there are 7,782,346 active publishes in the world.. .
jw.org has received an estimated 7,639,900 visits over the last 30 days.
the number of visits differs from visitors (or unique visitors).
Considering the rank against lds.org which has oodles of free publicity (BoM Musical, Romney, Ordain Women etc.) I would consider jw.org a roaring success. Most jws in 3rd world countries aren't going to have much internet access so the page clicks aren't simply driven by members imo.
Still a sh***y religion and waste of cyberspace but not a bad PR effort.
has anyone had success with a high traffic website or blog ?.
it might take a team of people to accomplish.. ads pay and people count, lots and lots of people.
does jehovahs-witness.net make money every time someone looks at the web site?
Anyone in IT knows that the time spent maintaining, checking, policing and building forums is rarely recouped at a financial level hence why a lot of forums are labours of love. Whether or not this site 'makes money' or not it was part of the information that saved me from a cult and that is priceless to me. I'll click on a few adds from now on each visit as a small thank you.
when people willfully believe something without evidence, or contrary to evidence, are they neglecting thier moral responsibility?
so many people say faith is a virtue but i just can't comprehend why anyone would think that.
.
Selecting faith based information over evidence based information is immoral if you use that information to make choices. Selecting the bible over a medical text book to perform medical procedures is immoral. The moment you are aware that a better information set exists then continuing to privilege faith is immoral. You can try all you like to move the goalposts but faith is in inferior approach to knowledge and selecting it when given the option is in and of itself immoral regardless of outcomes caused by that choice.
when people willfully believe something without evidence, or contrary to evidence, are they neglecting thier moral responsibility?
so many people say faith is a virtue but i just can't comprehend why anyone would think that.
.
Apples and oranges jgnat.
when people willfully believe something without evidence, or contrary to evidence, are they neglecting thier moral responsibility?
so many people say faith is a virtue but i just can't comprehend why anyone would think that.
.
What is immoral is choosing a demonstrably poorer information set upon which to make choices. Faith allows any behaviour and argues that it is moral because of unverifiable reasons. Faith allows you to burn people , practice genocide, assume control over people's relationships, extort financial support, subvert legal systems, break up families , go to war / not go to war regardless of moral consideration. Faith is the ultimate excuse for behaviour.
No moral behaviour I exhibited as a Mormon was based upon sound logic and a good deal of immoral behaviour was unwittingly condoned. Nothing moral was exclusive to my faith.
Moral behaviour I do now is the result of deliberation and weighing up alternatives. I am responsible for my behaviour in a way that faith never let me be.
when people willfully believe something without evidence, or contrary to evidence, are they neglecting thier moral responsibility?
so many people say faith is a virtue but i just can't comprehend why anyone would think that.
.
Final one - bedtime for me:
Can it ever be moral to use as a standard a system of thought that uses a circular dependency as a primary virtue and is therefore intrinsically resistent to analysis?
Faith = Belief in faith (amongst other things) + Ignorance + Lucky Truth / Untruth
when people willfully believe something without evidence, or contrary to evidence, are they neglecting thier moral responsibility?
so many people say faith is a virtue but i just can't comprehend why anyone would think that.
.
If you choose stupidity is that moral?
Is it easier to act morally with better information?
Is it therefore moral to choose the lower quality information set upon which to base value judgments?
when people willfully believe something without evidence, or contrary to evidence, are they neglecting thier moral responsibility?
so many people say faith is a virtue but i just can't comprehend why anyone would think that.
.
Given that, at least in Christian teaching, Evidenceless Faith is a virtue (" Jesus saith unto him, 'Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.'") rated higher than evidence based belief:
Is it moral , when given two sets of information, to choose the least likely to be true as the basis for action?
Is it immoral , given two information sets, to persuade others including minors to privilege the least likely to be true?
Is it moral to claim to have faith if in fact one is relying upon subjective evidence?
i am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.
some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.
i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.
I do not try and convert because I am an atheist. I try and convert because I'm an anti-theist and less specifically anti-faith. I belief that faith and religion are terrible problems for mankind that lead to crimes against humanity and an atrocious waste of human intellectual and physical resources. I am happy to use the tools beloved by religion (evangelism, polemic and emotional appeal) while rejecting the principles of religion (sin, division and moral absolutism) to do my best to make the world a better place.
This is the dream :) - get over here and check out rationalism and stuff.
i am currently an skeptic, but i have to admit that i can't assure that all the stuff of early christianity was false.. for instance, we know that the genuine letters of paul were written before the destruction of jerusalem.
so, paul affirmed that jesus resurrected, though he was not there when it supposedly happened.
but, if jesus did not resurrect, why didn't the jews expose this falsehood?.
If Jesus existed then maybe he didn't die as evidenced by post-cruxifiction activities so:
If Jesus did die:
What did not happen:
