bboyneko

Joined

• started 111 topics
• posted 982 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by bboyneko

• 
  10

  Living in a bottle

  by Haereticus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  through the years jw are taught not to read this and that, ham radio was evil (altghough awake listed frequencies and sceduled times for jw hams), today this is applied to internet as well.

  i hope this ngo/dpi alone will prove the dangers associated here.

  blind faith simply does not pay off.. here is one way of describing the difference how faith can be based either on assumption or a proven knowledge.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bboyneko

  Fred Hal Living in a bottle
  

  

  .. http://www.bonsaikitten.com
• 
  29

  Pros and Cons about Jehovah's Witnesses

  by Leander in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the purpose of this post is to try take a close but un-biased look at whether or not jehovahs witnesses are the right religion.

  in my few months of doing research about jw's outside of their own publications i've came across a wide variety of viewpoints.

  some people are skeptical or unsure if the wts is really the right religion, some are certain that jw's are wrong but have no ill-feelings toward them, some individuals downright hate the organization and still others are certain that the wts is the real deal.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bboyneko

  In a effort to be objective I have to agree with some of the statements and viewpoints that have been made. But to flat out dismiss that the WTS has never done anything that was positive is untrue.

  Doctor Josef Mengele, Chief Medical Officer of Auschwitz-Birkenau and labeled "Dr. Auschwitz" by Robert Jay Lifton, was arguably the most well-known of the Nazi doctors. He killed thousands in inhumane ways in the name of science. To say he did not do anything positive is to not have a balanced viewpoint. For example, he was known to give lollipops to small children before he sent them to the gas chambers, and his experiments on freezing human beings and then finding the best method to thaw them out have benefited freeze/Cold victims today.
• 
  40

  What Do You Do?

  by hillary_step in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i link to this board a couple of times a day, sometimes in the early hours and there is always a flurry of activity, often from an enclave of veterans.

  i wonder, are you all in prison?

  i understand the pc's are allowed in some facilities.. do you all work?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bboyneko

  I work as a web designer and need to be on the internet all day..i just leave this site open and post whenevr something interestes me
• 
  29

  Pros and Cons about Jehovah's Witnesses

  by Leander in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the purpose of this post is to try take a close but un-biased look at whether or not jehovahs witnesses are the right religion.

  in my few months of doing research about jw's outside of their own publications i've came across a wide variety of viewpoints.

  some people are skeptical or unsure if the wts is really the right religion, some are certain that jw's are wrong but have no ill-feelings toward them, some individuals downright hate the organization and still others are certain that the wts is the real deal.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bboyneko

  The WTS is organized very well, they have managed to show consistent growth and JW's are known in many lands for their preaching methods. Some people may not like them knocking on their doors but its something they have become known for.

  The Nazi's were also organized very well, managed consistent growth (taking over all of europe) they were known in many lands for their methods. Some people did not like them invading their countries but it was still something they have become known for.

  -Dan
  
• 
  29

  Pros and Cons about Jehovah's Witnesses

  by Leander in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the purpose of this post is to try take a close but un-biased look at whether or not jehovahs witnesses are the right religion.

  in my few months of doing research about jw's outside of their own publications i've came across a wide variety of viewpoints.

  some people are skeptical or unsure if the wts is really the right religion, some are certain that jw's are wrong but have no ill-feelings toward them, some individuals downright hate the organization and still others are certain that the wts is the real deal.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bboyneko

  Pro:

  You get to learn how to be a public speaker, getting over stage-shyness.

  Con:

  heheh leander is so cute..hes trying to do an 'unbiased' review of the JW and he is still residually brainwashed :) Dont worry Leander you will shake yourself free of the brainwashing in about 1 year if you stay here.

  -Dan
• 
  7

  This is the way the world ends

  by bboyneko in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  london (reuters) - the human race is likely to be wiped out by a doomsday virus before this millennium is out unless it starts to colonize space, top british scientist stephen hawking warned on tuesday.

  hawking's comments came as the united states teetered on the brink of panic over possible germ warfare after anthrax-laced letters were delivered in the capital washington and the states of new york, nevada and florida.

  "i don't think the human race will survive the next thousand years unless we spread into space.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bboyneko

  I've posted before about the regularity of extinctions on this planet, one of the more major ones wiped out 95% of life on the planet..it seems to happen every 12 million years or so, and this regularity with massive extinctions each time have led scientists to beleive that there is some huge gravitational body (maybe a planet, or asteroid) with an enourmous orbit that drags massive comets with it past earth every 12 million years.
• 
  7

  This is the way the world ends

  by bboyneko in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  london (reuters) - the human race is likely to be wiped out by a doomsday virus before this millennium is out unless it starts to colonize space, top british scientist stephen hawking warned on tuesday.

  hawking's comments came as the united states teetered on the brink of panic over possible germ warfare after anthrax-laced letters were delivered in the capital washington and the states of new york, nevada and florida.

  "i don't think the human race will survive the next thousand years unless we spread into space.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bboyneko

  LONDON (Reuters) - The human race is likely to be wiped out by a doomsday virus before this millennium is out unless it starts to colonize space, top British scientist Stephen Hawking warned on Tuesday.
  Hawking's comments came as the United States teetered on the brink of panic over possible germ warfare after anthrax-laced letters were delivered in the capital Washington and the states of New York, Nevada and Florida.

  "I don't think the human race will survive the next thousand years unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet," Hawking told Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper.

  Hawking, Lucasian professor of mathematics at Cambridge University in England, said Armageddon threatened not in the form of a Cold War-style nuclear holocaust but could arrive in a more insidious and invisible form.

  "In the long term, I am more worried about biology. Nuclear weapons need large facilities, but genetic engineering can be done in a small lab. You can't regulate every lab in the world," he said.

  Investigators have not pinned down who is behind the U.S. anthrax attacks, but fears are growing they could be retaliation for U.S. military strikes against Afghanistan, which followed last month's suicide attacks on New York and Washington.

  Hawking, a leading theoretical physicists who hit the best-seller lists with his book "A Brief History of Time," said the chances of humanity pulling through looked good.

  "I am an optimist. We will reach out to the stars," he said.

  A Star Trek-style "warp drive" might be one way to relieve the tedium of lengthy journeys between stars in spacecraft traveling below the speed of light, Hawking said.

  This is the way the world ends
  This is the way the world ends
  This is the way the world ends
  Not with a bang but a whimper.
  - T.S. Eliot 1925
• 
  26

  Why I will NEVER become a Jehovahs Witness

  by kevin221 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  because they are insane.

  mabey not all of them, but the one's i've been exposed to so far have some serious mental problems.

  and for the record i'm not talking about their religious beliefs, i'm basing my opinion on direct actions taken by the ones that i have had personal experience with.. thought some of you might be interested in the things that have been going on with me and jon's family.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bboyneko

  Kevin, many Jehovahs Witnesses are like that if not in action then in attitude especially towards homosexuals. Also, yes many do have mental problems and many FORMER Jehovahs Witnesses have MAJOR mental issues that they dont come to grips with very quickly. I'm among the ones with major mental issues :) being in that cult fucks you up bad...the longer you were in it the more fucked up you are. It's not pretty but with exit counceling and learning logical and critical thinking you begin to become a more sane member of the human family :) Can't you get that sign fingerprinted?

  -Dan
• 
  37

  Mommie D and others beliefs on creation?

  by cindy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  from most of the topics and replies i have come to believe that most everyone here still believes in god and jesus and the bible.

  recently on a thread i've been on i've discovered many do not.

  i want to know what mommie dark and others believe on the subject of creation and jesus.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bboyneko

  The Big KA-BOOM!!!!

  In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning. -Leon Lederman The God Particle

  Big Bang theory has been used to justify the exsistance of God many times.

  Albert Einstein's reaction to the consequences of his own general theory of relativity appear to acknowledge the threat of an encounter with God. Through the equations of general relativity, we can trace the origin of the universe backward in time to some sort of a beginning. However, before publishing his cosmological inferences, Einstein introduced a cosmological constant, a "fudge factor," to yield a static model for the universe. Einstein later considered this to be the greatest blunder of his scientific career.

  Einstein ultimately gave grudging acceptance to what he called "the necessity for a beginning" and eventually to "the presence of a superior reasoning power." But he never did accept the reality of a personal God.

  Why such resistance to the idea of a definite beginning of the universe? It goes right back to that first argument, the cosmological argument: (a) Everything that begins to exist must have a cause; (b) If the universe began to exist, then (c) the universe must have a cause. You can see the direction in which this argument is flowing--a direction of discomfort to some physicists.- Dr. Henry "Fritz" Schaefer III Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia.

  It's a common misconception that Einstein beleived in God or that his 'fudge factor' was God.

  Stephen Hawking has been cited often in support of the exsistance of God. But there's reason to beleive Stephen Hawking for example, is biased in his book A Brief History of Time Which talks about God quite a bit. His wife, Jane Hawking is a Christian. She made the statement in 1986, "Without my faith in God, I wouldn't have been able to live in this situation;" namely, the deteriorating health of her husband. "I would not have been able to marry Stephen in the first place because I wouldn't have had the optimism to carry me through and I wouldn't have been able to carry on with it."

  Two of his best friends became feverent Fundamentalists for Billy Graham.

  Some believe that evidence for the big bang is evidence for the existence of god. Who else, they ask, could have caused such a thing?

  Here we go......

  The evidence is in. There is now little doubt that our universe was brought into existence by a "big bang" that occurred some 15 billion years ago. The existence of such a creation event explains a number of phenomena including the expansion of the universe, the existence of the cosmic background radiation, and the relative proportions of various sorts of matter.
  Dr. Theodore Schick Jr.

  So there you have it, it is pretty universally accepted. The question remains, is it proof of God?

  Frederick Burnham, a science-historian said, "These findings, now available, make the idea that God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years."

  At a press conference reporting the findings of the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite George Smoot said: "If you're religious, it's like looking at the face of god." Why? Because something must have caused the big bang, and who else but god could have done such a thing?"

  Is that true?

  The traditional first-cause argument rests on the assumption that everything has a cause. Noodles have a cause. Penguins have a cause. Even Fredhall has a cause. Since nothing can cause itself, and since the string of causes can't be infinitely long, there must be a first cause, namely, god.
  
  Here we go, I wil shoot this argument down with the great shoulder-mounted missle launcher of logic:

  1. Everything is caused by something other than itself, even Penguins.
  2. Therefore the universe was caused by something other than itself.
  3. The string of causes cannot be infinitely long.
  4. If the string of causes cannot be infinitely long, there must be a first cause.
  5. Therefore, there must be a first cause, namely god.

  Most of you can see where this is heading.

  This argument is self-refuting. If everything has a cause other than itself, then god must have a cause other than himself. But if god has a cause other than himself, he cannot be the first cause. So if the first premise is true, the conclusion must be false. POOF! Like Douglas Admas said (Thor rest his soul):

  This passage is talking about the fictional Babel Fish, a fish that squirms into your ear and translates all language for you into your native tongue.
  

  Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence than anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of thenon-existence of God. `The argument goes something like this: ``I refuse to prove that I exist,'' says God, ``for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'' ``But,'' says Man, ``The Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'' ``Oh dear,'' says God, ``I hadn't thought of that,'' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. ``Oh, that was easy,'' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

  Logic doesn't demand a first cause anymore than it demands a first number.

  A universe created by an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being should be perfect. It si close to perfect, having FredHalls and Penguins in it and of course me. But the universe as we know it seems flawed. It certainly doesn't seem particularly hospitable to humans. Clarence Darrow explains:

  Even a human being of very limited capacity could think of countless ways in which the earth could be improved as the home of man, and from the earliest time the race has been using all sorts of efforts and resources to make it more suitable for its abode. Admitting that the earth is a fit place for life, and certainly every place in the universe where life exists is fitted for life, then what sort of life was this planet designed to support? There are some millions of different species of animals on this earth, and one-half of these are insects. In numbers, and perhaps in other ways, man is in a great minority. If the land of the earth was made for life, it seems as if it was intended for insect life, which can exist almost anywhere. If no other available place can be found they can live by the million on man, and inside of him. They generally succeed in destroying his life, and, if they have a chance, wind up by eating his body

  If you use the argument that the earth was created for us, you will have some trouble proving this. Every place on Earth is subject to natural disasters, and there are many places where humans cannot live, like within 30 feet of my laundry pile. Insects, on the other hand, seem to thrive most everywhere.

  When biologist G. B. S. Haldane was asked what his study of living things revealed about god, he said, "An inordinate fondness for beetles." If the Earth was created for us (as many christians beleive), it certainly leaves something to be desired.

  Ok, so let's ammend the first string of arguments for God and re-word it like this:
  The big bang argument for the existence of god is supposed to succeed where the traditional first-cause argument fails. Let's see if it does. Ross's version of the argument goes like this:

  6. Everything that had a beginning in time has a cause.
  7. The universe had a beginning in time.
  8. Therefore the universe had a cause.
  9. The only thing that could have caused the universe is god, because he is not bound by time.
  10. Therefore, god exists.

  This is a little trickier because it is not self-defeating like the first one.

  Well, for starters number 7 conflicts with relativity theory because the general theory of relativity claims that there was no time before there was a universe. Time and the universe are coterminous (word of the day on my word of the day calender) -they came into existence together. This is a finding of Einstein.

  Things can happen without a cause. Take sub-atomic particles, please. (bbig laugh from audience) Quantum Theory states that

  quantum electrodynamics reveals that an electron, positron, and photon occasionally emerge spontaneously in a perfect vacuum. When this happens, the three particles exist for a brief time, and then annihilate each other, leaving no trace behind.

  So maybe Big Bangs can just spontaniously happen. Or maybe this big bang is the result of a previous universe. Maybe the Universe has been big bangin and big crunchin for a gazillion billion years and in its 300 trillionth time it finally succeeded in creating self-aware life and penguins.

  It has long been known that if the amount of matter in the universe is great enough, then the universe will someday stop expanding and start contracting. Eventually, all the matter in the universe will be drawn back to a single point in what has come to be known as "the big crunch." Since matter supposedly cannot be crushed out of existence, the contraction cannot go on indefinitely. At some point the compressed matter may rebound in another big bang. If so, the big bang would have been caused by a prior state of the universe rather than some external agency.

  We can't rule out the possibility that a natural explanation will be found, no matter how incredible the event. ( A squirrel may walk up to you one day and suddenly spill the nuts so to speak and tell you everything) When faced with an inexplicable event, like a talking squirrel, it is always more rational to look for a natural cause than to attribute it to something supernatural. Appealing to the supernatural does not increase our understanding. It simply masks the fact that we do not yet understand.

  All in all, we need to remember human being's presense on Earth is a sliver on top of a 300 mile deep history of previous life forms that lived for millions of years, then went extinct and gave room for newer life.

  I personally think humans as a species think way too much of themselves.

  -Dan
• 
  37

  How Does One Find Another Religion

  by pettygrudger in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this is probably a strange question, but how do you "pick" something else to study?

  i'm having a hard time just picking up the bible & reading it - but i'm terrified of picking up any "study material" from other organized religions to help.

  which bible do i use?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bboyneko

  I can't beleive you sick bastards are defending child murder. Your attitude is 'If god did it or ordered it it MUST be right!' Open your mind a little..if god is all powerful, why didnt he just make the enemies barren so they could have no more children, and let them die out that way? My point is CHILDREN ARE INNOCENT..I can't beleive the ignorance in saying that a baby has any sort of heart condition. You really think a 2 year old has hate and murder in his or her heart and deserves to die? How would the world react if the United states killed EVERYONE in afghanistan ESPECIALLY children because the children would one day grow up and seek revenge?
  -Dan