What We Thought

[nPeace]

No, I didn't say that. I asked you what absolute truths does religion investigate and how does it do so.

You did ask... "What realities/absolute truths do religious people use data and analyses to investigate?"
I did answer that, I believe.
For example, "God does not lie. Everything he says does and will come true."
What the Bible says, and what we see occur historically, demonstrates the truthfulness of those statements.

Well, this is rather shocking. You're actually debating me on whether revelations from gods are an aspect of religion. Okay then....are you aware of a book in the Bible titled "Revelation"? Do you believe prophecies in the Bible are revelations from God?

You claimed... "Religion OTOH arrives at "absolute truths" as you describe...via statements (revelations)"
I asked you to demonstrate that, and you think saying that God gives revelations in the Bible, means that religion arrives at "absolute truths" as via statements (revelations)?
Classic.

Because the data I've looked at supports it.

Specifically, what data is that?

Again, what exactly is your point?

That you don't have a valid point. So what is your point?

Do you believe the earth orbits the sun? If so, how did you reach that conclusion?

I don't believe or not believe that.
I have never seen it., but I do not see any reason to challenge that idea. It's not an idea that scientists challenge. Is it?
Earth Orbits the Sun, or Not? Why Coordinates Can’t Be Relevant to the Question
If it's something that can be, and has been observed, then I have no reason to not accept it. Has it?
One way or other, it doesn't affect anything. Gravity does though.

Actually, consensus is important in science. Reaching consensus allows us to move forward without having to reestablish everything over and over and over again.

You say... and maybe some scientists agree with you. Maybe some scientists disagree. Actually, some do.
Those who do, are not hindered in their work.

For example, in my work we form teams of scientists that meet, review data and analyses, discuss it, and if all goes well we reach consensus on what it means and use that to move on to the next steps. If we didn't do that, every time we met we'd have to start all over at the basics and we'd never accomplish anything.

If it works for your team... That's your team.

I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote.

Asking a question means you got something? Oh. I didn't know. I'll remember not to ask next time.

LOL....Lee Strobel, well-known Christian apologist (and a rather dishonest one at that) is your example of a non-religious evolution denier?

Just as I thought.

And I wasn't aware that Flew was an evolution denier.

Me neither.
Although he might as well have.

Well let's take a look, shall we?

In my previous post, I stated that Deeje said:

"if a Jehovah's Witness agreed with scientists on universal common ancestry, human/primate common ancestry, and no global flood, they would be confronted by folks in the church and if the person didn't recant those things, they would be excommunicated and shunned by other Jehovah's Witnesses.​

IOW, if a Jehovah's Witness were to become an "evolutionist", they would be subjected to emotional and social punishment, potentially pretty severe (Dejee said they would be treated like a "rotten piece of fruit" who was "spreading poison")."​

Now, let's compare that to what Deeje said (about a JW who becomes an "evolutionist"):

"It is clear that once you learn "the truth"....you can't "unlearn" it. And since we can see that no one else teaches it, who would we turn to?...and why would we receive 'defectors' back into our ranks only to have them spread their poison. Let them commiserate with each other....that is all they can do apparently. They have nowhere to go. Like a ripe piece of fruit, they can't go back to being 'green'....they just go rotten.

If I became a defector, and a slanderer I would expect and deserve the same treatment. "​

I await your apology.

I think you know you are breaking forum rules by posting a user's comments without permission. Do you care?
Glancing at it, I see no comparrison, but I don't want to encourage rule breaking, so I didn't take the time to break it down.
It's not the same thing.

Uh.....

How to Treat a Disfellowshipped Person | God’s Love (jw.org)

"We do not have spiritual or social fellowship with disfellowshipped ones. The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 25, stated: “A simple ‘Hello’ to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?”

Is strict avoidance really necessary? Yes, for several reasons. "​

So who's not telling the truth, you or jw.org?

