no doubt that atrocities were perpetrated against jehovah's witnesses in 1972-73.. but what about the reports in 1975?.
here is an excerpt from a diplomatic cable sent to the us secretary of state in 1977.. the cable was released/declassified in 2009.. .... re jehovah's witnesses, why do we go back to the.
events of 197273?
Hmm, hard to make heads or "tales" of this.
Here is a newspaper clippings of JWs claiming persecution at the end of 1975 (couldn't find the Dec 8th WT cited in the story). And the only source cited for the persecution of the JWs is a "Central African correspondent for Awake".
It's hard to tell if the specific abuse cases being cited in these papers are from 1975 or from 1967. Not sure what to believe here.
no doubt that atrocities were perpetrated against jehovah's witnesses in 1972-73.. but what about the reports in 1975?.
here is an excerpt from a diplomatic cable sent to the us secretary of state in 1977.. the cable was released/declassified in 2009.. .... re jehovah's witnesses, why do we go back to the.
events of 197273?
i used to think there was a true dichotomy between things in the physical world and things that were abstract or imagined.
but now i can't seem to understand why i ever thought that way.. i consider the mental to be a subset of the physical world (just as trout are a subset of fish).
all ideas, abstractions, imaginings, etc.
I used to think there was a true dichotomy between things in the physical world and things that were abstract or imagined. But now I can't seem to understand why I ever thought that way.
I consider the mental to be a subset of the physical world (just as trout are a subset of fish). All ideas, abstractions, imaginings, etc. need a physical medium - whether that be a piece of paper, a computer screen, a hard drive, or a brain. This OP is "mental" but we all understand it exists in the physical world. It's not like they're two independent things.
We all know that an imagined horse is not anything like a real horse. But just because they're vastly different (one being a large creature, the other being a specific brain state) doesn't mean they don't both exist in the physical world.
Anyone have any thoughts or refinements on this?
adjective.
having or representing the sun as the center, as in the accepted astronomical model of the solar system.. .
the idea that the earth orbits the sun is not right because we don't know how the big bang happened.
adjective.
having or representing the sun as the center, as in the accepted astronomical model of the solar system.. .
the idea that the earth orbits the sun is not right because we don't know how the big bang happened.
The idea that the earth orbits the sun is not right because we don't know how the Big Bang happened. I know that a lot of you guys on this thread are going to say the evidence for Heliocentrism is independent of the Big Bang - that the Big Bang could turn out to be completely wrong and we would still know the earth orbits the sun. But since I just said something about it here in my OP any legitimate points you make on the topic I'm just going to accuse you of not being able to read.
My personal view is that the only thing crazier than believing in Geocentrism is believing in Heliocentrism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4
Just because laws can be subjective doesn't mean that truth is subjective. Just because people can agree on the consequences to a certain behavior doesn't make those consequences "true".
Laws, in the criminal sense, can only ever be imposed. They're never true. It can be true that certain laws exist. But the laws themselves aren't true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4
Answers should be judged on whether they are useful
Useful at what?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4
How can we know we are any better at picturing reality than a dog?
Great question! And one with an easy answer.
We can know this the same way we can know which computer models work better than others - by their explanatory and predictive abilities. Models which give us useful explanations and have the ability to predict outcomes that match up with reality are considered good. And models which give inconsistent explanations or can only predict very short term outcomes - are considered not so good.
Our sense of reasoning is a tool. And the validity of any tool is how well it works to carry out a desired task.
Remember what I said before, truth is the label that we apply to claims that match reality.
Reasoning isn't a claim. It's a set of cognitive tools we use to make determinations about the world we inhabit. Tools aren't "true". They're useful.
i am hoping some of you may be up for participating in a little creative thought experiment .
the question i would like to pose (and if it has already been asked i apologize, for some reason i cannot search for topics on my mobile) is this: what would the evidence show if the jehovah's witness' literal reading of genesis was true?
i realize that is a fairly broad question, but for example a more pointed question could be: if the vapor canopy hypothesis is correct (i have confirmed with my elder father that this is still a currently accepted understanding), what evidence in our genome or that of other creatures or on earth would we expect to see?
If as the wt believes, the flood covered the entire earth to the height of Mt Everest for example, then every living thing aboard the ark would have died from lack of oxygen and/or pulmonary embolism at close to 25,000 ft.
