Island Man

Joined

• started 138 topics
• posted 2,374 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Island Man

• 
  60

  The problem of sex (or why I'm not an atheist)

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  as i write this under the shadow of the walls of saint jorge's castle in lisbon, two very bored jws are standing just five metres away from me with a literature cart .... in my journey away from jwism i accepted evolution as a fact.

  i also became anti-religion, agnostic and apatheist.

  and, while i lean towards the persuasion of the atheist arguments, there are a few reasons that make it difficult for me to completely discard the notion of an intelligent origin of life.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  Sexual reproduction fosters greater genetic diversity in the population. Asexual reproduction tends to be cloning with a lot less diversity. Greater genetic diversity means there's less likelihood that all members of the population would die out in a disease outbreak; less likelihood that all animals would lack the traits needed to survive if the environment changed. So genetic diversity provides a survival and therefore a reproductive advantage to species. Natural selection selects those species for survival while those who reproduce only asexually are prone to dying out unless they have some other survival advantage that counterbalances their disadvantage.

  A good way to illustrate this is to think of a diversified economy verses an economy based on one or very few productive sectors. The diversified economy is more robust because if a disaster affects one sector it only affects a small percentage of the economy. But an economy based on only one productive sector is destroyed if that one sector is affected by a disaster.

  I don't trust what intelligent design advocates have to say about evolution. They always see problems with evolution based on their prior commitment to creationism; their use of fallacious thinking; selective, out of context quotes and outright lies and deceptions. Watchtower does not have a monopoly when it comes to distorting the facts about evolution.

  I skimmed through the article. Nothing about it jumps out at me and says: "aha! sexual reproduction could not have come about without an intelligent designer". Instead the whole article is nothing more than the tired old argument from ignorance fallacy. Not yet having a natural explanation for some biological phenomenon does not mean one will never be found in future and it does not mean that a convoluted explanation involving a magic man in the sky automatically becomes the most viable explanation. One thing that did strike me about the article is the fact that it quotes old sources. Look at the dates of the sources in the end-notes at the end of the article. They're mostly from the 1970's to the 1990's. This leads me to ask the question: what are scientists today, in 2016, saying about the "problem" of explaining the origin of sexual reproduction.
• 
  37

  Beards mentioned again in magazine!

  by neat blue dog in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  aaaaaand .

  .. it offers absolutely nothing new.. from questions from readers in the december 2016 study edition watchtower:.

  "is it proper for a brother todayto have a beard?in some cultures, a neat beardmay be acceptable and may notdetract from the kingdom mes-sage.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  You know, in ancient Jewish culture is was not considered appropriate for men to converse with women in public. It was also considered as sinful, treacherous behavior for a faithful Jew to dine with tax collectors. But Jesus didn't let these societal prejudices stop him from publicly conversing with a Samaritan woman and dining with tax collectors.

  So when Watchtower appeals to local "worldly" view of beards to determine whether or not they should be allowed, are they really following Jesus' example? Aren't they actually being a part of the world by upholding and conforming to, unjust "worldly" stereotypes and prejudices? Shouldn't they be demonstrating that they're no part of the world by refusing to conform to "worldly" prejudices against beards?

  They are blind and foolish hypocrites.
• 
  27

  "If the Earth were just a little bit further from or closer to the Sun, we would all freeze or burn"

  by Island Man in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i'm sure we've all heard this argument by theists employing the fine-tuning argument.

  are you aware, however, of exactly how much this "little bit" really is?

  theists would have us think that the slightest change in the distance would have drastic implications for survivability.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  Good point, redvip2000. Also, there have been many recent discoveries of planets orbiting stars within the habitable zone. So the Earth is really not that special in this regard.
• 
  61

  Did the flood happen?

  by BlackWolf in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so we were talking about noah for our family worship tonight and it ended with a little debate between me and my parents about how the flood was possible.

  you know, where did the water come from, how did all the animals fit, etc.

  of course it led nowhere and my parents came up with some strange theories like that there was "an expanse of water in the sky" and that's where all the water came from.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  I saw a documentary once that spoke about a mega tsunami that devastated the Mediterranean region in late prehistoric times (about 10,000 BC). It is possible that this event led to the development of the global flood legend in later centuries.
• 
  27

  "If the Earth were just a little bit further from or closer to the Sun, we would all freeze or burn"

  by Island Man in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i'm sure we've all heard this argument by theists employing the fine-tuning argument.

  are you aware, however, of exactly how much this "little bit" really is?

  theists would have us think that the slightest change in the distance would have drastic implications for survivability.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  I'm sure we've all heard this argument by theists employing the fine-tuning argument. Are you aware, however, of exactly how much this "little bit" really is? Theists would have us think that the slightest change in the distance would have drastic implications for survivability. But that is actually not the case.

  We are probably all familiar with the factoid that the Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun. But this is not a fixed distance, but an average distance. The Earth's orbit around the Sun is not perfectly circular but elliptical. Earth's distance from the Sun varies depending on the time of the year. When the Earth is closest to the Sun in early January (at its Perihelion) it is 91.4 million miles away from it. When the Earth is furthest from the Sun in early July (at its Aphelion) it is 94.5 million miles away from it. So during the course of a year, the Earth's distance from the Sun varies by over 3 million miles!

  To put that 3 million miles into perspective, the Moon is a little over 238,000 miles away. Now imagine travelling more than 12 times the distance to the Moon. That great distance is the extent to which Earth's distance from the Sun varies - with minimal affects to the temperature on Earth. Mile for mile, the Earth's tilt actually has greater effect on temperature variation than the planet's distance from the Sun. And we can even go into the very important role that Earth's rotation and atmosphere plays in maintaining habitable temperatures.

  Of course, the Earth's distance from the Sun is important. My point is that the notion that this distance is perfectly fine tuned and the slightest change would have dire consequences, is simply not true. There would have to be significant change in distance to make life on Earth impossible. The 3 million mile variance does not even represent the full extent of Earth's habitable zone. I'm willing to bet that if the distance were varied by as much as 6 million miles, life on Earth would still be possible although the temperatures would be less comfortable.
• 
  44

  The Atheist Delusion

  by looter in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  atheist delusion.

  just want to know what the ex jw community thinks about this video and also offer my pov.

  the video was actually an advertisement on here.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  "You must be some type of narcissists to say the things you say and not have no regret whatsoever."

  Says someone who worships a very narcissistic fictional character.
• 
  31

  Ideas to discreetly identify the awoken among us

  by Truthexplorer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ok. i know this has been brought up in the past, but i have often wondered who in our halls are awake (for those of us who attend).

  there are some i would consider a 'maybe', but no way of ever really knowing.. so here is my idea.

  i hope it doesn't sound too masonic,.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  Also, you can adverse to awake ones during the meeting by giving comments that would lead to TTATTy thoughts in awake ones. That lets any awake ones in your hall know that you are a possible candidate worth exploring.
• 
  31

  Ideas to discreetly identify the awoken among us

  by Truthexplorer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ok. i know this has been brought up in the past, but i have often wondered who in our halls are awake (for those of us who attend).

  there are some i would consider a 'maybe', but no way of ever really knowing.. so here is my idea.

  i hope it doesn't sound too masonic,.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  I started a thread about this several months ago. The major issue with this problem is that there is no secure way to communicate the "secret handshake" without preventing the enemy from also getting to know about it. So the enemy could easily get to know the secret handshake and use it to sniff out apostates.

  I think the solution to this problem is to not use a specific, fixed, "secret handshake" that is shared publicly. Instead, you need to share publicly only a vague protocol, which, in turn is tailored by each individual to produce their own unique "secret handshake" that is never to be shared publicly on any forum. This way, the enemy does not have any specific "secret handshake" to look for. They would only know of the vague protocol. Of course this doesn't solve the problem. It is only the first step of the solution which makes it more difficult for the enemy.

  The second step of the solution is to use have a full proof backup plan to extricate yourself from incrimination if you've being baited by the enemy. You have to design your "secret handshake" with this in mind.

  One possible solution I came up with is a protocol where you ask the JW an edgy question that has a TTATT meaning along with a plausible innocent meaning. It would be a good idea to have multiple such questions in mind; and never share them publicly online. If the JW is awake he responds by answering with an edgy answer that has a TTATT meaning and a plausible innocent meaning. This way you make it known to each other that you are awake (by the TTATT meaning) while simultaneously giving yourself a way to extricate yourself from incrimination (by claiming the innocent meaning) if you've been baited by the enemy.

  You use multiple such questions and answers to establish trust and certainty that the other person is awake.
• 
  9

  Freedom of Religion vs. Freedom of Worship and Belief (or non-belief)

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i was just wondering about this:.

  the laws of the different western countries offer robust protection to religious practice.

  but what is the best term to describe it and why?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  "Freedom of religion" should not be absolute. Freedom of religion should end where religious practice encourages physical and psychological harm or discrimination against, others. Muslims should not have the right to murder apostates on religious grounds. Nor should JWs have the right to instruct or encourage the shunning of former members on religious grounds.
• 
  17

  I need help, I'm falling in love with a JW girl

  by nebula-- in

  1. social
  2. relationships

  so i met her at my last job that i worked & we started off as friends.

  i didn't know her faith at the time & i honestly couldn't have cared less, seeing as i'm agnostic.

  after about a year, i began developing emotions for her & sure enough, we ended up dating for a little while.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Island Man

  Realize this: you will not be marrying a normal woman. You will be marrying a cult personality who will always be looking for opportunities to promote the cult to you. By marrying her, you will, in a sense, enter the cult - whether or not you are an official member. The cult will dictate what she is like in bed. The cult will dictate what entertainment she can enjoy (be prepared to enjoy lots of entertainment alone (without her)). The cult will dictate how much free time she spends with you (not much). You will be continually harassed and nagged by the cult. The cult will be a wedge between you and her. You will never know true intimacy with her.