Abaddon

Joined

• started 167 topics
• posted 5,219 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Abaddon

• 
  35

  If an elder walked into your home right now.........

  by ButtLight in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  how many disfellowshipping "offenses" would he find?.

  lets see....... the jwd up on my computer....links to psychic web sites....my smokes..books about the borg...my fiance who i live with....lottery tickets...... my birthday cards displayed on my desk.....the aposta pics on my computer......oh i could go on and on...but theres a few!.

  im so bad hey?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Ha, did you know wth gafer tape, a staple gun, and a Jenning's Clamp you can convert most elders into urinals?
• 
  21

  Entertaining God

  by onacruse in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  if god showed up at your front door (somewhat like a materialized angel?

  ), and asked if he could come in and visit with you, what would you do?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Are we talking some person saying they are god but looking like an ordinary person, or someone of obviously paranormal status (lightning coming out of nose, flowers blooming in footsteps, etc.)?

  Stealth god or obvious god?
• 
  147

  Merry Becomes A Muslim (a bit long)

  by Merry Magdalene in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Re. the "Ooooo, Christians have a hell of a time" sub-topic.

  I am at a loss to explain how people can miss those threads where posters express negative feelings about Islam way way over and above any antipathy they have for Christianity.

  Please show me a thread where multiple posters have alleged the Christianity is an intrinsically evil religion in its most commonly practised forms today, resulting in terrorism, religious war, a massive disregard for the rights of women to be free and equal, and pretty low expectations as regards freedom of speech.

  Why do people feel that hanging the sign "religiously predicated opinion" means people should bite their tongue if they disagree?

  A neo-con gets a certain reaction due to how they express their opinions. A socialist gets a certain reaction due to hw the express their opinions. Christians and Muslims get certain reactions, guess what; according to how they express their opinions. Look how Merry gets a different reaction to other Muslim posters, say Hado for example. Look how LittleToe gets a different reaction to other Christian posters.

  And it is not just about how the opinion is expressed; a smiley "you're going to hell" ala Westboro Baptist Church doesn't sweeten the pill.

  I don't really see that much bias towards Christians here after one factors out Christian topics maybe being of interest to more posters due to our common past.

  In any case, the meek shall inherit the Earth, in the words of Mrs. Big Nose "Oh, it's the meek! Blessed are the meek! Oh, that's nice, isn't it? I'm glad they're getting something, 'cause they have a hell of a time."

  What-A-Coincidence

  I don't see what point you are trying to make with the cut & paste job. It shows either you are totally unaware many Christians can be classified as cultists if you play the same game in reverse, or are aware of this but seek to traduce Islam because of some bigotry on your part.

  Maybe next time you can display further stunning displays of impartial analysis by cut and pasting 'Why you should hate Jews" off a Fascist website? I am sure it will be as fair and unbiased as the trash you've inflicted on us regarding Muslims. Not that I'm saying you hate Jews, just the bias of your sources renders your 'argument' worthless.

  Merry

  Abaddon, I always feel a mixture of dread and delight when you show up.

  Now you're making me blush... ;-)

  Yes, menstruation is natural and not fearful, but I would argue that it is dirty. Not in the sense of bad, shameful, evil, or contaminating to men, but in the most natural sense. Before prayer, men and women are both required to cleanse themselves after sleeping, defecating, urinating, vomiting, bleeding or oozing from a wound, etc. So why is it unfair for women to not be able to pray until after they stop bleeding (both menstrual and post-partum) and are able to cleanse themselves? As well as showing respect to Allah, from my own experience I would say it is a kindness and a mercy to be exempt from fasting and from salat prayer at those times. And we can still make du'a prayer. http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/w_islam/impur.htm

  The problem is that the superstitions about women's menstruation are pre-Islamic. They are pretty musch universal in culture after culture. To me this is a sure indication we're dealing with patriarchal misogyny as the founding principle behind the law, rather than Allah's will, whatever claimed provenance Islamic scripture has.

  And seeing it from a reverse angle doesn't work well for me; if it WAS a kindness and mercy, then women who suffered badly from menstration would be exused if they wanted but those whowanted to attend could attend. One could say the exclusion of black people from academia in the past was a kindness and a mercy, saving them all that hard study and work. But as black people were denied equality by such actions, and didn't have the option TO attend, such a characterisation doesn't stand scrutiny.

