Posts by Abaddon

40

Isn't This an Incredible Design?

by Perry in

.

the parrot flower.

.

Abaddon

Perry

Humans can appreciate the beauty of the bowers built by bower birds see it as different and more attractive than normal bird-built structures and female plumage. Female bower birds can see the same differences, and can finely judge the differences in attractiveness between various male's bowers. As this is the case your claim "The ability to appreciate and know beauty is unique to our species" is wrong. The bower bird example is just one of a number of example at least as large as the number of bird species where the male has brighter plumage

The posession of morality

Oh for Pete's sake. Vampire bats have forms of morality. So does my cat; she looks guilty when she's doing something she knows she isn;t allowed to do, even if she thinks no-one is watching her. "Morality" as in the existence of a correct set of actions for a situation exists in many species. Your ignorance of this is not an indication of it being of divine origin, yet like they say "Omne Ignotum Pro Magnifico Est".

We neither fit in the animal kingdom, nor God's kingdom.

I can prove we fit in the animal kingdom. You cannot prove either way whether we fit in god's kingdom or not.

Humans live in a persistent state of desperation

Speak for yourself. Just because you need an imaginary friend to make your existence enjoyable doesn't mean we all do.

Darwinism is so shapeless that it can be enlisted in support of any cause whatsoever.

As Christianity has been enlisted in support of any cause whatsoever (slavery, misogyny, genocide) it must be shapeless too. Of course, just as you claim bad things like those I list are not from Christianity but were people misrepresenting what Christianity is, so I will claim things like eugenics and marxism are not from evolution but were people misrepresenting what evolution is.

Both selfishness and (with a little mathematical ingenuity) altruism can be given a Darwinian twist.

Or a Christian one.

nor does the imagined historical scenario have to leave any trace behind.

Your lack of introspection in even saying this, given your beliefs, is astounding.

So in Darwinian "logic", if an organism possesses features that appear on the surface to be inconvenient, such as the peacock's tail or the top-heavy antlers of a moose, the existence of moose and peacocks proves that these animals are in fact fit!

Perry, don't you feel you have more to lose than win by chuntering on about a subject to an extent that reveals how little you know about a subject? I see that your limited reading into evolution skipped over sexual selection, and that also you seem to miss that some phenologies may indicate fit genologies, and that those females of the species who select those phenologies (sexual selection) may unwittingly be selecting for fitness. Human intelligence probably arose as a result of sexual selection. As did the shape and structure of
the human penis. More Omne Ignotum me thinks.

Convince you that they speak for God.

And you differ from the Borg in what respect Perry?

Unless you are willing to accept that you may be wrong in what you say about god and the Bible you area no better than the Witnesses. Do you accept that you may be wrong Perry?

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

Thanks for getting back to the thread.

In this area I would like to point out that the attitude I get from many muslim people and from a thread earlier by Merry that there is no negotiation with the Islamic law of god what is written in the Quran.

And this is another point of similarity with Christian beiefs; at least with the beliefs of some Christians today, and definately with Christian beliefs viewed a few hundred years ago.

And there are some Muslims today who approach the Qu'ran in the same way as modern Christians approach the Bible.

Proper literary criticism of the Bible did not start until the late 18th Century. It's taken over two hundred years for our culture to get close to disengaging from slavish literalism. Islam has barely even started the process. Those Muslims today who do not take the Bible literally are in the same position as those Christians with the self same attitude to the Bible in the early 1800's. A persecuted minority. Another two hundred years previously Christians barbequed other Christians who didn't believe exactly the same as them.

But we fortunately do not have to wait 200 years for Islam to catch up. Just as the place of women in society in Western culture changed, not because of men giving women rights, but because of women taking them, and because women had to become economically active to sustain development, so to will the place of women change in the Islamic world - even if some Western converts don't help the process by accepting the traditional roles assigned to them by male written tradition and law.

Given a choice between economic stagnation and making women economically active, greed will win out, and once women start earning like men very rapidly will expect to be treated like men. Even if their men tell them god wants them to be sweet and sumissive - just as Christian men did and Islamisc men do.

Whether or not Jesus removed us from the Mosaic arrangement has nothing to do with changes in Christian society these past two hundred years, and even if Jesus did remove us from the Mosaic arrangement, Christians were following many restrictive laws and customs based upon their beliefs two hundred years ago that they generally no longer follow. Christian countries administered brutal and brutish punishments and some still do.

All of this changed due to secularism, not reexamination of the New Testament by religious authorities and them insisting on an end to slavery, captial punishment and institutionalised misogyny.

the Muslim will find it much harder or impossible to change because of their very rigid super fundamentalist position

But that is the attitude the Christian world used to have Barry. It would seem you approach this from a presuppositon that there is a difference in the degree of 'god inspiration' between the Bible and the Qua'ran. Such sectarian favouritism cannot be justified to secular people; we see no difference between the two as far as 'truth' goes.

35

What kind of positive proof would you need....

by journey-on in

jw
friends

to accept the existence of god?

(i'm not talking about "a big man in the sky" kind of deity.

) what would it take to convince you that mankind was intentionally created by a powerful and intelligent creative force?

Abaddon

The same order of proof I have for my chickens.

I do not get the 'I have proof in prayer' thing. Why do people who say this not realise that Odin, Thor, Zeus, Zoraster, Mithras, Baal, Baron Samedi, and a host of other supposed divine entities have proved themselves to their followers in prayer or the equivalent thereof. Or at least their followers thought they did...

17

Life on Mars

by Anti-Christ in

i don't know if this has been discussed before but what if we find life on mars?

what do you all think would happen to bible based religion if we discover life on mars?

and a question for bible believers what would change in your belief if there is such a discovery?

Abaddon

Well, as religous belief requires no proof and many forms of it exist in the face of contrary proof, I don't think much will change.

Some will have beliefs that already allow this possibility.

Some will allow their beliefs in a Creator to move to a Creator of life on many planets, even if they don't believe that now and would argue against it in the absense of proof.

Others will deny the evidence. Believe me, if people can ignore the evidence of evolution now and in the past, a few microbes on Mars are easily denied.

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

Merry

Barry seems to prefer being able to voice negative opinions unopposed, if his sudden silence is anything to go by.

How are you? I hope all is well with you.

I think we can dispense with Apologetics for Sharia Law; I am opposed to a law system that utilises capital punishment and institutionalises misogyny on grounds of human rights, and find it rather offensive that without any substansive proof what-so-ever human opinion and tradition are asserted to be "god's law".

Such arguments may placate you, but as a humanist why should I find them of any relevence? Your protestations as to how equal you may or may not feel don't change my opinion, any more than a slave telling me what a good master he had would convince me slavery was okay. The slave may feel better off, protected. But from my view point he's a slave and his argument doesn't change that.

Should I 'let' Northern Afican Muslims circumsize their daughters as they believe it is god's law? Should I 'let' people from the 'Children of God' cult have sex with children because they believe it is god's law? Should I 'let' fundamental Christians distort science to restrict school curricilums because they believe it is god's law?

If the answer to the above is 'no', as it obviously is, why should I 'let' Muslims enforce a law system that violates human rights just because they say it is god's law?

But you know yourself that a Muslim in one place can practice a form of Islam substansively different from another somewhere else. Whilst you know intellectually that it is a morass, a fog of human interpretation and cultural leanings (rather than monolithic observance of God's Law without variation) you quite literally avoid thinking about this.

Last time when we were discussing the veil I saw a similar tendancy. You simultaneously feel that the veil is god's law, but will not criticise other Muslim women who don't wear it. If I recall correctly you don't even get into the argument the veil is a cultural thing, despite the masses of evidence from the Muslim world and from areas where for centuries Muslim, Jewish and Christian women living side-by-side were veiled. You simply make apolgisms for following a traditional regional clothing code.

Since we last discussed things I spent a delightful week in Egypt. The people are friendly and kind, easy to talk to. And then a waiter runs off to show you a photo of his 14 year-old wife...

Of course, he's no more a pedophile than Jerry Lee Lewis, or other Americans marrying distastfully young girls when the law still allowed it. But it is a bit shocking.

You have the luxery of taking on what you like of a religion in an environment where there are no negative consqunces if you turn away and do your own thing.

To thus make apologisms for Sharia is a little too easy for you to make it palitable for me. To wear a veil when here is no Qu'ranic basis for it rather than showing someone can live a life as a unveiled female Muslim and thus maybe in your small way help Muslim women who don't have your freedom get closer to getting those freedoms is likewise somehow distasteful.

You strike me as a nice person, but I just can't agree with you actions and thoughts in this respect.

Muslims still have a right and a duty to live by the laws of their religion as best they can

But whose definiton of Islamic Law Merry? You keep hiding from the fact that there is no single indisputable definiton of this, and thus in your rush to have god as you'd like him do nothing more than worship man-made laws.

