Jehovah's Witnesses vs. other Christians

[Justin108]

To non-Jehovah's Witnesses - what do Jehovah's Witnesses believe about Christianity that is simply not true according to your own denomination?

To Jehovah's Witnesses - what beliefs do other denominations hold that is simply not true according to your own denomination?

[2timothy316]

No one said that WWI was a bigger deal than WWII. WWI was the BEGINNING of peace being taken away from the earth. It got worse from there.

Yes,nit got worse from there, if you mean WWII. But since then it has gotten better. Yes, there has been numerous proxy wars and civil wars, but never has any major power gone to war directly with another major power since 1945. Your chances of being killed deliberately by another human is lower now than it has ever been.

Interestingly here is what it says about the Red Horse.

"Another came out, a fiery-colored horse, and it was granted to the one seated on it to take peace away from the earth so that they should slaughter one another, and he was given a great sword." Rev 6:4

While war certainly takes away peace think of all the smaller things like threats (like North Korea an ISIS), gang violence, protest and terrorism that are not getting better. These things also take away peace and incite that we slaughter one another. We are polarized not in the way of country vs country but countrymen vs fellow countrymen. Yes, there is war in place after another but the Red Rider takes peace from the whole Earth and war is not really specified as the only means the Red Rider takes away peace. It's not about the odds of a person dying. What are the odds that a person will be robbed of their peace? The Red Rider is a representation of anything that takes away peace.

[marco]

I said that WWI was the biggest, most destructive war UP TO THAT TIME, and that it involved the whole world, which was UNPRECEDENTED. If WWI did not even involve a majority of the countries of the world, why do historians call it WORLD WAR I?

Let us separate nonsense from fact. Obviously, with the invention of new weaponry and the build up of new warships and tanks the First World War was going to be more destructive than others. At Agincourt the longbow was employed destructively; the invention of cannon altered war. We don't require some silly prediction to tell us that as the world advances, so too does technology, in peace and in war.

But there were wars that lasted longer than WW1. As communications got better, more countries would become involved in war. It is fantasy to attach some religious significance to 1914 or the corrected date, 1915. To make up stories that Jesus is hiding somewhere in the present world just invites scorn. The end of the world is NOT nigh. The world might still have its sinners, but it is generally a better place to live, at least in the civilised West, where life expectancy has been steadily rising. It is wrong to frighten impressionable people, and children, with apocalyptic tales. They are utter nonsense.

[2timothy316]

The world might still have its sinners, but it is generally a better place to live, at least in the civilised West, where life expectancy has been steadily rising.

This is not true. What else might you be wrong about?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/heal ... .html?_r=0

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/heal ... lines.html

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr043743

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... 2f08a58127

[marco]

The world might still have its sinners, but it is generally a better place to live, at least in the civilised West, where life expectancy has been steadily rising.

This is not true. What else might you be wrong about?

The twentieth century surprised scientists with its unexpected increases in life expectancy. Over the past few centuries people have been living longer, except in the poorest countries. The TREND is upwards; the slight dip in America over the past twenty years does not alter that trend.

Here's an article that gives a chart showing the surprising increases:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/how-has-l ... ory-2015-6

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to post 53 by 2timothy316]

"This is not true. What else might you be wrong about?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/heal ... ality.html...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/heal ... lines.html
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr043743
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ncy-declin..."

Nonsense. Your the one who is in the wrong.

Let me explain why:

Firstly,

Mark clearly said life expectancy of the world and not the life expectancy of a part of the world.

The links you provided only talk about decrease in life expectancy in USA.

So you saying he is wrong would mean that because life expectancy is decreasing in the USA, therefore the life expectancy of the world has decreased too.

But this kind of reasoning is fallacious. The logical fallacy your guilty of is called fallacy of composition.

"Fallacy of composition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). For example: "This fragment of metal cannot be fractured with a hammer, therefore the machine of which it is a part cannot be fractured with a hammer." This is clearly fallacious, because many machines can be broken apart, without any of those parts being able to be fractured.
This fallacy is often confused with the fallacy of hasty generalization, in which an unwarranted inference is made from a statement about a sample to a statement about the population from which it is drawn.
The fallacy of composition is the converse of the fallacy of division; it may be contrasted with the case of emergence, where the whole possesses properties not present in the parts."

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



Secondly,

The life expectancy of the world is indeed rising.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... asing.html

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 53 by 2timothy316]

"This is not true. What else might you be wrong about?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/heal ... ality.html...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/heal ... lines.html
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr043743
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ncy-declin..."

Nonsense. Your the one who is in the wrong.

So the articles in the New York Times, Washington Post and New England Journal of Medicine are lies?

[2timothy316]

The life expectancy of the world is indeed rising.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... asing.html

Your source 'Ben Hanowell is a senior living researcher and data scientist at A Place for Mom.'

Really? This guy isn't even a Dr.

I'll pass on Mr. Hanowell's opinion thanks as he is a little short of the New England Journal of Medicine.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to 2timothy316]

"So the articles in the New York Times, Washington Post and New England Journal of Medicine are lies?"

Seriously man?!!!

After the careful analysis i presented your still continuing with the fallacious reasoning.

Here it goes again:

The links you provided only talk about decrease in life expectancy in USA not the world.
You are saying that because life expectancy is decreasing in the USA, therefore the life expectancy of the world is decreasing too.
But this kind of reasoning is fallacious. The logical fallacy your guilty of is called fallacy of composition.

"Fallacy of composition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). For example: "This fragment of metal cannot be fractured with a hammer, therefore the machine of which it is a part cannot be fractured with a hammer." This is clearly fallacious, because many machines can be broken apart, without any of those parts being able to be fractured.
This fallacy is often confused with the fallacy of hasty generalization, in which an unwarranted inference is made from a statement about a sample to a statement about the population from which it is drawn.
The fallacy of composition is the converse of the fallacy of division; it may be contrasted with the case of emergence, where the whole possesses properties not present in the parts."

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



"Your source 'Ben Hanowell is a senior living researcher and data scientist at A Place for Mom.'
Really? This guy isn't even a Dr. Shocked
I'll pass on Mr. Hanowell's opinion thanks as he is a little short of the New England Journal of Medicine."


Here :

https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy/
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... 2020-study
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/21/healt ... y-by-2030/
https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/public ... ing-longer

Last time i checked the USA was only a part of the world and not the whole world.
I don't know how you manage to mess this simple thing twice.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to 2timothy316]

"So the articles in the New York Times, Washington Post and New England Journal of Medicine are lies?"

Seriously man?!!!

Yes seriously. Do you think the articles are lies? I never got an answer. Are you familiar with a 'straw man argument'?

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

You arguing a question that I didn't ask. I want to know if you think the articles are lies.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to 2timothy316]

"Yes seriously. Do you think the articles are lies? I never got an answer. Are you familiar with a 'straw man argument'?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
You arguing a question that I didn't ask. I want to know if you think the articles are lies."


The third time might be a charm.

The articles you presented do not lie. Yes the life expectancy of the USA has decreased.

But they do not speak about the life expectancy of the world.

Even though the life expectancy of the USA has decreased the life expectancy of the world has increased.

When one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part is making a logical fallacy called fallacy of composition; so no straw man here because you said marc was wrong when he said the the life expectancy of the world has increased and posted links that show the life expectancy has decreased only in a part of the world(USA) but not in the world as a whole.

Example: The annual average temperature of Romania might be decreasing in time but the average temperature of the world as a whole might be increasing. One might infer that global warming is false because in some part of world the average temperature is decreasing while ignoring that the average temperature of the world as a whole is increasing. I hope you see the problem in your thinking.

Q: Is the life expectancy of the world increasing? (Yes/No question)

I answered your question. Now please answer mine.