"Emotional and social punishment" sounds like an extremely opinionated and biased interpretation of that quote.
I can only think of one reason you would describe that in such terms, and that reason does not involve an honest description.

It's amazing how the person engaging in the above sort of behavior has the gall to accuse others of twisting things.

Well if it's not twisting, what do we call it? It certainly isn't accurately describing things.

Question.
How do you tell the difference between an intermediate or transitional fossil, and a non intermediate or non transitional fossil?

 

[Jose Fly]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "by what method(s)"?

Huh...you don't know what the word "method" means. Okay then...

You claimed that religious folks indirectly investigate that the dead are remembered by God. I'm asking what method they use to do that. By "method", I mean processes, techniques, and procedures. IOW, how specifically do the religious investigate that the dead are remembered by God?

So?
What does "Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see" mean?
If it means, "Well we don't really see them, and we cannot be sure we see them."
Fine. I'll accept that they don't think Macroevolution occurred.

LOL...you're all over the place.

You claimed the Berkely Evolution 101 website says that evolution at all levels is absolute truth. Yet you cannot point to where on that site they say that. IOW, you were wrong.

Good question. Can you?

Nope, and it looks like you don't have any idea either. Therefore, in this context "designed" is meaningless.

Uh... That somthing is true.... a fact.... Uh

Like the earth is spherical, and revolves around the sun... and affected by gravity.

But how do you know those things to be absolute truth? Did you investigate them yourself?

You did ask... "What realities/absolute truths do religious people use data and analyses to investigate?"
I did answer that, I believe.
For example, "God does not lie. Everything he says does and will come true."
What the Bible says, and what we see occur historically, demonstrates the truthfulness of those statements.

Again, what methods (processes, techniques, procedures) do religious folks use to investigate "God does not lie"?

You claimed... "Religion OTOH arrives at "absolute truths" as you describe...via statements (revelations)"
I asked you to demonstrate that, and you think saying that God gives revelations in the Bible, means that religion arrives at "absolute truths" as via statements (revelations)?

So let's clear this up. Are you actually arguing that revelations given by God in the Bible are not absolute truths?

Specifically, what data is that?

Sorry, I've zero interest in trying to explain any science to you. I've tried that before and you accused me of of "being serpent like", so I'm not about to do it again.

I don't believe or not believe that.
I have never seen it., but I do not see any reason to challenge that idea. It's not an idea that scientists challenge. Is it?
Earth Orbits the Sun, or Not? Why Coordinates Can’t Be Relevant to the Question
If it's something that can be, and has been observed, then I have no reason to not accept it. Has it?
One way or other, it doesn't affect anything. Gravity does though.

LOL....that's a hilarious non-answer to what normally is a straightforward question. But I'll let the fact that you don't believe anything one way or the other about whether the earth orbits the sun serve as testimony to the absurdity of your position.

You say... and maybe some scientists agree with you. Maybe some scientists disagree. Actually, some do.
Those who do, are not hindered in their work.

Well if you can provide an example of scientists who reestablish every fundamental thing every day, that would help. Do cartographers reestablish that the earth is a sphere every day? Do cosmologists reestablish that the earth orbits the sun every day?

Or did they reach consensus on those things a long time ago and have moved on?

I think you know you are breaking forum rules by posting a user's comments without permission. Do you care?
Glancing at it, I see no comparrison, but I don't want to encourage rule breaking, so I didn't take the time to break it down.
It's not the same thing.

Well now that's just fundamentally dishonest of you, isn't it? You accuse me of twisting Dejee's words, so to defend myself I show where she posted exactly what I described, and your response is to say it's against forum rules to quote her (and then re-accuse me)?

The fact is, you are wrong. Dejee did indeed say that a Jehovah's Witness who became an "evolutionist" would be treated like a rotten piece of fruit and someone spreading poison. It's right there in her own words.

"Emotional and social punishment" sounds like an extremely opinionated and biased interpretation of that quote.

LOL...well what do you think shunning is? A reward?

The fact is, you are wrong. Jehovah's Witnesses do inflict emotional and social punishment on people, in the form of shunning.

Question.
How do you tell the difference between an intermediate or transitional fossil, and a non intermediate or non transitional fossil?

To reiterate, I'm not inclined to try and explain science to you again. The last time I did you accused me of being "serpent like", so no thanks.

 

[nPeace]

Huh...you don't know what the word "method" means. Okay then...

You claimed that religious folks indirectly investigate that the dead are remembered by God. I'm asking what method they use to do that. By "method", I mean processes, techniques, and procedures. IOW, how specifically do the religious investigate that the dead are remembered by God?

Yeah. You asked, but I see you just want to ask and not answer, so I don't see why you think that's okay.

LOL...you're all over the place.

You claimed the Berkely Evolution 101 website says that evolution at all levels is absolute truth. Yet you cannot point to where on that site they say that. IOW, you were wrong.

I did. You just pretend you don't see it.

Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale — what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life

Also, here. ...and here. ..and here.
However, if I am wrong, I'm good with that.

Nope, and it looks like you don't have any idea either. Therefore, in this context "designed" is meaningless.

Nope?

Yet people can tell the difference in the most basic designed objects.
Wow. I'm just shocked beyond words... and no, don't put me in your sinking boat. I can tell the difference, and have done so on numerous threads on this forum.
Sadly, most opponents were like you - reluctant to admit the obvious.

But how do you know those things to be absolute truth? Did you investigate them yourself?

....

Again, what methods (processes, techniques, procedures) do religious folks use to investigate "God does not lie"?

....

So let's clear this up. Are you actually arguing that revelations given by God in the Bible are not absolute truths?

....

Sorry, I've zero interest in trying to explain any science to you. I've tried that before and you accused me of of "being serpent like", so I'm not about to do it again.

Well. That's the reason for my ....
I realize, our 'conversation' is over, from this post.

LOL....that's a hilarious non-answer to what normally is a straightforward question. But I'll let the fact that you don't believe anything one way or the other about whether the earth orbits the sun serve as testimony to the absurdity of your position.

Well if you can provide an example of scientists who reestablish every fundamental thing every day, that would help. Do cartographers reestablish that the earth is a sphere every day? Do cosmologists reestablish that the earth orbits the sun every day?

Or did they reach consensus on those things a long time ago and have moved on?

Well now that's just fundamentally dishonest of you, isn't it? You accuse me of twisting Dejee's words, so to defend myself I show where she posted exactly what I described, and your response is to say it's against forum rules to quote her (and then re-accuse me)?

The fact is, you are wrong. Dejee did indeed say that a Jehovah's Witness who became an "evolutionist" would be treated like a rotten piece of fruit and someone spreading poison. It's right there in her own words.

LOL...well what do you think shunning is? A reward?

The fact is, you are wrong. Jehovah's Witnesses do inflict emotional and social punishment on people, in the form of shunning.

To reiterate, I'm not inclined to try and explain science to you again. The last time I did you accused me of being "serpent like", so no thanks.

Okay. I am glad you won't be asking me any more question, and expecting to get an answer
Maybe to answer that, question, would reveal if you were indeed being honest when you said you cannot tell the difference between a designed object, and a non-designed object.
Enjoy your day.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yeah. You asked, but I see you just want to ask and not answer, so I don't see why you think that's okay.

Your dodge is noted.

I did. You just pretend you don't see it.

Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale — what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life

Also, here. ...and here. ..and here.

Utterly and truly bizarre. None of those pages say anything is "absolute truth", yet for some unknown reason you keep acting like they do.

However, if I am wrong, I'm good with that.

I hope so, because you're definitely wrong.

Nope?

Yet people can tell the difference in the most basic designed objects.
Wow. I'm just shocked beyond words... and no, don't put me in your sinking boat. I can tell the difference, and have done so on numerous threads on this forum.
Sadly, most opponents were like you - reluctant to admit the obvious.

Okay, if you can differentiate between "designed" and "undesigned" things in the biological realm, point to something from biology that you've determined to have been "designed" and something you've determined to be "undesigned" and describe how you reached those conclusions.

Well. That's the reason for my ....
I realize, our 'conversation' is over, from this post.


Okay. I am glad you won't be asking me any more question, and expecting to get an answer
Maybe to answer that, question, would reveal if you were indeed being honest when you said you cannot tell the difference between a designed object, and a non-designed object.
Enjoy your day.

I wondered how long it would take for you to bail. I guess it was just a matter of time before you made false accusations against me, and once your dishonest behavior was exposed, run away.

I don't know what it is with creationists and how y'all like to accuse people of things but feel no obligation at all to back up those accusations, but it sure doesn't reflect well on you. If I did that to you, I'm sure you'd squeal like a stuck pig.

Funny too how you tried to argue that Jehovah's Witnesses don't engage in social and emotional punishment, but as soon as I show where they most certainly do (shunning) according to your own websites, you run away. I guess you can't even defend your own church's practices.

Oh well....it's not like I haven't seen this sort of thing from creationists before.

 

[nPeace]

Your dodge is noted.


Utterly and truly bizarre. None of those pages say anything is "absolute truth", yet for some unknown reason you keep acting like they do.


I hope so, because you're definitely wrong.


Okay, if you can differentiate between "designed" and "undesigned" things in the biological realm, point to something from biology that you've determined to have been "designed" and something you've determined to be "undesigned" and describe how you reached those conclusions.


I wondered how long it would take for you to bail. I guess it was just a matter of time before you made false accusations against me, and once your dishonest behavior was exposed, run away.

I don't know what it is with creationists and how y'all like to accuse people of things but feel no obligation at all to back up those accusations, but it sure doesn't reflect well on you. If I did that to you, I'm sure you'd squeal like a stuck pig.

Funny too how you tried to argue that Jehovah's Witnesses don't engage in social and emotional punishment, but as soon as I show where they most certainly do (shunning) according to your own websites, you run away. I guess you can't even defend your own church's practices.

Oh well....it's not like I haven't seen this sort of thing from creationists before.

My dishonest behavior? Why am I not surprised that you would try to pin your behavior on me... or "Creationists", for that matter.
Oh well... you are an atheist, so what's new.
It's expected.

Edit.
@Jose Fly I wonder why you feel you have the right to not discuss something with me, but I don't have that right.
Do atheists think they are gods? Rhetorical question.

 

[Jose Fly]

My dishonest behavior?

Yes! You accused me of twisting Dejee's words, but when I showed she said exactly what I claimed, rather than apologize for your false accusation you complained that I wasn't supposed to quote her.

You said the Jehovah's Witnesses don't subject people to emotional and social punishment, but when I showed where they do by quoting directly from their own website, you accused me of being dishonest.

What's your explanation for that?

Why am I not surprised that you would try to pin your behavior on me.

And now you're just doing it again. Why?

Oh well... you are an atheist, so what's new.
It's expected.

First, as I've told you many times, I'm not an atheist. Second, here you go again, making more false accusations against me. Why?

Edit.
@Jose Fly I wonder why you feel you have the right to not discuss something with me, but I don't have that right.
Do atheists think they are gods? Rhetorical question.

That makes no sense.

 

[nPeace]

Yes! You accused me of twisting Dejee's words, but when I showed she said exactly what I claimed, rather than apologize for your false accusation you complained that I wasn't supposed to quote her.

You said the Jehovah's Witnesses don't subject people to emotional and social punishment, but when I showed where they do by quoting directly from their own website, you accused me of being dishonest.

What's your explanation for that?.

What don't you understand about "an extremely opinionated and biased interpretation"?
Your understanding and view on the subject is twisted... warped... wrong.... Did I miss anything?
You are wrong.

The fact that you insist that you are right, even though it is pointed out to you that you are not... and you can't see it, shows the level of your thinking regarding your self.
I never want to feel I am at that level.

 

[Jose Fly]

What don't you understand about "an extremely opinionated and biased interpretation"?

That's what you accused me of, but when I showed how I accurately quoted Dejee you complained that I wasn't supposed to quote her. You failed to show any sort of bias on my part. Likewise, when I showed how Jehovah's Witnesses do indeed subject people to emotional and social punishment (shunning), you accused me of of being biased, but failed to show how that was so.

So basically it seems like you feel you should be allowed to accuse folks like me of things, without any obligation at all on your part to back them up. IOW, you think you should be allowed to accuse me of robbing banks, and when I ask you to back up that accusation, you're under no obligation to do so.

Your understanding and view on the subject is twisted... warped... wrong.... Did I miss anything?
You are wrong.

And now you're just repeating the same behavior. Apparently I'm twisted, warped, and wrong simply because you say so, and you have no moral obligation to back those accusations up at all.

The fact that you insist that you are right, even though it is pointed out to you that you are not... and you can't see it, shows the level of your thinking regarding your self.
I never want to feel I am at that level.

Same thing.

I've no idea why you do this sort of thing. It truly is something to behold.

 

[nPeace]

That's what you accused me of, but when I showed how I accurately quoted Dejee you complained that I wasn't supposed to quote her. You failed to show any sort of bias on my part. Likewise, when I showed how Jehovah's Witnesses do indeed subject people to emotional and social punishment (shunning), you accused me of of being biased, but failed to show how that was so.

So basically it seems like you feel you should be allowed to accuse folks like me of things, without any obligation at all on your part to back them up. IOW, you think you should be allowed to accuse me of robbing banks, and when I ask you to back up that accusation, you're under no obligation to do so.


And now you're just repeating the same behavior. Apparently I'm twisted, warped, and wrong simply because you say so, and you have no moral obligation to back those accusations up at all.


Same thing.

I've no idea why you do this sort of thing. It truly is something to behold.

You are subjecting me to emotional punishment. Agreed?

 

[Jose Fly]

You are subjecting me to emotional punishment. Agreed?

No, I don't agree at all.

 

[nPeace]

No, I don't agree at all.

So why do you insist I must agree with you?

 

[Jose Fly]

So why do you insist I must agree with you?

Hold on there...are you going to show where and how I did the things you accused me of in your earlier posts?

 

[nPeace]

Hold on there...are you going to show where and how I did the things you accused me of in your earlier posts?

Changing the subject, are you.

 

[Jose Fly]

Changing the subject, are you.

No, that was the subject of my last post to you before you asked if I insist you must agree with me.

Address that, and then I'll address your subsequent questions.

 

[nPeace]

No, that was the subject of my last post to you before you asked if I insist you must agree with me.

Address that, and then I'll address your subsequent questions.

Why repeat myself?
Nothing has changed.
You are wrong. You have an extremely opinionated and biased interpretation of the quote... comments.... etc.
I do not agree with your interpretation.
You insist I must... because you said it.
You still don't get it?
Your brain must still be working... surely.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why repeat myself?
Nothing has changed.
You are wrong. You have an extremely opinionated and biased interpretation of the quote... comments.... etc.
I do not agree with your interpretation.
You insist I must... because you said it.
You still don't get it?
Your brain must still be working... surely.

Answer one question please.....do you feel any obligation at all to back up the accusations you made against me?

 

[nPeace]

Answer one question please.....do you feel any obligation at all to back up the accusations you made against me?

What accusations?

 

[Jose Fly]

What accusations?

That I twisted Deeje's words, that I twisted and warped the Jehovah's Witnesses' shunning policy, that I tried to pin my behavior on you, and that I am subjecting you to emotional punishment.

Do you feel any obligation to back up those accusations?

 

[nPeace]

That I twisted Deeje's words, that I twisted and warped the Jehovah's Witnesses' shunning policy, that I tried to pin my behavior on you, and that I am subjecting you to emotional punishment.

Do you feel any obligation to back up those accusations?

1) You broke rule #1 Not even 4 or later. #1 Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them...

2) Deeje did not say anyone is subjected to emotional and social punishment. Nor did the JWs website, or any of their material.

• You insisted I show you where the Berkely Evolution 101 website says that evolution at all levels is absolute truth, but did not accept that a direct quote was not necessary, to conclude that, but you think it okay to insist you don't need a direct quote from Deeje, or JWs, to conclude that they are guilty of doing what you claim they do. Isn't that both hypocritical and dishonest?
• If someone disciplines their child, by grounding, or taking away privileges, a person may claim that is subjecting the child to emotional punishment. That's their interpretation. It not correct.
• If someone stops their child from associating with certain people, a person reasoning that they have subjected their child to social punishment, has an extremely warped view of social punishment. The child's social life has not ceased. He or she has not been incarcerated in an isolated prison on Alcatraz.

3) You claimed I made false accusations against you, and you exposed my dishonest behavior. What dishonest behavior? I spoke the truth. Did you? Look again.... but then again, if you looked a billion times in a million years, you won't see Jose Fly being dishonest. The world would stop spinning first.

4) The "You are subjecting me to emotional punishment" made my point. It was a kind of object lesson, and I think you got the point. Hence the back-peddling. If you didn't get it, I must be stone cold dead.

My accusations were dead on... as they usually are... in your case, especially.

 

[Jose Fly]

Deeje did not say anyone is subjected to emotional and social punishment.

I never said she did. Here is what I said about Deeje (regarding a JW who became an "evolutionist"): "Dejee said they would be treated like a "rotten piece of fruit" who was "spreading poison""

Here is what she said about such a person: "why would we receive 'defectors' back into our ranks only to have them spread their poison... Like a ripe piece of fruit, they can't go back to being 'green'....they just go rotten".

I won't speculate on possible reasons for your error, but it's obvious that I accurately represented Deeje's words.

Nor did the JWs website, or any of their material.

Jehovah's Witnesses, disfellowshipping and shunning, including family members (jwfacts.com)

"A disfellowshipped person is to be shunned by family and friends. Unless they are reinstated, this punishment is for the remainder of their life, causing tremendous emotional suffering."​

I won't speculate on the possible reasons for your error, but it's obvious that Jehovah's Witnesses' own material describes shunning as a punishment that causes emotional suffering.

You insisted I show you where the Berkely Evolution 101 website says that evolution at all levels is absolute truth, but did not accept that a direct quote was not necessary, to conclude that, but you think it okay to insist you don't need a direct quote from Deeje, or JWs, to conclude that they are guilty of doing what you claim they do. Isn't that both hypocritical and dishonest?

As demonstrated above, I accurately represented Deeje's words and my description of disfellowshipping and shunning is in line with the Jehovah's Witnesses' description.

I won't speculate on the possible reasons for your errors.

You claimed I made false accusations against you, and you exposed my dishonest behavior. What dishonest behavior? I spoke the truth.

You did not speak the truth. Despite your false accusations, I accurately represented Deeje's words and my description of disfellowshipping and shunning is in line with the Jehovah's Witnesses' description.

The "You are subjecting me to emotional punishment" made my point. It was a kind of object lesson, and I think you got the point. Hence the back-peddling. If you didn't get it, I must be stone cold dead.

You're not making sense.

My accusations were dead on... as they usually are... in your case, especially.

That's the great thing about message boards....it's very easy to check back and see who said what. And in this case, the record is extremely clear; you are very, very wrong.

That leaves only two questions: 1) why you made such basic errors, and 2) if you are honest enough to admit your mistakes and apologize for making false accusations.

I won't speculate on #1 here, and your next post will answer #2.