Posts by Abaddon

43

Gay/Lesbian Symbols

by Crumpet in

jw
friends

the whole rainbow thread piqued my curiosity.

i have often wondered how you know without speaking to someone if they are gay and you are not in a known gay place - like um brighton or the candy bar in london.. does anyone know of any other gay and lesbian symbols or signs?.

someone told me once that a ring on your pinkie was a sign - can anyone verify the truth of this?.

Abaddon

69

Final Thought About Atheism

by The wanderer in

jw
friends

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

exists a common theme among the postings.

the themes surrounding the .

Abaddon

Crumpet

Well, if one could prove there were non-corporeal entities, and they were subject to selection and could transfer uniquenes on to offspring, yes, they would evolve.

Also interesting is applying evolutionary biology to claimed paranormal abilities;

Attributes that have a positive value for survival increase their penetration into a population. In other words mind-reading, elephant levitators who can avoid danger by knowing about it beforehand will have lots of babies, and many of these babies will carry the same trait, until as many people can read mind, levitate elephants and see the future as can digest lactose.I

This is very much not the case. Therefore one can say that one of the following must be true;

Paranormal abilities do not exist; there is no evidence against this possibility
Paranormal abilities do exist, but are so tiny and uncontrollable they are of no survival benefit what-so-ever and only turn up on the off chance, and even then don't breed true. This is possible but doesn't explain how paranormal stuff works; we know how electricity works (simplification; pumping electrons), but we cannot point to paranormalons and show how they make tables float.
Paranormal abilities do exist and do provide a survival benefit but are a new thing (just as lactose tolerance was once a new thing) and haven't had time to develop properly in the population yet; same problem regarding explaining how it works as above.
Paranormal abilities are the result of humans being parasitised by non-corporeal entities (who hide from scientists and cameras) well; it is possible, but that's different from likely.
Paranormal abilities are the result of a divine gift and are not something related to one's genetics; I'd have to ask the fairies if this is true

69

Final Thought About Atheism

by The wanderer in

jw
friends

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

exists a common theme among the postings.

the themes surrounding the .

Abaddon

And now the fantasists have a nice little circle jerk...

Guys, it was made to sound like major Universities are ploughing major money into the paranormal. They are not. It is made to sound like there is a vast set of evidence supporting belief in the paranormal. There is not, at least not of the level of reliability that would secure a speeding ticket.

Now you mock those who've asked you to actually prove what you're talking about is more than credulous speculation.

Come on then. Where are the people levitating stuff with the power of their mind, sending messages from one mind to another mind, accurately foretelling the future or seeing things in their mind from beyond visual range?

ALL of these things are easy to prove if they exist. Your determined avoidance of this fact and the fact no one HAS proved such things speaks volumes about the etiology of belief.

69

Final Thought About Atheism

by The wanderer in

jw
friends

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

exists a common theme among the postings.

the themes surrounding the .

Abaddon

147

Merry Becomes A Muslim (a bit long)

by Merry Magdalene in

who is merry?

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

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

Abaddon

Tras

You never did really respond to me pointing out your claim that stoning for adultery is a Qur'anic law is totally false.

Be that as it may;

You can't stand before God while blood flows from your body. Using women hygienic products doesn't stop the blood from flownig, it simply absorbs the blood that does flow. I'm not trying to gross anyone out, but would any guy perform any sexual act on a woman that is menstruating? Why not if there is nothing wrong with? So you're saying it's gross for you, but it should be good for God? Don't you find this reasoning sick and twisted?

Tras, wake up and smell the hemoglobin. LOADS of men do, and LOADS of women want then to. Some women are too crampy to want to, others find sex during their period a relief. Others, sadly have been raised to think their own bodies are disgusting 1/4 of the time.

Allah supposedly made the human body; does Allah regret what he has done or find what he has done unclean? No. So how could Allah punish women for something natural and non-harmful. Your slavish literalism makes a fool of Allah as you swallow down absurdities that are shameful to believe of god.

Basically, Mary, Jelcat and others are happy being Musims, and this board insists on attacking them.

Get a grip and actually stop making false claims about your own holy scriptures before you falsely accuse others of attacking Muslims. Spirirted debate about beliefs is not attacking. I've stated clearly I have no problem with someone being a Muslim.

What I am trying to understand is why a convert would choose a more traditional form of the belief.

Islam has many varients, all the way from utter scum like the Taliban to people today who are looking at Islam in the way Christianity was examined in the 18th and 19th Century. I can list different sects if you like, and you can pretend like they're not so different they aren't at war with each other in Iraq.Again.

Oh, and don't worry, I think white-power Christian churches and Fundy Christians who bomb abortion clinic are scum to.

NONE of the varieties of Islam can prove their version is right. They might claim it, but claims mean nothing when everyone makes the same one.

So why go for one that clings to vestiges of primative patriarchal pastoralist traditions pre-dating Islam? Why go for traditional forms of the beliefs that, as the evidence around the world shows, give rise to societies where women suffer disadvantage?

Tell me, do you expect your wife/ves to stop working and raise your children, keep your home? Or would you be happy with her/they continuing in her/their careers? If you disagree with your wife/ves over something, do you expect your word to be final? Will you beat your wife/ves lightly so as not to make a mark (as allowed by Islamic Scripture) if she/they won't listen to you? If your daughter is an incredibly talented athlete, say a born gymnast, or gets a scholarship to ballet school, will you stop her? Would you stop a son with the same opportunites?

I'm not attacking you. I am trying to understand how SO many things that add up to inequality can be seen as equality. Trying to see how your background influences you (just as ours does us).

69

Final Thought About Atheism

by The wanderer in

jw
friends

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

exists a common theme among the postings.

the themes surrounding the .

Abaddon

The wanderer

Having asked you clearly for proof several times, specified a level of reliability of proof, and given examples of some claimed paranormal powers or entities you could supply proof on, your repeated questions asking me what I want are a result of terminal incomprehension on your part, deliberate or otherwise.

Unless you actually respond to clear and reasonable requests for information related to the validity of your speculations, there's no point in discussing this further.

61

Did God ever Exist?

by found-my-way in

reading so many posts on atheism which is the belief that there is no god, and reading comments from creationists made me ponder if there was an alternate reason for our existence.. if god is up there, why does he permit suffering?

if i were god, i wouldn't of let it happen in the first place, these are my children, why would i let them suffer?

maybe i am influenced by my creationist upbringing and beliefs while a jw, because i find it hard to wrap my brain around the idea that everything came from nothing.

Abaddon

I always wonder how you can get the spittle of the inside of my screen after I have read one of Perry's posts.

Cyber-pharasee, cut and paste Calvanist.

He is so much more interested in vindicating his self-rightous self than vindicating god.

Funny how someone who scorns atheists for setting themselves up as god does exactly the same thing (not that atheists actually do that, but he does).

He is blind to the fact that by selecting an interpretation of scripture as 'truth', when a thousand or more different shades of Christianity alone have their own 'truths', when none can show by their fruits or by proofs they are any more right in the specifics of Christian practise, he is making himself god by the conceit his opinon can be more right than the next sincere Christian.

He rants and raves when his limited understanding and vanity make him feel he can make some form of argument. And ignores or flees those that he cannot answer

61

Did God ever Exist?

by found-my-way in

reading so many posts on atheism which is the belief that there is no god, and reading comments from creationists made me ponder if there was an alternate reason for our existence.. if god is up there, why does he permit suffering?

if i were god, i wouldn't of let it happen in the first place, these are my children, why would i let them suffer?

maybe i am influenced by my creationist upbringing and beliefs while a jw, because i find it hard to wrap my brain around the idea that everything came from nothing.

Abaddon

Perry, do you still believe in the doctrine of the elect? (i.e. we are predestined to burn or go to heaven and there is nothing that we can do about it).

If you believe you are one of the elect it would explain something about the way you look down your nose at the rest of the world. You have made yourself your own god, pronounced yourself saved, and now can sit in complacency sneering at everyone else whilst you worship your own highly-elevated opinion of yourself.

If you have stopped believing in the doctrine of the elect, then you're obviously a butterfly mind flitting from one bunch of supersticion to the next, taking what you like and using it to make yourself feel less inadequate, and your latest set of beliefs are as of little interest as your last as they have the same order of reliability.

Be a good chap and clear up exactly what sort of person we are dealing with...

142

The Need To Question Atheism

by The wanderer in

jw
friends

the need to question atheism this need to question atheism stems from the fact there are some individuals.

on this board that subscribe to such.

the questions stated are not for some.

Abaddon

vinny

Enough of the 'Emperor's New Clothes' routine. I know you're naked.

Please explain where god came from without using special pleading.

You are accusing atheists of exactly what you are doing; speculating on how something can come from nothing.

You call your something from nothing 'god'. Atheists call it 'the Universe'. Your hypothesis contradicts the very arguments you use against atheists.

Merry

I have heard many athiests claim that if only God would reveal God's self to humanity with obvious proof (also claiming this would be a very simple thing) they would no longer be athiests.

Are you saying it would be too complex for god to do this? Isn't that like, blasphemous?

But I have long disagreed, suspecting that many would still not believe in God but would sooner assume that someone was just pulling an elaborate trick, a grand illusion, or else that they themselves had gone insane and therefore could not trust their own perceptions. The Qur'an says the same thing.
In imagining this occuring, I think there would be some God-believers who would feel the same way about this manifestation as atheists and would not be certain if it could be trusted as real. There would be others, believer and non-believer, who would accept it.

To me this is a cop-out (English English for an evasion or failure to deal with an issue). It is a 'clever' argument put forward by theists over the years to explain why there is no proof of god. It blames humans for the absense of proof... and limits the power of god by saying god could not manifest in a convincing enough manner. It's a crock.

Rather than admit god is a concept not rooted in provable reality, a thing of a totally different paradigm, theists would rather limit the Almighty power (in one breath before claiming the power is unlimited in the next). How is it better to 'emasculate' god than admit god's apparent nature?

So much for faith.

There is no proof of god. Does this mean god does not exist?No.

Does it mean that god (if it exists) desires itself to be unprovable?Either that or god by its very nature is not something that can be proved.

If god desires that it is unprovable, when by definiton it could prove itself (to say otherwise is to limit god's power), then this INEVITABLY results in potential harm. A person can REASONABLY not believe in god, as there is no proof. This conclusion is the result of the human mind, supposedly designed by god, coming to the very supportable conclusion that things that are real can be proved, so something that cannot be proved is not real. Thus to accept that god willfully does not prove itself is to make god cruel monster, denying its children certain knowledge that they could easily have for their betterment.

If god by its very nature is not something that cannot be proved, it means that god is far from the all-too-human spite monster smiting left-right and centre as depicted by the goatherds who traditonally write about god. It means all that smiting has nothing to do with god, as if god HAD done all that smiting there would have been proof. It might also mean that god is a concept, an ideation, a grand metaphor, an abstract. But still real enough if you believe, and I did think it WAS meant to be about faith, yes?

To me it seems many lack the courage to see god as it might be.

They are lost in the valley of pitiful excuses, worshiping petty cruel gods cast in man's image, as such 'gods' can be dealt with on a transactional basis; loving your brother as yourself or fasing at Ramadan is just another form of killing a sheep to show god you like it.

The idea of god being far grander and greater than that, a way of thinking that unites everything, is everything, seems far too scarey for many, as such a god comes without a manual written by a goat herd telling us what to do.

69

Final Thought About Atheism

by The wanderer in

jw
friends

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

exists a common theme among the postings.

the themes surrounding the .

Abaddon

The wanderer

What kind of proof are you looking for?
Video?, Audio?, Thermal images?
Explain ...

Which part of 'evidence acceptable to a peer-review science journal or court of law' don't you get? I don;t care what orm th evidence comes in, I just want it to be robust and unquestionable.

As regards your exagerated claims, kid-A provided the data on that; your claims re. Oxford and Penn State are unfounded AND you miss the point that EVEN IF your claims about the level of research or credibility thereof were true there is still no PROOF.

We get this sttement on the website you quoted;

What is the state-of-the-evidence for psi?
To be precise, when we say that "X exists," we mean that the presently available, cumulative statistical database for experiments studying X, provides strong, scientifically credible evidence for repeatable, anomalous, X-like effects.
With this in mind, ESP exists, precognition exists, telepathy exists, and PK exists. ESP is statistically robust, meaning it can be reliably demonstrated through repeated trials, but it tends to be weak when simple geometric symbols are used as targets. Photographic or video targets often produce effects many times larger, and there is some evidence that ESP on natural locations (as opposed to photos of them), and in natural contexts, may be stronger yet.
Some PK effects have also been shown to exist. When individuals focus their intention on mechanical or electronic devices that fluctuate randomly, the fluctuations change in ways that conform to their mental intention. Under control conditions, when individuals direct their attention elsewhere, the fluctuations are in accordance with chance.
Note that we are using the terms ESP, telepathy and PK in the technical sense, not in the popular sense. See What do parapsychologists study?

Great. Where is the data supporting these claims?