Essan

Joined

• started 16 topics
• posted 624 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Essan

• 
  269

  Have your JW Relatives Explained about Generation/Overlap Change to You ?

  by flipper in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  after reading on the way out's thread about his mom explaining the generation overlap to him it kicked this idea into my head to make this thread .

  i thought it would be helpful to see if anybody here has had jw relatives or friends try to explain this " generation overlap " theory to you as a faded or inactive witness and what happened in the conversations.

  so please feel free to post your experiences.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  Djeggnog was asked: " If the WTS knows that Chuck did not predict the invisible coming of Christ in 1914, why don’t they correct this error among the R&F JW’s?"

  DJ responded: "Can you post here a citation from any of the WTS' publications that specifically indicate that Russell predicted "the invisible coming of Christ in 1914"? I'm not sure I've ever read anything that even comes close to such a statement."

  Here is the proof you asked for regarding the Society's false claims about what Russell taught and the Bible Students preached:

  "The Watchtower has consistently presented evidence that Jesus' presence in heavenly Kingdom power began in 1914. " Watchtower 1993 January 15 pp.5,9

  LIE. The Watchtower presented evidence, as fact, that this presence began in 1874 for over 40 years. That is not 'consistency'.

  "". . . a prophecy providentially caused sincere 19th-century Bible students to be in expectation. By linking the "seven times" of Daniel 4:25 with "the times of the Gentiles," they anticipated that Christ would receive Kingdom power in 1914." - "Waiting in Eager Expectation' Watchtower September 15, 1998.

  LIE, they taught that Jesus became king in 1874. They predicted the conclusion of Armageddon for 1914

  ""Why, then, do the nations not realize and accept the approach of this climax of judgment? It is because they have not heeded the world wide advertising of Christ's return and his second Presence . Since long before World War I Jehovah's witnesses pointed to 1914 as the time for this great event to occur." Watchtower 1954 June 15 p.370

  LIE, t hey taught that his second presence began in 1874 and did not finally repeal this teaching until 1943.

  " For over thirty years before that date and for half a century since, Jehovah's witnesses have p ointed to the year 1914 as the time for the end of "the appointed times of the nations" and the time in which Christ would begin his Kingdom rule . (Luke 21:24)" Watchtower 1966 February 15 p.103.

  LIE. And there are many more examples. But these few should establish the facts.

  Remember DJ, you acknowledged that the Society knows the truth, so why do they actively teach outright lies? Will you ignore the facts presented here too?

  You were given links to such information that would have answered this question and many others so that you could educate yourself about the history of your organization, but you consistently refuse to do the research . You also continue to make false claims - such as that Russell made no predictions for 1914 - and then totally ignore the quotes showing that he predicted many things which failed. Why do you ignore the evidence and why don't you correct your false claims when they are categorically proven false? Why won't you do the research yourself?
• 
  26

  What's your agnostic number? (Atheists and Christians are Agnostics rounded to the nearest integer)

  by pirata in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a christian believes that there's 100% (1) possibility that there is a god.. an atheist believes that there's 0% (0) possibility that there is a god.. the perfectly balanced agnostic feel's that there's a 50% (0.5) possibility that god exists.

  various environmental factors cause agnostics to to lean to one side or the other, and possibly round to the nearest integer.. what's your current number?.

  i think i'm currently a 0.3..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  Hey pirata, If I ever slip to a 0.4 can I be a 0.6 the next day to make up for it and then still claim my balanced agnostic status?
• 
  139

  Atheist believe there is no God? Yes we do, strongly!

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  there seem to have been a strong increase in entymological arguments lately, more precisely regarding the term atheist.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/198111/1/lets-settle-this-for-once-and-for-all-is-atheism-a-belief-a-non-belief-or-an-anti-belief.

  i have reread the thread and i think i see where it goes very wrong.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  Bohm you said: "I think it is most fair to test that"

  I already did, but there has been no reply as yet. I asked Caedes to assign a probability - his opinion - of the existence of three things he mentioned and insisted must be accounted as equally likely: Santa, God and the Easter Bunny. If you go back and read his posts I think it would be reasonable to conclude that he apparently assigns zero possibility to the existence of Santa and the Easter Bunny. If this is not so, he can correct this misapprehension.

  But let's look at a few statements, Regarding Santa, Easter Bunnies and Co, he said, "I reject the existence of any of them", "Does it take faith to state that santa claus doesn't exist... neither does my rejection of the existence of god/s"

  So if God = Santa and Easter Bunny, and Santa and Easter Bunny = Impossible, then God = Impossible.

  If this is Caedes position, then this is an absolute unreserved denial of the possibility of God's existence. Do you agree?

