Posts by notverylikely

82

So...is David Splaine the new bible scholar (or Fred Franz) of the WTBTS?

by Joliette in

was watching the faith dvd yesterday, and he seems like a smarty pants know it all?

he doesnt seem like a hard hitter or bad ass or anything, but it seems like the kinda guy, that if you went out in field service with, that he would constantly correct you, and have smart ass comments to make about the householders who arent intrested in owning a watchtower or awake..

notverylikely

There might be some *sore* boys that care, NVL...

OK, as long as it was consensual between adults, then who cares :)

25

Strange YPA article: Should I quit school?

by serenitynow! in

the november 2010 awake (the atheist issue) has a ypa article that seems strange to me.

it is about whether or not a kid should drop out of school.

the way that it's written makes it seem that dropping out of school, (not college) is ok under some circumstances.

notverylikely

How freakish...

82

So...is David Splaine the new bible scholar (or Fred Franz) of the WTBTS?

by Joliette in

was watching the faith dvd yesterday, and he seems like a smarty pants know it all?

he doesnt seem like a hard hitter or bad ass or anything, but it seems like the kinda guy, that if you went out in field service with, that he would constantly correct you, and have smart ass comments to make about the householders who arent intrested in owning a watchtower or awake..

notverylikely

Oh, well, then, Freddie might have been secretly hot for the boys, but who cares.

160

Mistresses??

by diana netherton in

what are your thoughts on them?

would i be a simply terrible person if i became one?.

.

notverylikely

As I'm sure you'd support your daughters foray into prostitution, if you had any. Luckily you don't.

It's awesome how quickly people resort to personal attacks when you ask them to question basic assumptions about values :)

By "awesome" I meant "hilarious", of course.

82

So...is David Splaine the new bible scholar (or Fred Franz) of the WTBTS?

by Joliette in

was watching the faith dvd yesterday, and he seems like a smarty pants know it all?

he doesnt seem like a hard hitter or bad ass or anything, but it seems like the kinda guy, that if you went out in field service with, that he would constantly correct you, and have smart ass comments to make about the householders who arent intrested in owning a watchtower or awake..

notverylikely

I'm a lesbian myself

I find your ideas intruiging and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

120

Evidence! How did you come to know reality?

by zannahdoll in

is it possible that when we (as a people) make an advancement in science and learn new facts that they sometimes disprove what was once considered fact?

unless you test something for yourself you are taking the word of someone else.

or do you trust that things are certain?

notverylikely

What comes to mind to me are debaters and attorneys on opposing sides

Attorneys are often not arguing facts.

It is my opinion, that there has not been sufficient "counter-proof" (as you suggest) to show God does not exist.

Well there's your problem. You are trying to test negative proof, something that is not falisifiable and untestable. You might as well try to prove that pink unicorns don't exist.

160

Mistresses??

by diana netherton in

what are your thoughts on them?

would i be a simply terrible person if i became one?.

.

notverylikely

It isn't. So send your daughters over then,....

Ah, sorry, they're getting "How to swallow and like it" lessons from your mom.

And I don't have any daughters. But don't worry, I am sure SOME girls are getting those lessons from your mom.

160

Mistresses??

by diana netherton in

what are your thoughts on them?

would i be a simply terrible person if i became one?.

.

notverylikely

But the point is she's doing it for the money.

So?

I'm quite sure that his wife will not know of this arrangement which means he will be lying to his wife. There is no grey area.

Of course there can be.

if youre shaggin someone for money you're beholding and obliged to provide a service that they have bought the rights of control to. you do it as and when they want to and for their enjoyment or else they'll go pay someone else.

So...it sounds like any other job?

160

Mistresses??

by diana netherton in

what are your thoughts on them?

would i be a simply terrible person if i became one?.

.

notverylikely

Do you have any daughters? Is this a "job" you would advise for them?

Irrelevant to the question.

Would you care if someone called your mom a whore?

If it were true then why would I care? If it's not, then the person saying it would be an ignorant liar. Why would I care what an ignorant liar said? Also, it's irrelevant to the question.

120

Evidence! How did you come to know reality?

by zannahdoll in

is it possible that when we (as a people) make an advancement in science and learn new facts that they sometimes disprove what was once considered fact?

unless you test something for yourself you are taking the word of someone else.

or do you trust that things are certain?

notverylikely

you quote me out of context when I say that I agree reality doesn't change, or maybe I wasn't clear in what I was saying. What I meant was that reality doesn't change due to perception. I thought you understood that I thought this by now. We agree, reality changes, and we also agree: what you or I think of reality (our perceptions) doesn't change the fact that you wear a pink shirt (pink is my favorite color by the way) ;) Let's not continue to debate what we agree and have common ground on. We are going in circles.

You'll have to show me where I quoted out of context. The only clear out of context misconstruction on this thread was the one you got caught in, as far as I know. With respect to the rest, it seems that you routinely use reality to describe experience, so I have to be extremely specific. I have been VERY specific with what I know and am saying. We are not going around in circles, we are making sure we are using the same words to describe the same things and agreeing on specific meanings. You are correct that I perfectly and clearly understand that and I am glad now that you do as well.

What we disagree about is that I think only way to come to know reality is through our perceptions.

I don't know that I debated that particular point. I would just add, as you did, that our perceptions fail us. Hence the instruments, tools, repeatable tests to confirm things. Often it's not even that our senses fail us, they simply are incapable of detecting things.

How do we use the tools and how do we use science? In order to make use of tools don't we use our senses? I don't see how you proved what I said wrong: we know something based on our senses and based on what others tell us.

The point is that the tools, tests, etc., are useable by many and can prove reliable where our senses do not. Three people can disagree on whether or not it's hot (using our senses), but all can agree it's 28 Celcius based on the reading from a tool. Science isn't based on whether someone thinks it's "hot".

This event in my life is a one time occurrence. There is no evidence as to how it came about after tests. It is not repeatable. It is a fact and it is reality.

Wow, it's just like my pink shirt example. It only serves to prove the point that I was making is that reality is not limited to local observation as you were suggesting or implying earlier.

I cannot say all the Marian Apparitions are repeatable, although some are. Yes!

Ah, just like "falsifiable" you also muisunderstand what repeatable means in testing and science. Different apparitions called mary appearing under different circumstances doesn't quite make the cut. Mary appearing in toast != mary appearing in a water stain on a wall. Besides which, how is there any proof it was Mary since no one knows what she looked like?

I can show you documentation of their validity: sometimes a few witnesses

Ah, sing your criteria, UFOs, alien abductions, Elvis sightings, unicorns, fairies, JFK sightings, Bat Boy and chupacapbras all must be real as well.

who you trust as experts you would not accept the documentation

Ah, you are trying to blame me. I would just ask that since thousands of people have seen Elvis or been abducted by aliens, or so they claim, you also accept their claims the same as you would the claims of people that have seen Mary?

The reason I brought up Pavlov's Dog previously (which is something else either I didn't explain clearly or you took me out of context)

If you want to continue accusing me of taking you out of context, please cite where I did so since the only clear case of that that I have seen in this thread was clearly done by you.

repetition does not always prove cause and effect

I did not make the argument that it did. Why are you arguing against a point no one was trying to make?

It wasn't that it was something naturally repeatable, it was repetition that forced a change in the nature of the dog.

What point were you trying to prove? I have repeatedly said that reality could change and it was testable and repeatable. You just proved all of my points so....thanks.

Ice Cream causes drowning = bad correlation, however statistically when it is hot outside more there is a higher demand for ice cream, more ice cream is produced and consumed. Also when it is hot outside more people go swimming, and due to a greater amount of swimmers the statistics of drowning goes up as well. Just because something is repeated or happens more then one occasion does not mean it is factual evidence.

You seem to be confusing correlation with causation. Ice cream, heat and downing DO have correlation, but NOT causation. This is why it sometimes seems like I am teaching you basic science and scientific method. For instance, you wanted to argue about the scientific method and testing but had no idea of one of the core tenets of the method.

Math and Science are not the only way we get our information on reality. Why I had a fluke intestinal problem is not explained by these things, and it doesn't take away the reality of it. Check out what Albert says:

I never said they were. Once again you are arguing about things no one said.

I agree, they are not. All the more fascinating to me how they are similar. My point was that, in my thinking, they are different perceptions of the same reality.

You have yet to show how they are similiar. Hinduims has a lot of god, Catholicism has a lot of saints. Since saints are not gods, you haven't demonstrated a similarity yet.