I didn't right away, I just let them be kids and have fun and non-JW friends. Once they started complaining about meetings, I helped them learn critical thinking, showed them some WT past claims that weren't true, where the WT says things directly in contradiction with the bible, etc. Now they love Christmas and birthdays and life.
Viviane
JoinedPosts by Viviane
-
27
How did you teach your kids TTATT? How old were they?
by KateWild inwhen i first started going on "other" jw websites my head was spinning so i didn't say anything to my kids about what i had read.
steve hassan's material helped a lot it was when i read that, that i realised i need to free my kids.. i got a lot of advice from jwn too.. my daughter had moved cities and went to the hall we used to visit frequently.
things changed when she became a member instead of just a visitor.
-
-
-
113
Matthew Powner- Advanced research on the Origin of life. How credible is he?
by KateWild ini have come to the conclusion that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god.
however the scientific evidence available is compelling enough for me to believe that a creator is responsible for life on earth.. i have read much about powner and understand the work he is doing.
i am interested in your views as to his credibility.
-
-
Viviane
From Kate:
Claim 1: I have come to the conclusion that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.
Claim 2: However the scientific evidence available is compelling enough for me to believe that a Creator is responsible for life on earth
Claim 3: However the water cycle is interesting and is more evidence that god is the Creator. When I look at the hydrogen bonding in water, clouds and rain, the desalination process I see how God makes water.
Claim 4: The hydrogen bonding in water is unique and in no other non-aqueous molecule is hydrgen bonding found.
As we can see from a quick scan of your posts, you have made many claims. I not particularly interested in the claims themselves (with the exception of claim 4, hydrogen bonding occurs in many other molecules that at non-aqueous, but that's neither here nor there), but rather in the criteria used to determine what is evidence, why you think the evidence points to what it does, why you think something is evidence of something that you cannot define what it is, what is the connective body of fact and logic that get you to the idea that the water cycle is proof of something you cannot define existing and having done something you can't explain.
I've seen your explanation of your perspective, of course, I am interested in it quite a bit. My questions are about illuminating how your thinking process gets these things connected.
-
113
Matthew Powner- Advanced research on the Origin of life. How credible is he?
by KateWild ini have come to the conclusion that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god.
however the scientific evidence available is compelling enough for me to believe that a creator is responsible for life on earth.. i have read much about powner and understand the work he is doing.
i am interested in your views as to his credibility.
-
-
Viviane
Not at all, Kate. I simply am asking a question regarding your claims. It's rather curious how much work you are putting into not answering. It's a relevant question that goes to the very core of your claims.
So, since you are making public claims of evidence, how are you demonstrating a connection between a unknown creature made of unknown material and the water cycle? What cause and effect are you demonstrating, what causation that's evidence for something you cannot describe rather than either evidence of something different or not evidence at all for the thing you cannot describe.
There is no need for anyone to show your conclusions false, it's up to you to show them true or at least connect the dots. So far you have failed to do that.
-
113
Matthew Powner- Advanced research on the Origin of life. How credible is he?
by KateWild ini have come to the conclusion that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god.
however the scientific evidence available is compelling enough for me to believe that a creator is responsible for life on earth.. i have read much about powner and understand the work he is doing.
i am interested in your views as to his credibility.
-
-
Viviane
So, since you are making public claims of evidence, how are you demonstrating a connection between a unknown creature made of unknown material and the water cycle? What cause and effect are you demonstrating, what causation that's evidence for something you cannot describe rather than either evidence of something different or not evidence at all for the thing you cannot describe.
There is no need for anyone to show your conclusions false, it's up to you to show them true or at least connect the dots. So far you have failed to do that.
-
113
Matthew Powner- Advanced research on the Origin of life. How credible is he?
by KateWild ini have come to the conclusion that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god.
however the scientific evidence available is compelling enough for me to believe that a creator is responsible for life on earth.. i have read much about powner and understand the work he is doing.
i am interested in your views as to his credibility.
-
-
Viviane
So, since you are making public claims of evidence, how are you demonstrating a connection between a unknown creature made of unknown material and the water cycle? What cause and effect are you demonstrating, what causation that's evidence for something you cannot describe rather than either evidence of something different or not evidence at all for the thing you cannot describe.
There is no need for anyone to show your conclusions false, it's up to you to show them true or at least connect the dots. So far you have failed to do that.
-
113
Matthew Powner- Advanced research on the Origin of life. How credible is he?
by KateWild ini have come to the conclusion that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god.
however the scientific evidence available is compelling enough for me to believe that a creator is responsible for life on earth.. i have read much about powner and understand the work he is doing.
i am interested in your views as to his credibility.
