Posts by bohm

72

Arctic Ice Increasing

by Perry in

arctic has gained hundreds of miles of ice the last three years.

red shows the september 2012 minimum extent.

green shows the current extent, which is likely the minimum for 2015. the arctic has gained hundreds of miles of ice over the past three years, much of which is thick, multi-year ice.. article.

bohm

perry: Look at the graph I posted. Is there a trend up or down in the arctic ice volume?

72

Arctic Ice Increasing

by Perry in

arctic has gained hundreds of miles of ice the last three years.

red shows the september 2012 minimum extent.

green shows the current extent, which is likely the minimum for 2015. the arctic has gained hundreds of miles of ice over the past three years, much of which is thick, multi-year ice.. article.

Global warming is obviously real, but there really is no evidence that is caused by humans.I think sometimes we fail to realize that the earth is not static - it too evolves, and goes through difference cyclical stages

Scientists are aware the earth is not static. That's why they have tried to quantify how the climate varies, for which reasons and by how much for the past 60 years. The conclusion is the CO2 content of the atmosphere is very important, and humans are increasing the CO2 content dramatically; you can then build models around what the impact of the added CO2 will be and compare to past historic trends. The conclusion is the current warming is caused by humans.

72

Arctic Ice Increasing

by Perry in

arctic has gained hundreds of miles of ice the last three years.

red shows the september 2012 minimum extent.

green shows the current extent, which is likely the minimum for 2015. the arctic has gained hundreds of miles of ice over the past three years, much of which is thick, multi-year ice.. article.

bohm

For all newbies, look at this graph. Suppose you had hired someone to invest your pension funds somewhere and this graph was showing your total pension funds over the past 5 years, would you say you were getting richer or poorer? Would you say he was doing a good job? Would you consider withdrawing your money ASAP before he blew it all away?

According to Perry, the trend is actually up. If the above graph was showing your pension funds, you should be very happy since you were getting richer. Why? Because in 2012 it was lower than it was today, so it is going up.

If you buy this argument, I have an awesome investment opportunity for you...

8

can I have my p.m.s deleted?

by sowhatnow in

i would greatly appreciate it , please please, to have all my private messages deleted.

and ill thank you much!.

[there is also one post id like to have removed if possible,.

bohm

If the admins figures out a solution I might also like to have some pms deleted in a week or two

30

Debating evolution, intelligent design and cosmology with a JW

by Thestumbler83 in

ive been having an email exchange with a jw family member and the discussion seem to have become a bit heated and im not quite sure why.

i dont think ive said anything obviously offensive and ive been very careful with my wording.

but i think im sometimes a bit tone deaf with these things.

bohm

You could read the book "A manual for creating atheists"; just be aware some parts of it is pretty preachy and hard to stomach, like that the author supposedly had a debate with himself if he should argue his dying mother out of Christianity(!).

30

Debating evolution, intelligent design and cosmology with a JW

by Thestumbler83 in

ive been having an email exchange with a jw family member and the discussion seem to have become a bit heated and im not quite sure why.

i dont think ive said anything obviously offensive and ive been very careful with my wording.

but i think im sometimes a bit tone deaf with these things.

bohm

Thestumbler: Your email is very good, but do you think he is reading what you are sending him?

I would recommend that you back way up and think about what each of your are claiming. Boil the discussion down to one substantial point each of you will agree is fundamental to your differences. This is *not* for instance if evolution is a scientific theory IMO since this is just an etymological point (how each of you define theory) and at any rate he can just claim it is an unproven theory.

I think you should spend time to explore his view on religion. Does he for instance think God can rationally be demonstrated to exist beyond reasonable doubt? Does he think it is merely possible god exist, but he choose to do so because it is more prudent? (see his example with the plane). If you want to discuss evolution, does he believe evolution is something which can be demonstrated to be false by considering it as a scientific question, or does he believe evolution is false because he thinks (for other reasons) the bible is true and the bible contradicts evolution? Does he believe evolution is basically a big conspiracy and any evidence you present will be dismissed as invented? Does he believe evolution is something egg-heads do on the university and he is basically indifferent to whatever you produce?

You are obviously very knowledgeable and your posts are what someone would write to convince a reasonable person. However you got to explore where your Dads at regarding evolution, the evidence, etc. and build your case from that in order to be rhetorically effective with him. I have a policy that IRL I never engage with anyone about a subject relating to religion unless two conditions are met: (1) they themselves have said it is the best evidence for their position and (2) they claim their position is rationally true and not just possibly.

30

Debating evolution, intelligent design and cosmology with a JW

by Thestumbler83 in

ive been having an email exchange with a jw family member and the discussion seem to have become a bit heated and im not quite sure why.

i dont think ive said anything obviously offensive and ive been very careful with my wording.

but i think im sometimes a bit tone deaf with these things.

bohm

Hi Thestumbler,

It is a very impressive and well-researched document you have assembled with evidences for evolution. I won't claim to be a very effective communicator, however I think you should re-assess your approach with your dad. Clearly, he just dismissed your article out of hand and properly without researching any of the items in the article. You could properly have written pure nonsense and it would have had no different effect.

I try very hard to follow these rules when I talk with jehovahs witness:

Never assert any conclusions but ask questions; only assert what is factually verifiably true
Frame the conversation: They claim so-and-so is true for this reason. Make sure it is very clear what they are arguing.
anticipate where the discussion will go and ask questions which will make your points at that later time stronger (for instance I have never had a conversation which did not terminate with a variation of: you must have faith. At that point it is useful that the conversation started out with something that could not be answered in that manner).
play stupid
be patient
ask them to define things, explain things, etc. for future use, especially when you know they can do so. Don't do it to expose them, it serves little purpose.
The conversation will always end in one of two ways. Either they will change the subject, or they will insist on arguing something else than what you started out with (how the conversation was framed). Point this out when it happens and make conclusions: Okay so the reason you mentioned in the beginning of our conversation does not actually demonstrate that what you wanted to say was true? they will object. Ask why & restart the argument with the same line of questions.
When you hear an illogical argument, wonder out loud. Repeat it. Say things like: "Let me see if i get this straight" and recap it faithfully using the bad logic.
talk very slow and allow for pauses in the conversation.

For instance, a few years back I was stopped by a jw couple and we began to talk about the bible. I told them I did not believe there was a god but I would very much be interested in hearing what they thought was the best reasons to think there was (framing the conversation). So one of them brought up the point that the earth is precisely the right distance from the sun and that proved that the earth was designed. So i knew then where i would want to end up, that the earth can be in a range of distances from the sun and support life & there are billions of planets anyway. But instead of saying that I said that was a very interesting point and asked them how far the earth could be from the sun to support life? like was it only a band of a few hundreds of kilometers? (framing the conversation&asking definitions) Of course they did not know, but instead of saying that proved it was a poor argument, i asked if in order for me to accept the argument as good, wouldn't I first need to know how wide a band the earth could be in from the sun to support life? (the point was that they too would have to know this but i did not say so myself). They agreed. So I said that the reason I ask is because the earth is not going around in a circle but an ellipse, so sometimes it is far from the sun and sometimes it is close (factual statement). Did that indicate to them that the band in which the earth could be in was not very narrow? I asked a few more questions like that and managed to bring in the idea that there was billions of stars with planets of all sorts of sizes and distances, but without ever directly saying their *conclusions* were wrong or providing any direct conclusions myself.

They changed the subject to prophecy -- again I asked which prophecy they found the most convincing (daniel). I asked them what it was about and they gave me details. So I wondered out loud: Okay so let me see if I understand the argument: If daniel wrote these things in 600BCE, and they later happened, that proves the bible? (yes) me: Okay I think that's a pretty good argument. How old are our oldest copies of Daniel? (the exchanged looks and then one of them said they were very old). So I said: I saw a documentary and it said our oldest copies were from around 100-150BCE... so what I am getting at is if i should accept this argument, wouldnt I first need to proove that daniel was really written in 600BCE? (yes) So what physical [i said physical on purpose] evidence demonstrates that? (they gave me an answer that the bible demonstrated it) So i asked again: yes it is certainly in the bible, but I am interested if there are any physical things, like books or something, which mentions daniels prophecy before 150BCE? We went over it a few times and arrived at the conclusion only the bible mentions Daniel. Instead of pointing out this was circular I just recapped the circular logic: Okay so if we accept the bible is true regarding daniel, then daniel is a prophet? But Daniel is also the best proof the bible is true? (they objected: there are many proofs the bible is true) I said: Yes I accept there are many reasons. But that was why I was asking for the best reasons, and for the best prophecy, and you brought up daniel? But I mean, suppose I wanted to convince myself of the argument, wouldnt i first need to check there was evidence daniel was written before 150BCE? (this was exactly what they agreed to before). We went over it a few times and I patiently just followed the circular logic around and around. At some point of them ofcourse said I had to have faith in the bible, so we discussed what faith was. This brought me to the point I had planned all along: But I started out asking if there was evidence that God existed, and you said there was -- so I asked for the best evidence. So you brought up the sun, but we don't know how far the earth can be from the sun and still support life. And then you brought up daniel, but we don't have any proof when daniel was written. I mean, can you see why this is difficult to accept? now you say I must instead have faith; but why didn't we start there? (I cant remember what i said then).

The conversation ended by them saying they would provide answers to my questions if i gave them my email, which i did. I got an email 3-4 months or so later (IIRC) with just a link to jw.org something about faith. I think I answered that I think we simply disagreed if a person should be convinced by faith or by evidence, never heard back.

2