subject:"cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate."


Hi,

Of course, if the FDA hides that cannabis can possibly cure some  
cancers, why should it not hide other possible successful  
procedure(s). The following documentary shows that this happened/ 
happens indeed:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGwkt1CWhhw

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

2014-04-21 Thread ghibbsa

On Saturday, April 19, 2014 8:05:20 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 18 Apr 2014, at 22:33, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>  
>  
> Physorg runs a report today in which brain abnormalities are linked with 
> cannabis use, 
>  
>
> http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-04-casual-marijuana-linked-brain-abnormalities.html#ajTabs
>  
> Sounds pretty serious. 
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sure, and we have to take all data into account. What that paper show is 
> just negligible compared to the use of alcohol. Also, they talk about 
> joint, which is not marjiuana, but a mixture tobacco and marijuana, and it 
> is not clear if they have verified that the person did not also drink 
> alcohol. Then all studies I read shows that cannabis augments the number of 
> neurons, and it is not clear in what sense those deformations constitutes a 
> problem. 
>

You haven't been forthcoming about the evidence for serious brain damage as 
a result of cannabis. When I said I'd seen two friends institutionalised, 
you didn't acknowledge, yes there is serious evidence for brain damage of 
this kind. You didn't do that. 

You are apparently making the same sort of mistake as you do over on 
climate threads. Taking everything into account, is not a case of any two 
lines of evidence, one being negative one being positive, can be compared 
and played off against one another. 

Evidence for serious brain damage, can be compared to evidence for serious 
brain enhancements...or neutral effects. In the event of neutral effects, 
then the median would still be in the negative, since the other evidence is 
for serious brain damage.

Comparing to alcohol, which is already legal and embedded into society, 
is not a sort of, opportunity for an open season arguing for other harmful 
substances be embedded into society in the same way. 

Cannabis is clearly a very mixed bag. There is clearly some very worrying 
evidence linking cannabis to mental illness. There is also a lot of 
individual testimony linking cannabis to a collapse in most interest in 
life, ambition, goals, responsibilities. So there's a lot of really 
negative information and you want to sweep all that under the carpet and 
discredit the sources. That's very devious conduct, on the face of things.  

>
> But, anyway, I don't think it makes any sense to ban a drug, as all 
> studies shows that when it is illegal, you give the market to people who 
> will not ask the ID to their "clients". On the contrary, the criminals will 
> target the kids, and get the mean to sell the drug without any price and 
> quality control. So a proof that cannabis *is* bad for the health is 
> automatically a reason more to make it legal: to protect the kids.
>

I agree that legalization is the only solution, because of the serious 
problem of corruption now mainstream in society as a result of organized 
crime. I think the only safe way to legalize would be to ramp up individual 
and company rightsspecifically allowing one person to require another 
person does not use ...certain drugs, ever, or at certain times...as a 
condition of a legal contract...including employment, marriage, membership 
of a club..whatever. 

People wouldn't have to require that, but they'd have the right. I think it 
would be safe to legalize drugs in that sort of situation, because drugs 
use would immediately be swept to the periphery. But organized crime would 
be killed off at the same time. It would also probably have to be 
multilateral in implementation.  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

2014-04-21 Thread spudboy100

Back to our favorite topic, AGW, take a peak at this article or study from the 
US federales-

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/20/corn-biofuels-gasoline-global-warming


Observations:
1. The science of climate is likely massively complicated, obviously.
2. Even good ideas end up making no difference or making things worse.
3. In this study, it's transportation fuel we are comparing and not fuels used 
to power homes, factories,etc. Applesand Pumpkins comparison.
4. The technology we use is essential to success. So half-assed government 
programs probably won't transform our world. 


-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Apr 21, 2014 2:45 am
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.



On 21 April 2014 18:21, meekerdb  wrote:

  


On 4/20/2014 10:03 PM, LizR wrote:


  

On 21 April 2014 16:27, meekerdb   wrote:
  

  
“People are more unwilling to give up the word ‘God’
than to give up the idea for which the word has hitherto
stood” 
--- Bertrand Russell
  


  
  

  


:-)




Indeed!




Even physicists have been getting some  mileage out of it ("The God 
Particle" etc).

  



Of course it's publishers, not authors, that chose titles.  Iremember a 
well known author telling how, once when he had fallen onhard times he 
wrote a romance to be published under a house nomed'plume.  He called it 
"South Sea Interlude".  The publisher saidthey should call it "Captive of 
Temptation".  He objected that therewas no captive in the story and it had 
nothing to do withtemptation, so why should they call it "Captive of 
Temptation"?  Thepublisher patiently explained that if they called it 
"South SeaInterlude" it would sell 5000 copies.  If they called it "Captive 
ofTemptation" it would sell 400,000 copies.


Yes, it can be, although publishers aren't necessarily better at choosing 
titles than writers. "The God Particle" was (allegedly) chosen by the author 
(Leon Lederman), but as a joke. Hawking apparently put his famous "mind of god" 
quote in to please his wife (which is I imagine how the god-in-physics business 
got started - or was that "God and the New Physics" by Paul Davies?). I'm sure 
writers and publishers now realise that having "God" in the title sells. Ian 
Stewart had "Does God play dice?" (Any bets on who chose "The God Delusion"?) 
And now we have a phenomenon that's been named "God's fingerprint"... no doubt 
books to follow, if they haven't already ... of course the idea is in most 
cases probably to use "God" as someone here recently suggested to mean "the 
Universe" (or Multi/Mega/Omni/Uber-verse, as the case may be). And to sell more 
copies of course.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

2014-04-21 Thread spudboy100


Did ja know that Martin Gardner was a god-believer? He had a sort of logic 
behind it, and nobody need agree with him. Safe to say that if Tegmark was a 
religious believer, and he is not, Gardner would be there with him. 

On the subject of the miracle of number 19 in the Qur'an, has anyone read 
Martin Gardner's article on the miracle of the number 5 in the Empire State 
Building?


(Or the not-such-a-miracle of pi in the great pyramid...)


With enough data and ingenuity and willing to not be too rigorous, one can find 
number coincidences in anything.




-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Apr 20, 2014 8:26 pm
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.



On the subject of the miracle of number 19 in the Qur'an, has anyone read 
Martin Gardner's article on the miracle of the number 5 in the Empire State 
Building?


(Or the not-such-a-miracle of pi in the great pyramid...)


With enough data and ingenuity and willing to not be too rigorous, one can find 
number coincidences in anything.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.



On 21 Apr 2014, at 05:26, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/20/2014 2:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 19 Apr 2014, at 20:50, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/19/2014 12:37 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Then, the cultivation of industrial help -- which is not  
psychoactive -- was also made illegal. Industrial has a wide  
range of applications: paper, fabric, building material and cheap  
protein source, to name a few. It threatens several industries  
and it is not a narcotic. How do you explain that?


How do you explain that growth of industrial hemp was encouraged  
by the government up through World War 2?  Did it not pose the  
same threats then?


Good question, but it seems to go in Telmo's direction. It shows  
that the banning of hemp was indeed purely irrational, and  
motivated by making easy money based on lies. it was only a way to  
impose oil and forest against a natural efficacious sustainable  
competitor.


It can't be both. Making easy money is quite rational.  But I don't  
know who you think led the campaign to ban marijuana.  It's my  
impression that it was a lot of self-righteous and fearful  
conservative Christians who did not stand to gain anything  
monetarily - anymore than they now stand to gain by preventing gay  
marriage.  I don't see that going hemp was any threat to the oil  
industry or lumber?


I don't see why "going hemp" was any threat for conservative  
christians, before it was illegal. There were just no complains, and  
hemp was a useful plant (for industry and medicine, since 3000 years  
in the world, and hundreds of years in america).


"Going hemp" was a threat for those investing in the OIl synthetical  
pharma, for Oil's plastic fiber, for steel, etc.

There were no complain on Hemp. Not one. The danger was a set-up. 100%.

The idea that drugs are bad became a conservative idea *only after  
drug prohibition*. (Conservative like law enforcement).


Here is very good video, which summarizes well this at the beginning,  
and then shows the *many* medicinal virtues, and the progress in the  
why and how that is possible.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Md2WNqqxTQ

There are infinitely more overdose with water each year (some  
hundreds) than overdose with cannabis (0).


The fear of cannabis raised *only* from propaganda movies (you can  
find all of them on youtube).
It is like antisemitism and racist in europa: lies and lies and lies,  
and then people believe that there is no smoke without some fire.



Bruno






Brent


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.



On 21 Apr 2014, at 02:03, Chris de Morsella wrote:




From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of LizR

Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2014 5:01 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

On 20 April 2014 22:41, Kim Jones  wrote:

Everything we know
Everything we know that we know
Everything we do not know
Everything we suspect we do not know
Everything we cannot possibly know (due to the limitations of  
hominid brains/minds)

Everything that was, is or will be

In short, God is - wait for it:

The Everything.

I don't have any problem with calling this God, or indeed calling it  
whatever you like, but it isn't the concept most people have of God.


Maybe you should just call it the Everything.

The Everything cannot possibly have a name nor an identity.

"The Tao that can be named..."

Most people think God has an identity. God is love, or my God is a  
jealous God, or whatever. So your conception of God isn't what we  
were talking about.


The Jewish mystics of the Moorish flowering wrote of the Sephirot  
Kether (the crown) that it is that which is manifest, but cannot be  
defined, described or named. It is perhaps that ineffable sense of  
being that precedes and underlies our own perception of our self- 
being, but whatever...


Yes. the awe of mystery, would say Einstein.





Only one way to find out though, and that is to look for yourself,


Exactly.




that is if you are lucky and wise and don't fall for one or another  
of the well packaged stories that are seeking souls to corral.



You need to be a universal machine,
 ... knowing that she is universal (= Löbian),
 and willing to stay universal and exploits the inconceivable  
freedom of the universal machine.


But most humans prefer to let other machines to think for them, as  
this gives an illusion of social security.


Bruno





Chris

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

2014-04-21 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 5:26 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 4/20/2014 2:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  On 19 Apr 2014, at 20:50, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 4/19/2014 12:37 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> Then, the cultivation of industrial help -- which is not psychoactive --
> was also made illegal. Industrial has a wide range of applications: paper,
> fabric, building material and cheap protein source, to name a few. It
> threatens several industries and it is not a narcotic. How do you explain
> that?
>
>
> How do you explain that growth of industrial hemp was encouraged by the
> government up through World War 2?  Did it not pose the same threats then?
>
>
>  Good question, but it seems to go in Telmo's direction. It shows that
> the banning of hemp was indeed purely irrational, and motivated by making
> easy money based on lies. it was only a way to impose oil and forest
> against a natural efficacious sustainable competitor.
>
>  It can't be both.
>

Wasn't hemp production temporarily encouraged by the government in the
context of the second world war with the "Hemp for Victory" video?

https://archive.org/details/Hemp_for_victory_1942

The video says at some point: "Careful with your seeds. To grow help
legally you must have a federal registration and tax stamp". This appear to
be a reference to the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act, that allowed the government
to issue "tax stamps", which is to say "licenses to grow hemp" at it's
discretion. In fact, Wikipedia mentions:

"After the Philippines fell to Japanese forces in 1942, the Department of
Agriculture and the U.S. Army urged farmers to grow fiber
hemp.
Tax stamps for cultivation of fiber hemp began to be issued to farmers.
Without any change in the marijuana Tax Act, 400,000 acres (1,600 km2) were
cultivated with hemp between 1942 and 1945. The last commercial hemp fields
were planted in Wisconsin in 1957."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_Tax_Act_of_1937#Operation_of_the_Act

This seems to suggest that industrial hemp regulation introduced
inefficiencies in the industrial system, and that these inefficiencies
could not be tolerated in the context of the war effort. When it's just the
citizen's welfare that is at stake, then lobby interests win.

I have no doubt that religious and fearful ladies campaigned for banning
cannabis, purely because they believed it was an evil substance. My point
is: misguided people campaign for misguided things all the time. Sometimes
they are useful idiots, because their demands are coincidentally aligned
with the interests of some more powerful group.

Still according to Wikipedia, but with citations:
"Some parties have argued that the aim of the Act was to reduce the size of
the hemp 
industry[7]
[8] 
[9]
largely
as an effort of businessmen Andrew
Mellon
, Randolph Hearst , and the Du
Pont family 
.[7]
[9]
The
same parties have argued that with the invention of the
decorticator,
hemp had become a very cheap substitute for the paper
pulp that
was used in the newspaper
industry.[7]
[10] 
These
parties argue that Hearst felt that this was a threat to his extensive
timber holdings. Mellon, Secretary of the
Treasury and
the wealthiest man in America, had invested heavily in the Du Pont family's
new synthetic fiber, nylon , a fiber
that was competing with
hemp.[7]
"

Telmo.

Making easy money is quite rational.  But I don't know who you think led
> the campaign to ban marijuana.  It's my impression that it was a lot of
> self-righteous and fearful conservative Christians who did not stand to
> gain anything monetarily - anymore than they now stand to gain by
> preventing gay marriage.  I don't see that going hemp was any threat to the
> oil industry or lumber?
>
> Brent
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegro

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.



On 21 Apr 2014, at 01:39, Chris de Morsella wrote:




From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of meekerdb

Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:54 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

On 4/19/2014 9:01 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:
Including Uri Geller, UFOs, a thousand people who want to "prove  
Einstein wrong", Borley Rectory, the people trying to sell me  
something from Nigeria, the Loch Ness monster, Ouija boards, Thor,  
Zeus, Odin and so on - yes, no doubt one shouldn't dismiss anything,  
but life's too short not to prioritise.


Too short, yes! Prioritize, yes!  Especially because if there is a  
purpose to this life, and especially if there is more to life after  
death, and if this short life is but a test, whose result is  
eternal, then we better study earnestly. Difficult, yes, impossible,  
no!


"It's an incredible con job when you think of it, to believe  
something now in exchange for life after death. Even corporations  
with all their reward systems don't try to make it posthumous."

 Gloria Steinem, women's rights activist

And how could it be otherwise... religion has always been a tool of  
the state to mind control the slaves with promises of rewards in the  
thereafter in exchange for loyalty, obedience and service throughout  
the span of actual life; balanced with threats of eternal damnation  
for falling out of line. The narrative of religion after religion  
seems tailor made, -- by their acts shall they be known -- for the  
imposition of the centralized authority totalitarian mindset. Marx  
got it right when he compared it to Opium; and I apologize for  
hurting anyone's feelings who may believe in some deity or other.
I think it is important to distinguish the pursuit of self- 
awareness, enlightenment, transcendence, spiritual self-realization...  
these are exquisitely personal acts and pursuits that have mostly  
been discouraged, frowned upon and often repressed by force and  
threat by the forces of organized religion. Free thinking and the  
spirit of questioning dogma is not something any religion tolerates  
(except in rare moments of flowering, say the Golden period of  
Moorish Cordoba)



Indeed. As Einstein knew, even the religion of "free-thinking"  
generates its own dogma. Free thinking is a protagorean virtue: it  
obeys []p -> ~p. I got evidence from Brussels university, where you  
have to sign an allegeance to "free-thinking", and then have to defend  
dogmatically Aristotelian theology, i.e. the belief in a *primitive*  
physical  universe.


So genuine free thinker will think freely without ever saying that  
they are thinking freely. They will simply never use such an  
expression, except in meta-debate where free-thinking is the object of  
discussion.


Note that believing in the God of comp entails the practice of free- 
thinking, as faith, here,  will invite reason to not fear any argument.

Only bad faith hides data and fear theories.

Bruno








Chris

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.



On 20 Apr 2014, at 21:04, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

Thanks, Professor. You musings about God having a mother using  
logical consistencies is similar to what mathematical biologist and  
author, Clifford Pickover does frequently in his books, both fact  
and fiction.  Perhaps God's Mother was a Boltzmann Brain? Ah!  
Another mystery infused with a mystery.



God or the Goddess cannot be a Boltzmann brain (I know you were  
joking, to be sure). Why?


If God is a Boltzmann brain, that would mean that comp is true, but  
then my mind has to be associated to an infinity of Boltzman brain and  
well, any programs in arithmetic or in the UD*, but then the physical  
reality has to be a sum on all programs, and what we see from inside  
will be bigger than God (which is doubtful) and not describable in any  
3p way.


God, even as seen as an "everything", is more in the mysterious aspect  
of the existence and conscience of that everything. It can be the  
physical universe, for an aristotelian (but this needs to assume non- 
comp), and basically, that is an open problem.


Bruno






Mitch
My liking that God has a Mother should not be taken too much  
seriously, and is related to my liking attributing the feminine to  
even numbers, and a the masculine to the odd numbers, and then it is  
a remind that the one (1) is enclosed by the most terrible female in  
the arithmetical platonia, the number 0 (death, annihilation,  
nothing), and 2 (life, division, separation, distinction, creation).
We tend to believe that God is male, because we forget that the ONE  
came from the ZERO (by the successor operation of course).


:)

Bruno
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Apr 20, 2014 2:20 pm
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.


On 20 Apr 2014, at 15:31, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

At some point, you might consider, expounding on this concept of  
Comp, how it does what it does, and how it informs both science and  
theology. I didn't capture this in your recent book.


OK. I might give a longer response some day, but I have to go and  
will just refer to both the sane paper (easily accessible, and it  
contains both UDA and AUDA), and the relation with (neoplatonist)  
theology is in the plotinus paper (pdf)


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html 
 (HTML)


+

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/ 
SIENA.pdf   (PDF).



My liking that God has a Mother should not be taken too much  
seriously, and is related to my liking attributing the feminine to  
even numbers, and a the masculine to the odd numbers, and then it is  
a remind that the one (1) is enclosed by the most terrible female in  
the arithmetical platonia, the number 0 (death, annihilation,  
nothing), and 2 (life, division, separation, distinction, creation).
We tend to believe that God is male, because we forget that the ONE  
came from the ZERO (by the successor operation of course).


:)

Bruno


Good question. Apparently in comp God might have a Mother, and it  
has to be a Goddess, but take this with the usual amount of grain  
salts :)

-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Apr 20, 2014 7:40 am
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.


