Hmm for some reason my link to the Mormon whiteboard animation is converted into a Mormon Prophet Elder trying to convince young prefab Mormons to actually read their book some day ...
Anders Andersen
JoinedPosts by Anders Andersen
-
16
JW.org videos....look like....
by Anders Andersen in.... i just looked through some videos on the scientology and the mormon youtube channels.animated whiteboard animations, bad acting, compelling music...it's all the same as jw.org...or the other way around.the similarity is very striking to me.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghjomvjadbghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxf3pwvjoka.
i wonder why that is....
-
-
-
16
JW.org videos....look like....
by Anders Andersen in.... i just looked through some videos on the scientology and the mormon youtube channels.animated whiteboard animations, bad acting, compelling music...it's all the same as jw.org...or the other way around.the similarity is very striking to me.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghjomvjadbghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxf3pwvjoka.
i wonder why that is....
-
-
Anders Andersen
...
I just looked through some videos on the Scientology and the Mormon Youtube channels.
Animated whiteboard animations, bad acting, compelling music...it's all the same as JW.org...or the other way around.
The similarity is very striking to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHJoMvJadBg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXf3pWVJOkAI wonder why that is...
-
71
Confusing Opinions with Facts
by cofty inin a discussion about the best flavour of ice cream everybody's opinion is equally valid.. in a discussion about the shape of the earth or the origin of species everybody's opinion is equally irrelevant.
only objective facts and evidence matter.. confusing these two categories is a common feature of conversations in this forum.
people deserve respect, errors do not..
-
-
Anders Andersen
@Heaven,
<sarcasm>Yeah right, as if anyone would get that</sarcasm>
-
147
Challenge to Creationists
by cofty inin response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.
predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.
entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.
-
-
Anders Andersen
Well said LisaRose.
I'll add to that that in my case, finding out that the JW literature on evolution/creation is utterly dishonest, full of fallacies and completely fails to make a case for creation was instrumental in me finding out TTATT and leaving the religion.
If God's own ssupposed pokesmen cannot get the interpretation of the first chapter of the Bible right, they're not very trustworthy....
And for all the creationists out there: ever wonder why all you do is criticized evolution, but you never present actual evidence for creation?
Why has nobody taken this perfect chance to shut up Cofty, who taunts your Creator?
Why is it that you can only come up with thoughts and conjectures, while thousands of exhibits in musea, millions of scientific papers and loads of evidence can be shown to support the theory of evolution?
-
42
"Just don't overthink the truth"
by stuckinarut2 inso after almost a year of complete inactivity and non attendance, i ran into a nice brother from the local congregation.. after some nice chit-chat, he says "we really miss you and your family...etc...you were always the kind and supportive one, the approachable and encouraging one in the congregation.
your absence has confused so many".
i thanked him and said "oh no, no individual has stumbled us.
-
-
Anders Andersen
Jup, heard the same from different persons.
"Come back soon. Don't think too much!"
"Anders, your wise. Too wise."
-
71
Confusing Opinions with Facts
by cofty inin a discussion about the best flavour of ice cream everybody's opinion is equally valid.. in a discussion about the shape of the earth or the origin of species everybody's opinion is equally irrelevant.
only objective facts and evidence matter.. confusing these two categories is a common feature of conversations in this forum.
people deserve respect, errors do not..
-
-
Anders Andersen
In my story, try proving with evidence to the man eating a hot dog in a Chinese restaurant that he committed the crime
Your analogy glosses over the real world situation.
If the man was really eating a hotdog in the restaurant, there will be evidence of that.
His DNA and fingerprints in the restaurant, people who saw him there, security camera's, hotdog in his stomach, etc. etc.
In that case there's reaonable doubt that he is the perpetrator.
Of course, if he just claims he was in the restaurant, but there's no evidence to prove it, and much compelling evidence to the contrary, why believe him? He may be lying or be (very) confused.Similary, if people just claim something based on their specific interpretation of a religious book, why believe them if they present no evidence to backup their claims, and there's much evidence to the contrary?
Without evidence, these claims are useless. At best, they are just opinions. At worst, they are factual incorrect as shown by available evidence.
-
71
Confusing Opinions with Facts
by cofty inin a discussion about the best flavour of ice cream everybody's opinion is equally valid.. in a discussion about the shape of the earth or the origin of species everybody's opinion is equally irrelevant.
only objective facts and evidence matter.. confusing these two categories is a common feature of conversations in this forum.
people deserve respect, errors do not..
-
-
Anders Andersen
@Fisherman,
OK, I agree with you there. It is very well possible that some people who draw a conclusion on a specific subject may not have knowledge (yet) of all the facts, and draw the wrong conclusion.
I'll add to that that sometimes people refuse to investigate or acknowledge facts they have knowledge about.
In your example, the detectives might skip checking the video footage from the restaurant, and thus withhold themselves from knowing the fact the guy was eating a hotdog there. Or the suspect guy's wife found a bloody shirt in the laundry, but doesn't report it to the police because she just can't believe her husband is or might be a killer. She explains away the fact of the bloody shirt because she has an emotional block stopping her from adding that fact to her knowledge, or to the combined knowledge of all people including the detectives.
Following my question for you is, which of the two groups below are likely to have access to and less emotional blocks regarding the theory of evolution:
- The many thousands of scientists each diligently researching the facts in their relevant field of expertise. Many of these scientists believe in God, and have no problem accepting the facts they find regarding evolution. These scientists have published millions of scientific papers so others could scrutinize the conclusions in said papers, and expand on each others discoveries and knowledge.
- The (mostly non-educated) people who have very strong beliefs (including 'evolution is not true'), whose entire belief system and life would collapse if they accepted evolution to be true. These people have never presented a peer reviewed paper that supports their world view.
(Note that accepting evolution has nothing to do with rejecting any gods)
As for the possible (non)existence of any gods: we'll presume innocence until proven guilty. Thus, until any gods' existence is proven at least somewhat beyond reasonable doubt, we must assume there are none.
-
147
Challenge to Creationists
by cofty inin response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.
predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.
entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.
-
-
Anders Andersen
Snowbird,
The theory of evolution does not contain statements on the existence or non-existence of any gods. So ruling gods out or not is not relevant.
On the other hand, for creation to be true at least one Creator must exist. So for creationists it's very much mandatory to prove the existence of such a being.
-
147
Challenge to Creationists
by cofty inin response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.
predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.
entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.
-
-
Anders Andersen
The context of the OP makes it clear that cofty invites those who deny evolution to prove their point.
Of course those who accept evolution but think it was guided by a divine being can also be called 'creationists' , but the point of the challenge is not to (dis)prove the existence of gods, but to show that evolution-deniers really don't have any evidence to back their claims.
-
71
Confusing Opinions with Facts
by cofty inin a discussion about the best flavour of ice cream everybody's opinion is equally valid.. in a discussion about the shape of the earth or the origin of species everybody's opinion is equally irrelevant.
only objective facts and evidence matter.. confusing these two categories is a common feature of conversations in this forum.
people deserve respect, errors do not..
-
-
Anders Andersen
@Vidqun,
Care to explain why/how you see that cognitive dissonance at work in people accepting evolution?
Is it also at work in religious people who accept evolution?