Posts by Abaddon

49

Did demons ever really rape some sisters?

by hambeak in

i had a conversation last night with someone and we were reminescing about the late 60's and early 70's about how a couple of the sisters were telling at the time that they were being molested and sometimes raped by demons.

in our cong they were told to open the bible to a certain scripture and leave the bible open to it at all times and leave a light on.

anyone else remember some of this paranoia?

Abaddon

This isn't exclusive to JW's.

There have been stories of succubi and incubbi for ever.

People can genuinely believe they are under attack and incapable of movement. As with most paranormal beliefs it has a rational explanation,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_Paralysis

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

LittleToe

Ah, okay, if we're being serious I do not believe in paranormal entities but am very interested in the concept intelligent life might be greater than the sum of it parts. In other words, thou are god, but the bloke/s/tte/ttes with a white beard/elephant head/quintuple sets of mammaries etc. aren't. Although there might be some shit going on with rainbows...

AuldSoul

In my opinion;

Therefore one of these myriad of explanations could be that biological life requires a designer but the designer does not require a designer.

... is special pleading as it accepts complexity can arise without design in one instance, but refuses to accept it in the next. Try drilling down to the subtext and ignoring the fancy window dressing that hides the fact special pleading is going on.

Re. the purple kangaroo; I would like to introduce to to the concept 'thought experiment'. Why not experiment with thinking? LOL, cheap joke I know, but I enjoyed it which is the point. I took most of the other jibes out but had to keep that one in... I'm gonna have to call out PETA and the Humane Society on this one but it is too late. The horse you're flogging is already dead.

You say (1) you know what evidence means, but you didn't say that in a vaccuum to fill space in the discussion, you were responding to something I wrote. You say (2) that "someone" (contextually referring to me) "can semantically insist that something" is evidence which a court-of-law would not admit as evidence (contextually referring to any evidence admissable in a court-of-law, including testimony).

Oh my god. Or should that be oh your god? Or oh Little Toe ? Do you really think it is all about YOU? We are having a discussion about absract concepts and logical arguments regarding the existence of god, and I say 'someone' and you think I mean specifically you. And there was I thinking I was big-headed. You also should realise the sentence in question revolves around whether a qualified objective body would consider evidence acceptable. Ignore the point and pull at threads by all means.

To me it simply shows you have nothing better to say regarding your own argument. And obviously no evidence (or evidence of the existence of unknown evidence). Just a determination to argue that (please, ah go on go on, please, look fuck logic the idea is important to me) there is the possibility of a god... not that anyone has said otherwise... If this is your idea of showing "Logically consistent theories of ID exist." I'm glad you're on the opposite side.

What you are obviously doing is trying not to say; "I said you said things you didn't".

You stated quite clearly I was "... flatly errant in your assertion that testimony is not evidence in a court of law." I made no such assertion. You stated quite clearly "Stick to the argument you stated, that no evidence exists sufficient for a court of law". I made no such argument.

So ignoring you make false claims regarding other people's posts and don't have the character to admit this when it is pointed out, we see I said;

Well, I know what 'evidence' means. Obviously someone can semantically insist that something that a court-of-law or science journal would NOT consider as evidence is evidence, but that would not impress a court-of-law, a science journal, or me.

Look at the sentence. Step away from your hissy-fit. See the words 'someone can semantically insist that something that a court-of-law or science journal would NOT consider as evidence is evidence'.

If it isn't clear I am saying a person might consider the evidence they submit to a court-of-law or science journalis valid, but that does not mean that a court-of-law or science journal would consider it as evidence, let me say a person might consider the evidence they submit to a court-of-law or science journalis valid, but that does not mean that a court-of-law or science journal would consider it as evidence. There; any clearer?

By all means find fault with the above.

You miss out bits to make your position in this increasingly silly discussion more credible. Like where I say "would a court-of-law use this as a basis of convicting someone?" when talking of a single credible witness to the Smurf and then say "would the reality of what they saw be any more belivable?" when talking of many witnesses to the Smurf, you ignore we are talking in context of whether something we know is impossible becomes more possible if the number of witnesses goes up.

You ignore I am fairly obviously (never thought of you as stupid and don't intend to start now) talking about evidence used in an attempt for a qualified body to objectively draw a conclusion, thus "court-of-law or science journal", not whatever individuals use to determine their subjective opinion.

