Posts by WhatshallIcallmyself

22

If you had the power ....

by Landy in

...would you choose to ban the jw religion?.

if you wouldn't ban them what, if any, changes would you force upon them?.

WhatshallIcallmyself

Yes, because I would like to add a bit of excitement to their lives.

10

satan loves his own people and hates those who do not share his views, hence only he can use shunning as a weapon.. on the contrary, god is love (agape = unconditional love), cannot have his own people.

(mathew 5:44-48).

all the accounts not in conformity with this principle originated from cleric’s pen (jeremiah 7:31; 8:8).

WhatshallIcallmyself

But Finkelstein it's divine, perfect love and we cannot, as imperfect creatures, appreciate what that means. We are too full of imperfect emotions to be able to love in that prefect and divine way... I hope I got that right, perhaps there is an elder on hand to let me know if I got the gist correct...

22

Looking for a Book on Evolution

by Saethydd in

i am wondering if anyone is aware of a book or series of videos designed to explain evolution to creationists, (specifically the jw strain of creationism if possible) without being patronizing or overly confrontational.

i would like to have something to recommend to people who challenge evolution, but i know that the sources which convinced me would turn most of them off because of the confrontational and at times condescending tone in which it's presented.. some examples of what i'm looking for would be someone who doesn't claim evolution is a fact until after they have presented all of the evidence that makes it a fact and also have addressed as many counter-arguments as possible..

WhatshallIcallmyself

"I debate this subject with many materialistic atheist PhD scientists" - Raymudas Martini

That sentence speaks enough of your 'credentials' that I now know you know nothing of this subject.

29

A Mathematic Perspective on Evolution

by Saethydd in

i would like to apologize in advance if any of my information on the biology side of this discussion is incorrect, because unfortunately it is not my strongest scientific subject on account of my being subtly encouraged to view it with distrust.. i've recently debated the of subject of evolution with my father, i made the argument that when viewed over several million years random mutation provides a more than adequate explanation for humans having evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees.

then he got this derisive look on his face a waved his hand saying "evolution's explanation for everything is the amount of time involved.".

so i decided i would examine this mathematically.

WhatshallIcallmyself

"For all these there is localized explanation which would show that everything happens according to some law, and law presupposes The Law-giver." - anointed1

No it doesn't! At least not in the sense you are implying here. We are the law givers because it is we that are making observations of our environment. We notice things work a certain way and set out to explain it. We make the laws.

Back to your point now. Unless you can offer up some evidence that a "Law-giver" exists you have no reason to posit a deity over 'it just works that way'. This presupposition is something that Craig Lane talks about a lot. I guess that is the sort of books you are reading and hence the baffelgab above...

29

A Mathematic Perspective on Evolution

by Saethydd in

i would like to apologize in advance if any of my information on the biology side of this discussion is incorrect, because unfortunately it is not my strongest scientific subject on account of my being subtly encouraged to view it with distrust.. i've recently debated the of subject of evolution with my father, i made the argument that when viewed over several million years random mutation provides a more than adequate explanation for humans having evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees.

then he got this derisive look on his face a waved his hand saying "evolution's explanation for everything is the amount of time involved.".

so i decided i would examine this mathematically.

WhatshallIcallmyself

anointed1 -

I guess it's turtles all the way down then. Unless you wish to suspend your 'logic' to allow for your preference of deity, whether that be supernatural or not...

41

Numbers don't lie... and these numbers are beautiful!!

by ILoveTTATT2 in

jw
friends

the numbers don't lie... definitely slowing down!!.

in the 40´s the average growth per year was 20%in the 50´s it was about 10%they had four decades of solid 5% per yearnow the average for the past 16 years has been 2%.

maybe in the future it will be 1% or 0 or even negative????.

WhatshallIcallmyself

Although I think it is fairly obvious what the answer is with regards to whether the witnesses are increasing at an ever quickening rate, as is often claimed in the hall...

41

Numbers don't lie... and these numbers are beautiful!!

by ILoveTTATT2 in

jw
friends

the numbers don't lie... definitely slowing down!!.

in the 40´s the average growth per year was 20%in the 50´s it was about 10%they had four decades of solid 5% per yearnow the average for the past 16 years has been 2%.

maybe in the future it will be 1% or 0 or even negative????.

WhatshallIcallmyself

Also, it is the rate of increase that should be looked at with regards to the op. Has the rate been increasing year by year or has it not? They certainly are increasing in numbers but the rate of growth is hitting an all time low. edited to make sense and not nonsense...!

41

Numbers don't lie... and these numbers are beautiful!!

by ILoveTTATT2 in

jw
friends

the numbers don't lie... definitely slowing down!!.

in the 40´s the average growth per year was 20%in the 50´s it was about 10%they had four decades of solid 5% per yearnow the average for the past 16 years has been 2%.

maybe in the future it will be 1% or 0 or even negative????.

WhatshallIcallmyself

18,000 new witnesses for 10,000,000,000 hours work? So we are looking at an approximate average of 1,111,111 hours of preaching in order to hook 1 person.

That figure kind of sums up their 'truth' doesn't it? Can you imagine any other idea that is 'true' requiring that amount of time to convince just 1 person of its veracity? Or are all those 8 million odd witnesses utterly inept?

36

An interesting reasoning for the existence of God (from JW public talk)

by anointed1 in

i was on an official tour last week to another part of my country.

on my way to the hotel, i noticed sign-board of jw kingdom hall.

i thought i would attend sunday meeting as i knew no one would recognize me.. seeing “a new-comer” in the audience, public speaker adapted his material making it especially appealing to me.

WhatshallIcallmyself

"Don’t just write him off because of his background" - anointed1

The speaker's background has got nothing to do with a thinking person dismissing such a ludicrous analogy. The speaker's analogy is written off because it is nonsense. He is making an assumption that the Earth is unique and then asserting his assumption is a fact and going from there. It's a basic logical error yet here you are, anointed1, touting this guy's nonsense as something profound.

And your response to your op being criticised? Any of us on here who have had children will be vary aware of how consciousness develops as the child gains experience and memories. That should be a subtle clue as to the evolutionary development of consciousness....

19

Mythical Nemesis and Nibiru, or is it?

by Vidqun in

a long time since the topic has been raised on jwn.

" according to the majority of scientists, it's all our fault.

our high carbon emissions and increase in co2 are causing changes in our weather.

WhatshallIcallmyself

I think this is another example of people taking scientific data and then making up crap that ultimately has nothing to do with the initially presented data.

Re. climate change. The evidence does not support the idea that our changing climate is driven by the Sun. Yes it is in part caused by changes in the Sun's radiation (we know that the Sun has various phases that it changes through) but that does not account for all the data collected on this topic. To suggest this idea as a reason for our changing climate/changing average temperatures shows that a lot of information is being ignored.

Re. Binary system. Missing the approach of a comet measuring approximately 20 metres in diameter is one thing. To suggest that we might be missing a red dwarf (the smallest estimations of which suggest a size of 34590 miles in diameter) is silly... There are unanswered questions related to the behaviour of the planets in the Solar System but, again, to suggest some of the above demonstrates a lack of knowledge of all the data available!

The bottom line is: Stop taking evidence in isolation to forward ideas that are destroyed in the light of all the available evidence...