Posts by TheStumbler

33

JW drone posted typical JW response about Syria on my Facebook wall

by TheStumbler in

jw
friends

i like to keep politics and religion off my facebook.

i have friends.

colleagues and relatives on there from all different backgrounds.

TheStumbler

my dad emailed me regarding me deleting his comments and said he thought it was a 'weakness' and 'unreasonable' to express an opinion and then take 'actions to prevent others doing the same'. He also said he was 'dissapointed' that I decided other people should not see his comments and 'form their own opinions'.

The hypocracy is staggerring. And why does he always use ad hominems!

I deleted all the comments, his and mine. I explained that I deleted them because it was not an appropriate forum. Not to censor him. He's free to post what he wants on his own wall.

I'm not sure how to respond. I will wait until I calm down first.

should I post apostate links on his Facebook page and call out his hypocrisy if he removes them?

33

JW drone posted typical JW response about Syria on my Facebook wall

by TheStumbler in

jw
friends

i like to keep politics and religion off my facebook.

i have friends.

colleagues and relatives on there from all different backgrounds.

TheStumbler

I will call him tonight explain that I wasn't trying to censor him. I was just embarrassed by him and explain that Facebook is not an appropriate forum to discuss religion (for me its not at least). I wonder if that will be unusual for him to hear as an elder. I expect he used to being listened to not ignored.

33

JW drone posted typical JW response about Syria on my Facebook wall

by TheStumbler in

jw
friends

i like to keep politics and religion off my facebook.

i have friends.

colleagues and relatives on there from all different backgrounds.

TheStumbler

It is an appeal to adverse consequences. I don't like the consequences if it is true therefore it is not true

33

JW drone posted typical JW response about Syria on my Facebook wall

by TheStumbler in

jw
friends

i like to keep politics and religion off my facebook.

i have friends.

colleagues and relatives on there from all different backgrounds.

TheStumbler

@ Frazzled,

I have spoken to him before about putting minor conflicts today into a historical context. He believes the world was relatively peaceful before 1914 and can't be convinced otherwise.

33

JW drone posted typical JW response about Syria on my Facebook wall

by TheStumbler in

jw
friends

i like to keep politics and religion off my facebook.

i have friends.

colleagues and relatives on there from all different backgrounds.

TheStumbler

I was tempted to say something sarcastic like 'yes human governments will never work. Much better when Jehovah runs things. He would would have drowned them all for being Muslim'.

Why is it JWs never realize when they lament these tragedies that had Armageddon happened before the tragedy those same victims would have died any way for not being JWs. How is that any kind of solution? Its like solving a famine by killing all the hungry people.

33

JW drone posted typical JW response about Syria on my Facebook wall

by TheStumbler in

jw
friends

i like to keep politics and religion off my facebook.

i have friends.

colleagues and relatives on there from all different backgrounds.

TheStumbler

@ nare&racket.

spot on. His prejudice against science was so transparent in his comments. As was his misunderstanding of science shown by his asking questions such as 'has science brought attention to the harms it has caused'. How exactly could science do this? Scientists maybe. It is so obvious JWs dislike science because it is a threat to their beliefs. Few seem to understand exactly what it is because they believe truth is revealed through authority not enquiry.

It annoys me so much that JWs almost seem to relish these atrocities. Their beliefs are so rarely validated externally to the Watchtower. They seem to love natural disasters and atrocities yet somehow rarely mention the improved health, living standards, mortality rates, disease prevention and the relative global peace since 1945

33

JW drone posted typical JW response about Syria on my Facebook wall

by TheStumbler in

jw
friends

i like to keep politics and religion off my facebook.

i have friends.

colleagues and relatives on there from all different backgrounds.

TheStumbler

and sorry about typos. I'm on a smart phone on a train and I have large fingers.

33

JW drone posted typical JW response about Syria on my Facebook wall

by TheStumbler in

jw
friends

i like to keep politics and religion off my facebook.

i have friends.

colleagues and relatives on there from all different backgrounds.