Thus your characterisation;

However, the fact that you perceive the evidence for a Creator to be incredible is no basis for you to declare that "there is no evidence for a Creator."

... is sloppy as I'm obviously (look at my examples) talking of how objective opinion forming groups would be unable to determine there was a creator based on what they would consider as evidence.

If you want to vent some personal beef please take this to PM; if it isn't that, can we have the old AuldSoul back please? The one who actually thought before he posted?

funky

I chose something that was impossible in an attempt to illustrate that the quality of the evidence not the quantity of people supplying it was important. I know there are somethings that were considered impossible and now aren't. I am fairly certain I will go to my grave without a stuffed Smurf walking up the aisle of Westminster Abbey whilst talking, unless someone pimps the smurf with some nice tech... in which case it wouldn't be what was meant to be indicated by 'smurf' as the system of signs would be different.

Exactly. Lots of people believe lots of things that are incompatible with the beliefs of lots of other people. They can't all be right. (But they can all be wrong!)

Exactomundo. One of the biggest reasons for disbelief is what the believers believe in. Or don't.

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

AuldSoul

Would you settle for something that is TRUE, but unprovable?

Nope. Why should I?

You wouldn't refuse what I ask for if you could give it and wouldn't offer what you offer if you couldn't supply it. My point is therefore made. Thank you. I only added the 'Thank you' after reading what you had to say below; nothing like a bit of facetious humour when you're being traduced.

Is it now your stance that there exists no precedent for conviction on testimony alone, absent the body? In other words, you believe that testimony + absence of person has never resulted in a murder conviction?
Why don't you check that out and get back to me.

I just point out a court-of-law would require "evidence of something having occured to link to the testimony". Whatever else you want me to say I won't say.

I made no claims as to the reliability of such evidence. I merely stated that you were flatly errant in your assertion that testimony is not evidence in a court of law.

Okay, back-up and read what I actually did say;

Well, I know what 'evidence' means. Obviously someone can semantically insist that something that a court-of-law or science journal would NOT consider as evidence is evidence, but that would not impress a court-of-law, a science journal, or me.

Where in the name of sweet Darwin did I use the words 'testimony' until you did? When you introduced the simplistic monochromatic idea a credible's witness testimony would be accepted I pointed out;

But is testimony that is unprovable and reliant upon unproven claims we know do not work in everyday life considered credible even if it comes from a credible person?

So please stick this;

That is plainly not true, and no amount of dancing around it will turn your mistaken falsehood into fact. You might prefer that scientific standards of proof were required in court, but they are not.
You made the misstep, try not to embarass yourself by turning the argument into one regarding validity of testimony.

... where the sun don't shine. I mean this in a nice way, a smile on face, "whoops wasn't that silly of you we all do it from time to time" way as I realise you've made a genine mistake in thinking I said that testimony is not evidence in a court of law.

Stick to the argument you stated, that no evidence exists sufficient for a court of law.

*Sigh*. Again;

Well, I know what 'evidence' means. Obviously someone can semantically insist that something that a court-of-law or science journal would NOT consider as evidence is evidence, but that would not impress a court-of-law, a science journal, or me.

Again you misstate what I said. I did not say 'no evidence exists sufficient for a court of law'.

Testimony is evidence.

But not all evidence is accepted, no matter how credible the witness, as it is the credibility OF THE EVIDENCE that determines whether a credible witness is believed, as a credible witness can be disbelieved if their evidence is not considered credible. The reverse is true; the most disreputable witness in the world would be believed if their evidence was considered credible;

(Interior, day, a courtroom)
(Medium shot of Lawyer and Smackhead crack smoking man; the later is in the witness box)
Smackhead crack smoking man; "Yup, I done see the a-lion whilst smoking a big rock".
Lawyer; "And can you identify the alien you saw?"
Smackhead crack smoking man; "Yuppa, he's the green critta with the tent akles up 'dere on the table" (points)
(camera cuts to CU of @#T'lko{098ghyt%)
@#T'lko{098ghyt%; "!!!!friii''ppppiiii<hjifghhh>" (waves tentacles in air vigourously)
(camera pans to Judge)
Judge; "Silence in court!!"

See?

Perceived credibility of testimony is in the eye of the beholder. Pretending to own everyone's set of eyes and hypothetically judging for them the impacts of testimony is beneath your own scientific standards. Surely you can rationally understand why you have no basis for claiming what would effect the believability of a particular claim for a particular person (outside yourself).

