Posts by kid-A

14

Mulberry Street corrected

by dedpoet in

jw
friends

remember the infamous mulberry street video, obviously posted by active jws?.

enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg-pk_twcbm.

kid-A

I think it is a bit mean. There is no need to be mean like that.

Ahhhhhhh, did we upset wittle SBF with our apostate "meanness"? I think murdering innocent children over some perverted blood policy is "mean", SBF, do you?

12

The creation lottery

by Paralipomenon in

jw
friends

now most creationists use the argument that life just had to be created because it is so complex.

after all, the chance of it just happening is so remote that it negates any chance of just happening.

using that logic however, the lottery is impossible.

kid-A

There are several obvious problems with this old creationist "improbability" canard.

First, we dont know what the precise primordial conditions were on this planet when the earliest cellular lifeforms emerged. We know the planet was largely covered in liquid, but the levels of primordial elements that would be prerequisite for life such as nucleic acids that could organize in a self-replicating manner leading to larger amino acid chains, etc. are unknown.

Given large enough proportions of these primordial elements the "probability" that such molecules could organize into simple life forms may have been extraordinarily high. So, the "probability" argument holds no validity. The "odds" of life forms emerging in these early conditions may have been very low, or very high. There is no way to know.

More importantly, at the very least, astrobiologists can provide a hypothetical and logically progressive mechanism (complexity emerging from simple components) to account for primordial life emerging on the planet that goes beyond the mythos of some sky creature waving his magic wand and causing life to appear in one fell swoop, in some enchanted "garden"......

The creationist is left with nothing except an ancient text written by wandering, barbaric and ignorant desert nomads thousands of years ago upon which to base their "theories".

I wonder, can a creationist calculate the "probability" that some omnipotent "god", simply "always" existed, and one day decided to create a universe populated with disease-prone, poorly "designed" hominids that would exist for the sole purpose of gratifying his infinite ego? Um....yeah.......THAT makes sense! .....

Finally, the creationist arguments "design clause" is its own fatal flaw: if all complex life forms require a designer, than obviously, by logical extension, "god" would require a designer and creator.....and so on......and so on.....and so on............

69

Final Thought About Atheism

by The wanderer in

jw
friends

final thought about atheismafter having reviewed the last thread about atheism, i have decided there.

exists a common theme among the postings.

the themes surrounding the .

kid-A

Since my undergraduate bachelors of Science is in Psychology, I was curious about your rather remarkable claims that both Penn and Oxford support research programs in "Parapsychology". Interestingly, an examination of both departments websites reveals that this is NOT true. Neither school has an active research program or graduate program devoted to "Paranormal" activity or "Parapsychology", so I suggest checking your sources before making such remarkable claims.

Second, even if your statements were true, this would not make these fields more or less respectable. I run a research laboratory. I publish my work in peer-reviewed national and international journals. The process is rigourous, time consuming and extremely difficult when getting legitimate research published in a reputable scientific journal like Nature, Science or Cell.

So called "scientific" research in Parapsychology has little or no respect in the broader scientific community for a very simple reason: the results CANNOT BE REPLICATED by independent laboratories. IF they were accepted, and replicated, do you not think this information would be making the headlines at CNN on a daily basis?

Finally, I fail to see how you logically link this claim about the legitamacy or "parapsychological" research with a "Final Thought about Atheism???" You further suggested that the "common" theme in your other thread regarded a "lack of proof" for god.

Again, you seem to be missing the point. The onus of "proof" falls not upon the atheist, it falls upon the "believer" making the extraordinary claim about some super-powerful, all knowing "sky daddy" sitting on a cloud in the heavens directing the activities upon the earth.

As I have stated repeatedly on this board, and to which no satisfactory retort has been offered, you have as much "proof" of a some god being, as you do for "Peter the Rabbit", "Leprechauns", "Unicorns", "Santa Claus" or the "Tooth Fairy".....ergo, why do you NOT believe in these entities, yet do continue to believe in some nebulous "god creature" claiming to be the author of some book of mythology written by wandering desert nomads 2000 years ago?

Penn State Graduate School of Psychology:

http://www.psych.upenn.edu/graduate_resareas.php

Graduate Program: Research Areas

Although there are no formal sub-areas within the department, a number of major fields of study are represented. Here is a brief list of these faculty research areas. For some areas, separate web sites provide more information.

Oxford University Graduate Program in Psychology:

http://www.psy.ox.ac.uk/research

All academic staff members of the Department carry out research. Listed in this folder are the links to various Research Groups within the Department of Experimental Psychology
Supervisors & their research areas
More information on research staff and their research areas can also be found on the this link
Brain & Cognition Lab
Professor Anna Christina (Kia) Nobre
Cognitive Neuroscience Research Group
Professor Richard Passingham
Computational Neuroscience
Professor Edmund Rolls
The Crossmodal Research Group
Professor Charles Spence
Decision and Action Laboratory
Dr Matthew Rushworth
Language and Cognitive Development Research Group
Professor Kate Nation
Oxford Babylab
Professor Kim Plunkett
Oxford Centre for Connectionist Modelling
Professor Kim Plunkett
Oxford Stress Research Group
Dr Kathy Parkes
Oxford Study of Children's Communication Impairments - OSCCI
Professor Dorothy Bishop
Social Psychology
Professor Miles Hewstone, Dr Mansur Lalljee and Professor Brian Parkinson
Visual Development Unit
Professor Oliver Braddick & Professor Jane Atkinson - Co-director and Visiting Professor
Theoretical Neuroscience & Artificial Intelligence
Dr Simon Stringer
Oxford Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience

15

CROTCHTOWER : SHOULD CHRISTIANS ANSWER RHETORICAL QUESTIONS?

by Terry in

crotchtower april 4,2007 .

should christians answer rhetorical questions?

what does the bible say?

kid-A

LMAO....."CrotchTower"....thats a keeper!

