If they call on me this year I'll simply be polite but honest. No more game playing.
This is the direction I'm leaning too. I think I'd be happy for them to df me in absentia...at least then I'll find out who my real friends/family are.
OneEyedJoe
JoinedPosts by OneEyedJoe
-
35
Saturday Let the Games Begin
by Poztate inthe start of a new memorial season is upon us.
saturday is the day for the start of the invites to look but not touch the bread and wine.
the "observer class" is a belief unique to jehovah's witnesses.. along with the invite to the masses a special effort is being made this year by the elders to invite all the df's, da's and faders.. along with the invite a copy of the rtj will be left with them.. naturally we will still be treated as pariah's if we do attend but it is the thought that counts.. i am of the "fader class" as i don't wish to rock the boat with my wife and extended family.
-
-
OneEyedJoe
-
375
This thread is for proof that God exists
by juandefiero inhowever, i haven't found any evidence to support that belief.. have you?
if so please, show me the evidence that god exists, and i will believe along with you.. criteria:.
(1) you must specify which god you are talking about;.
-
-
OneEyedJoe
ALL experiments that have been carried ARE causal. In other words one has to create a vacuum to measure these events. The creation of the vacuum is causal.
Sorry, didn't have time to get back to this until now. Yes experiments are causal, but empty space need not have a cause if we're operating under the assumptions you've laid out. Empty space, by definition, is not physical, and therefore can exist without cause - playing by the same rules as your hypothesized intelligence. By Occam's razor we can see that the supposition of preexisting nothing is much simpler (therefore probably more likely) than a preexisting intelligence of infinite complexity. Really, as far as base assumptions go, they're opposite ends of the spectrum.
Another fact you're missing here is that the experimenters that pull a vacuum in order to study quantum fluctuations, not to generate then. Empty space is literally everywhere and all of it is teeming with particles bursting into existence without cause. In fact it appears that most of the mass of the things you interact with everyday comes from the quantum fluctuations of empty space. So while the vacuum has a cause, it is not the cause of the virtual particles that burst into existence from nothing. They literally have no cause.
Current evidence currently points to the big bang. The red shift and cosmic background radiation are the two strongest evidences for this. Corroborative to this is also the Hubble constant. No other theory has such strong support.
Current evidence points to the fact that the universe is expanding from a single point of enormous density. My point was that there are a number of possible, mathematically consistent, explanations for what happened prior to the big bang to cause it. Not all of these require our universe to have burst into existence at that time. If you're interested, I highly suggest you read a book on cosmology. Or you can PM me for some Cliff's notes I guess.
Because it is not physical it therefore must be ex Nihilo. And if that is the case, the strongest idea is God.
Also the argument is logically consistent and uses material implication.You're still making a huge leap to get to an extra-physical intelligence. A leap, I might add, that needn't be made. All evidence points to the possibility of something from nothing (and in fact the total mass-energy of our universe is zero, supporting the idea that this is what happened) and the early universe appears to have been without intelligent order, which is what you'd expect from a scenario like this.
Furthermore, you have yet to demonstrate any reason why a first cause needs to include some intelligence. Since it is possible to come up with explanations without this, I see no reason to complicate things.
So can I have my $500 now?
Sorry, nope. Even if you were on to something, I don't think you've satisfied the original poster's requirements for evidence of god.
-
63
Tight Pants
by pixel intoday is friday.
so let's see something refreshing on the new june 2016 study wt.
tight pants!.
-
-
OneEyedJoe
Someone must be running low on writing material. This can not be that big a deal.
IMO they probably realized that a lot of people were talking badly about AMIII's insane rant about the homosexual conspiracy to get men in tight pants, and they needed to nip it in the bud. The other members of the GB may not agree with his extreme stance, but they probably realize that if they allow people to start questioning one of them it opens the door questioning all of them.
So they commission an article designed to get the suck-ups of the congregation to speak at length of the horrors of tight pants. Now the person who realizes that AMIII is a power-tripping pharisee is forced to face a new framing of the situation. It's not him against an authority figure that's abusing power, it's him against the entire congregation of friends, family and loved ones who hold his social future in their hands. Social pressure is a hell of a thing, and this will shut down most of the dissent.
-
30
"New light"?
by winstonchurchill inhttps://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-june-2016/man-with-inkhorn/.
so i guess baptism is no longer the "mark for survival".. as a matter of fact, that key aspect of the 'old light' is not even acknowledged in this article.. they are just publishing new understanding without even bothering to explain the full extent of the change, hoping nobody will remember how it was... and they may be right about that..
-
-
OneEyedJoe
They're back to talking about a modern-day fulfillment to a prophecy when none is indicated in the scriptures. I thought they specifically said that they were done with that when they condemned type/antitype interpretation. Could it really be that they might say one thing but do another when it's convenient? Shocking. -
63
Tight Pants
by pixel intoday is friday.
so let's see something refreshing on the new june 2016 study wt.
tight pants!.
-
-
OneEyedJoe
Awesome. When I complained about AMIII's pharisiacal rule making everyone in my (former) congregation said that he was talking about pants that were so tight that someone could see the contour of a man's penis, which is clearly immodest. I wonder if anyone will see this and realize that he was, in fact, merely talking about pants that are slim fitting along the legs, but not to the extreme they had to assume in order to excuse his rules.
Probably not. They'll just make more excuses to keep a favorable view of their cult.
-
40
Who Picks The Governing Body?
by millie210 inhey everyone,.
just a simple straight forward question on exactly what the process is.
if a gb member died tomorrow, do the remaining ones choose who gets to be next?.
-
-
OneEyedJoe
The current GB appoints any new members. They're the very definition of self-appointed. -
375
This thread is for proof that God exists
by juandefiero inhowever, i haven't found any evidence to support that belief.. have you?
if so please, show me the evidence that god exists, and i will believe along with you.. criteria:.
(1) you must specify which god you are talking about;.
-
-
OneEyedJoe
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore: The universe has a first cause.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause - false. It is certainly our common experience that this is true, however the birth of a universe is not a common event. It has been demonstrated that in empty space particles are constantly being born and annihilating each other purely randomly and without cause. It is entirely possible that the birth of our universe mirrors this phenomenon.
2. The universe began to exist. - Unverifiable. It certainly appears to have had a beginning in the big bang, but there are a number of ideas about the big bang (i.e maybe it was a "big bounce") that don't require a time zero. It's entirely possible that the universe had no beginning. If you dispute this fact, then I would dispute that god had no beginning and challenge you to demonstrate god's "first cause."
3. Supposing that points 1 and 2 are correct, how does something necessarily having a "first cause" suggest an intelligence of any form? If anything, it simply suggests that our picture of the universe is incomplete, which I think just about any physicist or cosmologist will readily agree with. Simply pointing to a gap in knowledge is not sufficient evidence for belief in anything. Let alone a god with the power to create an entire universe.
-
27
For those of us creationists who don't know anything about evolution
by truth doubter incofty- perhaps you would like to teach us the "first thing about evolution".. truth doubter .
-
-
-
27
Jehovah's Witnesses the richest religion in the world..
by wwjdnwt ini don't post here too much..i am more of a lurker.
but, wanted to share recent conversation with jw family member.. one of my jw relatives recently went to visit another jw relative that is "serving where the need is great",.
when my jw relative returned home and i was talking with him, who is an older jw who has been in for over 50 years, was so excited to tell me about the special talk.
-
-
OneEyedJoe
The claim that JWs are the richest religion is so completely absurd I don't even know where to start in reacting to someone making it. -
56
Why Do Intelligent People Believe in God?
by cantleave inone of the most common thing thrown at atheists is - lots of intelligent people believe in god.
this darkmatter 2525's video is an excellent explanation as to why very logical people possess religious belief systems.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y201qzddzbg.
-
-
OneEyedJoe
But I disagree, your ridiculous claim is that I was indoctrinated to believe in God, but my parents are both agnostic and atheist. So your claim is not supported by the evidence.
His claim was general, your specific example is anecdotal.
Lol hahaha very good. Einstein believed in God
It's very well documented that Einstein used "god" as a metaphor. He was, at best, agnostic.