Now this is getting a little tiresome. Please realise I gave EXAMPLES, and to assert I was "Pretending to own everyone's set of eyes and hypothetically judging for them the impacts of testimony" is patently untrue. I was simply pointing out your initial statement;

I am shocked. You are apparently unaware that credible testimony (as determined by the testifier's character, not by their beliefs) is considered evidence in a court of law.

... utterly neglects to consider the credibility of a credible witness's testimony. Outside of pretty obvious examples I make no attempt to know what another person (i.e. juror) would find credible, just point out this is what you ignore, and this is what happens when ANY witness testifies.

If the entire congregation of Westminster Abbey saw the Smurf, would the reality of what they saw be any more belivable?
No, of course not.
Without question, it would be more believable

So, because lots of people say they saw something it is more belivable? No. The impossible (see example, chosen for its impossibility) doesn't happen even if loads of people see it. If you are willing to believe otherwise you have a lot of believing to do; a sea of virgin Mary's, thousands of miracles, lord only knows how many Jesuses, a Loch full of Nessies, most of Canada up to the eyeballs in Bigfeet (sic), Yeti's posing for photos with Everest tourists, and that's even before we get to India where loads of people will tell you they see stuff that proves an entire pantheon of gods exists as a matter of course.

Oh, remind me not to use hyperbole in examples with you... sheeeesh...

Yet, testimony is evidence.

Argh!!

The testifier might consider his story of a walking talking smurf is evidence but a court wouldn't accept such evidence.

I never claimed to have more than that, but even that is far more than you have for the invisible purple kangaroo

Oh, now that's just RUDE. He is right here beside me, in fact he presses the shift key wheever I need it. Sadly he is shy and that is why no-one else can see him until the time is right. Or are you telling me you are not accepting my testimony as evidence of the invisable purple kangaroo?!!! I assure you I can probably get several hundred people to back up my testimony; such it was on USENET when a ridiculer doubted the invisible pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves). Now look; http://www.palmyra.demon.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm See! Getting believers is easy!

I think you seriously (mortally, in this debate) overreached yourself in your last post. Any sociologist (sociology is a science) would be embarassed to have you represent their science if that last post is an example of your scientific scruples.

As you didn't have the courtesy to read what I wrote and consequently make yourself look silly by stating I said things I never said, I think we'll see what evidence your reaction to this being pointed out gives, eh? I think your little pee-pee dance of joy was a little too early...

You have admitted (in other threads) that the existence or non-existence of a Creator or designer does not affect the way things work in everyday life.

(mutters underbreath "I believe in god" and drops something out of window)
(mutters underbreath "I don't believe in god" and drops something out of window)

Same results both times, so, yeah... but joking aside, please, given your remarkable ability to get the wong end of the stick please QUOTE me so I can make sure I said what you say I said, and the context I said it in, and what you probably wished I would have said so you could get one over on me...

You cannot reasonably now argue that somehow the existence or non-existence of a Creator relies on claims that we know do not work in everyday life without explaining how such existence would do so.

Eh? Okay, pending you actually quoting me verbatum with a reference...

The Universe works the way it works with or without god. We do not see any paranormal input to keep things going, indeed, with study we can explain naturalistically why things the way they are without input from a class of special pleading called god-did-it.

How do you see this as contradicting me saying that if one states out of one side of their mouth;

On the basis of my evert day exprience and my examination of the world complex design requires a designer

... and then says out of the other side of their mouth '

Unless it doesn't suit my argument in which case a vastly complex entity DOESN'T require design

... they are contradicting themselves?

Both statements are valid; we don't see god at work in the Universe, and ID isn't (a particulary intelligent hypothesis).

Now, calm the heck down, this is meant to be fun...

41

SCARY(actually hilarious) JW Urban Legends (smurf content)

by *jeremiah* in

does anyone have any dub urban legend stories?.

i remember a story running rampant when i was in my pre-teenage years that went a little something like this:.

word on the street was that a young child went to the circuit assembly with his parents.

Abaddon

I think this thread shows a terrible lack of faith in our fellow man.

We weren't there; just because talking ambulatory stuffed toys without technological enhancement do not walk and talk in our personal experienece doesn't mean they cannot do so! Let's not be so closed minded!

We have the testimony of credible Witnesses. We all know people of faith cannot lie or be deceived, or even be mistaken due to the strength of their beliefs.

What more do we need?

