rem

Joined

• started 24 topics
• posted 2,514 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by rem

• 
  58

  Do You Still Believe a God Cares for You?

  by JosephAlward in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've been a part of this forum for about one month, and during that time i've been struck by the willingness of many so former jehovah witnesses either to ridicule the bible, or to stand by while it's being ridiculed.

  so, i'm wondering how many of them while witnesses suffered through experiences so searing that they no longer believe in the god of the old testament.. who among you still believe that underneath the layers of contradictions, inconsistencies, and errors in the bible there may be found the words of a god who created the universe, and who also cares about you, personally?.

  joseph f. alward.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Unclepenn,

  Also, what type of evidence are you looking (or should I say not looking) for? I mean, I am assuming that you don't believe most of history then right? If 2 people see a man rob a liquor store, he's going to jail. If hundreds of people see an event happen, including unbiased historians (Roman and Jewish) then I think it's a safe bet.

  First of all, even if it could be proved that a literal Jesus existed I don't see why that would make anyone want to be a Christian. I mean, believing in the existence of Muhammad doesn't make one want to be a Muslim. Even still, I'm not saying that it's impossible for a man named Jesus to have walked the Earth. I'm just saying the evidence is pretty scant. And then when you say this man did miracles and was resurrected, the evidence becomes even worse.

  Like I've said before, I would like contemporary (of Jesus' time) evidence by independent parties. I don't think this is too much to ask since Jesus is supposedly the most important man to ever live (according to Christians). If he really did all of the things attributed to him, you would expect to see amazing evidence. You would expect secular writings from the time period about this amazing god-man.

  The problem with all of the evidence we do have is that it is all second hand and most of it comes decades after the supposed events. Worse, some of the evidence has clearly been added in by forgers - interpolations into Josephus' accounts. Why would believers need to do such things if the evidence was so clear?

  As far as your example of hundreds of witnesses see a man rob a store, here is the problem with the evidence:

  What if a man a few decades after the supposed event says that hundreds of witnesses saw this robbery? The problem is that we don't have the first hand accounts of these hundreds of witnesses - only his word years after the event. Now the evidence doesn't look so good.

  But now you say unbiased historians report it. Well, were these historians contemporaries with the robber, or did they live decades and centuries after the robber died? You could hardly call them eye-witnesses. Obviously they got their story from second and third hand accounts as well. And an interesting note is that some of these supposedly unbiased historians are a bit sloppy in their research and we know they have reported other things that are not true. Now their credibility is also in question.

  Now with that evidence I think you'd be hard pressed to find a jury to find the robber guilty.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  28

  New York Evolution Proof

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  if you ever get stuck going to brooklyn bethel and.

  hearing about watchtower propaganda, you might want.

  to look at an antidote.. the museum of natural history - in manhattan.. in the section on human origins, they have a skeleton.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Uncelpenn,

  Regarding your question:

  Please inform this ignorant and uneducated person on how this mysterious 'light sensitive patch' can come about by mutations. How many of the nerve endings and parts of the eye needed for sight, would this 'light sensitive patched' animal need to see lights and darks? Answer: pretty much all of them. Here is a brief example.

  Light from an object enters the eye first through the clear cornea and then through the pupil, the circular opening in the iris. Next, the light is converged by the crystalline lens to a point immediately behind the lens; at that point, the image becomes inverted. The light progresses through the gelatinous vitreous humor and, ideally, back to a clear focus on the retina, the central area of which is the macula. In the retina, light impulses are changed into electrical signals and then sent along the optic nerve and back to the occipital (posterior) lobe of the brain, which interprets these electrical signals as visual images.

  The animal would not need most of the things mentioned here to just destinguish between light and dark. The many features of human eyes are to aide in focusing light and seeing color. These features (iris, pupil, lense, vitreous humor, etc.) are not needed for a simple creature (with no real brain) to have some type of advantage over others of the same species. A light-sensing patch would not need the light to be focused, it would just need to sense photons. There probably wouldn't even need to be that many cells to do this - the patch may be microscopic. It might even sense different frequencies than we do, such as ultra-violet or infra-red. But that's not the point. The point is that you are trying to force evolution to work in a way that it doesn't - macro mutations don't happen (at least when they do, they aren't usually helpful for the organism). Organs build from simpler tissues, organs, but only if there is some advantage to it. It's a sloooooooooooow process, one feature at a time.

  I hope that helps a bit,

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  28

  New York Evolution Proof

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  if you ever get stuck going to brooklyn bethel and.

  hearing about watchtower propaganda, you might want.

  to look at an antidote.. the museum of natural history - in manhattan.. in the section on human origins, they have a skeleton.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Unclepenn,

  You are getting a condecending attitude because you are ignorant of Evolutionary theory and you refuse to educate yourself.