22

Sex - I refuse to read...

by daystar in

jw
friends

another thread with a subject set up as a teaser trailing an ellipsis.

i refuse to be manipulated!

tell us what it's regarding in the subject so we can know whether we even need to open it.

kid-A

I refuse to read sex too.....I prefer pictures.....

20

DF for celebrating Birthdays??

by lrkr in

has anyone ever heard of someone being dfd for celebrating their or their childrens birthday???.

(my first post- took a lot to work up the courage- i'll tell more details later).

kid-A

If they caught you doing it once, you would most likely get hauled before the goon squad and severely disciplined, but not DFd.

However, if you continued to engage in such "pagan" activities, despite warnings, you would definitely be DF'd....

23

THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER! Fable or Fact?

by FireNBandits in

.

kid-A

For whomsoever denieth the linguini, denieth our noodly lord and saviour, FSM.....

147

Merry Becomes A Muslim (a bit long)

by Merry Magdalene in

who is merry?

i was born in 1965, the same year that malcolm x was assassinated.

my father had committed suicide a few months into my mother's pregnancy so we lived with her parents until she married again when i was about 18 months old.

kid-A

"I do. He's limited himself by his own set of beliefs which currently won't let him explore Islam or Christianity from the inside. A limit is a limit, whichever side of the fence you place yourself..."

Two issues here. First, I'm guessing that WACs rejection of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, what-have-you, is, similar to my own, predicated on the fact that one does not accept the concept or the reality of the "supernatural" in any format. That being the case, once the possibility of a "supernatural" god-like being has been examined and rejected due to an overwhelming lack of evidence, the "flavour" of belief becomes irrelevant, they are all equally unbelievable.

Second, I agree, a limit is a limit. But we can debate over who has established more limits to their cognitive frameworks. The atheist or agnostic rejects the concept or worshipping of a god after reaching the empirical conclusion that there is simply not sufficient evidence to form that conclusion. Indeed, IMHO, there is as much evidence for god as there is for any other culturally constructed character, be it literary, religious or otherwise. Having said that, if some creature were to make itself known to me and conclusively demonstrate its existence to my faculties of sensation and perception beyond a reasonable doubt, I would unhesitatingly accept the reality of said being. I wouldnt "worship" it, but I would acknowledge its existence with satisfactory evidence.

On the other hand, the vast majority of believers take it as a "given" that there is a supernatural world, regardless of their standard of evidence and will not, for one millisecond, entertain the notion that indeed, we just may be completely alone in the universe, this life is all their is, and when we die, we simply cease to exist. They limit themselves to the notion that they will not obtain their afterlife without offering endless "submission" to some arbitrary god that has supposedly authored some "rule" book which dictates morality, habits, thinking, etc etc. Indeed, they have limited themselves by "needing" to believe in that which they will never be able to prove beyond the non-empirical confines of "faith"....

Who leads the more "limited" life? A human being that simply chooses to actualize their ephemeral existence to its maximum potential while freeing themselves from the chains of primordial superstitions? Or the devoted "believer", who chooses to live under the jackboot of some dictator in the sky, dreamed up by some ancient tribe of barbarians wandering in misery through the desert, forcing them to pray 5 times a day in the direction of some ancient rock in Saudi Arabia, and cover up their human essence with black rags over their heads and faces lest their beloved "god" should disapprove of their infidel behaviour?

I would finally ask the "christians" on the board: is Merry going to hell? I would next ask Merry: Are the christian infidels going to hell? Hmmmmm, I anticipate some "limited" ranges of responses if either polarity is being honest with the dictates of their own "faith" system.....

29

Do I sound bitter?.....(email to mom)

by *jeremiah* in

on a mac, i hope this formats correctly.

my 1st email and question:

(salutations)

kid-A

Her reply: I am sure that you have another motive for asking this question, other than you are really wondering. I will answer it, but I will not go back and forth in debate over this, so please do not respond. I don't want to debate with you.

Why do ALL JW mothers sound exactly the same?..............

32

CANCER - AND THE DANGERS OF ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE!

by Dansk in

jw
friends

dear all,.

i've thought long and hard before writing this - which came about after linda (fullofdoubtnow), who is suffering from pancreatic cancer, was recommended alternative treatments to mainstream medicine.

i believe i am in a strong position to know just how effective many (most/all?

kid-A

Excellent post Ian, and particularly appropriate in that so many people, and in particular, JWs, seem to fall into the web of medical quackery, practiced by unscrupulous and often unlicensed "Doctors" charging outrageous amounts of money for untested and unproven "treatments".

As somebody actively involved in medical research, this topic resonates strongly with me. Several of my colleagues are cancer cell biologists and some have moved beyond basic research into full-blown clinical trials. My area is neurobiology, not cancer, but knowing and interacting with these scientists gives me a deep appreciation of how lengthy, frustrating and exceedingly difficult it will be to ultimately find a cure for cancer. Incredible progress is being made, treatments are becoming increasingly effective, but we are still a long way from being able to turn off cancer cells and/or preventing these aberrant cellular processes from starting in the first place.

Most of my colleagues in my particular department focus on metastasis, which remains the biggest hurdle in effective treatment. What their research continues to find is that the process takes place on so many different levels within the system (at the cellular, genetic, vascular, lymphatic levels) it is exceedingly difficult to find that "master" switch, especially given the fact that there appears to be a cascade of molecular events taking place (simultaneously!) all leading to the metastatic phenotype. This is the problem: cancer is not a monolithic entity, its an unbelievably complex mosaic of multiple etiological factors. I'm optimistic that, one step at a time, we can defeat this beast, but its going to take a lot more serious research investment on the parts of governments and private charitable organizations.