Having failed to prove anything other than your lack of knowledge about the subject, you now turn to spell checking my posts as you have NOTHING useful to say.
How long will you keep it up? Do you like making yourself look silly?
Abaddon
JoinedPosts by Abaddon
-
72
The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. The Secret $1,000,000 Prize
by Deputy Dog infrom http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i11f.htm
the secret $1,000,000 prize
one of the best kept secrets of science is the origin of life prize sponsored by the origin of life foundation, inc. when we first ran across their web site (www.lifeorigin.org), we thought that the offer of one million dollars to anyone who could propose a plausible theory for the origin of life was just a slick creationist trick for showing that the emperor had no clothes.
-
-
-
65
British College: Non-Muslims are "filth", "pigs" and "dogs"
by Elsewhere inhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2142403,00.html.
the times april 20, 2006 .
muslim students 'being taught to despise unbelievers as filth'.
-
-
Abaddon
Mary
Uh, last time I checked, the Nazis were not a religion, and Christianity according to the bible, does not refer to the Jews as pigs or decendents of apes.
Did I say that Nazi's were a religion? No. Do you imply I did because you didn't read what I wrote or because you feel a straw man arguement adds weight to your opinion?
And whilst the Bible doesn't talk about Jews like that, please provide a quote from the Quaran itself that does what you say.
Christian writers do write abusively of Jews - and I think you'll find while the Quaran is equivalent to the Bible, Islamic writers are equivalent to Christian writers. Both Christian and Muslim writers can let their nasty bigotries (which they claim are religiously justified) contaminate their religious writings. So you have no point.
I do have a point. Officially, the religion of Islam promotes the idea that Jews are "pigs" or "decendents of apes".
You prove you don't even know enough about Islam to realise that unlike, say Roman Catholicism, where there is a centralised hierachy and an 'official line', Islam has no central heirachy and thus no 'official' line. Some Muslims believe such idoicies, yes; but to claim it is an 'official' Muslim teaching when there is no centralised controlling body recognised as the 'offical' source of doctrine is to mis-state the facts.
I know of no other religion where their holy writings promote the idea that Jews are pigs or decendents of apes, but if you know of what, let me know.
Whilst the phrasing may differ, your statement shows you know nothing of the antipathy of Christian writers towards Jews in the Middle Ages. If you are spreading mis-conceptions about Muslims, aren't you actually being part of the problem rather than part of the solution?
The fact that some Muslims are falling for EXACTLY the same doctrines and beliefs the Germans fell for under Nazi rule should make it obvious this is a social and political problem.
It's also a religious problem because Islamic countries that promote this trash are not a democracy,
Ah, so it IS a social and political problem... I'm glad we agree...
Sad emo
Oh, I got you; thus the use of 'one'. If your first para left any doubt as to your opinion your second didn't. I just thought the media maniplulation worthy of highlighting.
-
36
an "Adult's" View.
by RichieRich inhere i sit, in my public library, typing away a computer from a hot nasty seat.. but i wouldn't be anywhere else in the world right now.
(okay, maybe a couple of other places).
i have to be at work in 40 minutes, and its a 15 minute drive from here, so lets not expect a novel of a post.. yesterday was my birthday, and they did a little cake thing for me and all that which was nice, but otherwise, nothing is new.. my mother seems to be cooling off, but lets just say that the "excrement flinging fan" hasn't been turned off yet.. i'm 18 now, and nothing is different.
-
-
Abaddon
Happy Birthday Richie, you've done more this year than many have done in a decade, so legal nicities aside you became a man a way back now...
-
65
British College: Non-Muslims are "filth", "pigs" and "dogs"
by Elsewhere inhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2142403,00.html.
the times april 20, 2006 .
muslim students 'being taught to despise unbelievers as filth'.
-
-
Abaddon
ColdRedRain
I could kiss you for such a common-sense comment.