  But I should do better than that. I apologize for being short with you. It's just that I've spoken with literally scores of fundies who all have the same questions that are easily answered by doing a bit of reading on the subject. These questions are so basic that I feel that I can do a decent job of answering them even though I'm just a layman with no science background other than Highschool and dozens of books I've read.

  In regards to your question about the retina, all you did was push the question back one more step instead of aknowledging that a partial feature could be useful. No one is saying that that is really how it happened - it's just a hypothetical explanation.

  In the question that you asked about the underlying connection to the brain, (here again hypothetically because this is probably not the way it happened in real life) the worm-like creature already has a simple nervous system (probably not yet a brain) with nerves going to the skin for different useful senses. The light patches would just be a modification of existing nerves - not a creation of new ones. Hence, the connection to the underlying nervous system is already in place. Basically, a few cells change their job from sensing touch to sensing light.

  The point of this is not to say that this ever did happen, but to show you the way evolution works from a 30,000 foot perspective. Evolutionists don't claim macro mutations are useful in evolution (evolving a whole or partial eye), but there are many, many steps that rely on the already devoloped underlying system to "progress".

  Again, I apologize for being rude to you. I do sincerely ask that you read some books by real evolutionists so you can at least understand the other side of the issue.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  34

  Any athiests here had a demon experience?

  by Marilyn in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've made friends with a mormon lady, and she told me that her 14yo daughter has thrown out all four harry potter books because she's realised they are dabbling in and encouraging demons.

  then she told me about her demon experiences herself.

  has any exjw, of sound mind, had a proper demon experience (as opposed to improper!!)?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Have I ever had a demon experience? No, never.

  Have I ever had an experience that totally freaked me out? Yes.

  I've had sleep paralysis experiences where I felt like there was an evil presence in the room and I couldn't move. But I know that wasn't demons. Funny thing - I had one a few months back and even though I knew what it was, I was still scared for a minute until I woke up a little and realized what was happening. Boy is that a scary feeling. It's kinda cool, though, once you figure out what's going on.

  rem, who is obviously demonized and will have little demon children.

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  68

  Any athiest tried a Ouji Board?

  by Marilyn in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've been told the glass moves around spelling stuff out.

  my brother, before he became a dumbdub said it happened to him - but he was pretty young and probably p'd.

  movies and tv play along with it.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  When I was a kid camping in the mountains a group of adults decided to take us youngins on a "sniper hunt" at night. They told me all about the little snipers and how dangerous they were. They even had a special call to attract them. We had sacks to catch them with. After a few minutes trek into the woods we started hearing rustlings in the woods and sniper calls. I was a bit freaked out. Then after a couple minutes, it dawned on me that I had been had. It was just a prank! There were no "snipers". The adults were just throwing stones in the woods to make noises and making clicking sounds with thier mouths.

  Very clever, I thought. I learned on that day how easy it is to fool people.

  When people use Ouji boards for the first time, they tend to be in the company of an "experienced" user. Who's to say the experienced user is not playing a prank on the newbies? The "Lwood" story comes to mind as a complete hoax. The phonetic spelling sounds like a very convenient story - I've never heard that before, but the newbies to the Ouji board bought that explanation hook, line, and sinker. The fact that the board didn't spell the name correctly even made the board seem more genuine. Unfortunately, some people are a little slow on the uptake and don't figure out when they've been had for a long time. Sometimes never.

  The first thing I'd do if I used a Ouji board would be spelling freaky things backwards, shaking the pointer, and it would be cool to fling it out of everyone's hands. That would scare a few of the superstitious ones right quick! The Ouji board is just a game. It's not even as old as you might think it is. It's just silly to believe in such bunk as adults.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  58

  Do You Still Believe a God Cares for You?

  by JosephAlward in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've been a part of this forum for about one month, and during that time i've been struck by the willingness of many so former jehovah witnesses either to ridicule the bible, or to stand by while it's being ridiculed.

  so, i'm wondering how many of them while witnesses suffered through experiences so searing that they no longer believe in the god of the old testament.. who among you still believe that underneath the layers of contradictions, inconsistencies, and errors in the bible there may be found the words of a god who created the universe, and who also cares about you, personally?.

  joseph f. alward.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Just and addendum - I assumed you were speaking about Strobel since he too claims to be a converted atheist, but here are some articles about McDowell's apologetics and his use of Greenleaf as an authority. Still the same is true, appeals to authority and second-hand evidence, but no independednt contemporary accounts to corroborate the stories of Jesus in the bible:

  http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1996/5/5mail96.html

  http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/son.html

  http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html

  Sorry about the confusion,

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  58

  Do You Still Believe a God Cares for You?

  by JosephAlward in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've been a part of this forum for about one month, and during that time i've been struck by the willingness of many so former jehovah witnesses either to ridicule the bible, or to stand by while it's being ridiculed.