  As I said, many atheists hold such position but don't want to openly do what you just asked, which is stand up and honesty be counted for holding this belief, because they know it is unwarranted and opens them up to accusation of holding belief, just as Theists do.
• 
  139

  Atheist believe there is no God? Yes we do, strongly!

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  there seem to have been a strong increase in entymological arguments lately, more precisely regarding the term atheist.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/198111/1/lets-settle-this-for-once-and-for-all-is-atheism-a-belief-a-non-belief-or-an-anti-belief.

  i have reread the thread and i think i see where it goes very wrong.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  Hi Bohm :)

  You said: "2) The word believe, as in "I believe in X", can carry the meaning "i think X is true with high probability".... For example, if a scientist (thestic, non-theistic...) say: "I believe in the many-world hypothesis" or "I believe gene XZV-1017b has an important role in understanding how HIV defeat the immune system", is it then entirely plausible he use "believe" in the sence above?"

  Yes, and the context and his attending statements would demonstrate it this were so, IMO. But that's not the whole story. Even when probability can be reliably established, to move to the statement that "I believe" is to strengthen what is still only a possibility and "side" with it. Probability does not establish or directly relate to fully proven "fact" therefore it takes an injection of "faith" on the part of the "believer" and the operation of some gap-bridging personal choice that itself is not required or warranted by the data. That is why we say "I believe". Probability does not require belief. We volunteer belief because we want to. This is little different to Theistic "belief". An agnostic who is able to reliably calculate the probability of something states "The probability of X is Y" - he would not add "belief" because belief is not warranted. Look at the sentence you wrote: "i think X is true/with high probability " [in the past you have said believe rather than think]. There are two elements to it, one is scientific the other personal. The probability (if able to be calculated accurately) is scientific, the voluntary gap-bridging is not.

  You said: "There are statements in this world where we can talk about their probabilities being high or low, and there are statements where we cannot. A nd "God does not exist" fit the later category.

  Yes, for now, we can't even come close to accurately calculating that probability, therefore we can't legitimately speak of it's improbability. To do so just reveals personal bias, belief, preference. The truth is we don't know and our unknowing in absolute.
• 
  243

  Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

  by Quillsky in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my opinion is that atheism is not a belief.

  it is a belief in no belief..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  Thanks QL. Nice description.

  JWN - Wolves....in wolves clothing LOL

  Yes, no doubt all the cut and thrust and heated debate accelerates change.
• 
  139

  Atheist believe there is no God? Yes we do, strongly!

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  there seem to have been a strong increase in entymological arguments lately, more precisely regarding the term atheist.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/198111/1/lets-settle-this-for-once-and-for-all-is-atheism-a-belief-a-non-belief-or-an-anti-belief.

  i have reread the thread and i think i see where it goes very wrong.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  LOL Come on Bohm,

  This isn't a lab either and we're not doing science, we're debating Atheism. Are you sure you can't "measure the probability"? I seem to find endless references to doing so. In any case, you clearly understood what I meant. My point was many people have attempted to 'calculate probability' but cannot accurately do so because the factors are largely unknown. If you can't put the right data, and all of it, into the calculation you can't get the right answer. That is why there is no consensus on this. Therefore, any reference to a supposed "probability" for the existence of God is fraudulent, especially so if it is not even accompanied by the evidence of even an attempt to carry out this impossible task, and is just a belief, an opinion, which people are supposed to accept as authoritative because it is couched as "probability" and presented by a scientist.

  You said: "So your argument is that its impossible to Dawkins to say there is a high probability God does not exist because he cannot give you the numerical value?"

  It's that it's wrong for Dawkins to present a mere opinion, his personal belief, as if based on "probability" derived from hard reliable data when such is totally untrue. If he doesn't give a numerical value it's because he can't, either because he hasn't attempted to 'calculate the probability', knowing it is futile to attempt it, or he has but he knows the results are scientifically worthless because they are based on incomplete data - therefore he has no business rendering a judgement as if based on a reliable 'calculation of probability'. He has no business referencing "probability". The conclusion is bogus, the justification for it, fraudulent.

  It's wrong, but it's common.
• 
  139

  Atheist believe there is no God? Yes we do, strongly!

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  there seem to have been a strong increase in entymological arguments lately, more precisely regarding the term atheist.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/198111/1/lets-settle-this-for-once-and-for-all-is-atheism-a-belief-a-non-belief-or-an-anti-belief.

  i have reread the thread and i think i see where it goes very wrong.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  Hi Bohm,

  1. Absolute denial would only have a legitimate place in science if there is absolute proof that something does not exist. There is no such proof for God's nonexistence, not even close, therefeor absolute denial of the possibility to God's existence is in no way "scientific" but purely an expression of faith based belief and personal bias. As you say, to do this goes against good science.

  2. Bohm said: "The word believe, as in "I believe in X", can carry the meaning "i think X is true with high probability"

  It certainly does so for many rational Theists, who on questioning would concede that although they feel they have compelling evidence for God's existence, there is not absolute proof and so they bridge the gap in their minds with a degree of Faith. As for the "statement "it is highly probable that God does not exist" (or suchlike), this is basically the same statement as that made by the aforementioned Theist, except that it is dishonest. It is quite impossible to measure the probability of God's existence because the factors determining probability are unknown. There is no consensus because of this. Many have tried, all failed. Therefore if anyone invokes probability when dismissing God they are essentially lying, invoking scientific data that does not exist, and attempting to hide personal faith based belief and bias behind terms they have no business using.

  3. If any scientists used 3 in relation to God, they are frauds, and are revealing an approach almost identical to the Theist, except that it is also dishonest. The Theist admits his faith, at least.

  4. If a scientist says "I believe there is no God" then his statement is not scientific, no matter which definition of believe is used and he is merely expressing personal bias and belief just as a Theist does. If he is using "believe" as an absolute, 1, this is so. If he uses believe to refer to supposed probability, as in 2, this is so, because he cannot demonstrate probability and is therefore invoking probability fraudulently, in order to misrepresent an ordinary personal belief as a data based conclusion.

  It's interesting that you say you have never met an atheist who absolutely denies God. I'd suggest that you probably have, even in this thread and have even praised their posts. The thing is many atheists who absolutely deny God try, much like the 'scientist' in option 2, to hide their certainty to some degree, because they are aware it is actually unwarranted. They hold the belief, but hypocritically don't want to be held accountable for it in the way they hold Theists accountable.

  I asked Caedes to explicitly assign a probability of existence to three things which mentioned as examples and said should be accounted as exactly as likely to exist as each other. There has been no reply. I'll be interested to hear what probability he assigns to these three things of his: Santa, THe Easter Bunny, and God. His previous posts lead me to suspect that he considers each as equally impossible.

  Someone who assigns a probability of zero to something is absolutely, unqualifiedly denying the possibility of it's existence. They are making an 'Atheist 1' statement, couched in deceptive and unwarranted scientific language.

  Atheist 1's are not as rare as you would like to believe, Bohm.

  But we'll see what Caedes response is.
• 
  24

  Alice

  by Quillsky in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  alice, i have a sense that you've dug yourself a hole on this forum and don't know how to get out of it.. you would probably like to engage and share your stories as most of us do here, and as you've done in your child abuse thread, but you've created an antagonistic persona that makes it difficult for many to empathize with your real life concerns and experiences.. i suggest that you retire your "alice in wonderland" moniker and return as a normal poster, a jw with doubts.

  many will understand, and you may make some friends..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  It's got to say something that she chooses to hang out with everyone here. She must know that she isn't having success in promoting Watchtowerism or defending the WT Society. Everyone else can see that so I'm sure she can too. So perhaps those things are just the excuse she uses now to be here and be involved with the people, because she enjoys it, but isn't ready yet to make the leap.
• 
  26

  What's your agnostic number? (Atheists and Christians are Agnostics rounded to the nearest integer)

  by pirata in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a christian believes that there's 100% (1) possibility that there is a god.. an atheist believes that there's 0% (0) possibility that there is a god.. the perfectly balanced agnostic feel's that there's a 50% (0.5) possibility that god exists.

  various environmental factors cause agnostics to to lean to one side or the other, and possibly round to the nearest integer.. what's your current number?.

  i think i'm currently a 0.3..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  0.5. Sounds like a cop out, I know, but it's true.
• 
  24

  Alice

  by Quillsky in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  alice, i have a sense that you've dug yourself a hole on this forum and don't know how to get out of it.. you would probably like to engage and share your stories as most of us do here, and as you've done in your child abuse thread, but you've created an antagonistic persona that makes it difficult for many to empathize with your real life concerns and experiences.. i suggest that you retire your "alice in wonderland" moniker and return as a normal poster, a jw with doubts.

  many will understand, and you may make some friends..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  Sab said: "Essan there is a point of no return when it comes to mental illness. Hitler most likely had a mental illness and it doesn't help me "understand" why he killed all those Jews. Not saying that Alice is on the same level, but it's a pretty clear cut way of explaining that the "mental health" card has limits."

  I wasn't here for some of what I gather were Alice's worst excesses (regarding abuse, etc) so I suppose that hasn't formed my opinion of her in the same way it has others. I have had some pretty intense debates with her as Consfearacy and consequently was not her greatest fan - to put it very mildly.

  Still, can't help having a soft spot - of course, that is largely based on my suspicion that she'll eventually see the "error of her ways", or rather the WT's ways, and on my suspicion that there is a lot more to her and her story that makes her the person she is presently.