Posts by snare&racket

42

Lawrence Krauss

by KateWild in

krauss is an atheist activist and self-described antitheist.

hence his science is biased.

being an antitheist means he's anti god.. anyone disagree?.

snare&racket

Fernando, do help the world by explaining the mysteries of science via the ancient jewish scrolls.....

Or wait until science explains it then look for an ambigous verse that may be construed in it's many translated alterations to mean something akin to the scientific discovery.

No offence and sorry for the teasing, but your last reply is littered with HUGE claims of revelation and knowledge none of which I have seen demonstrated having read the bible several times and knowing the sciences to a reasonable level.

I have no idea how a book that said there was a firmamnet with stars hung on it above a flat circular disk of earth, can be helpfull to science or be in harmony with it. I sincerely looked for harmony between the bible and science fact and not only have i found not one piece or matching information, the words of the bible have been flatly proven wrong countless times by scientific discoveries.

Read Genesis with a biblical companion once more and compare it to the scientific facts of the issue, please come back to me if you find ONE scientific fact found in the Genesis account alone that we now know to be true that could not be simply be summised by logic by the Jewish scribes at the time. If you feel I am being unfair by adding that humans back then were,not idiots, then ignore my last point. But, keep in mind that thousands of years before the jewish nation existed, the egyptians worked out the circumference of the earth to three decimal places using triganometry, they were also doing cataract operations... so don't underestimate what was known back then.

Good luck....

113

Matthew Powner- Advanced research on the Origin of life. How credible is he?

by KateWild in

i have come to the conclusion that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god.

however the scientific evidence available is compelling enough for me to believe that a creator is responsible for life on earth.. i have read much about powner and understand the work he is doing.

i am interested in your views as to his credibility.

snare&racket

I have no idea why people are hanging god on a stage in a chemical reactions but each to their own?!

I must add however that physics is indeed the foundation of chemistry. We battled this one in our first ever chat Kate lol.

Chemistry is all about the atoms, what do,you think keeps the atomic parts held together, what do you think breaks apart and attracts the elements in these chemical reactions? ......Physics. Your opening post and first replies was all about the influence of physics on chemistry. Those bonds break as it is energetically efficient to do so based on....physics.

Physics gave way to chemistry which gave way to biology which gave way to evolution which gave way to me which gave way to boring replies on a forum...ta da!

21

Unbalanced way of thinking?

by msconcerned in

so, one hot beautiful (not a cloud in the sky) kind of summer day, there was an elder who decided to re shingle his house.

this was on the book study day.

he started early and got all the shingles off of the roof in time for the book study that night.

snare&racket

indeed sparrow, indeed !

42

Lawrence Krauss

by KateWild in

krauss is an atheist activist and self-described antitheist.

hence his science is biased.

being an antitheist means he's anti god.. anyone disagree?.

snare&racket

No worries, if you had this question on your mind maybe others do too.

It is good to have it voiced and discussed so visitors/lurkers can see how science works if they feel the same way.

77

How would you define RELIGION, and why?

by Fernando in

"judge" rutherford defined or classified all religion as "a snare and a racket" in his books "religion" and "enemies".. after rutherford's death in 1942, his protege, watchtower vice president, and aclu darling, hayden c. covington, in the early 1950's, for reasons of legal expedience and supremacist aspirations, suddenly converted the watchtower into a religion.. this was done alongside one of the most audacious, spurious and longstanding swindles of the us legal system.

this involved twisting philippians 1:7 and misrepresenting the watchtower's true nature, objectives and activities.. .

this meant that it became necessary for the watchtower to suddenly reclassify and redefine religion (w51 1/15 p. 43 new legal booklet well named; w51 8/15 p. 511 questions from readers; yb75 p. 161 part 2 "for gladys bolton...").. two new watchtower classifications were suddenly created: "true religion" and "false religion".. now "true religion" meant "true beliefs" whilst "belief" in ever changing watchtower doctrine was equated with the one "faith" of scripture.. all this while the watchtower increasingly and maliciously truncated, obfuscated and hid the liberating full "good news" (or unabridged gospel) of scripture, which it lyingly claimed (in court) that it was actually "defending and legally establishing".. how would you have defined religion before learning ttatt?.

