donkey

Joined

• started 79 topics
• posted 1,321 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by donkey

• 
  20

  an excellent question

  by donkey in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  why would an omnipotent god need to become flesh in order to sacrifice himself to himself, so that his creations may escape the wrath of himself?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  donkey

  Why would an omnipotent god need to become flesh in order to sacrifice himself to himself, so that his creations may escape the wrath of himself?
• 
  47

  Falsifiability

  by donkey in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i pose this challenge to believers: what would it take for you to stop believing in god?.

  this is an interesting challenge.

  well, it may sound paradoxical, but in order for any claim to be true, it must be falsifiable.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  donkey

  I pose this challenge to believers: What would it take for you to stop believing in God?

  This is an interesting challenge. Why? Well, it may sound paradoxical, but in order for any claim to be true, it must be falsifiable. Further I can meet the challenge from the opposite side. I would stop being an atheist if God were to show himself. Believers, however claim that their is a God - fine. But as rationalists we need to always remain open-minded to the possiblity that we are incorrect. Further if our viewpoint is important to us (as belief systems are) then we need to define them in context.

  One of the mentors that I had when I was younger asked me: "Donkey how will you know that you have reached your goals in life?" I responded with something like: "umm ummm ummm". He then proceed to say: "if you cannot define your goals then how will you know that you have met them?" That proved to be massively important in my advancement in life as I was able to just quit drifitng along watching life happen. Why do I cite this story? Because it relates to the principle of falsifiability. For something to be proven true there has to be a point at which we have evidence that it has either succeeded or that it has failed. The same holds true to the claims of a God. There are only two outcomes to the question: "Does God exist?" He either does or he doesn't.

  I am not asking you to prove that God exists. (In fact I am not asking you to do anything for me at all - I am just trying to stimulate you to think - and you can ignore me for being annoying if you so choose). I am asking you to look at the rules of evidence and define for yourself the inverse. What would it take to prove to make you stop believing? Its different for each of us actually. Some of us may just try to rationally reason on things, others of us may experience tragedy and then question whre God was and w/or why he would allow such to befall us.

  The rule of falsifiability, in short, says that the evidence must matter, and as such it is the first and most important and most fundamental rule of evidential reasoning...For example, the true claim that the life span of human beings is less than 200 years is falsifiable; it would be falsified if a single human being were to live to be 200 years old. Similarly, the true claim that water freezes at 32 F is falsifiable; it would be falsified if water were to freeze at, say, 34 F. Each of these claims is firmly established as scientific "fact," and we do not expect either claim ever to be falsified; however, the point is that either could be. Any claim that could not be falsified would be devoid of any propositional content; that is, it would not be making a factual assertion -- it would instead be making an emotive statement, a declaration of the way the claimant feels about the world. - taken from A Field Guide to Critical Thinking by James Lett
• 
  15

  Activists vs rationalists

  by donkey in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as humans our brain works in ways that make us tend to generalize and categorize things, including the types of people.

  being as i am half human (the other three quarters are pure ass...) i do the same.

  from my observations i see 3 types of people on this board: the activiststhe rationaliststhe rest of us (rest-of-us (tm)).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  donkey

  Cookie, your statement was one in which generalization fails. Just reading about and having knowledge of a subject does of course not mean you agree with the subject I will readily concede that.

  Clearly saying "I love Hitler but I hate Nazi-ism" would not be acceptable would it? So when myself and others have gotten in the face of those who have written besmirching things about Jews we have looked at WHAT they are saying. Take a look at the anti-Semitic sentiments being manifest in the threads such as the denial of the concentration camps, the insinuations that the Jews were punished for wrongdoing and the latest round of the worlds leaders being controlled by rich Jews.

  So lets be specific here when people read and agree with anti-Semitic content are they equal to anti-Semitic Nazis? My answer is clearly yes.

  Edited by - donkey on 24 November 2002 11:18:40
• 
  9

  High school sports

  by freedom96 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  when i attended high school as a witness, i wanted to play on the football team.

  i would have been very good.

  not only was i not allowed to play, i could not even attend the games, for fear of bad association.. did anyone here give up sports because of being a witness?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  donkey

  Riding Club Queen for a short reign

  Why did you ride with a short reign? Horses and Donkies need long reigns...
• 
  15

  Activists vs rationalists

  by donkey in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as humans our brain works in ways that make us tend to generalize and categorize things, including the types of people.

  being as i am half human (the other three quarters are pure ass...) i do the same.

  from my observations i see 3 types of people on this board: the activiststhe rationaliststhe rest of us (rest-of-us (tm)).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  donkey

  My apologies in advance for being a dub "ass".

  What she was asking, in essence, is if, for example, someone reads Marx's writings and becomes a believer in the theory of Communism, does that automatically make the reader a fellow Communist?

  If someone belies in the theory of Christianity does that make them a Christian? If someone believes in the theory of evolution does that make them an evolutionist? If someone believes in the theory of Nazi-ism does that make them a Nazi?

  If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck - is it a rhinocerous?
• 
  9

  What does the artificial creation of life mean?

  by donkey in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the news story below was posted yesterday.

  what does it mean for you as christians?

  if the project succeeds will you as a christian start to look more seriously into evolution?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  donkey

  All I see is a web page asking me to sign up for the Washington Post.

  As far as I know thats just a short survey - nevertheless here is the article (cut and pasted from the link).

  Creating Living Things

  _____ What's Your Opinion? _____ Share Your Views About Editorials and Opinion Pieces on Our Message Boards About Message Boards E-Mail This Article Printer-Friendly Version Subscribe to The Post

  Saturday, November 23, 2002; Page A22

  IT IS NOT the creation of a new life form, exactly. It does not represent a radical break with anything that biologists have done before. A panel of clergy and bioethicists convened especially to discuss it found nothing to be alarmed about -- and yet the project launched this week at the Institute for Biological Energy Alternatives in Rockville should cause both scientists and policymakers to pause and think. Directed by pioneering geneticist J. Craig Venter and Nobel laureate Hamilton O. Smith, scientists will remove all of the genetic material from M. gentilatum, a tiny microbe, and replace it with artificial genetic material made in a laboratory. While scientists have inserted genes into organisms before, they have never tried to insert so many at once. The result will be, in effect, a living thing that is at least partially a human creation.

  This experiment raises two sets of issues. The first is regulatory. If they succeed in inserting a simple string of genetic code, scientists could eventually insert a more complex string. As a result, they could, for example, create a microbe able to break down carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and thus end the greenhouse effect; that would be good. They could also create a new virus or bacteria that could become a biological weapon; that would be bad. Yet despite the danger of abuse, this kind of research is taking place within what bioethicist Arthur Caplan calls a "regulatory vacuum." Although Mr. Venter and Mr. Smith have gone out of their way to think about the security implications of their project, and have said they will not publish anything that could be used by terrorists, they are doing so voluntarily. Much as scientists dislike the prospect, it may be time for professional associations and politicians to start discussing whether biologists should be subjected to the same kinds of security requirements that physicists and some computer scientists have long lived with. No one wants to hamper the free exchange of scientific information, but discussing sensible limits now might prevent more draconian rules from being imposed by an anxious public later.

  The same is true of laboratory regulation. Mr. Venter and Mr. Smith have said that their "new" organism will be unable to survive outside a petri dish. But no rules prevent other, less responsible scientists from conducting similar experiments in less secure conditions -- and perhaps allowing a "new" bug to escape through a ventilation shaft. Although the danger of this happening is probably exaggerated, better to debate and deal with it during the early research, rather than later.

  The second set of issues this experiment raises are philosophical: Should human beings try to create new forms of life? Again, while this stage of the experiment does not exactly pose that challenge, the question might arise in a more radical form in a few years. The appearance of Dolly the sheep, the first cloned mammal, led to shock, surprise and a counter-reaction, precisely because the many small experiments that led to her creation had never attracted much notice. If more attention had been drawn to the technological advances along the way, the public might have been better informed and its reaction more reasonable. It is the responsibility of scientists to educate the public about new research -- and the responsibility of religious groups, philosophers and citizens to listen to them and think about it.
• 
  9

  What does the artificial creation of life mean?

  by donkey in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the news story below was posted yesterday.

  what does it mean for you as christians?

  if the project succeeds will you as a christian start to look more seriously into evolution?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  donkey

  If man succeeds in creating life - will God be less powerful? Is all God's power existent in your mind?
• 
  15

  Activists vs rationalists

  by donkey in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as humans our brain works in ways that make us tend to generalize and categorize things, including the types of people.

  being as i am half human (the other three quarters are pure ass...) i do the same.

  from my observations i see 3 types of people on this board: the activiststhe rationaliststhe rest of us (rest-of-us (tm)).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  donkey

  in your view, would victims of abuse within Jehovahs Witnesses congregations be better served by seeking help through available resources other than those provided by Silent Lambs?

  Would someone be better served by another person who has suffered similar fate or by a specialist in the field? Would you let someone else perform dental work on you because they also have bad teeth or would you rather go to a dentist?

  The cameraderie from an organization such as Silent Lambs is undoubtedly a majoir blessing to victims. Bill Bowen has done great ork up to now and at great sacrifice to himself and his family. I like Bill. However, if he is to continue to have the maximum effect and provide the maximum benefit the organization needs to act rationally, expressing outrage appropriately. If SL seeks mainstream media recognition then the organization needs to act in such a way that the public will support the cause for which they stand and have NO DOUBT about any other agendas.
• 
  15

  Activists vs rationalists

  by donkey in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as humans our brain works in ways that make us tend to generalize and categorize things, including the types of people.

  being as i am half human (the other three quarters are pure ass...) i do the same.

  from my observations i see 3 types of people on this board: the activiststhe rationaliststhe rest of us (rest-of-us (tm)).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  donkey

  If you really do think THAT WAY, why do you do just that in relation to other issues on this forum. If someone reads from alternative sources that don't fit within the mainstream,does that automatically identify them with the authors whom they learn from?

  Cookie,

  I take it you are referring to me giving Jim Rizo a hard time? If that is the case then please read his postings in which he claims that the Nazis did not have concentration camps but instead had work camps etc. I don't feel like rehashing it. But if I am to answer your question specifically and generally it would go as follows: I see nothing wrong with identifying someone with their written views. The fact that the views are not mainstream is not relevant to my feelings. Common sense and established facts should be the order of the day - when they are clearly lacking though then the truth is self evident.
• 
  53

  To Ros, Re. "Ouija Please"

  by IslandWoman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hi ros, .

  i was just wondering what the phrase "ouija please" means and what is it's significance?.

  iw

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  donkey

  IW,

  it does have a yes and a no on the board.