I have now met a real life creationist.

[DrZoidberg]

This whole thing about Wilson's outrage over the push for pedophilia legalisations highlights what's wrong with the "moral majority".

I just think it's funny that Wilson, who won't identify as a creationist because the creationist movement has connotations he dislikes, loves to draw all sorts of extra connotations for anyone who argues with him.
Look at how you came to be the defending spokesman for the pedophilia legalization movement.

Well, I for one am proud and honoured to be elected to be the spokesperson of Wilson's pro-pedophilia movement. I'm here for you brother, Wilson. Together we can beat them. And it's easy. Because children are small and weak and can't put up a fight.

 

[Keith&Co.]

At least Wilson's grammar is better the Syed's.

Koko's grammar is better than Syed's.

 

[wilson]

Wait, what? Do you really say that realizing how pedophilia really works makes them evil?

Wait - what? Are you saying that the drive to legalize pedophilia is not evil?

WHAT DRIVE TO LEGALIZE PEDOPHILIA!?! The only drive to legalise pedophilia is going on in your head.

Organized by this group:
http://www.b4uact.org/
"On March 10, 2016, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation aired a documentary titled “I, Pedophile” (by Matthew Campea and Cogent Benger Productions, Inc.) that makes a false and damaging claim about B4U-ACT, which advocates for ethical and compassionate mental health services for minor-attracted people. The documentary, in reference to B4U-ACT, shows the following text on the screen: “Many of its members have been known to pursue sexual contact with children.” This statement is completely false. B4U-ACT does not endorse or support any activity with children that is illegal or harmful to them in any way.
Note the new term: MAPs


https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light
http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ust-another-sexual-orientation-wesley-j-smith
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/...pooh_the_left_s_push_to_normalize_pedophilia/
http://nation.foxnews.com/pedophilia/2013/01/07/normalizing-pedophilia
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/12/22/is_pedophilia_a_sexual_orientation.html
http://individual.utoronto.ca/michaelseto/
"The Harper government recently announced tougher measures against child predators, including a public sex offender registry. Seto says this is misguided, given that the recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders is actually quite low, at about 10 to 15 per cent."

 

[funinspace]

We live in the age of science and it is the most peaceful age humanity has ever known.

Unfortunately, the facts do not agree with you:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n04/eric-hobsbawm/war-and-peace-in-the-20th-century
Is this what you're talking about?:

"The New Encyclopædia Britannica designates the first and second world wars as “the great watersheds of 20th-century geopolitical history.” It notes that “World War*I led to the fall of four great imperial dynasties .*.*.*, resulted in the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, and .*.*. laid the groundwork for World War*II.” It also tells us that the world wars were virtually “unprecedented in their slaughter, carnage, and destruction.” Guido Knopp likewise says: “Cruelty and human brutality exceeded the worst expectations. In the trenches .*.*. seeds were sown for an era in which humans were viewed as material, not as individuals.”

Sure, WWI and WWII were really bad. However, that hardly describes human history, nor does it make the 20th century all that unique. It is on the high end of a typical and artificial century marker, but that is all.

From here we can see lots of death and destruction with the mean estimated deaths, name, and start date: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll
74M WWII 1939
45M Taiping Rebellion 1851
39M 3 Kingdoms War 184
34M Mongol conquests 1206
34M Colonization of Americas 1492
25M Qing conquest of Ming dynasty 1618
21M Dungan Revolt 1862
18M An Lushan Rebellion 755
18M WWI 1914

There are roughly 130 million babies born each year now. And without all that science/technology, roughly 60% of them would die before age 16 (see bottom reference to 17th century life). That would roughly be 78 million unnecessary child deaths each year, equating to a WWII death stat every single year.

Or, maybe you mean this:
"Automobiles are useful and enjoyable but also deadly, as proved by the estimated quarter of a million annual deaths from traffic accidents worldwide. And cars are a major producer of pollution. The authors of 5000 Days to Save the Planet say that pollution “is now global, destroying or undermining the viability of ecosystems from pole to pole.” They explain: “We have gone beyond simply damaging ecosystems and are now disrupting the very processes that keep the Earth a fit place for higher forms of life.”(*** Extracted Document ***(AW 99 12/8 pp. 2-7)

So what? What in the world are you even arguing for or about? You like science/technology, but you don’t like technology/science. Sure, cars emit pollution. Yet the Thames river was literally dead half a century ago, now fish swim in it again. Cars emit about 98% less pollutants than they did in the 1960's. Lots of people die for all sorts of reasons. There are roughly 7.5 billion humans on the planet. How would the masses of humans survive without technology? What trees would still exist?

Ancient death and destruction:
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/49/19214.full

However, when the coldest and also lengthiest epoch of the LIA took place (17th century), more wars of great magnitude and the associated population declines in Europe and Asia (especially China) followed (Fig. 1 D). The European population was devastated by possibly the worst war in its history in terms of the share of the population killed in A.D. 1618–1648 (24), starvation, and epidemics. In China, the population plummeted 43% (≈70 million) because of wars, starvation and epidemics in A.D.

In terms of percentages, the 30 Years War was one of deadliest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War#Casualties_and_disease

The war ranks with the worst famines and plagues as the greatest medical catastrophe in modern European history.[74][75] Lacking good census information, historians have extrapolated the experience of well-studied regions.[76] John Theibault agrees with the conclusions in Günther Franz's Der Dreissigjährige Krieg und das Deutsche Volk (1940), that population losses were great but varied regionally (ranging as high as 50%) and says his estimates are the best available.[77] The war killed soldiers and civilians directly, caused famines, destroyed livelihoods, disrupted commerce, postponed marriages and childbirth, and forced large numbers of people to relocate. The reduction of population in the German states was typically 25% to 40%.[78] Some regions were affected much more than others.[79] For example, Württemberg lost three-quarters of its population during the war.[80] In the territory of Brandenburg, the losses had amounted to half, while in some areas, an estimated two-thirds of the population died.[81] The male population of the German states was reduced by almost half.[82] The population of the Czech lands declined by a third due to war, disease, famine, and the expulsion of Protestant Czechs.[83][84] Much of the destruction of civilian lives and property was caused by the cruelty and greed of mercenary soldiers.[85] Villages were especially easy prey to the marauding armies. Those that survived, like the small village of Drais near Mainz, would take almost a hundred years to recover. The Swedish armies alone may have destroyed up to 2,000 castles, 18,000 villages, and 1,500 towns in Germany, one-third of all German towns.

This article catalogs early 17th Century Demographics. The reason the populations still managed to grow, is that humans were acting more like rabbits. Going back 400 years gets you back to a 60% death rate for children not making it to adulthood.
https://www.plimoth.org/sites/default/files/media/pdf/edmaterials_demographics.pdf

A man or woman who reached the age of 30 could expect to live to 59. Life expectancy in New England was much higher, where the average man lived to his mid-sixties and women lived on average to 62.
<snip>
Demographers estimate that approximately 2% of all live births in England at this time would die in the first day of life. By the end of the first week, a cumulative total of 5% would die. Another 3 or 4% would die within the month. A total of 12 or 13% would die within their first year. With the hazards of infancy behind them, the death rate for children slowed but continued to occur. A cumulative total of 36% of children died before the age of six, and another 24% between the ages of seven and sixteen. In all, of 100 live births, 60 would die before the age of 16.
<snip>
The following diseases, while affecting all ages, were common causes of death in childhood. Whooping cough, diphtheria, dysentery, tuberculosis, typhus, typhoid fever, rickets, chicken pox, measles, scarlet fever, smallpox and plague under their period names, were all listed as causes of death in children.

As humans urbanized pollution started becoming a significant problem almost a millennium ago. Very little of the “science” you are talking about back then.
http://infinitesque.net/articles/2012/Environmental History/3103030.pdf

The smoke of sea coal fires was a general nuisance in London by the last quarter of the 13th century. A royal commission appointed in 1285 to inquire into the operation of certain lime kilns found "that whereas formerly the lime used to be burnt with wood, it is now burnt with sea-coal." Consequently, "the air is infected and corrupted to the peril of those frequenting ... and dwelling in those parts."
<snip>
Though it is impossible to construct satisfactory price indices for wood products and sea coal during the 13th and 14th centuries,26 I intend to show that in London, at least, there was a genuine shortage of wood fuels at that time which would have led to an increase in prices. Many Londoners, therefore, began to turn to relatively inexpensive sea coal as an alternative source of fuel despite its other disadvantages.
<snip>
It is estimated that England's population grew from 1.1 million at the time of the Domesday survey (1086) to about 3.7 by the early 14th century.45 Meanwhile, London grew from about 20,000 inhabitants in 1200 to at least 40,000 by 1340.

So without this "science", one would have to go back to conditions a millennia ago. And still one would need to practice infanticide to keep populations low enough to minimize the damage to the environment from the stripping of land for wood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

World population has experienced continuous growth since the end of the Great Famine of 1315–17 and the Black Death in 1350, when it was near 370 million

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death

The Black Death was one of the most devastating pandemics in human history, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 75 to 200 million people in Eurasia and peaking in Europe in the years 1346–1353.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1315–17

The Great Famine started with bad weather in spring 1315. Crop failures lasted through 1316 until the summer harvest in 1317, and Europe did not fully recover until 1322. The period was marked by extreme levels of crime, disease, mass death and even cannibalism and infanticide.
<snip>
Historians debate the toll, but it is estimated that 10–25% of the population of many cities and towns died.

One can’t remove the “bad” science without losing the “good” science like inoculations, nutrition expertise, cleaner energy for large populations. Without such changes and inventions, the world would be in an even bigger mess, unless you have a plan to go back in time a millennium and convince humans to no longer want sex much. It is sort of a ying-yang thing. Humans would have to magically contain their sexual desires, or do it by some sort of totalitarian controls keep the human population somewhere below about 300 million people living a deadly and short lived primitive agrarian life. The problem is that living in such ignorance, they would not know that they needed to keep their population down. You might as well be arguing for pink unicorns sharing cotton candy with everyone; and everyone having their own planet to play on. Or maybe your Skybeast should have put out a memo on overpopulation.

 

[funinspace]

Wait, what? Do you really say that realizing how pedophilia really works makes them evil?

Wait - what? Are you saying that the drive to legalize pedophilia is not evil?

WHAT DRIVE TO LEGALIZE PEDOPHILIA!?! The only drive to legalise pedophilia is going on in your head.

Organized by this group:
http://www.b4uact.org/
"On March 10, 2016, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation aired a documentary titled “I, Pedophile” (by Matthew Campea and Cogent Benger Productions, Inc.) that makes a false and damaging claim about B4U-ACT, which advocates for ethical and compassionate mental health services for minor-attracted people. The documentary, in reference to B4U-ACT, shows the following text on the screen: “Many of its members have been known to pursue sexual contact with children.” This statement is completely false. B4U-ACT does not endorse or support any activity with children that is illegal or harmful to them in any way.
Note the new term: MAPs

Where does this group say they want to legalize pedophilia? I didn't find it after 5 minutes of looking around. It looks more like they want to help people with said problem/feelings. And who cares if someone started a new acronym?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light
http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ust-another-sexual-orientation-wesley-j-smith
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/...pooh_the_left_s_push_to_normalize_pedophilia/
http://nation.foxnews.com/pedophilia/2013/01/07/normalizing-pedophilia
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/12/22/is_pedophilia_a_sexual_orientation.html
http://individual.utoronto.ca/michaelseto/
"The Harper government recently announced tougher measures against child predators, including a public sex offender registry. Seto says this is misguided, given that the recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders is actually quite low, at about 10 to 15 per cent."

You sure seem obsessed about it….

1st link: A article discussing some of the issues around it. So what?

2nd link: LOL, National Review is 1 paragraph mentioning your first link.

3rd link: Ah good old blow hard lying Limbaugh; and again a reference to the first link. A great reference if there ever was one. And what is point? The right wing slippery slope BS line against gay marriage….just stupid.

I want to take you back. I want you to remember the first time, wherever you were, that you heard about gay marriage, and I want you to try to recall your reaction — your first gut reaction — when you heard that some activists or somebody was trying to promote the notion of gay marriage. What was your initial reaction?

“Aw, come on. It’ll never happen. That’s silly. What are you talking about?”

4th link: Ah Phaux “News”, also citing the Gardian article and saying to see National Review for more details; and hinting at that dastardly slippery slope again.

5th link (with 6th link to Dr. Seto): Wow, an actual article discussing the real problems. Personally, I know very little about this issue, but Dr. Seto does seem to be making a rational argument. Burying crap under the rug rarely helps people. One of the points of the article:

However, if pedophilia was widely viewed as a sexual orientation, effective treatment could focus on self-regulation skills — avoiding acting on one’s urges — rather than trying in vain to change sexual preferences, he wrote in a research paper last year.

“Pedophiles will remain hidden if they continue to be hated and feared, which would impede efforts to better understand this sexual orientation and thereby prevent child sexual exploitation,” he wrote.

I don’t know enough about this to posit an informed opinion. However, this article and the Gardian one are hardly about calling for normalizing/legalizing pedophilia. It is about helping people and society cope with real human problems. One group of professionals thinks it is primarily a learned behavior, and other people think many people are born with the issue. And they are debating the notion in your first and last article. Again, nothing about “normalizing”. After all everyone knows that it is simply best to completely ignore something until all the experts are on the same page

 

[DrZoidberg]

Wait, what? Do you really say that realizing how pedophilia really works makes them evil?

Wait - what? Are you saying that the drive to legalize pedophilia is not evil?

WHAT DRIVE TO LEGALIZE PEDOPHILIA!?! The only drive to legalise pedophilia is going on in your head.

Organized by this group:
http://www.b4uact.org/
"On March 10, 2016, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation aired a documentary titled “I, Pedophile” (by Matthew Campea and Cogent Benger Productions, Inc.) that makes a false and damaging claim about B4U-ACT, which advocates for ethical and compassionate mental health services for minor-attracted people. The documentary, in reference to B4U-ACT, shows the following text on the screen: “Many of its members have been known to pursue sexual contact with children.” This statement is completely false. B4U-ACT does not endorse or support any activity with children that is illegal or harmful to them in any way.
Note the new term: MAPs

So you don't care what they're actually writing on the homepage. Because you know what they secretly mean?

I haven't looked into this in any depth, but to me that site looks perfectly fine and legit. The clue is in the name. Do you think "before you act" is perhaps about helping people to avoid committing acts they might later regret? I think they're trying to stop pedophiles. That's what I think.

Here's their mission statement.

To publicly promote professional services and resources for self-identified individuals (adults and adolescents) who are sexually attracted to children and desire such assistance
To educate mental health providers regarding approaches needed in understanding and responding to individuals (adult and adolescents) who are sexually attracted to children and who either seek or are referred for services regarding issues identified by such persons or by those referring them for services
To develop a pool of health care providers who agree to serve individuals (adults and adolescents) who are sexually attracted to children, utilizing the therapeutic approaches advocated by the organization
To educate the public regarding issues faced by individuals (adults and adolescents) who are sexually attracted to children
To undertake other projects, programs, and activities as the need to do so presents itself

Being a paedophile must be horrible. I couldn't image what inner torment they're suffering. Isn't it good that we do research to figure out how to help them not commit paedophile acts?

How about giving every pedophile who hasn't molested a child a medal. It's super easy for the rest of us not to do it. But they have to actually struggle with this. It's so damn easy to judge others if you're not in the same boat, isn't it? Oh, btw, isn't there something in the Bible about not judging others and having compassion for other people's struggles?

If harassment and vilification worked to help people from self destructive behaviours, we wouldn't have fat people. So that's clearly not going to work.

If your only solution to stop pedophiles is to hit them hard with the full force of the law, nothing is going to change. I think it's a great initiative to give pedophiles the help they need so they can avoid acting on their obsession. I'd rather pay for a pedophiles therapy bill than the cost of housing him in jail (and paying for the therapy cost for the victim child). Crime prevention usually cheaper, and more effective than punishing people. With the added benefit of not having any victims. Which in this case is children, which makes it even more important.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light
http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ust-another-sexual-orientation-wesley-j-smith
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/...pooh_the_left_s_push_to_normalize_pedophilia/
http://nation.foxnews.com/pedophilia/2013/01/07/normalizing-pedophilia
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/12/22/is_pedophilia_a_sexual_orientation.html
http://individual.utoronto.ca/michaelseto/
"The Harper government recently announced tougher measures against child predators, including a public sex offender registry. Seto says this is misguided, given that the recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders is actually quite low, at about 10 to 15 per cent."

I looked through that list. First one, isn't about legalising pedophilia. It's again, about researching pedophilia so we can finds ways to protect children. The rest right wing nutter websites who are probably lying. As those kind of web sites tend to do. I mean... come on... Rush Limbaugh? When has he ever been honest about anything?

The sex offender registry is the dumbest idea ever. Once they're in that registry they have zero incentive to stop. Unless you're planing to monitor their every move any moron can figure out that it will have the opposite effect of the intended. What is the goal here, to protect children or to throw children under the buss for the pleasure of punishing people?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Where does this group say they want to legalize pedophilia? I didn't find it after 5 minutes of looking around. It looks more like they want to help people with said problem/feelings. And who cares if someone started a new acronym?

I suspect that if fully unpacked, it would be another slippery slope argument.

Homosexuals used to be demonized, then their condition was seen less and less as a perversion being suffered and just a difference to be tolerated and finally enshrined in laws giving their perversions the same rights as normal non-icky people.

so, I'd guess, Wilson sees any attempt to deal with pedophilia as a condition separate from HARM TO CHILDREN, to try to get society to stop demonizing it, is just like the history of how we slipped 'adults who have sex with consenting adults' into the laws, so now we must be trying to slip 'adults who want to have sex with minors' the same way. there can be no other explanation for any form of tolerance or sympathy. If you're not going to call for the death penalty for having this attraction, you must be championing legalizing it, and to hell with the children.

 

[funinspace]

Where does this group say they want to legalize pedophilia? I didn't find it after 5 minutes of looking around. It looks more like they want to help people with said problem/feelings. And who cares if someone started a new acronym?

I suspect that if fully unpacked, it would be another slippery slope argument.

Homosexuals used to be demonized, then their condition was seen less and less as a perversion being suffered and just a difference to be tolerated and finally enshrined in laws giving their perversions the same rights as normal non-icky people.

so, I'd guess, Wilson sees any attempt to deal with pedophilia as a condition separate from HARM TO CHILDREN, to try to get society to stop demonizing it, is just like the history of how we slipped 'adults who have sex with consenting adults' into the laws, so now we must be trying to slip 'adults who want to have sex with minors' the same way. there can be no other explanation for any form of tolerance or sympathy. If you're not going to call for the death penalty for having this attraction, you must be championing legalizing it, and to hell with the children.

Yup. And it is also part of the whole 'the end is nih' JW fan-fiction as they look for bad stuff to substantiate their dogma. At least the JW sect gave up predicting which year would be the end year, after a half dozen inglorious failures. Every thing is falling apart, getting worse, blah, blah, blah. Poor Eeyore looks downright chipper compared to these folks. Their glass isn't half empty, its 9/10ths empty...

The good old days: when rape and pillage were honorable parts of conquest; when military leaders could openly keep boy toys; and when one could be entertained by feeding those captured to lions in the arena. So SAD that it is long gone...

 

[Lion IRC]

*scrolls back to see who started the pedophilia derail*

 

[Elixir]

Their glass isn't half empty, its 9/10ths empty...

Nah - their glass is overflowing. It's 9/10 full of shit, plus 1/10 pessimism.

*scrolls back to see who started the pedophilia derail*

Why?

No, never mind. Don't want to know.

 

[Juma]

Solutions to what? The man was talking about evil PEOPLE. They are "mental health professionals."
Now YOU'RE saying it. Mentally ill people are teaching in your institutions of learning.
Glad I didn't say it.

With mentally ill people teaching them, how are they going to build that defense against evil?

Wait, what? Do you really say that realizing how pedophilia really works makes them evil?

Wait - what? Are you saying that the drive to legalize pedophilia is not evil?

No. I am not. now answer my question.

 

[none]

I took a look, maybe I'm wrong but it looks like Wilson mentioned pedophilia first

 

[DrZoidberg]

I took a look, maybe I'm wrong but it looks like Wilson mentioned pedophilia first

Yup. The topic was whether or not knowledge or faith is the best protection against evil. In support of his theory that knowledge is a doorway to evil he mentioned the evil non-existent "Academic Pedophile Lobby".

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...fe-creationist&p=413735&viewfull=1#post413735

What's the most entertaining about this religion vs science discussion is how absurd it is.. The stated and only goal of academia and science is to figure out what it true. So if you're against science you're also against the truth. If you think there's a conflict between science and religion you, by definition, think that religion is spreading lies. I'm constantly waiting for the irony of this to hit home among religious fundies.... nope. Never happens. They just don't grasp the topic well enough. They're constantly saying stuff that implies that they're suspicious about truth, but have faith in falsehoods... and don't get what they just said.

Add to that the misunderstanding of what science is. As if it's a person. So any statement said by any scientist that's proven wrong proves all of science wrong. Ehe... no. It proves that science works. But you need to understand how science works to understand that. The fundies clearly don't.

 

[wilson]

People with the correct disposition benefit from the work of JWs - even some of those in prison:

A Letter of Thanks From a Prison Inmate

From Spain comes the following letter:
“First of all, I’d like to thank you for the effort you are making to reach all sorts of people with the Bible’s message.
“The first time I had contact with Jehovah’s Witnesses was 15 years ago in Tiranë, Albania. I was surprised that a Witness had the courage to approach us, because we were a gang of ten youngsters. Nobody dared to talk to us, yet that brother did so despite our weapons. He fearlessly spoke to us about the Bible. His courage impressed me a lot.

“Four years ago here in Spain, a Witness visited me in prison and offered me a Bible study. I accepted, and since then I have changed for the better. I am no longer a violent, aggressive man. It’s been years since I last got into trouble. I have come to know Jehovah, and this has given purpose to my life. I try to live in peace with people around me, and I have been serving as an unbaptized publisher for over a year.
“Although I have been in prison for 12 years now, during the past 4 years, I have experienced happiness and peace of mind that I never felt before. I thank Jehovah for this every day.

“Some weeks ago I watched some videos on jw.org. The video about a brother who had been in prison in the United States really moved me. I am not an emotional man, but when I saw the changes he had made in his life, I could not hold back my tears.
“May Jehovah keep on blessing your efforts to reach all sorts of people by translating the good news into so many languages and also by visiting those of us who are in penitentiaries.
“Thank you very much.”

A personal experience:
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/...tExpTransformations/docid-502013390_E_1_VIDEO

 

[Keith&Co.]

People with the correct disposition benefit from the work of JWs - even some of those in prison:

So, wilson's given up any pretense of addressing any issue and uses the thread just to spam his favorite non-profit....

 

[DrZoidberg]

People with the correct disposition benefit from the work of JWs - even some of those in prison:

A Letter of Thanks From a Prison Inmate

From Spain comes the following letter:
“First of all, I’d like to thank you for the effort you are making to reach all sorts of people with the Bible’s message.
“The first time I had contact with Jehovah’s Witnesses was 15 years ago in Tiranë, Albania. I was surprised that a Witness had the courage to approach us, because we were a gang of ten youngsters. Nobody dared to talk to us, yet that brother did so despite our weapons. He fearlessly spoke to us about the Bible. His courage impressed me a lot.

“Four years ago here in Spain, a Witness visited me in prison and offered me a Bible study. I accepted, and since then I have changed for the better. I am no longer a violent, aggressive man. It’s been years since I last got into trouble. I have come to know Jehovah, and this has given purpose to my life. I try to live in peace with people around me, and I have been serving as an unbaptized publisher for over a year.
“Although I have been in prison for 12 years now, during the past 4 years, I have experienced happiness and peace of mind that I never felt before. I thank Jehovah for this every day.

“Some weeks ago I watched some videos on jw.org. The video about a brother who had been in prison in the United States really moved me. I am not an emotional man, but when I saw the changes he had made in his life, I could not hold back my tears.
“May Jehovah keep on blessing your efforts to reach all sorts of people by translating the good news into so many languages and also by visiting those of us who are in penitentiaries.
“Thank you very much.”

A personal experience:
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/...tExpTransformations/docid-502013390_E_1_VIDEO

Thanks for that completely irrelevant video. Was there a comment on anything, or any point to it? Or you just felt like sharing?

 

[wilson]

I took a look, maybe I'm wrong but it looks like Wilson mentioned pedophilia first

Yup. The topic was whether or not knowledge or faith is the best protection against evil. In support of his theory that knowledge is a doorway to evil he mentioned the evil non-existent "Academic Pedophile Lobby".

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...fe-creationist&p=413735&viewfull=1#post413735

What's the most entertaining about this religion vs science discussion is how absurd it is.. The stated and only goal of academia and science is to figure out what it true. So if you're against science you're also against the truth. If you think there's a conflict between science and religion you, by definition, think that religion is spreading lies. I'm constantly waiting for the irony of this to hit home among religious fundies.... nope. Never happens. They just don't grasp the topic well enough. They're constantly saying stuff that implies that they're suspicious about truth, but have faith in falsehoods... and don't get what they just said.

Add to that the misunderstanding of what science is. As if it's a person. So any statement said by any scientist that's proven wrong proves all of science wrong. Ehe... no. It proves that science works. But you need to understand how science works to understand that. The fundies clearly don't.

FALSEHOOD IS EASILY HIDDEN BY FLOWERY LANGUAGE
Advantages
Science has minimized our hardship and has increased pleasures and comfort. Now it cures our maladies, shortens distances, bridges gulfs and brings comforts and lifts up the veil of nature’s mystery.
Travelling: The quick means of travel has made the world a very small place to live in.
Computers: The computer, the greatest gift of the 20th century, has relieved man from manual and mental labor to a great extent.
Television: After his day’s work in his workplace when he feels bored, he may watch his TV which gives relief to his tired nerves.
Telephone: Through telephone he speaks to his distant friends or consults his physician.
Medical Science: He can get the benefit of modern drugs or surgery, which is the products of science.

Disadvantages
Yet, there are some disadvantages*of science.
Science has not only invented a robot, but has turned a man into a robot in some cases.
Satellites are widely*used for espionage purposes.
Excessive*industrialization has lead to air pollution and other health hazards.
It snatches the soul of a man when he runs a race in mad pursuit of material prosperity.
Science, at the same time, has given him frightful nuclear weapons. If there be a third world war, it will abolish the whole mankind from this planet. Peace on earth is at peril now

Health impacts.*
The invention of some chemicals has increased the chances of health issues such as respiratory and skin diseases.
Increased chances of warfare.*Most countries have acquired bombs, arms and ammunition, fighter planes and the like which have led to many dangerous wars with increased death of people.

Over-dependence on invention.*
Most people depend on invention to work. Others have gone to the extent of looking for robots to so their job.

Increased pollution.*
When computers are out of fashion and others are invented, they end up being damped which is a health hazard. The increased use of chemicals also causes pollution.

Increased competition.
Powerful countries end up having unhealthy competitions on who is going to invent what first. This leads to enmity among nations.
Conclusion:*
On one hand, science has given us the physical comfort. But, on the other hand, it has caused many problems for mankind.*People have begun to fight against the misuse of science.
http://www.importantindia.com/16255/paragraph-on-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-science/

 

[DrZoidberg]

Disadvantages
Yet, there are some disadvantages*of science.
Science has not only invented a robot, but has turned a man into a robot in some cases.

Absolute nonsense. Do you think pre-industrial farm work was easy? Humanity is in every way less of a robot today thanks to science. This entire statement is absurdly ignorant. You're talking about a short period right at the start of the industrial revolution where science led to more people surviving childhood, so they got an overpopulated countryside which pushed people into the cities. It took about a century and then we sorted it. But people who, if it wasn't for science, wouldn't be alive at all. So I'm not sure what the complaint is?

Satellites are widely*used for espionage purposes.

If you think that's the main usage for satelites, you are an idiot. This message you've written now has gotten to me in parts thanks to satelites. Satelites have been a great boon to mankind. Something we should all thank the great minds of the the USSR space agency.

Excessive*industrialization has lead to air pollution and other health hazards.

Ehe.... no. Stupid industrialisation. There are clean energy sources. All thanks to science. Too bad USA is governed by fundies who don't realize the problems with coal power.

It snatches the soul of a man when he runs a race in mad pursuit of material prosperity.

Karl Marx, is that you? Again, absolute nonsense. If you think the pre-industrial world was any less materialistic, you need to take off your rose tinted spectacles. They had less expensive shit because they had to work a hell of a lot harder to get hold of it. We just need to work less now. Guess, what... it allows for a less materialistic world and lifestyle. The colossal over-capacity of production means less of a need to be materialistic.

Science, at the same time, has given him frightful nuclear weapons. If there be a third world war, it will abolish the whole mankind from this planet. Peace on earth is at peril now

Health impacts.*
The invention of some chemicals has increased the chances of health issues such as respiratory and skin diseases.
Increased chances of warfare.*Most countries have acquired bombs, arms and ammunition, fighter planes and the like which have led to many dangerous wars with increased death of people.

Nuclear fission gave us nuclear power. Only a moron would think that trade wasn't worth it. Even if there would be an all-out nuclear war we'd be fine. The risks of it have been greatly exaggerated. No, it wouldn't be pleasant. But we'd be fine. When the volcano Tambora erupted in 1815 it exploded with the power equivalent of 10 000 times all the nuclear weapons mankind has ever produced. And it fired it all off in a three week window. Yet, we're still here somehow. Imagine that. The effects of an all out nuclear war will be horrible and lead to mass starvation in the poor countries. But most of us will be fine.

And finally, mankind has never been more peaceful than now... all thanks to science. You've already been given the memo. You must have forgotten.

Over-dependence on invention.*
Most people depend on invention to work. Others have gone to the extent of looking for robots to so their job.

I don't know what this means. Do you know what you mean?

Increased pollution.*
When computers are out of fashion and others are invented, they end up being damped which is a health hazard. The increased use of chemicals also causes pollution.

If we ever manage to get religious people out of politics, and let scientists make our environmental policies our planet will be fine. The ONLY problem today is religious people having opinions about stuff they don't understand.

Increased competition.
Powerful countries end up having unhealthy competitions on who is going to invent what first. This leads to enmity among nations.

Yet, somehow has led to the most peaceful period in man's entire history. How do you explain that? Wouldn't enmity imply that it leads to wars?

Conclusion:*
On one hand, science has given us the physical comfort. But, on the other hand, it has caused many problems for mankind.*People have begun to fight against the misuse of science.
http://www.importantindia.com/16255/paragraph-on-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-science/

My conclusion is that you aren't well educated enough to know what it is you are criticizing. Could that possibly be the case? Could it be that you're just reposting stuff others have said, but that you don't understand yourself?

For a fundie Christian, isn't the greatest advantage of science that it frees lots of time up that you can spend studying the Bible? Do you think that an organisation like Jehovas Witnesses would be at all possible if it wasn't for an industrial economy freeing up your time to do missionary work. JW has everything to thank science for, yet are extremely ungrateful. Why do you think that is?

 

[wilson]

Absolute nonsense. Do you think pre-industrial farm work was easy? Humanity is in every way less of a robot today thanks to science. This entire statement is absurdly ignorant. You're talking about a short period right at the start of the industrial revolution where science led to more people surviving childhood, so they got an overpopulated countryside which pushed people into the cities. It took about a century and then we sorted it. But people who, if it wasn't for science, wouldn't be alive at all. So I'm not sure what the complaint is?

Satellites are widely*used for espionage purposes.

If you think that's the main usage for satelites, you are an idiot. This message you've written now has gotten to me in parts thanks to satelites. Satelites have been a great boon to mankind. Something we should all thank the great minds of the the USSR space agency.

Excessive*industrialization has lead to air pollution and other health hazards.

Ehe.... no. Stupid industrialisation. There are clean energy sources. All thanks to science. Too bad USA is governed by fundies who don't realize the problems with coal power.

It snatches the soul of a man when he runs a race in mad pursuit of material prosperity.

Karl Marx, is that you? Again, absolute nonsense. If you think the pre-industrial world was any less materialistic, you need to take off your rose tinted spectacles. They had less expensive shit because they had to work a hell of a lot harder to get hold of it. We just need to work less now. Guess, what... it allows for a less materialistic world and lifestyle. The colossal over-capacity of production means less of a need to be materialistic.

Science, at the same time, has given him frightful nuclear weapons. If there be a third world war, it will abolish the whole mankind from this planet. Peace on earth is at peril now

Health impacts.*
The invention of some chemicals has increased the chances of health issues such as respiratory and skin diseases.
Increased chances of warfare.*Most countries have acquired bombs, arms and ammunition, fighter planes and the like which have led to many dangerous wars with increased death of people.

Nuclear fission gave us nuclear power. Only a moron would think that trade wasn't worth it. Even if there would be an all-out nuclear war we'd be fine. The risks of it have been greatly exaggerated. No, it wouldn't be pleasant. But we'd be fine. When the volcano Tambora erupted in 1815 it exploded with the power equivalent of 10 000 times all the nuclear weapons mankind has ever produced. And it fired it all off in a three week window. Yet, we're still here somehow. Imagine that. The effects of an all out nuclear war will be horrible and lead to mass starvation in the poor countries. But most of us will be fine.

And finally, mankind has never been more peaceful than now... all thanks to science. You've already been given the memo. You must have forgotten.

Over-dependence on invention.*
Most people depend on invention to work. Others have gone to the extent of looking for robots to so their job.

I don't know what this means. Do you know what you mean?

Increased pollution.*
When computers are out of fashion and others are invented, they end up being damped which is a health hazard. The increased use of chemicals also causes pollution.

If we ever manage to get religious people out of politics, and let scientists make our environmental policies our planet will be fine. The ONLY problem today is religious people having opinions about stuff they don't understand.

Increased competition.
Powerful countries end up having unhealthy competitions on who is going to invent what first. This leads to enmity among nations.

Yet, somehow has led to the most peaceful period in man's entire history. How do you explain that? Wouldn't enmity imply that it leads to wars?

Conclusion:*
On one hand, science has given us the physical comfort. But, on the other hand, it has caused many problems for mankind.*People have begun to fight against the misuse of science.
http://www.importantindia.com/16255/paragraph-on-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-science/

My conclusion is that you aren't well educated enough to know what it is you are criticizing. Could that possibly be the case? Could it be that you're just reposting stuff others have said, but that you don't understand yourself?

For a fundie Christian, isn't the greatest advantage of science that it frees lots of time up that you can spend studying the Bible? Do you think that an organisation like Jehovas Witnesses would be at all possible if it wasn't for an industrial economy freeing up your time to do missionary work. JW has everything to thank science for, yet are extremely ungrateful. Why do you think that is?

My conclusion is that, while I do agree with some of them, you are not smart enough to realize that I did not write any of those opinions.
I gave you my sources.
Take it up with them.

 

[wilson]

People with the correct disposition benefit from the work of JWs - even some of those in prison:

A Letter of Thanks From a Prison Inmate

From Spain comes the following letter:
“First of all, I’d like to thank you for the effort you are making to reach all sorts of people with the Bible’s message.
“The first time I had contact with Jehovah’s Witnesses was 15 years ago in Tiranë, Albania. I was surprised that a Witness had the courage to approach us, because we were a gang of ten youngsters. Nobody dared to talk to us, yet that brother did so despite our weapons. He fearlessly spoke to us about the Bible. His courage impressed me a lot.

“Four years ago here in Spain, a Witness visited me in prison and offered me a Bible study. I accepted, and since then I have changed for the better. I am no longer a violent, aggressive man. It’s been years since I last got into trouble. I have come to know Jehovah, and this has given purpose to my life. I try to live in peace with people around me, and I have been serving as an unbaptized publisher for over a year.
“Although I have been in prison for 12 years now, during the past 4 years, I have experienced happiness and peace of mind that I never felt before. I thank Jehovah for this every day.

“Some weeks ago I watched some videos on jw.org. The video about a brother who had been in prison in the United States really moved me. I am not an emotional man, but when I saw the changes he had made in his life, I could not hold back my tears.
“May Jehovah keep on blessing your efforts to reach all sorts of people by translating the good news into so many languages and also by visiting those of us who are in penitentiaries.
“Thank you very much.”

A personal experience:
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/...tExpTransformations/docid-502013390_E_1_VIDEO

Thanks for that completely irrelevant video. Was there a comment on anything, or any point to it? Or you just felt like sharing?

Irrelevant to you - helpful to many others.