Posts by Island Man

44

Could we quantify how many posters their are from different nations ? Would you like to know ?

by smiddy in

maybe its just me , i`m just curious as to how many people on this site are from australia as i am .

how many from germany , italy , zambia , etc.

etc.. do two or three "countries " seem to dominate the threads ?

Island Man

I'm a Caribbean man.

That's about as specific as I'm willing to get - at this time anyway.

89

Boeing 747s and Other Misunderstandings about Evolution

by cofty in

perhaps the most common misunderstanding that prevents people from grasping evolution is complexity.. we see it almost daily on the forum where people mention dna or the eye or any of a multititude of examples and ask how it could have arose "by blind chance"?.

whenever you see a reference to chance and complexity it is obvious the person hasn't yet grasped the basics of the theory.

chance is only one part of the process.

Island Man

If you flip a coin 5 times and get tails each time, what is the proabability you will get heads on the 6th time? Do you think it is still 50/50? Or do you think the odds have increased?

Sam, I think this quote proves that you have misunderstood my point. Yes, the odds of getting heads on any single, specific coin toss remains 50/50. But that's the thoegenist way of looking at the odds. Look at the odds a different way: Imagine there are an unlimited number of coin tosses. What are the odds that at least one of the inumerable amount of tosses will turn out to be heads? The odds of winning for a specific player, who plays the lottery at a specific time are very low. But the odds that the lottery will be won by someone at some time are very high given that many people are playing the game and many games are being played over period of many years. The fallacy that I am pointing our here, is confusing the odds for a specific result of a specific try with the odds for a specific result given a lot of tries. In other words, the sheer number of tries is enough to overcome the odds that are very slim for a single try.

Try this thought experiment Kate: Let's play 10 coin toss games. In each game we will toss a coin 100 times. To win a 100 toss game we only need to get a single toss out of 100 to result in heads. The theogenists' way of misapplying the odds predicts that roughly 5 games will be won. How many games do you think will be won? Do you think that the odds of tossing a coin 100 times and not getting a single toss to be heads, is 50/50? What are the odds that all the games will be won? I hope you see my point.

33

Is disagreeing with the GB rebelling against God?

by kneehighmiah in

the other day an elder mentioned that not following the gb direction is the same as rebelling against god.

this in harmony with the ominous tone set forth in the respect jehovah's authority video.

in this thread i'll point out several gaping holes in that argument as time allows.. 1. the gb/fds does not speak "mouth to mouth" with god as did moses.. jehovah condemned and punished mariam for speaking against moses.

Island Man

One striking dissimilarity between Moses and the GB can be seen in the quality of humility. Despite being appointed by God to lead the nation of Israel, Moses was a very humble man. Moses accepted corrective counsel from the Midianite Jethro. Can you imagine the GB accepting corrective counsel from a rank and file JW?

89

Boeing 747s and Other Misunderstandings about Evolution

by cofty in

perhaps the most common misunderstanding that prevents people from grasping evolution is complexity.. we see it almost daily on the forum where people mention dna or the eye or any of a multititude of examples and ask how it could have arose "by blind chance"?.

whenever you see a reference to chance and complexity it is obvious the person hasn't yet grasped the basics of the theory.

chance is only one part of the process.

Island Man

IMO Dawkin's is obscuring the fact that probabilities are relevant.

I think a common error that many theogenists make is misapplying the odds. Take abiogenesis as an example. The odds against that singular critical event happening that changed a complex of molecules from non-living to living, must have been very high. Theogenists would say such a 1 in umpteen chance is so small as to be virtually impossible - that the answer must be intelligent design. But the critical issue they seem to conveniently forget is that while the odds against it happening are very high, the number of tries for it happening are also very high so as to make the eventual occurrence likely - almost inevitable.

To illustrate what I mean lets think of the lottery. What are the odds that a specific, singular individual playing the game on a specific, singular occassion, will win? Very slim. Now imagine someone using that fact to claim that it's impossible for anyone to win the lottery. That's what the theogenists are doing. However, lets look at the lottery odds in a different light: What are the odds that someone - anyone - will win the lottery at some time - anytime - given that many people are playing the game and the game continues to be played week after week for many years? Very high.

Well we can think of our vast universe with billions of planets each of which contains countless billions of micro-environments each having countless variations of chemistry and events and all of it happening for billions of years as one astronomically large non-stop lottery game with countless billions of players constantly playing over and over again for many years. The winning number is the right combination of chemistry and circumstances for that singular fortuitous abiogenetic event. What are the odds that a specific micro-environment on a specific planet at a specific time, will win? Extremely low. But what are the odds that some - any - micro-environment on some - any - planet will at some - any - time win? Very high. That event happened on earth and that's why we're here as humans to contemplate how life came about. If it hadn't happened here but happened elsewhere then we wouldn't be around to think about it while the intelligent life there would be contemplating their existence with awe.

58

Does the WTS's past matter?

by M.J. in

i know, i'd jump into this topic by saying, "heck yeah.

they're the ones saying they've been appointed by god based on what they were doing back around 1914-1919.

" but i'm trying to help someone out who has reached a roadblock with his wife.

Island Man

Does the WTS's past matter?

If a JW asked me that question to make light of their organization's past false teachings, false prophecies expectations, and pagan teachings, I would simply respond by asking:

Does Christmas' past [or origins] matter?

Does Birthday's past [or origins] matter?

16

Transfusion Experience from France

by Bells in

long story short - my in-laws know that i strongly disagree with their blood doctrine.

i received 3rd degree burns as a toddler and without blood, i would have died.

no doubt this is much of the reason that i feel the way i do.. my mil sent me an article, saying that i might find it of interest - in other words, it is an example to 'refute my contradictions about blood transfusions'.

Island Man

Witnesses engage in foolish, dishonest, black and white thinking when it comes to blood.

They will use one scenario or example of where alternative treatments work effectively as if to suggest that there is never a need to use blood. They completely ignore the fact that there are different medical scenarios some of which cannot be effectively treated without the use of blood components.

They will highlight the exceptional situations where persons have died from transfusion related complications or contracted an infection while completely ignoring the fact that these are exceptions and many more lives have been saved by the use of blood. They also make light of, and in some cases even outrighty deny, that persons have died because of refusing blood transfusions. They actually asininely reason that it is better to refuse blood because of the risk of complications and infection while being seemingly blind and oblivious to the fact that in a life threatening situation, such risks are considerably less likely than the risk of dying from not having the transfusion. It's almost as if they're saying: "Hey it's bad to save your life with blood because you might get AIDS. It's safer to die AIDS free from a lack of blood." They have absolutely no risk vs benefit assessment skills when it comes to blood because their reasoning has been poisoned by religious indoctrination. They actually reason foolishly!

Outside of the fact that there are now effective medical alternatives to blood that can be used in many circumstances instead of giving blood unnecessarily, the JW medical arguments against the use of blood are very foolish.

59

Letter I wrote to the person the caused me to be disfellowshipped

by jwfacts in

a thread on another forum reminded me of a letter i wrote to the person that went to the elders and started the proceedings to have me disfellowshipped.

i stopped believing in the religion when i was 25 but continued going for about ten years.

i finally started to fade at 35, but about 6 months after i had stopped going to meetings, a person wrote a letter to the elders about my website, which at the time was anonymous.

Island Man

Great letter Paul! I love your site. When I first started to wake up, your site was the first one I visited to research TTATT. Thank you for your research and work. And a big thank you goes out to Dwayne JW for motivating you.

Let's not be too hard on Dwayne JW. It was his cult persona at work. Who knows, maybe one day Dwayne JW will become Dwayne XJW and he will look back at his life as a JW and console himself with the thought that even while still in, he at least indirectly helped many to wake up to TTATT - perhaps more than he converted to TTAW (The Truth According to Watchtower)

243

Giant thread of convince-me-not-to-be-a-theist

by DS211 in

jw
friends

if you could teach me one thing to convince me not to believe what would it be?

for instance what has the wt taught about evolution/science or mans existence that is wrong and could possibly change skmeones mind?

and the more important question, why is it a creator couldnt allow for species to evolve?

Island Man

still cannot evade the feeling of something else

DS211, I think this statement of yours says it all - you're going on a feeling. I get the impression that you already understand much of the logic against the probability that a God exists but you still won't allow yourself to fully accept the likelihood of his non-existence because of your emotions.

I think you need to understand why you feel the way you do - why you have that feeling of something else. And you need to understand that you can't trust all feelings. You need to understand that feelings often mislead. I believe that this is fundamentally what separates atheists from theists. Theists tend to trust in feelings, emotions and intuitions. Atheists tend to trust in evidence, reason and logic.

To consider why feelings can't be trusted think of the following: Think of Einstein's theories about time, space and gravity and how they relate. His ideas were completely counter-intuitive in his time. Yet, more and more his predictions based on his ideas and more modern experiments, show his counter-intuitive ideas to be mostly, if not totally correct. Einstein thought out of the box of his natual feelings about how things should be. When you examine his theories you get a feeling that they're strange, that they're couldn't possibly be correct. But math and science confirm that they're actually true. By contrast, ancient scientists before the development of the scientific method, had strange ideas about how the world worked. They were essentially going off their own feelings or intuitions. Their feelings no doubt felt very rational and plausible to them - based on their manner of thinking which was shaped by the observable world around them and everyday human experience. Do you see how feelings can mislead, DS211?

Our deep-seated subconscious sense of what feels true or reasonable is shaped - and more specifically, limited - by our life-experiences, our environment. A person that has been exposed to the idea of God and the fallacious reasonings used to support that idea, for any considerable period of time, especially from childhood on, has his brain wired to take God's existence as a given - and at a very deep subconscious level. That wiring of the brain can have the effect of someone still having a feeling that God exists even after being presented with weighty evidence and sound reasoning highlighting the high improbability of God. You have to confront the question of why you feel the way you feel by having a knowledge of how the brain works, recognizing that your subconscious has been shaped by religious indoctrination.

It would also help to remember that an inability to explain the origin or mechanics of some natural phenomenon does not constitue a sound, logical reason to insert God as the solution. Our not knowing the origin of the energy or singularity that caused the big bang does not equal God being the inescapable explanation; nor does it make the existence of God any more probable as there could be any myriad of explanations that we cannot even conceive of. Remember when you were a very young child: how did you rationalize the wonder of technology - Television, radio? Did you think there must be little people living in the TV and radio? Did you think that it was some kind of magic? If you did, you now know you were so very wrong. Don't make the similar mistake with regard to our ignorance of the origin of the universe and life. Bu maybe your young mind didn't buy the magic explanation and the idea of young people living in the TV and radio didn't fly. Even though you couldn't explain it, you knew there must be some real, non-magical explanation. Also, Some isolated tribes of people, when confronted with modern technology for the first time, concluded that it was magic and that the modern bearers of such technology were gods. Why? Because they did not understand how modern technology works. They had limited or no scientific knowledge. This is the same mistake theists make when they say: "Well how do you explain the origin of life? You can't can you? Therefore it must have been God." Always remember: A lack of explanation does not logically equate to the God explanation. In fact, the God explanation is not really an explanation at all. It is only a compounding of the problem. It's substituting one unexplanable for another far greater unexplanable.

I liken the explanation of an uncreated, without origin, complex, infinite God for the origin of our universe and life; with a man paying off a ten thousand dollar debt by borrowing a billion dollars and then feeling satisfied and at ease that he no longer owes the ten thousand dollars while being seemingly blind to the fact that he now owes someone else a billion dollars.

It is likely that with time and research you would eventually shake those feelings of something else. It takes you brain a while to rewire itself after years of indoctrination. Being aware of why you have your feelings would help you.

220

serious question for evolutionist,

by unstopableravens in

Island Man

You must always keep in mind that Evolution is driven by natural selection and that the results are limited by the laws of science.

Think of the super ability of being invisible. Some lower animals, because of being hunted by others, evolved something akin to invisibility - camouflage. But note that it is not this is not actual, outright invisibility, probably because such a strong trait in an earth-based biological system is either scientifically impossible or because outright invisibility is unnecessary given that camouflage is sufficiently effective.

Humans have not evolved camouflage because their other traits - such as intelligence - are strong enough to counteract most predatory threats most of the time. If we have not evolved camouflage then it's safe to assume we have no reason to evolve invisibility. After all, humans are actually the top killer in earth's ecosystem.

We will probably continue to evolve - perhaps in response to our changing climatic conditions and other future, unknown eventualities. But there is something special about humans that could serve to retard our evolution - our intelligence. Our great intelligence actually serves like a super trait that causes natural selection to be somewhat obsolete in our case. It's almost as if we have outgrown the influential power of natural selection. How so? As an example, if the climate starts getting colder, most other animals would be naturally selected to have longer hair to provide warmth. But humans would use their intelligence to develop better clothing, thus negating the normal effect of natural selection favoring only the survival of progressively hairier humans.

The x-men type traits would not be naturally selected in humans since current human intelligence would already enable them to have such abilities in the form of more modern weapons technology. Future human evolution would only be those necessary areas that humans are unable to address with their technological prowess. Natural selection favors the survival of variants most suitable for their given environment. But a variant that is natrually and physically unsuitable for an environment can actually be the most suitable for an environment if it can artificially adapt to it's environment with the use of technology. This is what humans are doing.

17

The Ultimate Jehovah's Witness Question??? dun dun DUN

by runForever in

there is a gray space, unconnected rifts in the truth.

it is a question that once you ask it you will never be the same - like being on the.

event horizon of a black hole.

Island Man

For many JWs preaching has become a means to an end - the end being to hand in a satisfactory monthly report of hours, magazines, return visits, etc so that the elders don't come asking questions about your lack of performance; and so that you continue to keep your status as regular* and in good standing.

* It just dawned on me that the words regular and irregular are also used to refer to bowel movements. So preaching the Watchtower message every month is poetically analogous to you know what. [@Outlaw, where are you? I need some graphics back up]