Better off PIMA than POMA or POMO.

by ExBethelitenowPIMA 98 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze
    Don't you mean that the 8th grade was the last grade you completed and that thus you did not complete any grade of high school?

    That is correct. I saw the mistake in my post after time ran out to correct it. I completed most of the 9th grade but got kicked out for smoking pot a few weeks before the school year ended. I started the habit in 1976 at age 13, after the failed 1975 prophecy. Everyone just pretended to ignore its failure. I was unable to pretend, so MJ calmed me down enough to be able to tolerate living a lie, which the rest of my family seemed to have no trouble doing.

    Yes, raised in the deep South.

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    Update: On page 5 of this topic I said "a new genera has never been directly observed as coming into existence", but in case of plant that might be correct. Polyploidy evolution has been detected in plants and in at least one case the result (wheat) was a hybrid of three species from at least two different genera. Such might thus constitute macroevolution.

  • ThomasCovenant
    ThomasCovenant

    ExBetheliteNowPIMA formerly Llubrevlis formerly InDoubtBigTime,

    But you still don't 'think' there's enough evidence to convince you that man has landed on the moon either do you?

    Oh dear.

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    Sea Breeze, based upon what you said about your age in 1976, we about the same age (though you are slightly older than me). In the year 1975 (and prior to that year) I did not put great expectation in the WT's ideas about 1975 (regarding what the WT said might happen in that year). That is because I knew of WT claims made during the few years (or several months) prior to 1975 which made disclaimers that the great tribulation, Armageddon, and the new world (in which Satan is abyssed for 1000 years) might not start by then.

    Furthermore, I never did consider the WT's predictions and speculations about 1975 to be prophecies (in the biblical sense of prophecies, at least as defined by the WT, though not in the sense of the general public's idea of the word "prophecy") or examples of the WT claiming to act as a prophet. That is because I viewed them as only being expectations and speculations based upon interpretations the Bible, and not something claimed to be revelations received by the people of the WT directly from God. The WT never claimed that Jehovah God gave them a personal/direct revelation about 1975. I thus did not get stumbled by 1975 and the WT's pronouncements regarding it (that is, until much more recently when I discovered some much stronger claims the WT made about 1975 than I had known prior to the year 2015 or so), and I got baptized in the early 1980s.

    Since you strike me as very conservative (theologically and politically) I am thus surprised that you ever (even at age 13) smoked marijuana. In contrast, as a child though I leaned towards being liberal in regards to my beliefs in social/human rights and political views, and though I am now theologically liberal (to the point of being an atheist) and politically very liberal/progressive, I have l never smoked marijuana nor consumed any other substance while it was ever under ban as being too dangerous a drug. That is because since early childhood I have wanted to protect my health. Now, the vast majority of the time I even avoid eating desert (even small candies), even when they are offered to me for free more than once a week, because I wish to avoid spiking my sugar levels. [Note: though I am very liberal/progressive in regards to what I believe are valid social/human rights and in regards to political policies, morally I personally live primarily by conservative Christian values.]

    Did you ever go back to taking high school courses and/or did did you ever get a high school diploma or a GED? If not, that is sad.

  • ExBethelitenowPIMA
    ExBethelitenowPIMA

    The meaning of being agnostic is that you have come to the conclusion that either chance or intelligent design can’t be proven.

    If one could be proven then all agnostics would jump that side of the fence.

    If someone could prove either chance or intelligent design then please post the proof here, I would jump that side of the fence in a heartbeat. Please I’m serious there would be no more agnosticism that would be it.

    unfortunately there is no proof of either theory and once you come to this realisation you also realise we are all agnostic until such proof can be presented.

    both chance and intelligent design are theories until irrefutable proof can be presented everyone is agnostic wether they like it or not.

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3522158/ says the following.

    "The wheat group has evolved through allopolyploidization, namely, through hybridization among species from the plant genera Aegilops and Triticum followed by genome doubling.

    ... HYBRIDIZATION and polyploidization are ubiquitous modes of evolution in plants and in other eukaryotes (reviewed by Van de Peer et al. 2009). The wheat group (genera Aegilops and Triticum) emphasizes the impact of hybridization and polyploidization on species evolution in nature and under domestication. For example, bread wheat has a complex genome consisting of three related genomes that derived from three different diploid species; it is called an allohexaploid (allo, from Greek, meaning “different”). Pasta wheat is an allotetraploid."

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze
    either chance or intelligent design can’t be proven.

    Hi Pima,

    I truly appreciate your attepts at acquiring a new worlview after WT. It is unavoidable and is a worthy pursuit.

    Your above statement is a truth claimed based on empiricism. Did you prove this by empirical observation? No, you can't see a truth claim. It is abstract. So, how do you know the statement itself is true?

    So, the notion that all truth claims ought to be determined by empirical observation, cannot be proved by emirical observation and therefore should be rejected by its own standard.

    Many things can be proved by empirical observation, just not all. So, it cannot be the ultimate standard of truth.

    Christians don't have this problem.

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze
    3 days ago
    If you believe in evolution there is no possible hope at all everything is pointless and without purpose.
    Nicolaou: Why do you feel this way? I'm a happy atheist

    @ Nicolaou - So your purpose in life is to go around telling people that they can be happy without a purpose in life? Isn't that self-contradictory? Doesn't make any sense.

    How do you know if what makes you happy will bring someone else happiness? It's not like we are all wearing happiness meters on our arms where we can see - this person has a 50 on the happiness scale but this person only has a 20.

    And whose happiness scale does the atheist go by anyway? The Marquis de Sade found happiness in administering pain to women. If the happiness he experienced was greater than the unhappiness of his victims, then the net gain makes it moral if happiness is the standard.

    Atheist ideas ultimately end up in absurdity because the ideas are rooted in the irrational rejection of God. So, the ground he stands on is itself irrational, arbitrary and chaotic.

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    Sea Breeze, Nicolaou did not say (at least in the post you quoted) that people can be happy without a purpose in life. Furthermore, he did not say (at least in the post you quoted from) that his purpose is to tell people that "they can be happy without a purpose in life". Instead he said the following pertaining to his purpose. "I have plenty of hope and purpose in my life, mostly centred around the people I love. Life is good without god." Sea Breeze please stop misconstruing what atheists say regarding atheism and naturalism!

    I and many other atheists have a purpose (a multi-faceted one, not just of promoting atheism and naturalism) in life, it is a purpose I have chosen myself. My life is better without belief in YHWH God (and slavery to God and to religion), Armageddon, hell fire eternal torment, the devil and demons, and many other doctrines of supernaturalism. Many people don't need some alleged deity to assign a purpose to them. People can choose their own purpose! That is part of the great uplifting message of atheist naturalism! I prefer the purpose I chose for myself to the one the WT says is my purpose (namely to worship Jehovah God and to be a farmer in the new world) and to the purpose mentioned in the book of Revelation (of being a priest in the temple of God in heaven and of being a king).

    It is not atheist's ideas on topic which are irrational. It is some of your ideas about atheist's ideas of this topic which is irrational. The supernatural ideas of Christianity are what is absurd - not atheism and scientific naturalism!

    There is something though that I greatly appreciate about the WT's JW religion. It is the idea that all false religion will come to a complete end. I relish that idea. I too want all false religion to end (though I don't expect it will ever happen as long as our species continues to exist, but it can greater become far less prevalent). But I want it to end without people being forced to be nonreligious. I want religious people to voluntarily cease being religion (such as a result of persuasion and of them drawing their own conclusions in the matter). I want all beliefs in the existence of the supernatural to cease! The world and human society would be so much better if such was the case (provided it was not due to coercion)!

  • cofty
    cofty
    people can make a legitimate case that evolution in the sense of macroevolution has not been demonstrated as proven (to 100% certainty) - Del.JW

    You are equivocating about the meaning of the word 'proof'.

    It strictly belongs only to the realm of mathematics where it basically involves showing that a statement is a tautology. In every other field of knowledge we assess the balance of evidence. The fact that every living thing descended from a common ancestor over millions of years is as absolutely certain as the fact that the planet earth is not flat.

    If you want to argue that this is not '100% proven' then carry on but how does it add anything useful? SBF and others hide behind it to pretend that anything is equally likely.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit