Posts by TonusOH

207

Scholar and Fisherman

by Jorden in

scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.

do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?

if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?

If we cannot determine something as fundamental as whether god is real or not, then we have no basis on which to accept any particular god. If god cannot be detected or otherwise accounted for, then we cannot know who or what it is.

We can eliminate certain types or versions of god by simple inference. I do not believe that an interventionist god exists, seeing as we do not ever interact or experience this god (except in ways that are indistinguishable from delusion or hallucination or simple mistaken conclusions... which the followers of one deity will use when rejecting other deities, but not their own). The explanation that god is immaterial and impossible to prove does not matter here- that explanation actually makes it possible to disprove the concept of an interventionist god.

In the same way, we can study the qualities that are assigned to a particular god and compare them to its actions and to the rationalizations for those actions. If you define god a certain way, and your chosen god doesn't meet the criteria, then it either doesn't exist or is quite different from what you believe it to be, which might make you wish that it didn't exist.

We don't have to prove that there is no god. We can simply analyze each god that is offered up as the real one and determine if there is merit to the concept. Gods that don't make sense can be discarded. The most likely option, in my mind, is that god is not very concerned with this planet or its people; we're probably just some side effect of an experiment, destined to be wiped away once enough data has been collected.

That god cannot be disproven, and his nature is perfectly in keeping with the universe and our world as they exist. And he fits any of the considerations for other gods much better than they do.

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

TonusOH

Simon: He's also incapable of building a sustainable business.

The thing is, he was on the way to building one. He had a concept, that concept (reaction/commentary videos) is (inexplicably, IMO) popular on YouTube, he had a staff that was doing most of the work and letting him focus on the parts he wanted to do. The challenge would have been adapting and finding other topics in order to increase his viewership. Not a guarantee, but at least the foundation was there.

There are YouTube creators making a small (and not-so-small) fortune doing that. Evans at least had the possibility of growing the channel into something quite lucrative by not being a selfish pig of a human being. In other words, he ruined it by being unable to clear the lowest rung on the ladder.

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

TonusOH

I would be curious to know how many of those who dropped their support finally decided to find out what all this "defamation" talk was about. I guess they don't agree that it isn't their business what he does with his "salary."

77

Biden running in 2024 🤣

by LoveUniHateExams in

i've filed this under news and world events, although i could've posted it under entertainment, lol.

apparently, joe biden will be seeking re-election for another term in the white house.. this, despite a recent poll showing that 70% of people don't want him to run again.. biden just has to be the worst president i've seen.

his gaffes, over-relience on a prompter, and, more than any other president, his refusal to answer journalists' questions, all go to make him top of the list in terms of bad presidents.. it will certainly provide entertainment, if nothing else..

TonusOH

Ordinarily, I would say that this sinks his chances, but he won in 2016 in spite of things like his "grab them by the pussy" remark. I felt like the other comments he made during that conversation (where he explained that he was trying to seduce a married woman for no other reason than "want[ing] to fuck her") should have done much more damage with the Protestant voters that he was relying on, but it didn't seem to have any effect.

On the other hand, his 2016 antics may have been seen as a more earnest approach than the usual slick and dishonest blather that we are used to from politicians. Which would mean that the act will not have the same impact now, and things like the lawsuit --and his refusal to let the 2020 election go-- may make prospective voters feel as if he is too distracted now. He's also quite old, but that won't hurt him if he's running against Biden.

78

Top AI inventor Geoffrey Hinton reluctantly concluded that AI will probably humanity fairly soon

by slimboyfat in

geoffrey hinton, major inventor of artificial intelligence: .

“if you take the existential risk seriously, as i now do—i used to think it was way off, but now i think it’s serious, and fairly close—it might be quite sensible to just stop developing these things any further, but i think it’s completely naïve to think that would happen.

there’s no way to make that happen.

TonusOH

I think in that sense, the threat of AI is that which we face with all technology: poorly-configured systems can work in unpredictable --and potentially disastrous-- ways. Even after a century of refinement and improvement, automobiles/boats/planes are still susceptible to mistakes and glitches that can cause injuries and death. Humans make mistakes, and our technology can amplify our clumsiness. Chernobyl is a frightening example of this.

And then there are bad actors, who can take advantage of 'smart' devices. Always-connected devices with poor security configurations have allowed hackers to create massive "bot nets" that can swamp websites with fake connection requests and activity, making it almost impossible for real users to connect and use the sites.

Perhaps that is the real long-term risk of AI: scale. As more systems are automated, and more of those systems are managed by software, and more of those clusters are linked together for efficiency, the ability of one bad actor (or one misconfigured device) to affect larger and larger areas and populations becomes an almost guaranteed crisis. I'm less concerned that AI will decide that humans have to go. I am more concerned that we will do it ourselves, using AI as an unwitting assistant.

63

Evolution is a Fact #27 - Monkeys, Typewriters, Shakespeare, 747s etc.

by cofty in

most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".

we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.

evolution is not like that.

TonusOH

cofty: Most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god"

I think that all theistic arguments come down to 'god is necessary.' In other words, god has to exist. They presuppose god and then demand that this claim be disproven. "If there is no god, then how do you explain [this]?" "If god doesn't exist, then how can [this] possibly exist/work?" "Without god, how do we account for [this]?"

I wanted to demonstrate god for those who did not believe, because it seemed to me that there had to be an ironclad argument that couldn't be refuted or denied. This was god we were talking about, after all. But without the presupposition, there is no angle. No starting point. And if you just assume god --if that's all that you have-- then how can you know who/what it is? There is no approach to demonstrating god that cannot be used by anyone to support any religion. And we see them all use it. Their book is infallible, other books are not. They have miracles they can point to. They have testimonials. They have prophecy. Everyone else is lying or deceived or just wrong.

Think about it. Think about any approach that apologists use, and you'll find that they come down to the necessity of god. Complexity, as you point out, is perhaps the most popular approach. But there are others, and they mostly rely on gaps in our knowledge or understanding of the world/universe. Discard the presupposition and start from a blank square, and you won't get to god.

20

When A WT/JW Elder Can't Handle The Truth...Priceless!😂

by JW GoneBad in

give a listen to this 4 minute video where a jw elder stammers, stutters & fumbles then hangs-up!.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=edfphabzxhw.

TonusOH

Keep in mind that JWs are given very basic and rote preparation for defending their faith. They can anticipate some criticism and have a few Bible verses handy, but they also are taught to get away from anyone trying to 'teach' them or asking them to question their beliefs. And this works, because so many people are equally unprepared to challenge JW beliefs (or defend their own).

I was never confronted by someone who really challenged what I believed. If I had, I'm sure I would have come out of it a complete mess. Having the very neat and tidy JW belief system picked apart would have probably been traumatic for me. Instead, I had to deal with the occasional person who challenged one or two points and was easily parried. It gave me a false confidence that I had the 'True Truth.' But it wouldn't have held up against a targeted attack, so to speak.

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

TonusOH

Simon: He probably believes that his past behavior of bullying people into silence / grabbing what isn't his, can still work.

It's all he knows. Even his "woe is me" schtick is meant to galvanize support against his critics. If he isn't trying to bully people directly, he is trying to get others to do it for him. The problem is two-fold: not only are there fewer people willing to defend him, some of the ones that do are confronted with the evidence, and realize that they cannot support him anymore. Sending his followers after someone now carries the risk that they will "switch sides." At the very least, it means one less person giving him money.

For all of his cries of defamation campaigns and false accusations, the evidence being presented to those people is his own words. And if they're not convinced that the letters he wrote or posts he made are legit, there's still the livestream video. So, I would recommend that he keep sending his supporters out to confront his critics; it's a great way to free them from his influence.

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

TonusOH

Thisismein1972: Is Lloyd that up on himself that he actually thought people would just pay up?

He probably figured that it was worth a shot, and it also serves as proof that he was 'taking legal action.' If he spoke to a lawyer in Croatia and explained his issues, the lawyer (if he's not just an ambulance chaser) would inform him that what he wants cannot be done. Or (if he is an ambulance chaser) he might offer to send demand letters in the hopes that someone would pay up and validate his complaints, and file a criminal suit.

Another option is that he explained that what Evans wanted was folly, but Evans insisted on taking action and the lawyer figured that a paycheck was a paycheck. And if you have an unreasonable client who pays on time, why turn down easy money?

78

Top AI inventor Geoffrey Hinton reluctantly concluded that AI will probably humanity fairly soon

by slimboyfat in

geoffrey hinton, major inventor of artificial intelligence: .

“if you take the existential risk seriously, as i now do—i used to think it was way off, but now i think it’s serious, and fairly close—it might be quite sensible to just stop developing these things any further, but i think it’s completely naïve to think that would happen.

there’s no way to make that happen.

TonusOH

nicolaou: Imagine a future where anyone with a bad motive can easily utilise AI to produce the narrative and results they want.

I think we're already there. I understand that we have ways to determine if a picture or video is fake, but there is an old saying that "a lie can circle the world while the truth is getting its shoes on." Even amateur deep-fakes are pretty convincing, especially if you do not know that they're fake and have your guard down. A talented enough individual (to say nothing of a well-funded group) should already be able to create content that would easily fool most of us.

We are entering a period where trust will diminish and misinformation will really begin to take off. All you need is one incident where people were fooled and the consequences were substantial and bad, and trust in all content will disappear. What will we do when our ability to confirm anything via audio, video, and images is compromised? When governments aren't trying to solve the problem, but actively taking advantage of it?