Posts by Abaddon

14

Dishonorable mention

by Norm in

jw
friends

today to my surprise i found my name mentioned on a cesnur site.

it is authored by some john b. brown.

anyone know who this guy is?.

Abaddon

Off the top of my head Brown is head-honcho at Borg Central Media Manipulation Orifice.

He's the spokes-Borg.

135

Chemical weapons being used ... how about it America?

by Simon in

of course, as it's the murdering, war-crime-committing, un-mandate-ignoring, nuclear-non-proliferation-flouting israeli friends of america, they probably won't see it as an issue at all.. funny that ... they were dead keen on going to war over just the hint of this very thing but probably won't even condemn it.. it's about time that sanctions were imposed on israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6075408.stm.

.

Abaddon

hillary

I have to admit that you have infinately more patience that I.

LOL... I DO? I must point that out to the next person I rip a new asshole on... LOL

My tendency is to have a fairly simplistic methodology toward these discussion boards that divide a persons argument into one worthy of discussion, or one worthy of at best ad hominem.
Someone might posit the argument that 'all Muslims should be nuked', an argument that I have read in some form or the other on numerous occasions on this Board. This argument is unworthy of serious discussion and warrants, when I can be bothered, only ad hominem, scorn and ridicule.

Oh, I quite agree. It doesn't pay to pander to deliberate ignorance. But it is fun to lampoon and ridicule it.

What is truly amazing, actually more depressing than amazing, is the amount of people who actually expect their ridiculous points of view to even merit serious consideration.

People expressing an opinion that shows profound ignorance about the subject are normally to ignorant about the subject to knw how much they don;t know.

One thing I have learnt about learning stuff is the more you learn the more you realise you still need to learn more.

If you know, say, ten things about evolution, then you will be really unaware of how vast the subject is and might assume one's competence. If you can write a 1,500 word essay on one of a number of topics about evolution which will contain dozens of facts, without having to do too much in the way of research other than looking up refrences for stuff you already know, you will be far more aware of the breadth of the subject and the vast possibilities for igorance about it.

Same applies to geo-politics.

Ross

I'm still waiting for an explanation of the "huge difference" between chemical weapons and weapons that just happen to inflict chemical burns...
Is it like the difference between ad hominem and an attempt to jerk someone to their senses with a well placed jibe?

LOL...

stillajwexelder

I'd say a chemical weapon is a chemical weapon if the damaging effect of the weapon is due to the direct action of chemicals. You can have a chemical weapon that is not a WoMD.

Thing is, most people see accidentally blowing civilians up as bad, but burning them to death as worse. This is why napalm, WP and flame throwers are seen as morally ambivalent even though they are not WoMD. I suppose it is like rape, and rape by a member of your family. The same thing is happening. The 'agent' that DOES the damaging action makes the action worse.

20

Is abortion an unforgivable sin?

by e_louise in

hi all i'm a newbie with a question:.

please ban you tell me if an unbaptized publisher has an abortion is this an unforgivable sin?.

what would happen to the publisher if another jw reports them or they confess since they are not baptized?.

Abaddon

Sam

It's fine for you not to have an abortion, but please don't misrepresent what most people who have abortions actually think or feel.

You obviously feel that a unborn child, no matter how developed (ie.e how many months gone) is the same as you and me.
You obviously feel that somehow there is personality present from conception.
You obviously feel that despite no specific mention of abortion in the Bible (yes, it was known) that god wouldn't like it.

All this is fine. For you.

Others feel that aborting an unborn child BEFORE it is really a person is not wrong.
Others feel that until there is a certain amount of nerve tissue there is no possibility of the unborn child being a person or comparable to a born human or even late-term pregnancy; many many abortions take place before the fetus has a nervous system that is as well developed as a rat.
Other feel that if god saw fit to mention boiling kids in their moths milk and wearing clothes made out of two different materials as being wrong, god would also mention abortion as being wrong if it was in gods mind, and that to condemn others for abortion is to be presumptious before god.

All this is fine. For them.

What is not fine is assuming your opinions and beliefs are valid for everyone. I wouldn't try and make you have an abortion if you were raped, but would fight for the right of a raped woman to have an abortion. I wouldn't try and make you have an abortion if you were 16, poor, and uneducated, but would fight for the right of a woman to have an abortion if they were 16, poor, and uneducated.

Tolerance is the key... and the last thing this person needs now is having MORE people tell her she's bad purely based on their opinion, as she can get that at the Kingdom Hall.

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

Abaddon

Almost

Oh, assuredly, yes, I can see what he's trying to do.

Pity in trying to create 'logically consistent theory of ID', all he does is show the tortuous ends one has to go to in constructing such a thing, and the fact that such a thing does not in itself mean anything (as funky pointed out) as logically consistent theories are not facts.

One can come up with a logically consistent theory why Gimli and Legolas did or didn't make the beast with two backs. Doesn't mean either them or the Universe they inhabit is real.

This is either missed by hooberus, or is unimportant to him.

He also manages to behave in a manner INCONSISTENT with his purported beliefs, unless his scriptual citations show otherwise.

Now he realises his 'cunning plan' wasn't all that cunning he's having another go. Rabbie Burns would be very pleased with the chaps persistence.

"An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of complex machines (composed of interworking componet parts) from non-complexity."
Once again this statement requires:
1.) No infinite regression of designers- since it (similar to earlier ID statement) does not require that potential designers even have an origin at all.
2.) No required self-refutation- since it (similar to the earlier ID statement) does not also require the existence of some complex machine that has an origin from non-complexity without a designer, as it does not require the designer to even have an origin from non-complexity at all.
(Anyone who disagress with the above two points please see the earlier dialogue on the other simpler ID statement).
Furthermore, it should also be noted that the expanded ID statement at the top of this post does not even require the designer himself to also be a complex "machine" at all- thus it additionally does not disallow any potential designer which is not composed of machine type complexity.

Close but no spliff.

This argument only works if you can show that the designer is not a complex machine of "interworking component parts".

As I believe hooberus believe in the Trinity, he's really barking up the wrong bristlecone pine, as I think "interworking component parts" is as good a stab as any at describing 'the mystery of the Trinity'. Of course, as we obviously are calculating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin I have no doubt that we will get into semantics regarding the meaning of 'machine', as no douby hooberus has chosen this as the definiton is normally regarding a device 'mechanical or organic'. However, 'machine' can also be described to describe a group of persons with a common purpose (like "Churchill's war machine", and I don't think he's quite ready to take on Sabellianism or denying the personitude of the component parts of the Trinity.

Thus I see the nature of the postulated designer hooberusactually believes in as conforming to the description 'complex machine'.

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

Abaddon

hooberus

Are you going to respond to the fact that ReMine's book is utterly flawed as he didn't read the manual for the software?

Or will you, like him, ignore inconvenient facts? Oh... hang on... *slaps head* yes, I see a pattern now

Thing I don't get is the seeming lack of realisation by some people that their evasiveness on these threads is rather obvious to any one reading them.

It's like a politician trying to answer a question that suits their purposes, instead of the one they were asked that shows their behaviour or politics for what it is...

Is there a scripture you use to justify being evasive and failing to "let your yes be yes and your no be no"?

20

Is abortion an unforgivable sin?

by e_louise in

hi all i'm a newbie with a question:.

please ban you tell me if an unbaptized publisher has an abortion is this an unforgivable sin?.

what would happen to the publisher if another jw reports them or they confess since they are not baptized?.

Abaddon

In JW terms, no, it is not an unforgiveable sin as there is only one sin that is, as previously described.

As an unbaptised publisher, you would probably be stopped publishing if you did.

On this topic I have yet to have ANYONE show me a scripture from the Bible that mentions abortion, so anyone saying they know god's mind on this is just wanting to have you worship their opinion rather than use your own conscience.

On another topic, if you're an upbaptised publisher you should really have a read of some threads on this site before you get baptised...

135

Chemical weapons being used ... how about it America?

by Simon in

of course, as it's the murdering, war-crime-committing, un-mandate-ignoring, nuclear-non-proliferation-flouting israeli friends of america, they probably won't see it as an issue at all.. funny that ... they were dead keen on going to war over just the hint of this very thing but probably won't even condemn it.. it's about time that sanctions were imposed on israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6075408.stm.

.

Abaddon

Isn't it funny how the right-wing nut-jobs and Islamophobes LOVE telling us how right they are...

... but fall flat on their faces when it comes to putting together evidence to support their opinions.

It's especially funny when they start cheering each other on. Congratulating someone for presenting a well-reasoned argument is one thing... vacuous approval for someone who simply states an unreasoned or supported opinion that happens to fit in with your own is just sycophancy... who let the dogs out, woof woof...

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

Abaddon

I really despise it when this happens;

Creationist; "Oh silly modern science! See the bronze-age goat herd was right!"

Evolutionist; "Don't talk rot (then lots of facts)."

Creationist; Argues from one side of mouth complexity needs design, argues from the other the designer of complexity is subject to special laws and doesn't need a designer, although they cannot prove this.

Evolutionist; "Don't talk rot (then lots of facts)."

Creationist; ...

Yup, once again we have a thread started by a Creationist left to dangle as they can no longer make themselves look good online even in their own estimation.

Boring!!

17

Losing the Internet today...

by AuldSoul in

jw
friends

just wanted to let everyone know, until i get an isp at home again i will only be posting as often as i go to the public library to use their computers.. if anyone needs/wants to get in touch with me, i have made sure big tex has my contact information.

i trust his judgment on who to pass it along to.

you can also send me a pm here, but i am not sure how often i will be checking them.. i have deeply appreciated all the insights i have gained from discussions with you people, and i hope i have provoked some new or different thoughts as well.

Abaddon

Take care AuldSoul; you have an interesting angle on things

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

Abaddon

Ah, hooberus... I won't bother asking you for your promised rebuttal of dendrochronolgy which (unless you can rebutt it) proves quite catagorically that the Flood was not global, and thus proves your key presupposition (the accuracy and literal nature of the Bible) is false.

You will simply make one of a variety of excuses, normally trying to blame me for your inability to rebutt critical evidence against your beliefs.

Having said that let us see what aspect of evolutionary science you're tilting at today; although you have no compettive theory and cannot even defend the hypothesis you do have, it doesn't stop your continual attack on one type of scientist (whilst benefiting from all the other types of scientist)...

Oh... you can't be bothered to argue your point but instead refer us to a book; are you incapable of putting the argument in your own words, lazy, or just trolling creationist-ID claptrap with no genine interest in a discussion?

Well, I'll be just a lazy; ReMine didn't understand how the software he was using worked and limited the population size to 6. There's more faults, here's some URL's;

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep99.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB121.html

Don't bother quoting ReMines rebuttal; he ignores the error he made regaring the software and does not even respond to it being pointed out in criticism. Is your failure to respond to criticism of your beliefs based upon trying to emulate such a person? Maybe he figures he'll stop selling those books if he admits they are fataly flawed... funny how unprofessional behaviour and profit so often feature (as I have pointed out in previous discussion with you) in the lives of those people you choose to support to defend your beliefs.

As for your attempt to make this a discussion about logical consistency;

"An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life." The Biotic Message page. 40

Are you serious? You need to prove the statement before anything else. Just like you need to rebutt dendrochronology's refutation of Biblical accuracy before going on with your slavish devotion to Creationistic opinion.

You also have to prove your own statement;

It should be noted that the above theory deals specifically with life that has an origin from non-life, and thus there is nothing in the above that would also exclude the existence of an eternally existing designer (which of course would have no origin from non-life).

There is a difference between TYPING STUFF and making a decent argument.

I know you will grab at whatever straws you can in shoring up your belief sturcture but don't you think you need to address the faults in your belief structure that are pointed out to you in EVERY thread you come up with Creationist-ID claims?

At the very most you are phrasing the watchmaker argument in a way that suits you, and of course the wachmaker argument refutes itself, as does ID.

If complex things need designers, and designers are complex, designers need designers reducio ad absurdio...

But this has all been pointed out to your already...

Doesn't it strike you as strange your beliefs can only sound vaugely sensible if you ignore sound refutations or create very narrow hypothetical statements that unravel the minute someone looks at them?