Email exchange with Jehovah's Witness
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-07-2013, 05:11 AM (This post was last modified: 18-07-2013 05:37 AM by 6.9 Agnostic.)
Information Email exchange with Jehovah's Witness
Hi everyone, just a quick little background. On Saturday morning, I was approached by a couple of men offering me the 'truth', I was in a bit of a hurry to get somewhere, and I replied, "I already know the truth, there is almost certainly no god". I can't recall the exact (although brief) discussion that followed, but I asked what their religion was, and they told me "Christian", then I asked for their opinion on homosexuals, and their response was "it's up to each individual", so I asked "why does your bible say (then I quoted Lev. 20:13) If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed and abomination; the shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. Amazingly, they didn't know about this verse! I also pointed out how many atrocities, especially the crusades during the middle ages, were because of religion, I told them I was agnostic, but an anti-theist, I oppose all religion. I would have liked to stay to talk more at the time, but I had to get to my local train station, so one of them said, "you've obviously got strong views on this, I would like you to come to our church, so I can talk to you more about this", so I took a leaflet from them with their address, and went the following morning.

I'm not going to detail everything that was said on Sunday, but I asked the same man from Saturday, "How many of the gospel writers met Jesus?" He thought it was 2, I corrected him (none). He didn't believe me, but I assured him. Before leaving, he asked for my home address, so he could come to my home and talk with me, I refused! He asked for my mobile number, I refused! He asked for my email address, and I had no problem with that. He also gave me a copy of his email address and mobile number. The first email was from him on Sunday night, the most recent email was from me, but I've yet to have a response... Oh, finally, I've inversed the email exchange so they read in chronological order, and I had to manually put back in the colours and formatting throughout; bolds, strikethroughs, underlines, colours and hyperlinks! Hopefully, everything is correct, especially my latest email.

-----Original Message-----
From: hidden
Sent: 14 July 2013 18:14
To: hidden
Subject: Hi hidden...
 
Hi hidden
 
It was really great to speak to you this morning. It is abundantly
clear that you are someone who thinks deeply about life, which by the
way, is really refreshing. Most people go through life just accepting
things the way they are. Every single Witness started off their study
of the Bible asking such questions like "Why"?
Our faith in the bible is absolutely unwavering  - but that is due to
an in depth search for truth & finding this truth, in the bible. This
is the truth we enthusiastically share with others.
 
I promised to come back to you with answers to the questions you raised:
    1) Why did God allow Satan to attack Job and his family
    2) What does the bible say about the earth, at a time when the
prevailing opinion was that it was flat.
 
I will email you answers tomorrow evening.
 
Please, if you have any questions or things you are interested in
discussing, feel free to drop me an email. We would be happy to answer
questions and hear your thoughts.
 
Kind regards
 
hidden
 
Http://www.jw.org
 
 
hidden signature

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On 15 Jul 2013, at 15:07, hidden wrote:

Hello hidden,
 
You really do come across as a nice person (and from personal
experience, Witnesses are good people, I knew hidden years ago, and I've
met others), but while your belief in Jehovah may be strong, you don't
need it to be a good person.  I agree that "Most people go through
life just accepting things the way they are.", which is why I have a
keen interest in politics, and personally, I would like to be a
politician, although, I will perhaps never be one.
 
Your message this evening doesn't need to respond to anything that I
will write in this message, although, for the second question, "What
does the bible say about the earth, at a time when the prevailing
opinion was that it was flat." I was actually just trying to make the
point that as of now, the majority of people in the world do believe
there is a god, but that does not mean that there is.  However, there
are verses which allude to a flat earth, such as Revelation 7:1,
"After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the
earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, that no wind might
blow on earth or sea or against any tree."  Ezekiel 7:2 also describes the
earth as having 4 corners, as does Isaiah 11:12.
 
We discussed contradictions in the bible, and you asked me to send to
some, here's a website which has 1001
http://www.1001biblecontradictions.com/!  I haven't read through all
the contradictions listed here (only about 100) and I don't expect you to
either, but they are there.
 