The fact scientists will deny the existence of such Smurfs means NOTHING. They cannot prove the existence of such smurfs!

Beside, they are not looking FOR the existence of such Smurfs, and are in control of what is labelled as evidence for such Smurfs... so obviously they can;t prove the existnece of such SMurfs.

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

LittleToe

Good science always requires a null hypothesis, which is why the theory of Atheism cannot be tested.

To avoid using my own definiton I'll give Wiki's;

The null hypothesis is generally that which is presumed to be true initially...
... [it is] set up to be nullified or refuted in order to support an alternative hypothesis.

Under the above both theism and atheism can be 'presumed to be true initially' and both need to be 'nullified or refuted in order to support an alternative hypothesis'.

But, no, atheism can not be tested any more or less than apurplekangarooism can be tested.

However, I would point out that atheism was a conclusion reached in antiquity based upon an absence of evidence where evidence would be expected. Theism seems to have been a conclusion reached in antiquity to provide explanations where there were none. It was NEVER based on evidence of the type previously specified.

Obviously one can say expectations about a different domain or realm of reality can not be held to be logical when applied to the inhabitant of another domain or realm of reality. But in the absense of proof of some such realm one is simply invoking the possibility something that you can't prove exists in this realm or domain exists in a realm or domain that... you can't prove exists.

The fact I don't have patience for such ineffable-angel-line-dancing-on-pin-heads doesn't mean I am right, but it has to be said this sort of theism is very unparsimonious.

Anyhow, you're an atheist too, I just believe in one less god than you...

AuldSoul

I am shocked. You are apparently unaware that credible testimony (as determined by the testifier's character, not by their beliefs) is considered evidence in a court of law.

But is testimony that is unprovable and reliant upon unproven claims we know do not work in everyday life considered credible even if it comes from a credible person? If Rowan Williams said he saw a Smurf running down the aisle of Westminster Abbey, would a court-of-law use this as a basis of convicting someone? Would the Pope's insistence that if a woman weighed less than duck she was a Witch be taken as credible testimony?

Not on you nelly.

I grant you, such would not be considered evidence in a science journal but, as I already stated on numerous threads, the existence of a Creator cannot be proven by science.

Stated is not equal to proven. You state (without any evidence) that god is unprobvable. You cannot provide ONE example of something that exists but is unprovable. But of course what you're doing isn't special pleading...

It is because science doesn't seek to prove the existence of a Creator and is the sole entity responsible for labeling new discoveries.

Ah, so it is the fault of 'science' and presumably 'atheists' that god hasn't been proven to exist. Nah... that's a cop out. The responsibility of proving the invisable purple kangaroo is mine. The fact god has never, ever, not once, been proven to anyone OTHER than on a subjective internalised basis is something theists just have to get over.

If I blame science as it 'doesn't seek to prove the existence of a invisable purple kangaroo and is the sole entity responsible for labeling new discoveries' I am failing to be responsible for my own beliefs.

However, your assessment of what a court of law considers evidence is very much in error. I do hope you will have the honor to adjust your statements according to fact.

Nope, your analysis failed to include a credible witness testifying the uncredible.

A court of law is an interesting analogy. A person can be convicted of premeditated murder, without the prosecution ever showing a weapon or demonstrating a motive, on the strength of testimony alone.

Yes, and very often such convictions are overturned a 'un-safe', as it turns out the testimony was in error or knowingly false. There might be very good reason t e s t i are the first five letters of testimony and the medical term for balls...

You also miss out the fact that at least the court would require a dead BODY or proof thereof, i.e. evidence of something having occured to link to the testimony. And where is your body?

But if someone of nearly unassailable character, who is a proven person of honor and distinction in every respect the defense can uncover testifies against the accused, the defense is sunk.

If the testimony is credible!! You are almost saying ALL testimony by credible witnesses results in a conviction and this is not true.

But then as all you have to support the opinion you favour IS testimony, is it not surprising you would lose sight of the weakness the ONLY form of evidence you have.

Equally ? Wow. I was unaware there was such a vast body of credible testimony regarding the invisible purple kangaroo. I would be very interested in reviewing your findings.

Actually based upon your own assertion that credible testimony alone (no matter how uncredible) is sufficient for a conviction in a court of law, if I am a credible witness I should (according to you) be believed.

Of course I would not be, as everyone knows there is no such thing as purple invisable kangaroos. The claim I made would be uncredible.

Obviously believers in god out-number believers in the purple invisable kangaroo, but the REASONS people don't believe in purple invisable kngaroos are the same as the reasons people don't believe in god.

Since when did uncredible evidence by a lot of people make the evidence credible? If the entire congregation of Westminster Abbey saw the Smurf, would the reality of what they saw be any more belivable?

No, of course not.

69

Have you ever had an encounter with a UFO?

by free2beme in

jw
friends

when i was about 16 years old, a group of us friends would go hiking a lot on the weekend.

we would rough it to some degree, just a sleeping back and sleeping under the stars.

one night, while hiking into a lake in northern california, we all were sleeping in a clearing just out of legal distance from a small mountain lake we liked to fish in.

Abaddon

AuldSoul

Similar paths of technological development is quite a reasonable assumption if you study how innovation and discovery works. You can't have a technology involving manipulating electrons until you know there are electrons to manipulate and know how to manipulate them; thus the lack of TV's before the discovery of electromagnatism and the electron.

I can see statistically Earth doesn't stand out if we use available evidence, which as it is what we have is certainly better than speculating by ignoring available evidence. We know for a certainty they will not need Earth for resources. Such advanced civilisation would (given where we are after 200 years of proper science) be able to artificially manipulate their biology to an extent we can only begin to speculate on. I don't need pie-charts for this.

Unless most speculation is wrong and life is a very rare thing it is unlikely the nature of OUR life would be of interest to a alien civilisation of FTL-level savvy as the amount of life in the Universe and the resources of any one civilisation to study it would mean each occurance of life would have a very small statistical chance of having an FTL-level alien race examine it. Again, no pie-charts needed.

I think you are excluding every suggested possibility based on terran thinking, and applying terran thinking to the probable behavior of ETs. Can you account for why you believe an FTL capable ET species would think like a carbon-based mammal just barely out of the trees?

Your own postion or advocacy of a position where they have interest in us or have progressed so far they don't notice us is based on the same terran thinking. Thus it is the logical validity and statistical liklihood of claims I examine.

I tend to tie this in with the pervading human belief of 'specialness' seen in the beliefs of every culture of humans. Each culture thinks it is 'special'. Even in sci-fi there is a common assumption that humans will be 'special' when they meet other intelligent races.

I feel there is more likely there is a psychological need in humans to feel we would be special and to attract the of ET's, or god, or whatever, when in fact we are not special unless we make ourselves so and both that and the definiton of that is up to us.

Aphrodite

Abaddon, we think lions are special compared to us, what about dolphins and every other living thing? So why wouldn't aliens think we are special enough to study?

Mmmm... not so much the degree of specialness I suppose as the number of bugs to researchers.

Statistics.

If life is uncommon in the Universe, given the scale of the Universe it would be widely scattered in space and time, and an intelligent example of life getting to interact at all with another intelligent example of life would be quite unlikely. Somewhere in the region of a small finate number divided by a virtually infinate number or close enough to zero to be getting along with. There would be few researchers and few bugs in an effectively infinate forest and the two would never be likely to meet.

If life is common in the Universe and there is a small chance of each example developing to intelligence, we again have a low chance of interaction, a finate number divided by a virtually infinate one. There would be few researchers and lots of bugs in an effectively infinate forest and an individual bug would be unlikely to get the attention of one of the few researchers in an effectively infinate forest

If life is common in the Universe and intelligent life is also (comparatively) common the chance of interaction is higher, as we are dividing a very high finate number by a virtually infinate number. There would be lots of researchers and lots of bugs in an effectively infinate forest. Still a small chance based on how many rocks don't have bugs under them...

Thus alien contact is most likely in a Universe where life and intelligent life is common. And virtually impossible in other scenarios purely on the basis of statistics.

For us to be worthy of special study when we are one of many pre-star-travel civilisation is very small unless one assumes that aliens (all of their efforst put together) devote fantastic levels of resources to such study by doing it all the time to all possible planets. To assume they would devote large resources requires some motivation, and there is none in this scenario as we and our solar system are just commonplace, as are most solar systems.

We would be less special than lions, in other words. About the level of some bug that ate leaf-litter in the Amazonian forest. There are a lot of these and whilst some people are interested in them the chance of any one species of bug being studied is very very small; most are not even catalogued or known yet.

This solar system is far more likely to be famous as a place where oxygen-breathing life-forms can witness a full solar eclipse on the surface of a planet with an oxygen atmosphere than it is because humans are special.

