A challenge to Atheists

[garbonzo]

Just 1? :shrug:


Apart from displaying a gross ignorance of statistics (and what's under discussion) you're also ignoring the list previously given in Post #111 (and the other one linked to in Post #120).


And you've moved the goalposts again.

That one failed miserably so now you're at full retreat.

Can you say "futile rearguard action"?
Do you recognise the term "panicked flailing"?

Just 1? :shrug:​

There was only 1 prediction before there was success (we are not counting predictions that have come afterword, as those are invalid and weren't needed, since 1914 was correct all along)

Apart from displaying a gross ignorance of statistics (and what's under discussion) you're also ignoring the list previously given in Post #111 (and the other one linked to in Post #120).​

Where do you think I got 82 years from? Was it not...wait for it....POST #120!!! OHHH, SURPRISE. I think it is you who is not reading what I'm saying and instead typing out whatever comes to mind

And you've moved the goalposts again.​

They remain the same. I've just merely accommodated my argument with Post #120.

That one failed miserably so now you're at full retreat.​

It didn't fail miserably, it still holds true. I think you just misunderstood what I said. If they picked any other date AT FIRST other than 1914 (in other words, if their first predicted year wasn't 1914), then I would not be here debating this with you.

Can you say "futile re-repeating of points already emphasized"?
Do you recognise the term "we are going no where, as you've not yet come up with a credible argument against how they were able to predict 1914 as a significant year"?

 

[garbonzo]

Wrong again.
That's ONE "prediction". You still haven't covered the others.

You've selected a single prediction that appears to have been correct (but actually failed abysmally) and decided to ignore all the other predictions.
This is, if not intellectual dishonesty, arrant stupidity.

They use that scripture to cover up all of their mistakes As I've said, the only string holding me is 1914 being predicted as a significant date. Maybe it's because it's hard to let go of something you've been taught your whole life, but that doesn't change the fact that 1914 started WWI.

 

[Dywyddyr]

They use that scripture to cover up all of their mistakes

Actually they do much the same as you to cover up their mistakes.
Divert the topic with irrelevancies, obfuscate, misdirect and then come up with something equally "spectacular" (and fallacious) and hope (pray?) that the previous errors will be ignored while arguing about the current round of stupidity.

 

[Dywyddyr]

As I've said, the only string holding me is 1914 being predicted as a significant date.

While ignoring everything else that they got wrong.

Maybe it's because it's hard to let go of something you've been taught your whole life

Presumably you're referring to yourself in this instance?

but that doesn't change the fact that 1914 started WWI.

It also doesn't alter the fact that they got ONE correct out dozens of "predictions" and that they didn't actually predict WWI, while at the same time predicting something that DIDN'T happen that year.

 

[Thoreau]

Good god, you two! I can't keep up. Your little fingers move faster than my eyeballs. LOL! Let me know when you to either come to an agreement or agree to disagree.

 

[garbonzo]

Question: Where in the hell do people get these numbers? 144,000? I've read the bible and I sure don't remember ever reading anywhere that places an exact figure on who get to go.... :shrug:

Here:

Here is another truth about God’s Kingdom: Jesus will not rule alone. He will have corulers. For example, the apostle Paul told Timothy: “If we go on enduring, we shall also rule together as kings.” (2*Timothy 2:12) Yes, Paul, Timothy, and other faithful ones who have been selected by God will rule together with Jesus in the heavenly Kingdom. How many will have that privilege?
9 As pointed out in Chapter*7 of this book, the apostle John was given a vision in which he saw “the Lamb [Jesus Christ] standing upon the Mount Zion [his royal position in heaven], and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand having his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads.” Who are those 144,000? John himself tells us: “These are the ones that keep following the Lamb no matter where he goes. These were bought from among mankind as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.” (Revelation 14:1,*4) Yes, they are faithful followers of Jesus Christ specially chosen to rule in heaven with him. After being raised out of death to heavenly life, “they are to rule as kings over the earth” along with Jesus. (Revelation 5:10) Since the days of the apostles, God has been selecting faithful Christians in order to complete the number 144,000.
10 To arrange for Jesus and the 144,000 to rule mankind is very loving. For one thing, Jesus knows what it is like to be a human and to suffer. Paul said that Jesus is “not one who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tested in all respects like ourselves, but without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15; 5:8) His corulers too have suffered and endured as humans. In addition, they have struggled with imperfection and coped with all kinds of sickness. Surely, they will understand the problems that humans face!

 

[garbonzo]

Good god, you two! I can't keep up. Your little fingers move faster than my eyeballs. LOL! Let me know when you to either come to an agreement or agree to disagree.

I'm just barely keeping up myself xD We should have an IRC channel or something

 

[Dywyddyr]

Good god, you two! I can't keep up.

Pfft.
You're obviously up to something else. And not giving me your full attention.

 

[Thoreau]

Here:

Ah, I see. Thanks.

 

[Thoreau]

Pfft.
You're obviously up to something else. And not giving me your full attention.

I'm subscribed to 440+ threads. It's a little difficult to give anyone my full attention.

 

[Dywyddyr]

There was only 1 prediction before there was success (we are not counting predictions that have come afterword, as those are invalid and weren't needed, since 1914 was correct all along)

Nope.

Where do you think I got 82 years from? Was it not...wait for it....POST #120!!! OHHH, SURPRISE. I think it is you who is not reading what I'm saying and instead typing out whatever comes to mind

On the contrary, as I have already pointed out, you're misapplying the numbers (much the way you did with your "random number guessing".

They remain the same. I've just merely accommodated my argument with Post #120.

Incorrect, as shown.

It didn't fail miserably, it still holds true. I think you just misunderstood what I said. If they picked any other date AT FIRST other than 1914 (in other words, if their first predicted year wasn't 1914), then I would not be here debating this with you.

Yet you have changed that condition since.

Do you recognise the term "we are going no where, as you've not yet come up with a credible argument against how they were able to predict 1914 as a significant year"?

Pure luck? 1914 wasn't the first year they made a prediction for. AS SHOWN.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I'm subscribed to 440+ threads. It's a little difficult to give anyone my full attention.

I'm jealous. You're neglecting me. :bawl:

 

[garbonzo]

While ignoring everything else that they got wrong.​

Yes, because it's backed up by scripture.

Presumably you're referring to yourself in this instance?​

Yes,

It also doesn't alter the fact that they got ONE correct out dozens of "predictions" and blah blah blah​

Their first prediction was correct. All after that were misunderstandings of what happened in 1914. Example:

Have you ever misunderstood a point someone said, and 5 mins into the conversation, your like, "wait a sec, that doesn't make sense, what are you saying"? And the other person is like, "what are YOU talking about"? And your like, "I'm talking about this"!. And the other person says, "NOOO, [Chuckle] I'm talking about THIS"!

Well the point is, just that 1 thing you misunderstood offshoots into everything else you got wrong in that conversation. In the same way, in thinking that they could predict Armageddon, they wrongly presumed it was 1914, since they knew it was significant according to the scriptures.

BLAH BLAH BLAH that they didn't actually predict WWI, while at the same time predicting something that DIDN'T happen that year. ​

Example:
Someone says a major terrorist strike is going to happen on US ground in 2001 at JFK Airport, and is widely spread across the government staff.

9/11/01 comes and it strikes the Twin Towers and Pentagon was hit instead. The person who made the prediction said it was an honest mistake in translation (hypothetically here), but you are absolutely positively sure that there is going to be another one on BLAH BLAH BLAH at BLAH BLAH BLAH, or he will literally kill himself (hypothetically). Are you going to remove all credibility from that person just because he gets the place mixed up? He got the year, right?

Same is true. They have a new prediction now and has rested their organization on it.

Was that so hard to understand? :jawdrop:

 

[garbonzo]

Nope.


On the contrary, as I have already pointed out, you're misapplying the numbers (much the way you did with your "random number guessing".


Incorrect, as shown.


Yet you have changed that condition since.


Pure luck? 1914 wasn't the first year they made a prediction for. AS SHOWN.

It was the first year JWs have made a prediction for. AS SHOWN.

Yet you have changed that condition since.​

No, I've merely added another condition, which I would also go by. Multiple choice answer.

Nope.​

:wtf:

On the contrary, as I have already pointed out, you're misapplying the numbers (much the way you did with your "random number guessing".​

Where? I must've missed it.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yes, because it's backed up by scripture.

So what?
You are aware that the majority of the JW's "predictions" are (supposedly) based on scripture, aren't you?
And why, exactly, should a "prediction" backed up by scripture carry any particular weight?

Their first prediction was correct. All after that were misunderstandings of what happened in 1914.

One more time: NO. 1914 was NOT their first prediction.

Same is true. They have a new prediction now and has rested their organization on it.

How is their organisation "rested" on this new prediction? They've weathered being (incredibly) wrong for a long time, they're unlikely to give up simply because yet another prediction turned out to be false. Where does it state they will give up if this one is incorrect?

 

[spidergoat]

The way this date was figured was absurd. It had to do with a subjective interpretation of some guy's dream, an arbitrary measure of a time period from revelations, and the completely vague notion of the "beginning of the end times".

I've seen better and more precise predictions come true from secular scientists.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

The Bible as we know it was compiled at the Council of Nicea in AD 325.

Pardon me, but that is simply not correct.

The Council of Nicea had NOTHING to do with choosing the books of the Bible. They did not even discuss the subject.

You can check the actual official 'minutes of the meeting', the formal announcement of what the CoN decided in the document they produced which still exists :
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

Sadly - this (false) urban legend is endlessly repeated in the 'net.


Kapyong

 

[garbonzo]

Absolutely.
Now let's get back on-topic.
You still haven't resolved your errors with regard to Adam and Eve, and (your claims of their) knowledge of good and evil.

That's because I'm asking the Society about it, and we should probably focus on the only ammo I have left right now, instead...

 

[Dywyddyr]

It was the first year JWs have made a prediction for. AS SHOWN.

Then you're obviously not reading the same posts I am.
Try post #120 (again).

1879 "Christ came in the character of a Bridegroom in 1874.... at the beginning of the Gospel harvest."

Right. Everyone knows Christ returned in 1879...
Or:

1877 'The End Of This World; that is the end of the gospel and the beginning of the millennial age is nearer than most men suppose; indeed we have already entered the transition period, which is to be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation Dan. 12:3."

Yep, 1877 et seq. was a terrible time. Worse than anything in previous history.
Etc etc.

 

[garbonzo]

So what?
You are aware that the majority of the JW's "predictions" are (supposedly) based on scripture, aren't you?
And why, exactly, should a "prediction" backed up by scripture carry any particular weight?


One more time: NO. 1914 was NOT their first prediction.


How is their organisation "rested" on this new prediction? They've weathered being (incredibly) wrong for a long time, they're unlikely to give up simply because yet another prediction turned out to be false. Where does it state they will give up if this one is incorrect?

One more time: NO. 1914 was NOT their first prediction.​

Show me.

How is their organisation "rested" on this new prediction? They've weathered being (incredibly) wrong for a long time, they're unlikely to give up simply because yet another prediction turned out to be false. Where does it state they will give up if this one is incorrect?​

Others you'll have to wait on.