ros

Joined

• started 20 topics
• posted 321 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by ros

• 
  37

  The secret of SUE revealed

  by Sue in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ok, now i reveal the truth about sue.

  1/ i am a woman.. 2/ i am german.

  3/ i am disfellowshipped.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  Sue:
  Why was your husband posting as you?
  (In the U.S. we had a song about a "Boy Named Sue" :-)

  Excellent suscinct post btw, Alan. Said a lot.
• 
  42

  disfellowshipped elders reinstated

  by jnc in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  would appreciate any info or experiences on this subject.... a brother is disfellowshipped, 2 years later reinstated, five years later disfellowshipped again, immorality, 4 years later reinstated, becomes elder, 8 years later runs off with pioneer 16 yr old , divorces wife , dumps girl, remarrys 5 years later, appointed elder again, i believe due to the buddy system, how many times do'es a person have to be disfellowshipped before they say no to any priveledges let alone being an elder again ?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  Sue:
  

  If it's really true it is unbelievable.

  It happened a few times in my JW relatives.

  Ros
  "A religion that teaches lies cannot be true"--The Watchtower, 12/1/91 pg. 7
• 
  108

  What drives exJWs to atheism?

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a significant number of former jehovah's witnesses come out of the watchtower still believing the bible and considering themselves christians.

  most coming out are in a serious state of bewilderment, and they look intently and sincerely for something to fill the huge void of lost religion, lost family and friends, and lost fellowship.

  they seek some viable spiritual association with others of like mind while at the same time having become very wary of any organized religion.. what is it that eventually draws so many of us (not me) to agnosticism or atheism?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  JanH:
  I've thought of an example that will hopefully demonstrate to you that you do not understand reductio ad absurdum, even for what it can prove. You problem is that you are trying to say that if two of the premises conflict then the initial assertion cannot be true. Wrong. One or more of the premises have to conflict with the initial assertion. Example:

  1. Dogs exist.
  2. All dogs are brown.
  3. Fido is a dog.
  4. Fido is black.
  ======================
  Conclusion: Either All dogs are not brown or Fido is not a dog. The a conflict between 2 and 4 do not conclude 1 is false.
  Now if a known premise is stated that all dogs have died of rabis, THEN you have a premise that conflicts with the initial assertion and disproves it. There was no such premise in your example of "God exists."

  If you can't see that, I give up and let the readers judge for themselves.
• 
  119

  Apostates

  by Sue in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i turned to this website looking for encouragement.. i thought it was a genuine jw chat site.. what do i find?.

  most who write here, don't belive in the jw teachings.. most are complainers and apostate.. does any one know were i can find a genuine jw site?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  Hello, Sue:
  Maybe I shouldn't be surprised that you are still here, but I compliment you. It shows you're not afraid of your own mind.
  Remember, we all once were where you are.
• 
  108

  What drives exJWs to atheism?

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a significant number of former jehovah's witnesses come out of the watchtower still believing the bible and considering themselves christians.

  most coming out are in a serious state of bewilderment, and they look intently and sincerely for something to fill the huge void of lost religion, lost family and friends, and lost fellowship.

  they seek some viable spiritual association with others of like mind while at the same time having become very wary of any organized religion.. what is it that eventually draws so many of us (not me) to agnosticism or atheism?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  Hey, thanks, Scorpian.
  I'm still learning the features of this board.
• 
  42

  disfellowshipped elders reinstated

  by jnc in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  would appreciate any info or experiences on this subject.... a brother is disfellowshipped, 2 years later reinstated, five years later disfellowshipped again, immorality, 4 years later reinstated, becomes elder, 8 years later runs off with pioneer 16 yr old , divorces wife , dumps girl, remarrys 5 years later, appointed elder again, i believe due to the buddy system, how many times do'es a person have to be disfellowshipped before they say no to any priveledges let alone being an elder again ?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  Makes Catholic confession seem like child's play, doesn't it?

  Ros
  "A religion that teaches lies cannot be true"--The Watchtower, 12/1/91 pg. 7
• 
  108

  What drives exJWs to atheism?

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a significant number of former jehovah's witnesses come out of the watchtower still believing the bible and considering themselves christians.

  most coming out are in a serious state of bewilderment, and they look intently and sincerely for something to fill the huge void of lost religion, lost family and friends, and lost fellowship.

  they seek some viable spiritual association with others of like mind while at the same time having become very wary of any organized religion.. what is it that eventually draws so many of us (not me) to agnosticism or atheism?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  JanH:

  Pointing out the absurdity of these logical arguments (which by the way is not MINE) only illustrates my point!
  Yoohoo, anyone in there?
  Its my contention that this form of logic CANNOT be employed to prove OR DISPROVE God. Its too bad you can't see the same irrationale using it to prove your point. I AGREE YOU CAN'T USE IT TO PROVE GOD!
  They probably don't call it absurdia for nothing.

  (PS: Try to save people's time by making sure url references do not start at the beginning of a new line. Thank you!)

  Okay, but why? What's the problem with starting a new line?
• 
  108

  What drives exJWs to atheism?

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a significant number of former jehovah's witnesses come out of the watchtower still believing the bible and considering themselves christians.

  most coming out are in a serious state of bewilderment, and they look intently and sincerely for something to fill the huge void of lost religion, lost family and friends, and lost fellowship.

  they seek some viable spiritual association with others of like mind while at the same time having become very wary of any organized religion.. what is it that eventually draws so many of us (not me) to agnosticism or atheism?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  Jan, you're wrong.

  There are lots of analyses out there about reductio ad absurdam, but here's one of the more simple:

  http://www-philosophy.ucdavis.edu/cumphi1/Ontological%20Argument.html
• 
  122

  Suzi Mayhem Outdoes John Cleese

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a critique of suzi mayhem's theory of god .

  i thought, when suzi first posted this, that it was a joke something like john cleese's classic "brontosaurus theory" skit in a monty python episode.

  but mr. "dark clouds" has sort of asked me to critique it as if it were a serious theory, so here goes.. i'll address this to suzi, but suzi dear, don't take this too seriously.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  Hi, Alan:
  Thanks. Most of the stuff was way over my right-brain head, but I think I understand an important point about the equation that I have always misunderstood. I took "speed of light" to mean mass traveling at a speed the square of light-speed is energy. What you are saying is that mass is not traveling that speed; rather, the speed of light is just the numerical value that is squared. Makes a big difference. Thanks.

  Ros
• 
  108

  What drives exJWs to atheism?

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a significant number of former jehovah's witnesses come out of the watchtower still believing the bible and considering themselves christians.

  most coming out are in a serious state of bewilderment, and they look intently and sincerely for something to fill the huge void of lost religion, lost family and friends, and lost fellowship.

  they seek some viable spiritual association with others of like mind while at the same time having become very wary of any organized religion.. what is it that eventually draws so many of us (not me) to agnosticism or atheism?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  JanH:

  What I did was to use reductio ad absurdum to disprove an idea. You demonstrate above you don't even recognize this technique.

  SURE Jan. Probably because your conclusion was not the antethesis of your initial assertion. Namely, point 5 would be "God does not exist."
  And speaking of ”quoting”, I suppose you never saw something like this site:
  http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~kim/Bevis.html

  Almost EXACTLY like your example, Jan, . . .Hmmm ;)
  with one little difference I just cannot resist pointing out:
  The arguments are in the order I said they were supposed to be.

  This application of reductio ad absurdum to disprove God makes as much sense as Anselm's use of it to prove God does exist. NOT. And there are plenty of viable critiques of this technique by logicians. (You did know that didn't you?)

  Really, Jan, all you have to do is start out with a statement that is the opposite of what you want to prove, throw in a premise that contradicts the statement, and thereby conclude that the opposite is true.
  I can do the same with the antethesis of your argument, i.e., by starting out with the assertion that "God does not exist":

  1. God does not exist.
  2. God made nothing.
  3. Nothing does not exist.
  4. Something exists.
  ==========================
  5. God exists.

  Or.

  1. God does not exist.
  2. God made nothing.
  3. God made nothing that is good.
  4. There are things that are good.
  =======================
  5. God exists.

  How anybody can think this kind of logic proves or disproves God is beyond me. I think the technique can be applied for proof of some simple things, but not the existence of God.
  But even so, your example (the same being the one at the above link) has a conspicuous flaw even for reductio ad absurdum:
  Your contradictory premise has to contradict the initial assertion you are trying to disprove, not one of the following assertions. You have simply proved that you do not understand the technique. In the case of your example, you have not proved that God does not exist, but (according to the logic technique) provided a contradictory statement to disprove the assertion that “Everything God made was good”. In other words, conclude that “God made evil”.

  Sorry, folks, I said I wouldn't, but I couldn't resist.