On 20 Apr 2014, at 10:16, LizR wrote:

On 20 April 2014 18:52, Samiya Illias   
wrote:
So which of the 1000s of Gods people have invented, I mean  
discovered through divine revelation, should one bet on (and why) ?


The one that you truly believe in, based upon all the study and  
contemplation you can put in. Not bet upon any arbitrarily, rather  
search and find faith.


To me, god is a non-answer. Where did god come from?



Good question. Apparently in comp God might have a Mother, and it  
has to be a Goddess, but take this with the usual amount of grain  
salts :)


But God, nor his Mother, should ever be considered as an answer. As  
answer that is the usual authoritative "don't ask, don't search"  
attitude, i.e. the God of the gap, maintained by those who want you  
to believe in their view on reality, and prevent you to search and  
question them.


God is not an answer, nor a justification for any act, even the  
most good one. At least not in any public way.


Bruno



So far the only ontologies that don't seem to merely push the  
question back a step are ones like Bruno's comp, Russell's "theory  
of nothing" or Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/eve

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

On 21 April 2014 18:21, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 4/20/2014 10:03 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 21 April 2014 16:27, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  “People are more unwilling to give up the word ‘God’ than to give
>> up the idea for which the word has hitherto stood”
>> --- Bertrand Russell
>>
>  :-)
>
>  Indeed!
>
>  Even physicists have been getting some mileage out of it ("The God
> Particle" etc).
>
>
> Of course it's publishers, not authors, that chose titles.  I remember a
> well known author telling how, once when he had fallen on hard times he
> wrote a romance to be published under a house nome d'plume.  He called it
> "South Sea Interlude".  The publisher said they should call it "Captive of
> Temptation".  He objected that there was no captive in the story and it had
> nothing to do with temptation, so why should they call it "Captive of
> Temptation"?  The publisher patiently explained that if they called it
> "South Sea Interlude" it would sell 5000 copies.  If they called it
> "Captive of Temptation" it would sell 400,000 copies.
>
>
Yes, it can be, although publishers aren't necessarily better at choosing
titles than writers. "The God Particle" was (allegedly) chosen by the
author (Leon Lederman), but as a joke. Hawking apparently put his famous
"mind of god" quote in to please his wife (which is I imagine how the
god-in-physics business got started - or was that "God and the New Physics"
by Paul Davies?). I'm sure writers and publishers now realise that having
"God" in the title sells. Ian Stewart had "Does God play dice?" (Any bets
on who chose "The God Delusion"?) And now we have a phenomenon that's been
named "God's fingerprint"... no doubt books to follow, if they haven't
already ... of course the idea is in most cases probably to use "God" as
someone here recently suggested to mean "the Universe" (or
Multi/Mega/Omni/Uber-verse, as the case may be). And to sell more copies of
course.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

2014-04-20 Thread meekerdb


On 4/20/2014 10:03 PM, LizR wrote:

On 21 April 2014 16:27, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

“People are more unwilling to give up the word ‘God’ than to give up 
the idea
for which the word has hitherto stood”
--- Bertrand Russell

:-)

Indeed!

Even physicists have been getting some mileage out of it ("The God Particle" 
etc).


Of course it's publishers, not authors, that chose titles.  I remember a well known author 
telling how, once when he had fallen on hard times he wrote a romance to be published 
under a house nome d'plume.  He called it "South Sea Interlude".  The publisher said they 
should call it "Captive of Temptation".  He objected that there was no captive in the 
story and it had nothing to do with temptation, so why should they call it "Captive of 
Temptation"?  The publisher patiently explained that if they called it "South Sea 
Interlude" it would sell 5000 copies.  If they called it "Captive of Temptation" it would 
sell 400,000 copies.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

On 21 April 2014 15:26, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 4/20/2014 2:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>  On 19 Apr 2014, at 20:50, meekerdb wrote:
> On 4/19/2014 12:37 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> Then, the cultivation of industrial help -- which is not psychoactive --
> was also made illegal. Industrial has a wide range of applications: paper,
> fabric, building material and cheap protein source, to name a few. It
> threatens several industries and it is not a narcotic. How do you explain
> that?
>
>
> How do you explain that growth of industrial hemp was encouraged by the
> government up through World War 2?  Did it not pose the same threats then?
>
>
>  Good question, but it seems to go in Telmo's direction. It shows that
> the banning of hemp was indeed purely irrational, and motivated by making
> easy money based on lies. it was only a way to impose oil and forest
> against a natural efficacious sustainable competitor.
>
>  It can't be both. Making easy money is quite rational.  But I don't know
> who you think led the campaign to ban marijuana.  It's my impression that
> it was a lot of self-righteous and fearful conservative Christians who did
> not stand to gain anything monetarily - anymore than they now stand to gain
> by preventing gay marriage.  I don't see that going hemp was any threat to
> the oil industry or lumber?
>
> I don't know much about it but I would guess there were both a bunch of
self-interested people who stood to gain, and a load of righteously
indignant people who couldn't stand the idea that someone, somewhere might
be enjoying themselves.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

On 21 April 2014 15:24, Samiya Illias  wrote:

> Liz, I gather from some of your posts that you're an author? Is it humanly
> possible for you to author a book spread over 23 years, writing
> 'occasion/event-relevant' sentences, and then compiling it, such that the
> book is tightly bound in a grid of a prime number, to protect it from any
> alterations?
>

Yes, of course it is, if a bunch of scholars treat it as a Holy book and
pore over it for centuries looking for such connections.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

On 21 April 2014 16:27, meekerdb  wrote:

>  “People are more unwilling to give up the word ‘God’ than to give up
> the idea for which the word has hitherto stood”
> --- Bertrand Russell
>
> :-)

Indeed!

Even physicists have been getting some mileage out of it ("The God
Particle" etc).

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

2014-04-20 Thread meekerdb


On 4/20/2014 5:00 AM, LizR wrote:
On 20 April 2014 22:41, Kim Jones > wrote:



Everything we know
Everything we know that we know
Everything we do not know
Everything we suspect we do not know
Everything we cannot possibly know (due to the limitations of hominid 
brains/minds)
Everything that was, is or will be


In short, God is - wait for it:


The Everything.


I don't have any problem with calling this God, or indeed calling it whatever you like, 
but it isn't the concept most people have of God.


Maybe you should just call it the Everything.


“People are more unwilling to give up the word ‘God’ than to give up the idea for which 
the word has hitherto stood”

--- Bertrand Russell

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

2014-04-20 Thread meekerdb

On 4/20/2014 2:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 19 Apr 2014, at 20:50, meekerdb wrote:

On 4/19/2014 12:37 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Then, the cultivation of industrial help -- which is not psychoactive -- was also made
illegal. Industrial has a wide range of applications: paper, fabric, building material
and cheap protein source, to name a few. It threatens several industries and it is not
a narcotic. How do you explain that?

How do you explain that growth of industrial hemp was encouraged by the government up
through World War 2? Did it not pose the same threats then?

Good question, but it seems to go in Telmo's direction. It shows that the banning of
hemp was indeed purely irrational, and motivated by making easy money based on lies. it
was only a way to impose oil and forest against a natural efficacious sustainable
competitor.

It can't be both. Making easy money is quite rational. But I don't know who you think led
the campaign to ban marijuana. It's my impression that it was a lot of self-righteous and
fearful conservative Christians who did not stand to gain anything monetarily - anymore
than they now stand to gain by preventing gay marriage. I don't see that going hemp was
any threat to the oil industry or lumber?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

2014-04-20 Thread Samiya Illias

Liz, I gather from some of your posts that you're an author? Is it humanly
possible for you to author a book spread over 23 years, writing
'occasion/event-relevant' sentences, and then compiling it, such that the
book is tightly bound in a grid of a prime number, to protect it from any
alterations?


On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 5:26 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On the subject of the miracle of number 19 in the Qur'an, has anyone read
> Martin Gardner's article on the miracle of the number 5 in the Empire State
> Building?
>
> (Or the not-such-a-miracle of pi in the great pyramid...)
>
> With enough data and ingenuity and willing to not be too rigorous, one can
> find number coincidences in anything.
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

On the subject of the miracle of number 19 in the Qur'an, has anyone read
Martin Gardner's article on the miracle of the number 5 in the Empire State
Building?

(Or the not-such-a-miracle of pi in the great pyramid...)

With enough data and ingenuity and willing to not be too rigorous, one can
find number coincidences in anything.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2014 5:01 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

On 20 April 2014 22:41, Kim Jones  wrote:

Everything we know

Everything we know that we know

Everything we do not know

Everything we suspect we do not know

Everything we cannot possibly know (due to the limitations of hominid 
brains/minds)

Everything that was, is or will be

In short, God is - wait for it:

The Everything. 

I don't have any problem with calling this God, or indeed calling it whatever 
you like, but it isn't the concept most people have of God.

Maybe you should just call it the Everything. 

The Everything cannot possibly have a name nor an identity.

"The Tao that can be named..."

Most people think God has an identity. God is love, or my God is a jealous God, 
or whatever. So your conception of God isn't what we were talking about.

The Jewish mystics of the Moorish flowering wrote of the Sephirot Kether (the 
crown) that it is that which is manifest, but cannot be defined, described or 
named. It is perhaps that ineffable sense of being that precedes and underlies 
our own perception of our self-being, but whatever…

Only one way to find out though, and that is to look for yourself, that is if 
you are lucky and wise and don’t fall for one or another of the well packaged 
stories that are seeking souls to corral.

Chris

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2014 2:54 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

On 20 Apr 2014, at 05:15, Samiya Illias wrote:

Chris, I was replying to Spudboy100 who refuses to consider the Quran
because of the 'jihadis' 'behavoir' . The point I was trying to make is that
some people, from all religious persuasions, do strange and at times
horrible things. We need to look past people and their behaviours, and
examine the religious texts to evaluate for ourselves what it is. We are all
responsible for our own beliefs and actions. We come to this world alone, we
will leave it alone. What religious label we are born in, which religious
label or not we choose, eventually we all must face death alone, and
whatever's beyond that. Wishing it away because some people are poor
ambassadors or poor communicators of the message, won't change things
according to our wishes. We humans have intelligence and a vast wondrous
world full of thoughts and ideas and science and signs... we must explore
everything we can for its own merit before discarding it. 

On this Everything list, I see earnest seekers exploring almost everything,
but somehow they stop short of scripture, especially Quran. I understand
much of this has to do with a filtered view of history, long-held
prejudices, popular media, as well as the actions of people who poorly
understand or use the religion, etc. The thing is, to understand everything,
we must be willing to explore everything. 

I read many "sacred" texts, including different translations of the Quran.
But I found some text more convincing, or more heart-vibrating than others.
I studied three years of classical chinese to be more at ease with the
taoist proses, notably.

For the Quran, some verses are formidable and can talk to my heart, but not
so for other verses, and muslim scholars were a bit contradictory on how to
interpret it.

>>But the main reason why we stop at scripture is only that they are
scripture. They are human very imperfect way to address the divine, and, by
my own faith, contradicts the deepest intuition I have on that matter, which
is that religion cannot be normative and allow "authorities" to think for
me, or intercede between me and the "good lord".

Precisely! This is my principal objection to all religions as well. No
authority is my bridge. the meaning of the Pope is in Italian "il Pontefice"
- e.g. "the One who is the bridge". the separation of the individual from
their own spiritual existence by means of this intercession of a central
gate keeper authority - i.e. the church (or equivalent) is at the root of
all religions, and especially of the Abrahamic monotheist brands.

Only the "i" that has the - perhaps one can say, self-emergent -- humility
to see (without imprisoning, what is seen, in pre-existing notional
constructs of the mind's world-model) can ever be the bridge to transcendent
self-awareness.

Chris

Some people seems to accept that "intercession", and I don't want to judge
them. May be it can make sense in some survival strategies, but it is no
more religion to me.

Bruno

To answer your question, you may find these versions of history different
from what you may know about Muslim conquests: 

http://lostislamichistory.com/did-islam-spread-by-the-sword/   

http://lostislamichistory.com/?s=crusades 

http://lostislamichistory.com/the-crusades-part-3-liberation/ 

Samiya 

On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Chris de Morsella 
wrote:

Samiya - Has Islam never participated in perpetrating violence against
others; in conquest? 

Islam is as guilty as the other Abrahamic faiths, as an agent of violence in
human history. 

Chris

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:57 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

People do many strange and horrid things in the name of religion or nation
or some other pretext. Violence has been perpetrated by the Crusaders, by
the Nazis, by the Buddhists in Bhutan, by the Hindus in the Kashmir, Babri
Masjid, by the Jews in Palestine, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the US and
Allies in Iraq, and the list goes on... 

One must look beyond the people and evaluate religions for their message.  

Samiya  

spudboy100 wrote: Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what
happens to humans in this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to
an ecstatic, plunge into violence, a "holy" violence, then a reasoning
person may pause, and ponder what is lost, what is gained, and what is the
damage done? Rather than focus on th

RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:54 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

On 4/19/2014 9:01 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:

Including Uri Geller, UFOs, a thousand people who want to "prove Einstein 
wrong", Borley Rectory, the people trying to sell me something from Nigeria, 
the Loch Ness monster, Ouija boards, Thor, Zeus, Odin and so on - yes, no doubt 
one shouldn't dismiss anything, but life's too short not to prioritise. 

Too short, yes! Prioritize, yes!  Especially because if there is a purpose to 
this life, and especially if there is more to life after death, and if this 
short life is but a test, whose result is eternal, then we better study 
earnestly. Difficult, yes, impossible, no! 

"It's an incredible con job when you think of it, to believe something now in 
exchange for life after death. Even corporations with all their reward systems 
don't try to make it posthumous."
 Gloria Steinem, women's rights activist

And how could it be otherwise… religion has always been a tool of the state to 
mind control the slaves with promises of rewards in the thereafter in exchange 
for loyalty, obedience and service throughout the span of actual life; balanced 
with threats of eternal damnation for falling out of line. The narrative of 
religion after religion seems tailor made, -- by their acts shall they be known 
-- for the imposition of the centralized authority totalitarian mindset. Marx 
got it right when he compared it to Opium; and I apologize for hurting anyone’s 
feelings who may believe in some deity or other. 

I think it is important to distinguish the pursuit of self-awareness, 
enlightenment, transcendence, spiritual self-realization… these are exquisitely 
personal acts and pursuits that have mostly been discouraged, frowned upon and 
often repressed by force and threat by the forces of organized religion. Free 
thinking and the spirit of questioning dogma is not something any religion 
tolerates (except in rare moments of flowering, say the Golden period of 
Moorish Cordoba)

Chris

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 8:15 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

>> Chris, I was replying to Spudboy100 who refuses to consider the Quran 
>> because of the 'jihadis' 'behavoir' . The point I was trying to make is that 
>> some people, from all religious persuasions, do strange and at times 
>> horrible things. We need to look past people and their behaviours, and 
>> examine the religious texts to evaluate for ourselves what it is. We are all 
>> responsible for our own beliefs and actions. We come to this world alone, we 
>> will leave it alone. What religious label we are born in, which religious 
>> label or not we choose, eventually we all must face death alone, and 
>> whatever's beyond that. Wishing it away because some people are poor 
>> ambassadors or poor communicators of the message, won't change things 
>> according to our wishes. We humans have intelligence and a vast wondrous 
>> world full of thoughts and ideas and science and signs... we must explore 
>> everything we can for its own merit before discarding it. 

I agree we all must face death alone. The realization that our personal destiny 
is to die, to perish, to be forever gone… is exceedingly hard to accept and is 
the fuel that drives all faiths. 

On this Everything list, I see earnest seekers exploring almost everything, but 
somehow they stop short of scripture, especially Quran. I understand much of 
this has to do with a filtered view of history, long-held prejudices, popular 
media, as well as the actions of people who poorly understand or use the 
religion, etc. The thing is, to understand everything, we must be willing to 
explore everything. 

Samiya I am going to stand by my statement that Islam has also been spread by 
the sword. For example, the conquest of Sassanid Persia and the, that began 
with the conquest of Mesopotamia by Arab forces led by Khalid ibn Walidin 633 
AD. The Moghul conquest into India another example.

I am also aware of the golden age of Islam, and am especially in awe of Moorish 
Spain at its flowering height of poetry, thought, science, philosophy 
(including in its scope one of the most important flowering of Judaism and 
Jewish culture ever, a fact few Americans are aware of.)

Sure Islam suffered the Crusades, but, for example the Ottoman’s almost took 
Vienna and would have swept down through into the heartland of the Rhine river, 
if the logistical bottleneck of trying to provision their massive invasion 
force (it was huge even by modern standards) had not brought about supply 
collapse and plague onto its own forces. Christianity converted just as 
bloodily by the sword, all I am pointing out is that Islam – and Islamic 
underpinned empires such as the Ottoman or Moghul Empires have been just as 
enthusiastic in conquest as their Abrahamic cousins.

Chris

PS I will look at the links you gave.

To answer your question, you may find these versions of history different from 
what you may know about Muslim conquests: 

http://lostislamichistory.com/did-islam-spread-by-the-sword/   

http://lostislamichistory.com/?s=crusades 

http://lostislamichistory.com/the-crusades-part-3-liberation/ 

Samiya 

On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Chris de Morsella  
wrote:

Samiya – Has Islam never participated in perpetrating violence against others; 
in conquest? 

Islam is as guilty as the other Abrahamic faiths, as an agent of violence in 
human history. 

Chris

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:57 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

People do many strange and horrid things in the name of religion or nation or 
some other pretext. Violence has been perpetrated by the Crusaders, by the 
Nazis, by the Buddhists in Bhutan, by the Hindus in the Kashmir, Babri Masjid, 
by the Jews in Palestine, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the US and Allies in 
Iraq, and the list goes on... 

One must look beyond the people and evaluate religions for their message.  

Samiya  

spudboy100 wrote: Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens 
to humans in this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an ecstatic, 
plunge into violence, a "holy" violence, then a reasoning person may pause, and 
ponder what is lost, what is gained, and what is the damage done? Rather than 
focus on the internal realm of self, I concentrate, for now, on behavior. 

