Posts by Abaddon

6

Homosexual or Transgender Caveman?

by laverite in

has anyone seen the news report from the telegraph on the 5,000 year old skeletal remains found in prague?

the male remains were buried as a female would have been, and this brings up the question that the remains represent someone who was either homosexual or transgender.

very interesting piece.

Abaddon

Mmm.... shit journalism. But then that is often synonymous with 'Telegraph'.

For a start, he or she wasn't a caveman; pre-Bronze age is not 'caveman'.

For a second, gender assignment of skeletal remains is not a precise art; it is just as possible the remains have been misassigned a gender as it is they were given a non-typical burial for their gender.

For a third, they could be transgender.

Of course, they might be right, it's not like Oscar Wilde invented being gay, is it?

All this brilliant analysis is not mine sadly; see here; http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/meta/communication/gay-caveman-prague-2011.html

125

The Hobbit and Evolution: So What's Up With That?

by AGuest in

jw
friends

may you all have peace!.

hubby and i happened to catch an episode of "nova" last night.

fascinating stuff.

Abaddon

Shelly:

It wasn't, dear Abaddon (peace to you and welcome back!). It was not about evolution at all. It was about [changing] "facts"... and the associated hypocrisy.

Yes, that is like saying in a statement where you cast doubt on a the Bible's accuracy you are not attacking its version of events.

You also say "... several scientist/anthropologist/paleontologist admissions that there is actually very little known about... and in evidence to support... evolution."

No. I did NOT say that. I QUOTED that from the article... and said that I was SURPRISED to even read that

Get your facts straight or learn how to attribute correctly; from your first post:

Hubby and I happened to catch an episode of "Nova" last night. Fascinating stuff. Seems there's a bit of a threat to the "concrete" theories of evolution, man's origination in Africa, and hominid species. What was most interesting is several scientist/anthropologist/paleontologist admissions that there is actually very little known about... and in evidence to support... evolution. That was surprising.

The words in question are NOT given as a quote. They are your summary of a programme, not verbatum expressions of other people's opinion. BIG difference, especially given your proven inability/disinclination to understand scientific argument. I don;t think you are being intentionally deceptive here, I just think you have indistinct recall and tend to regards your (poor, ill-informed) summary of a programme as the objective factual content of the programme even when the two are different

No. You and others addressed the difference between scientific evidence and spiritual evidence (based on faith).

There is no such thing a spiritual evidence; there is only spiritual hear-say. You have no idea what 'evidence' is, in any meaningful context. To you, you THINKING something is evidence.

The ISSUE is one camp decrying the changes in statements of "fact" of another, while they themselves change "fact."

This was explained to your dear, you either don't understand or deliberately ignored it.

Religious theory (as regarding what god wants) has no facts or evidence to support if. Thus when it changes, it is for reasons other than facts or evidence.

Scientific theory is based on facts and evidence. New facts and evidence can be found, requiring theories to change.

Two different things. It's simple, and I don't think you're so stupid that you cannot understand it, which leaves option 'b'..

One example would be my son's grave illness in his youth. The doctors said, "Ma'am, it IS either this... or this... and THIS is what we MUST do." They based that on the "evidence" (i.e., multitude of tests, blood work, GI series, ultrasound, CT scan, etc). NO ONE said, "We really don't KNOW." For myself, I HEARD... as they were telling me... that they were in error... that it was NOT what they were diagnosing... not even close... and so did not let them do the particularly surgery they intended to do. I HEARD that they would get a court order (and they did), but not to worry because they weren't going to be allowed to do their surgery. I HEARD... NOT to worry... but to be patient and my son would be fully taken care of and fine. And that is exactly what occurred.

