TrueTomHarley

JWI: Two questions. Does this heady stuff of yours offer me any way to slam God’s organization without doing any work? If so, how?

Lord NO! @JW Insiderwhat on earth is wrong with you? implying that there was something Alan did not know?!

In other words, you admit to committing the logical blooper of ad reversum fallacy. 
For once, I have high praise for Bart Ehrman, who says that if you know a Latin expression and also a perfectly fine English expression that means the same thing, always use the Latin, so people will know you are educated.

In other words, you admit to committing the logical blooper of ad reversum fallacy. 
For once, I have high praise for Bart Ehrman, who says that if you know a Latin expression and also a perfectly fine English expression that means the same thing, always use the Latin, so people will know you are educated.

Notwithstanding quirks as Michael Shermer’s forsaking his own ad hominem attack ban to indicate by voice intonation that those who oppose him are nuts, I overall appreciated very much his Skepticism 101: How to Think like a Scientist. I learned a lot as to how they think and I came to find I agreed with Shermer in many things. Alas, skepticism, when it becomes a movement, is like all new trends of the world. What might work if it was to try to integrate itself into the overall pattern rather than take over fails when in opts for the later goal. Overall, a measure of skepticism is a good thing. But it is also covered by verses such as ‘does not the palate test out words?’ ‘a fool believes every word, but the wise one considers his steps,’ and so forth.
When skepticism imagines itself the be-all and end-all, then what could be beneficial becomes a way to stifle discovery. It throws the baby out with the bathwater in its presumption to be THE answer to life. 
It reminds me of my friend Bud, who fixed many a clunker for me back in the day. An old-school mechanic, he was disdainful of the then newfangled electronic diagnosis methods. He told me of the younger guys of the shop stymied when such methods told them there was nothing wrong with a certain car. “Well,there must be something wrong with it,” he said, “It doesn’t run.”
Shermer’s lecture of evolution vs creationism was fascinating as it laid out four distinct battles (in the U.S) of the “war:” the Scopes trial of 1925, the later battle that Genesis be given equal time with evolution, the next battle to declare creation a science, and give it equal time on that basis, and finally the stage of “intelligent creation,” which makes no mention of religion at all (but whose proponents almost always believe in the God of Abraham, Shermer says, no doubt in violation of another one of his rules of thinking that one’s religion is relevant to the merits of whatever ideas he brings to the table). I agree with Shermer that “creation science” is not science, and said it here on JWI’s 607 thread:
“It’s not, and we shouldn’t argue that it is. That does not mean that it is not reasonable. It is eminently reasonable, and the fact that science has not endorsed it says more about the limitations of science than it does about creation. Furthermore, whatever Shermer may do in his private capacity, in his public capacity as Great Courses lecturer, he acknowledges that there are some places that science is not equipped to go, and therefore he passes no judgment on those places. What we should be arguing is not that our beliefs are scientific, but that science is a flawed system for measuring existence. In some areas it works pretty well; in others it comes up empty handed. When it attempts to encroach on what Shermer says it is not equipped to encroach, it becomes an overall obstacle to gaining insight and @Araunais right—it becomes a false god and those who follow it where it has no authority become it’s “clergy.”
Shermer’s contention that creation science is not science, upheld by the U.S Supreme Court in 1987, gives me renewed respect and some insight into the reasoning of the WTS, who at least since that time have not said that it is. Instead, we have become accustomed to reading such things as “the Bible is not a book of science, but it is in harmony with true science.” Materialists will choke at this phrasing, for they assume that ALL science is true, and if it is not there is no other way to correct the problem than a further advance of science. But the WT’s phrasing is in accord with the truth that not everything is examined physically; some things are examined spiritually, and when science encroaches on that field where it has but clumsy and inapplicable tools, it is apt to come up with something other than “true science.”
I’ve previously coined a category of materialists with the acronym SPCA—“science/philosophers/cheerleader/atheists.” These are not the same as scientists though there is overlap. Scientists just go about doing science. Michael Shermer acknowledges that many scientists believe in God, no doubt because they sense there are limitations to science. But SPCAs assume human science is all there is and ram it down everyone’s throat as the be-all and end-all.
It is also worth noting that the Bible never speaks of proving faith in a scientific way. Instead it speaks of “taste and see that Jehovah is good.” Can you really prove that something tastes good? Plainly it is subjective. It will appeal to some hearts and not others.

Did you know?...
92% of the world’s atheist evolutionists play drums.
But they will only do Also Sprach Zarathustra 

The return on His Odiousness.
After a two day absence, I was getting worried. The secret to any good Western is to have a villain, and in Alan one finds a villain to make The Magnificent Seven look like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir 

No - you do not understand the ransom sacrifice.  If there was other perfect creatures living in another part of the universe than Jehovah would not have a need for a legal precedent here on earth to play out namely,:  that no other creature / government  can rule independent from Jehovah.
I foresee the govt. releasing so-called allien information (propaganda ) to get many to leave their faith........ be careful.

What are the names of this Witness and forum?

JWI: Two questions. Does this heady stuff of yours offer me any way to slam God’s organization without doing any work? If so, how?

What are the names of this Witness and forum?

What are the names of this Witness and forum?

JWI: Two questions. Does this heady stuff of yours offer me any way to slam God’s organization without doing any work? If so, how?

After he (Alan) sends the mathematicians out to the pasture, not wishing to deal with their evidence that squelches his theorizing, and (Shermer) lets them remain there, he (Shermer) brings them back when it suits his purpose to do so. 
Regarding SETI (search for extraterrestrial life) he declares that at present  the verdict is “unambiguously ambiguous.” He should say the verdict is that there is no life outside earth, for elsewhere he makes a big show of how science should say, “This is what we know about such-and-such at present.” Well, at present, we “know” that there is no extraterrestrial life. Shermer acknowledges not a trace of it has been found. Yet why does he waffle on the verdict, saying that the evidence is ambiguous? Because of the mathematicians that he previously vanquished! This time their probability comes in handy, and he relies upon “What are the odds, what with all the galaxies, and all the stars, and all the planets, and all the planets at just the right temperature, that life has not evolved there as it does here?”
The mathematicians may inwardly grumble that, “Well, you didn’t listen to us in the first case, why are you listening to us now?” but if so, they don’t say it. They are glad to be readmitted into the heady club. 

That is how these people think - they label someone - and then (in their mind) they have answered and dealt with the matter sufficiently !
They refuse to look into it...... because they are afriad they may have to let go of their 'religion'.
The book I mentioned before is a scholar and mathematician - 
The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions is a 2008 book by David Berlinski. It discusses atheism and religion, defending the religious point of view. He is not religious himself but makes these arguments because he can!  I guess he does not know where to start to be religious.  He is born a Jew and does not know where to search for the biblical truth.... or just not interested....
 

When I mentioned to Alan that various mathematicians had ruled anything other than micro evolution undoable based on probability alone, he responded: “LOL! Those mathematicians are almost ALL creationists...”
Of course! The masters of that joined-at-the-hip branch of science, mathematicians, calculate all that is involved and declare the odds against it happening greater than all the atoms in the universe! Freed from this inconvenient truth, the evolution proponent continue merrily to build their castles in the sky.
You would think that if you demonstrate one position is impossible, that would mean that the competing position must be true. If your car keys are not in your purse, after you have turned it inside out and searched every square millimeter of it, they just might be in your ignition. This obvious logic doesn’t wash with evolutionists. This is due to the ballyhooed “fallacy of negation,” which uncovers for them that if you discredit one position, the observer is not forced to accept the other. 
The “fallacy of negation” is not rejected when it is in the evolutionist’s interests to embrace it, however. For example, on the other thread, notice how Alan maintains that not even finding the  “poop” of the wandering Israelites means that they were not there and did not wander. 
The rules of science that Shermer outlines have a number of “heads I win, tails you lose” aspects to them. He doesn’t put it that way of course, but he does concede that “science is not equipped to evaluate supernatural explanations of observations. Without passing judgement on the truth or falsity of supernatural explanations, science leaves their consideration to the domain of religious faith.” (quoted from the amicus brief to the 1987 Supreme Court) He does not go on to say (as Alan would) that because their consideration is left to “the domain of religious faith,” that means they are BS. Possibly he does not even think that, since he points out that many scientists believe in God, and he does not say (as Alan would) that they are deluded fools.
One of the “heads I win, tails you lose” components of science, with regard to the above mentioned “fallacy of negation” that can be suspended when it is in their interests to do so, is the stipulation that “a new theory needs evidence in favor of it, not just against the opposition.” Coupled with the above statement that science is not equipped to examine supernatural explanations, it means advocates of creation will never catch a break in their court.
Shermer appears modest enough (unlike Alan) to recognize this, as he reiterates that the inability of science to evaluate spirituality means no opinion is rendered as to the “truth of falsity” of spiritual [supernatural] matters.  It is a drawback of his system, and he seems to know it. He doesn’t condemn what he can’t measure. 
He is like the mechanic that shows up with a toolbox of wrenches, only to find that a screwdriver is needed, upon which he says “Sorry, I can’t fix the car.” Then his assistant Alan shows up with his toolbox also equipped with only wrenches. Upon learning that a screwdriver is needed, he declares screwdrivers are only the imaginary tools of superstitious morons.
 

Of course! This will be on your grave marker.
It is like the cute story of when my 5-year-old walked away from the door and said, “Why did that lady say there is too much of me?” What she had actually said was, “You’re too much!”
But in your case, the 5-year-old’s reasoning is spot-on, proving that wisdom comes from the mouths of babes: There is too much of you.

It is impossible that a master taunter as yourself would not understand, knowing your political views, why I would refer to you as a “Proud Boy.” 
I want to see another Donald Duck explosion. Don’t let me down on this. You never have. Don’t start now.
I even entertain the theory that @JW Insiderkisses up to you (not to say that he does agree with your core chronology) more than he would otherwise simply because if he does not you will launch into such a tantrum of insults that you will screw up his thread that he has worked so hard to keep exclusively devoted to his topic of interest. I’m not completely sold on my theory, in fact I don’t know that I believe it at all, but it is still worth making the point to underscore how impossible it is to deal with someone of higher than average IQ coupled with the EQ of an infant.

Arrested in December 2020, 20-year-old Jehovah's Witness conscientious objector Ruslan Artykmuradov is awaiting trial in Turkmenabat's Pre-Trial Detention Prison for refusing compulsory military service. He offered to do an alternative civilian service, but Turkmenistan does not offer this, despite repeated United Nations calls. Artykmuradov has already served a one-year jail term on the same charges. If convicted, he will become the 25th conscientious objector known to have been jailed since 2018.
Police arrested 20-year-old Jehovah's Witness conscientious objector to military service Ruslan Artykmuradov on 15 December 2020. They transferred him on 18 December to the Pre-Trial Detention Prison in Turkmenabat in the eastern Lebap Region, where he remains awaiting trial for refusing compulsory military service. No trial date has yet been set. He has already served a one-year jail term on the same charges.

Prosecutors opened the second criminal case against Artykmuradov in December 2020 after the Military Conscription Office rejected his request to do an alternative civilian service (which does not exist in Turkmenistan). Turkmenistan has rejected repeated United Nations calls to introduce such a service (see below).
If convicted, Artykmuradov would become the 25th conscientious objector to military service known to have been convicted and jailed since January 2018. All of them are Jehovah's Witnesses (see below).
If he is convicted at his expected trial, Artykmuradov would become the fifth conscientious objector (all of them Jehovah's Witnesses) to be convicted twice of the same "crime" since jailings of conscientious objectors resumed in 2018. Such second convictions may be increasing (see below).
Jehovah's Witnesses are conscientious objectors to military service and do not undertake any kind of activity supporting any country's military. But they are willing to undertake an alternative, totally civilian form of service, as is the right of all conscientious objectors to military service under international human rights law..
Including Bahtiyar Amirjanovich Atahanov (born 17 June 2000), who has been serving a jail term since July 2019, eight Jehovah's Witness conscientious objectors are serving jail terms of between one and four years. All eight are imprisoned in Seydi Labour Camp in the eastern Lebap Region. Three of them are serving second sentences (see full list below).
Turkmenistan has ignored repeated international calls, for example by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, to introduce a genuine civilian alternative to compulsory military service, to stop prosecuting and punishing conscientious objectors, and to compensate those it has punished.
Read more: https://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=2628

‪I estimated a word reduction of Chapter 6 (Statecraft) of 50%. In fact it is even more, 52%, 11400 words is reduced to 5460. Far too rambling previously. Tightening it up. 

“Hi! Here’s a video that insults you! Please watch it. It only takes 10 minutes”
For crying out loud, Alan. If you don’t have a life, why should you assume that is true of everyone else?
Please contact your ally @Ann O'Maly, who counsels from the school guidebook. See if you can work on the point ‘Introduction that motivates.’ See if you can imitate her manner, while you’re at it. She makes points every bit as substantial as you without being personally nasty at every step.
Had you presented it in an adult way I might actually have taken a look at it.