-
-
Viviane
It's lovely that you have a club dedicated to telling each other what a meanie I am while making stuff up about me.
So, since you are making public claims of evidence, how are you demonstrating a connection between a unknown creature made of unknown material and the water cycle? What cause and effect are you demonstrating, what causation that's evidence for something you cannot describe rather than either evidence of something different or not evidence at all for the thing you cannot describe.
There is no need for anyone to show your conclusions false, it's up to you to show them true or at least connect the dots. So far you have failed to do that.
-
113
Matthew Powner- Advanced research on the Origin of life. How credible is he?
by KateWild ini have come to the conclusion that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god.
however the scientific evidence available is compelling enough for me to believe that a creator is responsible for life on earth.. i have read much about powner and understand the work he is doing.
i am interested in your views as to his credibility.
-
-
Viviane
believers believe because they want to - and then torture selected facts to appear rational
a-believers haven't seen evidence to support any god or god-type concept
One of my beliefs (without evidence) is that its a futile discussion.
Very true. However, it's helpful to ask questions, particularly when claims of "evidence" are made, to help demonstrate how critical thinking needs to be applied and how flat the claims fall when subjected to basic questions and logic. It's also interesting to note how anytime a question is asked about the claimed "evidence", rather than answer or at least deal with that, it's entirely avoided and the response to complain about someone being a big meanie.
Classic avoidance technique.
-
113
Matthew Powner- Advanced research on the Origin of life. How credible is he?
by KateWild ini have come to the conclusion that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god.
however the scientific evidence available is compelling enough for me to believe that a creator is responsible for life on earth.. i have read much about powner and understand the work he is doing.
i am interested in your views as to his credibility.
-
-
Viviane
Yet more intellectual intimidation and off topic attacks. It's clear that your motive is to deliberately side track posters with personal attacks. I am not making stuff up about you but it's my opinion that you are confrontational and aggressive in a way that I find unhelpful to most posters here. I have had lots of PMs about you from posters who agree with my opinion.
It's lovely that you have a club dedicated to telling each other what a meanie I am while making stuff up about me.
So, since you are making public claims of evidence, how are you demonstrating a connection between a unknown creature made of unknown material and the water cycle? What cause and effect are you demonstrating, what causation that's evidence for something you cannot describe rather than either evidence of something different or not evidence at all for the thing you cannot describe.
There is no need for anyone to show your conclusions false, it's up to you to show them true or at least connect the dots. So far you have failed to do that.
-
113
Matthew Powner- Advanced research on the Origin of life. How credible is he?
by KateWild ini have come to the conclusion that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of god.
however the scientific evidence available is compelling enough for me to believe that a creator is responsible for life on earth.. i have read much about powner and understand the work he is doing.
i am interested in your views as to his credibility.
-
-
Viviane
More entirely predictable attacks. Is it possible for you to point out a post where I claim to be a chemist? No. It was cofty that called me a chemist. I am a simple chemical analyst and don't professs to be anything more. This involves simply analysing chemical data.
Attack? How is pointing out a fact, namely that you denied something and later claimed not to have denied it, an attack? Anyway, I was under the impression you were a chemist. Now that it's clear you are not a chemist, I am no longer under that impression and confusion over your lack of understanding of science is clear.
But yet again you have taken things off topic. I suspect that is your motive to deliberately side track posters with personal attacks. I am not making stuff up about you but it's my opinion that you are confrontational and aggressive in a way that I find unhelpful to most posters here. I have had lots of PMs about you from posters who agree with my opinion.
It's lovely that you have a club dedicated to telling each other what a big meanie I am and ignorantly make things up about me. Everyone needs a hobby.
Anyway, my question is entirely on topic. I'll repost below for you.
So, since you are making public claims of evidence, how are you demonstrating a connection between a unknown creature made of unknown material and the water cycle? What cause and effect are you demonstrating, what causation that's evidence for something you cannot describe rather than either evidence of something different or not evidence at all for the thing you cannot describe.
-
42
Lawrence Krauss
by KateWild inkrauss is an atheist activist and self-described antitheist.
hence his science is biased.
being an antitheist means he's anti god.. anyone disagree?.
-
-
Viviane
Krauss is an atheist activist and self-described antitheist. Hence his science is biased. Being an antitheist means he's anti God.
How does your premise connect to your conclusion? What evidence of biased science can you present?
I will rephrase, his conclusions based on his science are biased
That's not a rephrasing, it's an entirely different position. Specifically which views are biased? And why does that matter?
I am not making this accusation.
You did make that accusation, though. I find it quite curious that, as a professed chemist, a position that requires extreme accuracy in both word and deed, you struggle to communicate accurately.