Food for thought

First topic message reminder :

I trust everyone reading this will take it as an unbiased reflection of the present situation and possible implications regarding faith.

There is much concern at the present time regarding young girls leaving home and joining the fighting in the belief that their faith demands it.

These are Muslim girls and one wonders why they would leave a so called better society to join in the fighting.


It should not be a secret what the parents of these girls teach their children as right from wrong, based on ther Koran.

These girls see day after day the way in which the vast majority of the youth of today behaves, along with the television and newspapers showing a long list of activities alien to the girls belief.

MP's lying, thieving and charged with the worst possible crimes of child abuse, 480 judges charged with crimes, parents killing their children, wives being beaten up, youths falling about and full of drugs etc;

This surely gives those Muslim's intent on brainwashing these poor girls to go to war, all the ammunition they need.

I just keep an open mind - did no harm to have a little chat with what might have been the 'spirit' of the previous owner - and if she was really 'stuck' here, maybe I helped her on

In any case, whatever the reason, I have a home where I'm really happy and comfortable - more than many can say

Very true. I too have a home I'm happy in, doubly so as I paid off the mortgage in 9 years instead of 25. I just wish I'd bought two now. Still I can't complain, and I've worked hard to secure my home.

As far as being open minded goes, I'll happily put aside my cynicism if and when some sort of tangible evidence is ever forthcoming. I personally think that's a fair open minded stance, though I know others will disagree.

My dad died almost 3 years ago now, and it's hard enough to accept he's gone without deluding myself that some supernatural cause has preserved him. That's why I don't think this kind of belief is entirely harmless, as some emotionally vulnerable people can fall prey to the multitude of opportunist tricksters that exploit such beliefs. Of course reasonably educated intelligent people like yourself are unlikely to fall prey to such trickery, but even tacit endorsement of such ideas strikes me as lending credence to such potentially exploitative ideas.

Just a thought. .....

boatlady,
We who have a home of our own should be grateful and more so if we also have the means of having a good life.

It is an unfortunate fact that those who would be willing to help the less well off and feed the hungry are the ones with little or no influence.

Sad world for the majority and humanity should be ashamed.

Not as ashamed as a deity with limitless knowledge and power if it existed and created the whole thing in the full knowledge of all the suffering it was creating. Luckily there is zero evidence for such a being.

It only goes back to creates the creator again does it not Sheldon?

stuart torr wrote:It only goes back to creates the creator again does it not Sheldon?

Well his claim that everything that existed MUST have been created was something of an obvious own goal. Hence his never responding to my questions about what created his god, then ignoring my posts and insulting me instead. He must think this behaviour and obfuscation is fooling someone, which is pretty astonishing in itself as I doubt anyone who's read the exchange was any more fooled by that than they are by his latest tactic of a loud petulant flounce, and then taking his ball away with grandiose threats of not playing any more because my posts are too childish. Talk about an irony overload...

We could also ask why his benevolent deity felt obliged to create, malaria or cancer, or any of the thousands of parasitic organisms that cause so much unimaginable suffering, or how about predatory animals? Since he claims that everything that exists must have been created his completely un-evidenced claim does beg a lot of questions.

Like his dinosaur skeleton one today do you mean?

stuart torr wrote:Like his dinosaur skeleton one today do you mean?

Yes stu, I almost hope he's trolling, as it'd be just too sad if he was being genuine.

Very sad I'm afraid Sheldon.

polyglide wrote:boatlady,
            We who have a home of our own should be grateful and more so if we also have the means of having a good life.

            It is an unfortunate fact that those who would be willing to help the less well off and feed the hungry are the ones with little or no influence.

            Sad world for the majority and humanity should be ashamed.  

Don't think you can have read the preceding posts Polyglide - wasn't about who has the best house, but about whether we believe in ghosts

Things that go bump in the night? like my neighbours that live upstairs.

boatlady,
Sorry, I have just left home after reading the National Paper.

It may be pure coincidence but one of the major issues was regarding the spirit world.

There were several instances of children being and also adults suffering the attentions of spirit creatures.

I feel there are too many verified instances of the supernatural to just put them down to a simple explanation.

I know several people whoi have dabled with the Quija ?
Board and suffered some very disturbing consequences.

Anyone who feels humans along with animal and plant life are the be all and end all of everything must be deluded.

The discussion is more interesting if everyone tries to keep to the point - just wanted to make sure we are all on the same page.

If you can provide some examples of 'verified instances of the supernatural' that might well lead to an interesting debate - myself, I don't know of any

boatlady,
There are numerous instances of people having unexplained experiences and I am sure you will have done so yourself, I certainly have but there has always been a reasonable explanation eventually.

However, there are many that cannot be explained in terms we understand.

In todays paper there are two instances that cannot be explained other than by matters we do not understand.

I have looked through the internet and there are hundreds of differing references regarding this matter.