Yes dear, I'm sure this is your correct recollection of the events. See above for why this may be a problem; if you can't remember a thread's begining when it is there to check, lord knows what your recall years later is like. What we shall never know is:

Whether you had conducted a thorough reading of all relevent medical literature and had a sound basis for your misgivings (as if!)
How much sicker and nearer death he may have been because of your refusal to allow treatment before a recovery
Whether the medical professionals would have realised what you portray as an error and administered the right therapy and your son would have recovered, without you making him into an Isaac for your beliefs
How often parents with no medical understanding refuse their child treatment because of their beliefs and that child dies unnecessarily.

Maybe your son got lucky and lived DESPITE you? Maybe 80% of the time when a parent does what you did, the kid DIES? Maybe god had NOTHING to do with it but your EGO did? Just because you were in the lucky 20% who don't kill their kid you think god was with you; and the other 80% Shelly?

As far as I can see you are so convinced the Universe revolves around you and your beliefs you are conceited enough to believe god loves you enough to save your son, but apparently not enough to save the millions of other parents children who die young. Are you that special? If you don't realise this is what your beiefs imply then, well, maybe my above observation about your intelligence is in error. I can't believe you tell a story about you gambling with your child's life due to some sort of 'voice in your head' like it is a good thing. What hubris.

"There is NO EVIDENCE that directly links human evolution. None."
This is true. There is only evidence that SUGGESTS (to some, reasonably), human evolution.

You have no idea what evidence is Shelly, as previously shown. The evidence for human evolution is just as good as that for horse, duck or donkey evolution. I'd LOVE for you to disprove that fact; but you don't know enough about evolution to either form an informed opinion let alone refute anothers argument.

It would be like me claiming x painting was not by Rembrant but by the school of Rembrant based not on one moment of scholarly study or research, but just some stuff I had read online and seen on TV that most experts disagreed with. An opinion not worth a damn, as it is not an informed one.

But go on, you make the claim; please show through phenetic, phylogenic, evolutionary taxonomic or paleontologic differentiation why the evidence for the evolution of H.sapiens is not as good as for Anas platyrhyncho, Equus africanus asinus or Equus ferus caballus.

"In the same vein, there IS evidence of a fairly global, if not fully global flood."
This, too, is true. At least, according to some archeologists...

Again, you don't know what evidence is. And yes some so-called archaeologists think that, just like some think aliens built the pyramids, just like some parents refuse their chld medical treatment and as a result that child dies, because they are neither compotent as doctors or parents.

But that sort of so-called archaeologist is not the sort the majority of archaeologists agree with, because they have unsound methods and cannot prove their arguments to the expected standard. If archaeologists were people to which you you could lend money, the flood-supporting ones would be the ones whose financial claims regarding their ability to repay were unsound and would most likely default. Yeah, good idea, put your money on them. And all so silly, as you can believe in any god you like AND evolution, and in a way, to think that god could not use evolution to create man is limiting the power of god - you blasphemer you. And of course, no response to my point that you talk peace and give none. Typical. You take others to task but you, you're Teflon baby

44

How do we encourage the science of homosexuality?

by sabastious in

at one point in my life i chose to stop listening to my religion's advice to not research outside of their framework.

about the time i made that decision was when the gay marriage debate was going very strong; and still is to this day.

back then i felt like my state of california was leading the front on it to stop the bigotry and oppression once and for all.. it was a hot topic for me because i was questioning the bible and my faith so i started researching the science of homosexulality.

Abaddon

simon17

No, but I never insinuated that it was wrong anyway.

Didn't say you did old chap; in fact I said "... and the remainder of this isn’t specifically at you simon17, it’s about the “if it is genetic it is OK’ argument". But you seem to have got a ittle over excited at being disagreed with, and neglected to read my post properly, as you further demonstrate...

I would hardly the incident rate of homosexuality in nature to be "high". Extremely few animals compared to the total number of species engage in this.

You do realise most of the recorded instances have been the result of more recent research? It was there before, but researchers ignored it because of bias or fear of negative concequences regarding future research grants due to bias in those funding this. Basically it seems like in most mammals it is part of the spectrum of behaviour. I should have perhaps been more specific, but I did not anticpate someone basically saying "yes, but bacteria and beetles are not gay, so you can't say the incidence in nature is high".

Lets do the apples to apples thing eh? Homosexual behaviour is common in mammals.

Well thats nice but if you're not human, an animal would have to be bisexual to cash in on their desire for children (if one exists), otherwise it just wouldn't work. If you're a gay bonobo, the in vitro fertilization option is just not happening

I covered this fact in my post, but you seem to have responded peicemeal without reading it as a whole, and thus jump on what you think are weak point I address later in the same post. Not classy.

You can twist isolated examples and gene theory as much as you like,

Twist? Interesting use of words.'Twist' implies dishonesty, which I do not display and resent. Please state explictly where I twist facts; as far as I can see I don't. If use IF when if applies, and state the historic differentiation between homosexuality and child bearing.

My statement regarding the fact that, if (male, just to be clear) homosexuality is a genetic factor carried on the X chromosome, it would be evolutionarily neutral, is cast iron scientificaly speaking. It would mean women would pass this gene on to their daughters forever, even if no son of that genetic line had children. Which would mean your statement that I originally reponded to is wrong.

If through history homosexual humans have had children, again, your statement is wrong.

You want to ignore the above two points to cling to statement that homosexuality is evolutionary negative, please prove this statement. If it were (as it has been expressed on an evolutionary timescale), it would not exist.

And your appeal to argumentum ad populum is just weak; yeah, lots of people say this so... Give me a break.

44

How do we encourage the science of homosexuality?

by sabastious in

at one point in my life i chose to stop listening to my religion's advice to not research outside of their framework.

about the time i made that decision was when the gay marriage debate was going very strong; and still is to this day.

back then i felt like my state of california was leading the front on it to stop the bigotry and oppression once and for all.. it was a hot topic for me because i was questioning the bible and my faith so i started researching the science of homosexulality.

Abaddon

simon17

I have nothing against homosexuality but I think its clearly not "natural" in a Darwinian sense. It doesn't allow for reproduction, and therefore has no longterm surivial value (in fact it has negative survival value).

Sorry, but you are wrong. Given the high incidence of homosexual behaviour in many species (in cases such as bonobos and some macquaces it is pretty much part of their normal behaviour), then it cannot, per se, be seen as a trait with negative consequences for the simple reason if it were, then we wouldn’t see it as much as we did, as those carrying it die out.

In cases such as those mentioned above it is part of the normal social structure of a species and is an evolutionary stable situation that must have benefits to persist, just as with hyper-masculinity and matriarchal social structure in hyenas.

You are also wrong because you assume that it is a genetic trait inheritable from father to son. If human homosexuality IS a genetic trait, then it could be inheritable from mother to son, on the X chromosome. This would make it evolutionary neutral, as it’s inheritance would separate to its expression.

Of course, as seen in other species it is rarely an exclusive behaviour; most animals that do exhibit homosexual behaviour do procreate. Historically there have been many humans who have displayed homosexual behaviour and procreated. Often due to persecution they have had sham heterosexual relationships or genuine ones with the addition of partners of the same sex.

And today many gay people want to have children; their sexual orientation has no effect on this desire.

The differentiator with humans today is that it is now, in many civilised countries, socially acceptable to have exclusive homosexual relationships with no heterosexual behaviour. This makes having kids difficult, but especially with lesbian couple is no absolute bar; I know several such couples with children. Male-male couples have a harder time of it for obvious reasons, but again, many would love to have children.

But all of this misses the point (and the remainder of this isn’t specifically at you simon17, it’s about the “if it is genetic it is OK’ argument.

If homosexuality is NOT genetic and IS ‘choice’ (not saying it is, just if) does this actually make it wrong?

Humans exhibit all sorts of non-genetic behaviour that just affects themselves and those they exhibit it with. Like windsurfing.

If windsurfers were, by benefit of being windsurfers, inimical to peaceful society, violent and dangerous, the sort of people who because of being windsurfers were far more likely to do harm to their non-windsurfing fellow man than non-windsurfers, then windsurfing could be argued to be bad, wrong, asocial, ‘a menace to our youth’.

But neither windsurfing or homosexuality make someone more likely to harm their fellow man than non-windsurfers or non-homosexuals. So it is not bad, wrong, asocial or ‘a menace to our youth’.

You have nasty windsurfers, nasty men, nasty women, nasty white people, nasty black people, nasty heterosexuals and nasty homosexuals; being an asshole is truly an equal opportunity state of being.

Whether homosexuality is the result of choice, genetics, enculturation or the uterine environment is neither here nor there. It is not wrong because it doesn’t harm others, just like stamp collecting is not wrong because it does not harm others.

To present a contrary argument to those who say otherwise is to pander to the mythological beliefs they normally espouse, and in a way dehumanises homosexuals and removes our eyes from the most pertinent fact; that homosexuality is an expression of love just as often as heterosexuality is, and that love is what we need more of in this world.

Those who say that homosexuality is wrong have their filthy, petty minds focused on the act of sex, not on the act of love. This is not surprising; if you can control and constrain someone’s sexuality through their religious belief system, then EVERYTHING ELSE is easy.

Of course, as has been mentioned above, as with literalistic beliefs in creation, clinging to Biblically (or other mythological texts) sanctions against homosexuality is essential to fundamental literalists. As soon as they concede that one part of their text of choice is outdated or allegorical, then their house of cards collapses and they can no longer feel morally superior to their fellow man by living their lives in line with that text, or claim their future will be different due to this.

30

Why This Atheist Respects the Jehovah's Witnesses-And why other Atheists should too!

by RaustBD in

jw
friends

i'm an atheist, and i'd like to take some time to talk about why i hold a great deal of respect for the jehovah's witnesses, and some words of encouragement that may put an end to the ridicule and disrespect you seem to get from, well, all sorts of people.. .

i never gave this kind of criticism a second thought: i knew nothing about you, and i figured you were just another fringe group of christianity.

i now feel terrible about this, and i wish to apologize for my (admittedly never spoken) disrespect.

Abaddon

Hit and run? Damn, I remember the old days when trolls were real trolls...

Given that people who refer to themselves as atheists normally do so because they find no evidence for god (after which doctrinal stuff is YAWN), the chance of anyone who really belonged to that group holding such a sensationally idiotic opinion and saying " maybe some of the Atheists who were driven away from God solely because of the idea of Hell will join you guys!" is... ooooo...

... about the same as all the atoms in my body deciding to move 1 foot to the left right NOW....

Still here...

2

Is it possibly that the concept of Sin to be A myth???

by jam in

ok follow my reasoning before you think i had too much to drink.. sin is the harmful and sometimes silly-sounding concept that is.

easy to dismiss,especially for non-believers..the whole notion of.

one,s self being so depraved, so horrible, so without merit in god.

Abaddon

The idea of sin is a marketing trick.

Obviously any intelligent social creature will develop rules of conduct that people within that culture are expected to abide by.

However 'original' sin, the idea that humans are somehow unworthy, is an idea that creates a need (for forgiveness, redemption), where no need actually exists.

No one needs religion, so the idea of 'sin' was developed to allow the parasitic profession of priest to prosper.

With ‘sin’ they could sell you something you didn’t know you needed, just like many marketing ploys for largely useless products are created for the benefit of a company.

15

Goodness gracious me...

by Abaddon in

jw
friends

hi people,.

well, i kicked the jwd habit a few years back, but idle curiosity and a long daily commute got me sniffing around the other day, and after trying every possible password i have ever used i get back in.... it's been long time everyone... cannot believe that, give or take a tiny bit, everything (and everyone) is the same.

some new names, some missing... has anything major happened in dubbieland or xdubbieland?

Abaddon

Me and mine is fine, thank you Leolaia.

