion on someone else, I would like to see an intelligent dialogue about the role of religion in society. This is becoming increasingly more important as there is a civil war broiling on this issue that allows murderous anti-abortionists the excuse of killing and bombing or Fred Phelps appearances at military funerals..

There is a lot of fear and anger about Islam without regard for the hateful crimes done in the name of Christianity. Religion often supports a primitive tribalism. There appears to be a contemporary religious "crusade" that is being carried out by the US military and to such a ridiculous degree that Lloyd Blankfein can claim god for his decisions about Goldman Sachs and robbing of American taxpayers.

How can anyone not see the dangers of religion on the public societal sector?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 01:21 PM

Cayce??? That lunatic? Jaysus, next it'll be Nostradomowitz.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 01:09 PM

I thought the James Bond dinosaur imitation was VERY droll, Mrrz.

Do you do a suave baritone like Sean Connery?


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 12:40 PM

Cayce was a mish-mash of perceptions and subjective overdubs. A phenomenal collection of data, but only a small portion of it is capavble of being substantiated.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 12:19 PM

Who among you can prove delusion?

Specifically the claims made by Edgar Cayce.

Now prove the delusion of the next evangelist who claims that God has told him to tell y'all about such and such.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 12:12 PM

yes-iam tecnologically challenged-sorry for the inconvenience.i have trouble understanding/following some posts also being less scientific.i shall not be offended if im not responded to. steve-and you are not resorting to emotion?.would my enquiry have been answered if i used the nice clinical word "termination"?

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 05:27 AM

Mrrzy

Hey, didn't anybody think my Ursula Undress with the dinosaur funny was funny?

Very old joke and you can't help wondering if her agent knew that when they chose her professional name. The problem is that, if what people are talking about is the wonderfully awful "One Million Years BC", that was Raquel Welch.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 07:28 PM

Thanks Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 07:26 PM

What Foolestroupe is trying to say is that using the shift key and a bit of spacing.... and breaking up of long posts into paragraphs would seriously help people follow what you are saying.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 06:36 PM

"GUEST,pete from seven stars link"

If you continue to post while deliberately flouting polite conventions of paragraphing, punctuation and possibly spelling (I don't know about that cause my brain shuts down while trying understand what you post), I will be just ignoring your input. Sorry about that.

I can read at a massive speed 'normal text' - having learned to 'speed read' while young. I cannot read your posts in that manner, as I need to go back to the way I read in primary school, even reading out loud to try to get comprehension - it takes me many times longer. If you have a developmental reason for posting in the way you do, you have my sympathy, but not my full automatic future attention. If I can grasp only some of what you say, I may misunderstand you what you intend as your meaning anyway, which would only upset you. Sorry about that.

Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010
From: Amos
Date: 10 Oct 10 - 03:14 PM

""A rare Japanese flower named Paris japonica sports an astonishing 149 billion base pairs, making it 50 times the size of a human genome Ñ and the largest genome ever found. The genome would be taller than Big Ben if stretched out end to end. The researchers warn however that big genomes tend to be a liability: plants with lots of DNA have more trouble tolerating pollution and extreme climatic extinctionsÑand they grow more slowly than plants with less DNA, because it takes so long to replicate their genome.""

Well, it would seem the quantity of base pairs is not the key attribute to the antenna's bandwidth and frequency capabilities.

Unless this is one helluva enlightened flower... ;>)

A