In terms of verifiable, the only ones who can do so are the ones who experience that in question and many so claim.

polyglide wrote:boatlady, There are numerous instances of people having unexplained experiences

There are numerous instances of people think they are Napoleon Bonaparte, or of people claiming they were saved from drowning by mermaids, are you really trying to claim that the number of these claims increases their veracity?

What you've done here is use two separate common logical fallacies.

1. Argumentum ad populum, it's a bare appeal to numbers, it's not of course evidence.
2. Argumentum ad ignorantiam, or an appeal to ignorance, if it's unexplained then making claims about it speaks for itself, or at least it should. I'm amazed how many people don't know this, or just ignore it of course.

You've also written Boatlady, which is a noun, with a small b, then spelled there with a capital T in the middel of a sentence for some inexplicable reason?

polyglide wrote:However, there are many that cannot be explained in terms we understand.

Please re-read this sentence and ask yourself how you explain something in terms you don't understand.

Polyglide wrote:In todays paper there are two instances that cannot be explained other than by matters we do not understand.

Today's as it's not a plural. Again it's absurd to suggest we can explain something using things we can't explain, it makes no sense at all. If we can't explain it then we study it until we can, when we have evidence that stands up to proper rigorous scrutiny then we can start to explain it. You're just leaping to an assumption for which you have no evidence. That's not being open minded, that's subjective assumption.

polyglide wrote:I feel there are too many verified instances of the supernatural to just put them down to a simple explanation.

I feel there not, since we're just reeling off subjective un-evidenced opinions. You've used argumentum ad populum again, and verified how? You've neglected to evidence this process, again.

Polyglide wrote:I know several people whoi have dabled with the Quija ?
Board and suffered some very disturbing consequences.

Two b's in dabbled. Wooden boards have no supernatural powers, and claiming otherwise is definitely deluded. What you witnessed was no more confirmation of the supernatural than a rabbit being pulled out of a hat is evidence for magic. People are gullible, and suggestible, even in groups, and humans also have a propensity for imagining things that simply aren't real. That's why science is so important as it removes this kind of subjective bias, and gathers evidences for claims, then rigorously tests that evidence and scrutinises the results to ensure they are correct, before submitting their work for the very best experts in that particular field to peer review it. Now if that process validated these supernatural claims even once I'd be inclined to be less cynical, but that's the problem, despite innumerable claims that things require supernatural causation they have in every instance turned out to be entirely natural when properly scrutinised and an explanation found.

Denying claims that are made without proper evidence is not deluded, quite the opposite, it's making such claims and simply assuming they're true that's deluded.

Polyglide wrote:In terms of verifiable, the only ones who can do so are the ones who experience that in question and many so claim.

How very convenient, the problem is that when you claim experiential evidence is not only valid but requires no verifying you've just acknowledge the existence of mermaids, leprechauns, garden fairies, every deity humans have ever created, alien abductors with supernatural powers, basically anything any crackpot claims they've experienced.

I think with a moments reflection most sane rational half intelligent people will see the flaw in that assertion.

Polyglide
Perhaps if you want to cite 'instances' from today's paper, it might be helpful at the very least to say what those 'instances' are and what paper they were in - a link to the article would be fantastic, but I understand not everyone has the skills to do this.

Making a series of gnomic utterances doesn't really, in my book, count as engaging with a discussion

boatlady wrote:Making a series of gnomic utterances doesn't really, in my book, count as engaging with a discussion

Gerraway...

Would it be churlish of me to point out that a British tabloid newspaper article showed a PHOTOGRAPH of a London bus on the moon? Now call me an old cynic....

boatlady wrote:If you can provide some examples of 'verified instances of the supernatural'  that might well lead to an interesting debate - myself, I don't know of any

I suspect we're about to see the definition of verified applied in its loosest possible context. One interesting point to debate might be what if anything could constitute proper evidence for supernatural causation? Since the best method we have is science and that only deals with the physical natural world and universe one could argue that science is of little use in this instance, but then I might be minded to point out that science hasn't had much success in finding unicorns either.

The problem is that Polygide has claimed in another thread that supernatural beings have faked dinosaur fossils and DNA to fool us into accepting evolution, and deny creationism. I'm not sure what use evidence is in any discussion if someone thinks they can simply wave it away like that, and then label anyone who disagrees as delusional. You'd assume in any rational discussion that even if you disagreed about what the evidence is showing you could at least agree that science represents the best benchmark for gathering testing and scrutinising evidence.

Yes those faked dinosaur fossils warranted a reply from myself too Sheldon.

stuart torr wrote:Yes those faked dinosaur fossils warranted a reply from myself too Sheldon.

I'm not sure they do mate, I suspect most intelligent people are laughing heartily at the idea that everyone must be delusional if they don't see the obvious satanic fraud that is responsible for faking every single piece of scientific evidence that disproves his bronze age religion. I'm still laughing at that one, but I can only feel sorry for anyone that removed from reality.