On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 9:26 PM,  wrote:

Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens to humans in this 
world. If such a spiritu

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.


Thanks, Professor. You musings about God having a mother using logical 
consistencies is similar to what mathematical biologist and author, Clifford 
Pickover does frequently in his books, both fact and fiction.  Perhaps God's 
Mother was a Boltzmann Brain? Ah! Another mystery infused with a mystery. 

Mitch

My liking that God has a Mother should not be taken too much seriously, and is 
related to my liking attributing the feminine to even numbers, and a the 
masculine to the odd numbers, and then it is a remind that the one (1) is 
enclosed by the most terrible female in the arithmetical platonia, the number 0 
(death, annihilation, nothing), and 2 (life, division, separation, distinction, 
creation). 
We tend to believe that God is male, because we forget that the ONE came from 
the ZERO (by the successor operation of course).


:)


Bruno




-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Apr 20, 2014 2:20 pm
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.




On 20 Apr 2014, at 15:31, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:


 
At some point, you might consider, expounding on this concept of Comp, how it 
does what it does, and how it informs both science and theology. I didn't 
capture this in your recent book. 



OK. I might give a longer response some day, but I have to go and will just 
refer to both the sane paper (easily accessible, and it contains both UDA and 
AUDA), and the relation with (neoplatonist) theology is in the plotinus paper 
(pdf)



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html  
   (HTML)



+


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf   (PDF).




My liking that God has a Mother should not be taken too much seriously, and is 
related to my liking attributing the feminine to even numbers, and a the 
masculine to the odd numbers, and then it is a remind that the one (1) is 
enclosed by the most terrible female in the arithmetical platonia, the number 0 
(death, annihilation, nothing), and 2 (life, division, separation, distinction, 
creation). 
We tend to believe that God is male, because we forget that the ONE came from 
the ZERO (by the successor operation of course).


:)


Bruno




 
 
Good question. Apparently in comp God might have a Mother, and it has to be a 
Goddess, but take this with the usual amount of grain salts :)
 
 
 
 
 
-Original Message-
 From: Bruno Marchal 
 To: everything-list 
 Sent: Sun, Apr 20, 2014 7:40 am
 Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
 
 
 

 
 
On 20 Apr 2014, at 10:16, LizR wrote:
 

 
 
 
On 20 April 2014 18:52, Samiya Illias  wrote:
 
 
 
 
 
So which of the 1000s of Gods people have invented, I mean discovered through 
divine revelation, should one bet on (and why) ?
 

 
 
 
 The one that you truly believe in, based upon all the study and contemplation 
you can put in. Not bet upon any arbitrarily, rather search and find faith. 
 
 
 

 
 
 To me, god is a non-answer. Where did god come from?
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 
Good question. Apparently in comp God might have a Mother, and it has to be a 
Goddess, but take this with the usual amount of grain salts :)
 

 
 
But God, nor his Mother, should ever be considered as an answer. As answer that 
is the usual authoritative "don't ask, don't search" attitude, i.e. the God of 
the gap, maintained by those who want you to believe in their view on reality, 
and prevent you to search and question them.
 

 
 
God is not an answer, nor a justification for any act, even the most good one. 
At least not in any public way.
 

 
 
Bruno
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
So far the only ontologies that don't seem to merely push the question back a 
step are ones like Bruno's comp, Russell's "theory of nothing" or Max Tegmark's 
mathematical universe hypothesis.
 

 
 
 
 
 


 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
 
 
 
  
 
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
 
 
 


 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
 To u

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.



On 20 Apr 2014, at 15:31, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

At some point, you might consider, expounding on this concept of  
Comp, how it does what it does, and how it informs both science and  
theology. I didn't capture this in your recent book.


OK. I might give a longer response some day, but I have to go and will  
just refer to both the sane paper (easily accessible, and it contains  
both UDA and AUDA), and the relation with (neoplatonist) theology is  
in the plotinus paper (pdf)


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html 
 (HTML)


+

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf
(PDF).



My liking that God has a Mother should not be taken too much  
seriously, and is related to my liking attributing the feminine to  
even numbers, and a the masculine to the odd numbers, and then it is a  
remind that the one (1) is enclosed by the most terrible female in the  
arithmetical platonia, the number 0 (death, annihilation, nothing),  
and 2 (life, division, separation, distinction, creation).
We tend to believe that God is male, because we forget that the ONE  
came from the ZERO (by the successor operation of course).


:)

Bruno


Good question. Apparently in comp God might have a Mother, and it  
has to be a Goddess, but take this with the usual amount of grain  
salts :)

-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Apr 20, 2014 7:40 am
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.


On 20 Apr 2014, at 10:16, LizR wrote:


On 20 April 2014 18:52, Samiya Illias  wrote:
So which of the 1000s of Gods people have invented, I mean  
discovered through divine revelation, should one bet on (and why) ?


The one that you truly believe in, based upon all the study and  
contemplation you can put in. Not bet upon any arbitrarily, rather  
search and find faith.


To me, god is a non-answer. Where did god come from?



Good question. Apparently in comp God might have a Mother, and it  
has to be a Goddess, but take this with the usual amount of grain  
salts :)


But God, nor his Mother, should ever be considered as an answer. As  
answer that is the usual authoritative "don't ask, don't search"  
attitude, i.e. the God of the gap, maintained by those who want you  
to believe in their view on reality, and prevent you to search and  
question them.


God is not an answer, nor a justification for any act, even the most  
good one. At least not in any public way.


Bruno



So far the only ontologies that don't seem to merely push the  
question back a step are ones like Bruno's comp, Russell's "theory  
of nothing" or Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.



On 20 Apr 2014, at 15:09, Telmo Menezes wrote:





On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 19 Apr 2014, at 20:48, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/19/2014 12:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 19 Apr 2014, at 00:52, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/18/2014 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
What society thinks has nothing to do with it, because weak  
correlation-based scientific evidence is used selectively to  
create laws that were desired a priori by some interest group.
That implies some nefarious motive and corrupt use of data known  
to be wrong.  In fact there was no nefarious 'interest group'  
that wanted to ban marijuana or to ban alcohol or to ban heroin.



What? For marijuana, there were a lot. Anslinger was asked to find  
eveidence that cannabis was worst than alcohol. he   
destoyed the results which showed that cannabis is much less  
dangerous than alcohol. Nixon, Chirac (in France), adn also people  
in the UK, will destroyed such records too.


It is a made up since the start. That is why some people still  
speculate on dangers, for which there are no corresponding  
complains, with very few exception by person who abuse, and would  
probably not in case it would be legal.




All these bans were initiated by people who believed in the ill  
effects of these substances for individuals and for society.


I have no clue why you say this.


Because it's true.  The people may have been mistaken -  
particularly about the net ill effects on society - but there is  
plenty of evidence that some people become addicted to pot just as  
they become addicted to alcohol or tobacco and this has bad  
consequences for them.


Sure. But it is the illegality which makes that into a problem. In  
The Netherlands,  a kid is very badly seen by his peers when stoned,  
and considered as a total idiot when abusing pot. but where pot is  
illegal, he is seen as a sort of hero. The numbers confirms this.  
The Netherlands is the country were kids smoke pots the less, and  
countries with severe repression are those where kids smoke the most.




For example, my wife's first husband became a habitual pot smoker  
and lost all ambition and interest in other things.


One case is not a statistics. I might doubt if he  lost all ambition  
and interest because of pot, or if he became a pot abuser because   
he lost all ambition and interest, for some different reason.


Yes. This was the point I was trying to make with ghibbsa before he  
took offense.


Notice the cultural biases: it is common to tell the story of  
someone who "starts drinking" because something in their life is not  
going well*. With illegal substances we assume causality the other  
way around: someone's life is not going well because of some drug.  
Even with substances that most people don't see as "drugs", like  
sugar, the bias is displayed. Here we have the archetype of the  
woman who gets fat from eating too much chocolate or ice cream  
because her boyfriend left her. If we replace chocolate with  
cannabis, then people assume that the boyfriend left her because she  
became a pothead.


It is always a confusion between "a in b" and "b in a", when you look  
close. It explains why cultural prejudices are easy to create, and  
hard to revise. In the short run, if you have to act, that confusion  
can be helpful, and our associative memories exploits this. If you are  
raped by a guy 42 km high, you will fear all guy 42 km high, by a  
simple association, which is not a logical valid one, but locally it  
makes sense.







Prohibition reinforces the bias because successful people are not  
usually at liberty to discuss their illegal drug use. We make a  
curious exception for artists, but that's all.


Of course none of this falsifies the hypothesis that the guy lost  
ambition and interest in other things because of his pot habit.


Indeed.





It just tells us that we should remain agnostic on causality,



Absolutely. In all domains, on all matter. But we can try theories.  
Causalities are well captured in modal logic by expression like [](p- 
>q). There are transfinities of different modal logics, but there are  
as much notion of causality.




unless we gain a deeper understanding of the neurochemical  
mechanisms involved.


There is also a nocebo effect. If someone has already a tendency of  
being lazy, and is told that cannabis makes people lazy, he might use  
cannabis to explain (and most plausibly aggravate) his laziness. To  
find an easy culprit which deviates from its original laziness.







* to be fair, in some cases people also claim alcohol as the cause  
of problems, but the point is that causality is not automatically  
assumed with legal substances, but is automatically assumed with  
illegal ones. This strikes me as strong evidence of an irrational  
bias in our culture.


People want to hear what other people want them to want to hear. I am  
not sure it is just our culture. It is very general, a

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.



On 20 Apr 2014, at 12:41, Kim Jones wrote:




On 20 Apr 2014, at 6:16 pm, LizR  wrote:


To me, god is a non-answer. Where did god come from?


The problem is solved once and for all when we cease this ridiculous  
game of imagining God to be a being or an entity. God is not a being  
or an entity. God is a concept. God is:


Everything we know
Everything we know that we know
Everything we do not know
Everything we suspect we do not know
Everything we cannot possibly know (due to the limitations of  
hominid brains/minds)

Everything that was, is or will be

In short, God is - wait for it:

The Everything. The Everything cannot possibly have a name nor an  
identity.


I can agree with this, with the open mind if that everything is a  
person or not, has a will or not, reflects itself in itself or not, etc.


It is truth which attracts us, although in some state of mind we can  
fear that too. It is mainly an unknown, even if computationalism  
simplifies the picture conceptually, because ontologically the  
"everything" can be only 0, s(0), s(s(0)), etc. (or K, S, KK, KS,  
SK, ...). The rest are infinities of dreams which recovers, or not, in  
the transfinite (which exists from the inside or internal relative  
view).


Like God, or Sense, Everything is still a word. It does not tell us  
what it is, nor where that comes from.


The comparison/identification between God, Everything, is interesting  
only as far as it helps us also to better understand the theologian,  
and the mystical or altered mind state reports. In this case perhaps  
everything is more like the NOùS. In Plotinus (and comp through the  
lexicon) the noùs is still an emanation of something simpler, the one.


But that is just some nuance. The only God who has clearly a will, is  
the Universal Soul, the third hypostase, which is also the universal  
person (in Heaven, I think, with []p & p, and on earth, With []p & p &  
<>t (I would say)).


Bruno





Kim




Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL

Email:   kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
 kmjco...@icloud.com
Mobile: 0450 963 719
Phone:  02 93894239
Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com


"Never let your schooling get in the way of your education" - Mark  
Twain




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.



On 20 Apr 2014, at 12:33, Kim Jones wrote:




On 19 Apr 2014, at 2:15 am, Bruno Marchal  wrote:



On 18 Apr 2014, at 11:02, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:



and that it can exacerbate or precipitate psychosis in patients  
who already have schizophrenia.


I agree. I might think that this is a good thing, as it will point  
on the problem and help to manage a treatment. In some case  
cannabis can be enough as a treatment; in other case cannabis would  
be not indicated and should be avoided.


Personally, I don't think that cannabis, nor tobacco, should be  
allowed, without medical prescription, to minors. But to make it  
illegal to sell it to a minor, you have to legalize it.


For adult, I do think that recreational cannabis is *far* safer  
than alcohol, on many level (from the liver to the social problem  
or the car crash).


Bruno



Cannabis makes the user more sensitive to inputs of all kinds. It  
kind of invokes an enormous range of qualia which can be disturbing  
to some subjects. When stoned, you have intense reactions to  
whatever you are presented with. The well-known feeling of paranoia  
that often accompanies this is IMO the brain's natural panic  
reaction to having so many parallel streams of qualia maxed-out at  
the same time.



I wish this is true, but it is hard to dismantle it from the fact that  
the "fruit is forbidden". I think the panic reaction occurs with  
people who can't let it go and want to control everything.




This is normal under the circumstances and why I insist that  
cannabis use must be ritualised. Consider what a ritual is: a series  
of actions performed in a special space at a special time with like- 
minded participants all of whom understand the process involved. You  
undergo the experience in a protected space. To become stoned  
amongst people who are not is a very dangerous thing to do because  
the others will almost certainly make an uninformed judgement about  
your behaviour.



I would separate the entheogenic use of cannabis from its recreative  
use. A well known fact is that after years of consumption of cannabis,  
it becomes essentially a relaxant time-slowing machine. The  
entheogenic "teaching" get null. Its medicinal virtues continues,  
though. It remains better compared to most legal tranquilizers or  
antidepressant products.






The euphoric mind senses this, even though in an altered state of  
consciousness, and paranoia is the result, because the mind feels  
helpless when faced with the threat of outsiders who may be negative  
toward the altered state you are in.


If only alcoholic could be like that!



Therefore, cannabis use is best confined to the "indoors" sensory  
experiences that you can either do alone or with a few trusted  
friends. Reading, writing, cooking, eating, listening to or creating/ 
performing music, painting, sculpting - anything creative that does  
not involve much movement through space are all suitable activities.  
The king-daddy experience of them all is, of course, sex.


OK.




Unsuitable experiences would be driving a car, ascending in a hot-  
air balloon etc. this last was the fate of a group last year in New  
Zealand (Liz may recall this) where the entire group got stoned  
whilst aloft. When something went wrong with the mechanism of the  
helium delivery to the burner, nobody was in a baseline state of  
consciousness able to perform the necessary actions to save the  
situation and the result was that all perished in a fireball.


If they all perished, how to you know that nobody was in a baseline  
state of consciousness able to perform the needed actions?


I certainly not applaud the idea of doing that, but I am not sure  
about your inference. There are many accidents with balloon, sometimes  
even with sober people.







This is the antithesis of ritualised action performed in a protected  
space.


Accidents are due to irresponsibility, not products.

Common sense indicates to not alter your mind when you know you will  
have to use it, but irresponsible people will get the accident, in any  
possible ways.




I love cannabis myself, but I am the first to proclaim that a stoned  
driver is quite as dangerous as a drunk driver.



I never said that I love cannabis, to be precise. I might have said  
that I love salvia. But salvia is quite different and is actually sort  
of anti-drug, including cannabis.


And now, my dear Kim, I am not sure about any problem about driving  
and cannabis. Again, when you look at the literature, you can see many  
papers showing that cannabis is dangerous when driving, but when you  
do the math, there are simply wrong. Their numbers proves nothing.
Yet two serious studies have been done, in France and in the  
Netherlands, and have concluded, astonishingly enough, that cannabis  
use diminishes the number of car accidents. Eventually an explanation  
is that young smoker - young driver are to paranoid to take the car,  
or are even unable t

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.


Ok, I didn't really read it carefully, because:
a) I am lazy
b) I am at work now. 
Both of these are good excuses, and I shall use them now. So my evaluation of 
Discordia is one word, Apostasy! Why is this an apostasy? Because:
a) It is Easter Sunday.
b) It is fun to yell out the word, Apostasy!

I did like Robert  Anton Wilson's writings,  in previous years, and it's good 
to see that his work is remembered. 



-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Apr 20, 2014 9:36 am
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.


Since the list is in a proselytizing mood -- I guess it's appropriate for the 
season -- I leave you my favourite religious book.


"Principia Discordia"


or


"How I found Goddess and What I did to Her when I found Her"


http://www.principiadiscordia.com/downloads/Principia%20Discordia.pdf

(the good stuff starts on page 28)


The good news is that, in Discordianism, we are all Popes.


Hail Eris!
Telmo.




On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:




On 20 Apr 2014, at 10:16, LizR wrote:



On 20 April 2014 18:52, Samiya Illias  wrote:
 


So which of the 1000s of Gods people have invented, I mean discovered through 
divine revelation, should one bet on (and why) ?
 



The one that you truly believe in, based upon all the study and contemplation 
you can put in. Not bet upon any arbitrarily, rather search and find faith. 




 To me, god is a non-answer. Where did god come from?







Good question. Apparently in comp God might have a Mother, and it has to be a 
Goddess, but take this with the usual amount of grain salts :)


But God, nor his Mother, should ever be considered as an answer. As answer that 
is the usual authoritative "don't ask, don't search" attitude, i.e. the God of 
the gap, maintained by those who want you to believe in their view on reality, 
and prevent you to search and question them.


God is not an answer, nor a justification for any act, even the most good one. 
At least not in any public way.


Bruno






So far the only ontologies that don't seem to merely push the question back a 
step are ones like Bruno's comp, Russell's "theory of nothing" or Max Tegmark's 
mathematical universe hypothesis.
 






 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




 
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



 




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.





