Crazy thing is, right about now they're probably sitting around going, "Damn! I was really hoping New York would be obliterated by now!"
SNG
seattleniceguy
JoinedPosts by seattleniceguy
-
57
Nuclear attack in New York on June 9 or 10?
by RR innuclear attack in new york on june 9 or 10?.
the lord's witnesses press release is headlined: "bible scholars predict an 85 percent probability of a nuclear terrorist attack on the un complex in manhattan on june 9 or 10"
robert duncan
-
-
-
17
When You Think About It----Jehovah's Witneses Are Just Weird!
by minimus inthe more i dwell on it, the more embarassed i am that i was ever a witness.
jws make big deals about nuthin'.
you can't say "bless you" if someone sneezes.
-
-
seattleniceguy
When You Think About It----Jehovah's Witneses Are Just Weird!
Almost...dare I say it...like every detail of their lives is dictated by nutcases!
SNG
-
11
JW Graduates at the top of her class
by TresHappy inthe sound system always seems to blare piercing static through the speakers.
the weather is often too hot or disappointingly overcast.
i'm not going to go up there and thank all my friends or talk about being together in the future.
-
-
seattleniceguy
Public speaking isn't new to Lorene. As a Jehovah's Witness, she has re-enacted biblical scenes before fellow worshippers during services.
"Ironically, however, Lorene has never given a speech to her own congregation from the podium - and likely never will - because her religion teaches that women are not qualified to do so."
SNG
-
25
Evolution and Self-Sacrifice
by IW indoes the theory of evolution supply the genetic answer to the self-sacrificing nature of many animal parents as well as that of many men and women in general?
when a man or woman risks their life to help someone in danger is their response simply a response to the natural processes at work due to evolution's effect on their dna?
if so, can this self-sacrificing gene be isolated?
-
-
seattleniceguy
IW,
Isn't medicine working against the very process most scientists believe created the biological world we live in? I'm not for getting rid of medicine! just trying to understand this seeming inconsistency in the scientific world. Wouldn't allowing nature take its course be the best thing if man truly believes that natural processes have created such a remarkable living little planet as the one we all call home?
Peacefulpete already made the point pretty well, but the important concept to get your head around is that evolution is not "trying" to make organisms that have specific traits. For example, having natural perfect vision is not as important now because we have corrective lens technology. It's possible that as a result, the average individual in a technologically advanced society will have worse vision than one in which individuals with poor vision are quickly eaten by the alligators that they can't see. It would be tempting to see this worsening of vision as "de-evolution," as if evolution were "trying" to reach some peak of vision performance.
In reality, however, what has happened is that the environment changed. This is totally valid. Environments change all the time in the natural world as well. When things started warming up after the last ice age, animals started evolving less hairy coats. It would be possible to see this as a step to a more frail condition (e.g., one that would produce less fit organisms in the previous environment). And, indeed, if the new, less hairy animals were suddenly transported to ice cold conditions, they would not fare well. But in the new environment, being extremely hairy was no longer a feature that directly influenced survival.
Technology is a natural product of evolution, because after natural evolutionary processes created brains that were sufficiently complex, those brains began to create tools. As it turns out, being able to manipulate the natural world is an extremely effective survival strategy. You can see what has happened over the past couple centuries as a change in our basic survival strategy from having biologically strong bodies to having advanced tools.
Also, regarding your last sentence, even if "man truly believes that natural processes have created such a remarkable living little planet," it's still possible that there are better ways of going about it. Evolution is a slow and sometimes stupid process. Many of the solutions it creates are suboptimal. For example, the mammalian eye is backwards, with the ends of the photorecepters coming out of the front of the retina, reducing the amount light that can strike the retina. (The squid eye, which evolved independently, does not suffer from this problem.) We unnecessarily have air and food traverse the same section of pipe, which kills unknown thousands each year in choking accidents. Male mammals expose their most precious reproductive resources outside their bodies with only a thin skin bag for protection!
These are fundamental design flaws that would not be made by a good engineer. Technology allows us to produce better solutions, more quickly. So, acknowledging the incredible variety and complexity that evolution has created over the past 4 billion years, we do not necessarily have to believe that it provides the best possible way of solving problems.
SNG
-
25
Evolution and Self-Sacrifice
by IW indoes the theory of evolution supply the genetic answer to the self-sacrificing nature of many animal parents as well as that of many men and women in general?
when a man or woman risks their life to help someone in danger is their response simply a response to the natural processes at work due to evolution's effect on their dna?
if so, can this self-sacrificing gene be isolated?
-
-
seattleniceguy
Peacefulpete, I just wanted to say, I always enjoy reading your posts. You have such a clear, and indeed peaceful, way of writing. SNG
-
7
Why?
by Fleshybirdfodder injust out of morbid interest, and i'm quite certain no one has the answer....
-
-
seattleniceguy
Because.
SNG
-
25
Evolution and Self-Sacrifice
by IW indoes the theory of evolution supply the genetic answer to the self-sacrificing nature of many animal parents as well as that of many men and women in general?
when a man or woman risks their life to help someone in danger is their response simply a response to the natural processes at work due to evolution's effect on their dna?
if so, can this self-sacrificing gene be isolated?
-
-
seattleniceguy
under_believer,
Intelligence and especially civilization are anti-evolutionary forces. Evolution is only concerned with reproduction. Think of how much longer old people stay alive now, to no reproductive purpose--civilization is required for this. Think of how many people with congenital problems who would otherwise have died and not passed their genes on now survive and breed because of modern medicine.
Intelligence, technology, and civilization are not anti-evolutionary at all. They simply change the selective pressure. In a technologically evolved society, people who in other environments would be selected out live on. But this is no different than, for example, fish that begin to live in underwater caves. Normally, blind fish would be disadvantaged and immediately be selected out, but in the new environment it is no longer an issue so selective pressure now works on other fronts. Remember, evolution has no inherent goal. Environments change, and selective pressure necessarily changes too.
SNG
-
160
Laughing laughing laughing
by darcy inwow.. so, you know i'm an active witness, very active.
hah.
and i'm not laughing at y'all, but wow, i can't believe how extensive this is.
-
-
seattleniceguy
Hello Darcy,
Thanks for your reply. Here are some of my reactions to what you wrote.
Yes, seattle, those articles were fairly awkward in light of today's mentality. Humorous even.
Actually, my point was that they were awkward even at the time they were written. Let me assure you, no science book in the 1920s talked about wood atoms. No scientific publications were suggesting that planets are held in place by electromagnitism. It's not that they were quoting some silly beliefs of the time. It's that they just plain made the stuff up! How much confidence does that inspire in what they are writing today?
Seems to me, WTS has done exactly what anyone in authority has done. But they're new to it, so they screw up more. The Catholic church for instance has had almost 2,000 years practice, and they're real smooth.
LOL. It sounds like you're saying, "Hey, they haven't been authoritarian control freaks for as long as other groups. Give 'em a break already!"
They claim a high position, i.e. mouthpiece of God, and make a mistake. Well, since everyone's expecting perfection, indeed why shouldn't they, it is their future, is it not? So, now it's like, ooh, how are we gonna fix this one? They try, they struggle. I don't know a single religion that hasn't, that doesn't. It's like the magic man who screws up his trick, and is trying to patch it in front of everyone watching.
I think you could safely call "mouthpiece of God" an extraordinary claim. Your own illustration has you painting the Society more like the man behind the curtain in The Wizard of Oz. I think it's an apt comparison. When you claim to be speaking for God (and assume the commensurate right to tell people how to live their lives in the most intimate details) you rightly get a bit more scrutiny than, say, an advice columnist. When people find out it was just a lame magic trick, they feel serious injustice. Would you let a magician tell you how to live your life (and further, to tell you you will die if you don't listen to him)?It's like when you (do I dare...) Fuck up, and when asked what happened, you present a less harsh version of yourself in the muddle.
Well, at least that much would be nice, but alas, when the WT Society f***s up, they blame their members. Study what happened after the 1925 and 1975 fiascos for some serious enlightenment on this topic. Here's 1925 in a nutshell: Them: Millions now living will never die! 1925 will see the fleshly return of Abraham and other ancient worthies! 1925 comes and passes. Them: You fools! What made you believe anything was going to happen in 1925? We never said that! You guys are totally pathetic!Difference is, these guys, WTS are in the big spotlight. They're rough still being there, but getting better. Sounds pretty normal to me.
Well, pretty normal for religious organizations that claim to speak for God, yeah. But how many of those do you think are the truth? And yet you think the Witnesses are different somehow? For me, the words "I speak for God" somehow inspire negative confidence.Doesn't excuse it, no. But it's another reason why I focus on, what are the Bible based beliefs, let's look beyond all the scandal. No religion can stand when it's scandal's are investigated. But now take a look at the belief system. I.E. I'm not a Catholic b/c I do not agree with the Trinity or with Mary being God's mom among other things.
If an organization doesn't stand up to scrutiny, it's no organization I want to be a part of. Listen to yourself - you're saying, "Oh, come on. There are lots of scandals. Everyone has scandals. Let it go already!" Hypothetically, would you take your children to a religion with a history of child abuse scandals, dismissing the scandals because you liked something about their doctrine?Hmm... I think I've answered well. Feedback?
Thanks for replying. I don't think you really replied to the substance of my post, and you avoided a couple direct questions, but that's okay. My opinion? You are already borderline apostate by Watchtower standards. If you openly discussed in the organization what you are discussing here, they'd kick you out or demand that you change your thinking. In fact, why don't you do a little experiment? Tell your Witness friends you've been having these really cool conversations online with former members and see how they react. I guarantee you'll see eyes a-poppin'. Then, to really work them up, give them some of the details of what you've been talking about. I'm telling you, you'll see grown adults putting their fingers in their ears, running around yelling "la-la-la, I can't hear you!" (And please do report if you try this!) At any rate, keep your open mind, and welcome again to the board. SNG -
25
Evolution and Self-Sacrifice
by IW indoes the theory of evolution supply the genetic answer to the self-sacrificing nature of many animal parents as well as that of many men and women in general?
when a man or woman risks their life to help someone in danger is their response simply a response to the natural processes at work due to evolution's effect on their dna?
if so, can this self-sacrificing gene be isolated?
-
-
seattleniceguy
Yes. Evolution selects lineages that promote the continued existence of their kind.
Self-sacrificing behavior is seen throughout the animal world, and as a rule, individuals are much more willing to take risks for closely related young. Many animals will give food to their nieces and nephews, but dote most loyally on their own offspring, which is what evolution would predict. A certain spider is even willing to kill himself after mating by sacrificing himself to the female, as this behavior usually satiates the female so that no further sex occurs, thereby raising the odds that the male's genes (and not someone else's) will live on.
Of course, the spider (and indeed the other self-sacrificers besides humans and perhaps other advanced primates) clearly have no conscious understanding of the reasons for their activity. But in these cases the activity was more successful at continuing the existence of the lineage than competing non-self-sacrificing behavior, and so it was reinforced.
SNG
-
45
Special Campaign announced for September: Creation vs. Evolution
by sir82 inwe had a boe letter read recently.
the september 2006 awake will be 100% dedicated to the "creation vs. evolution" issue.. even the "young people ask" article will be something like "how can i defend my belief in creation in school?
also, i think one of the articles is entitled "does the bible support the notion that the earth was created in 6 24-hour days?".
-
-
seattleniceguy
Aude,
That gives me an even better idea. One of us should obtain copies of all the sources they cite and create an email that has scans of them all. Then we could get a chain mail started. Something like this would ensure mass distribution:
-------
To: Everyone in the universe
Subject: Help with placing the new Creation brochureHello everyone!!!
I just got back from my special one-day assembly, and I must say I think it was the best one ever! While I was there I was talking to a brother who just got back from Bethel, and we started talking about the special Awake for this month's campaign and how faith strengthening it is. But the amazing part is he went to the library and made copies from all the sources the article cites! That way you can carry it in your bookbag out in service in case you have any of those "educated" calls who want to argue. Imagine how surprised they'll be when you actually have the sources with you!!
I have a couple really "sciency" calls. I can't wait to see the expression on their faces when I give them the mag AND the references!
Feel free to pass this mail on to other brothers and sisters!
Yours in the Truth,
Susie
-------
Of course, the the WT can never manage to quote sources honestly, anyone who actually reads the primary sources would be in for a bit of cognitive dissonance. This would actually be pretty fun.
SNG