Posts by Abaddon

72

Are you an a-xenist?

by AuldSoul in

jw
friends

"xeno" is a common taxonomical designation for aliens (strangers) including extraterrestrials.. are you someone who lacks belief in intelligent extraterrestrial beings?

do you believe it is possible that such extraterrestrial beings exist?

do you think it is possible or likely that our planet has had interactions with extraterrestrials?.

Abaddon

Terry

Sorry old chap, you've fallen straight into anthropic thinking. Or putting the cart before the horse.

The Sci-Fi writer Douglas Adams likened this to a puddle, marvelling at how perfectly it fitted the hole it filled.

There is only one Earth with exactly what Earth has or had at a particular time in a particular way. That makes Earth a UNIQUE (unlike others) incubator. The fact that there are billions of similar (not identical) planets is not enough.

'Like' doesn't mean 'exactly the same'. A planet with similar composition, albedo, gravity and solar irradiance would probably be 'like' the Earth, just like I am 'like' my brother

If the Earth were closer or farther from our Sun there could be no life. Our placement is unique.

With respect, this is probably utter rubbish.

The Earth's climate (and conditions) could vary quite a bit before life-as-we-know-it was not possible; indeed life probably started when it WAS quite different from now. And there are strong reasons to believe life-as-we-speculate-it could form in vastly different conditions subject to its ability to pass on 'genetic' information with modification.

I don't see how anyone can claim that life evolved elsewhere without evidence.
You see, they can't

Yes they can. One can claim anything one likes. Whether it is a reasonable claim, one that is supported by evidence, is a different thing.

Your claim that life on Earth is unique and that there will be nothing like it elsewhere is not supported either way by the evidence (absence for evidence not being evidence for absence is a lot more palatable claim when we are talking about stuff billions of miles away we could not reasonably have evidence of yet), but is not supported by a better grasp of cosmology and biology, and an awareness of the danger of anthropic thinking.

While there is no evidence for life elsewhere, this is to be expected at this time, and cosmology and biology give reasonable certainty to claims life has probably developed elsewhere.

An organism living in the icy upper atmosphere of a gas giant, with ammonia taking the place of water in its biology, would gaze at hard rocky planets close to its sun and dismiss them as possible sites for life due to their searing heat and total absence of liquid ammonia!

To put it simply, just because we are here and can wonder at our existence and note how our environment is perfect for us does not mean other organisms with markedly different chemistry's and requirements for life do not wonder at their existence and note how their environment is perfect for them. Natural selection means we are 'perfectly' adapted for our environments, so of course it seems like they are perfect for us.

And don't make the mistake of thinking ven really smart physicists are good sources of answers for largely biological questions. Well, apart from Feynmann, but he's dead.

Paralipomenon

Overlooked? Mmmm.... or not noticed, like we don't notice ants even though we know they are there?

9

If you think it's "possible" for extraterrestrials...

by FreedomFrog in

jw
friends

why would you feel it's not probable for spirits or ghosts?.

my question came when i read this thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/140402/1.ashx.

i was reading the thread from auldsoul and i couldn't help but wonder this question.

Abaddon

Well, maybe it is because we know physical organisms exist and that some are intelligent.

Given our understanding of the Universe and biology, we can say that we are unlikely to be the only planet with life in the Univese and that it is also unlikely to be no other intelligent life in the Universe.

Spirits, ghosts etc have not been proved in the same way physical organisms can be proven to exist. Not once, not ever.

Therefore it is quite reasonable to scoff at the idea of ghosts as wild and unproven speculation and speculate to some extent reasonably about intelligent life on other planets.

21

Islamic Sharia law, Gods law or just barbaric law

by barry in

jw
friends

i beleive with muslims voicing their opinions so openly its time for the average joe out there to be informed about sharia law.

the law they beleive has come from allah and is the most superiour law on the face of the earth today.this issue.

s. the link is http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html.

Abaddon

Barry

Wouldn't it be nice if we could have a discussion about the unspeakable without lowering ourselves to the same level?

I hope Merry posts here shes got some explaining to do, maybe she willl place a fatwa on me.

Yeah, nice one Barry, and I suppose someone saying you will take out a contract on anyone who disagrees with you makes their argument a good one?

So, let's see what we are going on about;

Traditional Islam has some horrible laws and can behave in a beastly manner towards people. Oh, hang on, I meant to say "Christianity'.

Well, no, I didn't, I'm just making an obvious point.

All the distaste and disgust about Islamic Law can be applied to the Bible for exactly the same reasons, although I don't remember Sharia Law specifying death as a punishment for not wearing a tasseled fringe...

Now, most Bible followers today would get stoned before they stoned someone.

But three or four generations ago Christian nations treated women like chattel, children as having no rights of their own, and viewed other religions as primitive savagery, and people of non-European races as inferior. Hell, the UK went to war with China to force China to allow the import of Opium!! A few more generations further back and we kept slaves and disemboweled or burnt people as punishments.

Many parts of the Islamic world are at a stage of social development our part of the world was back in the generations I'm talking about.

Mobile phones and cars and Nike do not change a culture over night.

Do you imagine a Victorian gentleman with slaves, a wife he could legally beat, and the habit of patronising a child brothel thought that he was evil and uncivilised? Of course not! He was a god-fearing respectable member of society!

Do you think a quick chat, and a Nokia and a Mercedes would convince him that slavery was wrong, that women should own their own property and vote, and that children should be protected?

No, of course not, his cultural prejudices would run far deeper than that.

And so it is today in some parts of the Islamic world; it's a few generations behind ours in its sociological development. Unlike the Christian world, no credible secularist movement has reached ascendancy - a few countries like Turkey and Tunisia are trying, and others lag far behind.

Just as it was in Victorian times, some people in the Islamic world do not subscribe to the more brutal beliefs and punishments their societies have. Just as in the Christian world they work from within to overcome it.

And not one word of the Bible has changed whilst the Christian world became secular. And not one word of the Qu'ran shall change when the Islamic world becomes secular.

Because it isn't about religion, it is all about culture; as volubly shown by seeing how Christianity is expressed differently by different cultures and how Islam also is expressed differently by different cultures - both today and over time.

You can view Islam as different in nature if you want, but I would be interested in seeing you dismiss the points of similarity with our own society in the past and the likely future trends for Islam our own society has already experienced.

72

Are you an a-xenist?

by AuldSoul in

jw
friends

"xeno" is a common taxonomical designation for aliens (strangers) including extraterrestrials.. are you someone who lacks belief in intelligent extraterrestrial beings?

do you believe it is possible that such extraterrestrial beings exist?

do you think it is possible or likely that our planet has had interactions with extraterrestrials?.

Abaddon

AuldSoul

Are you someone who lacks belief in intelligent extraterrestrial beings?

Well, if by belief you mean an assured expectation, yes, I lack an assured expectation. I merely consider it quite probable.

Do you believe it is possible that such extraterrestrial beings exist? Likely?

Possible, yes. Likely; most reasonable statistical analyses indicate it is likely, but much of the calculation is based upon assumptions we can not validate yet, so the statistical analyses are not very robust.

Do you think it is possible or likely that our planet has had interactions with extraterrestrials?

There is no evidence for this. If we break down 'interaction with our planet' into different classes of interaction I can answer that question meaningfully;

If there ARE intelligent aliens;

It is likely our planet is known to them, the likelihood falling with the distance between their world/worlds/starships and ours, and raising with the technological sophistication and age of their civilisation. Example; any radio-age + civilisation within 50-100 light years is likely to know of our existence. A vastly ancient and sophisticated civilisation with non-FTL transport systems based on the opposite side of the galaxy is unlikely to know of our existence.

As to visits to our planet, this breaks down into two basic scenarios;

FTL possible
FTL not possible.

Each scenario further divides into 'Low cost of interstellar transport' and 'high cost'.

By high cost I mean major fractions of GDP. By low cost I mean private ventures are possible.

FTL possible + low cost = high probability

Non-FTL + high cost = low probability

... with a spectrum of various probabilities between the scenarios.

The basic probability above would be adjusted according to the distance from the civilisation and the age of the civilisation.

Example; if there are aliens on Alpha Centaruri's planets (assume there are suitable planets in that system), cost of interstellar transport is low and FTL exists, then alien sightings are probably the result of drunk alien teenagers from Alpha having a laugh winding up silly monkeys. If cost is high, there is no FTL, and the nearest civilisation to us is around Deneb, then it is unlikely we have been visited.

As so much of the above is speculation and as there is no evidence we have been visited, it would seem safer to assume 'no'.

Assuming 'yes' in the absence of hard evidence requires a fervent belief in Star Trek like civilisations with low cost of FTL transport, and a assumption there would be a sound business case or philosophical inclination to add will to ability. It seems to assume we are extraordinary, whereas if there is intelligent alien life, we are probably barely worth knowing if at all.

Do you think it is possible or likely that primitive peoples encountered Gods and/or Goddesses possessed of incomprehensible capabilities?

As I could be a god to a stone-age civilisation who had no contact with other humans, them thinking they had encountered gods or goddesses seem to be irrelevant. An idiot with a torch could be god.

Could our special advancement have been aided along by benefactors of an extra-earthly origin?

Special advancement? Please prove 'special advancement', starting with a definition of what it is.

I am very wary of Gene Roddenberryesque human elitistism that assumes we are special (us showing Vulcans how to make a multi-species intergalactic Empire, humans being just so damn clever and foxy compared to Klingons and Romulans even if they have older civilisations).

It is just a tarted-up form of Eugenics (beloved of another Sci-Fi writer) where 'the African' is replaced by 'the Alien'.

Each tribe tends to assume they are somehow superior to the others near them (often the tribal name is 'the people' in their native tongue, as if the other tribes aren't quite people).

Each nation tends to assume they are somehow superior to others.

We should be growing out of this, not now believing that somehow humans are special compared to other intelligent species elsewhere (or even unintelligent ones on this planet).

Of course, you might have a reason why you consider humans have 'Special advancement'. I'd be interested to know what it is.

111

I REALLY DON'T CARE...............................

by Warlock in

i believe in god, but i also realize he may not exist.. if you don't believe in god, i really don't care, i'm just curious.. i don't have this need to start threads like "why you must believe in god", or other such nonsense, but some of you still have this "control" issue that you thought you left in the org.

it seems like you must still try to control what others think.

"think like me, or you are an idiot.

Abaddon

Warlock

How can my own death NOT be proof, TO ME, whether God exists or not?

Forget it Warlock, it obviously escapes you. At least you're smart enough to avoid embarrassing yourself anymore by actually responding properly. You rather obviously like dishing it out, but don't like getting it back. Poor diddums.

ninja

Well, you know what they say about bullies...

dobbie

If anyone actually reads what I say across various threads, it's fairly clear I don't mind people disagreeing with me. It is their right, just as it is my right to disagree with them.

Thus is after all a discussion board, not an agreement board; there's plenty of places people can go to have their personal belief system unquestioningly validated. I just wonder why some people want to make this forum a place where their personal belief system can be unquestioningly validated.

I am quite happy for people to believe in what I consider to be nonsense. I won't lie to them or pander to them and make out otherwise. I do not think someone's (to me) silly beliefs should be treated any differently just because they claim they are a 'religious' belief.

What is very obvious is a certain mindset of poster that expects beliefs to be pandered to even in the absence of hard evidence. They expect, despite a total inability to provide differentiation, to have beliefs about god treated differently from beliefs about fairies. And they deeply resent anyone questioning their illogicity.

Even when someone tries to point out that it is the religious nut-jobs with their literalistic, elitist drivel who really attract the harsh criticism of 'atheists', not the modern religious believer, they still try and make out they are being oppressed. It's like a Monty Python sketch;

Believer; "I believe you oppress my beliefs"
Nonbeliever; "No I don't"
Believer; Oh! Come and see the oppression inherent in secularism! Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

And to my vast and continuing amusement these are the very same people who fling accusations about religious mentalities.

111

I REALLY DON'T CARE...............................

by Warlock in

i believe in god, but i also realize he may not exist.. if you don't believe in god, i really don't care, i'm just curious.. i don't have this need to start threads like "why you must believe in god", or other such nonsense, but some of you still have this "control" issue that you thought you left in the org.

it seems like you must still try to control what others think.

"think like me, or you are an idiot.

Abaddon

Warlock

I love the way you whine like a four-year old girl when your passive-aggressive anti-athiestic posturing gets the treatment it calls out for. I am sure having this level of resentment cannot be good for your heart.

I also notice how you evade the issues instead of responding to them. No comment what-so-ever on me pointing out what some religious people take as being applied to them is really applied to the nut jobs; well, of course you'd avoid doing anything like agreeing with me or even trying to find common ground. You decided long ago I was an 'enemy' and in your petty little world that's where reason ends.

So much so you often don't even read or understand what I have said. What difference oes it make? You're trying to prove a point here, LOL.

I said proof TO ME, not to you. Secondly, I didn't say "when I ALMOST DIE", I said WHEN I die.

Now, read what I wrote again and this time do it slower so you understand. I wasn't talking about YOU having a NDE. Nowhere do I say that. Try reading what I wrote, eh? And no where was I talking about anything being proved to me either. Again, try reading what I wrote to avoid embaressing yourself.

I was talking about your last thoughts being like a NDE, as it is reasonable to suppose a DE is like a NDE but without the N.

As such, your last thoughts in your DE would be based on experiences like a NDE, which are most often what a person's beliefs would have them expect.

Thus you would, maybe, see the tunnel of light etc. doo-laly that the brain often produces in believers when they die (due to physiological conditions giving inputs that are interpretted by prexisting beliefs). In your nearly dead state you might well experience a gloating satisfaction that Pascal's wager worked well for you before conciousness ceased. It's about your level.

But if that 'proved' anything to you, like I said, "your standard of proof is sorely inadequate", unless you consider someone on the verge of brain death a reliable witness.

I mean, if NDE's are dictated by belief, then it seems they are internal, i.e. based on a facet of our imagination. The idea that they are external is silly; god must then be awfully indecisive, pulling people up and down tunnels willy-nilly, and also willing to be a Muslim god, a Hindu god or a Christian god according to the beliefs of the dying person.

I am sorry if me making a simple point (if the experiences of survivors of NDE's are anything to go by you might think you had proof for god before your brain stopped working but it wouldn't be) is so taxing for you.

How do you know of ANYTHING that I have learned in life?

By the way you act and the things you say. If all you could do with an afterlife is haunt atheists you have a grudge against, you really are sad and obviously would benefit from re-incarnation to maybe get some better karma.

What I highlighted in my original post is the problem that you and Abaddon have. CONTROL. You hide it under the guise of "we just need to correct foolish belief and thought", just like a J.W. "Sir, your religion is misleading you. See.....right here...........read this scripture along with me".

And slack-jawed uncritical acceptence of nonsense is a good thing? I don't care if people believe in utter nonsense; on a cult-survivor board I consider it wholey appropriate to mention if someone is believing nonsense. Whether someone believes what I say is up to them. Me not saying anything, would be, by my morals, bad.

Or would you let someone eat shit or stick their hand in a fire or invest in a 419 scam because you didn't want to be controlling?

I think this has far more to do with you having a grudge against reasonably educated, confident people and want more attention for yourself. No doubt you will now tell me all about how educated you are, and how setting yourself up as the defender of the board against funky and Abaddon even into the afterlife is modesty on your part...

Mary

I've got a three and a half hour drive ahead of me so will add any further info after the weekend;

http://www.drdjnicholls.clara.net/phd/intro.htm

This site is now a bit broken; I can't find the text I wanted and bookmarked the site for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Death_Studies

"NDE-researchers have also found that the NDE is not a uniquely western experience. The core experience seems to be similar across cultures, but the details of the experience (figures, beings, scenery), and the interpretation of the experience, varies a lot from culture to culture (Mauro, 1992)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience

... and obviously it goes without saying that most atheists are raised theists, and say 'oh god!' when annoyed or shocked. Outside of a Pratchettian god which allows each to have the after-life they believed in, it would appear the most safe conclusion is that NDE's prove nothing other than the continued and millenia-long failure of theists to prove a damn thing, and the equally long habit of them blaming non-theists for it.

111

I REALLY DON'T CARE...............................

by Warlock in

i believe in god, but i also realize he may not exist.. if you don't believe in god, i really don't care, i'm just curious.. i don't have this need to start threads like "why you must believe in god", or other such nonsense, but some of you still have this "control" issue that you thought you left in the org.

it seems like you must still try to control what others think.

"think like me, or you are an idiot.

Abaddon

Mary

I can get some people with PhD's believe in god; their PhD might not be in a subject that exposes them to the very strong arguments that every traditional concept of god is stuff and nonsense. They might be of a background where free enquiry into beliefs they have grown up with is not encouraged. They might be stunningly erudite about their field of expertise, but shy away from examining their religious beliefs. I know of really quite well educated JW's who pull this trick off.

I was struck recently by Anne Rice's account of her turn-around in belief; that I do not get. She grew-up Catholic but became an atheist. In the 1990's she underwent a gradual transition back to theist culminating with her rejoining the Catholic Church again. In her recent book about Jesus as a boy, she recounts this, and the reasons why.

Now Anne Rice is a very smart lady. She has read LOADS. She knew all the reasons why she became an atheist. She is open-minded (few grandmothers write more about sex! Especially gay sex!).

Yet read her explanation for her becoming a Catholic again and you wonder why. She quotes various writers who 'helped' her on their way, but actual hard evidence causing her re-conversion? Not a thing. She just became convinced by the arguments of Biblical Apologists whereas before she believed in Biblical Criticism, yet seems to have ignored the rather important point that Biblical Apologetics starts with a presupposition of the Bible's ability to differentiate itself from other so called 'Holy' books. Which cannot be proved, unless you include the Book of Mormon.

Personally I think linking education or intelligence to belief or disbelief in god is fallacious. Stupid people are atheists. Stupid people are theists. People with poor secular educations are atheists. People with poor secular educations are theists.

Let the arguments stand on their own without distracting bullshit. Which brings us to...

Warlock

If God claims to be a spirit creature, hence invisible, how can anyone confirm his existence?

If I claim to have a spirit 12" penis, hence invisible, how can anyone confirm its existence?

Insofar as being happy about possibly being wrong, at least I admit I could be wrong. How about you? I doubt it.

Is the reason you go for the ad hom due to the fact you have no argument regarding the existence of god that is worth hearing, or because they are all as easily lampoonable as the above?

How many times a day do you "check" your beliefs, especially the one concerning Gods existence?

Are you suggesting god might have sprung into existence between mid-morning and lunchtime? I mean, after breakfast I was pretty sure god didn't exist, I didn't realise vast all-powerful entities were so quantum.

What will prove to me whether God exists or not, will be my death.

No it won't. Look into Near Death Experiences. Survivors of NDE typically report experiences in line with their beliefs. You have a belief in god, and will probably, as your brain shuts down for good, experience for entirely physiological reasons sensations you will, due to your beliefs, interpret as proof of god's existence. You might think for a fleeting second that god's existence has been proved before your brain stops being capable of thought in any meaningful fashion, but if that is your standard of proof your standard of proof is sorely inadequate.

If he does exist, and if he will allow me, I will positively come back and haunt you, and Abaddon.

LOL. And thus show us that you learned nothing in life, and that god considers petulant childish actions a good use of your time. And as Funky points out, this has never happened, ever, to anyone. Dawkins would probably never sleep if even one half of one percent of the dead god-botherers who would have liked to give him a good haunting actually did haunt him.

Of course, this is not proof that god doesn't exist, it may merely be proof god is not as petty and childish as some of his believers.

10

Metallica Suing Again

by Nosferatu in

jw
friends

http://www.dailygaming.net/index.php?name=news&file=article&sid=230 .

metallica sues red octane/activision & harmonix for copyright infringement .

posted by: andrew on tuesday, august 14, 2007 - 12:49 pm .