TheStumbler

I like to keep politics and religion off my Facebook. I have friends. Colleagues and relatives on there from all different backgrounds. I apply the same rules I would at any social gathering with such a mixed group of people and acquaintances.

Recently I read an article in NewScientist about how a lot of the effects from chemical weapons can be mitigated with medicines and knowing what to do in the event of an attack. The article suggested that the UN/international community dropping information pamphlets and medicine on Syria would be more effective than bombing Assad's government. I thought it was a great idea and who could object to such humanitarianism so posted the link on Facebook. Raise awareness a bit.

My Dad (JW Elder ubber Dub) posted a rambling response about how science created these weapons and asked what has science done to improve world conditions

I wasn't sure whether to reply, ignore or delete his comment was so wrong I couldn't let it go so I wrote a short and sweet reply; 'science is a method of enquiry so is amoral. It is down to people how it is applied'.

He replied and confused 'amoral' with 'amoral' but he essentially said that scientists who develop weapons are immoral which I kind of agree with to an extent. so I liked his comment and wrote; 'Exactly. science is a tool. Like a hammer, you can use it to build something or smash someone in the face with. If someone hits another person in the face with a hammer you don't blame the hammer'.

Then he hit me with the most cliche JW response about how Syria shows human governments never work and science can't solve any problems. Blah blah blah. It was classic watchtower rhetoric.

I didn't want to get drawn into a discussion about religion on Facebook but didn't want him to use my Facebook page as a platform for his mindless propoganda. I was angry so I deleted all his comments on the subject and my own comments in response to him.

how should I have handled this situation? Left his comments up so everyone could see his zealotry, refuted his claims or just deleted his comments like I did?

and is it me or do all JWs speak and write the same and adopt the same Watchtoerr rhetoric, tone and vocabulary? Eg 'evidently' and 'man's inhumanity to man' and 'human wisdom'. It just sounds corny and not at all educated which you can tell is how they are trying to cone across.

sorry, my post is a bit rambling itself. I'm just venting!

91

Carbon dating and the Global Flood - links needed

by wizzstick in

i've been using the search function on the site to research this, but a lot of articles seem quite old and there have been some interesting developments in this field of late.. if you're not sure on what carbon dating is have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/radiocarbon_dating.

there's an interesting point made in the calibration methods section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/radiocarbon_dating#calibration_methods.

on developments in the last few years.. they highlight the discovery at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/lake_suigetsu and how it increased the calibration from 12,593 to 52,800 years.

TheStumbler

sane post but with spaces:

James Brown,

I'm more of a reader than a poster on here but your posts have frustrated me so much I couldn't help myself.

I'm not frustrated because I think you are wrong (I think lots of people on here are wrong) although I do happen to think you are wrong. It's more the fact that you continually use arguments against radiometric dating that have been so thoroughly and utterly debunked.

Repeating arguments that demonstrate your ignorance of the subject and making no attempt to understand the criticisms and refutations of the arguments you use makes you intellectually lazy at best.

For example, Crofty and others have explained to you in detail why the Mt St Helen's is an example of the misuse of dating methods and not a valid example of the inaccuracy of dating methods yet you continue to use it.

Posters have continually asked you to explain why dating methods are based on circular reasoning but every time you attempted to do so you have unwittingly demonstrated your own misunderstanding of how radiometric dating works and total inability to comprehend why scientists are confident in its accuracy.

Having said all of that. I think you are kind of right. We can't know with absolute certainty that radiometric dating is accurate. There are certain assumptions built into our calculations such as the constant rate of radioactive decay (this is not circular reason by the way). It is possible that the multiple independent dating methods converging on the same results over hundreds of thousands of trials are purely down to random chance. This is extremely improbable but it is possible.

It is possible in the same way it is possible that the photons we observe today that look like they were produced in stars billions of light years away were created only 6,000 years ago and that the age (or even the existence) of those stars is illusory. It is improbable but possible so we can't rule it out.

It is possible in the same way that it is possible the earth was created yesterday with all of our fake memories in tact. This too is improbable but possible so we shouldn't rule it out.

Basically, your argument is that we can't know anything with certainty without empirically observing it. Even if something is 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% probably true we
should discard it as useless because we don't know with absolute certainty that it is true. By your standard we don't even know if yesterday happened let alone how old rocks are.

At some point you have to stop worrying about what is possible and absolute truth and think instead about what is more probable. You have left the organization but you are still thinking in black and white absolutist terms.

You think you are being a free thinker and skeptical by not accepting scientific dating methods. Good for you. Now go read the science, which you clearly haven't done, and apply that same skepticism to Hovind and young earth 'science' and your own beliefs. At least then you might be able to demonstrate some intellectual integrity.

You still refer to 'human' knowledge and reasoning pejoratively which suggests you maybe haven't quite fully escaped the Watchtower mode of thinking yet.

And I apologize for the patronising tone but, like I said, I was frustrated.

91

Carbon dating and the Global Flood - links needed

by wizzstick in

i've been using the search function on the site to research this, but a lot of articles seem quite old and there have been some interesting developments in this field of late.. if you're not sure on what carbon dating is have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/radiocarbon_dating.

there's an interesting point made in the calibration methods section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/radiocarbon_dating#calibration_methods.

on developments in the last few years.. they highlight the discovery at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/lake_suigetsu and how it increased the calibration from 12,593 to 52,800 years.

TheStumbler

James Brown, I'm more of a reader than a poster on here but your posts have frustrated me so much I couldn't help myself. I'm not frustrated because I think you are wrong (I think lots of people on here are wrong) although I do happen to think you are wrong. It's more the fact that you continually use arguments against radiometric dating that have been so thoroughly and utterly debunked. Repeating arguments that demonstrate your ignorance of the subject and making no attempt to understand the criticisms and refutations of the arguments you use makes you intellectually lazy at best. For example, Crofty and others have explained to you in detail why the Mt St Helen's is an example of the misuse of dating methods and not a valid example of the inaccuracy of dating methods yet you continue to use it. Posters have continually asked you to explain why dating methods are based on circular reasoning but every time you attempted to do so you have unwittingly demonstrated your own misunderstanding of how radiometric dating works and total inability to comprehend why scientists are confident in its accuracy. Having said all of that. I think you are kind of right. We can't know with absolute certainty that radiometric dating is accurate. There are certain assumptions built into our calculations such as the constant rate of radioactive decay (this is not circular reason by the way). It is possible that the multiple independent dating methods converging on the same results over hundreds of thousands of trials are purely down to random chance. This is extremely improbable but it is possible. It is possible in the same way it is possible that the photons we observe today that look like they were produced in stars billions of light years away were created only 6,000 years ago and that the age (or even the existence) of those stars is illusory. It is improbable but possible so we can't rule it out. It is possible in the same way that it is possible the earth was created yesterday with all of our fake memories in tact. This too is improbable but possible so we shouldn't rule it out. Basically, your argument is that we can't know anything with certainty without empirically observing it. Even if something is 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% probably true we should discard it as useless because we don't know with absolute certainty that it is true. By your standard we don't even know if yesterday happened let alone how old rocks are. At some point you have to stop worrying about what is possible and absolute truth and think instead about what is more probable. You have left the organization but you are still thinking in black and white absolutist terms. You think you are being a free thinker and skeptical by not accepting scientific dating methods. Good for you. Now go read the science, which you clearly haven't done, and apply that same skepticism to Hovind and young earth 'science' and your own beliefs. At least then you might be able to demonstrate some intellectual integrity. You still refer to 'human' knowledge and reasoning pejoratively which suggests you maybe haven't quite escaped the Watchtower mode of thinking yet. And I apologize for the patronising tone but, like I said, I was frustrated.