Having a sun 40 x larger than a satelite 40x further away is probably a rare thing, as is an oxygen atmosphere.

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

AuldSoul

Well, I know what 'evidence' means. Obviously someone can semantically insist that something that a court-of-law or science journal would NOT consider as evidence is evidence, but that would not impress a court-of-law, a science journal, or me.

Changing the intended and usual definiton of words so one can insist there IS evidence is not as impressive as actually providing material that no one can despute as evidence.

Likewise, the logical fact there may be evidence undiscovered or mislabelled that supports 'god' in an unequivocal way means little unless this evidence can be found or corrrectly labelled. I could equally say there is ample evidence for my invisable purple kangaroo but that it hasn't been found yet or is mislabeled.

67

Born Gay?

by Sam87 in

jw
friends

hi everyone, just wondering what your thoughts are on people that say they are born gay?

ive heard that this isnt actually possible, and that there is no scientific backing to it, im personaly not gay but i was just wondering what some of you think on this matter, and if you have anything to back it up with, thanks,.

.

Abaddon

Qcmbr

You know I find it hysterical you essentially accuse gay people of lying about being attracted to others of the same gender from an early age, and then expect us to believe YOU suceed in controlling your sexual desires (down to the point of not ever reacting to another woman as though she were a woman in any way since mariage) when it is known that even in cloistered communities of religious devotees sexual negation is the hardest thing.

It's also funny you ignore the point I was making about fact vs opinion. With me I have facts behind my opinions. I think something because of x, y and quite possibly z. I may still be wrong. You seem to use an alternative paradigm, where you seem to select what facts to accept based upon a preconceived opinion.

I ask about your parent's attitudes towards sex and sex education as you seem to have had no childhood sex education to speak of and not to have had the first idea about sex as a teen; you try to compare this totally unneccesary situation and its resultant confusion with someone being unsure about their sexuality. Apples and pears mate; someone can have an encyclopdeic knowledge of sex in today's society and STILL find accepting their sexuality difficult, often due to the reactions of those around them.

Shame on you Abaddon - are you actually agreeing that one can choose how one is!!!??? I thought your basic premise is that it doesn't matter what one's beliefs are - reality will overrule them. Anyhow I never mentioned religion till now - you are dangerously close to revealing your driving bias against religion rather than staying on topic. My belief in human origins isn't anything to do with this and I doubt you actually know what my beliefs actually are. I'll get over things when I choose not when prodded by pedants.

If you deal with a Nazi who hates Jews you have to consider whether he hates Jews because he is a Nazi, even if he tries to make-out he has a decent reason for it. If you deal with someone in a religious group that is opposed to homosexuality you have to consider whether they are opposed to homosexuals due to their religious beliefs even if they make out they have a decent reason for it.

You also have to consider that someonewho presents as having a conflicted attitude towards sex and who still makes childish noises about his parent's sex life is probably not the most balanced person in the world when it comes to opinions on the subject.

Of course, the above would be over-ruled if you had some vast tidal wave of spell-binding factual demonstration of your views, but your views are those of someone who had a retarded sexual development who then bases their views on sex on religious diktat rather than objective study. Or will you deny your faith influences your beliefs? Your argument is opinion lead, not fact lead, and your 'facts' are loose linkages at best that ignore inconvenient historical fact.

You ask me for facts to back genetic determination up when I correct your overstatements by saying we just don't have enough information to know yet. For a start, my previous posts already provide such data and do not state the conclusion is absolute. Please, do not make it sound like I do not think choice has any role; wharping my argument is either lazy or dishonest.

You ask about sexual attraction; actually sexual attraction is very genetically based. In societies where skinny women are seen as most beautiful those with a hip:waist ratio of 0.7 are seen as most attractive. In a soceity where heavier women are sen as attractive those with a hip:waist ratio of 0.7 are seen as most attractive. Women with an obvious waist are more fertile than those without. What we see is exactly what we would expect according to evolutonary theory.

Men are attracted to the most fertile women, as they have inherited that attraction from their ancestors, as the human males attracted to women with pronounced waists had more offspring than those who were attracted to a woman regardless of her waist.

There's an awful lot more proof of naturalistic evolution in human sexual biology, be it in the size and form of human male penises or in the size of male tetes, or in the 'hidden ovulation' of human females, but that's just an aside.

