Let's not feed the troll
Probably good advice. He's still a f**kwit though.
konceptual99
JoinedPosts by konceptual99
-
138
How many of you actually KNOW the bible OR God???
by Mark Zyche insince jws are sooooooo terrible and full of lies.
what the heck do you think about fat santa, and and days later the celebration of janus?.
since you seem to be so good at looking at the "lies of the watchtower" what do you people think of your lives now, religiously speaking?
-
-
konceptual99
-
138
How many of you actually KNOW the bible OR God???
by Mark Zyche insince jws are sooooooo terrible and full of lies.
what the heck do you think about fat santa, and and days later the celebration of janus?.
since you seem to be so good at looking at the "lies of the watchtower" what do you people think of your lives now, religiously speaking?
-
-
konceptual99
WHY ARE THESE MEN UNWILLING TO TALK DIRECTLY TO ME ON ANY THAT I SAY!?!!?
Er... Cofty did and your case closed response just confirmed you are are a f**kwit.
If you want to complain that's an ad hominem attack then I don't care since you are not prepared to have a proper discussion on any of your poorly presented arguments.
-
78
January jw-tv broadcast with Lett
by bohm inlett is back with a vengance!.
* the last money-begging effort increased donations by 15% for two months; a letter by a 13 year old who donated is read out loud.
* since last may "so many good things have happened".
-
-
konceptual99
thousands and thousands of posts AGAINST "the organization" but none quoting the bible .
Perhaps the GB could set the lead and provide quotes from the Bible to explain the overlapping generation doctrine?
All I keep seeing is charts.
-
49
Steven Lett asks for money again
by Gorbatchov inthe 2016 january tv.jw.org broadcasting has a clear message: jw.org needs more money!.
the 2 months of donation increase is not enough: the thousands of projects are not a 2 month project.. so: thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you (heh heh heh) and send us more!
personal conclusion: if i had any doubts that the society is sincere, this openly money grabbing has made my perception complete.
-
-
konceptual99
Of course Lett has the right to have a watch and rings. They can be any price if he's paid for them or someone has gifted them to him.
The point is about appearance.
The GB live in an ivory tower where their needs are taken care of by others. They supposedly live on the same stipend as the rest of the Bethel family.
With that in mind, it's at the very least, in poor taste to appear on a worldwide broadcast going out to many millions of people, many living in very poor circumstances, wearing the trappings of material success and repeatedly beg for contributions.
People can be pragmatic about the first class world wide travel, luxury accommodation, exclusive trips provided by wealthy brothers and so on. Most of this people do not see first hand. It really starts to grate and breed resentment when it's pushed in peoples' faces over JWB whilst begging for more greenbacks over and over again.
The evidence for watches being expensive models has been presented many times here and elsewhere.
-
24
2016-01-01 BOE Re: 2016 Memorial and Special Talk
by wifibandit inpdf.
thank you atlantis / wtunderground !.
-
-
konceptual99
Letters and outlines like these are made available to elders via the protected areas of jw.org.
There are some who are awake to TTATT but still serve as elders and have access.
There was a brother in Bethel who leaked some more restricted content but I think he got discovered.
There are enough Bethelites with big mouths to enable news to leak out however.
-
78
January jw-tv broadcast with Lett
by bohm inlett is back with a vengance!.
* the last money-begging effort increased donations by 15% for two months; a letter by a 13 year old who donated is read out loud.
* since last may "so many good things have happened".
-
-
konceptual99
The more they let that moron front up the WTS on video, the better. The only one who is more damaging to the WTS when he opens his stupid gob is Morris.
-
15
A Linguistic Argument for the Existence of God
by konceptual99 inhttp://www.etsjets.org/files/jets-pdfs/58/58-4/jets_58-4_771-86_baumgardner&lyon.pdf.
my favourite "logical" progression.... we demonstrated that because meaning is non-material, linguistic expressions likewise must be non-material.
we further showed that there is no indication that matter can generate non-material meaning-bearing linguistic expressions.
-
-
konceptual99
My apologies if I have misunderstood.
I think you are playing Devil's advocate?No problem!
I think waking up to the reality of how sound the argument for evolution really is, trumps pretty much every other aspect of my mental exit from da troof.
-
15
A Linguistic Argument for the Existence of God
by konceptual99 inhttp://www.etsjets.org/files/jets-pdfs/58/58-4/jets_58-4_771-86_baumgardner&lyon.pdf.
my favourite "logical" progression.... we demonstrated that because meaning is non-material, linguistic expressions likewise must be non-material.
we further showed that there is no indication that matter can generate non-material meaning-bearing linguistic expressions.
-
-
konceptual99
Given it is such a useful and ubiquitous metaphor, this made me think about how one could successfully explain exactly why the genetic code containing within DNA should not be considered as "information", even less a language.It is a common misunderstanding that DNA is written in some sort of language or that it contains "information".
It doesn't.
These things are simply metaphors.
The problem is that it is a very apt metaphor and every textbook and web article about genetics will refer to language and/or information.
This provides a good starting point...
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html -
15
A Linguistic Argument for the Existence of God
by konceptual99 inhttp://www.etsjets.org/files/jets-pdfs/58/58-4/jets_58-4_771-86_baumgardner&lyon.pdf.
my favourite "logical" progression.... we demonstrated that because meaning is non-material, linguistic expressions likewise must be non-material.
we further showed that there is no indication that matter can generate non-material meaning-bearing linguistic expressions.
-
-
konceptual99
Oh yes there is ;-)
Meaning is encoded by genetic language in the DNA of every living organism in the same manner in which meaning is encoded by any other type of language. Since meaning is abstract and non-material, the meaning conveyed by genetic language, as with any other language, likewise is abstract and non-material. One of the most striking contrasts between genetic language and languages utilized by humans is the complexity of the encoding. Because each DNA letter, or nucleotide, commonly is utilized simultaneously by several overlapping but distinct messages, the amount of meaning or specification conveyed per letter far exceeds that of human languages.
....
Like other examples of formal language, the linguistic elements in DNA responsible for describing the proteins from which these machines are built also involves assignment of meaning to words to form a vocabulary and rules for joining the words together to form more complex linguistic expressions.
Not only that Cofty, but they use the example of a molecular rotary machine to kick any argument against Creation out of the ball park...
One example of these nano-machines is ATP synthase (see Figure 2). ATP synthase is a rotary machine found in all organisms, from bacteria to humans, and plays a crucial role in cellular metabolism. This machine is built from approximately a dozen different proteins and consists of about 90,000 atoms. The details for its astonishing structure, to the level of each individual atom, are specified linguistically in the organism’s DNA. It is the power of linguistic encoding of meaning that makes such detailed specification possible.
Case closed......
.....
....
Unless you can read a book... or use Google....
-
15
A Linguistic Argument for the Existence of God
by konceptual99 inhttp://www.etsjets.org/files/jets-pdfs/58/58-4/jets_58-4_771-86_baumgardner&lyon.pdf.
my favourite "logical" progression.... we demonstrated that because meaning is non-material, linguistic expressions likewise must be non-material.
we further showed that there is no indication that matter can generate non-material meaning-bearing linguistic expressions.
-
-
konceptual99
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/58/58-4/JETS_58-4_771-86_Baumgardner&Lyon.pdf
My favourite "logical" progression...
We demonstrated that because meaning is non-material, linguistic expressions likewise must be non-material. We further showed that there is no indication that matter can generate non-material meaning-bearing linguistic expressions. Why should we expect that even to be possible, given that matter and meaning are in separate ontological realms? On the other hand, as humans we are immersed in language realities. We associate our own use of language with our own mental faculties. It seems indisputable that the source of our thoughts and other language expressions is our mind. For lack of any other plausible explanation for linguistic phenomena other than a mind like our own, the linguistic coding observed in the DNA of every living organism points to a mind with the capabilities that most people associate with the term God.
I really hope that Cofty has some time to rip into this one....