I actually saw a video of Mitt Romney on a jet skii. I imagine he's fallen off that thing more than once. So, I take it he swims. Also, I can't imagine that he was wearing that funny underware under his swim suit. Sooooooooooo.... Does that mean that, like the JWs and other religions, they do what's convenient at the time? Guess how I would answer that question.
Posts by Etude
-
64Look, Up in the Air...It's a Bird, it's a Plane...No, It's a JW!!
by Cold Steel infor you ex-jehovahs witnesses...and even you current ones...have you ever contemplated your future existence in paradise earth, should you be fortunate enough to end up there?
during those raucous, fun moments at the kingdom hall when you were contemplating eternity and having the times of your lives...did you ever speculate about what life would be like?
for example, would you have to walk everywhere or would you be able to fly around like superman?
-
-
-
85
Atheists, what is the best argument FOR God?
by bohm inthere are no convincing arguments for god, but some are worse than others.
i thought it would be interesting to see what people consider the best (of the bad) arguments for god?.
in my oppinion it is the fine-tuning argument from cosmology.
-
-
Etude
If it wasn’t because I’m on my cocktail hour, I would come up with some serious reasons. For now, I’ll just say that I suppose the best argument for God depends on who’s entertaining the question. For a theist, it’s very easy. He just IS, period, end of sentence. Now, to prove it, that’s a different question. For some, no proof is needed. For others, there is this “intuitive” thing that tells them the universe can only exist if He exists and that it (the universe) by its design is testimony of that. There are ways to argue against that, but I have found the fruitless with some people. It doesn’t matter what logic you use, it won’t change their minds.
-
85
Atheists, what is the best argument FOR God?
by bohm inthere are no convincing arguments for god, but some are worse than others.
i thought it would be interesting to see what people consider the best (of the bad) arguments for god?.
in my oppinion it is the fine-tuning argument from cosmology.
-
-
-
189
Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth
by KateWild inas many may be aware.
i don't like the man.
but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.
-
-
Etude
bohm:
...and you are, uh, the metaphore police? Are you an authority on metaphores? Wait. You're with the National Accademy of Metaphores. Right? Listen: Say whatever gets your rocks off, metaphorically speaking. Although, maybe for you it's literal. You say I have trouble with the truth, but you have never factually contradicted anything I've pointed out. You just keep "stroking that subject". I'm getting a very disturbing picture of you ever since that masturbation comment. By the way, you do realize that I've moved from metaphores to euphemism, don't ya? I'm waiting for you to "bite". In case you want to twist that into something else, I meant something involving how a fish takes a lure.
-
85
Dawkins Chapter 2 - Dogs, Cows and Cabbages
by KateWild ini have to say, i am afraid i found this chapter labourious to read in most places.
imo i felt he just wasn't getting to the point.
i don't get why dawkins felt the need to teach me all about platoism, essentialism and rabbits.
-
-
Etude
I WAS RIGHT! I finally found it. It was you tec. How little you have changed. It was almost a year ago on 12/23/2012 that I posted my last comment on a thread titled “I can’t imagine not believing in God”, started by MsGrowingGirl20. It runs 33 pages. So if anyone wants to look at it, start at the end. I don’t mean it as an insult but, everything seems to bounce off you. I know I was direct enough and reasonable for you to make at least some admissions, primarily that your position is unsustainable. I’m not saying you should abandon it, but please to don’t try to justify it. Just say you believe because you say so and leave it at that.
-
189
Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth
by KateWild inas many may be aware.
i don't like the man.
but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.
-
-
Etude
bohm:
“Yet it seems like i am not the only persion who got that impression”
Yes. But some other people didn’t. And if you did, that’s on you and the others who thought the same.
“sorry you think using one make you seem smart.”
I don’t. You’re the one who brought it up in relation to a cow. I realize your attempt at being witty. It failed miserably.
“to stimulate your gonads” Yes, my words.
I guess you also have troubles with metaphors. That’s why it appeared to me your reference about masturbation was literal and did not refer to mental gyrations. So, if I say that I think your preposterous ideas means you have balls as big as church bells, you’re going to unzip and check, just to be sure? I grew up knowing that difference between testicles and cojones. While their meaning can refer to the same part of the anatomy, they really are two different concepts. Stick that in your pipe – but don’t assume I mean you ought to take up smoking.
-
64
Look, Up in the Air...It's a Bird, it's a Plane...No, It's a JW!!
by Cold Steel infor you ex-jehovahs witnesses...and even you current ones...have you ever contemplated your future existence in paradise earth, should you be fortunate enough to end up there?
during those raucous, fun moments at the kingdom hall when you were contemplating eternity and having the times of your lives...did you ever speculate about what life would be like?
for example, would you have to walk everywhere or would you be able to fly around like superman?
-
-
Etude
I'm dyslexic today. I meant: "Man you guys don't screw around"
-
31
MEXICO | Jehovah's Witness Family of 8 Massacred including three Children
by jwleaks ineight family members killed in mexico massacremexico | november 17, 2013. mexican police found sunday a family of eight, including three children, stabbed to death and tied down in their home in the northern city of ciudad juarez.. a two-year-old boy survived the attack and was handed to neighbors, local police said.. the chihuahua state prosecutor's office said the assailants apparently forced their way inside the house and killed two men, three women and three children between the ages of four and six.. their mouths were covered with duct tape and their hands and feet were tied.
neighbors said they heard gun shots but authorities said the victims had stab wounds.. neighbors said the house owner was a car salesman.. the family was supposed to attend a meeting of jehovah's witnesses when they were attacked inside their home on sunday morning, according to testimonies.. they were discovered dead after members of the congregation went to look for them.. ciudad juarez, which borders the us state of texas, was once the deadliest city in mexico amid a turf war between drug cartels.. more than 10,000 people have been killed in the city since 2006 but the murder rate began to decline in 2011.. local officials say the drop in violence is due to tougher policing and crime prevention programs, but security experts believe it began to wane after the sinaloa drug cartel defeated the rival juarez gang.. read latest breaking news from newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/mexico-crime-murder/2013/11/17/id/537112#ixzz2kziajt8f.
{google translate].
-
-
Etude
What a gruesome tragedy! I can’t get over the dichotomy of such a crime, which may have been committed by gangster thugs, involving what would normally be law abiding people as many JWs are. Could there have been some sort of liaison between someone in the house and the gangsters? Why would they be killed if they had no business with drugs or anything illegal? Unless it was a mistake and they went to the wrong house, there’s gotta be some logical reason.
-
64
Look, Up in the Air...It's a Bird, it's a Plane...No, It's a JW!!
by Cold Steel infor you ex-jehovahs witnesses...and even you current ones...have you ever contemplated your future existence in paradise earth, should you be fortunate enough to end up there?
during those raucous, fun moments at the kingdom hall when you were contemplating eternity and having the times of your lives...did you ever speculate about what life would be like?
for example, would you have to walk everywhere or would you be able to fly around like superman?
-
-
Etude
"I think galaxy or universe would be more accurate."
Man you gusy the screw around. You really think BIG! How about your own universe out of the multi-verse? Now we're talkin'!
-
189
Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth
by KateWild inas many may be aware.
i don't like the man.
but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.
-
-
Etude
“The term 'meme' has become a commonly-accepted "meme" in itself”
I appreciate your explanation of the subtleties in the definition and I tend to agree. However, when I replied to Anony Mous and gave the meme example, I was not confusing it with the popular vernacular meaning that today has made it a cliché. I was discussing the concept that Dawkins himself put forth in his book.
“…it's NOT a theory for evolutionary biology”
Correct. And I don’t think I insinuated that or insinuated that Dawkins thinks that. In fact, I mentioned that memes is his attempt at an explanation for traits that cannot be explained via inheritance (hence Evolutionary Biology). Are we good on that? But the significance of memes is their role as vehicles for Natural Selection to pass on behavior and rituals, some of which may seem beneficial, some that don’t appear beneficial and none of which can be explained in terms of the selfish gene. His whole point is: why would Natural Selection give rise to an illogical behavior such as religion when it’s not beneficial? Memes is one of his means to explain that, along with Group Selection and Extended Phenotypes. It just doesn’t succeed for the reasons I already mentioned.
“Note that Wilson ALSO is selling a book countering Dawkins' assertion. A cynic would point out that BOTH are selling books, but Wilson is making a $ off of a career challenging and opposing the writings of Dawkins, and the lay public eats up someone selling books that tell off Dawkins.”
Yeah but, is he wrong? If you were really diligent and honest about it, you would find out that Wilson is something like 80 years old and has had an illustrious career in science. The Dawkins development is quite recent. Are you saying I should discount anything Wilson has to say about Dawkins because he’s making money? Do you see a nefarious motivation on the part of Wilson for addressing Dawkins’ issues and not because the science doesn’t hold up? If you know of any, please let me know. I hope you’re also aware that Wilson is only one of many. I already mentioned Sober and Coon.
Sure, I had the basics in college. And no, I was not pursuing a biology major. I was going for a Math major. What’s significant for me is that I never stopped learning. Therefore, I don’t find lack of more advanced courses a detriment for understanding aspect of Evolution and Natural Selection just as you suggested Dawkins not being a physicist or cosmologist is not a detriment in understanding science.
You said: “And a skeptic would withhold making a decision until AFTER there was sufficient evidence”, regarding my agreement about how religion is not called to the carpet. But, please don’t confuse the issues. If religion is not “called to the carpet” as you said, that has nothing to do with whether I should withhold my opinion of whether God exists or not. Which I don't. I believe religion exists and I believe it’s an anathema. That doesn’t provide any credence from me about God or UFOs or teacups flying around the solar system. I think you’re misplacing the word “belief”.
I really disagree with you on the binary state of things. The reason is because, even in real life there are things that cannot be known at any one time. For example, if I know of someone who was alive and traveled to the Philippines before the typhoon, I know the following: 1) that he or she was alive and may still be alive, 2) that he or she may be dead and 3) that he or she is in a state where I cannot know yet whether he or she is alive or dead. What I had mentioned in my prior post was an attempt to illustrate an intangible concept and not an effort to provide evidence.
This is where your train took another route. The idea of an unknown state applies to many things. You don’t seem to want to accept that for all practical purposes, I don’t believe there’s a God. But as matter of precision, there simply is no way for anyone to logically of factually prove it either way. The third state of things is making that conclusion: admitting that we can’t prove it. Instead, you’re making it out as if I’m debating in my head whether or not there’s a big magic guy in the sky. You’re missing the whole point.
“Enough with the coin-flip and Schrodinger's Cat and quantum physics metaphors”
Seriously? You’re not anti-science, are you? You don’t think that certain disciplines overlap and that often Philosophy is the meta-language for science? Maybe it’s you who needs more college courses or at least have some more education on why thought experiments and metaphors are essential in science. I imagine that you have a problem with mathematical beauty and cosmological elegance. Yes, scientists actually speak that way. Look it up.
But even you will hem and haw about definitions: “I am using conventions (eg soft vs hard) which are commonly-accepted by atheist organizations, eg atheist-experience.com, and used by the likes of Tracie Harris, Jen Peoples, Matt Dilahunty, etc.” Soft vs hard? C’mon it either is or it isn’t. Right? You either get a boner or you don't. Oh, wait! Can it be a little flacid. Yeah, I guess you can call that a third state of arousal. If we can’t agree on definitions or on the idea that some references make a distinction between atheism and agnosticism, then there’s no point continuing this conversation. For that reason, I doubt you’ll get your way and have agnosticism put out to pasture, certainly not any more than Dawkins is going to get his way (unfortunately for the world) and do away with religions. As a non-believer, I feel it’s a shame religion just doesn’t go away.