Posts by Disillusioned JW

19

An Anti-Aging Pill ( Maybe)

by metatron in

jw
friends

various researchers a have been looking for an anti-aging pill based on the assumption that, if you can maintain a higher.

level of various endogenous anti-oxidants ( catalase, sod, etc), you could probably slow down the aging process.

even some skeptics.

Disillusioned JW

19

An Anti-Aging Pill ( Maybe)

by metatron in

jw
friends

various researchers a have been looking for an anti-aging pill based on the assumption that, if you can maintain a higher.

level of various endogenous anti-oxidants ( catalase, sod, etc), you could probably slow down the aging process.

even some skeptics.

Disillusioned JW

TonusOH, beware of eating dry directly from a spoon - see below.

I take cinnamon daily (I started doing that about a year ago). Sometimes I do so as one teaspoon full mixed in my food, other times as a supplement in a capsule (readily available in the vitamin section of grocery stores). I have a bottle of the capsules of the Cassia kind and a bottle of capsules of the Ceylon kind. I also buy the regular kind of cinnamon (as dry powder) in the bulk foods section of the WiinCo Foods grocery store.

From what I read, a teaspoon full of the regular kind cinnamon a day might be too much for many people (see below). An easy way to take it is when mixed in food or when taken in a capsule, but if you eat more than that It probably should not be the typical kind (namely Cassia) found in the food sections of supermarket grocery stores. Ceylon cinnamon is said to be much safer than the regular kind (but some articles say the Ceylon kind might have less health benefits).

https://www.webmd.com/diet/supplement-guide-cinnamon says the following. "Toxicity. Eating lots of cassia cinnamon could be toxic, especially if you have liver problems. Coumarin, an ingredient in some cinnamon products, can cause liver problems, but the amount you’d get is so small that it probably won’t be a problem. Given the lack of evidence about its safety, children, pregnant women, and women who are breastfeeding should avoid cinnamon as a treatment. ... Interactions. If you take any medication regularly, talk to your doctor before you start using cinnamon supplements. They could affect the way antibiotics, diabetes drugs, blood thinners, heart medicines, and others work."

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/side-effects-of-cinnamon says the following.

"Cassia (or regular) cinnamon is a rich source of coumarin.

The coumarin content of ground Cassia cinnamon may range from 7 to 18 milligrams per teaspoon (2.6 grams), while Ceylon cinnamon only contains trace amounts of coumarin (6).

The tolerable daily intake of coumarin is approximately 0.05 mg/pound (0.1 mg/kg) of body weight, or 5 mg per day for a 130-pound (59-kg) person. This means that just 1 teaspoon of Cassia cinnamon could put you over the daily limit (3).

Unfortunately, several studies have found that eating too much coumarin may cause liver toxicity and damage (4, 5)."

I tried eating one teaspoon full of powdered cinnamon straight from a teaspoon. That was a very bad idea because it was literally hard to swallow (got stuck in my throat) and greatly hindered breathing - until I gulped water in order to get it down. Mixing in a glass of water and drinking the mixture worked better. But mixing it in some moist food (or adding it batter to make pancakes), including mixing some food oil (such as olive oil or melted butter) with it worked much better.

The article about the side effects also says the following.

"Risks of Eating Dry Cinnamon

Since the “cinnamon challenge” has become wildly popular, many have attempted to eat large amounts of dry cinnamon.

This challenge involves eating a tablespoon of dry, ground cinnamon in under a minute without drinking water (22).

While it may sound harmless, the challenge can be very dangerous.

Eating dry cinnamon can irritate your throat and lungs, as well as make you gag or choke. It can also permanently damage your lungs.

This is because the lungs cannot break down the fibers in the spice. It may accumulate in the lungs and cause lung inflammation known as aspiration pneumonia (23, 24).

If aspiration pneumonia is left untreated, the lungs may become permanently scarred and possibly collapse (24)."

99

If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?

by Disillusioned JW in

sometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?

' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?

' what do you folks say?.

Disillusioned JW

Regarding intelligent design (and UFOs/UAPs) the wierd news story at https://www.science.org/content/article/pentagon-ufo-study-led-researcher-who-believes-supernatural might be of interest. The article is called the following. 'Pentagon UFO study led by researcher who believes in the supernatural: Critics dumbfounded by reality TV star Travis Taylor's position as “chief scientist” '

Consider also the news story located at https://www.npr.org/2022/08/31/1119941103/astronomer-searches-ocean-extraterrestrial-meteor-alien-life-avi-loeb called "An astronomer thinks alien tech could be on the ocean floor. Not everyone agrees".

99

If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?

by Disillusioned JW in

sometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?

' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?

' what do you folks say?.

Disillusioned JW

Correction: Where I said "supernatural being (such as God or a god or an extraterrestrial being ['alien'] or an extraterrestrial artificial intelligence)" I should have said "supernatural being (such as God or a god) or an extraterrestrial being ['alien'] or an extraterrestrial artificial intelligence".

99

If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?

by Disillusioned JW in

sometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?

' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?

' what do you folks say?.

Disillusioned JW

Saying God, a god, or some unknown unspecified intelligent designer entity designed and created something is not a useful idea nor an informative one, unless the person promoting such an idea also says how the being/entity did such (with the idea being testable) - other than by saying by the supernatural or by magic. In contrast the scientific naturalists often state how they think various things (or events) came to be (or took place), or they try to find out how they came to be (or took place). They offer useful ideas - most of which can be tested to at least some extent. But no human has ever truly conclusively demonstrated something supernatural as taking place, nor has any supernatural being (such as God or a god or an extraterrestrial being ['alien'] or an extraterrestrial artificial intelligence) literally revealed himself/herself/itself to any human (despite what the Bible says).

Hypothetically speaking, if God (or a god or an extraterrestrial being ['alien'] or an extraterrestrial artificial intelligence) exists he/she/it does not communicate with any human, and does make himself/herself/itself visible (or in any other way detectable) to any human, or allow himself/herself/itself to be studied by scientists (or any other human). As a result, the of concept of God (or a god) is useless as an explanation for anything.

SeaBreeze, thought freedom and truth matters to me. They are part of why I left belief in creationism, in God, and in the supernatural, and became convinced of scientific naturalism. Interestingly (from the perspective of what you said to me about thought freedom) after I told a co-worker today why I no longer believe in God and the supernatural she told me that I exercised my freedom to change my views.

99

If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?

by Disillusioned JW in

sometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?

' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?

' what do you folks say?.

Disillusioned JW

It seems like (judging by https://scienceleadstogod.org/information-enigma-where-does-information-come-from/ & https://evolutionnews.org/2015/10/introducing_the_1/ ) the Enigma video features Stephen C. Meyer and Douglas Axe, both of whom are of the Discovery Institute, and thus that the video is promoting Intelligent Design. I have no interest in watching Intelligent Design videos and reading Intelligent Design literature, nor in other pro creationism content. I had my fill of that type of content from the WT's literature, and such very sadly led me astray from accepting evolutionism (cosmological evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution) for about 30 years of my life.

Furthermore, it seems like the Discovery Science video program is a program of the Discovery Institute, instead of the mainstream cable TV network called (or formerly called) "Discover (or Discovery? or "Discovery Science" or something similar).

There is so much pro Intelligent Design content and other types of pro creationism content (criticizing evolutionism and naturalism) on the internet these days, and not enough pro evolutionsim content on the internet of the type which refutes the claims of the creationism content. As a result a great many of people are likely getting duped into believing in some form of creationism, or getting duped into continuing to believe in some form of creationism. How discouraging, to me at least.

Here is a point to consider. My naturalistic philosophy does not impose any thought restrictions upon me nor does it place any dictates me. I am not IProfessor Richard Lewontin and I do not think the way he does in all matters pertaining to science. I thoroughly examined Intelligent design (or other types of creationist ideas) before I adopted scientific naturalism, and even from time to time after I adopted scientific naturalism. For me, the the various creationist approaches were inferior to the scientific naturalist approaches.

99

If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?

by Disillusioned JW in

sometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?

' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?

' what do you folks say?.

Disillusioned JW

SeaBreeze when I wrote "Now that is the point, isn't it?"I wasn't referring to what is your point, but rather to what my point was and to also two I considered to be the point of "a physics professor from California State University at Long Beach". In the post where referred to that professor you made no comment asking where information comes from nor did you discuss the topic about it. In the post where you mentioned "Professor Richard Lewontin" the only thing you wrote about "where information comes from" was part of one sentence. I no no interest in talking about, but did have an interest in talking about your comments regarding Einstein and Newton, so that was what i did.

When was at at the break room computer this morning at work I noticed that your post which mentioned Lewontin had a video embedded in it (or a link to a video) about an enigma about where information comes from. I did not see that at home because of my old computer system with a very slow internet connection. I this did know until my break at work that was a subject which you considered to be your point.

I have not yet watched the video (I can only watch away from home) and i might not ever watch, since that topic is of very little interest to me. I don't ask myself where does information comes from. I don't even have a clear idea of what you mean by "where information comes from?", since your question since it is very broad. In order for me to have a good idea you need to define what you mean by "information", in the sense which you are using the word. If you mean specific kinds of information, you to state what those kinds are.

If you asked specifically where does the information in DNA comes from, I would understand that question. But that subject also is very little interest to me. However I would say that it involved natural selection acting upon mutations in prior DNA which produced benefits to the organisms contained the revised DNA. If the question is about where (or how) DNA first came to contain information, the I would say it was by natural selection acting on prior DNA in such a way which enabled the revised DNA to have better survival rates (than the earlier DNA) and/or better replication rates. But I have no interest in determining a more detail answer to the question. I don't have a number of interests that primarily creationist apologists (such as yourself) have.

Furthermore, I have no interest in playing a game of Whac-A-Mole, figuratively speaking. If I were to answer one of your creationist type questions, then you would ask another, and if I answered it, then you would ask still another, and on and on and on, etc. I don't want to use a considerable amount of my time in such, since I am much more interested in other things. Furthermore, I know I can't change your views about creationism and thus I no interest in doing so. But I do have some interest in preventing other people from adopting some of your creationist views. I also have an interest in helping people to abandon some creationist views which you also have. As a result sometimes I will comment on what you say about creationism. A similar situation applies to some other things you (and others) say on this website.

I spent 40 minutes of my precious free time to think up and type this post and I don't want to devote more to the matter, thus I have now finished making this post.

99

If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?

by Disillusioned JW in

sometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?

' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?

' what do you folks say?.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze, though Einstein said he believed in God he also said he did not believe in a personal God (and thus was not a theist). Atheist Richard Dawkins said Einstein only used the word "God" as a metaphor when Einstein said he believed in God and that Einstein was a naturalistic pantheist. But, in reading Einstein's quoted words (some of which are in translation from German to English, rather than originally said in English) I don't think Einstein meant that. Einstein also said he doesn't think he is a pantheist, but there are two kinds of pantheists. The modern kind of pantheist has a naturalistic view of the universe, whereas the old kind of pantheist thought the universe literally was God. It is not clear to me what kind of God Einstein believed in. I get the impression that Einstein was not a deist.

Sea Breeze Newton's theistic thoughts in regards to Newton's cosmological model in which a God maintains the universe are incompatible with modern scientific knowledge.See https://history.aip.org/exhibits/cosmology/ideas/mechuniverse.htm which says the following. "Newtonian gravitational theory practically demanded a continual miracle to prevent the Sun and the fixed stars from being pulled together. Newton envisioned an infinitely large universe, in which God had placed the stars at just the right distances so their attractions cancelled, as precisely as balancing needles on their points." [See also https://sites.uni.edu/morgans/astro/course/Notes/section3/new14.html which also says Newton though the universe was static on large scales.] Therefore if Newton were alive today and still believed in such an outdated cosmological model - one dependent on God frequently intervening to maintain the positions of the celestial objects, while also having modern scientific knowledge, then Newton would be thinking irrationally in regards to cosmology. That would indeed mean he had a number of obsolete ideas about the working of the universe and that he would not be credible as a scientist in regards to cosmology.

Newton believed in a static universe (not an expanding one) which was infinite in size. That is because the universe to him did not look like it was expanding. Such a model forced him to believe the stars were perfectly positioned by God, in order to prevent the pull of gravity from causing all of them to end up in one mass. He didn't know the universe is expanding and that it (at least of our local 'bubble universe' if a multiverse exists) is finite. If he were alive today and aware of the evidence of a expanding universe and yet rejected it, and believed that God was maintaining the universe, then he wouldn't be a credible scientist of cosmology.

Now that is the point, isn't it?

Regarding the quoted words of Richard Lewontin (words which creationist love to quote), that has been elsewhere from rationalist point of view.

[Note: I don't time to further edit my post since I have to get ready to go to work. Hopefully I don't have major typos in my post.]

99

If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?

by Disillusioned JW in

sometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?

' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?

' what do you folks say?.

Disillusioned JW

Isaac Newton concluded that the dogma of a Triune god was false doctrine and therefore he refused ordination in the Anglican Church. He also came up with the date of the year 1914 and he predicted (based upon the Bible) that the world will end in the year 2060.

I think that if Newton were alive today (and thus had knowledge of many of the scientific discoveries made in the past 200 years) he would not be a theist and instead would be an atheist or a deist. I think he would also be convinced of biological evolution and of cosmological evolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton says the following.

"Although born into an Anglican family, and a devout but unorthodox Christian,[8] by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christians.[8] Scholars now consider him a Nontrinitarian Arian.

... As well as rejecting the Trinity, Newton's studies led him to reject belief in the immortal soul, a personal devil, literal demons (spirits of the dead), and infant baptism.[15] "

19

An Anti-Aging Pill ( Maybe)

by metatron in

jw
friends

various researchers a have been looking for an anti-aging pill based on the assumption that, if you can maintain a higher.

level of various endogenous anti-oxidants ( catalase, sod, etc), you could probably slow down the aging process.

even some skeptics.

Disillusioned JW

Hey folks, I've been continuing the discussion about how to slow and even reverse ageing in my topic located at https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5709197172801536/if-wt-jw-relgion-where-else-we-go-why-atheistic-scientific-philosophical-naturalism since that topic is about science and naturalism.