Posts by Abaddon

4

Everything is obvious when you want to believe...

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

some weekend cheer, regarding the flat earth society;.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm.

people living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

Abaddon

Some weekend cheer, regarding the FLat Earth Society;

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

32

What do you think would happen if aliens landed?

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

let's paint a little picture.. it's spring 2002. at 1200h gmt a radio and tv announcement is broadcast on almost all conventional frequencies, in appropriate formats according to the medium and the area.. it's from a bunch of pale violet humaniods who have come "in peace for all qw'z'x>kind".

they say they want to meet up with the un in full cnongress.. disbelief rapidly turns to amasement when cnn and other news-services provide footage of a large alien vessel descending into the river near the un.

large in this case means 5km long... and wisely, none of the sac jets sent to have a look pull a will smith or anything stupid, although one gets nudgeed gently away by an invisable beam of some sort when it gets too close.. let's say it becomes apparent the aliens are utter benign, happy to hand out technological aid, scientific knowledge, and hope to welcome the people of earth to your typical peaceful federation of planets (about 5,00 different species all told).. how do you think people would react?

Abaddon

Let's paint a little picture.

It's spring 2002. At 1200h GMT a radio and TV announcement is broadcast on almost all conventional frequencies, in appropriate formats according to the medium and the area.

It's from a bunch of pale violet humaniods who have come "In peace for all Qw'z'x>kind". They say they want to meet up with the UN in full cnongress.

Disbelief rapidly turns to amasement when CNN and other news-services provide footage of a large alien vessel descending into the river near the UN. Large in this case means 5km long... and wisely, none of the SAC jets sent to have a look pull a Will Smith or anything stupid, although one gets nudgeed gently away by an invisable beam of some sort when it gets too close.

Let's say it becomes apparent the aliens are utter benign, happy to hand out technological aid, scientific knowledge, and hope to welcome the people of earth to your typical peaceful federation of planets (about 5,00 different species all told).

How do you think people would react? How would religious people react? What if they greet enquiries as to the existence of god with a cough and a polite smile, and a comment along the lines of 'well, we believed that sort of thing 2,000 year ago, there's no need to be embaressed, it's a natural part of a societies development'?

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

19

Nothing has changed

by Norm in

jw
friends

having read some of the posts in the military tribunal thread make me wonder about the perspective of the american population in general.

it seems to be more egocentric then ever.

the understandable outrage and indignation caused by the despicable and horrible acts on 9/11 seem to have caused little or no global perspective.

Abaddon

I think I agree with expatbrit AND Norm.

... only dead Americans and Israelis ranks as tragedies. Palestinian and Afghani civilians seem to deserve to die a violent death

Norm is straight down the line with this. If I was an Arab, I'd think the Israeli's were murdering bastards, although I wouldn't have any beef with America, other than for them SUPPORTING murdering bastards.

Muslim extremists do not hate America for what America has done, but for what America is. The greatest threat to their continued acquisition of power. The freedoms of America, culturally, economically, sexually; freedoms for women and non-conformists, are the antithesis of their control system. Such attitiudes spread to the Muslim world would so obviously mean their own demise.

This is also true. Ask most Arab political commentators... I've not heard one (I listen to BBC World Service all day at work and hear a lot of news) deny the cultural conflict between Islam and Westernism being a root cause.

So we have a group of people with a worldview that is incompatable with human rights (look at the Amnesty International statement about human rights infrigements AGAINST Palestinians BY Palestinians, let alone the stuff we know about other Muslim theocracies HR record, as well as the less advanced socio-political-educational indicators of many Arab countries). Some believe they can fight by any means, the enemy, which is the West in general, the USA in particular, and atheistic, single, female University graduates, with short skirts, being the image of Satan himself. Ally McBeal is Satan... cool...

This means 'we' think they are murdering scum, while 'they' think we are infidels.

'Our' backing of the Israeli reigeme, who have with Western backing carried out the most sustained campaign of ethnic cleansing and aparthied since WWII, makes Arabs in general take everything we say with a pinch of salt. We haul Slobodan Milosovich off to the Hauge, and yet someone they see in the same light is Israeli PM!!

Thus, the fanatic theocrats, scared of the West as Westernisation means they lose power (having the historical decline in the power of the CHristian church as evidence), can point their followers to our lack of action in Palestine as an example of 'Western hatered of Islam' (when it's got more to do with Jewish political lobbyists, and no, it's not a Zionist conspiracy, it's just people looking after their own like humans do), and win the arguement they want to win with the ammunition we supply them... and the $5 billion of aid Israel get from the US each year, chiefly in military aid, gives the mullahs a lot of ammunition. And as the US is ipso facto World policeman, the US gets especial blame for not sorting it out.

Solution?

Well, I'm tempted to build a big wall around Palestine and Israel and let them get on with it, no aid, no arms, no food. Same with Northern Ireland. But that's not morally workable, so...

... stop aid to Israel? Bomb the fuck out of an Israeli town if there's any violence against Arabs, and visa-versa if there's violence against Israeli's. Give the $5Billion to the UN for equal distribution to Palestinians and Israelis?

Make education of women upto the age of 16 compulsory in any Muslim country wanting aid?

I've got no beef against Islam, it's just not a sociologically mature religion yet... I'm not saying Christianity is 'mature', but equality, tolerance and the wrongness of religious violence are slightly more taken for granted by more adherants to Christianity than Islam. This will change over time...

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

Abaddon

RWC:

By the way, why is it that you think we die in the first place?"

Well, we have these things called telomeres. They 'cap' our chromosomes, just like the hard plastic at the end of the shoe lace. These telomeres get shorter, and eventually allow the genetic material in the chromosomes to be degraded. This carries on, out bodies cease repairing themselves properly, and eventually, we die. Death and evolution are two different things. Evolution is about passing genes on, and the 'fitter' members of a population being more likely to pass these genes on, concentrating beneficial traits (and it's about mutation too, but that's a seperate issue). Death is what hapens, if you're fit or lucky, after you pass your genes on... it's all we're designed for, after that happens, we're done. If you are unfit, then death is a way of stopping you passing your genes on to others

Second, evolution is not the answer to the creation of the earth. In fact, most scientist who have studied the origions of life have reached the conclusion that there must be a creator.
{emphasis mine}

You have either been grossly misinformed, or are attempting to misinform. Please cite some evidence of this statement.

The odds against a sea of chemicals swirling around in such a manner to form amino acids and than proteins and than single cell organisms and than ultimantly all of the different types of animals and plants we have on earth today are astronomical. In fact, no scientist has been able to answer how it would happen, much less how DNA would be created. Evolution as the origions of life has been completely defeated.

You seem to be grossly misinformed again. Please look at the information in these URL's;

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-abiogenesis.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob.html

Even if you accept the Big Bang theory you must go back far enough in time for the beginning of the explosion and then decide how the materials got there to explode in the first place.

Even if you accept the god theory you must go back far enough in time and then decide how god got there in the first place.

Let's do a deal; I'll explain where my singularity came from completely, if you explain where your god came from completely.

Science has never been able to create something from nothing. Even single cell organisms are so complex that if you are to be intellectually honest you could not say that they were formed by random chance.

Great quote... see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html before you bandy around terms like 'intellectually honest' as though creationists by definition ARE honest and as though evolutionist by definition are dishonest. As I say above, read up on the subject. The use of the word 'random' in this context seems to indicate you've got your information from someone who looked at the chemicals and compunds involved as if they were different colour lego bricks, that all could slot together, and were equally likely or unlikely to slot together. This is incorrect. It also ignores the existence of catalysts.

Your discussion of Natural selection does not solve the problem. Unless you say that life in all its various forms began to emerge at once than the first cell had to form at some time. Did all life come from that first cell and than ultimately evolve or did multiple different types of cells form over time and create all of the different life forms we have today? Either way, the first cell of any type of life form had to exist. The question becomes how did it get there and what caused it to have DNA that was necessary for life?

Please do not be taken in by arguments that make it sound like the 'first cell' had to pop into being in a way similar to the goddess Athene sprining fullt-grown and clothed from Zeus' brow. They didn't. The first cell was the result of evolution too; the URL's above should answer some of your questions in this area, if not, ask me what you need clarified. As an opener, there are proteins that duplicate themselves... and these proteins are no more 'alive' than the ones in your steak, they've just develeped a freaky ability.

As for fossil evidence, you are mistaken when you say that fossils prove the validity of evolution. Even Darwin recognized the lack of fossil evidence for his theory and speculated that it would come over time. The truth is it hasn't. Do we have fossils of giraffes with short necks slowly getting longer, no. Do we have hippos suddenly turning into whales? no. There is a sparcity of transitional fossils which are needed to prove evolution. The truth is that giant leaps in faith are made to support the theory of evolution.

You are basing your entire arguement on material taken from creationist websites. No problem there; I'm taking mine from evolutionist websites. Difference is, your arguements are out of date and incorrect;

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Finally, I would rather put my faith and trust in the bible than in science any day. Don't forget that it was science that once told us that the world was flat and hundereds of other scientific facts that since been disproven.

No, what you had was the Roman Catholic church saying the Bible said the Earth was flat... this was about a thousand years AFTER a Greek scientist measured the diameter of the Earth, as it was quite obvious to him it was a globe. And it was the Roman Catholic church who wanted to burn the scientist who dared point out that they were worng, and the Earth orbited the sun, not the other way round. Funnily enough, the Roman Catholic church don't argue with scientists anymore... it's only adherants to more fundamentlistic, literalistic interpretations of the Bible that damage whatever message there MAY be in the Bible, by hooking it up to their determination to take a Bronze ages goatherd's worldview as their own.

You do realise you can believe in God, and Jesus, and Heaven, and Law, and not take the Bible literally?

Pom; I have already said "I apologise if I have in any way insulted you and caused you to return like for like". I was in fact very offended by your apparent interpretation, and over reacted. I felt it represented god, if there is one, in an appalling light. You might not agree with that opinion, but your reaction to what you perceived as blasphemy on my part hopefully will let you understand the emotion I felt when a saw a literalistic interpretation of the Bible conflict with my understanding of what god might be. So I apologise again, and am glad we can have a constructive conversation.

I am sorry I failed to make it clear I was trying to determine whether your use of quotation marks indicated you thought that there was a degree of qualification required when using the word victim and applying it to someone who had been raped. If you think people who are raped are 'victims' (as in, well, they probably are to blame in some way) instead of victims (people who have something they don't want to happen forced upon them), then I really think I disagree with you in a massive fashion. It might just be your use of punctuation differs from mine, but hopefully (having daughters as I do) you can understand why I wanted to be sure I understood what you meant. Us atheists can tap dance on the head of a pin too, provided there is enough room, what with the angels and everything.

It's fine to start at Genesis 1:1, but if you check my post where I went through Genesis 1, you'll see a lot doesn't give me pause, only some, so feel free to go directly to them, or start at the begining, as you feel is best.

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

20

Can Anyone Actually Live By JW Rules/Suggestions?

by Skeptic in

jw
friends

i seriously doubt that anyone could actually live strictly by the jw rules and "suggestions" give by the society and the congregation.

like the catholic church, there are now so many rules you cannot follow them all.

unlike the catholic church, the dubs to not allow you to use your head and deviate when you want.. i remember my first wife struggling to live by dub rules.

Abaddon

Rex; do I misunderstand you, or are you saying you're a young Earth Creationist... ?

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

13

Osama Bin Ladin tapes(confession)

by OUTLAW in

jw
friends

right now on cnn they are airing tapes of bin ladin talking about his dirty deed...outlaw

Abaddon

refiner fire; It must be nice to get updates from the intelligence community. How do you do it?

Sorry to be sarcastic, but I think you might be taking some bullshit artist too seriously. And quite possibly scaring some people unneccesarily.

Of course, it might be a really clever tactic to use nuclear weapons once 95% of your forces have surrendered, and when you control a fraction of a percent of the territory you formerly controlled (and that's mostly underground).

Personally I would have used nukes as a 'back off' gesture before I got my ass kicked that thoroughly, so at least I had some territory and some troops left. And if I was in a cave, I'd be damn certain using nukes would mean that I'd be breathing sarin before sunset. Kill by NBC, die by NBC (Nuclear/Biological/Chemical) is an old understanding. But, bin Laden might of just fluked carrying out the WTC thing, what with all the training and the timing and all, and want to go out in a blaze of glory.

For me, the disturbing thing was, they expected the top floors to collapse. When they saw both towers completely collapse, they praised god.

We got to be awful careful what we praise god about, I think, be it little Jimmy getting over cancer or whatever. It leads to insanity; when do you stop?

I hit return! Praise God!

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

15

Sooty and Jehovah

by Duncan in

jw
friends

a couple of years ago we took our youngest to see sooty.

anyone from the uk will instantly know who i mean sooty is a little glove-puppet bear (?

) who never speaks but has managed to turn himself, over the last 50 years or so, into a british national institution.. sooty has a couple of friends sweep the dog (always my favourite) and soo and various others who appear in his show.

Abaddon

It's a good analogy.

I actually find the fact the upper echelons are 'believers' encouraging. I'd rather be taken in by sincerity than deliberately decieved.

I think, just as we practised thought stopping techniques and struggled with cognotive dissonance, so do the upper orders.

If anything, they have greater subconcious compulsion to retain their worldview; rank and file Witnesses have to have some form of job.

Anyone who is a CO or higher is totally dependant, and the fact that if they leave they will have to start from stratch (like Ray Franz did), even more than a rank and file Witness, adds to the fear of rocking the boat. The fears get squashed, even if this is by dint of, essentially, not thinking about it, as distinct from resolving the root of the fear.

And of course I am sure they get involved in the debate of the 'greater good', which is normally doing something you know is bad and justifying it.

Not that I really feel sorry for the bastards.

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

16

Nobody Answers

by Rex B13 in

jw
friends

ten reasons why i never wash. my mother made me wash as a child.

the soap makers only want my money.

there are so many different kinds of soap, i could never decide which one was right.

Abaddon

When you make posts like this are you suprised no one answers? I mean, people comment, but you can't 'answer' such a complete and absolute refutation of atheism.

[8>]

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

27

JW's one of the Most Dangerous Religions?

by Mindchild in

jw
friends

skip starbuck aka mindchild .

many years ago on a spring day to pleasant to be outdoors pioneering, something strange happened to two jehovahs witnesses.

have you ever wondered exactly what it was inside religion that makes people kill each other?

Abaddon

D wiltshire; It's interesting you ask Skip' for a shorter version because complicated conjecture is "prone to error".

The Bible is so open to interpretation that it is likely to confuse people and make them... prone to error. This is logically inconsistant with a god who cares if one accepts that any errors in interpretation can have a delitrious effect on one's life.

Even if errors on one's own part cannot cause a delitrious effect on one's life, one reflects sadly on the fate of those who suffered because of other peoples' errors in interpretation... being burnt because someone disagrees with your opinion must suck.

So, why ask Skip' to give a shortened version of something that has no attached claims of accuracy or inspiration?

Surely it's better to ask god why a book with claims of accuracy and inspiration is open to finate interpretations AND is not the only book that makes such claims!

I've made this point (more or less) to you before, and felt I should point out you're asking of a mortal what I ask of god... lack of conjecture...

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

Abaddon

I am still very troubled you use quotation marks round the word victim, when talking about people who have been raped, and then refuse to clarify whether of not you are a misogynist, instead concentrating on my spelling.

In fact if you hadn't been so rude I would have not bothered replying, as I see no possible outcome other than you becoming increasingly abusive and hypocritical. But I'm going to ignore it... I apologise if I have in any way insulted you and caused you to return like for like, I'll try to, what's the saying... turn the other cheek...? and hope you do the same.

Here's what Genesis says, maybe you'll listen to that;

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Now, I will assume you are an old Earth creationist. If you are a new Earth creationist, please say... I need a laugh... but no doubt to you this is a timeless period of time, no contradiction to science there. Fine.

2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Okay, now, no doubt you will go into the Hebrew if I point out that we have light before sources of light, fine, you can argue that so it seems scientifically sound to you.

6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Ah, day two we have problems... water above and water below? You're not going to talk about the thermosphere are you? You might, but you have no proof even if you do, but hell, I said I was going to point out the order of creation was wrong, so we'll ignore little problems with physics, for now...

9. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Ah, I'm feeling charitable; we'll assume this is a theoretical observer's view point, and that thus we miss out on smaller organisms, and we'll ignore the types of plants that are not even mentioned, we'll ignore that the light reaching the surface is so dim you can't even see a solar disc (assuming you go for the Borg line of the Hebrew word in vs. 16 being create in the progresive sense), we're doing fine. Maybe all the plants were shade loving species back then? Very scientific.

14. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Funny, I always thought that axial rotation defined night and day, as orbital rotation defines years, but despite it SOUNDING like this person thinks the lights are responsible for this, we'll assume this is not un-scientific. At least we can now see what's going on properly, eh? Those plants must be happy!

20. And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Ah, well, here we have whales being created before land animals. Fossil evidence shows this is not true (they probably evolved from a land animal similar to a Hippo). We have birds being created before the land animals. Fossil evidence shows this is not true (they probably evolved from dinosaurs). So, even if we assume that the fossil record does not support evolution, we have no bird or whale bones older than the land animals that are meant to have been created after them. So, the Genesis account does not give the right order of creation, so the Bible is not perfect, or not meant to be taken literally. For proof, well, hell, what were you doing in science lessons? This is covered in any decent Biology textbook!

24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

So we have the land animals being created, and man... and no major problems with these being the last in the order of things, apart from the fact, as pointed out above, that the Bible says things we know only lived AFTER the land animals were apparently made BEFORE.

A small problem? My point Pom, is that your interpretation of god, based upon your apparently literal interpretation of the Bible, cannot be taken as definative or even better than mine, as the Bible is demonstrably (Genesis Chp 1. Vrs 20 is only the first example) either uninspired or not meant to be taken literally.

I would love to see you prove the contrary.

Light and love to you...

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...