Yesterday, you didn't know that none of the gospel writers knew Jesus,
what they wrote was based on hearsay, and written decades after his
death.  You can verify this at
http://www.thebibledoctor.com/About-the-...iters.php, a website
which describes itself as " an online Bible dictionary for teachers
and pupils in Catholic Schools"
 
On Saturday you weren't aware the bible called for the death of
homosexuals, and while (as you said) the bible may not condone sex
before marriage, there is nothing so strong about heterosexual
couples, indeed, looking at Exodus 22:16-17, it basically suggests,
  If a man entices an "unmarried maid" to "lie" with him,
  then he must marry her, unless the father refuses to give her to
him, in which case he must pay the going price for virgins!
Then in the very next verse, it suggests killing all witches(!); in
verse 19, putting to death those who have sex with animals (obviously
bestiality is wrong, but to kill those people?).  I don't have a copy
of your version of the bible, but I would assume verse 20 will have
something like "Whoever sacrifices to any god, other than Jehovah
alone, shall be devoted to destruction."  So how many gods are there?  
This suggests that there are other gods, and there are dozens of
verses which also imply there are more than one god.  I cannot understand
your "unwavering faith"
 
Regarding evolution, if you believe there was a great flood, and all
land animals were put on an ark, then how did the dodo get to
Mauritius, the giant tortoise to the Galapagos Islands?  The dodo bird
evolved on an island where it had no natural predators, and only
became extinct after humans discovered them.  Also, the giant
tortoises of the Galapagos Islands, again, living in an environment
without any natural predators, several subspecies have been made
extinct since humans discovered them.  I hope that if you research the
Galapagos tortoise, you will believe in evolution.
 
I have studied/researched to various degrees, many religions,
including Scientology, Mormonism, Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism,
Buddhism, also, ancient religions like the Greek, Roman, Norse and
Egyptian mythology.  In religious terms, the fastest growing group (in
America at least) is those who have no religion,
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009...-of-us-pop ulation-profiled/
and I would not be surprised if in my lifetime, your belief will generally
be thought of as Christian mythology.
 
I don't mean to upset you, but I am currently an agnostic,
anti-theist, and I want people to oppose the idea of god, as
extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence, which is
why I love science, and the scientific method.  I have seen no
evidence for believing in any religion, if I had, then I would be a
theist!
 
Finally, there is an article which I think you should read, I hope you
will find it enlightening
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...usdelusion
 
Kind regards,
 
hidden
 
P.S. This message is being sent as 'Plain Text' rather than HTML, so
it may mess up the formatting.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-----Original Message-----
From: hidden
Sent: 15 July 2013 23:56
To: hidden
Subject: Re: Hi hidden...

Hey hidden

Thank you so much for your email. It is really evident that you have given
this a lot of thought. Nope, the fact you are against religion doesn't
surprise me at all. In fact, would it come as any surprise to anyone that
soon, all the governments of the world are going to attempt to eradicate all
religions?  Read Revelation chapters 17 & 18.

Just putting religion and the bible to one side for the moment. How do you
imagine life started?

Kind regards

hidden


hidden signature


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On 16 Jul 2013, at 12:54, hidden wrote:
Hi hidden,

Okay, I've read Revelations 17 & 18, however, the bible (your bible) is not
an  authoritative source.  Did you read the article from the Guardian at the
end of my last email?  I don't believe that all the governments are going to
attempt to eradicate all religions, but I do believe that people who want to
live in a  secular society will vote for a government that will impose that.

In the first Egyptian democratic elections for  generations, the people
unwittingly elected a fascist theocracy, who tried to impose Sharia law, and
the people rejected that, there was an uprising, millions turned out into
the streets to demonstrate, to protest.  It's possible the people would
tolerate a moderate Islamic government, but not an extreme Islamic
government.

Anyway, away from politics and religion, the origin of life is an unsolved
scientific problem, and while it's difficult to imagine how, based on
research, I can say with some level of confidence that:-
About 4,000,000,000 years ago, during the Hadean eon, the first life is
thought to have began.
About 3,500,000,000 years ago, during the Archean eon, the first fossilised
life begun with prokaryotes, the first bacteria.
By about 2,000,000,000 years ago, eukaryptic cells (the first cells with
organelles) had evolved from the prokaryotes.
About 1,000,000,000 years ago, during the Proterozoic era, the first
multicellular organisms, such as algae, seaweeds, sponges, jellyfish and
worms lived.
About 500,000,000 years ago, the first fish were living.
About 450,000,000 years ago, in the Palaeozoic era, the first land plants
and fungi existed.
By about 390,000,000 years ago, the earth had its first amphibians, insects
and reptiles.  Much of the land surface was covered in fern forests which
eventually became coal.
About 250,000,000 years ago, there was the third mass extinction, known as
the Permian-Triassic extinction.  (I've chose not to mention the first 2,
but this one was the most severe.)
About 230,000,000 years ago, dinosaurs evolved.
About 200,000,000 years ago, the first mammals and birds evolved.
About 130,000,000 years ago, the first flowering plants appeared.
About 66,000,000 years ago, the fifth mass extinction - the
Cretaceous-Paleogene  extinction - caused the dinosaurs to die out.

When I was a child, it was believed that grass evolved after the dinosaurs,
but more recent fossil examination has suggested that grass occurred during
the time of the dinosaurs, albeit, scarcely.  It goes to show, scientific
knowledge can change, the theory of evolution isn't exactly how Darwin
proposed it, it has been refined by many people based on new evidence.

From 66,000,000 to 23,000,000 years ago, mammals evolved from relatively
small, simple creatures, into a large group of diverse animals.
Between 3,000,000 & 4,000,000 years ago, hominids lived. (an ancestor of
modern humans)

Homo Sapiens had evolved into atomically modern humans by about 200,000
years ago, and Neanderthals had first evolved a little earlier (350,000
years ago), however, Neanderthals became extinct about 30,000 years ago.

Just to let you know, I awoke at 4:30 this morning and saw your email at
5:00.  I have spent over 4 hours doing a lot of research, in addition to
reading the bible chapters you asked me to.

You asked me how I imagine life started, and I've discussed life on earth,
but what about life on Mars?  Also, it's quite possible that we will
discover life on the Europa moon of Jupiter in the future.  It's almost
certain there is other life in the universe outside of our solar system.

I have not explained everything as well as possible, but hopefully well
enough.  I am sure there will be some small mistakes in what I've written,
and there are things which would be regarded as probable by scientists now,
that will be revised based on future fossils yet to be found... actually,
here is a Wikipedia page which correlates with most of the evidence I've
found elsewhere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of...ry_of_life

Kind Regards,

hidden


P.S.  Just before I was about to send this, I found another article which I
found interesting, and I would like to share it with you
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/deat...-evolution


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From: hidden
Sent: 16 July 2013 22:19
To: hidden
Subject: Re: Hi hidden...
 
Hi hidden
 
Just wanted to express my appreciation for the time and effort you spent in composing both emails. I really admire the thorough approach you take.
 
Just to focus for the moment on this concept of "origin of life":
 