Me turning conservative is not going to happen Satunus, don't be silly.

Robdar, actually, had a rather bad patch but Ghillie is getting his groove back, thank you.

125

The Hobbit and Evolution: So What's Up With That?

by AGuest in

jw
friends

may you all have peace!.

hubby and i happened to catch an episode of "nova" last night.

fascinating stuff.

Abaddon

mmm... that should be ' evidentiary' instead of evidencary and 'discourteous' instead of discourious. God alone knows why I spell argument with an e, LOL, but I was rushing for a bus...

I am glad I am not the only one who can see the web of inflammatory contradictions made by someone hiding seemingly meaningless felicitations of peace. Actions speak louder than words; didn’t your Master say ‘judge a tree by its fruit’ slave Shelby? Harsh? Maybe, but I wasn’t the one “praying on the street corner...”

Four years ago you were doing just the same. Is it you who has learned nothing, or us in responding to this tired routine?

Now, if I remember correctly, having said you weren't being inflammatory when you were being inflammatory, passed judgement on a subject you plainly don't understand and refused to listen to the attempts people made to educate you, and been discourteous towards people, the next Act of the Apostle is blaming everyone else and playing the victim?

Do I get a prize if I am right?

125

The Hobbit and Evolution: So What's Up With That?

by AGuest in

jw
friends

may you all have peace!.

hubby and i happened to catch an episode of "nova" last night.

fascinating stuff.

Abaddon

You say; "it was not an attempt to discredit evolution".

You also say "... several scientist/anthropologist/paleontologist admissions that there is actually very little known about... and in evidence to support... evolution."

Which of those two statements is true dear?

Because making contradictory statements like that WILL cause an argment, and that contradicts you saying: "I didn't make the thread to start an argument".

Are you just stirring for the sake of it? Seems to me like you are just making a drama for the purposes of making a drama, and have ignored the responses made to you point regarding scientific and religious paradigms.

I and others addressed this directly and it is discourious of you to ignore this and deceitful of you to say otherwise.

To make it simpler:

1/ Religious beliefs are not founded on evidence. This is why you have to use this thing called 'faith' to believe in them. Religious beliefs tend to deny the truth of other religous beliefs, yet have no stringent evidencary proof of either their own beliefs or the false nature of other religious beliefs.

When a religion changes its beliefs it is not because of new evidence (it never had any anyway). It just means some theologian won an argument or because a political or socially expedient change was required.

2/ Scientific theories are based on evidence. They are the 'best fit' to the evidence. New evidence can be found. This may mean that the theory changes so it remains the 'best fit' to the evidence. Rarely will this make a major difference - new fossils get discovered all the time but not ONE has disproved evolution.

Pi and the mean force of gravity at sea level remain the same no matter who wins arguements or what society or politicians think.

With less clear cut areas where the evidence requires more interpretation, there are scientific arguements. But no reputable biological scientist doubts we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, and to say "... several scientist/anthropologist/paleontologist admissions that there is actually very little known about... and in evidence to support... evolution." is a gross distortion.

But then, it seems you would not know 'evidence' if it bit you, eh?

"There is NO EVIDENCE that directly links human evolution. None."

"In the same vein, there IS evidence of a fairly global, if not fully global flood."

30

Why This Atheist Respects the Jehovah's Witnesses-And why other Atheists should too!

by RaustBD in

jw
friends

i'm an atheist, and i'd like to take some time to talk about why i hold a great deal of respect for the jehovah's witnesses, and some words of encouragement that may put an end to the ridicule and disrespect you seem to get from, well, all sorts of people.. .

i never gave this kind of criticism a second thought: i knew nothing about you, and i figured you were just another fringe group of christianity.

i now feel terrible about this, and i wish to apologize for my (admittedly never spoken) disrespect.

Abaddon

I have to ask; do you genuinely believe that or is this a trojan horse of an argument? Not that you'd tel me if it was, but your reply would be illuminating never-the-less.