A nightly world news program on JW broadcasting. I think it's just a matter of time. Also, I think they're going to eventually stop printing one magazine each month and switch to printing a 32-page quarterly (once every 3 months). That way they can further reduce their printing costs while producing a product that looks more respectable and substantive.
Island Man
JoinedPosts by Island Man
-
29
What's next?
by Grey Goose inhi everyone.. thanks for the welcome a few days ago, it was nice to hear your support.. this is a pure speculation thread, but what do you think the next changes are going to be?.
will we see tything come into play?.
more evangelical style meetings?.
-
Island Man
-
31
The GB know it's all lies and wants to dismantle the WTS ... then what?
by Simon inso imagine the gb have a sudden attack of honesty and realize "crap, this whole thing is lies - we're not god's spokespeople at all !".
how do you dismantle a religion that has +8 million members in a responsible way?
you can't just publish a watchtower saying "we were wrong" because that would be irresponsible - you need to let people down gently, put people off gradually.
-
Island Man
Pull off a Worldwide Church of God apology and reformation? -
27
You Are Unsuitable!
by Divergent intoday's text -.
sunday, january 24. they collected the fine ones into containers, but the unsuitable they threw away.—matt.
13:48.. understanding the lesson of this illustration helps us to avoid being overly distraught or disappointed if a bible student or one of our children does not make the truth his own.
-
Island Man
So I am labelled "unsuitable" based on my refusal to follow a cult ... which has misinterpreted the Bible
Speaking of which, their interpretation of this very text is a blatant misinterpretation. The text is obviously referring to the final judgment and destruction of the wicked and preservation of the righteous at the very end of "the system of things".
-
46
Starlight in a Young Universe
by Perry inthe scientific method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.. secular materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.. the manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist richard lewontin:.
‘our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.. it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
-
Island Man
Regarding your Richard Lewontin quote. There is a reason why scientists are committed to materialism - it's testable and it works. You can't say the same for mythology and superstition.
Richard Lewontin was basically saying that we cannot give up sound Math and Science - no matter how counter-intuitive the conclusions - to accept fanciful, unproven and unprovable myths and superstitions. Reality always trumps make-believe.
-
46
Starlight in a Young Universe
by Perry inthe scientific method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.. secular materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.. the manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist richard lewontin:.
‘our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.. it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
-
Island Man
The Scientific Method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis
Wrong. A hypothesis is not comparable to a faith statement.
A hypothesis is an idea put forward as a possible explanation for a phenomenon. The idea is then subjected to tests designed to disprove it.
A faith statement is a claim put forward as truth that must be accepted with confidence and not doubted. Attempting to disprove a faith claim is seen by theists as a bad thing and theists will often reject any evidence disproving a faith claim.
Sorry, but comparing a hypothesis to a faith claim is just ridiculous.
-
46
Starlight in a Young Universe
by Perry inthe scientific method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.. secular materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.. the manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist richard lewontin:.
‘our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.. it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
-
Island Man
The Scientific Method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis
Wrong. A hypothesis is not comparable to a faith statement.
A hypothesis is an idea put forward as a possible explanation for a phenomenon. The idea is then subjected to tests designed to disprove it.
A faith statement is a claim put forward as truth that must be accepted with confidence and not doubted. Attempting to disprove a faith statement is seen by theists as a bad thing and theists will often reject any evidence disproving a faith statement. A faith statement is almost antithetical to a scientific hypothesis. Just about the only thing they have in common is that they're both statements.
Sorry, but comparing a hypothesis to a faith statement is just ridiculous.
-
46
Starlight in a Young Universe
by Perry inthe scientific method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.. secular materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.. the manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist richard lewontin:.
‘our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.. it is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
-
Island Man
The Scientific Method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis
Wrong. A hypothesis is not comparable to a faith statement.
A hypothesis is an idea put forward as a possible explanation for a phenomenon. The idea is then subjected to tests designed to disprove it.
A faith statement is a claim put forward as truth that must be accepted with confidence and not doubted. Attempting to disprove a faith statement is seen by theists as a bad thing and theists will often reject any evidence disproving a faith statement. A faith statement is almost antithetical to a scientific hypothesis. Just about the only thing they have in common is that they're both statements.
Sorry, but comparing a hypothesis to a faith statement is just ridiculous.
-
44
Proof the earth can be flat
by slimboyfat in"our perception of reality has more to do with what is going on in here (our brain) than what's going on out there (in the world).".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03g221y.
is it a dark square or a light square?
-
Island Man
Our knowing the shape of the earth is not based solely on visual perception. The spheroid shape of the earth can be proven by other means. So no, the earth can't be flat. -
24
Theism is a Fact #1
by cofty innope sorry i got nothing.. wouldn't it be really interesting though if somewhere there was a theist who could challenge unbelievers with facts and evidence?.
-
Island Man
Theism IS a fact!
Note Google's definition of the word:
belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
Is it not a fact, Cofty, that there exists the belief in the existence of a god or gods? Therefore theism is a fact. It is a fact that people believe in the existence of god(s)
However, as for the actual existence of god(s) - That's not a fact, only a belief, and an unfounded one at that.
-
73
Witnesses killed my friend today.
by WasOnceBlind intoday has been a horrible day.
what began as a day of joy finding out that one of my lifelong friends had her baby, turned into a nightmare when her brother called me to let me know she had passed away after birth.
i was in shock and didn't ask how.
-
Island Man
Cofty: I have not the slightest doubt the leadership no longer have faith in their own blood policy. They are murderers.
Those sick bastards are probably reasoning to themselves:
We do not cause the death of anyone who refuse blood transfusions. We only allow it by not issuing new light overturning the ban on transfusions. There is a big difference between causing something and allowing it. For example Jehovah allows suffering but he does not cause it. See the chapter on God in the bible teach book.