page 15 of awake!
2017 provides an image that shows hebrew writing with the statement: “the personal name of god written in ancient hebrew characters appears abundantly in early manuscripts of the bible”.. alongside that image, the awake!
provides a listing to show “the rendering of ‘god’s name’ in various languages”.. the facts do not support either assertion that the watchtower society makes:.
Um Yehovah is pretty close to Jehovah if you ask me. In German it’s identical.
Yes I think Nehemia Gordon, George Buchanan, Gerard Gertoux and others make a good case for Yehowah or thereabouts. It’s a bit of a mystery why Yahweh was so popular because there really doesn’t seem to be anything to support it beyond circular “consensus opinion”.
so i have started down the path of trying to understand evolution, and to get the linear lies that the jws planted in my head out of it.
i bought an audiobook called "evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters" by donald prothero.
i heard it recommended on an atheist podcast that i listened to.
One of my posts got lost round Jupiter.
we were having this discussion in the office the other day and we came to the conclusion minimum wage is better because it still adds to the economy vs minimum income which someone could potentially stay at home and do nothing and still get paid without producing a thing for the greater economy.. thoughts?.
Minimum wage was bitterly opposed by the Tories in the 1990s. They only changed their mind after it was introduced, and because it was so popular.
It will probably happen the same with basic minimum income.
See book by Guy Standing: basic minimum income saves money, promotes creativity, entrepreneurship, wellbeing, and economic growth.
Bankers getting bonuses from public money after the banks failed is stealing. Ordinary people being guaranteed food and shelter is a civilised society.
The interesting thing is that right wing think tanks and politicians are beginning to support basic income: to avoid a more radical revolution. I think it’s pretty inevitable to happen. The argument seems to moving on to how to do it rather than whether to do it.
greetings, friends across the two ponds:.
of course, as per other posters' recommendations, i could google this; i have and remain, not totally confused, but wanting the straight dope as well as nuanced meaning.
i'm both curious and needing to know for purposes of editing works of american and british writers.
This is the view sometimes described as "little Englander" mentality.
we were having this discussion in the office the other day and we came to the conclusion minimum wage is better because it still adds to the economy vs minimum income which someone could potentially stay at home and do nothing and still get paid without producing a thing for the greater economy.. thoughts?.
It doesn't matter if evidence shows minimum income would cost less, improve lives, promote creativity and entrepreneurship. and improve the economy as whole, some people will oppose it no matter what.
so i have started down the path of trying to understand evolution, and to get the linear lies that the jws planted in my head out of it.
i bought an audiobook called "evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters" by donald prothero.
i heard it recommended on an atheist podcast that i listened to.
There's clearly a difference between not conceding something and finding it ridiculous. Sam Harris doesn't concede pansychism, but neither does he treat it as ridiculous, which was your original standard (a few posts up) for avoiding the label gullible.
I don't "concede" pansychism either, in that I think it is possible but not proven. So you have shifted the goalposts considerably.
so i have started down the path of trying to understand evolution, and to get the linear lies that the jws planted in my head out of it.
i bought an audiobook called "evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters" by donald prothero.
i heard it recommended on an atheist podcast that i listened to.
I didn't say your thoughts are coterminous with Sam Harris. You said that the idea "that rocks are aware will always be ridiculous to all but the most gullible". Sam Harris nowhere describes pansychism or general awareness of matter as ridiculous in this discussion. Instead he explores the issues and the implications in some detail. By your standard does that make him gullible? Seems like a reasonable and specific question. Protestations about non-coterminous thinking are a red herring.
so i have started down the path of trying to understand evolution, and to get the linear lies that the jws planted in my head out of it.
i bought an audiobook called "evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters" by donald prothero.
i heard it recommended on an atheist podcast that i listened to.
I don't know if it's "true" or not, but many have held to pansychism over many centuries. At times it was orthodoxy. At present a number of serious philosophers and scientists hold to forms of pansychism, and it is enjoying something of a revival.
You have previously described Sam Harris as a great thinker. He entertains the idea of pansychism at length in this discussion. Is Sam Harris a great thinker or most gullible?
so i have started down the path of trying to understand evolution, and to get the linear lies that the jws planted in my head out of it.
i bought an audiobook called "evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters" by donald prothero.
i heard it recommended on an atheist podcast that i listened to.
Well I can remember people made fun of the idea that plants and trees are aware. Not so much these days. Many ideas that were once utterly ridiculous are now "facts".
The discussion was about evolution and had come to focus on consciousness, and my comment was relevant. I'm tired of you claiming I have to justify any comment I make. All you ever say is either "ridiculous" or "irrelevant", never actually contributing anything.
so i have started down the path of trying to understand evolution, and to get the linear lies that the jws planted in my head out of it.
i bought an audiobook called "evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters" by donald prothero.
i heard it recommended on an atheist podcast that i listened to.
I said a lot about awareness and gave links to lengthy discussions of the topic, including one between Sam Harris and David Chalmers.
Most people can recognise that there are degrees of awareness. For example dogs are conscious and many people would say have personalities. Fewer people would say that flies or spiders are conscious and have personalities. But it is probably appropriate to attribute some sort of "awareness" below the threshold of what we describe as "consciousness" to such creatures. These are complicated issues and people draw the lines of consciousness, awareness, personality, and so on in different places.
