Posts by gubberningbody

18

The Worst jw Is Better Than The BEST Worldly Person

by TOTH in

jw
friends

did anyone else used to hear this?

i can remember this growing up in the 1970s.

my folks joined the wt back in 1968 under threat of armageddon coming in 1975. i was in first grade and ran the gauntlet of no flag salute, national anthem, holidays and no worldly friends.

gubberningbody

I heard that, but then again I heard a lot of things over the years parroted mindlessly in the organization. I didn't believe these canards then and I certainly don't now.

17

Head of Dominican Republic WT branch murdered

by aligot ripounsous in

i wonder if this has been mentioned : a few days ago, david moreau, the head of the wts dominican branch, was assassinated on the street.

at the end of the day, he was going outside for a walk with his wife marylene.

they came across two guys who asked them for money.

An assassination is defined generally as: "to murder (a usually prominent person) by a sudden and/or secret attack, often for political reasons." [ 1 ] [ 2 ] Alternatively, assassination may be defined as "the act of deliberately killing someone, especially a public figure, usually for hire or for political reasons."

He was the victim of a crime, but not an assasination.

165

evolution question

by outsmartthesystem in

it has taken me almost 2 years to get to the bottom of the watchtower society rabbit hole.

being fully convinced that i was duped....i am still a little ashamed of myself for being so narrow minded.

i have vowed never to close off my mind like that again.

gubberningbody

bohm,

Your idea that it's all caused by point mutations and natural selection over time has already been mathematically refuted.

The point is that you have to find another mechanism.

165

evolution question

by outsmartthesystem in

it has taken me almost 2 years to get to the bottom of the watchtower society rabbit hole.

being fully convinced that i was duped....i am still a little ashamed of myself for being so narrow minded.

i have vowed never to close off my mind like that again.

gubberningbody

Newchapter,

What you say about others is perhaps true, but it must be admitted that even the "devil" has his good points.

In defense of the devil in all this is the business of your own "mind".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGR4SFOimlk

What evidence do you have to prove to others that this epiphenomenon of your own "mind" is not just simple chemistry and physics?

If you've accepted your own, then why accept that others likewise give evidence of "mind"?

It strikes me that the denial of mind is a tad inconsistent in denying the phenomenon of mind to all other percieved entities save this version of naked ape.

165

evolution question

by outsmartthesystem in

it has taken me almost 2 years to get to the bottom of the watchtower society rabbit hole.

being fully convinced that i was duped....i am still a little ashamed of myself for being so narrow minded.

i have vowed never to close off my mind like that again.

gubberningbody

Newchapter,

Once again you bring in "god", when I never in any post mentioned it.

I must quote myself:

"Why you keep getting concerned about "god" is beyond me. It's as if the only other conclusion you can come up with to explain the novelty of biodiversity must be:

point mutations+natural selection/time"

Credibility is a function of the mind of the one giving credit. Too often the limitations of credibility are the limitations of the mind.

As regards the comparisons between religion and science, this is a thing that is your concern not mine, but since it is your concern I think you should attend to that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

165

evolution question

by outsmartthesystem in

it has taken me almost 2 years to get to the bottom of the watchtower society rabbit hole.

being fully convinced that i was duped....i am still a little ashamed of myself for being so narrow minded.

i have vowed never to close off my mind like that again.

gubberningbody

Newchapter,

Why you keep getting concerned about "god" is beyond me. It's as if the only other conclusion you can come up with to explain the novelty of biodiversity must be:

point mutations+natural selection/time

When an argument for a position fails, it doesn't win because of a philosophical position previously held, it wins because it has been demonstrated.

The second thing is that you speak of "science" as if "science" were a pristine angel, rather than a method.

There is no "science" in that matter of speaking, and there are no "scientists" either.

There is the scientific method, and people can engage in the use of this method.

QED.

If you'd like to learn more about the process I'd suggest two books:

1. http://www.amazon.com/Popper-Selections-Sir-Karl-Raimund/dp/0691020310

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

2. http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

165

evolution question

by outsmartthesystem in

it has taken me almost 2 years to get to the bottom of the watchtower society rabbit hole.

being fully convinced that i was duped....i am still a little ashamed of myself for being so narrow minded.

i have vowed never to close off my mind like that again.

gubberningbody

Actually, the problem with the use of the term "magic", is two-fold.

First, when people actually believed in "magic", they actually thought they did understand what was going on, the only problem was that they were wrong. (as far as we believe at the moment)

Secondly, we all believe in "magic" if we apply the same rules we measure others with to ourselves. There are currently things we believe to be true, which are false.

If we say we believe, for example that random point mutations can generate the novelty we see in the biodiversity available on this planet without being able to demonstrate the truth of our contentions, then how is this any different from believing in magic?

Abra-cadabra becomes "millions of years of random mutations coupled with natural selection" followed up with an irrelevant "And here's the cat to prove it".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peLD2vlxRM0

But here IS the cat.

165

evolution question

by outsmartthesystem in

it has taken me almost 2 years to get to the bottom of the watchtower society rabbit hole.

being fully convinced that i was duped....i am still a little ashamed of myself for being so narrow minded.

i have vowed never to close off my mind like that again.

gubberningbody

Simon, what I'm referring to is the business of novelty as a function of randomness.

That's never been observed.

The "novelty" which has been observed is reductionist.

It operates on novelty already present.

Bohm, as regards the value of thought experiments - it was Albert Einstein himself who relied on the same prior to fleshing out his theory of special relativity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

But once more one might ask why, if mind doesn't exist in the business of evolution as a needed element on the grounds that chemistry and physics are ostensibly sufficient to cover the ground, then why is there an implicit assumption that mind exists in the brains of humans, as these too are explicable through these same processes?

You simply cannot have it both ways.

165

evolution question

by outsmartthesystem in

it has taken me almost 2 years to get to the bottom of the watchtower society rabbit hole.

being fully convinced that i was duped....i am still a little ashamed of myself for being so narrow minded.

i have vowed never to close off my mind like that again.

gubberningbody

Of course science is ostensibly based on experience, so one would imagine that the experiences be repeatable and verifiable by others. To date, not even one thought experiment has demonstrated how this random walk purportedly at the base of the novelty we see can defeat the inexorable laws of chemistry and physics as these operate in accordance with the mathematical probabilities observed.

Interestingly enough, though "mind" is denied to exist as a principle on the grounds that all that's needed to understand a thing is to know that all that is is merely the interactions of the laws of physics, and nothing more.

This so, then the mind of the proponent of the same must be denied on the same grounds.

165

evolution question

by outsmartthesystem in

it has taken me almost 2 years to get to the bottom of the watchtower society rabbit hole.

being fully convinced that i was duped....i am still a little ashamed of myself for being so narrow minded.

i have vowed never to close off my mind like that again.

gubberningbody

So, bohm - what's your basis for believing that the math works in favor of random mutations?

I think you're confusing absence of evidence for evidence.

The only thing which leads you in this direction must be your own philosophical preference, because all your own daily experiences argue against the position you've been pushing.

Why do you have to engage in straw man arguments?