š¤¦āāļø The ārules of logicā arise from the basic understanding that āthings are what they are and are not what they are notā. These are basic concepts that hold true irrespective of whether things āarise by chanceā.
Posts by Jeffro
-
137I find it interesting that after the cult people still hold on to religion....
by BeaverEater inim not an atheist, makes no mathematical sense, nor does the buy(more) bull(shit) god make any logical sense... maybe a deist on my best day, in the end you cannot get something from nothing, paradox if you ask me... but in reality i just dont care.
while in, and moving out of the cult, its like a roller coaster, emotionally, yet, for me, over time, i just take it one day at a time, and if appeasing some special deity is required, well i guess i failed.
lol.
-
-
-
137
I find it interesting that after the cult people still hold on to religion....
by BeaverEater inim not an atheist, makes no mathematical sense, nor does the buy(more) bull(shit) god make any logical sense... maybe a deist on my best day, in the end you cannot get something from nothing, paradox if you ask me... but in reality i just dont care.
while in, and moving out of the cult, its like a roller coaster, emotionally, yet, for me, over time, i just take it one day at a time, and if appeasing some special deity is required, well i guess i failed.
lol.
-
-
Jeffro
The loaded question is an irrational non sequitur that attempts to shift the burden of proof. The question assumes that logic canāt exist at all in a universe ābased on chanceā (a form of false equivalence) and presents a false dichotomy with Christianity implied as the only alternative.
-
137
I find it interesting that after the cult people still hold on to religion....
by BeaverEater inim not an atheist, makes no mathematical sense, nor does the buy(more) bull(shit) god make any logical sense... maybe a deist on my best day, in the end you cannot get something from nothing, paradox if you ask me... but in reality i just dont care.
while in, and moving out of the cult, its like a roller coaster, emotionally, yet, for me, over time, i just take it one day at a time, and if appeasing some special deity is required, well i guess i failed.
lol.
-
-
Jeffro
š¤¦āāļø
Aristotle recognised principles of logic long before Christianity, so I guess we should all be worshiping Zeus. š
Also, the existence of an all powerful deity violates the laws of thermodynamics and is therefore illogical special pleading.
-
137
I find it interesting that after the cult people still hold on to religion....
by BeaverEater inim not an atheist, makes no mathematical sense, nor does the buy(more) bull(shit) god make any logical sense... maybe a deist on my best day, in the end you cannot get something from nothing, paradox if you ask me... but in reality i just dont care.
while in, and moving out of the cult, its like a roller coaster, emotionally, yet, for me, over time, i just take it one day at a time, and if appeasing some special deity is required, well i guess i failed.
lol.
-
-
Jeffro
See Breeze:
If Christianity wasnāt true, you would have no logic at all, much less the ability to spot a fallacy.
Non sequitur, begging the question.
-
137
I find it interesting that after the cult people still hold on to religion....
by BeaverEater inim not an atheist, makes no mathematical sense, nor does the buy(more) bull(shit) god make any logical sense... maybe a deist on my best day, in the end you cannot get something from nothing, paradox if you ask me... but in reality i just dont care.
while in, and moving out of the cult, its like a roller coaster, emotionally, yet, for me, over time, i just take it one day at a time, and if appeasing some special deity is required, well i guess i failed.
lol.
-
-
Jeffro
Ahā¦ the āfine tuningā argument. Yawn.
Youāve provided no math, nor even any demonstration that an alternative presentation of the universe is probable or even possible. As expected, your āmathā argument is just an argument from incredulity.
Back in reality, the probability that things have already happened the way they happened is exactly 1.
-
137
I find it interesting that after the cult people still hold on to religion....
by BeaverEater inim not an atheist, makes no mathematical sense, nor does the buy(more) bull(shit) god make any logical sense... maybe a deist on my best day, in the end you cannot get something from nothing, paradox if you ask me... but in reality i just dont care.
while in, and moving out of the cult, its like a roller coaster, emotionally, yet, for me, over time, i just take it one day at a time, and if appeasing some special deity is required, well i guess i failed.
lol.
-
-
Jeffro
BeaverEater:
Im not an atheist, makes no mathematical sense
Interested to see the math youāve done to arrive at that rather specific conclusion. I hope itās not just the usual argument from incredulity.
-
21
Remember...Remember...The Sixth of November?
by JW_Rogue insome big announcement or reveal is coming from the borg november 6th, according to the exjw reddit.. https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/13xljaa/secret_boxes_to_be_opened_only_in_november_6th/.
what do you guys think it could be?.
my guess is a study companion to go with their new jesus series, they really need to rebrand at this point..
-
-
Jeffro
WingCommander:
It's the "Study Bible" they've been tolling away on now for several years. Completed and shipped, and these are the first runs. The JW Broadcasting for November is that Monday, so it all coincides. I'm sure Geoffrey Jackson or Mark Sanderson (whichever one collects the old bibles) will get the honour of announcing it to the world.
Unlikely. The 'Study' NWT has been progressively worked on for some time, and the study notes on the online version, which have only been done for the New Testament, go as far as Philemon. Since the content is online already, it wouldn't be 'confidential', and since they haven't finished the study notes for the New Testament, the boxes wouldn't be ready to go out this month.
6 November is the first day of the week that will consider the study articles in the September issue of The Watch Tower, which might give more of a clue if it's something to do with their 'message'. Otherwise, it might be an updated 'Organised' book. (Probably not the 'Shepherd' book, which they're more paranoid about being leaked.)
The 'announcement' about the 'confidential boxes' is only for 'Service Overseers', so the general 'rank and file' won't officially know the boxes exist until November.
(I do suspect they are working on an updated commentary on 'Revelation', though I doubt this is the contents of the 'confidential boxes'.)
-
207
Scholar and Fisherman
by Jorden inscholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
-
-
Jeffro
š¤¦āāļø
-
207
Scholar and Fisherman
by Jorden inscholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
-
-
Jeffro
Fisherman:
Non-sequitur: first you say Jesus prophecy was fulfilled then you say Jesus failed to return. Your fallacious style.
Wow. š¤¦āāļø You're really not good at this.
I didn't say Jesus' prophecy was fulfilled, or that he made a prophecy. There is no evidence that Jesus' said anything attributed to him in the Bible. It is widely recognised by scholars that the gospels weren't written until after 70 CE, after the events in question (though parts of Mark may have been written a little earlier). The only part that was actually 'prophecy' was the expectation that Jesus would return. Which he didn't.
But even if I had contradicted myself, which I didn't, that's not what a non sequitur is.
A heavenly Messianic kingdom cannot be trampled upon. Jesus was alluding to heavenly Jerusalem.
No, he wasn't. Luke 21:20-24 quite clearly identifies the city of Jerusalem on earth, not some esoteric 'heavenly Jerusalem', and the trampling of Jerusalem in Revelation 11:2 refers to the same event. The concept of 'heavenly Jerusalem' is mentioned later in Revelation, but only as a city that comes down out of heaven after literal Jerusalem was destroyed earlier. The Bible never mentions 'heavenly Jerusalem' being 'trampled'.
Whereas, we have shown consistency.
š¤£ You can't even get the order of events of the great tribulation and Jesus' presence right. So... no.
I suppose, JW eschatology is consistently wrong, so maybe you mean that.
-
207
Scholar and Fisherman
by Jorden inscholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
-
-
Jeffro
Person:
May I ask what in your opinion is Jerusalem that will be trampled for 42 months?
It was the period from 66-70, from the Roman response to the Jewish revolt until Jerusalemās destruction. According to the gospels, Jesus said the āappointed times of the nationsā aka the āgreat tribulationā would happen within a generation of his death, and then Jesus would return shortly after. Of course, Jesus didnāt return and Christians have been making excuses ever since, leading to nutters reinterpreting passages from Revelation to conveniently apply to āour timeā.