snare&racket

Joined

• started 227 topics
• posted 3,997 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by snare&racket

• 
  45

  ONE REASON

  by snare&racket in

  1. jw
  2. 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.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  snare&racket

  cool, apologies :D
• 
  45

  ONE REASON

  by snare&racket in

  1. jw
  2. 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.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  snare&racket

  I think that was a personal snipe, but been as I don't understand it, I'll stay hush about it .....x

  Cheers prologos for the input, so I summise that you are swayed by the working universe we have around us.

  That's cool, cheers.
• 
  42

  Lawrence Krauss

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  krauss is an atheist activist and self-described antitheist.

  hence his science is biased.

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  snare&racket

  indeed sparrow, indeed !
• 
  42

  Lawrence Krauss

  by KateWild in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  krauss is an atheist activist and self-described antitheist.

  hence his science is biased.

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  "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?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  snare&racket

  The blinders leading the blinded
• 
  45

  ONE REASON

  by snare&racket in

  1. jw
  2. 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.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  krauss is an atheist activist and self-described antitheist.

  hence his science is biased.

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

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

  .

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

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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