  so, i'm wondering how many of them while witnesses suffered through experiences so searing that they no longer believe in the god of the old testament.. who among you still believe that underneath the layers of contradictions, inconsistencies, and errors in the bible there may be found the words of a god who created the universe, and who also cares about you, personally?.

  joseph f. alward.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Unclepenn,

  I never mentioned Jesus in my original post. I was talking about God - YHWH - the creator in the sky, not a historical person. You went off track with the whole historical Jesus question. You interpreted me saying the "Christian God" as meaning Jesus because of your Trinitarian views. My original statement is true - there is as much evidence for the Christian god (the creator in heaven) as there is for an Invisible Pink Unicorn. Thus I committed no logical fallacy. If you have evidence of a heavenly creator, be my guest and provide it.

  It is not a false analogy to say that there is the same amount of evidence for God as the Invisible Pink Unicorn. It is the truth - there is zero for both. I could have used any number of examples, such as fairies, gnomes, santa clause, the tooth fairy, etc. They all have the same amount of evidence backing their existence - none.

  Note that I never said there is as much evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus as an Invisible Pink Unicorn, so your argument is just a red herring. Of course I know there is some evidence for a historical Jesus. It just happens to be noncontemporary hearsay, that's all. It's evidence, just not very convincing evidence.

  Your appeal to authority was just a red herring since the fact that PhD's probably have not done any dissertations on Invisible Pink Unicorns is irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't bolster your position one bit - you provided no evidence for your case.

  As far as a Jury deciding on the historicty of Jesus, if I and other rational people were on the Jury, then the judgement would probably not be the favor of Jesus existence.

  It's interesting that Strobel didn't interview any skeptics in his book. You might want to read the other side of the story here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html

  If that "evidence" convinced Strobel, then that's fine. It just goes to show that there will always be credulous people in the world. I guess the fact that there are no first-hand accounts or corroborating independent contemporary accounts for any of the stories of Jesus doesn't bother him or you.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  15

  The Unforgivable Sin

  by expatbrit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  one of those phrases that jw's always seem to (amusingly) lower their voices when saying is "the unforgivable sin".

  this is defined as, i believe, grieving the holy spirit.. when i was a witness, it was generally assumed that adolf hitler had committed the unforgivable sin.

  presumably because he wasn't taken in with the wt's brown-nosing of the nazis.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  I never really understood what grieving the holy spirit meant. Was I the only one? It seemed to me that everyone else seemed to understand what it meant (or at least they acted like they did), but it was never really explained to me in a way in which I completely understood it. I couldn't figure out why that particular sin was so bad, either. It all seemed a little mysterious and hokey to me when I was a dub.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  28

  New York Evolution Proof

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  if you ever get stuck going to brooklyn bethel and.

  hearing about watchtower propaganda, you might want.

  to look at an antidote.. the museum of natural history - in manhattan.. in the section on human origins, they have a skeleton.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Unclepenn,

  Have you actually read any books by Richard Dawkins? I didn't think so. You are like a teenager who thinks he knows everything and yet knows nothing at all. You seem to revel in your ignorance as if it were something to be proud of. So sad.

  But to address your question about the hypothetical worm with retinas on it, yes it has been shown that (what we would call) partial features can be beneficial. Note that natural selection is not trying to make an eye, it just works out after generations and generations. In fact, the eye has been independently evolved many times in many different forms.

  An animal with a light sensitive patch (not a fully formed eye) could use it to its advantage. Light hitting the patch can tell the animal which way is up and which way is down. If the animal's food source is up (or down - say in water) then this animal will have an advantage over the others because it will find more food more easily. This feature would be more prominent in the gene pool after numerous generations. There are many other ways in which partial features can be beneficial - that was just a simple example.

  Hopefully everyone on this board will see how ignorant fundies like Unclepenn are when it comes to evolution. You are just embarassing yourself, Unclepenn, as we have recommended you do you research many times. But time and time again you come back with no more knowledge than before.

  Again, I recommend you read Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene, or Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins. After you read an introduction to evolutionary theory by a real scientist you will understand exactly how Natural Selection works and how it really can create useful organs and great variety.

  rem

  p.s. Your example about the leaves shows you know nothing about evolution because Natural Selection only works on features that help an organism to reproduce better. Arranging leaves doesn't help anything reproduce better, so what would it have to do with evolution?

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 
  43

  My flood questions

  by Moxy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i know these topics have been well-covered in many places.

  this is just me wanting to compile a list of concise reasons why i am sure the wt interpretation of the deluge is untenable.

  this is my first draft.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Nicolas,

  I think that I heard that pine trees cannot have their roots submerged in water. I might have just added the salt water part.

  I agree, the WT is just a load of crap. ;)

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain