seattleniceguy

Joined

• started 121 topics
• posted 2,050 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by seattleniceguy

• 
  144

  Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?

  by hubert in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in a post by syn that lady lee has brought up again, there is this statement by syn.

  i could underline my watchtower in 10 minutes, tops, and be sure that all the answers were right.

  many esteemed researchers have shown that repetitive imprinting of ideas is a primary cult tactic, and i tend to agree with them.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  sweetscholar,
  Welcome to the board! A couple suggestions:
  - Use paragraphs. They will make your posts MUCH easier to read. If you're not posting in Internet Explorer, you probably need to check the "Automatic Cr/Lf" box above the post button.
  - You might enjoy the discussion if you stop insulting people who disagree with you and try to understand their position. TD in particular made some really good points that directly pertain to your previous posts.
  Cheers!
  SNG
• 
  57

  Leaving JWs Has Made Me Intolerant of Stupid Thinking - How About U?

  by Seeker4 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  lori (my girlfriend - a non-jw).

  and i had quite a discussion last night.

  i am almost always a very tolerant, easygoing person, but there is this one aspect of my personality that has caused us a certain amount of tension.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  existentialist,
  Thanks for your reply.
  >> in science,not all "explanations that make accurate predictions and explain all the available evidence",can be experimented on. That was my point in the beginning.Some can and some can't. For example, no one can perfectly prove the Big Bang theory since it's impossinble to do so,otherwise, we would have to go back to the very beginnning of the universe in order to observe the phenomena itself and provide the data in question.
  It is true that it is impossible to re-observe events that happened only one time. However, in this case, there is still mountainous evidence that can lead us strongly toward certain conclusions.
  The situation is similar to collecting forensic evidence after a murder. It is true that we cannot actually observe the murder happen, although admittedly this would be the most sure way of getting the facts. However, surely you would agree that evidence such as fingerprints, DNA samples, weapons, witness accounts, and so on can converge to give a clear and convincing picture of what happened. Sometimes the picture leaves room for doubts, but sometimes it points to an inescapable conclusion.
  The Big Bang was a one-time event that scattered evidence everywhere. I won't go into that evidence here, but in this sense it is like the forensics example I gave above.
  Evolution, on the other hand, has a different quality. It is true that the evolution of life to the current state is something that happened in the past, but evolution is an ongoing process, and it is possible for us to directly observe it happen. Creatures with extremely short generation cycles, such as bacteria, are prime candidates for this, and such evolution can directly be observed. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe)
  Evolution also has some of the "one-time event" quality, inasmuch as any given evolutionary branching event occurred only one time. However, because our planet is so superabundantly covered in life, we are literally drowning in biological data, and upon observation, it all points to evolution. Some of the strongest evidence for common descent comes from DNA analysis, which is as close to a smoking gun as we could hope for. Here are a couple articles I wrote on this topic:
  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/86797/1.ashx
  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/87238/1.ashx
  An important aspect of a scientific theory is that if even one piece of data can be found to contradict the predictions of the theory, the theory must be changed or discarded. After 150 years of intensive investigation, evolutionary theory has undergone some fine-tuning, but probably none that would be apparent to the layperson. It is incredibly successful at describing what we actually see around us.
  >> establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.Well,which one is it? A "fact" or a theory? Evolution is a fact, but the mechanics of it are theory?,hhhmmmmmm.....
  This is a critical point. The facts overwhelmingly support the idea that biological change occurs over time. This is what is referred to as the fact of evolution. The theory part is, yes, but how, and why? Even before Darwin proposed Natural Selection, scientists were coming to grips with the idea that life changes over time. Others put forward theories to account for how this occurred, but they were unsuccessful (see Lamarckianism in Wikipedia for more). Natural Selection is the primary mechanism by which evolution is thought to occur. This is the "theory" part.
  It is possible to test this theory, for example, by creating two identical populations of bacteria (offspring from the same colony), and putting them in different environments and seeing whether genetic divergence occurs, and whether it occurs in concordance with the predictions of Natural Selection. In fact, divergence - actual genetic change - does occur as individuals compete for available resources and the "fitter" are selected.
  >> For example, it can't explain what actually came BEFORE the Big Bang. I feel it ahould be either speculation OR "fact," seoerately not both, mixed together.
  Science cannot explain what happened before the Big Bang because science relies on observation, and it is not possible to observe - either directly or via evidence - what happened before the birth of the universe. Actually, I see this as a strong point. There are some questions that science cannot answer, and science does not pretend that it can. A similar question is, how did life begin? The available data is quite scanty, so the best we can do is make educated guesses. (Incidentally, the question of life began is *completely* separate from evolution. Evolution explains how existing life changes across generations.)
  Cheers,
  SNG
• 
  57

  Leaving JWs Has Made Me Intolerant of Stupid Thinking - How About U?

  by Seeker4 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  lori (my girlfriend - a non-jw).

  and i had quite a discussion last night.

  i am almost always a very tolerant, easygoing person, but there is this one aspect of my personality that has caused us a certain amount of tension.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Now, now, guys. This is an interesting discussion. Let's not get sidetracked with name-calling.
  
  existentialist,
  >> Theory:n. Abstract reasoning; speculation:ex.a decision based on experience rather than theory.
  This is indeed the way the word is used in the vernacular. However, it has a very different, quite specific meaning in science. In science, the word "theory" definitely does not mean a mere hunch or guess. Actually, it indicates the highest degree of confidence possible in an explanation that makes accurate predictions and explains all the available evidence, and has survived considerable experimentation. The word "theory" in "Theory of Evolution" should considered in the same sense as in the phrases electrical theory, gravitational theory, and so on.
  Here's a good explanation of what is meant by "evolutionary theory":
  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
  Cheers,
  SNG
• 
  43

  Why Iraq Is So Desperately Important

  by metatron in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the subject of politics often comes up on this board, inevitably.

  whatever our opinions on the subject are, most of us share a common.

  struggle against the demands of religion(s) that seek to dominate and ruin your life, whether the "truth" or something else.. sad to say, everytime the human race seems to be generally ready to shake off the shackles of controlling religious bigots, something.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  metatron,
  You are connecting two totally unrelated ideas: the concept that Islamic fundamentalism is dangerous (which nearly everyone would agree with), and the idea that fighting in Iraq can somehow eradicate that. In reality, I think American forces in Iraq only serves to strengthen the resolve of the fundamentalists.
  Your comparison of Iraq to Japan is not a good one. America went to war with Japan, not over ideological issues, but because it was directly attacked by a directly identifiable culprit. The fact that this ultimately ended the cult of emperor worship was a side benefit of ending the war.
  With regard the the ideology issue, there is another key difference between Japan and Iraq. In Japan, the emperor renounced his godhood. In spite of this, many older ones continued to believe he was a god, but it effectively ended the cult. However, there is no one person in the Islamic world who could make some similar statement that would result in the instantaneous disavowel of fundamentalism. So, I think you could more realistically look at what happened in Japan as a one-off that was made possible by a special situation there.
  Ideologies cannot be overcome via military might. The issue is education. Educated people are not fanatical.
  Of course, Iraq is a mess right now. It's hard to know what would happen if US forces just pulled out tomorrow. We're in a sort of damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation, and I'm not sure what the right path is. But I think it is clear that our presence will not overcome fundamentalism there.
  Just my two cents.
• 
  8

  Those Crazy Scientologists

  by DevonMcBride in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/crop-of-circles-a-signpost-for-scientology/2005/12/02/1133422108779.html

  crop of circles a signpost for scientology

  all religions have their sacred texts but scientology goes to great lengths to ensure l.ron hubbard's wise words are not lost, writes richard leiby.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Is there a level higher than "bonkers"? I think these guys have it covered.
  SNG
• 
  13

  Watch Asimo the robot walk!

