From atheist to Witness of the Most High

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No chance, why would i want to read about someone that was once a Witness and who is now no longer a Witness?

Knowledge and understanding. Or is that not your bag?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Knowledge and understanding. Or is that not your bag?

knowledge and understanding of what to be precise?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
knowledge and understanding of what to be precise?

Another persons perspective and life journey.

So you post interviews/articles telling people they are there for there edification yet you won't reply in kind.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Another persons perspective and life journey.

So you post interviews/articles telling people they are there for there edification yet you won't reply in kind.

I am discerning with what I read, you should be too, no one forced you to read the article, stop whinging.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am discerning with what I read, you should be too, no one forced you to read the article, stop whinging.

There's no whinging, far from it. What you may deem as 'discerning' I view as intellectual cowardice born from the shackles of religious dogma. But that's just me.

Never have I met someone so afraid of words. I actually find it extraordinary.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No chance, why would i want to read about someone that was once a Witness and who is now no longer a Witness?

To understand the joy of freedom from captivity.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
There's no whinging, far from it. What you may deem as 'discerning' I view as intellectual cowardice born from the shackles of religious dogma. But that's just me.

Never have I met someone so afraid of words. I actually find it extraordinary.

Lets take a look at your analogy, if we are to extend it to literal food then we must assume that anyone who takes care of their body by being careful of what they eat must be a physical coward. Do you feed your body on junk food? No? why not? because its not healthy. Its exactly the same with what we feed our minds on. Your analogy stands busted, you stand busted and I crow upon this thread like a cockerel on the farm gate early in the morning.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lets take a look at your analogy, if we are to extend it to literal food then we must assume that anyone who takes care of their body by being careful of what they eat must be a physical coward. Do you feed your body on junk food? No? why not? because its not healthy. Its exactly the same with what we feed our minds on. Your analogy stands busted, ...[text shortened]... stand busted and I crow upon this thread like a cockerel on the farm gate early in the morning.

Robert, we're talking about words, in this case words about a fellow human beings life story. Get a grip for goodness sake.

So anything which contradicts Watchtower teachings or your slim polarised view of the world is classified as 'junk food'? Have you ever considered that you have it all wrong, and it is actually you who is feeding on the 'junk food'?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Robert, we're talking about words, in this case words about a fellow human beings life story. Get a grip for goodness sake.

So anything which contradicts Watchtower teachings or your slim polarised view of the world is classified as 'junk food'? Have you ever considered that you have it all wrong, and it is actually you who is feeding on the 'junk food'?

Just address the analogy, does what we take into our bodies have an effect on the body, does what we take into our minds effect our thinking - just answer the questions. I have not mentioned the Watchtower.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Just address the analogy, does what we take into our bodies have an effect on the body, does what we take into our minds effect our thinking - just answer the questions. I have not mentioned the Watchtower.

Yes and yes.

Do I eat junk food? Yes, occasionally I do.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Yes and yes.

so you call me a intellectual coward for being discerning with what I feed my mind upon but have no qualms about being discerning in other aspects of your own life? Thats a very strange position to take PK dont you think?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so you call me a intellectual coward for being discerning with what I feed my mind upon but have no qualms about being discerning in other aspects of your own life? Thats a very strange position to take PK dont you think?

But you're not being discerning, you're steadfastly refusing to read anything which challenges what you already believe.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
But you're not being discerning, you're steadfastly refusing to read anything which challenges what you already believe.

That is simply not true, for example I have read all of the text here on this forum with reference to the trinity and actively encouraged people to explain what they mean. That is not a belief I hold.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
That is simply not true, for example I have read all of the text here on this forum with reference to the trinity and actively encouraged people to explain what they mean. That is not a belief I hold.

This is true. My blanket statement was a little hasty.

Can you think of anymore examples where you have read material which challenges your religious beliefs?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
He did not say that he does not understand, what he actually said was that the probability of such a complex system arising through the process of evolution remains so remote to him as to discount it as a reality, So my dear Mr. Hess get a Swenska maiden to feel your bum and be brought back to reality.

He says the blood-brain barrier couldn't have evolved. But the truth is that we can do what we always do when we wish to understand how structures could have evolved; we do comparative anatomy with species that only feature some aspects of BBB, and note how they differ, so he's literally saying: "I don't understand it, therefore god". Unless, of course, he's not actually as highly trained as he claims, in which case he's saying: "I don't even understand how evolution works, therefore god". Either way, his turning to JW is based on a false dichotomy.

http://wampumpeag.org/uploads/tx_neofileshare/2009-08-04_05-54-40_blood-brain-barrier.pdf

We find that in bichir and lungfish the barrier is formed by brain endothelial cells, while in sturgeon it is formed by a complex perivascular glial sheath, but with no detectable tight junctions. From their BBB pattern, and position on the vertebrate family tree, we conclude that the ancestral vertebrate had a glial BBB. This means that an endothelial barrier would have arisen independently several times during evolution, and implies that an endothelial barrier gave strong selective advantage. The selective advantage may derive partly from greater separation of function between endothelium and astrocyticglia. There are important implications for the development, physiology, and pathology of the mammalian BBB, and for the roles of endothelium and gliain CNS barrier layers.

Also, if you don't mind paying for your information, you may find this article interesting:

http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v308/n6/full/scientificamerican0613-52.html

In fact, it [BBB] is made up of ordinary blood vessels with one extraordinary property: the cells that make up their lining are packed together so tightly that they allow very few substances to cross into brain tissue. [...] Many more cells pass through the barrier than scientists previously realized.

Now, what can we learn from his mistake? Maybe it's ill-adviced to escape to the god hypothesis whenever one doesn't understand something about nature. He's in good company though, since even greats like Newton were guilty of it. We should learn from their mistakes. Stick to science, and when we can't immediately explain something, simply proclaim: "we don't understand it, yet".