snare&racket

The blinders leading the blinded

45

ONE REASON

by snare&racket in

jw
friends

out of interest, and to formulate a cordial chat, would you give your top one reason for your belief or non belief?.

my foremost 'one reason' for non belief is:.

the historical evidence that provides an explination and timeline for how the modern religious doctrine's and dogma developed over time.. .

snare&racket

Is that your top reason kate? I mentioned 'top' on purpose so that it didn't become a list of 'well that isn't my only reason....etc.' Top reason indicates that it is the rason you give most weight to.

I say this because the formation of stereoisomers has several biotic and abiotic explinations and I am unsure why you would give that as a top reason. A quick search on the net can easily show the papers on this topic, I remember going over it in my Alevel chemistry. The problem isn't finding a theory on how it happens but proving it as it happened billions of years ago in an unconfirmed, unknown enviroment. Symmetry is everywhere in nature due to the pressures on evolving entities usually being static in an enviroment. The stereoisomer question comes down to working out how a symmetrical molecule broke in half leaving a L and mirrored R sided molecule. I understand we don't have the means to pinpoint exactly how the symetrical molecules split, but I would never pin the existence of a deity to that yet unknown answer....

Still if that is your answer, that's cool. Look forward to your reply x

p.s. I don't intend this to be a 'tell us your reaons' then 'atheists attack!' thread...

I just have a little knowledge on the chemistry Kate was mentioning.

42

Lawrence Krauss

by KateWild in

krauss is an atheist activist and self-described antitheist.

hence his science is biased.

being an antitheist means he's anti god.. anyone disagree?.

snare&racket

Kate, these scientists are coming out the wood work with their views on god and religion because they are literally banning science textbooks in american schools, they are going to court and having creation myths or ID forced into science classes!

Scientists have become vocal because they feel their BASE OF KNOWLEDGE is under attack. They speak up because of their concerns for science and knowledge divulged from science.

Had you read Dawkins and Krauss as you have mentioned them, you would already know this. Dawkins was a professor at oxford, his position given was 'communication of science' and he came up against anti-science religious movements in his role hence he started discussing it more and more vocally. Dawkins is an animal behaviourist expert by training with considerable experience in evolution and general biology. God does not show up in his experiements for his day job!

Krauss is a cosmologist. He studies gasses and stars and atoms and energy and matter.....not god. The phrase I used about Krauss not talking about god at all, ever in his day job in a quote from him and his book. Cosmologists are not paid to do god or religion, they do science, they do experiments.

My point was, how on earth could a bias enter into his sicnetific experimental discovaries, when there is no science or evidence of any supernatural kind and non for a god. I am in no doubt of this at all because I know how the scientific method is used, so I ask all this because I don't understand how you think his views can alter his cosmology science results?

I have spent 7 years neck deep in the sciences and god and religion has not come up once in the scientific realm. It has had no relevance as we deal with data and the scientific method.

You speak of your years doing chemistry, think about how odd it would be for the judeo-christian deity to be introduced in a chemistry lab experiemng in any way. It is an odd claim, it doesn't even make sense as a concept.....it just is not what science does.

Come on Kaye, it's early in the morning, but not that early! :P x

22

The Botchtower's attitude towards using the Internet

by Composer2005 in

has the botchtower discouraged or spoken against members using the internet?.

.

satan / devils environment & all that j.w bs!.

snare&racket

From memory, I remember they used some verses in Job back in 1997/98 in a Thirsday night meeting. The verses talk of Satan using a 'net' to catch people. They attempted to connect the dots and I remember thinking they were going so far as almost saying it was somewhat of a prediction, at least an amazing coincidence that it be called the 'net' and a world wide 'web' where followers could become entangled and trapped by satan

It was actually another important point in my deconversion now I think of it, as I have never forgot that article and the ridiculously ignorant, fear-mongering tone it had. We had elders council our family as we had internet quite early. Of course it is laughable now as most JW's do. The farce of the doctrines and teachings and such dogma is so clear when seeing such huge sways in ignorant opinion from the governing body.

The whole thing stank of fear of the unknown, fear of technology, the whole 'I remember when this was all fields and life was wonderful...' routine from an ageing leadership.

I remember someone being at our house, a sister. She was scared as I showed her the WATCHTOWER.ORG site and she kept nervously repeating 'how do you know it is their website' and 'what if it isn't' and 'why would they have a website.' It was written in the front of the magazines by that point in tiny print, but she was scared to death of it. She was 25 yrs old btw lol

45

ONE REASON

by snare&racket in

jw
friends

out of interest, and to formulate a cordial chat, would you give your top one reason for your belief or non belief?.

my foremost 'one reason' for non belief is:.

the historical evidence that provides an explination and timeline for how the modern religious doctrine's and dogma developed over time.. .

snare&racket

Hey quelly x good ta

Really busy working as an emergency physician at the moment in the ER (A+E). It is my first job rotation so I am clocking some serious hours to gain as much experience as possible before starting here as the new doctor (end of July). Super busy but super happy too.

Thanks for answering, interested in what others say.....

144

Escaping Indoctrination - Faith Isn't a Virtue.

by cofty in

the unknown writer of the gospel of john put the following words in jesus' mouth, "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.".

persuading countless generations that it is a virtue to believe incredible things on insufficient evidence, is one of religion's cleverest tricks.. the more incredible the claim; the more flimsy the evidence; the stronger the belief; the greater the virtue.. this is the exact opposite of how we operate in every other aspect of our lives.. rational people must demand objective evidence for everything they are asked to believe.

"extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence".. leaving the dogmatic claims of the watchtower is only a first step.

snare&racket

We have to make three assumptions to make any sense of our world today...

We exist.
Observations and predictions are the best way of discovering knowledge of our reality.
If our discoveries are beneficial and advance us, they are likely true.

These paraphrased three basic philosophical ASSUMPTIONS are the basis of science. Some may want to spend their life disputing them as they are only assumptions. The reality is... anyone claiming to know more than anyone else, is being untruthful. Anyone claiming more than an assumption in these areas is simply lying as there is no means yet of providing evidence beyond assumption.

Christians tend to say they KNOW the foundations of their existence as they have learned them from the ancient jewish scrolls, collated together by the catholics to form the modern bible. They pretend that there is zero dispute in their argument, but of course, they are not offering evidence in simply claiming they have the answers to our relaity, they are simply requesting that we have faith as they do.

I can't speak for others, but faith led me far from truth for 25 years. It took a lot of hard work and time to align my self, my mind and my learning abilities to seeking truth having used faith for so long. For me I can only accept evidence as truth now, known truth. Any claims beyond what we have evidence for are nothing more than that to me now, claims. Such claims are then to be scrutinised for bias and origin so I can prioritise them from interesting to insignificant.

It is funny how much I have changed since leaving WT. I was raised being told how to think as a hive mind, someone else at the helm. I was told how to perceive science and evidence, how to question and how to reason. But all these methods were biased towards Watchtower's perception of truth. It was so far from reality that it became ridiculous fiction.... science was exchanged for talking donkeys and superman strength born from long hair, 900yr old humans and heavenly wars with dragons and unatural beasts. God'd that commanded slavery, infanticide and murder. Laws that put faith over family. Fear mongering that has 7 million people seeing a very different world to the rest of us. Faith was very dangerous in my experience.

Now I use evidence and critical appraisal to decide what is true for myself and it is the most freeing aspect of being a JW no more. There is not a human out there who can reason truth with more ability than you can yourself and you know your motives and biases and integrity, you can only assume another human beings.

Look at the evidence and decide truth for yourself. There is not ONE good reason to not do this !!!!!

Faith in religions led by people dictating truth is an unecessary relenquishing of power. These religious leaders are human too, whatever data they have you have, whatever skills they have to intepret the data, you likewise do too. So use it!

Faith is for the lazy gamblers...