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

Beautifully put point Paralipomenon.

Obviously Terry is perfectly entitled to an opinion. I can't help but think 'can't happen' is less supportable than 'might happen' and just re-stating an argument and taking no real effort to address the faults in that argument is not going to change that.

Terry, you seem to miss that a sentient observer capable of asking such a question might arise on other planets, and say exactly the same things. Might. To say it can't requires bigger leaps of faith than to say it might.

There probably will be solar systems with planets that can support forms of life that could achieve sentience and develop technology. Such planets are below the limits of observability in other solar systems at this time; we can only 'see' super gas giants today, and I am for the sack of argument excluding any possibility of gas giants developing life with intelligent technology-using societies. Soon we could well prove this point.

Humans exist is just because that's how things turned out. The dominant sentient species with a technological society could have been descendant of marmosets or sea otters, for example. The factors which lead to the development of human sentience could have happened in other species, as they are more to do with sexual selection than survival to be able to breed; it wasn't our environment or specific (as in no others possibly could) ancestery that made us smart, it was what the females found attractive that made us smart. That was just happen-chance; females liking big colourful tails is nothing to do (directly) with fitness to survive - it's a bloody liability - it didn't really help Peacocks become more intelligent. What females pre-humans liked, selected in a mate, made humans become intelligent.

So just as there could be a planet with a guy called Terry ("Slayer of Empires" in T'chakian) with hydrogen peroxide mixed with the water in his body and 7 tentacles saying there isn't any where else life could evolve, a 6' tall marmoset called Terry ("Gatherer of nuts" in Chk!-Chk!--Ch~~~llk!) could be telling his kid that whilst showing them the giant chimps (Pan Terrestalis, one of three species in the Genus Pongo, see P. paniscus and P.troglodytes) at the Zoo.

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

Para

I'd noticed that as well and cut back a rather cutting paragraph in my last reply to him as I thought a bit of benefit of the doubt was easy enough to give.

However, it has to be said, for a professed atheist Terry seems to truely consider giving (it out) is better than receiving (it back); he tried to make out he said what I said which I don't think he really thought for a moment, and either engages in similar obfustication or total evasion than admit to a weakness or error in argument.

Come on Terry, you have brains, use 'em. This disingenuousness gets old very quickly and people DO notice it.

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

A Dutch scientist (says German in link but a name like Joop Houtkooper is Dutch even if he works in Germany) has just announced he believes a re-analysis of Viking (1970's Mars mission by USA) data supports some Martian soil being of biological origin, one which would see Hydrogen Peroxide use with water in the cells of the organism to prevent freezing.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/08/23/mars.soil.life.reut/

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

Are we to imagine you've said anything different than I said?

Yes "we" are.

You say that if the Earth were closer to or further from the Sun there could be no life.

I am saying our familiar forms of life could exist;

with a significant +/- to climate (c. synomonous with orbital distance as this is the largest driving factor in climate),
that life started with climate different from now (i.e. life could start at another orbital distance, as the same climate could result as a consequence of different atmospheric conditions or the same atmospheric conditions and a different orbit),
and that different life could exist at different orbits.

So yes, "one" can not only imagine but provide proof that I said something different to you.

But as I think you know this I am surprised you even ask.

42

I'm an atheist, so why does some religious music move me so much?

by nicolaou in

jw
friends

i often find myself playing george harrison's 'my sweet lord' while i'm at my pc and i can't help but resonate with his genuine, heartfelt devotion, his appeal to christ or krishna.

the way he opens and pours out his heart to his 'lord' is inspiring.

a while back, i went to a catholic church to see two friends renew their wedding vows.

Abaddon

AH, George Harrison, bless him.

He was enlightened.

As far as I have taken the trouble to inform myself, his religious beliefs were, to me, complete and utter bollocks.

But he got there. Here Comes the Sun is another example. The wonder, the joy, the benigness. Similar feelings to my Sweet Lord but approachable without any requirement of belief in anything other than sunny days are a goodness after the cold of winter, and isn't everything like that?

Music with lyrics can carry an emotional and intellectual impact from the lyrics.

So can the music alone.

Ask anyone with a degree in Music how to make people feel a certain way with music they'll tell you. They can tell me why a certain bit of Jackie's Strength make me want to cry from the music alone.

The desired destination of any reasonable atheist or theist is the same; a good life in peace with one's neighbours in a world where kindness and hope prevail. Is it any surprise the same emotions in music, whether lyrical or musical impact us the same way?