RMW,..<<..Which if any is valid
to determine Barack Obama was born in Hawaii?>>

i have..*SEEN..a copy of a birth extract
i dont know if the president..would be exposded in photo-shopping it

thus 90%..sure he was born..
where document says he was*

yes..<L<"so both are fact">>

statisicly..only one quarter of the..population...can get cancer*
3/4 automaticly self corrects//the damage..add inbody acidity]conductivity..and exposure times..leakage..the stats say
1 in one thousand..will get it from phones..others frommicro/pariculate..yes otheres via injestion..etc

the numbers cant lie..but can be spun
by say 'social costs''..of say smopkinmg..=30 billion
yet actual hodpitalcosts is less thas 1/100..that number
[as reported in media..

800million fro mmemory
was read onto..parlemewnt record hansard

but all cancers = only 15 %..of hospital costs
i agree<<Then reality is contradictory....>>

yes facts say specifically..x will get cancer../given x exposure parameters..at sensitive times..[when dna is in the vulnerable..*uncoiled state.

real life validates..those
with active life..will negate altzheimers..by communicating
say via free ipad..or 7 inch lap top..or micro card..communication is key to keeping minds active..keeping in the flow.

[yet not applicable..to say madcow..as a dirty secret
timebomb..as the elite..try to keep us isolated/dumbed down..

the ideal soviet party man

@oug
"i have..*SEEN..a copy of a birth extract..."
And what's the proof that you've seen this?

"thus 90%..sure he was born..
where document says he was"
So a paper document is reliable?

George,

Your apparent unwillingness to retract what I have clearly shown to be a false accusation regarding my intentions (by accusing me of name calling) suggests that it was nothing more than a smear tactic.

Instead of nursing a resentment towards me for simply pointing out (and demonstrating) what was as clear as day (in the hope that you may take the opportunity to correct the problem) how about you reflect on why you needed to be dishonest in the first place?

And if I wrongly accused you of dishonesty, then all you needed to do was clarify yourself and I would have gladly retracted my accusation, with an apology. I have shown, on a number of occasions, that I am quite happy to make retractions when I'm shown to be wrong, as I see no shame in being wrong. That you ignore this, and instead choose to sit back and take potshots at me, in discussion with others, comes across as petulant and cowardly, and speaks volumes about your sincerity and integrity, or lack thereof.

You pride yourself on your tone, regularly reminding me that you won't reciprocate in certain ways that you apparently find distasteful, and yet, ironically, you are quite happy to slander others by insinuating the most horrible things about their sincerity and intentions, without justification.

What is distasteful if not that?

Again, if I am wrong, then tell me where I have gone wrong and explain why, but please, don't just scramble for the moral highground in yet another attempt deflect attention back on to me as if I were the issue.

AJ Philips,

Your tone throughout this thread (and an earlier one concerning George) has been highly antagonistic and provocative.

It's not surprising, therefore, that people respond in a way that you find less than gratifying.

mac,

>>Where did I call anyone "dishonest"? It really isn't a sound procedure to conflate similar, but not identical, arguments from different individuals<<

I realized this, therefore a few minutes later I wrote the other post, where I explained it as a “personal taste” why I prefer this or that debating style (OK, not standards) and partners. I am aware you never called me dishonest nor attacked me personally, and I apologize for the conflation.

I also apologize for that part in the unfortunate post that you found patronising. However, as for what you call “jargon”, I think it is necessary in debates on abstract topics, in spite of those “hints” you mention that a third person might see in the use of it. After all, we have Google and Wikipedia, that I often use if I encounter a term or phrase I do not understand, or not in the given context (for instance, googling “cognitive leap” gave me 13 000 hits). .

On the other hand, there are topics being discussed on this OLO that I am sufficiently interested in to follow, but do not get involved for various reasons, one of them being that I do not have enough information or do not understand the technicalities (or jargon, if you like).

Poirot,

>>those who have been particularly bound up in religion - and then reject it - appear to far more enthusiastic in their denunciation … (than) people, who having no experience of religious belief<<

You are so right! A person who has left the country of his/her birth to settle in another country will be much more emotional/enthusiastic when giving reason why he/she did not wnat to live in that country than an outsider, who never lived in the person's country of birth, would.

AJ Philips,

>>please, don't just scramble for the moral highground in yet another attempt deflect attention back on to me as if I were the issue.<<

No, I won’t.

Yuyutsu, thank you for your lovely post. As a dog-lover I tend to see it more as being nipped by some overenthusiastic pooches keen for a play. :-)

You may well be right about the nature of God, but I think you may have mistaken my own position. I'm not interested in "proving" that God exists, but as a lifelong atheist I've had to examine some of my own assumptions in the light of recent observations that I'm finding it hard to fit into that framework. That means coming up with a new hypothesis and testing it, which the good people here are being kind enough to help me with. That doesn't go to the nature of God at this stage, but to the [simple!] question of existence. I have a few ideas on that nature, but they can wait.

AJ, in the circumstances of trying to hold a friendly and productive discussion rather than having a debate with the intent of scoring points. I can assure you that I'm quite capable of the latter, but it doesn't seem very useful to do so on this topic and decreasingly useful on others.

WmTrevor, thank you for the clarification. I think we may be closer in our views than I realised, especially with respect to your comments about the particularity of the way God is envisioned. There is so much fragmentation of the idea that there is "Devil in the detail". I'll try to expand a bit on your post a little later.

mac, it can be tested by the effect on society of having a structural organising moral principle. Every successful society has one that gives people both a personal meaning and a social role. To date, the most successful of those has been based on a conception of God in the case of the Indo European traditions, although the Asian ones tend to a more abstract notion of fundamental goodness.

A cognitive leap is a jump from one mode of thought to another.