Abaddon

What did U2 do?

You need to ask? Don't they make you itch? They take themselves far too seriously for a start. But the looser-tude of U2 is dull subject. They've writeen some good songs even if they are a bunch of annoying tosswads.

10

Metallica Suing Again

by Nosferatu in

jw
friends

http://www.dailygaming.net/index.php?name=news&file=article&sid=230 .

metallica sues red octane/activision & harmonix for copyright infringement .

posted by: andrew on tuesday, august 14, 2007 - 12:49 pm .

Abaddon

Metallica are up there with U2 and the Manic Street Preachers for being bands that are utter wank who have made some good music.

All three bands run the risk of generating a singularity that will pull the Earth into a black hole when they disappear up their own arses one day...

111

I REALLY DON'T CARE...............................

by Warlock in

i believe in god, but i also realize he may not exist.. if you don't believe in god, i really don't care, i'm just curious.. i don't have this need to start threads like "why you must believe in god", or other such nonsense, but some of you still have this "control" issue that you thought you left in the org.

it seems like you must still try to control what others think.

"think like me, or you are an idiot.

Abaddon

Warlock

Why do some of you non-believers have this starving need to tell others why they should not believe in God?

Because we see people believing in god for silly reasons that do not stand up to examination, or having silly beliefs about god that do not stand up to examination, or as funky points out, telling big fat lies even if only through ignorance.

"I believe in the Lord God because Jesus appeared to me, and I know we have to follow the Bible as God's literal word because it is true and accurate"

- is a good example of the kind of slack-jawed nonsense some people come up with.

Obviously a person who thinks this assumes;

All other visions by all other people of all other entities are false
All other visions by all other people of the same entity saying something contradictory are false

They thus place themselves in a special group yet are unable to provide any data that differentiates their paranormal experience from others they reject as false. This is not just silly, it is vain, delusional and often dangerous to other's liberty or happiness.

A person believing the above example to be true also obviously assumes almost everything we know about the world around is is wrong. Even though science works quite well with light bulbs, Space Shuttles, computers, nuclear power, brain surgery, etc., the minute the Bible contradicts it the Bible is true and science is false. They have no evidence to support such claims and ignore the evidence showing how silly their claims are for the most ludicrous of reasons.

Now, I admit the example given above is of the sort of religious person many other religious people run screaming from, but this is the sort of religious person that much of the "why they should not believe in God" stuff is directed at, because they believe in ideas of god that are just plain silly, offensive, or downright dangerous, and it's fun to play slap the fundy.

Most of the religious people here have far more liberal ideas about god, and would neither claim exclusivity of divine revelation or sole accurate interpretation. As they don't behave like idiots or believe idiotic things they don't get treated like idiots.

However, they get their feathers ruffled; invariably when you attack silly unreasonable beliefs in god some people who retain vauge beliefs in god feel their faith is under attack, even though their sort of faith (inoffensive and vague) is not under attack.

They're not really under fire; I could care less if someone believes in a non-sexist, non-homophobic, non-racist god who isn't an irrational unfair monster, or if they believe god made things the way they are but that it used the processes we see evidence for rather than magic.

I don't know why people in this category feel under fire when it is really the lowest form of Fundy or irrational idiot who IS actually under fire. Maybe it is because they have to rely on faith? And when you attack the beliefs of a Fundy Christian or Muslim, unfundy Christians or Muslims do not have hard evidence to support their beliefs, only a different species of belief to that held by their Fundy coreligionist.

Now, answer me this;

Why do certain religious people (group A, i.e. modern liberal belief) feel compelled to defend other religious people (group B) against having their beliefs questioned even if there is a vast difference between group A and group B's beliefs, often to such an extent that group B would say that group A are not proper believers?

I think secular people (group C) and many believers in god (group A again) have FAR more in common in terms of their beliefs about how one should act towards their fellow man and how society should work than those in group B (the fundies).

Yet group A and B stick together even when A and C would make better partners.

Why? I can speculate, but I'd like religious people's take on it.