You mentioned that the origin of life is an "unsolved scientific problem". It would appear that this certainly is the prevailing sentiment in the scientific community. Evolutionary scientists are in disagreement about so many aspects of the origin of life - e.g. The RNA world hypothesis, etc.
However, to digress for a moment, I would like to refer briefly to a point I mentioned on Sunday - which was, the answer to the question, Where do babies come from? 
The answer to this question is well-documented and uncontroversial. Life always comes from preexisting life. However, if we go back far enough in time, is it really possible that this fundamental law was broken? Could life really spontaneously spring from nonliving chemicals? What are the chances that such an event could happen?
It is a fact that for a cell to exist and survive, at least three different types of complex molecules need to be present and must work together - DNA, RNA, and proteins. Today, few scientists would ever assert that a complete living cell suddenly formed by chance from a mix of inanimate chemicals. Rather they focus on individual components like RNA or protein. What, though, is the probability that RNA or proteins could form by chance? At this level, scientists are still struggling with various hypotheses (not sure what the plural form of the word is :-) ). It is still very much in rudimentary theoretical form.
Many scientists feel that life could arise by chance because of an experiment first conducted in 1953. In that year, a renowned scientist by the name of Stanley L. Miller (have you heard of him before?) was able to produce some amino acids, the chemical building blocks of proteins, by discharging electricity into a mixture of gases that was thought to represent the atmosphere of primitive earth. Since then, amino acids have also been found in a meteorite. Do these findings mean that all the basic building blocks of life could easily be produced by chance?
Robert Shapiro who was professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University said that some scientists have presumed that all life’s building blocks could thus be formed using Miller-type experiments. This has not been the case however. Talking about RNA, he also said that no nucleotides (a component of RNA) of any kind have been reported as products of spark-discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites. He further states that the probability of a self-replicating RNA molecule randomly assembling from a pool of chemical building blocks is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.
What about protein molecules? They can be made from as few as 50 or as many as several thousand amino acids bound together in a highly specific order. The average functional protein in a “simple” cell contains 200 amino acids. Even in those cells, there are thousands of different types of proteins. The probability that just one protein containing only 100 amino acids could ever randomly form on earth has been calculated to be about one chance in a million billion.
Hubert P. Yockey, who supports the teaching of evolution, goes further. His theory is that it is impossible to imagine that the origin of life was ‘proteins first. Why? Because RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. So it's a rather crucial catch-22 situation quite honestly. One can't exist without the other.......... Interesting.
What if, despite the extremely small odds, both proteins and RNA molecules did appear by chance in the same place at the same time? How likely would it be for them to cooperate to form a self-replicating, self-sustaining type of life? “The probability of this happening by chance (given a random mixture of proteins and RNA) seems astronomically low,” says Dr. Carol Cleland, a member of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Astrobiology Institute. However, this doesn't deter some researchers from suggesting they they can make sense of the independent production of proteins and RNA under natural primordial conditions, the coordination of which would somehow take care of itself. Regarding the current theories of how these building blocks of life could have arisen by chance, none of them have proven to be entirely convincing or conclusive if one had to be honest.
So here is the point: 
Think of the challenge facing researchers who feel that life arose by chance. They have found some amino acids that also appear in living cells. In their laboratories, they have, by means of carefully designed and directed experiments, manufactured other more complex molecules. Ultimately, they hope to build all the parts needed to construct a “simple” cell. Their situation could be likened to that of a scientist who takes naturally occurring elements; transforms them into steel, plastic, silicone, and wire; and constructs a robot. He then programs the robot to be able to build copies of itself. By doing so, what will he prove? At best, that an intelligent entity can create an impressive machine.
Similarly, if scientists ever did construct a cell, they would accomplish something truly amazing—but would they prove that the cell could be made by accident? If anything, they would prove the very opposite, would they not? It has taken educated men and sophisticated equipment to study all of this - not unintelligent chaos. All scientific evidence to date indicates that life can come only from previously existing life. To believe that even a “simple” living cell arose by chance from nonliving chemicals requires a huge leap of faith.
The truth is, the theories some scientists propound about where life came from are sound or are as fanciful as the tales some parents tell about where babies come from.
 
Kind regards
 
hidden

Ps. I have to confess that much of the above quoted information in my email was based on the following resources:
 
 1. How Life Began—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.
 a. Life Itself—Its Origin and Nature, by Francis Crick, 1981, pp. 15-16, 141-153.
 2. Scientific American, “A Simpler Origin for Life,” by Robert Shapiro, June 2007, p. 48.
 a. The New York Times, “A Leading Mystery of Life’s Origins Is Seemingly Solved,” by Nicholas Wade, May 14, 2009, p. A23.
 3. Scientific American, June 2007, p. 48.
 4. Scientific American, June 2007, pp. 47, 49-50.
 5. Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, by Hubert P. Yockey, 2005, p. 182.
 6. NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine, “Life’s Working Definition—Does It Work?” (http://www.nasa.gov/ vision/universe/starsgalaxies/ life’s_working_definition.html), accessed 3/17/2009.






hidden signature


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 17 Jul 2013, at 14:09, hidden wrote: I've added this timestamp manually, in the same format as the previous timestamps.

Hi hidden,
 
I notice you’ve sent your last message in HTML, and not plain text!  I could have sent my first reply via HTML, but decided to keep the format the same.  In this email, my words will be in this format, text copied from other sources (such as your own email) will be in black.
 
I’m pleased you appreciate the time I’ve taken, although, I should really be putting the time into my own thesis, so I can graduate with an Honours Degree!
 
I won’t address everything in your previous email, but I will address a few points, and resources.  Later in my email, I look at/address your 5th and 6th resources, but first, I will look at your 2nd.  The New York Times has that article that you mentioned, available online here.  This is also the resource which seems to have inspired this paragraph of yours

 
 
Robert Shapiro who was professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University said that some scientists have presumed that all life’s building blocks could thus be formed using Miller-type experiments. This has not been the case however. Talking about RNA, he also said that no nucleotides (a component of RNA) of any kind have been reported as products of spark-discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites. He further states that the probability of a self-replicating RNA molecule randomly assembling from a pool of chemical building blocks is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.
 
If you actually read the article from The New York Times, you will see that Dr. John Sutherland (the scientist behind this) rejects the criticism of Robert Shapiro, and
The reactions he [Dr. John Sutherland] has described look convincing to most other chemists. “The chemistry is very robust — all the yields are good and the chemistry is simple,” said Dr. Joyce, an expert on the chemical origin of life at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif.
 
