Ha, even though I live in the Netherlands, my house is 20m above sea-level.
Abaddon
JoinedPosts by Abaddon
-
93
It must be "Global Warming"
by Warlock insnow in malibu yesterday.
.
this morning i had to scrape the ice off my windshield and back window.. on the way to work i saw many a frozen front lawn and most cars were covered with ice like mine.. all on the outskirts of los angeles.. it must be "global warming".. warlock.
-
-
-
27
Baptisim BlackMail
by OUTLAW inyou had to get baptised,because of parental pressure..you had to get baptised,to date a potential mate..you had to get baptised,to get married at the kingdom hall..you had to get baptised,to keep your marriage together..you had to get baptised or god would kill you at armageddon.....the list go`s on......wbt$ rules are such that,your life can be disrupted or destroyed unless your a baptised jehovah`s witness.....were you forced into being baptised?...outlaw
-
-
Abaddon
Oh, ugh!
I remember my mum sheding a silent tear when asked if I was dunked yet by some friends at a CA... I think I was 16 or, so. I felt no internal complusion, but because of this cloting expectation went through the motions, including 'dedicating myself to Jehober in prayer', at 17 or 18 I think.
I need a joint...
OH!!
Does anyone else remember this Dubbie 'folk-belief' that if you couldn't remember the date of you baptism it was because you didn't mean it or weren't acceptable? That gave me the terrors...
-
104
Further incite on Dawkin's The God Delusion
by Abandoned ini started a thread after i finished the first chapter of this book entitled something like, i'm an atheist.
i finished chapter three and i have to backtrack a bit, but i also feel the need to explain why since i was so vocal.. first, let me say that i think everyon should read the first two chapters of the god delusion by richard dawkins.
he brings up some very important points about religion and about science's place in our world.
-
-
Abaddon
skyking
He has no PROOF either.
Of what? Be specific.
I was reading just today that 70% of the universe is made up of some unknown matter that we can not seeor understand. So when you say there is no proof, you have no proof they are deceiving themselveseither. But yet we know 70% of the universe is unknown but it is ther. Be opened minded because we do not have all the answers yet. We may never have all of them.
You miss the point entirely. The theories that support dark matter and energy seem to wok well. Theories built on the same principles have, in the past, later been proved. But those theories about dark matter and energy might be wrong. In which case, it will be because a better theory, or proof thereof, supplants them.
What you have avoided ANY consideration is that your belief system, your paradigm, would not be changed by evidence, as it exists without evidence. Science changes with the evidence. Get over it.
Don't be so closed minded nothing gets in there
Give me proof, I'll change my mind. It is that simple. Your story is not proof. You could be mad. Or lying. Or mistaken. Not one person, ever, has ever proven a claim like yours in a court of law or a laboratory. I hope you will not mind me NOT taking your claim as proof, in view of the unlikelihood that you just happen to married to the chick in Medium.
I have some miracle wheat I could send you. Grew 12 foot high in my garden. Proof? No. What, not interested?!
If 1 in 500 billion people 'per night' dream about their husbands nephew being killed by someone putting a gun in their mouth, and 2,300 (I'm making this figure up it is an example) people who have live, married uncles are killed by having guns in their mouth a year, then given the population of the USA and the chance of that dream you can see LOADS of people dream something really strange happens to them or someone they know, or whatever, and it does. They ignore the millions of weird dreams that don't come true.
Remember the JW story about the person committing suicide being called on by JW's? Proof of Angelic Intervention to the person who WANTS to believe; other people wonder on all the poor people who committed suicide with no JW's, and effect on the vagaries of chance.
-
93
It must be "Global Warming"
by Warlock insnow in malibu yesterday.
.
this morning i had to scrape the ice off my windshield and back window.. on the way to work i saw many a frozen front lawn and most cars were covered with ice like mine.. all on the outskirts of los angeles.. it must be "global warming".. warlock.
-
-
Abaddon
Let's be clear that 'Climate Change' is the best way to describe it. Yeah, at this time the general trend is warming, but that doesn;t mean colder weather in places. Currents change too.
To be blunt, I think anyone who has spent more than a week researching the subject superficially, and still thinks there is not a fossil-fueled link warming trend, is not looking in the right places.
THINK ABOUT IT.
Who paid for all those scientists who said smoking wasn't inked to cancer?
Find a vocal, scientifically qualified (in that field) climate change cynic, and then follow the money. Do it for each of the few that there are. Then tell me what you think; me telling it is just yadayada, you got to do it yourself.
It is not however, the end of the world. The Dutch will build higher dykes. Bangladesh will cease to exist. Some Pacific Island will disappear. 100's of millions at least will be displaced as their homes on or near coats are flooded. The Canadian Forests will be felled as the Mid-West ceases to be a viable place to grow wheat and entire communities lives will change or end.
For some of us the seaside will be closer and the summers hotter. For many, a far less easy ride.
Swiss banks no longer finance ski developments below 1,500m. Champagne growers in France are buyng land with identical soil in England, anticipting moving grape production there as Champagne's climate becomes less favourable for vines.
It is real, it's just some people who are making lot of oney and their political friends are quite happy with the status-quo.
I mean, they'll be be affected by it, will they?
-
26
Nosferatu's School of Dating - Lesson 2.2 - Building Rapport
by Nosferatu insince many have commented that lesson 2.1 has "no feeling", portrays the individual as an abuser, and all the other negative comments, i decided to cover rapport next.. the unfortunate thing is i can only give you tips on how to build good rapport.
i will not be giving you magic lines that will make her fall in love with you.
it's your own personality, your enthusiasm, your wit, your sense of humor, your creativeness, and your imagination that has to do the actual work.. many people will tell you "forget about all these tips, tricks and techniques.
-
-
Abaddon
It's the Girl Whispherer!!
Seriously, anyone see that? Guy takes a feral horse in a small (20 yards square, maybe bit bigger) pen. Walks up to horse, horse moves away. Repeats. Eventually horse gets tired of running away, starts lowering its head (in horse, 'hey, I don't like this tension, let's stop this'). He moves away. Horse follows.
The same basic technique, using how horses interact against them so they help you build a rapport and can back, saddle and ride them without fuss or drama.
This is basically simple human psychology, noting the things which naturally lead to a pleasent atmosphere and intentionally duplicating them, using simple methods of getting someone's attention, simple desensitising techniques for physical contacts, and also being a simple step-by-step method of acheiving a goal; you always know what to do next.
Psychology and body language aside, this number thing... I've seen it in the 'States. What is that? They don't do it in Holland or the UK, not in the systematic way I have seen American guys work a room. Cruise up be charming and lay your number down is just wankyv - in the UK and you'd be laughed at - if you're lucky behind your back.
-
104
Further incite on Dawkin's The God Delusion
by Abandoned ini started a thread after i finished the first chapter of this book entitled something like, i'm an atheist.
i finished chapter three and i have to backtrack a bit, but i also feel the need to explain why since i was so vocal.. first, let me say that i think everyon should read the first two chapters of the god delusion by richard dawkins.
he brings up some very important points about religion and about science's place in our world.
-
-
Abaddon
acadian
You seem to have a misconception about how change occurs.
The Herring Gull is native to Eastern North American and Western European shorelines. In Europe there is another species, the Lesser Black-backed Gull. It doesn't interbreed with Herring Gulls. As you travel East along the Arctic shorelines, slowly the LBB Gull changes, it gets lighter in colouration. Now take one of these from any point and it will breed if released into another population say 1,000 miles away. But by the time this small, tiny change in local population's characteristics gets all the way back round to Europe, it (by this point the Herring Gull) is so different it does not interbreed with the LBB Gull, the species it descended from.
Replace miles with years, and maybe you can see better how it works. There are no half dog, half goats. No one said there were. But using both similarities in the bones, fossil records and genetic comparison we can see that once there was a species that rather changing into another ONE changed into two (it's happened loads), and that the two seperate gene pools of dogs and goats originated from the gene pool of a common ancestor. Little, tiny changes.
You also are looking at it like current species are destinations. They are not. If the enironment changes, so will they. Your descendent in 1,000,000 years could maybe ask the same question, not seeing you as a 'half whatever he is, half homo erectus, yet we would be the mid-point between the two even if we didn't fit your descendent's misconception about what a half/half actually looks like.
Like tetra points out, we are fully evolved from our point of view, and so is any strain of bacteria. T Rex was fully evolved when it was around. Then things changed and it evolved some more (as some had a characteristic which meant they had more babies survive, so those charates prevalied) so whatever it became (if it became anything else) was then fully evolved for the new situation.
skyking
Please read the definition of the word 'theory' and reconsider what you have written. We're not being mean.
How can he make the claim the person has deceived his mind.
Because there is no proof of anything else having caused the experience, because there are viable physiological and psychological explanations for such experiences, and because this means that the most likely explanation is (no evidence vs. viable explanations) the person's mind has been deceived.
Scientific method old boy. You don't have to like it or play by its rules, but as every single technological device or medical treatment you use was made by that method, mores the pity. It works. And if you don't 'play by its rules', don't expect 'us' to give credit as 'we' accept the scientific method's validity.
Think; Dawkins has said if evolution was disproved he'd not believe in it. That is how science works. A good theory will displace worse theories, even if those who've used the old theories are rather attached to them.
Why do you think scientic books get re-written!? Why scientific knowledge gets out-of-date unless refreshed!?
And you say such people are CLOSED minded? How in god's sweet name do you figure that out?
LOADS of stuff 'we' believed about the paranormal, about the Bible, about the Qu'ran, choose you the goat-herd blog of your liking, is now known to be indisputably WRONG.
Do people stop beleiving in those books, or in the same sort of rubbish as before? No. Because they don't use the scientific method.
Good scientists (of their day) used to believe in phlygoston and the ether. As soon as better theories came up, the old ones lost all credibility very rapidly.
Science will totally re-draw its paradigms if someone comes up with evidence to require it. Religion and belief in the paranormal BY THEIR VERY NATURE will not totally re-draw their paradigms even if the evidence requires it.
Believe what you like.
-
104
Further incite on Dawkin's The God Delusion
by Abandoned ini started a thread after i finished the first chapter of this book entitled something like, i'm an atheist.
i finished chapter three and i have to backtrack a bit, but i also feel the need to explain why since i was so vocal.. first, let me say that i think everyon should read the first two chapters of the god delusion by richard dawkins.
he brings up some very important points about religion and about science's place in our world.
-
-
Abaddon
Did we read the same book?
Please give examples of supposed contorted reasoning and what you mean by 'claims he knows the begining'. Once I know what you mean, I can respond further.
-
40
Nosferatu's School of Dating - Lesson 2.1 - The Approach
by Nosferatu innow that you've done your practice on starting conversations with strangers, it's time to actually approach women.. first of all, let's cover what not to do when approaching a woman:.
1) never approach a woman from behind.
you will startle her.
-
-
Abaddon
I never developed a routine, apart from a short but infamous phase where I would walk into a club and (without realising it) start trying to chat-up the cutest gay girl in the building. On one occasion I also tried to chat-up HER girlfriend too (not at the same time, more switching from one to the other in the others absense) not realising they were an item until they started getting off (and no, it wasn't a ruse, I knew them outside the club and that they were Bi, but not that they were a couple (well, that month they were)). I'm not talking Motorcycle Mommas, I'm talking about Tank-Girl meets Elf in big boots... still works for me.
Another time I spent the entire evening chatting up another Tank-Girl meets Elf in big boots (this time a straight one), someone I actually knew from Uni', and she and her wing'man' ended up back at my place, and somehow I ended up sleeping with the wing'man'. Neither of them minded (LOL) and we all ended up afterwards in bed having a smoke. Girls are weird. Good. But weird.
Rather than developing a routine I just eventually gained the ability to tell when a woman found ME attractive. I used to be clueless. Of course, is was more-or-less at the point I became monogamous so it's not much use, just something that gives me a smile now and then when I get the vibes; excessively jolly, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, physical, head-tossing, random favourable personal comments, gaze everted but attention focused... a hell of a lot to fit in by the coffee machine...
Of course, attraction is just nice and doesn;'t neccesarily mean that much or indicate a desire for anything.
The real banker is when you get stared at like you are chocolate.
But, yeah, girls run in packs and have their routines too, and are just as ruthless in their own sweet way
-
104
Further incite on Dawkin's The God Delusion
by Abandoned ini started a thread after i finished the first chapter of this book entitled something like, i'm an atheist.
i finished chapter three and i have to backtrack a bit, but i also feel the need to explain why since i was so vocal.. first, let me say that i think everyon should read the first two chapters of the god delusion by richard dawkins.
he brings up some very important points about religion and about science's place in our world.
-
-
Abaddon
lovelylil
ID is part of what is know as the Wedge Stratagy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
It was developed by the Discovery Institute;
The Discovery Institute was founded in 1990 as a non-profit educational foundation and think tank based upon the Christian apologetics of C.S. Lewis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
ID is demonstrably a stratagy conconcted by devout Christians who see ID as a method of getting god back in the classrooms. By 'debranding' a form of Creationism from Christianity they hope it will duck under the the 'no religion' bar masquerading as a science.
Yes, the research in this area is still new but that does not mean it is invalid.
Research on what exactly? Here's the skinny; ID consists of finding some perceived fault in modern evolutionary theory and saying 'Ha! Natural selction could not have done this! This was DESIGNED!'. It is a parasite; it exists on the blood of proper science.There is no 'research' because there is NOTHING to research. I am not being rude or funny; this is a fact. There is no proof of a designer, just speculation that x theory cannot explain y feature, so a designer must have done it.
All such examples either were the result of inadequate knowledge and ARE explicable by theory, or have subsequently been shown to be explicable by theory.
ID falsifies itself; it states that complexity requires a designer, yet such a designer would be complex, either requiring a contradiction in the hypothesis or an infinate chain of designers, which is just silly.