Qcmbr , if urges do not result in harm to uninvolved parties, why are they wrong?
If you ignore all else, answer this one...
Ah good point - since your critical reading skills are shot I'll clarify - my whole post is driving at the point that we are responsible for who we are - I am more than happy for people to politely disagree with that opinion. I made a good statement that actually stands well alone outside of any sexual arena.

You make a statement that no one has disagreed with; please find someone saying on this thread that people are not are responsible for who we are. Why are you trying to oppose something no one has argued? Is the actual discussion we ARE having too difficult?

You also, despite me asking you to answer it if nothing else, evade answering a simple question;

If urges do not result in harm to uninvolved parties, why are they wrong?

There it is again...

Forscher

For instance, it is known that boys who are molested in childhood have a higher chance of being Gay than those who are not.

Can you provide the research on this please? I know well that child molesters (I'm sure you realise that this is not synominous with homosexual) are more likey to have been sexually molested as a child than the average. This is often presented on religious-predicated anti-gay websites as 'if you're sexually molested as a child you are more likely to be gay', but they are mixing two different things up.

It's a pity you're unwilling to detail what part of the evidence regarding homosexual behaviour in animals you find problematic. Not exactly an elegent argument... but angels fear to tread and all that...

It would also be good to add that some will believe that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice for equally unpalatable reasons as the ones you cite in you implied criticism of those who disagree with that particular lifestyle Abaddon.

I think you must realise my main criticism is the method some people arive at a conclusion. To me it is akin to ignoring the human rights issue of human sacrifice because you worship Quetzalcoatl

I think the important thing to realise is that the evidence is not compelling enough to make the assertion that Gayness is something folks are "born with," as many claim.

Many? Not me. Not anyone on this thread. Not any of the research I've quoted. 'Many' say it's probably a complex interaction between genetics, pre-natal environment, pre-pubescent, pubescent , and post-pubescent environment. It seems the religously predicated lobby (not you) are the ones who often object to the very idea it COULD be influenced by things a person has no control over, for the reasons I've given.

All the best.

69

Have you ever had an encounter with a UFO?

by free2beme in

jw
friends

when i was about 16 years old, a group of us friends would go hiking a lot on the weekend.

we would rough it to some degree, just a sleeping back and sleeping under the stars.

one night, while hiking into a lake in northern california, we all were sleeping in a clearing just out of legal distance from a small mountain lake we liked to fish in.

Abaddon

skyking

So, you don't bother reading posts you respond to properly, refuse to believe expert archaeologists about a well-known feature of Egyptian inscriptions and monuments because in this case you prefer your own uninformed opinion, repeat (unknowingly I guess given the level of research you undertake) false claims about the origin of coins and misleading characterisations of golden ornaments, make utterly false statements like "we have more proof of UFO's than we do the Sun burning Hydrogen" and idolise those with the same pathological tendancy towards pseudoscientific nonsense, and THEN all of a sudden I am a bad guy?

First off I do not have an opinion about this anyway shape or form.

So was it the aliens that typed "we have more proof of UFO's than we do the Sun burning Hydrogen"? That sure looks like an opinion. Or do you mean now that it is obvious you don't know what you are talking about you no longer feel like making sweeping statements and unsupported, grandious claims?

What I am trying to state here is be opened minded.

So open minded the top of your head has fallen off...? Since when did credulous acceptence of any old rubbish some idiot puts online equate with being open minded?

Don't be so pathetic. Don't you have ANY self-respect? Or do you dislike it when the rubbish you come up with gets shown to be rubbish? And don't make this an issue of intelligence; as I point out, the accurate information is freely available to those who are bothered enough to look for it; a failure to do so is laziness or stopping your 'research' when you've found someone saying what you want them to say. If you want to avoid having people point out you post garbage, stop posting garbage, take responsibility for your actions.

Your pro 'electric' sun links are out-of-date as you either ignored or didn't get the caveat I put in, as I knew in advance you'd come up with some crackpot chuntering on about 'missing neutrinos' because they are ignoring or ignorant of the most recent research.

AuldSoul

Four; FTL (faster than light) travel is possible; in this scenario;

1/ People see super advanced aliens as a deliberate part of the aliens study of humans

This is against aound scientific practise unless you WANT to effect the subject you are studying, for example;

specifically researching how people who have seen aliens or believe in them for illogical reasons are treated by those who haven't seen aliens and/or don't believe in their presense here for logical reasons
destabilising human culture
preparing humans for first contact

All this assumes a high enough level of 'specialness' about humans to justify the expenditure of resources. Statistically we are unlikely to be all that special, just such compliocated interactions require a leap of faith.

2/ People see super advanced aliens because the aliens have a mechanical problem

Which I exclude as if this was so there would be more evidence, as the 'hey I forgot to take any photos' beam would be SNAFU along with the cloaking device.

3/ People see super advanced aliens because the specific aliens they are seeing have not developed a means of remaining unseen

We are far closer to 'invisability' than FTL, so this is unlikely.

4/ People see super advanced aliens because the specific aliens they are seeing are oblivious to the fact that the humans see them, or do not identify humans as intelligent enough to attach significance to what they are seeing

Would require aliens of far greater mental capacities than humans, and if they're like that what are they doing hanging round Earth as it's unlikely to be special enough to be of even passing interest.

5/ People see super advanced aliens because there are insufficient numbers of people seeing them to arouse any concern in the aliens

Sloppy alines? Mmmmm...

All of the 'Fours' do require a bit of a streach, IMFFHO

jimbo

Scenario three IS seeing 'em. What I saw would influence whether I thought it was scenario one or two. Small ships would iprobably ndicate non-FTL with a mothership somewhere. Big ships would be more likely 'starships' as opposed to in-system transport.

69

Have you ever had an encounter with a UFO?

by free2beme in

jw
friends

when i was about 16 years old, a group of us friends would go hiking a lot on the weekend.

we would rough it to some degree, just a sleeping back and sleeping under the stars.

one night, while hiking into a lake in northern california, we all were sleeping in a clearing just out of legal distance from a small mountain lake we liked to fish in.

Abaddon

skyking

The hieroglyph does not prove UFO's are real. Some think that this hieroglyph has a new hieroglyph re-carved over an older one. Like a double exposed picture. But this also takes a big leap in faith too believe this. There is on proof for this double exposure theory. I have read dozens of reports about this assumption and that is all it is an assumption based on finding any reason to disprove it.

No, it takes listening to people who know what they are talking about who can prove what they are talking about. The Egyptians defaced or wrote-over the inscriptions and statuary of previous Pharaohs/Dynasties on a regular basis; this is not the only example, just the only one that happens to look like a helicopter.

To disregard the opinion of experts based on a regular occurrence with multiple examples you need to come up with something better than 'ah, I'll believe what I like'. This is something of a pattern skyking; AGAIN, you choose to disregard the testimony of experts in order to hold-on to some favourite belief. You're welcome too, just don't expect it to be taken as a good argument based on facts.

The glider is well-known. If a genuine artifact (there are possible problems with the story http://kjmatthews.users.btopenworld.com/cult_archaeology/out_of_place_artefacts_2.html) is no more-or-less surprising than clockwork mechanisms made by ancient Greeks; remember, the Egyptians carried out primitive brain surgery. Do you know how amazingly close to the actual diameter of Earth Eratosthenes's measurement was? If you start with a false premise of how primitive 'primitive' people are you can easily make much ado about nothing. But claims it is anything more than a toy or votive offering to Horus are unsubstantiated.

The golden aeroplanes are a wonderful example of 'true believers' willingness to misrepresent things in a light favourable to their beliefs; the one that looks a little like an A4 Skyhawk is just one of a collection of highly-stylised ornaments intended to hang from a necklace that resembled winged insects, birds, bats and sting rays. The selection of one out of context is rightfully described here http://kjmatthews.users.btopenworld.com/cult_archaeology/out_of_place_artefacts_6.html as "disingenuous and borders on dishonesty".

"Here is an old Roman coin" is either proof of your poor research and standards of evidence, or your gullibility in repeating some idiot's error as I found the same false claim made elsewhere. It is French, dating from 1680 http://www.dudeman.net/siriusly/ufo/art.shtml. Whether it is Ezekiel's wheel, a contemporaneous sighting, or whatever is scarcely the point as the fact that people see stuff in the sky and have done for Milena is not disputed.

At least you agree "there really is no concrete proof".

But we have more proof of UFO's than we do the Sun burning Hydrogen and Helium.

Okay, I call you on this piece of BULL. Prove this statement; or is this another example of uncritical and credulous thinking? Make sure you take into account work on the 'neutrino problem' done since 1990 and that your replacement model can explain heavy elements.