  The misogyny of it is really made apparent by non-menstruating women not being able to stand with the men and worship.

  And female Imams; if women are equal, why don't we them?

  I think it is because there is no Prophetic tradition that can be pointed to for having women lead men in prayer (many agree that they can lead other women in prayer, and some say they can also lead unqualified men in prayer within their own households) and there are some proofs for why they should not.

  But no one would expect there to be female examples in the time of the Prophet; the culture wouldn't stand it.

  I think one area causing our difference in analysis is perhaps the presumption of inspiration. I don't see the Qur'an as being more-or-less inspired than the Bible or the Guru Granth or the .

  They all contain factual errors. I know you posted a nice link to a site promoting Islamic Creationism, but without going too much off topic, although tending towards the OEC (Old Earth, no six 24-hour days Young Earth nonsense as you frequently hear from Biblical literalists) side of Creationism (which is very similar to that advanced by JW's, as it happens), it still falls far short of being a convincing argument and is error ridden;

  The reason why a special chapter is assigned to the collapse of the theory of evolution is that this theory constitutes the basis of all anti-spiritual philosophies. Since Darwinism rejects the fact of creation, and therefore the existence of God, during the last 140 years it has caused many people to abandon their faith or fall into doubt.

  Harun Yahya in "Fascism: The Bloody Ideology of Darwinism" (Istanbul: Kultur, 2002)

  This is utter nonsense; evolution does not rule out the existence of god. And any characterisation that evolution is a theory in crisis is totally without merit. It is accepted as largely accurate by the vast majority of scientists, has NEVER ben falsified as a theory (despite this being easy to do), is a fantastic tool to explain how things are the way they are in nature, and as a vast level of supporting evidence across multiple scientific disciplines.

  What I have read so far of Islamic Creationism reveals they make much of how impossible it is form the Universe to spring from nothing, but assume god either spring from nothing or was always there. Neither belief is provable, so the mockery of non-theistic theories of origin aC being unprovable is inappropriate. And although some Muslims try to argue the Flood (which really, really, really did not happen as it says in the Bible) was local, the Qur'anic account implies otherwise, and thus supports an event we know didn't happen.

  Noah said: `O my Lord! Leave not of the Unbelievers, a single one on earth! For if Thou dost leave (any of them), they will but mislead Thy devotees, and they will breed none but wicked ungrateful ones.'" S. 71:26-27

  Thus I have substantiatable reasons to take Qur'anic (or any other 'holy' writings) as uninspired, prone to error and illogicity as they are.

  You seem to feel the Qur'an IS reliable.

  If you are interested we can talk about these topic (evolution and whether the Qur'an is inspired) in another thread.

  I have not done much research on it as it has been a non-issue for me.

  Yeah, that's kinda what I meant when Imention your involvement with Wicca and Paganism. Wicca to hijab is a very very long way. I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop as this is such a strack change

  There are some who are pushing for [female Imams]. I wonder why.

  Because they are unwilling to let HUMAN tradition stop them from being involved in their Spiritual calling?

  Is it for the sake of Allah or for their own sake? By asking these questions I do not believe I am judging women for wanting this or wanting not to wear hijab.

  You unavoidably do pass an implicit judgement (by, for example, questioning their motives) even if you are a nice enough human being not to make it explicit.

  Islam has never advocated a liberationist philosophy.

  Yeah, well neither did Christianity until the 19th Century. The liberationist (if by liberationist you mean someone for the disestablishment of the church, as distinct from liberal) philosophy stems from secularism and humanism.

  But Islam HAS had historically the latitude for different versions of itself, even in the same geographical locale. Thus rather than branding change in line with modern values as 'liberationism' or some-such, I see a historic precedent for latitude of belief that would make the hijab issue a non issue.

  Our fulfillment does not lie in our liberation, rather it lies in the conquest of our soul and its base desires That conquest only occurs through our enslavement to God.

  Is that Sunni Allah or Shia Allah? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm making a point. Yes, I can agree your religious experience is about conquering your base nature and submitting to god. But you are not so much enslaving yourself to god, but enslaving yourself to one particular tradition of god that cannot hold itself above others and demonstrate it is better. If it is about god then the idea of Sunni Allah or Shia Allah, hijab Allah or non-hijab Allah, all becomes human vanity and symbolism and irrelevant to your core task, submitting to god internally as you experience god.

  Our enslavement to God in turn means that we have to suppress many of our souls’ desires and inclinations. Therein lies one of the greatest secrets to unleashing our real human potential. This is so because it is our human potential that separates us from the rest of this creation, and it is to the extent that we are able to conquer our physical nature that we realize that spiritual potential.
  

  Now is the time to give ourselves to our Lord, totally. The trials and tribulations we are currently witnessing will only intensify as we move closer to the end of time

  Oh please not the Mahdi. Please, do two things for me. Find the Qur'anic reference to the Mahdi. You probably already know I know that you almost cetainly know there isn't any.

  Second, ponder on why you are now believing in what you were brought up to believe. You come from a background with Millenialist beliefs. You have adopted a school of Islam with similar beliefs. "The world is a terrible place and will end soon. God/Allah will make it better". Do you see a pattern here? Maybe you have been drawn to a 'solution' you LIKE or are subconsciously drawn to, rather than one which is obviously 'true' in comparison to other beliefs.

  How much submission is here in going after your own desires? I'm not saying that to be mean, but to trigger self-analysis.

  The quotation about female Imams is rife with error; just as evolutionism has nothing to do with the god existing or not, so to feminism has nothing to do with god existing or not. It very elegantly tries to turn the tables so the discussion is not about equality with men but about having value to god, but neglects the fact that many traditional Islamic ways show god does not value men and women equally; not as different equals (which is what they are), but as different in-equals.

  I feel that I have always been equally certain about my beliefs, jumping in with both feet so as to gain the fullest experience, while yet continuing to question and explore and challenge from 'within' that experience. Unfortunately hindsight cannot be applied to the present. I do believe in looking before you leap, but, for me, it can't be all looking and no leaping.

  You're very honest to answer like this. And I hope that whilst one cannot apply hindsight to past choices, one can use the experience of past choices to reflect on present ones, and to realise the role one's own inclinations can have in one's choices and susceptibilities.

  Like I say, if it's about your subconscious yearning for something clear-cut and certain that promises an end to the problems of the world, then it ain't submission to god but a form of shirk, with your own desires being the idol (even if you're not aware of it).

  For me this is the chief pitfall of any spiritual search; as it is search without external proof or validation, but one which lies on internal resonance, the risk is that as there IS no external counterpart to validate our beliefs as we have worshipped god as we would like him to be, not as god may be.

  As something pretty close to an atheist I find that the traditional concepts of god are either unprovable and/or massively human in their inhumanity and awfully limited by the limited primitive beliefs of their followers.

  "My" Allah doesn't care about 'hats' on women, or ham on plates, or about this theory of origin or that theory of origin. It cares about the love in your heart.

  I think you have love in your heart, but just wish you didn't have all the baggage you associate as being necessary for a relationship with god based on what some bloke said.

  As we actually don't know if some bloke DID say it, and even if he did whether it WAS inspired or not, you heart is as reliable as a pile of Bibles or stack of Qur'ans as long as you cherish other's lives as your own (which is as much enlightened self-interest as humanitarianism).

  People say not believing in god makes one one's own god. But putting a belief in a god without proof means we are doing exactly that; elevating opinion to the level of deity. It is ironic that both theists and non-theists commit the same 'sin' at the end of the day.

  All the best Merry, a pleasure discussing things with you.
• 
  147

  Merry Becomes A Muslim (a bit long)

  by Merry Magdalene in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Merry

  As an educated moden woman, how do you integrate your understanding of natural processes of the female body (like menstration) with Qur'anic et. al. dictats on this?

  Allah obviously made women to bleed. We know this is nothing fearful or dirty. Yet women cannot "participarte in he performance of prayers" whilst menstrating. This is about as logical as a command from god as men not being able to pray whilst undergoing spermatogenesis, yet given the very frequent fear of menstration in primative cultures such as Islam stemmed from (and Judaism too) it is all to logical that a man might think this.

  And female Imams; if women are equal, why don't we them?

  Isn't it all a but 'all are equal but some are less equal than others' double-speak?

  Very interesting to read you past experiences. I find it especially interesting you were interested in paganism and Wicca, both of which seem at poles to your current beliefs.