And it really does not matter if these scientists are in the minority right now as this is true when all new theories are brought forth.
And these THEORIES (in the past) had EVIDENCE. Even when they required science books to be re-written, if the evidence supported the new theory it gained sway over human truculence. ID is a hypothesis and has no evidence.
When was the Bible last re-written because they found a mistake in it? Hmmmm.... glad you liked the quote, by-the-way... no magic smiley for you I think but that is a good thing...
Of course, ID is a sneaky Trojan-Horse. Belief-lite, bought to you by people who think 'Merely Christian' is a good read, who would LOVE to get the Bible in the classroom, but know they haven't got a chance, so will try to ensure SOME degree of belief gets instilled in the next generation rather than them being 'nasty' Nerglists.
You might not be aware of the fact about ID, either its origins (it evolved out of Creationism, ain't that funny?), or the clever little 'Emperor's New Clothes' routine they have done making people think they actually have something like theories (check definiton) or evidence, I hope you don't mind this particular perspective and might find it of interest.
BTW, I am a God believer but I personally do believe in evolution and think it is valid scientifically. As the evidence shows it to be such.
Good for you. Believing in a god that 'rolled the dice' and was cool enough to have what she wanted happen at the end happen coz it threw them just so is a far more viable belief than many. Doesn't stop the absurd image of endless gods creating each other or special pleading that different rules apply to god (based on no evidence). It all depends on what you mean by god. Somedays I believe in god... it is just a vastly bigger and vauger one than before, one that doesn't even have to have a reality as it is an expression of philosophical outlook more than anything else, but is as grand as anything all the same. And still god. I hope yours suits you.
Here is a link which lists many modern day scientists who believe either in ID or God. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
Scroll down to the middle of the page and the fields of science will be listed. You will see that many are in the biology or anthropology fields. Peace, Lilly
Very very. Very few. You DO realise how FEW that list contains, compared to people researching and teaching evolutionary biology and associated sciences. Don't think they goit bored with phoning people up and asking... this list was the result of something not dissimilar to scraping the bottom of a barrel... finding one;
- not in a sympathetic faculty (like Bob Jones on Bingham Young) or an ID or Creationist institute. (BYU has a guy who believes in the Flood AND that they blew up the Twin Towers...)
- with their major experience in the field of evolutionary science or chronology they are commenting on
- with peer-reviewed papers on their ID or Creationist beliefs in peer-reviewed journals similar to ones they might release papers in their field of expertise in
... is astonishingly difficult. Reading about some of the names given (try TalkOrigins or Wikipedia) is also astonishing. Few people go to plumbers to have their teeth done, why treat your theories of origin less carefully?
This isn't specifically at you lil, just musing on the topic in general.
-
104
Further incite on Dawkin's The God Delusion
by Abandoned ini started a thread after i finished the first chapter of this book entitled something like, i'm an atheist.
i finished chapter three and i have to backtrack a bit, but i also feel the need to explain why since i was so vocal.. first, let me say that i think everyon should read the first two chapters of the god delusion by richard dawkins.
he brings up some very important points about religion and about science's place in our world.
-
-
Abaddon
Theism; yeah. Enough said.
Deism; the chocolate kettle of belief systems. It's there alright but will it do anything useful for you? Ooooo look at the pretty kittens! And God, isn't photosynthesis simply elegant?
Pantheism; to those who remember Pan's People, the feeling you had the first time you saw them at age 10... Oh... My... God... To the rest, thou art god, I am god, the cat is god (especially my cat) that rock is god... well, some are like that to one extent or the other, others use 'god' to describe wonder(?).
Atheism; I still believe in god enough to define myself by the absence of something I don't believe in, so add asantaist to the list too please...
Bright has been suggested as an alternative label. Humanism is used by some but carries with it a not-necessarily-compulsory ethos for other atheists. Buddhism purports to be. I think Nergle is as good a word as any.
Pan narrans. The story-telling ape. Of COURSE we think our individual stories makes sense. We stare at the night sky and see lions and bears, not sure about the tigers, but there you go.
Whatever data points we have to assemble a world view, we end up assembling a world that on some level makes sense. If there HAD been buses when we thought the world was flat, they would STILL have been as reliable/unreliable as they are now. People somehow were born, married, had children and died under the misconception they were being orbited by the sun! You can believe what in hindsight is utter rubbish and still be absolutely convinced your story is true. Because that is how our heads work.
The only way to be reasonably sure we are 'right' about something (whatever 'right' is) is to look at as much information about it as possible, and ensure we comprehend it. Even then, someone turns the page, the story can change.
Quote I read in a Discworld book; "I don't like scientists on committees, they don't know where they stand on anything. Give them new data and they change their minds".
I wish there was a magic smiley that would appear on the posts of people who don't get the joke...