Those who just jumped on this thread to repeat the anti-Islamic sentiments you've expressed in other threads are simply doing a Christian version of what the bigoted syllabus these students are complaining about does. Get a grip. The minute you start presenting objections to Islam that take into account how many Muslims have anti-Christian sentiments in comparison to those who are tolerant, or ones which look at Islam's history of violence intolerance and misogyny in light of Christianity's is the minute you get your opinion taken seriously.
Sad emo
See how these Muslim organisations teaching extremist views are even taking over our former Church schools, a further example of the erosion of the British way of life? - The scandal of it! (Thing we forget here is to ask why there is no need for church schools any more!).
It was an empty building now used by the Muslim groups; this is not 'taking over' in the sense one might think it is, it's just 'change of use'. It could have equally become a Yoga Centre. The fact this irrelevant fact is mentioned in the newspaper article should make the reader think "what is the paper expecting/wanting me to think about this, why do they mention it?"
Another outlook I have is that it's articles like this which actually give the BNP their ammo and excuse to exist. It sometimes makes me wonder if something is being deliberately orchestrated.
You are right, in fact the intolerant bigots on both sides need each other; the Right-Wing Islamic Fundies provide the BNP with the 'oxygen' they need, and vice-versa. They both target groups (to recruit members) poorly informed and disadvantaged enough (or who feel they are disadvantaged) to be susceptible to such risible beliefs as they have.
Gill
Apparantly 1 in 6 Britons would consider voting for the British National Party now, which is pretty scary, as they are rather intolerant.
Which shows you ignorance and bigotry is not something only Muslims have to worry about... or rather, IS something even the most tolerant and secular Muslim has to worry about, as we all know the neo-Nazi boot boys never target the dangerous Muslim or immigrants, only the ones they can harm without risking harm to themselves. I've had to prove to a friend that the BNP (white-washed right-wing bigots)is run by the people who ran the National Front (old-style "racist and proud of it" right-wing bigots) before they believed me. The gullibility of people is unbelievable.
greendawn
Islam is not a religion of peace they expanded through war and augmented their numbers by forcing most indivduals in the conquered nations to convert to Islam. It's not true what the Moslems say that they embraced Islam out of their own free will, they were forced to do it.
AGAIN you lay into Islam without consideration of Christianity's use of violence to spread and enforce itself. Does a one sided and partial argument have some magic appeal to you or what?
Hellrider
Maybe Islam too could become secularised, like christianity did. 500 years ago, we were burning "witches" on the stake, and blasphemy resulted in the death penalty. And all non-christians could be killed on sight. Our christian past is nothing to be proud of. BUT: It took christianity several hundred years to become secularised.
So far so perceptive; yes, Islam is a few hundred years behind Christianity in terms of its social development.
In a world of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, we can`t afford to have the same patience with Islam. It has to become secularised, and damn fast too! Unfortunately, they seem to be going the other way, more and more turn to extremism. And all the while, we are having millions of them in Europe allready, and more are coming. And all the while, they are hating us more and more every second. It sure doesn`t look good!
Now, what makes you think you can change CULTURE with mobile phones and Nike's? Would our great-great grandfathers be non-racist, non-sexist men if we dropped them into the modern world? Would threatening them be what convinced them the modern world was right? Some of the immigrants or 'problem groups' in the Arabic world come from cultures that perpetrate attitudes our Victorian forebears would be right at home with down to this day. The only thing that will change them is affluence and democracy; screaming at women for wearing Western clothes or blowing oneself up are far less attractive if your kids will have decent jobs, you have a nice job, and you can vote for someone.
Just as Western society was secularised from within - by the women refusing to accept being downtrodden, by those who believed in a human's own rights refusing to allow religious domination of society or politics - so too will Islamic society be secularised from within. Rather than fighting the fathers and grandfather we should be teaching their kids and spending the billions we spend on weapons on fighting poverty. Of course, fighting poverty is not a profit making exercise, whereas selling weapons is, so which gets the political backing? The idea it's the kids we should concentrate on opens 'faith' schools up to rather uncomfortable inspection. Yet will Christians give up their 'faith' schools?
Mary
Does any other religion have it written down where the Jews are called "pigs" or "decendents of apes" besides Islam?
Come off it Mary, most Nazis were nominal Christians and said such things. Many Muslims would disagree with co-religionists who said such things about Jews today. There were Christian churches (still are) that called black people the 'descendants of apes' or 'pigs'. You don't have a point.
The fact that some Muslims are falling for EXACTLY the same doctrines and beliefs the Germans fell for under Nazi rule should make it obvious this is a social and political problem. I mean, the victims of such toxic beliefs aren't of the same religion or culture so it must be a social and political problem.Those concentrating on the religious dimension are actually missing the true driving factors and playing STRAIGHT INTO THE ARMS of those we need fear most by alienating those we need as allies in all of this; the vast majority of peaceful Muslims.
-
28
My daughter has to call her 'mum'
by katiekitten inim sorry i havent been on the forum for ages.
but like the prodigal son i have a problem now, and i would really appreciate some help and input.. i found out at the beginning of the week, by a slip of the tongue from my daughter, that she has been told by her dad to call his new wife 'mum'.
daughter is 8, and on questioning has said that she feels she might get told off if she doesnt use this term.. i initially phoned her dad to ask if this was true, and he told me she uses the term all the time and 'its none of my business'.
-
-
Abaddon
My understanding of UK law (I'm divorced, although I now live in the UK I am a British citizen and my ex and children live there so I have had cause to do the research) is that;
- With regard to her calling her step-mother mum, that is simply a battle not worth fighting unless it is for your kid (she objecting to it strongly but being forced to). If it is because you don't want another women being called that, then take a deep breath and live with it as it is impossible to fight. I can understand this being a bitter pill, but I'd rather be hinest than set youup to fight a losing battle.
- A parent has the right to take the children out of the country; technically the other parent should give permission but this cannot be unreasonably witheld.
- To be more help in this respect I'd need to know the provisions of your divorce settlement with regard to your daughter; what are the visitation rights et. al. you are afforded? PM me if you want, I'd be happy to help.
- The passport belongs to you if you paid for it.
- "He stood and videoed me saying this" - Never let this happen again. It's not normal for him to do it or for you to let him do it.
- "I am going to refuse to fight for the passport. Among the reasons is that I dont have the money to fight it with solicitors."
First of all if you can prove the passport is yours, simply tell him unless it is given to you on your next visit you will involve the police as he is stealing something you paid for. Call the police and ask how they can help. If he tries any bull about you not being trustworthy, tell him if he has concerns he should take action through the Family Court, such as a Prohibited Steps Order, to address those concerns, as if he does things of his own inituative then it won't look good in court if he takes the law into his own hands.
- Do some research; the Family Court process needn't involve solicitors and costs a few hundred pounds to go through; you can simply send him a letter by registered mail saying unless he does x and y (these being in line with law, your rights, and the divorce settlement, like return the passport and not interfere with a normal family holiday) you will get either a Contact Order or a Prohibited Steps order from the Family Court. If he is still a Dubbie then you can get Medival on his ass; you would be given a Prohibited Steps order preventing him forbiding non-blood treatment quite easily.
I'd be delighted to help in anyway I can - like I say, PM me.
-
72
The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. The Secret $1,000,000 Prize
by Deputy Dog infrom http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i11f.htm
the secret $1,000,000 prize
one of the best kept secrets of science is the origin of life prize sponsored by the origin of life foundation, inc. when we first ran across their web site (www.lifeorigin.org), we thought that the offer of one million dollars to anyone who could propose a plausible theory for the origin of life was just a slick creationist trick for showing that the emperor had no clothes.
-
-
Abaddon
ellderwho
Oh yeah Ive seen you admit error before, dude,
Oh, I can provide examples where I have; but if you evade admitting your own mistakes by making unfounded attacks about someone else admitting error, you simply prove the point I made in the first place.
admit this you gotta a major axe to grind with the skyman believer
Yes - the ones who make idiotic attacks against science whilst ignoring equivalent shortcomings in their own beliefs; there are plenty of credible ways to believe in god, what you're supporting isn't one of them.
You musta got lumped up big time by a Christian somewhere in your purposeless life.
Of course, the fact this might be about relative levels of plausability and demonstarbility evades you. And nice to see you equate 'atheist' with 'purposeless'. Good to see you showing your thinking skills to all and sundrey...
You claim you have a feel on the pulse of the international scientific community. Want to make another false claim. Or admit your wrong to bulster your credibility. Whatever dude.
Lies don't work. Your ignorance is making you fall over your own feet. Just because a small number of vocal people, typically Americans , are claiming there are severe doubts about the credibility of evolution does not make their claims true. If you had proof, you'd provide something like surveys showing that 75% or whatever of scientists had severe doubts about the accuracy of evolution, or that 65% thought abiogenesis was impossible. All you have is the indignant sqwacks of a minority who claim they are a major movement yet your level of research is so poor you believe their claims.
There's so much sh*t/ as well as worthy, written in scientific journals, dont act like you know and or reviewed everything thats been written.
I don''t, I'm just giving you the opportunity to show how little you know. Which you do in virtually every line...
I state: "get life started once" whats your typical knee jerk response. School ground tactics as you acuse others: "get god started once"
If you can't see I'm pointing out you are accusing science of weaknesses your own theory has, and are therefore full of it, you simply prove the old adage of; "You can lead a 'Creationist' to knowledge, but you can't make him think".
But do please continue to illustrate to the caual observer the empty posturing of your verbiage...
-
-
-
Abaddon
There is no proof that god exists.
This is demonstrated by the sincere expression of belief by theists on this thread; none of it is proof. Argumentum ad Hallmark (ignore the babies dying in their vomit, there's a kitten!), arguments from ignorance (I don't know how that happens therefore goddidit),
That doesn't mean there is no god, but of course one should ask; "what do you mean by god"?
Do you mean "more intelligent or advanced extra-terrestrial sentients" or "Bible god"? Or something else?
The logical position for me starts from the statement made by OpenFireGlass;
if there was a god. it would be very clear who had the right religion/belief system...
... to which one adds the caveat 'a god who cares'. It is hard to conceive a god who cares in any meaningful way if it deliberately allows the certainty of its existence to remain unknown.
So, as there is no proof of the right religious/belief system, one has to consider;
- if more than one is right (many paths one goal)
- our memories of gods are from alien contact (do-do-do-do do-do-do-do doodily-oop)
- none are right they are all made up from human psychology and occasional forays into the local plant-life's pharmaceutical properties
- there is a god who choses not to prove itself (who is therefore a bastard so why worship him?)
- we are jumped-up little monkeys but are not part of god's plan anymore than one thread in a garment is the reason a tailor made it (wood-chips on the floor of the cosmic workshop imagining they are the reason for the work)
- god is all that groks (sentient creatures that understand their place in the Universe are all part of god)
- the Universe it god (even rocks are god)
God being a bastard seems unlikely, and just illustrates the foolishness of those believing in a single specific way; it's self-fellation on a spiritual level, the comfort of undeveloped minds or fearful ones.
Other than the possibility it is all made up, it would seem most likely god is an emergent property of a system; either a word for everything and how it works together, or a characteristic of thinking minds in unison, even if there is no 'paranormal' element.
The idea of many ways one goal actually fits into an idea 'god' is everything, with occasional avatars or incarnation of the divine pointing the way, but god itself being personality-less and diffuse. Thou art god. Hell, they've built religions round it.
Of course, this is all conjecture... there is no proof god exists in any form, from Fundy to new age versions.
But maybe our concept of the divine IS based in something more than our brain architecture. If so, it's NOTHING like the mankie primitive monsters most religions try to scare us with.
-
72
The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. The Secret $1,000,000 Prize
by Deputy Dog infrom http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i11f.htm
the secret $1,000,000 prize
one of the best kept secrets of science is the origin of life prize sponsored by the origin of life foundation, inc. when we first ran across their web site (www.lifeorigin.org), we thought that the offer of one million dollars to anyone who could propose a plausible theory for the origin of life was just a slick creationist trick for showing that the emperor had no clothes.
-
-
Abaddon
Deputy Dog
It seems he would rather insult us poor, dumb creationists.
Oh, don't blame me for what you bring on yourselves. The people who resisted what was obviously and demonstrably scientific fact and carried on insisting the Earth was at the Centre of the Universe or was flat were stupid, not through any problem with their brain but because they simply weren;t willing to accept change or even examine the evidence against old 'theories' with an open mind.
Why should Creationists who resist equivalently demonstrable scientific fact be different to those who did it in the past? Evolution is a fact, get over it. Either god used natural means to shape 'creation', so it LOOKS like it evolved, or it evolved without any 'help' from god. Science education is so poor, especially the history of science, that few realise Darwin's theory filled a vacuum, as geology had already advanced to a point where it was realised the Earth was far older than any literal interpretation of the Binble would allow. Creationism wasn't even credible BEFORE evolution, that's how obviously wrong it is!
Still won't admit you start with your own presupposition, oh well.
Why do you make yourself look like someone who didn't have the courtesy or wit to read what I wrote?
I effectively say I'll listen to Creationists et.al. acting like the lack of a definative theory of abiogenesis means that there must be a god when they can explain the origin of god without invoking special pleading. Where's the presuppostion? Are you using school-ground tactics of taking a phrase applied to you and throwing it back without any real consideration of its appropriateness? Or being misleading about what I say to make your argument more credible?
It's also rather simplistic to think that life can come from nonlife when you can't define life in the first place.
Man, I took WAY too much drugs at University. I could have sworn that my Biology lecturer started the first lecture with a definition of life that works quite satisfactorily until you get to Prions. Funny how when discussing such topics with Creationists and ID-ots, defintions of 'evolution' and 'life' are where they try and make some ground as they have so little else to play with; like not ONE fact pointing to the existence of a paranormal entity that instigated or shaped the Universe.
So maybe you would like to tell us what you think the reason for the universe is.
A true presuppostionalist; you assume there is a reason; why?
Instead of trying to insult us all the time, why don't you help us dummies understand why they would want to keep this quiet?
Actually, you seem to miss the blithe assumptions of a generally hidiously informed group of people are what is insulting...
Maybe while you're at it, you could help out your friends at The Origin of Life Foundation (who think at least a couple of creationists have good questions), and answer some of the problems.
Ah, okay then... but hang on, every single one of those is an 'argument from ignorance' ... they say "that the Intelligent Design arguments are compelling and must be answered", yet what you've posted are just bland statements of fact (with the exception of Behe who I deal with momentarily) imlying there must be a magic sky man in there somewhere as it's complicated. They are not testable theories or even hypothesis that would indicate ID is true.
"ooooo... how did that happen, it's complicated, godidit"
... is not a scientific argument, it is a logical fallacies.
the seemingly "irreducible complexity" argued by Michael Behe (see suggested readings below)
Sorry DD, the inclusion of Behe and an oft refuted theory of his shows just how little research you have personally done on this isuse, plumping instead for a nice easily digestable website that suits your preconceptions. He's been proven wrong, down to the specific examples he gives. If you had tried you could find falsifiactions of his hypothesis online. I guess you have also missed him admitting under oath in Australia that his definiton of a theory would allow astrology to be taught alongside ID in schools? Do you see why posts like yours get laughed at? Both the above facts are easily found online - but you and other defenders of primative belief systems don;t look long or hard enough to see the leading lights of the ID community are empty vessels, as are their hypothosis. You just look for what you agree with and act like your opinion is as valid as someone who'se explore both sides of the argument.
Doesn't the fact that defenders of Creationism and supporters of ID-otism chiefly use cut and paste to make their argument give you a fricking HINT about how much they personally know?
You have found a website that defends something you want defended, you are impressed by its presentation and can't see the smoke and mirrors as you simply don;t have suffiient backgroun in the biological sciences do do anything other than taking things on faith.
AH... but then isn't that what you want to do? Take things on faith? Go ahead! Have the courage to admit to it; stop pretending there's a scientific basis for what you would LIKE to be true; no one's going to stop you having your own opinion, it's just when you start trying to have your own facts that people shout 'foul'!
ellderwho
I guess the "tongue and cheek" manner of my sentence was lost.
You can't even say, "whoops, typo" can you? First rule of the Creationist supporter; never admit error. How credible is that?
"or, are not qualified to handle the question of how life started."
Who said anyone was? Abiogenesis has not been demonstrated yet, although there are promising leads. That doesn't mean evolution is wrong, or that abiogenesis is impossible.
But you ignore the point your alternative theory doesn't even HAVE promising leads, it's just the same assumption primative cultures made when they couldn't understand something dressed up in new clothes that have no substance whatsoever.
jstalin
Ah, I know that... it's not for them, it's for the people who didn't know either way and can see the Creationists and ID-ots are the ones full of hot air by the way they respond to discussions such as this. I regard ID-ots and Creationists as teaching aids, like an over-head projector or white-board.
Though it does humor me that creationists like to try and say that a lack of evidence for abiogenisis or evolution disprove evolution, a complete and total lack of evidence of theism is perfectly acceptable to them. In addition, their argument that something as complex as life must have a creator falsifies their own argument because a god would be required to have a creator too.
Very clearly put, not that those its directed at generally have the intellectual honesty to see what they do for what it is. They try to rubbish the qualified opinion of 99.9% of the International scientific community and get all sniffy when they're lampooned for their lack of knowledge and arrogance.
-
7
suffereing at the hands of Muslims for being a Christian
by stillajwexelder ini think you will find this interesting and maybe even eye-opening.
look up brigitte on google.
an amazing woman who has suffered at the hands of muslims for being a christian and knows whereof she speaks.
-
-
Abaddon
stillajw
Hey back!
(Abaddon of the I'm glad some people get 'bar-room banter' the way it should be got class)
greendawn
It might not fit your desired viewpoint, but in the Medieval period Jews and Christians living under Islamic rule had greater freedom, more rights, and were subjected to less persecution than Jews or Muslims living under Christian rule. This is historical fact that you should be able to confirm within
Come on, I'm sure you're a nice guy too; who make yourself look bigoted when you really are probably not? If you fail to inform yourself about such facts, and thus present a one-sided argument (that is invalid due to it being one-sided), that is unfortunately the impression you're likely to give.
-
32
4/20 - smoke'em if ya got'em
by BrendaCloutier inaccepted origin
, high times magazine, the marijuana-logues, and the straight dope claim that in the early 1970s, a group of teenagers at san rafael high school in san rafael, california used to meet every day after school at 4:20 p.m. to smoke marijuana at the water tower.
one piece of evidence supporting an origin of the term from the time 4:20 is the fact that the number is always said "four twenty" and not "four hundred twenty.
-
-
Abaddon
OpenFireGlass
I'm with you on the pot and violence thing;
STONER ONE: I fugging well hate you man!
STONER TWO: You scum-sucking ape dude!
STONER ONE: Got any skins?
STONER TWO: Here you go man..
Having worked in clubs I know perfectly well the bouncers normally stand in a corner with nothing to do on 'dance music' night where people are popping pills or smoking stuff; on a 'normal night' where booze is the intoxicant of choice they're having to wade in to pull drunk assholes off each other. Mmmm, yes, pot is soooooooooooooo bad. A victim of domestic abuse would probably be relieved when the scum bag doing the abusing sparked up as she'd be less likely to suffer harm whilst they were stoned; totally the reverse of someone who abused alcohol and was violent towards women.
But hell, why should XJW let something as irrelevent as facts influence his nice little opinion?
MaudDib & DanTheMan