
philh
Members-
Content
954 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Dropzones
Gear
Articles
Fatalities
Stolen
Indoor
Help
Downloads
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Videos
Classifieds
Everything posted by philh
-
I would say there are a large number of things in life which are completley out of ones control. If you were a Jew in Nazi germany, a Tutsi in early 90's Rwanda or someone suspected of whitchcraft in Salem , I doubt your attitude would make any difference whatsoever. This is also true for things less dramatic eg the best predictors of childs performance in school is their parents performance at school. Im not saying a positive attitude has no effect, but there are so many other forces at work that one cannot control, that it would be ludicrous to say they have the sort of all powerful effect implied in "the LAw of Attraction".
-
Sorry Steve mate Im not really sure what the relevance of this is.
-
The 2003 war in Iraq - does anybody still fully support it?
philh replied to vortexring's topic in Speakers Corner
"And yes, I believe that we are in a global ideological war spawned by the religion of Islam. " Agreed. There are those in Islam that want to replace democracy and an open society with a totalitarian theocracy. One might also point out that there are those in Christianity that want to do the same and in the past ( the dark ages) were very succesful in doing so. -
The 2003 war in Iraq - does anybody still fully support it?
philh replied to vortexring's topic in Speakers Corner
"Go ahead and dig them up they were probably ridiculous the first time around but sure give me a second laugh. I might as well also point out the elephant in the room… A very simple way to test your theory is if they had been given evidence and then rejected it and still not handed him over. It didn’t even get that far and nor was it given time to, the US had a goal and that goal was immediate retaliation at a defenseless target. " Ok yet again then:, this was an interview with Mullah Omar shortly after Sep 11th: Omar: This is not an issue of Osama bin Laden. It is an issue of Islam. Islam's prestige is at stake. So is Afghanistan's tradition.. VOA: So you won't give Osama bin Laden up? Omar: No. We cannot do that. If we did, it means we are not Muslims... that Islam is finished. If we were afraid of attack, we could have surrendered him the last time we were threatened and attacked. So America can hit us again, and this time we don't even have a friend. " So it was the policy of the head of state of Afghanistan to support and harbour terrorists that had declared war on the USA. Note also Mullah Omar was married to OBL's daughter. The Taliban also claimed that Saddam Hussein was behind the East Africa emabssy bombings. We now know they were lying to cover OBL. Or do you believe them? Did Saddam Hussein orchestrate the East Africa attacks? THE US had warned Mullah Omar in a declassified document you can find here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB134/index2.htm the State Department reiterates "that the U.S. reserves the right to take military action concerning bin Ladin and will hold the Taliban directly responsible for any terrorist activities bin Ladin engages in." . The Taliban were warned, they harboured and protected Aq and they were also one of the worst abusers fo human rights in the world. Human rights Watch claim the TAliban practiced ethnic cleansing killing thousands of civilians due to their Hazara origin, Taliban troops killed those that refused to protest "Death to America"before the US invasion (Source The Indepent Newspaper 11/9/01), and that is on top of a policy of bruning schools with women in it (often with them literally inside) and of course the obvious horrenodous opporession of women. Most importantly I would refer you to the discovery (and Ill show you the refernce in a well know left wing British newspaper The Guardian and its Sunday version The Observer :http://observer.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,596988,00.html): "Other documents seen by Observer reporters make clear the scale of al-Qaeda's ambitions for a global jihad, including a notebook detailing plans to assassinate Western leaders. Other evidence uncovered at al-Qaeda sites indicates that major power plants in the US and Europe - some of them nuclear - were being targeted for attack. Other documents, apparently prepared by Pakistani diplomats and intelligence officers, make it absolutely clear that the Taliban, far from simply hosting bin Laden's network, was involved in every stage of the plan for global jihad against Western interests and had repeatedly ignored warnings before the 11 September attacks that it faced bombing by the US or Russia if it continued to support terrorists. The most damning documents were discovered at two sites in the former diplomatic district of Kabul, both of which were scattered with forms labelled 'al-Qaeda Ammunition Warehouse'. The presence of al-Qaeda documents in the first - a Taliban Defence Ministry building - is compelling evidence of the inseparable links between al-Qaeda and the Taliban. " Another point, Al queda provided its elite Birgade 055 and intergrated into the Taliban armed forces, according to Wikipedia "The 055 Brigade was an elite guerrilla organization sponsored and trained by Al Qaeda that was integrated into the Taliban army between 1997 and 2001. It comprised mostly foreign guerrilla fighters from the Middle-East, Central Asia and South-East Asia whom had some form of combat experience, either fighting the Soviet invasion during the 1980s or elsewhere." This is from Al jeezeera, not exactly considered a mouthpiece for the US government: http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10207 "bin Laden quickly established ties with the fledgling Taliban group, led by Mohammed Omar, and by providing funds and weapons at a crucial time helped the group rise to power. Thereafter al-Qaeda enjoyed the Taliban's protection and a measure of legitimacy as part of their Ministry of Defense." According to Asian Times http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD08Aa01.html on the assisantion of Northern Aliiance commander Masoud 1 day before the 9/11 attack "Masoud himself had told this correspondent, two weeks before he was killed, of the incestuous link between bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the ISI. A 2002 Asia Times Online investigation would later establish that Masoud was killed as a gift from al-Qaeda to the Taliban, " Perhaps you shoudl do your research a bit more throughly,in 1999 the UN imposed sanctions against Afghanistan for refusing to hand over Bin Laden over his connection with East Africa bombings, this was set out in UN security council resolution 1267. following this , the Taliban had this to say on OBL "He is a great holy warrior of Islam and a great benefactor of the Afghan people," said Abdul Anan Himat, a senior official at the Taliban's information ministry in an interview with the Associated Press. "We won't hand him over to America under any circumstances. It is our stated policy." Is all this funny enough for you? -
What causes Gravity?? Does anyone really know??