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i can't find the video of him dancing but it really sends chills up your spine!.

  them 'puny humans' are doin' miracles, these days!.

  metatron

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Some pictures I took recently of Honda's robot:

  SNG
• 
  13

  Watch Asimo the robot walk!

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i can't find the video of him dancing but it really sends chills up your spine!.

  them 'puny humans' are doin' miracles, these days!.

  metatron

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  I think the idea is that to function efficiently at performing human tasks in a human world, it's best to be shaped like a human.
  >> >> Humans are more likely to accept a device that looks like a human.
  >> Hmmm, I wonder if the exact opposite might not be true?
  I read an article about this recently (sorry about being to lazy to find the link), and it was discovered that as robots look more and more like humans, humans feel more and more affinity for them. However, there is a crucial cut-off point where, if they look extremely similar to humans but aren't quite right, we find them unnerving. So the continuum kind of goes like this:
  Less like a human ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... More like a human
  Cute --- Cuter --- Cutie-pie --- What a darling little cutie! --- Scary beyond all reason
  Sony's QRIO is definitely at the "cute" stage. Honda's little guy feels less cute, because the form factor is less similar to a human.
  Another thing that I think accepts acceptance is size. Honda's Asimo is probably about as large as human-interacting robots can get before beginning to evoke fear. Imagine actually having an C3PO-sized robot in your house. That would just be kind of freaky. We need to be able to feel that we are in control and even if the robot tweaks out, nothing crazy will happen.
  SNG
• 
  49

  Debunking Dawkins

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a reformed response to: .

  is science a religion?, by richard dawkins, the humanist, jan./feb.

  the faith of science .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  >>
  For instance, confidence in the law of non-contradiction could be said to be faith. There is no direct way to prove the law of contradiction except that it must be presupposed in order to learn anything or differentiate anything from anything else. Likewise, the principle of induction, which states that the future will be generally like the past, is what makes possible the formulation of scientific laws and theories.
  >>
  
  Goodness. Barlow is correct in saying that science depends on idea that the physical universe is a non-contradictory system. It's hard to imagine how you can honestly take issue with this. Can you imagine life in an irrational universe? It would be like living in a Picasso painting.
  Barlow strangely describes induction as the concept that "the future will be generally like the past," which is probably a generally true statement, but rather distant from the actual definition, "The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances."
  Yes, Barlow is absolutely correct. If you refuse to accept that the physical universe is a consistent system, then obviously science cannot stand. But neither can any other knowledge of any sort whatsoever, since all knowledge - even religious belief systems, save 100% mystic systems - is based on putting together component ideas to form conclusions, those nasty thngs we get through induction.
  It strikes me as a bit unbelievable, and vindicating in a backhanded way, that the only way this author can see to attack science is to suggest that the universe is in fact an irrational system and that induction is inherently faulty. Geez, you want to believe that, go ahead. The rest of the universe will continue to function in what is clearly a rational manner, and induction will continue to teach us the principles by which it functions.
  SNG
• 
  12

  We have the Truth, We have the Truth, We have the Truth, We have the Truth!

  by nicolaou in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it's always fun (well for a geek like me anyway), to take a quote from a wt mag' and tweak it to show clearly the duplicitous nature of the writers.

  the first quote below has not been touched - compare it the one beneath.. nic' .

  *** g90 1/22 pp.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Brilliant.
  The double standards in the Watchtower thought system are of mythical proportions, but amazingly, they seem to escape the notice of the masses. It was exactly this type of double standard that forced me to consciousness.
  SNG
• 
  60

  What will you do to celebrate Oct 2 2014?

  by jwfacts in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  like most people reading this, i was convinced that by 2014 the new system would 'definitely' have been operating for at least a decade.

  now that i know this is not going to be the case i am going to have to think of some way to recognise 100 years of wts let downs and failed predictions.

  there is no point fretting over the past so i think it will be a good time to celebrate.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Here's my billboard:
  
  Keep On Truckin'!
  The Watchtower: Wrong for the next 100 years!
  
  SNG