So in your opinion are they real or fake Sheldon?

stuart torr wrote:So in your opinion are they real or fake Sheldon?

Not sure my opinion matters stu, the process that validated that evidence is the same as the one that cured polio, landed men on the moon, and explains gravity and tectonic plate shift. Everything from a nuclear power plant and space shuttle to a ball point pen exists because of science and scientists, so Poly can rant against it all he wants, if he'd rather believe shoving virgins into volcanoes is more effect than vulcanology then that's his right, but my money will always be on the scientists, and not on the chimpanzee that's throwing it's excrement at them from it's cage.

Getting back on topic for a minute.

Polyglide wrote:MP's lying, thieving and charged with the worst possible crimes of child abuse, 480 judges charged with crimes, parents killing their children, wives being beaten up, youths falling about and full of drugs etc;

This surely gives those Muslim's intent on brainwashing these poor girls to go to war, all the ammunition they need.

How exactly does flying to the middle east and helping one of the most barbaric and repressive regimes ever created suppress human rights throughout the middle east, fight any of the things on Polyglide's list?

Religion I do believe Sheldon, it must surely be his religion that believes his list makes these girls parents teach their girls enough to make them want to leave home to fight.

stuart torr wrote:Religion I do believe Sheldon, it must surely be his religion that believes his list makes these girls parents teach their girls enough to make them want to leave home to fight.

Yes but his list is UK based so why does he consider it compelling ammunition to encourage people to fight in the middle east?

It sounds like an irrational conclusion drawn from the flimsiest of evidence to me. Even by the standard his posts usually set it seems an arbitrary and subjective conclusion. As I said the Koran already demands that Muslim's slaughter non muslims wherever they find them, so his list seems irrelevant to me.

Maybe just being racist now Sheldon, we never know with him do we?

boatlady,
You asked for an explanation and I gave you one, regarding spirits etc, [not the gin type].

If you saw a person having his head chopped off would you need another thousand examples to realise it would not do him much good nor anyone else so treated?.

There are thousands of examples of spirit activity many having several credible witnesses, each one points to activity we do not understand,

You need only one to be verifiable under the terms humans use to do so, for there to be no neccesity to deny the fact that they exist.

You cannot see many things but we know they exist and the facts known to date indicate that there are spirit creatures [for want of another word]

I asked you to log on to spirit creatures and it may just improve your education on this matter.

Polyglide you are leaving your own thread slightly, now getting back to your opening post, in your opinion, do you think that it is the girls parents that encourage them to leave home to go fighting? or is it the girls only decision to do so,as they live in the UK,and have been bought up in the UK.
So you would have thought that they would have got use to the UK way of life would you not?

Stu,
It is not as simple as one would have first thought.

One way of looking at it is:-

A muslim child is brought up believing all that the Koran tells them.

It spells out all the things that they should avoid and that are harmful for their future etc;

Many are shielded from any other religion or cult etc;

When they eventually see all that is presently available on TV and all the other activities that are directly opposed to what they have been taught it is little wonder that they are confused and ready to be easily led.

I obviously do not agree with many of their beliefs but that is not the point.

Then what is the point?

Stu,
I am just beginning to wonder about you and your understanding of what is written.

The whole point is what goes before the last comment and just indicates that I do not believe what the muslims believe.

You realy should find a better side kick that Dr, Sheldon.

I can understand what you write pefectly polyglide thank-you very much, so if you want to abuse Sheldon, please be careful as I got a ban for similar things as it is against house rules.

You said Polyglide "that you do not believe what the muslims believe" then you counteract that by saying "but that is not the point" if that is not the point then what is the point? as you have counteracted your original statement with the second one, it is you polyglide that does not understand what you write.

Stu,
Please just consider what is actually written.

It does not matter what I think about the muslim religion at all.

What matters is what is taught to the childred, what I think cannot infuence what they think.

Now if you cannot understand that then you are in need of urgent help.

Please do not slander me polyglide, as that is against house rules also.

Polyglide - as far as I can see, you are continuing with the gnomic utterances.

I haven't asked for an explanation, I have asked for examples of the phenomena 'verified examples of the supernatural' that you claim are readily available daily in the press. Just post me one link, or name me one paper where you have read of such phenomena so that we can discuss your assertion.

And please do try to avoid being offensive to other forum users - it is not acceptable to call into question another's intellect.
You are not here to teach, nor are other forum users here to be instructed by you - if you cannot engage on equal terms, please remain silent.

Constant repetition of a bad argument does not make it any better

stuart torr wrote:Maybe just being racist now Sheldon, we never know with him do we?

I doubt that to be honest, I think he just has a problem with modern developed societies and how they differ from what he believes they should be, based on his own slant on Christianity. His posts suggest that despite his claims about his beliefs he is deeply dissatisfied with life and indicate a very frustrated and person whose anger is often all too evident when others disagree with him and his beliefs.