 
What about protein molecules? They can be made from as few as 50 or as many as several thousand amino acids bound together in a highly specific order. The average functional protein in a “simple” cell contains 200 amino acids. Even in those cells, there are thousands of different types of proteins. The probability that just one protein containing only 100 amino acids could ever randomly form on earth has been calculated to be about one chance in a million billion.
 
I don't know how the odds of 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000 (10^15) have been calculated, however, even if those are ‘real’ odds, they probably wouldn't be the total odds.  For example, winning the UK national lottery has odds of 1 in 13,983,816, but if 1 ticket were bought every week, 52 in a year, over the course of 1,000,000 years, you would expect to win the jackpot about 4 times with the 52,000,000 chances, even though the probability of any 1 win is extremely remote.
 
If the odds of 1 in 10^15 are accurate, but are the odds of it happening in any given second, then over the course of 10,000,0000 years, that would be 315,360,000,000,000 chances, or 3.1536*10^14, that would be 1 in 3, over 30,000,000 years, it would be almost certain.

 
 
Hubert P. Yockey, who supports the teaching of evolution, goes further. His theory is that it is impossible to imagine that the origin of life was ‘proteins first. Why? Because RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. So it's a rather crucial catch-22 situation quite honestly. One can't exist without the other.......... Interesting.
 
I have read an interesting blog entry by his daughter (Cynthia Yockey), which is linked here and in it she says “Religious people have wrongly appropriated Hubert P. Yockey’s work to re-brand Creationism as Intelligent Design…”, you don’t need to read it all, you could skip the first 6 paragraphs, and just read the 7th to the end, which begins with the quote above.  This probably counters your 5th resource.  5. Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, by Hubert P. Yockey, 2005, p. 182.
 

Similarly, if scientists ever did construct a cell, they would accomplish something truly amazing—but would they prove that the cell could be made by accident? If anything, they would prove the very opposite, would they not? It has taken educated men and sophisticated equipment to study all of this - not unintelligent chaos. All scientific evidence to date indicates that life can come only from previously existing life. To believe that even a “simple” living cell arose by chance from nonliving chemicals requires a huge leap of faith.
 
Scientists have managed to create a new “synthetic” life form from a mix of chemicals (link here) you say “All scientific evidence to date indicates that life can come only from previously existing life.” I would suggest that this shows how chemicals can come together and create life.

But perhaps chemicals on earth didn’t come together to create life, another possibility is ‘panspermia’, that life didn’t actually start on earth, that it came from a meteorite.  This wouldn’t be an answer of how life began, but it could be how life started on earth.
 
It’s possible that life arrived here from Mars during the Late Heavy Bombardment 4 billion years ago, where it was able to flourish due to a better environment.  Here are 2 articles, one from 5 years ago, which concludes
Interstellar panspermia remains a highly unlikely proposition in the minds of most scientists. and "It's plausible that our early progenitors were transported here," Schuerger said, "but I think that's a complicated method. I think it's a lot easier to say life started on Earth and evolved on Earth." The link is here
 
However, the second article is from exactly 1 month ago, which says
Scientists have found a potential building block for life in a Martian meteorite recovered from Antarctica.
 
Parts of the rock contain rich concentrations of boron, which biochemists suspect played a key role in the development of ribonucleic acid, or RNA. The link is here
 
Your 6th resource
 6. NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine, “Life’s Working Definition—Does It Work?” http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/star...ition.html  was from 2002, and there is nothing in it which suggests a God or anything supernatural.  Although, here’s a snippet from it:-
Q: Do you think there could have been multiple origins of life, or that life could have come to Earth from somewhere else?
 
Life arising more than once from nonliving materials could occur elsewhere than Earth, but it could also have occurred on Earth. It is possible that extraterrestrial life exists and that all life nonetheless has a common ancestor. Scientists now believe that microbes can survive interplanetary journeys ensconced in meteors produced by asteroid impacts on planetary bodies containing life. In other words, we could all be the descendants of Martians -- or Martians, if they happen to exist, could share a common ancestor with us! In short, the mere discovery of extraterrestrial life doesn't guarantee that life had more than one origin.
 
I feel this links nicely with the previous articles
 
 
The truth is, the theories some scientists propound about where life came from are sound or are as fanciful as the tales some parents tell about where babies come from.

Which theories are these?  In science, a theory is different from a hypothesis (and a scientific theory is MASSIVELY different from a non-scientific theory), and while some hypotheses may be fanciful, if/when I have children, I will not lie to them about where babies come from, I will always try to be honest.  I think children whose parents tell them fanciful tales, will grow up doubting what their parents tell them if the parents aren’t honest about something so basic.  I am perhaps going off on a bit of a tangent here, but here is a website which gives help for parents talking to their children about sex.
 
Just a couple of miscellaneous points, I have heard of Stanley Miller, and you were correct, the plural of hypothesis is hypotheses, like thesis is theses… ;-) which I should be doing!  I don’t know how the time seems to pass so quickly, but I’ve spent another 4 hours on this email!
 
Kind regards,
 
hidden
 
P.S.  It seems that much of what you have ‘written’ was copied and pasted from http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010343, and really, it reeks of propaganda.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2013, 03:37 PM
RE: Email exchange with Jehovah's Witness
Thanks for the share. I will follow your topic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2013, 03:43 PM
RE: Email exchange with Jehovah's Witness
Gonna need cliffs on that.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2013, 03:52 PM
RE: Email exchange with Jehovah's Witness
(18-07-2013 03:37 PM)viocjit Wrote:  Thanks for the share. I will follow your topic.

Thank you, I appreciate that

(18-07-2013 03:43 PM)germanyt Wrote:  Gonna need cliffs on that.

I don't understand what you mean by this?

Anyway, I would really like some opinions/comments/feedback, even if it's critical, just so I know what others are thinking. Is my argument any good?

I realise there's quite a lot to read, and that's not including the articles which have been linked to, so thank you to anyone who has got through it!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2013, 03:57 PM
RE: Email exchange with Jehovah's Witness
(18-07-2013 03:52 PM)6.9 Agnostic Wrote:  I don't understand what you mean by this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CliffsNotes

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2013, 04:36 PM
RE: Email exchange with Jehovah's Witness
(18-07-2013 03:57 PM)germanyt Wrote:  
(18-07-2013 03:52 PM)6.9 Agnostic Wrote:  I don't understand what you mean by this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CliffsNotes

I really don't think this requires CliffsNotes!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2013, 04:46 PM
RE: Email exchange with Jehovah's Witness
Do not be lulled into the false impression that this person is taking your arguments seriously. He is not. He has a script, and he will fall back on it repeatedly. Don't kid yourself into thinking this is a dialogue. It's a monologue, and you are not the speaker.

I hope this guy proves me wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TwoCultSurvivor's post
18-07-2013, 04:59 PM
RE: Email exchange with Jehovah's Witness
(18-07-2013 04:36 PM)6.9 Agnostic Wrote:  
(18-07-2013 03:57 PM)germanyt Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CliffsNotes

I really don't think this requires CliffsNotes!

I beg to differ.

In any case tl;dr

[Image: iTAmc.GIF]

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2013, 04:59 PM
RE: Email exchange with Jehovah's Witness
(18-07-2013 04:46 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  Do not be lulled into the false impression that this person is taking your arguments seriously. He is not. He has a script, and he will fall back on it repeatedly. Don't kid yourself into thinking this is a dialogue. It's a monologue, and you are not the speaker.

I hope this guy proves me wrong.

I hope he proves you wrong too! I'm hoping to receive another email from him, it's been 48 hours since his most recent email. In my next message, I plan to direct him to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of...of_context as looking at this page here http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010343 (also linked at the bottom of my first post) with the bibliography here http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010348 , it's clear that deceptive scum responsible for producing the material are quoting out of context in order to make their view seem credible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2013, 05:01 PM
RE: Email exchange with Jehovah's Witness
(18-07-2013 04:59 PM)6.9 Agnostic Wrote:  
(18-07-2013 04:46 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  Do not be lulled into the false impression that this person is taking your arguments seriously. He is not. He has a script, and he will fall back on it repeatedly. Don't kid yourself into thinking this is a dialogue. It's a monologue, and you are not the speaker.

I hope this guy proves me wrong.

I hope he proves you wrong too! I'm hoping to receive another email from him, it's been 48 hours since his most recent email. In my next message, I plan to direct him to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of...of_context as looking at this page here http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010343 (also linked at the bottom of my first post) with the bibliography here http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010348 , it's clear that deceptive scum responsible for producing the material are quoting out of context in order to make their view seem credible.

You don't say. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: