I can't imagine not believing in God. (page 39)

cofty

Atheism is a lack of belief, its the default position. You can't proselytise atheism you can only offer facts and objective evidence to show why people like you selling their brand of religion have not made their case.

caliber

"His eyes were alight with the joy "... .. eyes hide not their pain nor likewise their glory !

Lozhasleft

Atheism is an opinion. Yes you can proselytise that opinion.

Loz x

cantleave

Loz - if someone leaves the JW's & converts to Islam, is that a good thing?

THE GLADIATOR

Reminds me of the advert that tries to pass off a blend of buttermilk and margarine as butter: " I can't believe it's not butter!"

Lozhasleft

Can't leave - I don't know, is it? Who are we to say it isn't? If that is their considered choice as an adult then yes, they must go with their mind and heart. Just because it wouldn't be good for me doesn't mean it wouldn't for them.

Loz x

cantleave

Why would it not be good for them?

AGuest

Your side pounces with faith, we pounce with the anti-dote

I have no "side", nor is anyone "pouncing" except you and other certain non-believers. In your "pouncing," however, you can't even keep to what you're saying yourselves. You respond to my comment as to C's statement regarding his "number one priority", which he himself virtually ignores, apparently (how, then is it even a priority, let alone number "one", actually? ). I mean, if he's going to post his "number one priority" it should at least be one HE recognizes. He doesn't. But like the man who looks at himself in the mirror and then upon turning around immediately forgets what he looks like, paints another "portrait" of himself to others. So, okay, you might not think that dishonest but merely forgetfulness. I will concede that; however, it is also hypocritical (attempting to "school" others as to how they should stay away from those newly released from the WTBTS when he can't even do the same himself). So, I can certainly change that from "dishonesty" to "hypocrisy," no problem whatsoever.

In response to your stated "number one priority", C, I stated that if it WERE your priority (again, at all, let alone number one):

You would not discuss ANYTHING having to do with faith... - Shelby

But now you say:

Not at all. Objective facts and evidence are exactly what is needed to counter superstitious fantasies.

Perhaps, if one is discussing "something" to do with faith. But according you TO, YOUR "number one priority" is to NOT do so (okay, avoid) for "at least a year or two." Apparently, you seem to define the work "avoid", as "seek out and attempt to destroy faith" because in YOUR opinion faith is nothing more than "superstitious fantasies."

Atheism is a lack of belief, its the default position.

Funny: little children have "friends" they believe in, believe exist. "Friends" that NO ONE taught/told them about, told them to believe in. Indeed, most parents are caught off-guard when such a friend "arrives." If thpse children were told that that "friend" was God, that is what they would most likely identify it as, even if they named it something else. They choose, though, what to call it. If, then, little children start OUT with a tendency "believe"... even in something they can't see (with their physical eyes)... but certainly will tell you they HEAR from such a one... how do YOU know that atheism is the default position? Even if you took the religious connotation (as to specific doctrine) out of the equation, small children will TELL you that someone speaks to THEM. It's folks like YOU... and even some "religious" people... however, who make them (and perhaps their peers) feel "silly"... and ultimately "wrong"... about that. Eventually, they MUST discard it... or be touted as "babies", "infants," "special," or perhaps even "retarded."

Yet, it occurs in/for almost every child ever born. You tell me, C: why IS that? Why are children BORN with the capacity to "hear" the "voice" of someone they can't see... rather than born NOT so hearing? And please don't say that it is themselves they hear, because every one of them... EVERY one... will tell you that it is NOT themself they hear.

You can't proselytise atheism

Bullocks... AND bollocks. Whichever makes you feel better. You do it all the time, proselytise atheism. And in doing so you relegate YOUR form of atheism to a level absolutely NO different from some's form of religion (i.e., WTBTS, LDS, etc.).

you can only offer reasons why people like you selling their brand of religion have not made their case.

Ah, see, here's were you're out of your league. The better argument (and I don't insinuate by ANY means that you have such) doesn't necessarily mean the "winner" is right. There are folks who still believe OJ Simpson killed his wife. If what you say is TRUE, then he absolutely didn't. Because his very competent attorney made the case that he didn't, while some obviously incompetent prosecutors' were unable to make the case that he did (careful, now - you don't want to try and backtrack here and say, "No, that's not what I said" because, in essence, it's exactly what you said). If making the case is always the deciding factor, then every person who's ever been found "guilty"... was. Unequivocally. And every person who was ever acquitted... was never... ever... guilty. The case "made" says so.

PS - its bollocks (testicles) not bullocks (young male bovine)

Again, whichever make YOU feel better. Either fits for my purposes of using it: testicles... or bulls.

A slave of Christ,

SA

AGuest

Why would (Islam) not be good for them?

That's a very good question, dear CL (peace to you!). May I ask YOU that question? Why would it NOT be good for them? Because given those who follow Islam that I know, I don't know that it necessarily ISN'T good for them. Can you tell me why YOU think it might not be?

Again, peace to you!

A slave of Christ,

SA

Lozhasleft

The bottom line line Can't Leave is, that if one is walking by Spirit, they will find their way, no question. Sometimes it is via other 'religion' such as the WTBS, or Islam, or whatever, sometimes not. We though, are not in charge, it's beyond and above us.

Loz x

I can't imagine not believing in God.

Share this