-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

2014-04-20 Thread Samiya Illias

 Liz, Pascal's wager is not good enough. Its not as simple as placing a
bet. We are fairly warned that those who claim to be Muslims will be tried
and tested. To hear how Yusuf Estes was tested: Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTIBC80cBAQ

Relevant verses:
[Quran 29:2] Do people think that they will be left alone because they say:
"We believe," and will not be tested
[Quran 76:2] Lo! We create human from a drop of thickened fluid to test
him; so We make him hearing, knowing

Samiya


On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 9:24 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On 20 April 2014 16:01, Samiya Illias  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:34 AM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>> On 20 April 2014 15:15, Samiya Illias  wrote:
>>>
 Chris, I was replying to Spudboy100 who refuses to consider the Quran
 because of the 'jihadis' 'behavoir' . The point I was trying to make is
 that some people, from all religious persuasions, do strange and at times
 horrible things. We need to look past people and their behaviours, and
 examine the religious texts to evaluate for ourselves what it is. We are
 all responsible for our own beliefs and actions. We come to this world
 alone, we will leave it alone. What religious label we are born in, which
 religious label or not we choose, eventually we all must face death alone,
 and whatever's beyond that. Wishing it away because some people are poor
 ambassadors or poor communicators of the message, won't change things
 according to our wishes. We humans have intelligence and a vast wondrous
 world full of thoughts and ideas and science and signs... we must explore
 everything we can for its own merit before discarding it.
 On this Everything list, I see earnest seekers exploring almost
 everything, but somehow they stop short of scripture, especially Quran. I
 understand much of this has to do with a filtered view of history,
 long-held prejudices, popular media, as well as the actions of people who
 poorly understand or use the religion, etc.

>>>
>>> This is, at least in my case, due to a distrust of taking the authority
>>> of centuries-old texts when there is little to no evidence that any of them
>>> contain more than - at best - a slight grain of truth, and when from a
>>> present day perspective it is clear they were created for reasons well
>>> understood by psychologists (in particular, for social control).
>>>
>>>
 The thing is, to understand everything, we must be willing to explore
 everything.

>>>
>>> Including Uri Geller, UFOs, a thousand people who want to "prove
>>> Einstein wrong", Borley Rectory, the people trying to sell me something
>>> from Nigeria, the Loch Ness monster, Ouija boards, Thor, Zeus, Odin and so
>>> on - yes, no doubt one shouldn't dismiss anything, but life's too short not
>>> to prioritise.
>>>
>>
>> Too short, yes! Prioritize, yes!  Especially because if there is a
>> purpose to this life, and especially if there is more to life after death,
>> and if this short life is but a test, whose result is eternal, then we
>> better study earnestly. Difficult, yes, impossible, no!
>>
>> Hmm. Pascal's wager, no less.
>

> So which of the 1000s of Gods people have invented, I mean discovered
> through divine revelation, should one bet on (and why) ?
>



>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

2014-04-20 Thread Telmo Menezes

Since the list is in a proselytizing mood -- I guess it's appropriate for
the season -- I leave you my favourite religious book.

"Principia Discordia"

or

"How I found Goddess and What I did to Her when I found Her"

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/downloads/Principia%20Discordia.pdf
(the good stuff starts on page 28)

The good news is that, in Discordianism, we are all Popes.

Hail Eris!
Telmo.


On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 20 Apr 2014, at 10:16, LizR wrote:
>
> On 20 April 2014 18:52, Samiya Illias  wrote:
>
>> So which of the 1000s of Gods people have invented, I mean discovered
>> through divine revelation, should one bet on (and why) ?
>>
>> The one that you truly believe in, based upon all the study and
>> contemplation you can put in. Not bet upon any arbitrarily, rather search
>> and find faith.
>>
>
> To me, god is a non-answer. Where did god come from?
>
>
>
> Good question. Apparently in comp God might have a Mother, and it has to
> be a Goddess, but take this with the usual amount of grain salts :)
>
> But God, nor his Mother, should ever be considered as an answer. As answer
> that is the usual authoritative "don't ask, don't search" attitude, i.e.
> the God of the gap, maintained by those who want you to believe in their
> view on reality, and prevent you to search and question them.
>
> God is not an answer, nor a justification for any act, even the most good
> one. At least not in any public way.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> So far the only ontologies that don't seem to merely push the question
> back a step are ones like Bruno's comp, Russell's "theory of nothing" or
> Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.


At some point, you might consider, expounding on this concept of Comp, how it 
does what it does, and how it informs both science and theology. I didn't 
capture this in your recent book. 

Good question. Apparently in comp God might have a Mother, and it has to be a 
Goddess, but take this with the usual amount of grain salts :)




-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Apr 20, 2014 7:40 am
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.




On 20 Apr 2014, at 10:16, LizR wrote:



On 20 April 2014 18:52, Samiya Illias  wrote:
 


So which of the 1000s of Gods people have invented, I mean discovered through 
divine revelation, should one bet on (and why) ?
 



The one that you truly believe in, based upon all the study and contemplation 
you can put in. Not bet upon any arbitrarily, rather search and find faith. 




 To me, god is a non-answer. Where did god come from?






Good question. Apparently in comp God might have a Mother, and it has to be a 
Goddess, but take this with the usual amount of grain salts :)


But God, nor his Mother, should ever be considered as an answer. As answer that 
is the usual authoritative "don't ask, don't search" attitude, i.e. the God of 
the gap, maintained by those who want you to believe in their view on reality, 
and prevent you to search and question them.


God is not an answer, nor a justification for any act, even the most good one. 
At least not in any public way.


Bruno






So far the only ontologies that don't seem to merely push the question back a 
step are ones like Bruno's comp, Russell's "theory of nothing" or Max Tegmark's 
mathematical universe hypothesis.
 






 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



 
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



 



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.


You are closest to Frank Tipler, or astronomer, Bernard Carr, on this matter. 
Or, for that matter Michio Kaku, if you read his latest book. 

I differ on Einstein in that I do believe theology has a large part which can 
be made into science. Here I am closer to Gödel than to Einstein. 


Bruno




-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Apr 20, 2014 7:28 am
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.




On 20 Apr 2014, at 10:12, LizR wrote:



On 20 April 2014 18:42, Samiya Illias  wrote:
 

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
 
-Albert Einstein 







He then went on to say...
 
The letter states pretty clearly that Einstein was by no means a religious 
person - in fact, the great physicist saw religion as no more than a "childish 
superstition". "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and 
product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still 
primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no 
matter how subtle can (for me) change this", Einstein wrote.





I really would like to suggest you reading the quite deep book by Jammer on 
"Einstein's religion"(*). 


You have to be careful when quoting Einstein on this. I think Einstein was very 
deeply and authentically religious, like Gödel. 
Like often in such case, such person are also the most shocked by the 
institutionalized religion, and very often Einstein made clear that his 
condemnation of religion relate to that. All his life Einstein insisted that he 
is a believer, and that he despises the atheists and so called free-thinker, 
but also all the churches and religious institution. 


I would say that the more you genuinely believe in God, the more you are 
shocked by what humans do with the notion.


I differ on Einstein in that I do believe theology has a large part which can 
be made into science. Here I am closer to Gödel than to Einstein. 


Bruno


http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Religion-Theology-Max-Jammer/dp/069110297X


A good amazon abstract:
<>










 





 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



 
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



 



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.


Weinberg is wrong, Liz. It might have been an affront to Weinberg's dignity if 
and when he tried it, but not everybody. Weinberg might agree with the 
statement that, let us say, Transhumanism, or the Universal Dovetailer Argument 
is also such an indignity. I don't know why Weinberg would, but he might. There 
are religious scientists and engineers all over the place, so are they 
subjected to a great indignity? Who shall save them of this suffering, that 
they, themselves, are obviously, having no luck in letting go of?  Just because 
Weinberg hates banana daiquiris, does not mean that I should.  

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good 
people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people 
to do evil things, that takes religion.

-- Steven Weinberg




-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Apr 20, 2014 12:59 am
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.



Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good 
people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people 
to do evil things, that takes religion.

-- Steven Weinberg




On 20 April 2014 16:54, meekerdb  wrote:

  

On 4/19/2014 9:01 PM, Samiya Illias  wrote:


  

  

  
Including Uri Geller, UFOs, a thousand people whowant to "prove 
Einstein wrong", Borley Rectory, thepeople trying to sell me 
something from Nigeria, theLoch Ness monster, Ouija boards, 
Thor, Zeus, Odin and soon - yes, no doubt one shouldn't dismiss 
anything, butlife's too short not to prioritise. 

  

  
  

  
  
Too short, yes! Prioritize, yes!  Especially because if thereis a 
purpose to this life, and especially if there is more tolife after 
death, and if this short life is but a test, whoseresult is eternal, 
then we better study earnestly. Difficult,yes, impossible, no! 



  "It's an incredible con job when you think of it, to believe  
something now in exchange for life after death. Even corporations  with all 
their reward systems don't try to make it posthumous."
   Gloria Steinem, women's rights activist
  


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.





-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.


It's just that we simply cannot read one's soul, but can judge behavior. The 
Christians, for example, not so long ago performed imperialist violence, for 
stated national interests, but the Churches never objected to this. So, 
judgmentally, we can say that the behavior of the religious, in Europe was 
useless, or approving, of their government's behavior. Behaviorally, again, 
they were malefactors, if you needed a non-Islamic example. Right now, to this 
hour, there is no opposition to Jihadist actions from amongst the Ummah. 
Perhaps it will happen soon? Perhaps centuries in arrival. Nobody is marching 
in the streets, amongst the faithful, in opposing the great Jihad in the 
attempt to restore the Caliphate, to impose shariah. The faithful are either 
uncaring, fatalistic, fearful of retribution, or support the jihad. Yes, there 
are always fanatics within religions, but now it's only one that has set their 
sites on the world.  It's a real problem and not a false complaint or 
accusation. 


-Original Message-
From: Samiya Illias 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 11:15 pm
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.


Chris, I was replying to Spudboy100 who refuses to consider the Quran because 
of the 'jihadis' 'behavoir' . The point I was trying to make is that some 
people, from all religious persuasions, do strange and at times horrible 
things. We need to look past people and their behaviours, and examine the 
religious texts to evaluate for ourselves what it is. We are all responsible 
for our own beliefs and actions. We come to this world alone, we will leave it 
alone. What religious label we are born in, which religious label or not we 
choose, eventually we all must face death alone, and whatever's beyond that. 
Wishing it away because some people are poor ambassadors or poor communicators 
of the message, won't change things according to our wishes. We humans have 
intelligence and a vast wondrous world full of thoughts and ideas and science 
and signs... we must explore everything we can for its own merit before 
discarding it. 
On this Everything list, I see earnest seekers exploring almost everything, but 
somehow they stop short of scripture, especially Quran. I understand much of 
this has to do with a filtered view of history, long-held prejudices, popular 
media, as well as the actions of people who poorly understand or use the 
religion, etc. The thing is, to understand everything, we must be willing to 
explore everything. 


To answer your question, you may find these versions of history different from 
what you may know about Muslim conquests: 
http://lostislamichistory.com/did-islam-spread-by-the-sword/   
http://lostislamichistory.com/?s=crusades 

http://lostislamichistory.com/the-crusades-part-3-liberation/ 



Samiya 




On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Chris de Morsella  
wrote:


Samiya – Has Islam never participated in perpetrating violence against others; 
in conquest? 
Islam is as guilty as the other Abrahamic faiths, as an agent of violence in 
human history. 
Chris
 
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:57 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com


Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.



 

People do many strange and horrid things in the name of religion or nation or 
some other pretext. Violence has been perpetrated by the Crusaders, by the 
Nazis, by the Buddhists in Bhutan, by the Hindus in the Kashmir, Babri Masjid, 
by the Jews in Palestine, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the US and Allies in 
Iraq, and the list goes on... 

One must look beyond the people and evaluate religions for their message.  

 

Samiya  

 

spudboy100 wrote: Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens 
to humans in this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an ecstatic, 
plunge into violence, a "holy" violence, then a reasoning person may pause, and 
ponder what is lost, what is gained, and what is the damage done? Rather than 
focus on the internal realm of self, I concentrate, for now, on behavior. 

 

 


 

On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 9:26 PM,  wrote:

Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens to humans in this 
world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an ecstatic, plunge into 
violence, a "holy" violence, then a reasoning person may pause, and ponder what 
is lost, what is gained, and what is the damage done? Rather than focus on the 
internal realm of self, I concentrate, for now, on behavior.  



There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing 
to look beyond the prejudices. 

The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one 
falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling! 



-Original Message-

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

2014-04-20 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 19 Apr 2014, at 20:48, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 4/19/2014 12:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  On 19 Apr 2014, at 00:52, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 4/18/2014 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> What society thinks has nothing to do with it, because weak
> correlation-based scientific evidence is used selectively to create laws
> that were desired a priori by some interest group.
>
> That implies some nefarious motive and corrupt use of data known to be
> wrong.  In fact there was no nefarious 'interest group' that wanted to ban
> marijuana or to ban alcohol or to ban heroin.
>
>
>
>  What? For marijuana, there were a lot. Anslinger was asked to find
> eveidence that cannabis was worst than alcohol. he destoyed the results
> which showed that cannabis is much less dangerous than alcohol. Nixon,
> Chirac (in France), adn also people in the UK, will destroyed such records
> too.
>
>  It is a made up since the start. That is why some people still speculate
> on dangers, for which there are no corresponding complains, with very few
> exception by person who abuse, and would probably not in case it would be
> legal.
>
>
>
>  All these bans were initiated by people who believed in the ill effects
> of these substances for individuals and for society.
>
>
>  I have no clue why you say this.
>
>
> Because it's true.  The people may have been mistaken - particularly about
> the net ill effects on society - but there is plenty of evidence that some
> people become addicted to pot just as they become addicted to alcohol or
> tobacco and this has bad consequences for them.
>
>
> Sure. But it is the illegality which makes that into a problem. In The
> Netherlands,  a kid is very badly seen by his peers when stoned, and
> considered as a total idiot when abusing pot. but where pot is illegal, he
> is seen as a sort of hero. The numbers confirms this. The Netherlands is
> the country were kids smoke pots the less, and countries with severe
> repression are those where kids smoke the most.
>
>
>
> For example, my wife's first husband became a habitual pot smoker and lost
> all ambition and interest in other things.
>
>
> One case is not a statistics. I might doubt if he  lost all ambition and
> interest because of pot, or if he became a pot abuser because  he lost all
> ambition and interest, for some different reason.
>

Yes. This was the point I was trying to make with ghibbsa before he took
offense.

Notice the cultural biases: it is common to tell the story of someone who
"starts drinking" because something in their life is not going well*. With
illegal substances we assume causality the other way around: someone's life
is not going well because of some drug. Even with substances that most
people don't see as "drugs", like sugar, the bias is displayed. Here we
have the archetype of the woman who gets fat from eating too much chocolate
or ice cream because her boyfriend left her. If we replace chocolate with
cannabis, then people assume that the boyfriend left her because she became
a pothead.

Prohibition reinforces the bias because successful people are not usually
at liberty to discuss their illegal drug use. We make a curious exception
for artists, but that's all.

Of course none of this falsifies the hypothesis that the guy lost ambition
and interest in other things because of his pot habit. It just tells us
that we should remain agnostic on causality, unless we gain a deeper
understanding of the neurochemical mechanisms involved.

* to be fair, in some cases people also claim alcohol as the cause of
problems, but the point is that causality is not automatically assumed with
legal substances, but is automatically assumed with illegal ones. This
strikes me as strong evidence of an irrational bias in our culture.


>
> When I was a young teacher, being still brainwashed, I was dramatizing
> when kids were "druggy", and unconsciously provided to pot the
> justification of the kids problem. But then I realize that by saying
> something like "smoke as much as you want but don't use that as a pretext
> to not study for the exams" was much more productive. They stopped the
> druggy play when I stopped to see them as druggie, but just as lazy kids
> searching reason to not study.
>
>
>
> And even aside from such effects, there has been a strong Puritan ethic in
> the U.S. that thinks of any kind of sybaritic pleasure as sinful and bad
> for one's character.
>
>
> Yes. That is part of the problem, perhaps even more so for protestants
> than catholics which have the right to take as much fun in whatever they
> want as long as they confess to the local "authority" (!).
>
> I tend to believe the contrary. It is a quasi "duty" to enjoy life fully,
> as long as we don't interfere with other people ways to enjoy themselves.
> Pseudo-religion uses sin as a manipulative tool. The christian message
> according to which we have to love god, or to fear him is everything but
>

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

On 20 April 2014 22:41, Kim Jones  wrote:

>
> Everything we know
> Everything we know that we know
> Everything we do not know
> Everything we suspect we do not know
> Everything we cannot possibly know (due to the limitations of hominid
> brains/minds)
> Everything that was, is or will be
>

In short, God is - wait for it:


> The Everything.
>

I don't have any problem with calling this God, or indeed calling it
whatever you like, but it isn't the concept most people have of God.

Maybe you should just call it the Everything.

>
>
The Everything cannot possibly have a name nor an identity.
>

"The Tao that can be named..."

Most people think God has an identity. God is love, or my God is a jealous
God, or whatever. So your conception of God isn't what we were talking
about.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.



On 19 Apr 2014, at 20:48, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/19/2014 12:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 19 Apr 2014, at 00:52, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/18/2014 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
What society thinks has nothing to do with it, because weak  
correlation-based scientific evidence is used selectively to  
create laws that were desired a priori by some interest group.
That implies some nefarious motive and corrupt use of data known  
to be wrong.  In fact there was no nefarious 'interest group' that  
wanted to ban marijuana or to ban alcohol or to ban heroin.



What? For marijuana, there were a lot. Anslinger was asked to find  
eveidence that cannabis was worst than alcohol. he destoyed the  
results which showed that cannabis is much less dangerous than  
alcohol. Nixon, Chirac (in France), adn also  people in the  
UK, will destroyed such records too.


It is a made up since the start. That is why some people still  
speculate on dangers, for which there are no corresponding  
complains, with very few exception by person who abuse, and would  
probably not in case it would be legal.




All these bans were initiated by people who believed in the ill  
effects of these substances for individuals and for society.


I have no clue why you say this.


Because it's true.  The people may have been mistaken - particularly  
about the net ill effects on society - but there is plenty of 
evidence that some people become addicted to pot just as they become  
addicted to alcohol or tobacco and this has bad consequences for them.


Sure. But it is the illegality which makes that into a problem. In The  
Netherlands,  a kid is very badly seen by his peers when stoned, and  
considered as a total idiot when abusing pot. but where pot is  
illegal, he is seen as a sort of hero. The numbers confirms this. The  
Netherlands is the country were kids smoke pots the less, and  
countries with severe repression are those where kids smoke the most.




For example, my wife's first husband became a habitual pot smoker  
and lost all ambition and interest in other things.


One case is not a statistics. I might doubt if he  lost all ambition  
and interest because of pot, or if he became a pot abuser because  he  
lost all ambition and interest, for some different reason.


When I was a young teacher, being still brainwashed, I was dramatizing  
when kids were "druggy", and unconsciously provided to pot the  
justification of the kids problem. But then I realize that by saying  
something like "smoke as much as you want but don't use that as a  
pretext to not study for the exams" was much more productive. They  
stopped the druggy play when I stopped to see them as druggie, but  
just as lazy kids searching reason to not study.




And even aside from such effects, there has been a strong Puritan  
ethic in the U.S. that thinks of any kind of sybaritic pleasure as  
sinful and bad for one's character.


Yes. That is part of the problem, perhaps even more so for protestants  
than catholics which have the right to take as much fun in whatever  
they want as long as they confess to the local "authority" (!).


I tend to believe the contrary. It is a quasi "duty" to enjoy life  
fully, as long as we don't interfere with other people ways to enjoy  
themselves. Pseudo-religion uses sin as a manipulative tool. The  
christian message according to which we have to love god, or to fear  
him is everything but religious. It is an inconsistent psychological  
constraint making impossible to develop genuine love.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.



On 19 Apr 2014, at 20:50, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/19/2014 12:37 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Then, the cultivation of industrial help -- which is not  
psychoactive -- was also made illegal. Industrial has a wide range  
of applications: paper, fabric, building material and cheap protein  
source, to name a few. It threatens several industries and it is  
not a narcotic. How do you explain that?


How do you explain that growth of industrial hemp was encouraged by  
the government up through World War 2?  Did it not pose the same  
threats then?


Good question, but it seems to go in Telmo's direction. It shows that  
the banning of hemp was indeed purely irrational, and motivated by  
making easy money based on lies. it was only a way to impose oil and  
forest against a natural efficacious sustainable competitor.


Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.



On 19 Apr 2014, at 20:54, meekerdb wrote:


On 4/19/2014 1:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 19 Apr 2014, at 08:42, Samiya Illias wrote:

The harmful effects of the consumption of intoxicants for the  
individual and its consequent effects on society are observable.  
The bans are in thus in the larger interest.



This does not follow. Banning intoxicant augments the intoxicant  
consumption, and so, if that is bad, it leads to the contrary  
effect than the one desired.


Even if it suppresses the consumption of something that is bad for  
you (e.g. tobacco smoking) the actions necessary for suppression:  
searches, police surveillance, fines, imprisonment - may be worse  
than the effects of consumption.


Yes. cannabis prohibition has destroyed much life than cannabis would  
ever did if it could have been remained legal.


Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

On 20 April 2014 22:41, Kim Jones  wrote:

>
>
> On 20 Apr 2014, at 6:16 pm, LizR  wrote:
>
> To me, god is a non-answer. Where did god come from?
>
>
> The problem is solved once and for all when we cease this ridiculous game
> of imagining God to be a being or an entity. God is not a being or an
> entity. God is a concept.
>
> "By which we measure our pain."

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.



On 20 Apr 2014, at 10:16, LizR wrote:


On 20 April 2014 18:52, Samiya Illias  wrote:
So which of the 1000s of Gods people have invented, I mean  
discovered through divine revelation, should one bet on (and why) ?


The one that you truly believe in, based upon all the study and  
contemplation you can put in. Not bet upon any arbitrarily, rather  
search and find faith.


To me, god is a non-answer. Where did god come from?



Good question. Apparently in comp God might have a Mother, and it has  
to be a Goddess, but take this with the usual amount of grain salts :)


But God, nor his Mother, should ever be considered as an answer. As  
answer that is the usual authoritative "don't ask, don't search"  
attitude, i.e. the God of the gap, maintained by those who want you to  
believe in their view on reality, and prevent you to search and  
question them.


God is not an answer, nor a justification for any act, even the most  
good one. At least not in any public way.


Bruno



So far the only ontologies that don't seem to merely push the  
question back a step are ones like Bruno's comp, Russell's "theory  
of nothing" or Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.



On 20 Apr 2014, at 10:12, LizR wrote:


On 20 April 2014 18:42, Samiya Illias  wrote:
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
-Albert Einstein


He then went on to say...

The letter states pretty clearly that Einstein was by no means a  
religious person - in fact, the great physicist saw religion as no  
more than a "childish superstition". "The word god is for me nothing  
more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible  
a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are  
nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle  
can (for me) change this", Einstein wrote.


I really would like to suggest you reading the quite deep book by  
Jammer on "Einstein's religion"(*).


You have to be careful when quoting Einstein on this. I think Einstein  
was very deeply and authentically religious, like Gödel.
Like often in such case, such person are also the most shocked by the  
institutionalized religion, and very often Einstein made clear that  
his condemnation of religion relate to that. All his life Einstein  
insisted that he is a believer, and that he despises the atheists and  
so called free-thinker, but also all the churches and religious  
institution.


I would say that the more you genuinely believe in God, the more you  
are shocked by what humans do with the notion.


I differ on Einstein in that I do believe theology has a large part  
which can be made into science. Here I am closer to Gödel than to  
Einstein.


Bruno

http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Religion-Theology-Max-Jammer/dp/069110297X

A good amazon abstract:
>








--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.


Steven Weinberg wrote
On 20 Apr 2014, at 06:59, LizR wrote:

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would  
have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil  
things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

-- Steven Weinberg


Of course, we can guess that he meant "that takes institutionalized  
religion".


I can conceive a religion which takes seriously the "non-naming"  
attribute of god, defended in theory by many religion, but of course  
in theory only the day they are institutionalized.


Tradition and institutions are for the non-believer only, and  
eventually it kill the rest of faith that some people can have.


For good people doing bad things, you need misinformation (like in  
Rwanda, or in Europa), you need propaganda (like with prohibition).  
You need some brainwashing, you need manipulation, authoritative  
argument, fear exploitation, violence, ... All things that many would  
qualify as non-religious in the extreme.


Bruno






On 20 April 2014 16:54, meekerdb  wrote:
On 4/19/2014 9:01 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:
Including Uri Geller, UFOs, a thousand people who want to "prove  
Einstein wrong", Borley Rectory, the people trying to sell me  
something from Nigeria, the Loch Ness monster, Ouija boards, Thor,  
Zeus, Odin and so on - yes, no doubt one shouldn't dismiss  
anything, but life's too short not to prioritise.


Too short, yes! Prioritize, yes!  Especially because if there is a  
purpose to this life, and especially if there is more to life after  
death, and if this short life is but a test, whose result is  
eternal, then we better study earnestly. Difficult, yes,  
impossible, no!


"It's an incredible con job when you think of it, to believe  
something now in exchange for life after death. Even corporations  
with all their reward systems don't try to make it posthumous."

 Gloria Steinem, women's rights activist

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

On 20 Apr 2014, at 05:55, Samiya Illias wrote:

On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
It is explained: [Quran 2:219] They ask you about intoxicants and
games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and
means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their
profit...

That is an authoritative argument. You must understand that this
is not a good point for the Quran, or that interpretation of the
Quran.

How can *you* be sure if the prophet did not misunderstood God?

The original Arabic words of the Quran have not suffered any change
over the centuries.

That might not necessarily be a good sign.

What do you mean?

I have less problem when religious text allow comments (like the
torah, or the buddhists and taoists).
In human matter, including their relation with the divine, I find
unanimity suspect.

They are not the words of the Prophet. He was only the messenger,
transmitting the revelation as received.

Asserting this might not add sense to me. I respect your belief, but
I will be vigilant about you respecting possible other beliefs.

Fair enough

Have you come across any human book which has about 6236 sentences,
and millions of people know it by heart completely, from beginning
till end?

You are not reassuring me, here.

Just pointing out a unique miracle that I know not of any other
book. I do not understand your comment.

In North Korea, it seems all kids have to know by heart the life of
the tyrant.
Knowing "by heart" is close to brainwashing. Again I would prefer that
the kids could resume it critically, and add personal comments.

Ideally, I would like the kids not even knowing the religion (or even
the political opinions) of their parents, and I would like them having
at school a broad view on all religion, and good course in logic and
argumentation.

In 99,9% of the case, people get the religion of their parents, and I
don't find this quite sane. I am aware it is a sort of obligatory
passage, and I give time to time.

This original manuscript is protected from human interpretation...

My question is: what if a young person tells you, "I don't want to
study by heart the Quran, I want to study by heart the Bhagavad-
Gita"? Will that person keep a decent life in your neighborhood?

The question is besides the point: can the Bhagavad-Gita or any
other book be memorized by heart, from beginning till end, word by
word, in the original language?

Yes, but I am not sure it is a quite good idea. Only theater and poem
should be learned by heart.

Do millions of people already know it by heart, so that the
authenticity of the original text can be verified by cross-checking
various sources?

Why is that authenticity needed in the first place? It looks more like
a quest of self-identity than a trust in god. It looks more like
crutches for the one who lack faith. Again, if it can help some
people, why not, but I don't believe in literal account of the divine.
The divine is subtle and the human hands can lead his soul astray.
Like you said, a good sacred text is a good intoxicant, and my
experience is that some plant might be less nocive, with respect to
open your mind to the authentic inconceiable freedom, to borrow an
expression to the Vimalakirti-Nirdesa.

There are many decent people on all communities and societies who
have different sets of beliefs and religions, as well as different
sects within the same religion. I have Hindu and Christian
neighbours, and that's fine.

That's very nice.

Saudi arabis just decided to make atheism illegal. Do we agree that
this should not be tolerated? I am not an atheist, but I consider
that each human can think for himself, as long as it does not impose
its idea by dishonest means or violence, threat, etc.

The word used for sin also means frustration; tiredness;
laziness. Thus, I gather, both mind and body eventually suffer
from the harmful effects of the intoxicant, and thus the
negatives far outweigh the benefits.

Initially, the believers were advised to pray when in a clear
state of mind, and not when under the influence of intoxicants: :
[Quran 4:43] O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you
are Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say,...

Gradually, they were exhorted to refrain from it altogether:
[Quran 5:90] O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling,
(dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an
abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination),
that ye may prosper.

References:
[Quran 2:219]
http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=2&from_verse=218&to_verse=220&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_yusufali=1&show_shakir=1&show_pickthal=1&show_mkhan=1&show_urdu=1

[Quran 4:43]
http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=4&from_verse=42&to_verse=44&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_yus

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.



On 20 Apr 2014, at 05:15, Samiya Illias wrote:

Chris, I was replying to Spudboy100 who refuses to consider the  
Quran because of the 'jihadis' 'behavoir' . The point I was trying  
to make is that some people, from all religious persuasions, do  
strange and at times horrible things. We need to look past people  
and their behaviours, and examine the religious texts to evaluate  
for ourselves what it is. We are all responsible for our own beliefs  
and actions. We come to this world alone, we will leave it alone.  
What religious label we are born in, which religious label or not we  
choose, eventually we all must face death alone, and whatever's  
beyond that. Wishing it away because some people are poor  
ambassadors or poor communicators of the message, won't change  
things according to our wishes. We humans have intelligence and a  
vast wondrous world full of thoughts and ideas and science and  
signs... we must explore everything we can for its own merit before  
discarding it.
On this Everything list, I see earnest seekers exploring almost  
everything, but somehow they stop short of scripture, especially  
Quran. I understand much of this has to do with a filtered view of  
history, long-held prejudices, popular media, as well as the actions  
of people who poorly understand or use the religion, etc. The thing  
is, to understand everything, we must be willing to explore  
everything.


I read many "sacred" texts, including different translations of the  
Quran. But I found some text more convincing, or more heart-vibrating  
than others. I studied three years of classical chinese to be more at  
ease with the taoist proses, notably.
For the Quran, some verses are formidable and can talk to my heart,  
but not so for other verses, and muslim scholars were a bit  
contradictory on how to interpret it.


But the main reason why we stop at scripture is only that they are  
scripture. They are human very imperfect way to address the divine,  
and, by my own faith, contradicts the deepest intuition I have on that  
matter, which is that religion cannot be normative and allow  
"authorities" to think for me, or intercede between me and the "good  
lord".


Some people seems to accept that "intercession", and I don't want to  
judge them. May be it can make sense in some survival strategies, but  
it is no more religion to me.


Bruno





To answer your question, you may find these versions of history  
different from what you may know about Muslim conquests:

http://lostislamichistory.com/did-islam-spread-by-the-sword/
http://lostislamichistory.com/?s=crusades
http://lostislamichistory.com/the-crusades-part-3-liberation/

Samiya


On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Chris de Morsella > wrote:
Samiya - Has Islam never participated in perpetrating violence  
against others; in conquest?


Islam is as guilty as the other Abrahamic faiths, as an agent of  
violence in human history.


Chris



From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias

Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:57 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com


Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.



People do many strange and horrid things in the name of religion or  
nation or some other pretext. Violence has been perpetrated by the  
Crusaders, by the Nazis, by the Buddhists in Bhutan, by the Hindus  
in the Kashmir, Babri Masjid, by the Jews in Palestine, the Soviets  
in Afghanistan, the US and Allies in Iraq, and the list goes on...


One must look beyond the people and evaluate religions for their  
message.




Samiya



spudboy100 wrote: Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and  
what happens to humans in this world. If such a spiritual  
intoxication leads to an ecstatic, plunge into violence, a "holy"  
violence, then a reasoning person may pause, and ponder what is  
lost, what is gained, and what is the damage done? Rather than focus  
on the internal realm of self, I concentrate, for now, on behavior.








On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 9:26 PM,  wrote:

Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens to  
humans in this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an  
ecstatic, plunge into violence, a "holy" violence, then a reasoning  
person may pause, and ponder what is lost, what is gained, and what  
is the damage done? Rather than focus on the internal realm of self,  
I concentrate, for now, on behavior.


There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one  
is willing to look beyond the prejudices.


The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world,  
the more one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an  
amazing feeling!


-Original Message-----


From: Samiya Illias 
To: everything-list 

Sent: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 11:10 am
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and m

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

2014-04-20 Thread Kim Jones



> On 20 Apr 2014, at 6:16 pm, LizR  wrote:
> 
> To me, god is a non-answer. Where did god come from?

The problem is solved once and for all when we cease this ridiculous game of 
imagining God to be a being or an entity. God is not a being or an entity. God 
is a concept. God is:

Everything we know
Everything we know that we know
Everything we do not know
Everything we suspect we do not know
Everything we cannot possibly know (due to the limitations of hominid 
brains/minds)
Everything that was, is or will be

In short, God is - wait for it:

The Everything. The Everything cannot possibly have a name nor an identity.

Kim




Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL

Email:   kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
 kmjco...@icloud.com
Mobile: 0450 963 719
Phone:  02 93894239
Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com


"Never let your schooling get in the way of your education" - Mark Twain

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

2014-04-20 Thread Kim Jones



> On 19 Apr 2014, at 2:15 am, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 18 Apr 2014, at 11:02, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Friday, 18 April 2014, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>> 
 On 18 Apr 2014, at 08:41, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
> On Friday, April 18, 2014 7:28:26 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
>> On Friday, April 18, 2014 7:28:02 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thursday, April 17, 2014 8:03:09 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> Hi, 
>>> 
>>> A good sum up of the how and why cannabis might cure cancers. 
>>> 
>>> You can understand the mechanism and the probabilities. It is a pretty  
>>>  
>>> good movie. 
>>> 
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bMt83_IWkE 
>>> 
>>> We knew this since 1974. Promising research on cancer treatment were   
>>> purposefully broke down. 
>>> 
>>> How could we hope rational decisions with respect to climate when we   
>>> tolerate brainwashing, even a sort of revisionism, on cannabis/hemp,   
>>> and cancers? 
>>> 
>>> The problem is not stupid politicians, it is clever bandits. 
>>> 
>>> The prohibition of cannabis deserves truly the Nobel Prize, in Crime. 
>>> 
>>> But it might also be their fatal error, I think. 
>>> 
>>> I think the world will get closer to paradise when the humans will   
>>> stop confuse p -> q with q -> p. That confusion is exploited by the   
>>> fear sellers (pseudo-religious or not). 
>>> 
>>> Bruno 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>  
>> It's a load of rubbish Bruno. Cannabis ha
>  
> sorry...it
  
 sorry again. It's a load of old cobblers because cannabis has been 
 available to researchers throughout.
>>> 
>>> When I read Jack Herer a long time ago, I leave the book away when I came 
>>> to the chapter where he claimed that cannabis cures might cancer (and did 
>>> cure some cancer for mice in 1974). I thought the hippies was going 
>>> crackpot on this. That was to gross. 
>>> But when in 2009 a spanish team rediscovered that fact(*), I have 
>>> scrutinized both the allegation of cure, and the allegation that rserach on 
>>> cannabis was discouraged. That second point is rather clear in the US where 
>>> cannabis is schedule one, making research quite difficult from the 
>>> administrative perspective (virtually impossible in most universities). The 
>>> first point is now accepted in the mainstream, but the media and the 
>>> doctors ignore it, probably because cannabis is illegal.
>>> You might read:
>>> 
>>> (*) http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948  (original spanish paper)
>>> 
>>> http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v01/n572/a11.html
>>> 
>>> You can find many papers on cannabis and cancer here:
>>> 
>>> http://www.safeaccess.ca/research/cancer.htm
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 Why would anyone want to obstruct a cure for cancer? No one would care 
 what it was. olu
>>> 
>>> Those who profits from selling expensive treatment for cancer. Those many 
>>> who want hemp staying illegal.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
  
 But it isn't a cure for cancer. Nothing is a cure for cancer in this way. 
 Cancer survival rates are up on 30 years ago. Controlling for earlier 
 intervention do you know how much lung cancer survival rates have changed 
 ? They haven't. Nothing has changed. catch it early and you've got a 
 chance. Leave it just a few more weeks and now that cancer is evolving. 
 It's made up of more and more descendent cell lines...each one mutating, 
 now different ancestries are fighting and destroying,. Now a week later 
 there are millions more., You might kill one line but the next one is 
 immune because now it's multiple mutations later and it's totally 
 different  and the colour is maybe green. In the firs or few weeks it's 
 just a few descrendent lines..they are young, they aren't mutating like 
 crazy yet.
  
 Nothing is going to cure cancer. Not in this scientific revolution. 
 They'll fix maybe the cancerous non-encoding dna. But that'll be a 
 symptom...cancerous cells are multiply disfigured...and more keep showing 
 up.
  
 Smoke dope fuck the pope but it'll give you cancer before it cures 
 anything.
>>> 
>>> Those who have tried to prove this are those who discovered the benefices 
>>> instead. I let you search on the links above.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 thi
 By the way I know at least 2 people that got institutionalised with 
 schizophrenia as a direct outcome of dependent pot smoking. That's the 
 only thing either of them ever did anyway
>>> 
>>> 2 people is not a statistics, and when the statistics are done properly, it 
>>> seems only that people with schizophrenia, or potential schizophrenia,  
>>> tend to medicate themselves with cannabis, explaining some previous 
>>> correlations. If you have a reference

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

2014-04-20 Thread Samiya Illias

On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 1:16 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 20 April 2014 18:52, Samiya Illias  wrote:
>
>> So which of the 1000s of Gods people have invented, I mean discovered
>> through divine revelation, should one bet on (and why) ?
>>
>> The one that you truly believe in, based upon all the study and
>> contemplation you can put in. Not bet upon any arbitrarily, rather search
>> and find faith.
>>
>
> To me, god is a non-answer. Where did god come from?
>

I don't think anybody has the answer to that. The mind keeps going back to
who created the world, and who created the universe, and what was before
that, and who created what was before it, and before it, till we are either
left with nothing and chance and chaos, or an unexplained,
incomprehensible, initiator we call God. For those who think its nothing
and chance and chaos that we come from, then the question is settled as far
as they themselves are concerned. But for those of us who think that there
is this God, and everything has been created, the question arises: why?
That is the answer we search for.

> So far the only ontologies that don't seem to merely push the question
> back a step are ones like Bruno's comp, Russell's "theory of nothing" or
> Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis.
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

On 20 April 2014 18:52, Samiya Illias  wrote:

> So which of the 1000s of Gods people have invented, I mean discovered
> through divine revelation, should one bet on (and why) ?
>
> The one that you truly believe in, based upon all the study and
> contemplation you can put in. Not bet upon any arbitrarily, rather search
> and find faith.
>

To me, god is a non-answer. Where did god come from?

So far the only ontologies that don't seem to merely push the question back
a step are ones like Bruno's comp, Russell's "theory of nothing" or Max
Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

On 20 April 2014 18:42, Samiya Illias  wrote:

> "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
> -Albert Einstein
>
>
> He then went on to say...

The letter states pretty clearly that Einstein was by no means a religious
person - in fact, the great physicist saw religion as no more than a
"childish superstition". "The word god is for me nothing more than the
expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of
honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty
childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this",
Einstein wrote.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.



> On 20-Apr-2014, at 9:24 am, LizR  wrote:
> 
>> On 20 April 2014 16:01, Samiya Illias  wrote:
>>> On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:34 AM, LizR  wrote:
 On 20 April 2014 15:15, Samiya Illias  wrote:
 Chris, I was replying to Spudboy100 who refuses to consider the Quran 
 because of the 'jihadis' 'behavoir' . The point I was trying to make is 
 that some people, from all religious persuasions, do strange and at times 
 horrible things. We need to look past people and their behaviours, and 
 examine the religious texts to evaluate for ourselves what it is. We are 
 all responsible for our own beliefs and actions. We come to this world 
 alone, we will leave it alone. What religious label we are born in, which 
 religious label or not we choose, eventually we all must face death alone, 
 and whatever's beyond that. Wishing it away because some people are poor 
 ambassadors or poor communicators of the message, won't change things 
 according to our wishes. We humans have intelligence and a vast wondrous 
 world full of thoughts and ideas and science and signs... we must explore 
 everything we can for its own merit before discarding it. 
 On this Everything list, I see earnest seekers exploring almost 
 everything, but somehow they stop short of scripture, especially Quran. I 
 understand much of this has to do with a filtered view of history, 
 long-held prejudices, popular media, as well as the actions of people who 
 poorly understand or use the religion, etc.
>>> 
>>> This is, at least in my case, due to a distrust of taking the authority of 
>>> centuries-old texts when there is little to no evidence that any of them 
>>> contain more than - at best - a slight grain of truth, and when from a 
>>> present day perspective it is clear they were created for reasons well 
>>> understood by psychologists (in particular, for social control).
>>>  
 The thing is, to understand everything, we must be willing to explore 
 everything. 
>>> 
>>> Including Uri Geller, UFOs, a thousand people who want to "prove Einstein 
>>> wrong", Borley Rectory, the people trying to sell me something from 
>>> Nigeria, the Loch Ness monster, Ouija boards, Thor, Zeus, Odin and so on - 
>>> yes, no doubt one shouldn't dismiss anything, but life's too short not to 
>>> prioritise. 
>> 
>> Too short, yes! Prioritize, yes!  Especially because if there is a purpose 
>> to this life, and especially if there is more to life after death, and if 
>> this short life is but a test, whose result is eternal, then we better study 
>> earnestly. Difficult, yes, impossible, no! 
> Hmm. Pascal's wager, no less.
> 
> So which of the 1000s of Gods people have invented, I mean discovered through 
> divine revelation, should one bet on (and why) ?

The one that you truly believe in, based upon all the study and contemplation 
you can put in. Not bet upon any arbitrarily, rather search and find faith. 
> 
> 

:) 

>  
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
-Albert Einstein 


> On 20-Apr-2014, at 9:59 am, LizR  wrote:
> 
> Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have 
> good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good 
> people to do evil things, that takes religion.
> -- Steven Weinberg
> 
> 
>> On 20 April 2014 16:54, meekerdb  wrote:
>>> On 4/19/2014 9:01 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:
 Including Uri Geller, UFOs, a thousand people who want to "prove Einstein 
 wrong", Borley Rectory, the people trying to sell me something from 
 Nigeria, the Loch Ness monster, Ouija boards, Thor, Zeus, Odin and so on - 
 yes, no doubt one shouldn't dismiss anything, but life's too short not to 
 prioritise. 
>>> 
>>> Too short, yes! Prioritize, yes!  Especially because if there is a purpose 
>>> to this life, and especially if there is more to life after death, and if 
>>> this short life is but a test, whose result is eternal, then we better 
>>> study earnestly. Difficult, yes, impossible, no! 
>> 
>> "It's an incredible con job when you think of it, to believe something now 
>> in exchange for life after death. Even corporations with all their reward 
>> systems don't try to make it posthumous."
>>  Gloria Steinem, women's rights activist
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

2014-04-19 Thread Richard Ruquist

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Swines/conversations/messages/14959

Anyone who reads the Qur'an in translation, if he has half an eye for
style, can very easily divide the suras into three groups; 1/ those
proclaimed in Mecca, 2/ those proclaimed in Medina during a state of war
and full of hellfire and brimstone, and 3/ penned after Mohammed became the
tyrant of all Arabia and peace prevailed for a very short time.

The Meccan suras are gentle and good, such that any Christian or Jew could
find them quite acceptable, noting that much of this material was obviously
transcribed from the Old and New testaments.

The Medinan suras were penned in the fog of war, and were violent and cruel
in the extreme. Lastly, the third part is mostly legalese as the Sharia is
developed by the tyrant warlord, whose very words were regarded as sacred,
but in which there are multiple and rather confusing rules relating to sex
and marriage that indirectly reflected his own private sexual kinks and
quirks.

It is this section that Muslims claim as their right to subjugate women.
Mohammed was at the very least a devoted misogynist, but one who
nonetheless delighted in using  women for sex. According to the hadiths he
was a randy beast who could do anything that took his fancy, such as cross
dressing, and of course his most heinous crime, the penetration of a nine
year old child.

The story I've been told, so I can't vouch for its truth, is that the
Followers kept the Prophet's utterances in a large chest that was carried
around wherever they went. The contents were the results of scribing onto
any surface available, whenever the Prophet was seen as speaking for Allah.
These could be pottery shards, even stones, if parchment or papyrus was not
available.

These all went into the chest, so all chronology was lost. And it resulted
in the earliest compilations varying widely, so one of the Caliphs, [Omar
or Othman I think] decided to regularise the Qur'an by assembling all the
pieces into what he regarded as a suitable order (such as placing
contradictory suras side by side).*

but here comes the crunch; He ordered *all previous material** destroyed*,
and his compilation became the one and only version  - for all time. So,
when a Muslim claims the Qur'an is changeless, he is referrring to this
version, probably in complete ignorance of its origin, and quite unknowing
that the original Qur'an has been lost forever and no longer exists!

mac

http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/04/09/islamic-jihad-and-the-doctrine-of-abrogation/

On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:

> Chris, I was replying to Spudboy100 who refuses to consider the Quran
> because of the 'jihadis' 'behavoir' . The point I was trying to make is
> that some people, from all religious persuasions, do strange and at times
> horrible things. We need to look past people and their behaviours, and
> examine the religious texts to evaluate for ourselves what it is. We are
> all responsible for our own beliefs and actions. We come to this world
> alone, we will leave it alone. What religious label we are born in, which
> religious label or not we choose, eventually we all must face death alone,
> and whatever's beyond that. Wishing it away because some people are poor
> ambassadors or poor communicators of the message, won't change things
> according to our wishes. We humans have intelligence and a vast wondrous
> world full of thoughts and ideas and science and signs... we must explore
> everything we can for its own merit before discarding it.
> On this Everything list, I see earnest seekers exploring almost
> everything, but somehow they stop short of scripture, especially Quran. I
> understand much of this has to do with a filtered view of history,
> long-held prejudices, popular media, as well as the actions of people who
> poorly understand or use the religion, etc. The thing is, to understand
> everything, we must be willing to explore everything.
>
> To answer your question, you may find these versions of history different
> from what you may know about Muslim conquests:
> http://lostislamichistory.com/did-islam-spread-by-the-sword/
> http://lostislamichistory.com/?s=crusades
> http://lostislamichistory.com/the-crusades-part-3-liberation/
>
> Samiya
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Chris de Morsella  > wrote:
>
>> Samiya – Has Islam never participated in perpetrating violence against
>> others; in conquest?
>>
>> Islam is as guilty as the other Abrahamic faiths, as an agent of violence
>> in human history.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Samiya Illias
>> *Sent:* Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:57 AM
>> *To:* eve

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

 Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have
good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for
good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
-- Steven Weinberg


On 20 April 2014 16:54, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 4/19/2014 9:01 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:
>
>   Including Uri Geller, UFOs, a thousand people who want to "prove
>> Einstein wrong", Borley Rectory, the people trying to sell me something
>> from Nigeria, the Loch Ness monster, Ouija boards, Thor, Zeus, Odin and so
>> on - yes, no doubt one shouldn't dismiss anything, but life's too short not
>> to prioritise.
>>
>
>  Too short, yes! Prioritize, yes!  Especially because if there is a
> purpose to this life, and especially if there is more to life after death,
> and if this short life is but a test, whose result is eternal, then we
> better study earnestly. Difficult, yes, impossible, no!
>
>
> "It's an incredible con job when you think of it, to believe something now
> in exchange for life after death. Even corporations with all their reward
> systems don't try to make it posthumous."
>  Gloria Steinem, women's rights activist
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.


On 4/19/2014 9:01 PM, Samiya Illias wrote:


Including Uri Geller, UFOs, a thousand people who want to "prove Einstein 
wrong",
Borley Rectory, the people trying to sell me something from Nigeria, the 
Loch Ness
monster, Ouija boards, Thor, Zeus, Odin and so on - yes, no doubt one 
shouldn't
dismiss anything, but life's too short not to prioritise.


Too short, yes! Prioritize, yes!  Especially because if there is a purpose to this life, 
and especially if there is more to life after death, and if this short life is but a 
test, whose result is eternal, then we better study earnestly. Difficult, yes, 
impossible, no!


"It's an incredible con job when you think of it, to believe something now in exchange for 
life after death. Even corporations with all their reward systems don't try to make it 
posthumous."

 Gloria Steinem, women's rights activist

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

On 20 April 2014 16:01, Samiya Illias  wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:34 AM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> On 20 April 2014 15:15, Samiya Illias  wrote:
>>
>>> Chris, I was replying to Spudboy100 who refuses to consider the Quran
>>> because of the 'jihadis' 'behavoir' . The point I was trying to make is
>>> that some people, from all religious persuasions, do strange and at times
>>> horrible things. We need to look past people and their behaviours, and
>>> examine the religious texts to evaluate for ourselves what it is. We are
>>> all responsible for our own beliefs and actions. We come to this world
>>> alone, we will leave it alone. What religious label we are born in, which
>>> religious label or not we choose, eventually we all must face death alone,
>>> and whatever's beyond that. Wishing it away because some people are poor
>>> ambassadors or poor communicators of the message, won't change things
>>> according to our wishes. We humans have intelligence and a vast wondrous
>>> world full of thoughts and ideas and science and signs... we must explore
>>> everything we can for its own merit before discarding it.
>>> On this Everything list, I see earnest seekers exploring almost
>>> everything, but somehow they stop short of scripture, especially Quran. I
>>> understand much of this has to do with a filtered view of history,
>>> long-held prejudices, popular media, as well as the actions of people who
>>> poorly understand or use the religion, etc.
>>>
>>
>> This is, at least in my case, due to a distrust of taking the authority
>> of centuries-old texts when there is little to no evidence that any of them
>> contain more than - at best - a slight grain of truth, and when from a
>> present day perspective it is clear they were created for reasons well
>> understood by psychologists (in particular, for social control).
>>
>>
>>> The thing is, to understand everything, we must be willing to explore
>>> everything.
>>>
>>
>> Including Uri Geller, UFOs, a thousand people who want to "prove Einstein
>> wrong", Borley Rectory, the people trying to sell me something from
>> Nigeria, the Loch Ness monster, Ouija boards, Thor, Zeus, Odin and so on -
>> yes, no doubt one shouldn't dismiss anything, but life's too short not to
>> prioritise.
>>
>
> Too short, yes! Prioritize, yes!  Especially because if there is a purpose
> to this life, and especially if there is more to life after death, and if
> this short life is but a test, whose result is eternal, then we better
> study earnestly. Difficult, yes, impossible, no!
>
> Hmm. Pascal's wager, no less.

So which of the 1000s of Gods people have invented, I mean discovered
through divine revelation, should one bet on (and why) ?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:34 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On 20 April 2014 15:15, Samiya Illias  wrote:
>
>> Chris, I was replying to Spudboy100 who refuses to consider the Quran
>> because of the 'jihadis' 'behavoir' . The point I was trying to make is
>> that some people, from all religious persuasions, do strange and at times
>> horrible things. We need to look past people and their behaviours, and
>> examine the religious texts to evaluate for ourselves what it is. We are
>> all responsible for our own beliefs and actions. We come to this world
>> alone, we will leave it alone. What religious label we are born in, which
>> religious label or not we choose, eventually we all must face death alone,
>> and whatever's beyond that. Wishing it away because some people are poor
>> ambassadors or poor communicators of the message, won't change things
>> according to our wishes. We humans have intelligence and a vast wondrous
>> world full of thoughts and ideas and science and signs... we must explore
>> everything we can for its own merit before discarding it.
>> On this Everything list, I see earnest seekers exploring almost
>> everything, but somehow they stop short of scripture, especially Quran. I
>> understand much of this has to do with a filtered view of history,
>> long-held prejudices, popular media, as well as the actions of people who
>> poorly understand or use the religion, etc.
>>
>
> This is, at least in my case, due to a distrust of taking the authority of
> centuries-old texts when there is little to no evidence that any of them
> contain more than - at best - a slight grain of truth, and when from a
> present day perspective it is clear they were created for reasons well
> understood by psychologists (in particular, for social control).
>
>
>> The thing is, to understand everything, we must be willing to explore
>> everything.
>>
>
> Including Uri Geller, UFOs, a thousand people who want to "prove Einstein
> wrong", Borley Rectory, the people trying to sell me something from
> Nigeria, the Loch Ness monster, Ouija boards, Thor, Zeus, Odin and so on -
> yes, no doubt one shouldn't dismiss anything, but life's too short not to
> prioritise.
>

Too short, yes! Prioritize, yes!  Especially because if there is a purpose
to this life, and especially if there is more to life after death, and if
this short life is but a test, whose result is eternal, then we better
study earnestly. Difficult, yes, impossible, no!

Samiya


>>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 19 Apr 2014, at 12:35, Samiya Illias wrote:
>
>
>
> On 19-Apr-2014, at 1:15 pm, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>
> On 19 Apr 2014, at 08:42, Samiya Illias wrote:
>
> The harmful effects of the consumption of intoxicants for the individual
> and its consequent effects on society are observable. The bans are in thus
> in the larger interest.
>
>
>
> This does not follow. Banning intoxicant augments the intoxicant
> consumption, and so, if that is bad, it leads to the contrary effect than
> the one desired.
>
>
> Agree to disagree :)
>
>
> Even when a turkish sultana condemned smoking tobacco by having the head
> off, the consumption of tobacco grew.
>
> Now, when a religion is related to the state, some religious prohibition
> might work, but I was thinking to laic multi-confessional countries.
>
>
>
>
>
> However, if cannabis and other drugs have some medicinal benefits, then
> the research should continue to find the correct, beneficial  use of them,
> as well as the side-effects.
>
>
> Sure.
>
>
>
> In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used
> for intoxicants,  in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word
> are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies,
> cover the intellect, and thus are discouraged.
>
>
> Does it? The Sufi thinks differently (as you know and can see by searching
> "sufi drug use". For them, some psychotropic does not cover the intellect,
> but discover it.
>
> I am aware of the Sufi branch and thought. However, I am only quoting the
> Quran, the original Arabic text, which all sects agree upon as the Book
> revealed to Prophet Muhammad, which has not undergone any change, and is
> preserved in written form as well as in the memory of millions of human
> beings till this day.
>
>
> The muslims I know disagree on many verses. I am not sure such text are
> easy to interpret. Even arithmetic is not that easy to interpret.
>
>
> Yet you work with arithmetic, explore comp and try to understand :)

>
>
> If something is intoxicating the mind, then how can it be considered safe
> to 'discover the intellect' unless the intellect has not yet been
> discovered?  ;)
>
>
> It can be a reminiscence :)
>
>
>
> In that case, in the absence of an active intellect, can such a person be
> expected to making a rational decision of choosing whether or not to 'use
> the drug'??
>
>
> The decision has to be done before taking the drug. Yes, there is always a
> risk, and nobody should push you, and that is another reason to make it
> legal, at least in laïc countries. To avoid unscrupulous street dealers
> pushing weak people to buy rotten psychotropic. (and to avoid legal drug
> dealer not trying to cure you).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It is explained: [Quran 2:219] They ask you about intoxicants and games of
> chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for
> men, and their sin is greater than their profit...
>
>
> That is an authoritative argument. You must understand that this is not a
> good point for the Quran, or that interpretation of the Quran.
> How can *you* be sure if the prophet did not misunderstood God?
>
> The original Arabic words of the Quran have not suffered any change over
> the centuries.
>
>
> That might not necessarily be a good sign.
>

What do you mean?

>
>
>
>
> They are not the words of the Prophet. He was only the messenger,
> transmitting the revelation as received.
>
>
> Asserting this might not add sense to me. I respect your belief, but I
> will be vigilant about you respecting possible other beliefs.
>

Fair enough

>
>
>
> Have you come across any human book which has about 6236 sentences, and
> millions of people know it by heart completely, from beginning till end?
>
>
>
> You are not reassuring me, here.
>

Just pointing out a unique miracle that I know not of any other book. I do
not understand your comment.

>
>
>
> This original manuscript is protected from human interpretation...
>
>
> My question is: what if a young person tells you, "I don't want to study
> by heart the Quran, I want to study by heart the Bhagavad-Gita"? Will that
> person keep a decent life in your neighborhood?
>

The question is besides the point: can the Bhagavad-Gita or any other book
be memorized by heart, from beginning till end, word by word, in the
original language? Do millions of people already know it by heart, so that
the authenticity of the original text can be verified by cross-checking
various sources?

There are many decent people on all communities and societies who have
different sets of beliefs and religions, as well as different sects within
the same religion. I have Hindu and Christian neighbours, and that's fine.


> Saudi arabis just decided to make atheism illegal. Do we agree that this
> should not be tolerated? I am not an atheist, but I consider that each
> human can think for himself, as long as it does not impose its  idea b

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

On 20 April 2014 15:15, Samiya Illias  wrote:

> Chris, I was replying to Spudboy100 who refuses to consider the Quran
> because of the 'jihadis' 'behavoir' . The point I was trying to make is
> that some people, from all religious persuasions, do strange and at times
> horrible things. We need to look past people and their behaviours, and
> examine the religious texts to evaluate for ourselves what it is. We are
> all responsible for our own beliefs and actions. We come to this world
> alone, we will leave it alone. What religious label we are born in, which
> religious label or not we choose, eventually we all must face death alone,
> and whatever's beyond that. Wishing it away because some people are poor
> ambassadors or poor communicators of the message, won't change things
> according to our wishes. We humans have intelligence and a vast wondrous
> world full of thoughts and ideas and science and signs... we must explore
> everything we can for its own merit before discarding it.
> On this Everything list, I see earnest seekers exploring almost
> everything, but somehow they stop short of scripture, especially Quran. I
> understand much of this has to do with a filtered view of history,
> long-held prejudices, popular media, as well as the actions of people who
> poorly understand or use the religion, etc.
>

This is, at least in my case, due to a distrust of taking the authority of
centuries-old texts when there is little to no evidence that any of them
contain more than - at best - a slight grain of truth, and when from a
present day perspective it is clear they were created for reasons well
understood by psychologists (in particular, for social control).


> The thing is, to understand everything, we must be willing to explore
> everything.
>

Including Uri Geller, UFOs, a thousand people who want to "prove Einstein
wrong", Borley Rectory, the people trying to sell me something from
Nigeria, the Loch Ness monster, Ouija boards, Thor, Zeus, Odin and so on -
yes, no doubt one shouldn't dismiss anything, but life's too short not to
prioritise.

>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

Chris, I was replying to Spudboy100 who refuses to consider the Quran
because of the 'jihadis' 'behavoir' . The point I was trying to make is
that some people, from all religious persuasions, do strange and at times
horrible things. We need to look past people and their behaviours, and
examine the religious texts to evaluate for ourselves what it is. We are
all responsible for our own beliefs and actions. We come to this world
alone, we will leave it alone. What religious label we are born in, which
religious label or not we choose, eventually we all must face death alone,
and whatever's beyond that. Wishing it away because some people are poor
ambassadors or poor communicators of the message, won't change things
according to our wishes. We humans have intelligence and a vast wondrous
world full of thoughts and ideas and science and signs... we must explore
everything we can for its own merit before discarding it.
On this Everything list, I see earnest seekers exploring almost everything,
but somehow they stop short of scripture, especially Quran. I understand
much of this has to do with a filtered view of history, long-held
prejudices, popular media, as well as the actions of people who poorly
understand or use the religion, etc. The thing is, to understand
everything, we must be willing to explore everything.

To answer your question, you may find these versions of history different
from what you may know about Muslim conquests:
http://lostislamichistory.com/did-islam-spread-by-the-sword/
http://lostislamichistory.com/?s=crusades
http://lostislamichistory.com/the-crusades-part-3-liberation/

Samiya


On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Chris de Morsella
wrote:

> Samiya – Has Islam never participated in perpetrating violence against
> others; in conquest?
>
> Islam is as guilty as the other Abrahamic faiths, as an agent of violence
> in human history.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Samiya Illias
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:57 AM
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
>
>
>
> People do many strange and horrid things in the name of religion or nation
> or some other pretext. Violence has been perpetrated by the Crusaders, by
> the Nazis, by the Buddhists in Bhutan, by the Hindus in the Kashmir, Babri
> Masjid, by the Jews in Palestine, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the US and
> Allies in Iraq, and the list goes on...
>
> One must look beyond the people and evaluate religions for their message.
>
>
>
> Samiya
>
>
>
> spudboy100 wrote: Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what
> happens to humans in this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to
> an ecstatic, plunge into violence, a "holy" violence, then a reasoning
> person may pause, and ponder what is lost, what is gained, and what is the
> damage done? Rather than focus on the internal realm of self, I
> concentrate, for now, on behavior.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 9:26 PM,  wrote:
>
> Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens to humans in
> this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an ecstatic, plunge
> into violence, a "holy" violence, then a reasoning person may pause, and
> ponder what is lost, what is gained, and what is the damage done? Rather
> than focus on the internal realm of self, I concentrate, for now, on
> behavior.
>
> There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is
> willing to look beyond the prejudices.
>
> The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more
> one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling!
>
> -Original Message-
>
>
> From: Samiya Illias 
> To: everything-list 
>
> Sent: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 11:10 am
> Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
>
> There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is
> willing to look beyond the prejudices.
>
> The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more
> one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling!
>
>
>
> Samiya
>
>
> On 19-Apr-2014, at 6:12 pm, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Interesting, however, religion itself can an intoxicant, with the promise
> of paradise with many, many, willing females, and wine is permitted, and
> eternal life, if one merely, throws caution to wind and becomes a shaheed.
> What are a few years in this valley of tears, compared to paradise? An
> intoxicant indeed for the faithful.
>
> In Islam, consumption of intoxicants ar

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

I agree. (Even chocolate may be a poison, although I haven't yet
completed my investigations.)


On 20 April 2014 12:55, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

> "All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The
> right dose differentiates a poison…." Paracelsus (1493-1541)
>
> Paracelsus did a fair job with those few words. Indeed love, theology,
> belief, water, books, and a large variety of concepts and behaviors could
> qualify as "substance" here. What isn't poisonous or would disqualify the
> statement? PGC
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 2:07 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 4/19/2014 4:25 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>  On 20 April 2014 09:46, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>  On 4/19/2014 8:17 AM, Samiya Illias wrote:
>>>
>>> There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is
>>> willing to look beyond the prejudices.
>>> The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the
>>> more one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing
>>> feeling!
>>>
>>>
>>>  More proof of the danger of drugs.
>>>
>>>
>> Or of falling in love.
>>
>>
>> Yep. Never fall in love with a jealous despot.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

2014-04-19 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

"All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right
dose differentiates a poison…." Paracelsus (1493-1541)

Paracelsus did a fair job with those few words. Indeed love, theology,
belief, water, books, and a large variety of concepts and behaviors could
qualify as "substance" here. What isn't poisonous or would disqualify the
statement? PGC


On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 2:07 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 4/19/2014 4:25 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 20 April 2014 09:46, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 4/19/2014 8:17 AM, Samiya Illias wrote:
>>
>> There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is
>> willing to look beyond the prejudices.
>> The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the
>> more one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing
>> feeling!
>>
>>
>>  More proof of the danger of drugs.
>>
>>
> Or of falling in love.
>
>
> Yep. Never fall in love with a jealous despot.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.


On 4/19/2014 4:25 PM, LizR wrote:

On 20 April 2014 09:46, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 4/19/2014 8:17 AM, Samiya Illias wrote:

There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is 
willing to
look beyond the prejudices.
The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more 
one
falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling!


More proof of the danger of drugs.

Or of falling in love.


Yep. Never fall in love with a jealous despot.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

On 20 April 2014 09:46, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 4/19/2014 8:17 AM, Samiya Illias wrote:
>
> There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is
> willing to look beyond the prejudices.
> The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more
> one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling!
>
>
> More proof of the danger of drugs.
>
>
Or of falling in love.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.


On 4/19/2014 8:17 AM, Samiya Illias wrote:
There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing to look 
beyond the prejudices.
The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one falls in 
love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling!


More proof of the danger of drugs.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

2014-04-19 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 19 Apr 2014, at 12:35, Samiya Illias wrote:




On 19-Apr-2014, at 1:15 pm, Bruno Marchal  wrote:



On 19 Apr 2014, at 08:42, Samiya Illias wrote:

The harmful effects of the consumption of intoxicants for the  
individual and its consequent effects on society are observable.  
The bans are in thus in the larger interest.



This does not follow. Banning intoxicant augments the intoxicant  
consumption, and so, if that is bad, it leads to the contrary  
effect than the one desired.




Agree to disagree :)


Even when a turkish sultana condemned smoking tobacco by having the  
head off, the consumption of tobacco grew.


Now, when a religion is related to the state, some religious  
prohibition might work, but I was thinking to laic multi-confessional  
countries.








However, if cannabis and other drugs have some medicinal benefits,  
then the research should continue to find the correct, beneficial   
use of them, as well as the side-effects.


Sure.




In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic  
word used for intoxicants,  in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root  
alphabets of the word are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide  
something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover the intellect, and thus  
are discouraged.


Does it? The Sufi thinks differently (as you know and can see by  
searching "sufi drug use". For them, some psychotropic does not  
cover the intellect, but discover it.


I am aware of the Sufi branch and thought. However, I am only  
quoting the Quran, the original Arabic text, which all sects agree  
upon as the Book revealed to Prophet Muhammad, which has not  
undergone any change, and is preserved in written form as well as in  
the memory of millions of human beings till this day.


The muslims I know disagree on many verses. I am not sure such text  
are easy to interpret. Even arithmetic is not that easy to interpret.






If something is intoxicating the mind, then how can it be considered  
safe to 'discover the intellect' unless the intellect has not yet  
been discovered?  ;)


It can be a reminiscence :)



In that case, in the absence of an active intellect, can such a  
person be expected to making a rational decision of choosing whether  
or not to 'use the drug'??


The decision has to be done before taking the drug. Yes, there is  
always a risk, and nobody should push you, and that is another reason  
to make it legal, at least in laïc countries. To avoid unscrupulous  
street dealers pushing weak people to buy rotten psychotropic. (and to  
avoid legal drug dealer not trying to cure you).











It is explained: [Quran 2:219] They ask you about intoxicants and  
games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and  
means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their  
profit...


That is an authoritative argument. You must understand that this is  
not a good point for the Quran, or that interpretation of the Quran.

How can *you* be sure if the prophet did not misunderstood God?

The original Arabic words of the Quran have not suffered any change  
over the centuries.


That might not necessarily be a good sign.




They are not the words of the Prophet. He was only the messenger,  
transmitting the revelation as received.


Asserting this might not add sense to me. I respect your belief, but I  
will be vigilant about you respecting possible other beliefs.




Have you come across any human book which has about 6236 sentences,  
and millions of people know it by heart completely, from beginning  
till end?



You are not reassuring me, here.




This original manuscript is protected from human interpretation...


My question is: what if a young person tells you, "I don't want to  
study by heart the Quran, I want to study by heart the Bhagavad-Gita"?  
Will that person keep a decent life in your neighborhood?


Saudi arabis just decided to make atheism illegal. Do we agree that  
this should not be tolerated? I am not an atheist, but I consider that  
each human can think for himself, as long as it does not impose its   
idea by dishonest means or violence, threat, etc.












The word used for sin also means frustration; tiredness; laziness.  
Thus, I gather, both mind and body eventually suffer from the  
harmful effects of the intoxicant, and thus the negatives far  
outweigh the benefits.


Initially, the believers were advised to pray when in a clear  
state of mind, and not when under the influence of intoxicants: :  
[Quran 4:43] O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are  
Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say,...


Gradually, they were exhorted to refrain from it altogether:  
[Quran 5:90] O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling,  
(dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an  
abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that  
ye may prosper.


References:
[Quran 2:219] 
http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=2&from_verse=218&to_

RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

2014-04-19 Thread Chris de Morsella

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb

 

On 4/19/2014 1:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 19 Apr 2014, at 08:42, Samiya Illias wrote:





The harmful effects of the consumption of intoxicants for the individual and
its consequent effects on society are observable. The bans are in thus in
the larger interest. 

 

 

This does not follow. Banning intoxicant augments the intoxicant
consumption, and so, if that is bad, it leads to the contrary effect than
the one desired.


Even if it suppresses the consumption of something that is bad for you (e.g.
tobacco smoking) the actions necessary for suppression: searches, police
surveillance, fines, imprisonment - may be worse than the effects of
consumption.



Besides which - if left alone - the effects of something that is bad for you
ultimately result in bad outcomes for the individuals with the bad habits.
Over time cultures begin to recognize the correlation between some habit and
bad outcomes and a natural balance is achieved without state intervention. 

For example - to use a non drug behavior - the practice of safe sex (i.e.
using a condom) has markedly reduced the transmission rates of many deadly
diseases, such as hiv, amongst sexually active populations. This cultural
behavioral change - from not using condoms to using condoms, has not been
achieved through state enforcement (also highly impractical perhaps), but
through the spread of the awareness and consequent cultural adaptation.

It is legal in many places - Italy for example - for hard alcohol to be sold
to a four year old, but it does not happen in practice - all without the
need for the repressive enforcement of any laws, regulations, but rather
through the more benign method of custom and basic common sense. It is
through learned cultural adaptation that most things can and should be
handled. State intervention should be reserved for acute types of acts, such
as say murder, or massive toxic pollution  that are intolerable for general
well-being.

The need to make laws, to prohibit (also religiously->politically, in say
how Islam prohibits - by force -- the consumption of pork or alcohol)
against perceived moral or behavioral wrongs is ultimately a grand waste of
energy and a powerful enabler of organized criminality and widespread
corruption that achieves nothing except driving certain proscribed behaviors
underground into the shadow world of the organized crime syndicate & central
intelligence agency dominated black world. the world that effectively rules
- or at the very least powerfully influences -- the visible official world
that is publicly represented as being the entire story.

There is no need for the cure; the cure is worse than the disease because
dangerous behavior self corrects in that those who engage in it are removed
from the gene pool and provide teachable moments to other individuals who
witness their trajectories. As amongst mountain climbers it is well known
that there are no old free climbers.. Because they die young! By a similar
parallel kind of mechanism the ultimate trajectories that various drug
habits (or any habit for that matter: gambling say, or over-eating, bad
diet, or lack of exercise. etc.) lead people's lives on becomes part of our
cultural repertoire, without the need for any state intervention.

Junkies, like free climbers (who climb rock faces without pitons or rope)
also tend to die young. There will always be some individuals who are drawn
into these habits or pursuits, but the percentages will always be small
because the vast majority of people can draw on their cultural knowledge and
wisely avoid these habits or risk intense pursuits. 

Why not just let Darwinian evolution do its job? Culture should attempt to
educate and encourage, and offer means of rehabilitation for junkies and
alcoholics, and for a host of other impulse driven bad behavior. I very much
support that, but I see - as the evidence from the fifty plus failed example
of the drug war proves - that state repression is not an answer. Rather it
is the profit engine of the global crime syndicates whose immense profits
over time corrupt all institutions in society (the stock exchanges, the
banks, the legal system itself) and whose black world intersects in a
perverse and corrupting manner with the world of state central intelligence
agencies (which also operate largely outside the law, and which do business
with the crime syndicates)

Chris


Brent

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscr

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.


On 4/19/2014 1:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 19 Apr 2014, at 08:42, Samiya Illias wrote:

The harmful effects of the consumption of intoxicants for the individual and its 
consequent effects on society are observable. The bans are in thus in the larger interest.



This does not follow. Banning intoxicant augments the intoxicant consumption, and so, if 
that is bad, it leads to the contrary effect than the one desired.


Even if it suppresses the consumption of something that is bad for you (e.g. tobacco 
smoking) the actions necessary for suppression: searches, police surveillance, fines, 
imprisonment - may be worse than the effects of consumption.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

2014-04-19 Thread 'Chris de Morsella ' via Everything List


On 4/19/2014 12:37 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Then, the cultivation of industrial help -- which is not psychoactive -- was also made 
illegal. Industrial has a wide range of applications: paper, fabric, building material 
and cheap protein source, to name a few. It threatens several industries and it is not a 
narcotic. How do you explain that?


How do you explain that growth of industrial hemp was encouraged by the government up 
through World War 2?  Did it not pose the same threats then?


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 12:38 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 12:52 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

On 4/18/2014 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

What society thinks has nothing to do with it, because weak
correlation-based scientific evidence is used selectively to create laws
that were desired a priori by some interest group.

That implies some nefarious motive and corrupt use of data known to be
wrong.  In fact there was no nefarious 'interest group' that wanted to ban
marijuana or to ban alcohol or to ban heroin.  All these bans were initiated
by people who believed in the ill effects of these substances for
individuals and for society.  In many cases they had personal experience.
That the bans may have given rise to criminal activities to circumvent them,
isn't to the point of their origin.

I never claimed that any data was wrong. What I said was that correlations
are weak evidence, and that many studies show correlation for all sorts of
things. Furthermore, these correlations are used selectively when it comes
to legislating. For this we have hard evidence: there is much stronger
scientific evidence against alcohol and tobacco than cannabis, yet the
former are legal while the latter is illegal.

Exactly - weak correlations can be found for almost anything if you look
hard enough. 

Chris

In the UK, Professor David Nutt was sacked from his position as chairman of
the government advisory board on the misuse of drugs for analysing
scientific evidence and coming to the conclusion that alcohol was more
dangerous than ecstasy, LSD and cannabis:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-adviser-david-nutt-sac
ked

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/29/nutt-drugs-policy-reform-cal
l?guni=Article:in%20body%20link

Then, the cultivation of industrial help -- which is not psychoactive -- was
also made illegal. Industrial has a wide range of applications: paper,
fabric, building material and cheap protein source, to name a few. It
threatens several industries and it is not a narcotic. How do you explain
that?

Telmo.

Brent

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

On 4/19/2014 12:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 19 Apr 2014, at 00:52, meekerdb wrote:

What? For marijuana, there were a lot. Anslinger was asked to find eveidence that
cannabis was worst than alcohol. he destoyed the results which showed that cannabis is
much less dangerous than alcohol. Nixon, Chirac (in France), adn also people in the UK,
will destroyed such records too.

It is a made up since the start. That is why some people still speculate on dangers, for
which there are no corresponding complains, with very few exception by person who abuse,
and would probably not in case it would be legal.

All these bans were initiated by people who believed in the ill effects of these
substances for individuals and for society.

I have no clue why you say this.

Because it's true. The people may have been mistaken - particularly about the net ill
effects on society - but there is plenty of evidence that some people become addicted to
pot just as they become addicted to alcohol or tobacco and this has bad consequences for
them. For example, my wife's first husband became a habitual pot smoker and lost all
ambition and interest in other things. And even aside from such effects, there has been a
strong Puritan ethic in the U.S. that thinks of any kind of sybaritic pleasure as sinful
and bad for one's character.

RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

2014-04-19 Thread Chris de Morsella

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy100@aol.com7

 

No wonder you guys are so enthusiastic about anthropogenic warming ( I
concur but not like you do) cause you been rock'in the Ganj!! Y'all voted
for Bob Marley for PM, and he's been off-planet for 25 years. Irae mon. Your
ears hearing the skankin sounds while yer butt be feeling those spanking
sounds. On the other hand in the US we elected a constitutional lawyer and
head of the choom gang our president. See, the climate gets warmed up by all
yer bongs. That's it.

 

May I ask.. what are you smoking?

Chris

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

2014-04-19 Thread Chris de Morsella

Samiya – Has Islam never participated in perpetrating violence against others; 
in conquest? 

Islam is as guilty as the other Abrahamic faiths, as an agent of violence in 
human history. 

Chris

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Samiya Illias
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:57 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

 

People do many strange and horrid things in the name of religion or nation or 
some other pretext. Violence has been perpetrated by the Crusaders, by the 
Nazis, by the Buddhists in Bhutan, by the Hindus in the Kashmir, Babri Masjid, 
by the Jews in Palestine, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the US and Allies in 
Iraq, and the list goes on... 

One must look beyond the people and evaluate religions for their message.  

 

Samiya  

 

spudboy100 wrote: Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens 
to humans in this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an ecstatic, 
plunge into violence, a "holy" violence, then a reasoning person may pause, and 
ponder what is lost, what is gained, and what is the damage done? Rather than 
focus on the internal realm of self, I concentrate, for now, on behavior. 

 

 

 

On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 9:26 PM,  wrote:

Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens to humans in this 
world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an ecstatic, plunge into 
violence, a "holy" violence, then a reasoning person may pause, and ponder what 
is lost, what is gained, and what is the damage done? Rather than focus on the 
internal realm of self, I concentrate, for now, on behavior.  

There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing 
to look beyond the prejudices. 

The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one 
falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling! 

-Original Message-


From: Samiya Illias 
To: everything-list 

Sent: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 11:10 am
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing 
to look beyond the prejudices. 

The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one 
falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling! 

 

Samiya 


On 19-Apr-2014, at 6:12 pm, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

Interesting, however, religion itself can an intoxicant, with the promise of 
paradise with many, many, willing females, and wine is permitted, and eternal 
life, if one merely, throws caution to wind and becomes a shaheed. What are a 
few years in this valley of tears, compared to paradise? An intoxicant indeed 
for the faithful.

In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for 
intoxicants,  in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are 
kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover 
the intellect, and thus are discouraged

-Original Message-
From: Samiya Illias 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 2:42 am
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

The harmful effects of the consumption of intoxicants for the individual and 
its consequent effects on society are observable. The bans are in thus in the 
larger interest. However, if cannabis and other drugs have some medicinal 
benefits, then the research should continue to find the correct, beneficial  
use of them, as well as the side-effects. 

 

In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for 
intoxicants,  in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are 
kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover 
the intellect, and thus are discouraged.  

 

It is explained: [Quran 2:219] They ask you about intoxicants and games of 
chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, 
and their sin is greater than their profit... 

 

The word used for sin also means frustration; tiredness; laziness. Thus, I 
gather, both mind and body eventually suffer from the harmful effects of the 
intoxicant, and thus the negatives far outweigh the benefits. 

 

Initially, the believers were advised to pray when in a clear state of mind, 
and not when under the influence of intoxicants: : [Quran 4:43] O you who 
believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) 
what you say,...   

 

Gradually, they were exhorted to refrain from it altogether: [Quran 5:90] O ye 
who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination 
by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such 
(abomination), that ye may prosper.

   

References: 

[Quran 2:219] http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=2 
<http://www.se

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

2014-04-19 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 19 Apr 2014, at 09:37, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 12:52 AM, meekerdb
wrote:

On 4/18/2014 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
What society thinks has nothing to do with it, because weak
correlation-based scientific evidence is used selectively to create
laws that were desired a priori by some interest group.
That implies some nefarious motive and corrupt use of data known to
be wrong. In fact there was no nefarious 'interest group' that
wanted to ban marijuana or to ban alcohol or to ban heroin. All
these bans were initiated by people who believed in the ill effects
of these substances for individuals and for society. In many cases
they had personal experience. That the bans may have given rise to
criminal activities to circumvent them, isn't to the point of
their origin.

I never claimed that any data was wrong. What I said was that
correlations are weak evidence,

It is worth than that. The danger of cannabis is a set up. It is a
case where politics just ignore the "real" data, and the real
correlation, made in the valid direction.
What I say is "mainstream": there are no expert on cannabis which know
this, except "fake expert" paid by corporatist societies.

The first proof by Nihas that cannabis lead to brain problems was
based on rabbits brain smoking 27 (I think) cigarettes of tobacco +
cannabis 24h/24h. They died of lack of oxygen.

Of course all drugs have dangers, but comparatively to tobacco,
alcohol, or even aspirin, sugar, etc., cannabis is less toxic, as far
as we know today. The danger is a myth created by the collusion of
racists (anti-mexicans), Oil barons, and drug dealers.

and that many studies show correlation for all sorts of things.
Furthermore, these correlations are used selectively when it comes
to legislating. For this we have hard evidence: there is much
stronger scientific evidence against alcohol and tobacco than
cannabis, yet the former are legal while the latter is illegal.

That was the lesson of prohibition of alcohol. Make a safe medication
illegal, because the danger of a drug augments by prohibition, like
alcohol.

In the UK, Professor David Nutt was sacked from his position as
chairman of the government advisory board on the misuse of drugs for
analysing scientific evidence and coming to the conclusion that
alcohol was more dangerous than ecstasy, LSD and cannabis:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-adviser-david-nutt-sacked
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/29/nutt-drugs-policy-reform-call?guni=Article:in%20body%20link

Then, the cultivation of industrial help -- which is not
psychoactive -- was also made illegal.

Yes, you can find video of old people confessing having fight for the
illegality of the dangerous Mexican killer drug known as marijuana,
without having the slighest idea that it was hemp. It was a set up. We
have all the detailed informations. Anyone taking the time can look at
what happened.

Industrial has a wide range of applications: paper, fabric, building
material and cheap protein source, to name a few. It threatens
several industries and it is not a narcotic. How do you explain that?

Cannabis has been made illegal about the same day they build the first
harvester machines dedicated to hemp.
It was a conspiracy against Hemp. We known the name, we know the set-
up, we know everything about that. We just ignore it, probably because
we fear the other lies (Kennedy, and the way americans and non
american get hostages of corporatism who defend special interest, and
black market which finance criminals and terrorism.

It is a good news, as bandits always lose power. My hope is that they
will be clever enough to abandon it pacifically little bit by little
bit, instead of trying to stay in power by force and violence. All
lover of the free land should stand against the NDAA, as it allows
break in the human rights, which I was told we were fighting for. I
can understand such break for a very limited period, in war and
crisis, not in any vague indeterminate way.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

People do many strange and horrid things in the name of religion or nation
or some other pretext. Violence has been perpetrated by the Crusaders, by
the Nazis, by the Buddhists in Bhutan, by the Hindus in the Kashmir, Babri
Masjid, by the Jews in Palestine, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the US and
Allies in Iraq, and the list goes on...
One must look beyond the people and evaluate religions for their message.

Samiya

spudboy100 wrote: Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what
happens to humans in this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to
an ecstatic, plunge into violence, a "holy" violence, then a reasoning
person may pause, and ponder what is lost, what is gained, and what is the
damage done? Rather than focus on the internal realm of self, I
concentrate, for now, on behavior.




On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 9:26 PM,  wrote:

> Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens to humans in
> this world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an ecstatic, plunge
> into violence, a "holy" violence, then a reasoning person may pause, and
> ponder what is lost, what is gained, and what is the damage done? Rather
> than focus on the internal realm of self, I concentrate, for now, on
> behavior.
>
> There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is
> willing to look beyond the prejudices.
> The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more
> one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling!
>
>   -Original Message-
>
> From: Samiya Illias 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 11:10 am
> Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
>
>  There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is
> willing to look beyond the prejudices.
> The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more
> one falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling!
>
>  Samiya
>
> On 19-Apr-2014, at 6:12 pm, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
>
>   Interesting, however, religion itself can an intoxicant, with the
> promise of paradise with many, many, willing females, and wine is
> permitted, and eternal life, if one merely, throws caution to wind and
> becomes a shaheed. What are a few years in this valley of tears, compared
> to paradise? An intoxicant indeed for the faithful.
>
> In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used
> for intoxicants,  in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word
> are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies,
> cover the intellect, and thus are discouraged
>
>   -Original Message-
> From: Samiya Illias 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 2:42 am
> Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.
>
>  The harmful effects of the consumption of intoxicants for the individual
> and its consequent effects on society are observable. The bans are in thus
> in the larger interest. However, if cannabis and other drugs have some
> medicinal benefits, then the research should continue to find the correct,
> beneficial  use of them, as well as the side-effects.
>
>  In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word
> used for intoxicants,  in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the
> word are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it
> implies, cover the intellect, and thus are discouraged.
>
>  It is explained: [Quran 2:219] They ask you about intoxicants and games
> of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit
> for men, and their sin is greater than their profit...
>
>  The word used for sin also means frustration; tiredness; laziness. Thus,
> I gather, both mind and body eventually suffer from the harmful effects of
> the intoxicant, and thus the negatives far outweigh the benefits.
>
>  Initially, the believers were advised to pray when in a clear state of
> mind, and not when under the influence of intoxicants: : [Quran 4:43] O you
> who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know
> (well) what you say,...
>
>  Gradually, they were exhorted to refrain from it altogether: [Quran
> 5:90] O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones,
> and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork:
> eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper.
>
> References:
>  [Quran 2:219]
> http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=2&from_verse=218&to_verse=220&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_yusufali=1&show_shakir=1&show_pickthal=1&show_mkhan=1&show_urdu=1
>
>
>  [Qur

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

2014-04-19 Thread spudboy100


Well, I am more focused on human behavior, and what happens to humans in this 
world. If such a spiritual intoxication leads to an ecstatic, plunge into 
violence, a "holy" violence, then a reasoning person may pause, and ponder what 
is lost, what is gained, and what is the damage done? Rather than focus on the 
internal realm of self, I concentrate, for now, on behavior.  

There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing 
to look beyond the prejudices. 
The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one 
falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling! 




-Original Message-
From: Samiya Illias 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 11:10 am
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.



There are many 'interesting' things to learn about Islam only if one is willing 
to look beyond the prejudices. 
The more one studies and contemplates on the Quran and the world, the more one 
falls in love with God. It is intoxicating, it's an amazing feeling! 


Samiya 

On 19-Apr-2014, at 6:12 pm, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:



Interesting, however, religion itself can an intoxicant, with the promise of 
paradise with many, many, willing females, and wine is permitted, and eternal 
life, if one merely, throws caution to wind and becomes a shaheed. What are a 
few years in this valley of tears, compared to paradise? An intoxicant indeed 
for the faithful.

In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for 
intoxicants,  in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are 
kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover 
the intellect, and thus are discouraged




-Original Message-
From: Samiya Illias 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Apr 19, 2014 2:42 am
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.



The harmful effects of the consumption of intoxicants for the individual and 
its consequent effects on society are observable. The bans are in thus in the 
larger interest. However, if cannabis and other drugs have some medicinal 
benefits, then the research should continue to find the correct, beneficial  
use of them, as well as the side-effects. 


In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic word used for 
intoxicants,  in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root alphabets of the word are 
kh-m-r which means to cover or hide something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover 
the intellect, and thus are discouraged. 



It is explained: [Quran 2:219] They ask you about intoxicants and games of 
chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, 
and their sin is greater than their profit... 


The word used for sin also means frustration; tiredness; laziness. Thus, I 
gather, both mind and body eventually suffer from the harmful effects of the 
intoxicant, and thus the negatives far outweigh the benefits. 


Initially, the believers were advised to pray when in a clear state of mind, 
and not when under the influence of intoxicants: : [Quran 4:43] O you who 
believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) 
what you say,...  
 


Gradually, they were exhorted to refrain from it altogether: [Quran 5:90] O ye 
who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination 
by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such 
(abomination), that ye may prosper.
   
References: 

[Quran 2:219] 
http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=2&from_verse=218&to_verse=220&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_yusufali=1&show_shakir=1&show_pickthal=1&show_mkhan=1&show_urdu=1
 



[Quran 4:43] 
http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=4&from_verse=42&to_verse=44&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_yusufali=1&show_shakir=1&show_pickthal=1&show_mkhan=1&show_urdu=1
 



[Quran 5:90] 
http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=5&from_verse=89&to_verse=92&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_yusufali=1&show_shakir=1&show_pickthal=1&show_mkhan=1&show_urdu=1
 




Samiya 









On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 3:52 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

  

On 4/18/2014 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes  wrote:


What society thinks has nothing to do with it, because  weak 
correlation-based scientific evidence is used selectively to  create laws 
that were desired a priori by some interest group.

That implies some  nefarious motive and corrupt use of data known to be 
wrong.  In  fact there was no nefarious 'interest group' that wanted to ban 
 marijuana or to ban alcohol or to ban heroin.  All these bans were  
initiated by people who believed in the ill effects of these  substances 
for individuals and for society.  In many ca

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

2014-04-19 Thread ghibbsa


On Friday, April 18, 2014 11:52:59 PM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 4/18/2014 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>  
> What society thinks has nothing to do with it, because weak 
> correlation-based scientific evidence is used selectively to create laws 
> that were desired a priori by some interest group.
>
> That implies some nefarious motive and corrupt use of data known to be 
> wrong.  In fact there was no nefarious 'interest group' that wanted to ban 
> marijuana or to ban alcohol or to ban heroin.  All these bans were 
> initiated by people who believed in the ill effects of these substances for 
> individuals and for society.  In many cases they had personal experience.  
> That the bans may have given rise to criminal activities to circumvent 
> them, isn't to the point of their origin.
>
> Brent
>
 
To the part about personal experience...Right - I had personal experience, 
like presumably a lot of people. I actually mentioned seeing two personal 
friends starting to smoke pot in their early teens and being 
institutionalized a few years later. Like...oddballs shambling up and down 
the street for the rest of their lives, I imagine. 
 
I wasn't looking for a violin, but the response by some people on this 
thread, was pretty fucking insulting. Bruno all but accused me of lying in 
his scare quotes "experience" he puts it down to. PGC blurbs out this 
pompous indifferent padded life twallop, and telmo jumps in with a load of 
projection about ghastly politically motivated people that hide behind 
spurious scientific veneers - and basically anything else they find useful 
- to continually push some twisted self-serving inconsiderate agenda. All 
this when there is hard scientific evidence my experience was probably well 
to be 
expected.
 What 
a bunch of cunts. 
 
OK...I'm over it now. All forgiven. Big hugs :o) 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.