You shouldn’t just dissolve into a mass of hurling insults, Alan. I actually take pleasure when you do that. It means I’ve “won” and like Cool Hand Luke you keep coming when you have nothing.
It’s like watching those old Donald Duck cartoons when a thoroughly frustrated Donald goes ballistic. I love that part.

So far so good. Introduction pared from 7000 words to 4100. Chapter 1 from 6500 to 4800, with no harm done to the narrative. In fact, it is enhanced by being less obscured with what is superfluous.

Ah, rats.
In preparing the Dear Mr. Putin for print, I’ve come to think that it is not very good. I don’t like it. It was too much of a rush job. About 50% is good. But it is not integrated well. I am giving it a thorough shakedown before print. I’ll bet I can say everything I mean to say in 3/4 the words, maybe even 2/3.
Part of the problem is that the ebook doesn’t know what it wants to be. Is it a chronicler of events? The event are truly horrific, and they get worse by the day. Or is it a vehicle for me to witness to my faith as JW? It is both, actually, but these are not easily combined. Rather than each one buttressing the other, I think I have each one detracting from the other.
It is my first project of this magnitude. The text runs about 150K, and then there are a few hundred endnotes. I wanted to put together a complete history of events as they unfolded, as logged by international news sources, governments, and human rights groups—and the ebook does do that. It is the only such record, to my knowledge. But I wrote a great deal of it here on the WMNF as individual thread comments. Then I cooked up chapters and shook out all my comments until each fit into one of them, after which I too sloppily cobbled them together. It’s a crazy way to write a book.
I felt too much the sense of a reporter chasing a deadline, and now I almost don’t want to fix it, for the light tone I have throughout is at odds with the horrific twists the narrative has taken. But I also don’t want to put it into print as the mess that it is. I figure it will be two or three months to get it as I like, and then the new version will be both print and ebook. This book has caused me more trouble than my other 4 combined.
The revised ebook will remain free, for it is a labor of love. Of course, the print version will not be.
As to the horrific twists the narrative has taken, they are logged in this latest update from Chivchalov: 
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcredo.press%2F234969

You know, it started as a joke. Explaining a metaphor to Ann that any child would instantly understand, it reached the point of my posting a tree fallen across the road with the comment that it was blocking “Evolution Row.”
Of course, that was a reference to Desolation Row, and I afterwards posted the lines with that phrase.
Sometimes something gets in your head and you knock it around a bit and come up with something more. “Evolution” Row is actually not a bad interpretation of the song. Take this portion:
At midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew
Come out and round up everyone that knows more than they do
Then they bring them to the factory where the heart-attack machine
Is strapped across their shoulders and then the kerosene
Is brought down from the castles by insurance men who go
Check to see that nobody is escaping to Desolation Row.
Anyone familiar with the Bible (as Dylan is—he did a stint as a born-again Christian. Listen to Slow Train Coming, for example, and you’ll see he is thoroughly familiar with scripture) will know who is “all the agents and the superhuman crew.”
At the darkest time, they round up everyone “who knows more than they do.” Well, nobody knows more than does the “superhuman crew,” so it must be a reference to those who think that they they know more than others, who think that are very smart indeed and that take great pleasure in parading their knowledge before everyone else, quick to disparage anyone in their path, ones who don’t suffer fools gladly—and a fool is anyone who disagrees with them.
Despite their self-heralded knowledge, they are “rounded up” and processed, as though in a “factory.” The knowledge that they take such pride in is nevertheless death-dealing, like a “heart attack machine strapped across their shoulders,” with “kerosene” thrown in for good measure. 
Despite their knowledge being death-dealing—settling for a few dozen years lifespan at best and then eternal blackness—nobody must escape this tripe. “Insurance men” see to it. Nobody will escape from Evolution Row. (Of course, Dylan actually wrote “to Desolation Row,” not “from,” but it was probably a typo.) Let us not forget that the evolution teaching (in its full measure— not counting the intelligent design variety) is desolation to the Bible based hope of living forever on a paradise earth.
Naw, I don’t really think Dylan had that in mind. Other stanzas don’t so readily lend themselves to that interpretation. But it’s not a bad interpretation all the same. Dylan often writes in a stream of consciousness and doesn’t necessarily have any underlying message. It’s like decrypting Kafka. The tone is distinct, but the underlying words can be taken any number of ways.