Posts by Abaddon

23

Is Atheism the Path to True Spirituality?

by nvrgnbk in

jw
friends

Abaddon

Xena

Well, if there is no 'true spirituality' other than an indivdual's conception of it, then for some atheism might light on the path to it. Others not.

Basically, I'm not buying the cow. I'm not even accepting there is a cow, but if standing there holding string you (not you personally Xena) say has a cow on the end of it makes you happy, can I give Buttercup a sugar lump?

On the other hand, I have a cow, and she comes in many colours (ask Ross).

If there is a 'greater' true spirituality, then what issue of Nature was that in?

Just like gymbob, I think variable defintions of spirtuality defy a concise answer to the question, and non-concise answers end up questioning if there is a question in the first place.

Oh, personally speaking (i.e. my definitons) for me it did, if you want a straight answer.

17

Studies: Death Penalty Discourages Crime

by Deputy Dog in

from: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280215,00.html.

anti-death penalty forces have gained momentum in the past few years, with a moratorium in illinois, court disputes over lethal injection in more than a half-dozen states and progress toward outright abolishment in new jersey.. "what gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder.

the analyses say yes.

Abaddon

Any survey concerning a group of 16,692 where you only sample 60 of that group will yield results that will vary from the next sample of 60 by +/-12.63%.

You wouldn't trust a survey that inaccurate to accurately say which President candidate would win - normally a 5% margin of error is considered way too much.

And you want to use this to justify killing people?

This discussion involves different paradigms.

My paradigm is 'if killing people is wrong, then killing people is wrong'.

It means there is nothing you can say to convince me 'judicial' killing is just.

At the same time I would cheerfully kill anyone who harmed or tried to harm me or mine. Self defence is fine, and I wouldn't try and pretend vengeance was justice.

Now just as I come from a paradigm resistant to persuasion, I know many pro-'judicial' killing people come from equally resistant paradigms.

Only in discussions where the facts do not matter, but the principles do, will you see such poor 'evidence' entered to justify one opinion.

Some people might genuinely make cold clinical assessment of the situation. More think they do.

But at the end of the day many think not killing a terrible murderer is just wrong, and many others will think killing a murderer is terribly wrong.

Oh... when West Germany stopped executions after WWII, the politicians went against the opinion of the public. Now Germany has one of the lowest percentages of people supporting the deah penalty.

Maybe you feel not killing murderers is just wrong, because you grew up in a society where the State killed people. It was normal.

Just like those Germans did.

19

Most X-JW's turn to paganism

by White Dove in

that's what a witch at a pagan shop told me.

Abaddon

She meant to say 'chocolate'.

Although shit loads smoke pot... which as is commonly held to be true, leads to more chocolate.

Life is hard.

23

Is Atheism the Path to True Spirituality?

by nvrgnbk in

jw
friends

Abaddon

Back up a minute; I see a capitalised 'true'.

Semantically, that implies specificty unless one allows each person to have an individual spirituality to which they could be true to.

I'm pretty sure most on this thread thus far accept the latter to be true.

But if it is something that can be so individual, that implies it is an internalised paradigm, as distinct from an embracing of anything external.

That doesn't mean it is without value; if it improves ones life, obviously it has value. But the only contest is with ourselves.

13

The Gene Swarm, Human Apes, and Governments

by frankiespeakin in

jw
friends

the gene swarm is a very broad subject in itself, it probably can be called an entity by human ape language it all depends on your point of view (if narrow or broad).

we human apes are but a very small part of this entity, and government even smaller part of it and far more temporary, than the human apes..

Abaddon

The interbreeding bit is covered here;

It really is no big deal; all it is saying is that one explanation for our genes being the way we are is if the common human ancestors (those with no chimp descendents, only human ones) were interfertile with the common chimpanzee ancestors, and occasionally interbreed.

Imagine you have two varieties of horse, a true-breeding strain of Palamino, and Akhel-Tekes. They share a common ancestor. Palaminos (with no Akhel-Teke descendents) have a genetic structure best explained by inrterbreeding with Akhel-Tekes after the Palaminos were already a seperate variety of horse.

Speciation is a blur, not a line. I can chunter on endlessly about ring species o illustrate but we'll see...

47

Intelligent Design Clobbered Again

by AlanF in

jehovah's witnesses seem to have drifted toward the political notion of "intelligent design" in recent years.

several times since 1996 their literature has referenced the book darwin's black box by michael behe, which book has become a kind of bible for iders.

the book introduces the notion of "irreducible complexity" in a formal way as disprove of evolution.

Abaddon

Alan

Well, maybe hoob doesn't realise he's actually using ID-otic (lol) arguments to defend his YECism.

Alan and stilla

I love the permutations around ID-ite/ID-ot/IDiot/IDiotism/ID-otic etc. too. I suggest we regularise the spelling to exclude the i after the D, and of course always have the ID in upper case.

We wouldn't want people to confuse ID-ots with idiots, or ID-otism with idiotism,would we now...?

I've not found prior usage in this context; the thought I may have coined a neologism makes this prolix sesquipedalian very happy.

47

Intelligent Design Clobbered Again

by AlanF in

jehovah's witnesses seem to have drifted toward the political notion of "intelligent design" in recent years.

several times since 1996 their literature has referenced the book darwin's black box by michael behe, which book has become a kind of bible for iders.

the book introduces the notion of "irreducible complexity" in a formal way as disprove of evolution.

Abaddon

Running Man

This board is a fantastic place when it sticks to JW based issues.

Errrr... they believe in a melange of OEC and IDiotism, not just 607 and 144,000, so discussion of why such beliefs are utter woo-hoo seems apt.

But, when it gets into fundamentalism or politics, then things tend to get really dumb.

Agreed, as normally half the people have the same level of knowledge about the subjects as they have about Ming Dynasty China, yet will insist they know better than people who have studied the subject.

Alan

Actually, hoob is moving towards IDiotism, although he'd never admit it. I just see it in what he says and how he says it nowadays. Hard to know for sure as it is beneath his arrogance to reply to me of late...

~

One thing to be said for endlessly reiterative discussions of Evo'ism-Cre'ism and IDiotism. Yes they ARE repetitive. They are signal proof the head-banging Creo's and ID-ots don't bother seeing if a topic has been debated before, or cannot understand they are trotting out hackneyed arguments that have been refuted.

But as there are always new people here, and as they rarely bother going through 6,490 pages of posts, they are invariably exposed to a Evo-Creo deate within a month or two of lurking.

Having the Creo's and ID-ots show on a regular basis the best they can do is really not good enough, and people argue that the entire debate is silly as it has nothing to do with the existence of god - and if there IS one he can do it anyway he likes - might be a trifle dull for those with no interest in the subject who have seen it all before. But it serves a educational purpose to those Newbies who think the Borg's series of 'god-did-it' books are in any way scientifically credible.

And argumentative bastards like me can have fun too...

10

JW publications are so toxic they result in False Memory Syndrome

by Abaddon in

i know the effect of the lovely blood and gore illustrations in the borg publications has beendiscussed, but i think here is proof postive that speculaion they are harmful to children is actually true.. it concerns events after a baby's body was found in rupert, idaho.

the case had no leads, although obviously some people believed it was proof of satanic ritual abuse, until one ay tyhey had a call.

a child protection official in san bernardino county, calif., was on the line.

Abaddon

I know the effect of the lovely blood and gore illustrations in the Borg publications has beendiscussed, but I think here is proof postive that speculaion they are harmful to children is actually true.

It concerns events after a baby's body was found in Rupert, Idaho. The case had no leads, although obviously some people believed it was proof of Satanic Ritual Abuse, until one ay tyhey had a call

A child protection official in San Bernardino County, Calif., was on the line. It seemed a 9-year-old boy in Barstow, being questioned as a possible child abuse victim, had told authorities he'd seen a baby sacrificed, a baby who'd been burned. The boy had also drawn some pictures, including one involving a barrel, a fire and a baby. This boy's family, as it happened, was from Idaho. More precisely, the family was from the Rupert area.

Read the entire article (URL below) for the details (as normal there was no proof of any Satanic Ritual Abuse), but guess what?

Talking to Timothy's mother one February morning during the course of a marathon series of interviews, Randy Everitt, an investigator for the Idaho attorney general's office, thought to ask: What kind of stories do you read to your boy?
I've only read one story to him since he was a baby, she replied. There's only one book I read to him.
The family's book, Everitt discovered, is a Jehovah's Witness children's bible that-as pan of the story of King Solomon threatening to split a child in half-includes pictures of a baby being sacrificed and torn apart.

http://www.maryellenmark.com/text/magazines/la_times/216O.html

19

Fighting dogs/brothers/my babies... Big dog owner suggestions?

by restrangled in

jw
friends

i was out for a walk with my 2 dobies.

i always stay on my block because they are too large, too strong and have aggressive tendencies(both in different areas) they get walked in harnesses connected to each other.. they don't get walked often enough because they are powerful, frightening beasts, but after a few glasses of wine i got up my nerve and took them out yesterday.

(we have walked this route many times before with no problem).

Abaddon

I always stay on my block because they are too large, too strong and have aggressive tendencies(both in different areas) They get walked in harnesses connected to each other.

With respect, why do you own dogs of such a nature that you lack the confidence to control them?

They don't get walked often enough because they are powerful, frightening beasts, but after a few glasses of wine I got up my nerve and took them out yesterday. (We have walked this route many times before with no problem).

So, you are so lacking in confidence as regards controlling your dogs you allow your dogs to remain unexercised, and then have to drink to the point where you could no longer legally drive to finally take under-exercised dogs busting with energy for a walk. Dogwalking under the influence. How neighbourly.

Any suggestions?

To be blunt, give the dogs to someone who will care for them as they need to be cared for (you admit yourself you can't exercise them enough), someone who can deal with large aggressive dogs better than you.

This time your dogs fought with each other. You could not prevent it without help. Your dogs suffered injury solely through your lack of competence to handle them. That pain, that hurt, your fault.

Next time it could be a child that gets attacked. And no, having shown you cannot handle them your protestations that a similar lack of control wouldn't happen with a child will remain unconvincing.

I know this is harsh, but what do you expect? "Hi guys, I own dogs I am scared of taking for a walk and have so little control over them they fought and I needed help to pull them apart".

I could post lots of news items about other dog owners who lacked the competence to deal with potentially dangerous breeds whose dogs DID attack a child, even killing children, but I hope this is not necessary to make you realise how you recklessly endanger others. Even if local laws would not make you criminally liable for injuries to humans your dogs caused, morally you would be.

And yes, I am a dog lover, which is why I disapprove of your behaviour so strongly. They are pets, not toys. They are not doing anything 'wrong', they're being DOGS - they just lack a pack leader (that should be you).

You have a responsibility to them which you must recognise you are failing to live up to. Please, don't let this situation continue.

121

Does God REALLY exist? (An Attempt at an Online Bible Study)

by theMartian in

with the global village now teaching evolution as an absolute fact, and the 'creation museum' making a mockery of the bible, any bible study should begin with this question!

however, the biggest hinderence to learning truth is clinging to concepts we've accepted as 'truth' without being willing to take a closer look at other possibilities.. i ask that ridiculers have fun on other postings, so that it might be possible to enjoy comparing what we have learned, how we see things- and also share what we have found to be facts-truth!.

(and i will not "count the time", as promised; that's unimportant to me, anyhow!).

Abaddon

timetochange

I asked the question not to learn, but rather to make a point. I know that evolution cannot provide the answer to the origins of matter- that's why I asked it!

Look, evolution is a theory about the development of biological life. It can no more explain the origin of matter than Boyle's Law can explain time dilation at relativistic velocities

In your 'ah ah aren't evolutionists silly' assumptions, you show you've not even studied what evolution is.

Evolution has many holes in it just as many as the fundy view of the Bible.

What separates YOUR view from the fundy view?

Evolution starts out with a premise

Does it? I know YOU do. Your premise is godidit

and proceeds to find evidence that appears to prove that premise while dismissing that which does not.

Wrong, again illustrating as you really don't know anything about evolution the fact you don't think it fits the evidence means little.

The fact is by the beginning of the 19th Century geology and archaeology had shown the Bible was seriously in error. All these fossils were being found, and there was no theory to explain how.

Darwin's theory was not a presumption fitted to evidence - it was a theory developed to explain how (biological) things were because there was no explanation for how things were. It filled a gap by that point the Bible no longer filled. It explained the evidence.

And this argument is soooo futile. No creation myth is provable; evolution fits the available evidence better than anything else.

Seeing as it has been around 150 years and religion 10,000, the fact it, Abiogenesis and Cosmology sill have some unanswered question is far more understandable than religions continued failure to prove it's answers are anything other than placebos; ways of understanding existence, but not reality.

The only thing that precludes religious texts creation accounts being seen as non-literal allegories is the insistence of certain believers. If they are non-literal allegories then what is wrong in believing that's how god did it?

Because accepting the Bible wasn't literally true passes up the opportunity of them declaring themselves right about every opinion they have because of an unprovable claim it is based on the Bible?

Maybe that's not your angle, but it's an obvious subtext in many.

theMartian

Everything you say about evolution shows that your disbelief is very likely due to you never having studied it properly. It is like you talking about the grammatical structure of Finnish, knowing nothing of it, and this being obvious to anyone who knew Finnish.

You misrepresent the theory and saying you don't believe in what you misrepresent. It's like me saying scientists believe gravity is caused by the Earth sucking and saying I don't believe it.

Now, you could try asking "Well, I always thought it was random. Why do people say that about evolution?" There are loads of people who'd love to give you an answer.

If you actually think knowing about a subject before passing judgement is a good idea...