  Do you feel you were less certain in the past (about the validity of your former beliefs) and are more certain now? Or do you feel the certainty you feel now is the same as the certainty you felt in the past? Do you preclude feeling yet more certain about different beliefs in the future? If so why?
• 
  21

  VISTA IS CRAP... MAKE XP LOOK LIKE VISTA WID DIS...

  by What-A-Coincidence in

  1. social
  2. current

  topdesk is a quick and easy way to switch between applications.

  with a single key press, you can instantly view thumbnails of all open windows, display thumbnails of windows belonging to the current application, or hide all windows to quickly access the desktop.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  I work managing out-sourced technical support for a variety of companies, from video editing software through to internet security.

  Minimum system requirements are a result of a fight between maketing (who want the lowest hardware requirements possible to avoid dissuading people from buying it), engineering, who actually know what they'd use to run the software, and support, who are the poor bastards who get it the neck when half the features don't work on hardware more than two years old. When I was a phone agent I used to coach people with W98SE PII's shutting down all unused programs so they could sucessfully capture DV to disc. Computers were so shit most of the video-editing software came with hardware to allow video catures as the PC's couldn't do it alone. Now you just jack a Firewire in. To this day I have nightmares about Derick Collins, a retired gentleman who had a similar effect on computers to the Electro-Magnetic Pulse from a nuclear detonation. I used to beg him not to chnage any settings after I'd got things working, but within a week or two...

  It's like a Smart ForTwo is a car. It has two doors, two seats, a roof, a radio and an "engine". Don't be surprised if it is a little slow on motorways.

  Some people would think there was a fault in software with recommended requirements of XP, 1Ghz and 512Mb if it was agonisingly slow on their (Mini Req) W98 PIII 450Mhz 256Mb.

  God I am such a nerd...
• 
  11

  I used to have the best conversations with my Mom when I was a dub-not now

  by themonster123 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  whenever me and my mom would have our weekly study, it seemed like we would have the best conversations.

  that's when i felt closest to her and felt like both our minds and hearts were open and loving and receptive.

  now....(she's still a jw-i'm not), whenever we talk, since it's never about spiritual stuff anymore (since i don't believe it), it's always about shallow stuff-i feel so shallow.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  People who are into selling Amway can have the most amasing discussions about all the opportunities Amway offers, and feel like they are part of something special.

  This does not mean Amway is anything special or offers great opportunities.

  You are evamuating what you have lost using the old set of values you were programmed with.

  What you have lost ('talking about the Kingdom' is maybe a good general term) WAS seen by you as the most important thing, of huge value.

  Of course, it wasn't, not really, you had just been programmed to see it that way.

  Now you don't 'talk about the Kingdom', rather than seeing it as no longer discussing an entirely fabricated and fanciful belief structure, you still attach the old values you've been trained to attach to 'talking about the Kingdom'.

  Your programming makes you feel like you have lost something but the something you have lost does not have the value that you were trained it has so in fact you have not lost something.

  Don't worry, this feeling will fade, you just have to try and build a normal mother-daughter relationship where one's performance as a seller of literature and repeater of doctrine is not used to guage your self-worth or value to others.

  You have gained something.

  Your life.

  All the best

  Gyles
• 
  21

  VISTA IS CRAP... MAKE XP LOOK LIKE VISTA WID DIS...

  by What-A-Coincidence in

  1. social
  2. current

  topdesk is a quick and easy way to switch between applications.

  with a single key press, you can instantly view thumbnails of all open windows, display thumbnails of windows belonging to the current application, or hide all windows to quickly access the desktop.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Ah apart from the worshippers of the Penguin (chosen as a logo because Linux users and Penguins have identical sex lives) we will all sup from the Devil's latest OS sooner-or-later.

  I remember the Win 3.11 Luddites up in arms over Win 95. They all moved to Win 95 then 98. Then there were the Win 98 Luddites up in arms over XP. They now all use XP. Now XP, normally the whipping boy of frustrations and anger, becomes the fields of Ellysium in comparison to Vista, yet, guess what we will all be using in three years time? Vista.

  Which part of 'you cannot beat Satan' don't we all get?

  Of course, Steve Jesus, I mean Jobs, can save us. I think it would be a frightful wheeze if Mac released a version of their OS for non-Mac hardware. It would be very simple now both Win and Mac use Intel as it just requires removing a hardware check, and has already been done by hackers.

  The people could install Mac OS X on their Windows boxes with 'Bootcamp' (a dual boot program allowing you to boot to Windows or Mac). With the right hardware (virtual machines) and software modficiations you could even have a Windows window open in Mac OS X or a Mac window open in Windows. It would give full compatability and choice.

  Having used both OS's I think most people with such a set-up would end up using the Windows environment only when there was no possibility of using the software they needed in a Mac environment.
• 
  8

  How help my JW-fiancée with her trouble with some JW-family-members?

  by Zana in

  1. social
  2. family

  i am 29 years old, not a jw (never been one, never ever gonna be one), but i am engaged to one (27 years old) and we have marriage-plans for the end of this year.

  we are getting along more than great, no real troubles about this religious topic in our relationship (so no need to write me some of those run-and-hide-posts .

  and we are talking about her family: two sisters are quite dedicated jws, the mother is studying with them, the father died a few years ago and her 4 brothers don't care at all about the jws.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  To be honest, this sounds like a mess.

  You have agreed never to try and get her (whom to you believes in something as real as the tooth fairy) to break her faith. The fact this is almost impossible is bourne out by the fact you're already finding it difficult not to.

  She, a member of a belief system that has proselyzing as one of its central tenets has agreed never to try and convert you. So

  You are currently involved in a sexual relationship outside of marriage which for her (if baptised) is an automatic disfellowship if you don't say sorry and never do it again. The only reason the local Elders passing judgement over her would say what they said is if she lied to them and said "sorry I'll never do it again until I am married", or if she is unbaptised. SHe is kidding herself regarding having sex now and m,aking it alright later as the JW's belief system does not work that way. If she really believes what she says she should believe if Armagedon came tomorrow she would die with you.

  If she doesn't, and has lots of doubts, go into the garden and scream for joy.

  If she is unbaptised go into the garden and scream for joy.

  You say her sisters are studying with her mother; are they baptised?

  If they aren't there is a clear warning sign; they're big enough moralisers to follow JW doctrine before they are. If she isn't, then her sisters could see her if they really wanted to as it is okay to keep contact with unbaptised unbelievers who are family.

  This can only pan out a limited number of ways;

  • She gets sucked into the JW's due to familial pressure and dumps you
  • She (assuming she is baptised) gets disowned by her family at some point for some rule she breaks; Christmas, birthdays, blood transfusions, oral sex (yes, that's wrong too according to JW's), the list is huge and almost unavoidable for someone who is living with a non-believer.
  • She will lead a troubled existence never believing in it enough to leave you (as she would be told to by any real Witness), never not believing in it enough to get out, always feeling she is failing god or you.
  • She will "live a lie", only doing JW stuff when family or local JW's are around.
  • Alternately she is believing out of habit or fear of familial abadonment and leading a comparatively normal life with you, with little exposure to meetings or literature will destroy the habit and dull the fear, and she will get the courage to stand upto to her family regardless of concequences.

  I think you need to watch carefully for a time when you can renegotiate your agreement not to talk about beliefs. Wait until her family really hurt her. Any xJW here can tell you that is simply a matter of time. You can then use the common-sense approach you showed here of wondering how any belief system based on love can be so unloving and cause so much hurt, and watch her try and answer your questions and in doing so hopefully open her eyes with your help.

  Of course, all the above is just my opinion, I ain't neccesarily right.
• 
  60

  has anybody seen the 300 yet?

  by Crumpet in

  1. social
  2. entertainment

  has anyone seen this movie?

  basically i know nothing about it except it might have some big war scenes in it and am going to see it on saturday night with ex mr c.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  It's a pity it focused on the Spartans; hamsterbait is quite right about the Greek military in general. The most elite of the elite soldiers were gay couples, fighting alongside each other. Of course, 'gay' is a modern coinage and not neccesarily the same as pedastry, which was the common greek form of homosexuality. But the idea was that lovers would fight fiercely for each other and not dessert each other.

  The Spartans, although quite relaxed about homosexuality in general, were the exception to this rule in the millitary. The very idea a Spartan soldier might show more courage or be less likely to desert because they were fighting with their lover was anathema to the Spartans, as a Spartan soldier should be brave no matter what and not dessert any he fought with.

  The orignal unit that this idea was based on (a 300 strong group called the Scared Band) were all but wiped out in a battle which signalled the end of the City-State era in Greece and the rise of Macedonia. They basically stood their ground and fell there when the rest of their army ran. The actually found the graves which backed up an ancient description of how 254 were buried (the remaninder falling wounded and not dying on the battlefield).

  I do think it rather amusing there's this debate about gays in the millitary... I mean, what do the antis really think? They'll be pink tanks and special marches ("At the left quick MINCE!")??

  I can imagine the recruitment posters... a drippingly homoerotic pair of privates (LOL) with charmingly ripped and besmeered battle dress, with full on pecs and six-packs and under the banner headline "577th Special Gay Assault Squadron (motto; standing erect to defend our country) the strap line;

  "You say gay like that's a bad thing. Piss us off and find out how right you can be."

  or maybe;

  "Hey, where have all the homophobes gone all of a sudden?"

  or maybe;

  "For real men only"

  or maybe just;

  "Friendly Fire"

  I suppose "Lock and Lube" would be a bit too rude...
• 
  262

  Global Warming Hysteria

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/quacks-cranks-and-junk-science.html.

  are global warming skeptics really just cranks?

  i don't doubt that we are having some effect on .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Abaddon

  Frank

  The burden of proof is on you to support your position.

  My main postions are;

  1/ the evidence is that there is currently an unprecidented rise in average global temperatures

  2/ that there are no natural forcings which can explain this

  3/ that the vast majority of climatologists support AGW

  I also feel there is loads of anti-AGW hysteria and fallacious argumentation (like "they were wrong the '70's about an ice age therefore they are wrong now") and that many of the most vocal anti-AGW scientists have qustionable track records, but I have already covered these in depth, and to be honest neither point addresses the question of whether AGW is real or not, so, like, whatever.

  Looking at 3/ first, regarding Peisers, he is typically quoted by AGW skeptics to bolster one of their false arguments, viz.; "there is no overwhelming majority of climatologists supporting AGW", when Peisers now believes there IS an overwhelming majority. Present the facts in any order you like but this is the state of play today.

  Secondly you quote in detail the results of a survey which I had already shown was based on unsound methodology.

  Thus contention 3/ above stands, based on the evidence of the very person most used by AGW cynics to deny such a majority exists. If you deny "the vast majority of climatologists support AGW", please let me know and provide supporting evidence. If you can't do this my contention stands.

  You have gone to a deal of effort in analysing claim 1/ and 2/, looking to see if the current trends are indeed unpresidented. However, you also seem to think that a temperature graph ALONE proves something other than temperatre. When I say unprecidented it means scale + timing + lack of natural forcings.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

  This shows delta degrees C, CO2 ppm and dust ppm

  It clearly shows a coupling betwen CO2 and temperature, with dust peaks in cold dry periods. Note the fact there is a 'lag' between temperature rise and CO2 rise doesn't disprove AGW. These are showing cycles in the past where us monkeys were not burning billions of tons of fossil fuels, and the natural cycles observable in this do not apply when we increase CO2 levels 30% above anything seen in the past 400,000 years by fossil fuel burning in a 200 year long period.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Milankovitch_Variations.png

  This shows Precession, Obliquity, Eccentricity, Solar Forcing and Stage of Glaciation

  At the risk of repeating myself, current trends are unprecidented. If this is untrue, please indicate when we had the same delta of degrees C in such a compressed period with the Precession, Obliquity, Eccentricity, Solar Forcing we currently have. You can't, and it's not because of the scale of the graph either. It is because current trends are unprecidented.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-data.png

  This shows Solar Variation since 1975

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satellite_Temperatures.png

  Temperature in the same period

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

  CO2 of slighly more than the above period

  Looking at the three graphs together one can clearly see how Solar Varations effect on temperature can be seen, but how over and above this we see a steady trend in temperature rise corresponding to level of CO2.

  In light of the above I think Contentions 2/ and 3/ stand too. If you can show another period where identical forcings to that we have now triggered a climate change like that we have now, please do. If you can show natural forcings that explain current trends, please do. Please note I have already mentioned the research that may explain >35% of current change, so you can't quote that as I am not disputing that possibility; you need to look at forcings to explain the remaining 65%. If you can't do this my contentions stand, as supported by the evidence supplied above.

  By way of an aside, I note in your last post you are ignoring the calculations made about the overall contribution towards global warming by urban heat islands and the citing of weather stations I posted earlier. The quoted material doesn't change these calculations one iota, so the relevance of what you posted is questionable in the debate about global warmig.