philh replied to watchdog2's topic in Speakers Corner
isnt gravity a US plot to keep the aviation business afloat. Boeing, Lockhead, Rockwell etc look at how much money these guys are getting; follow the money! -
"Try Transcendental Meditation. Maharishi Yogi has been saying this for a long time. " Another fraud who think his meditators can actually levitate without a wind tunnel and this fraud is supposed to create world peace, I dont think so.
-
I dont think anyone is rubbishing the idea that a positive attitude in life is a good thing. But these guys seem to go much further "Universal Laws govern the Universe. They are basic principles of life and have been around since Creation. They are laws of the Divine Universe. Universal Laws apply to everyone, everywhere. They cannot be changed. They cannot be broken. The Universal Law of Attraction (LOA) is the most powerful force in the universe. It is simple in concept but practice is necessary. But once you "get it", there is no looking back! It will be part of you forever. The simplest definition of this law is "like attracts like." Other definitions include: You get what you think about, whether wanted or unwanted. All forms of matter and energy are attracted to that which is of a like vibration. You are a living magnet. You get what you put your energy and focus on, whether wanted or unwanted. Energy attracts like energy Everything draws to itself that which is like itself. " Apart from the pseudo scientific BS theres also another point. The marketing of the film is focused on think about what you want and youll get it, thats just wrong. But more importantly is the negative side of this coin, the implication of this law of attraction is that when bad stuff happens its because people thought bad thoughts. Victims only have themselves to blame, what utter tosh.
-
Agreed, Yoko is awesome, book her now!You tube yoko freestyle and you will see her flying.
-
Reciprocity is certainly something to consider in social realtions. But that is not what this "law of attraction " is saying at all. Its saying that you attract your own reality with your thoughts. That is cleary absurd.
-
Recently Ive been hearing about a movie called "The Secret" and its main principle "The Law of Attraction". A quick look up on Wikipedia desribed this: "As put forth in the film, the "Law of Attraction" principle posits that people's feelings and thoughts attract real events in the world into their lives; from the workings of the cosmos to interactions among individuals in their physical, emotional, and professional affairs. The film also suggests that there has been a strong tendency by those in positions of power to keep this central principle hidden from the public." Does anyone take such a notion seriously? I didnt know whether to lauch or cry when reading about such a ridiculous idea.
-
The 2003 war in Iraq - does anybody still fully support it?
philh replied to vortexring's topic in Speakers Corner
Yes Uk police has arrested several radical Islamacists , and it is likely we will continue to face this problem and become a front in this battle. but i dont knwo why one would hope this to be the case, which is what you said. I would hope there are no more radical Islamcists in the Uk (or anywhere for that matter), of course this is not a relaistic hope. When you say Islam is intolerant i would agree with you. There is certainly much in the teachings of Islam which represents great intolerance. But that is also true in the bible; whilst we are in a fortunate position now in that most followers of biblical texts dont focus on such intolerant passages, they are there. Islam is in the unfortunate position now in that many of its followers are following rather than ignoring its ugly passages. This however has happened in Christianity eg the dark ages and one cannot rule it happening again. Those that believe homo sexuals victims of Aids deserve their disease are perhaps modern representatives of this trend. -
The 2003 war in Iraq - does anybody still fully support it?
philh replied to vortexring's topic in Speakers Corner
You showed no such thing. I showed you the quotes from the Taliban that clearly stated the reson they werent handing over OBL was muslim pride, not lack of evidence, do I need to dig them up again? -
The 2003 war in Iraq - does anybody still fully support it?
philh replied to vortexring's topic in Speakers Corner
Well Steve finally we are in total agreement. Iraq has a huge error, but i believe the war in Afghanistan is justified. Re deploy the troops there, something that should have been done in the first place. Radical Islam is deadly enemy we need to fight. Nato forces had a right to launch operations in Afghanistan as they had attacked us, but we had no right to attack Iraq. Lets admit the error and move on. By the way Royd, why do you want London to be a battlefied in thsi battle? Can you elaborate please? -
Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73
philh replied to masterblaster72's topic in Speakers Corner
Why is sticking to your beliefs a virtue in itself? Hitler stuck to his beliefs, didnt make them right did it? In fact an honest person will change their beliefs. I used to believe UFo 's were alien spaceships but on further investigation Ive realised that reasoning is not valid and Ive changed my beliefs. An honest intellectual may change their beliefs if the evidence demands it, a rigid dogmatic person will not. -
I think we can celebrate the fact that he is not here to encourage intolerance without the celbrating the manner in which it happened. I certainly feel sympthathhy for his family and their loss. But I will not mourn the person who gave us comments like this: "I really believe that the Pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians, ... the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this [terrorist attack: 9/11] happen." "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals." The fact that the likes of GW Bush and John Mccain can pay tribute to such a man that said things like that is something I find amazing.
-
I agree compassion does not need to be judged by the the same rules of evidence because what is compassionate is a value judgement, not a statement of fact. However whether a diet is healthier than anothher diet cannot be treated in the same way and we should seek verifable evidencce before making claims of that kind. The fact that a person feels healtheir after a diet does not mean they are healthier, this is a very obvious fallacy called the post hoc fallacy. Just because A proceeds B does not mean that A caused B. Similarly if one seems healthier after switching to raw food we are not able to draw the conlusion that raw food was the cause without controlling for other varibales and using a large data base. personal experience cannot do this and so should not be used as a method of assesing the validity of dietary claims. As for John Robbins I did not mean to suggest thhat the style is a rant, more that, thats what it seemed by a brief look at it. I dont want to jump to conlusions as I havent read it. I just prefer to get my data from more scholarly research. Incidentally as I have pointed out, there is scholarly research showing the efficacy of a vegggie diet, one example is here: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1022500&pageindex=1
-
I havent read Diet for a New America , I checked it out and it didnt seem like an objective assesment fo the evidence. Even though it appeared to be arguing a point I agree with, I would like someone more objective looking over this kind of issue. I dont need someone to tell me about the ethics of the issue, but the science of health benefits needs to be investigated objectivley and I prefer sources that have less of rant style. "Nope - haven't read "studies of benefits" of raw food. A small personal data set is all I have for now. But I don't know of a single person who has gone raw (people who do this generally are highly aware of nutrition and what it takes to remain healthy) and felt worse for it. " I think its a very dangerous thing to do to take one's limited personal experience as being informative. there are number of logical fallcies you can fall into very easily, such as the post hoc fallacy, the pragmatic fallacy and the regressive fallacy etc i would definitley reccomend checking them out here: http://skepdic.com/tilogic.html
-
"Raw, huh? Haven't been able to go there yet. I have alot of admiration for that diet. Especially since I've seen the health benefits. I'd bet your body just glows!" Im a veggie and Ive spent some time looking into the health benefits of a veggie diet, there seems to be mixed evidence out there for it, some studies say yes others say no. Personally, im veggie for ethical reaons. Whats interesitng is a new article in Physics world claiming going veggie can help reduce carbom emmisons, check it out here: http://www.physorg.com/news4998.html On the issue of raw food when you say yove seen the benefits , I presume you mean youve seen the studies on the benefits? After all, one cant assume benefits in that way, with a small personal data set, it takes large studies. Perhaps you could direct us to them?
-
Id say if the public elevates peer reviwed articles above not peer reviewed articles in their likelihood of being true: theyd be right.
-
Peer review is a key step in science. It is the process of qualified person reviewing new work, checking results, going over your work with scrutiny etc etc. given it is done by human being it has its flaws. But what would you prefer? No peer reivew? Peer review is an essnetial filter to stop grabage entering into scientific journals, it is not perfect but it is the best we have. Dr Higgs suggests no improvement or better alternative and so I would pay him little credence. The whole artciels smells of the awful straw man:" x has been wrong in the past and so they must be wrong now " do I need to point out the ridculous logic of this argument?
-
"As for the vegan lifestyle, I've observed it long enough to realize that there are a lot of problems with getting all of your nutrition in proper doses by eating only vegetables. Most vegans seem to be on the puny side...In a time when high school seniors can't read at a sixth grade level, and can't add a single column of numbers on a piece of paper, do we really expect them to put serious effort into knowing the problems of vegetarianism." Royd you cant get to real conclusions by your limited observations. Maybe you should search the scientific literature and see what real data there is. I did that, you can read one such study here: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1022500&pageindex=1 in case you cant be bothered here are the bullet points: 1)Veggies have lower wieght, choletsrol and blood pressure 2)Veggies have lower mortality rates , especially lower incidence of heart disease and cancer 3)"substantial public health and enviromental benefits would likely result from a widespread adoption of vegetarianism" Of course there are some very stupid vegans and veggie(the two are different); but there are also some very stupid meat eaters. The question is not that, its, are there serious disadvantages to being a veggie? and I woul say the answer to that is no. Most nutrtionist advise a balanced diet, eating in moderation and regular excericse. This is easily acheivable on a veggie diet. If you want to argue by anecdote i will give you an opposite one, Bill Pearl was a veggie and won Mr Universe. Of course my anecodte and your anecodte are really not meaningful, what is meaningful is peer reviewed research; show some of that supporting your prejudice against veggies and youll have a point, without it, you dont.
-
"The list of possibilities is endless and God knows them all. pretty impressive eh?" Im not overly impressed by an imaginary being given imaginary atributes. "Are you aware that there are prophecies that did not come to pass because of man's free will? " Im certainly aware that many prophecies in the bible did not come true. I wasnt so aware that many Chrsitians accepted that fact. I certainly giv you credit for doing so. If a prophecy is made and it doesnt come to pass, I would call that a failed prophecy. The fact of why it is a failed prophecy is not the issue. If i didnt have to take into account people free choices I could probably be a pretty good pyschic myself. "I don't see that it would either. Why are there tornado and Tsunamis, cancer, disease? I don't have a good reason. Job asked the same questions. He did not get a reply other than "You're not God, so who are you to judge me?" type of reply. " Well this is exactly the point, god most likely does not exist and if he does he is not so great to intervene in our lives in as positive way. You say dont judge god but i find most thesist are always judging god except they come to a positive judgement; god is great, merciful, just,loving etc As soon as someone says somethign that is equally a judgment but in the opposite direction, not great, unjust, merciless,uncaring etc suddenly they are told not to judge god. "To say God is not omniscient because he allows man's free will is like the stupid question, "can God create a rock so big he can't lift it?" To me that is simply the question the unlearned ask. Its not a stupid question at all. Your example of "can god create a rock so big he cant lift it " is not the way that question is usually phrased but there is a serious point and you havent addressed it except in the form of an ad hominem attack on the questioner. The more serious way of asking this question is: are there attributes of gods omni properties (omnisciene,omnipresence,omnipotent etc) that are in contradiction to other characteristics? By definition an omnscient being knows everything so can he know what ignorace feels like? Is god in hell? if he is not, then he ca not be omnipresent. Is god ominoptennt ? Many theist have different views, god can do anything, can do anything he chosses, can can do anything that is logically possible to do.This last possibility puts constraits on god and many theists dont accep that, it seem you probably do. If god can do anyhting ,can he kill himslef? If he cant he is not genuinely omnipotent, if he can then he is not genuinely immortal. "Through a good study and understanding of God's word as presented by the Bible and the teachings of Christ, through God's other teachers, and from nature itself. " thast your assumption that bible is gods word. Even if its right there are many ways to interpet it, some violent some non violent. "First, show me where I have rejected "objective" evidence." What I mean by that is you reject objective evidence as a basis for belief. You will believe in things without objective evidence, you believe in a soul, i asked for you some evidence for a soul, you replied "You're looking for something that does not exist. Empiracle evidence for a soul. " They are your own words and yet you believe in one anyway. This is utterly absurd basis for belief. My beliefs about the issues we debate are based on evidence, yours are not; thats the real difference between us.
-
"I've told you many times I believe God knows ALL possible futures. There is not one set future if man has free will, so therefore it would be impossible for God to know exactly what we would choose if we have free will. Being God he can know all our possible choices, but since he leaves that up to us. " This is a very interesting answer and it seems I may have misunderstood you position. So Im going to state here clearly what I think you are implying and you can correct me if I have misunderstod: According to you god knows what possible actions we might take but does not know what actual actions we will take , so for example he knows I might have a salad or a sandwhich or sushi for lunch tomorow but he doesnt know which, as I havent decided myself yet. Is that correct? If it is I may have previousluy misunderstood your position. However i dont think this would be without cause. The reasoon for that is you have previously used prophecy as evidence of the divine nature of the bible. If god only knows our possible future actions and not our actual future actions how is prophecy possible? I still dont see why saving people from a natural disaster like a tsunami would in any way contradict free will. When it comes to un natual disasters like the Virginia shooting why would gods intervention be an unnaceptable intervention in free will, but a police intervention wouldd not? (Im presuming you would be ok had the police turned up and intervened, please correct me if I am wrong). Another point,if god cant see the future perfectly then he is not omniscient. Do you agree god is not omniscient? "I do not pretend to answer for anyone but me. I try to align my actions with what Christ teaches. I have studied it intensively and while I have a better than average understanding, I'm not the resident expert." I know you try and align yourselves with Christ teachings but previously you said that prayer was your attempt to align yourslef with gods will, my question is how do you know the will of god? Whats makes your (hopefully peaceful) interpretation necessarily right in contrast to those that do the same and get a very violent interpretation of gods will? Both you and the jihadist bleieve they are following gods will. Since you abandon objective evidence what basis do you have to declare your interpretation right and theirs wrong?
-
If I throw a coin, i know both possible futures, heads or tails. straw man. bad analaogy. Few of our choices are 50/50. -------------------------------------------- Straw Man? Where do I say most our choices are 50/50? You are missing the point entirley. I am giving the example of a coin toss to demosntrate that knowing posssible futures is not the same thing as knowing the future. Did you really miss this and think I was saying all our choices are 50/50? I doubt it, I think you are smarter than that. "Do you know "most" theist?? I doubt it. Do you even know the differenece between Arminian and Calvinist in their theology? I have no stats but I'd say a good portion of Christian theologians are Arminian, and believe in man's free will. " Ok I dont know most theists , but I have never heard of one that doesnt think god can see the future perfectly. If there are some out there, feel free to poin thtem out. But that is why I asked you whether you think god can do this or not, your opinion is of relevance here since you are the one I am debating. You conveniently didnt answer. My knowledge of the details fo the myriad number of Christian sects are not at issue here, so what if some or all of them believ in free will. What I am saying is thatt concpet of gods omnipetence is contradictory to free will. Which sects believ in free will is not the point. "This is where I disagree with you. I can exercise my free will to shoot you and someone can exercise their free will to shoot me first. The fact that the second guy stopped me from shooting didn't infringe upon my free will to choose to shoot, he only changed the outcome by exercising his free will to stop me. " This is completley irrevelant, yet again you missing the point entirely. i'm not reaally sure how else to explain the contradiction. Maybe this will help , a person faces option 1 or option 2. Secanrio 1 A person has a free choice they can decide between 1 or 2, thereofre whilst it might be possible to predict with a high level fo accuracy which they will choose, that level can never be 100% as long as their choice is free. Scenario 2 If their actions are predetermined it will be posssible (at least in principle) to predict with complete acuracy whether they will chose 1 or 2 in this case any appearence of free will is an illusion. In scenario 2 it would be possible to have perfect knowledge of the future so goods omnipotence is at leats conceivable, but then free will dissapears. "I use prayer to align myself with God's will rather than ask Him to give me something. " and how do you know what gods will is? Many people do the same and come up with some very different versions of gods will, some go and build churches others go and blow up buildings, how do you knwo your version of gods will is the right one? How do you know your not deluding youself?
-
"I said God knows all possible futures. He gives man free will. Knowing the infinite # of choices man may make does not equal making those choices for him. Man is free to make any choice he wants. I do not believe God will intervene in those choices. " If I throw a coin, i know both possible futures, heads or tails. But big deal, it doesnt make me able to see the future perfectly does it? According to most theists, god can see the future perfectly, maybe you can tell us what you think. Is this possible or not? for god or anyone else? As long as thats possible then no one has fee will. We have to live in a deterministic universe for perfect knowledge of the future to be possible; determinisn and free will are mutually exculsive. The more determinsitic our actions are, the less role for free will. In order to have perfect knowledge of the future are actions have to be 100% determined, in that case we have 0% free will. This is a logical contradiciton you seem unable to grasp, it has nothing to do with miracles. However with regards to miracles, if god had saved thhe poeple on the Boxing day tsunami , whose free will would have beenn violated?