JW83 - actually I totally agree with you on the basic point of 'life' not being created - maybe another thread..(I don't fancy sidetracking this one 'cos I really would need to explain clearly what I'm saying here)?
Posts by Qcmbr
-
257Prove to me that God exists
by CinemaBlend ini need debate practice on the subject for the next time i'm cornered.
-
-
-
257
Prove to me that God exists
by CinemaBlend ini need debate practice on the subject for the next time i'm cornered.
-
-
Qcmbr
Actually had me thinking about this all day at church!!!!
First of all I would suggest that you define what you mean by God - its possible to argue proofs from several different viewpoints depending on what your aiming at.
Secondly you need to define what you would accept as proofs and what you wouldn't (ie what would you find as admissable evidence / proof.)
Thirdly I would like to know what your reason is in asking. From reading your earlier comment it suggests that you actually want 'proofs' purely to knock them down ie it doesn't matter what proof was presented you would attack it from any philosophical / scientific angle you chose to invalidate it. This struck me as the core of the problem in this form of question because its a bit of a trap (forgive me for the inference - I'm not saying your actually trying to!) especially for any one who believes. In many ways its a request for something that you really don't want. Again forgive me for presupposing but are you actually looking to do anything with the answers given - are you looking for a belief in God - or are you seeking to knock down the beliefs of others?
That said once I can understand the framework of the question I'll give you some proofs that I accept. -
257
Prove to me that God exists
by CinemaBlend ini need debate practice on the subject for the next time i'm cornered.
-
-
Qcmbr
Life cannot spontaneously generate
-
27
Compulsory I.D cards in 2008
by Ramblin_rose indear brothers & sisters in christ,
may i say at the onset: i am not a j.w.
but i am a fellow christian.
-
-
Qcmbr
I like the idea of ID cards because I work in IT and the main govt databases where the work would likely be done are just down the road...:)
In the UK ID cards would help with:
Centralising data but only by providing extra impetus to a process that is already occurring (govt dbs are being centralised ) which would mean that courts / police /tax / customs and excise and benefits depts would be able to cross reference data, reduce duplicate data etc..
It may reduce crime particularly of identity theft (due to biometric data)
Will provide a huge database of biometrics for police to work with (ie most fingerprints will find a match now)
Will mean that policies can gain statistical feedback sooner from datamining in a single location.
However this is what I am a bit wary of:
I have nothing to hide from my friends but everything to hide from my enemies. Someday the state may be my enemy.
It is conceivable one day that the biometric data will include dna and that could be used to discriminate in matters of pensions, health benefits and insurance.
There may come a day when religion is on the political agenda as a point of discrimination. Europe only got rid of the last political system that killed people for their religion 60 odd years ago - or do we include the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia and Serbia..?
If someone high enough up wanted to scrub you out it is technically easier from a central store (yea a bit extreme but conceivable.) -
2
What did you call people who said 'come back' but were never in..
by Qcmbr inas a missionary we used to call them 'flogs' and we even had a flog dialogue where we would ask for a contact number and at the end of the convo repeat it back wrong.
if they kept quiet we put them on a visit if ever in the area.
i used to get so frustraed with 'flogs' because they wasted so much time.
-
-
Qcmbr
As a missionary we used to call them 'flogs' and we even had a flog dialogue where we would ask for a contact number and at the end of the convo repeat it back wrong. If they kept quiet we put them on a visit if ever in the area. I used to get so frustraed with 'flogs' because they wasted so much time. I'll bet most weren't malicious they were just too polite to say bog off.
What did you call the flogs? -
15
How could Jehovah alter his musical taste so much?
by jaffacake insomeone told me that not so long ago it was to some extent unacceptable to listen to beatles music.
but now it is rap and heavy metal that is distasteful to jehovah.
i suppose it used to be rock&roll in the 1950s, and before that were bing crosby or glen miller the ones singing and playing the devil's music?
-
-
Qcmbr
..can't stand the Osmonds either.
-
15
How could Jehovah alter his musical taste so much?
by jaffacake insomeone told me that not so long ago it was to some extent unacceptable to listen to beatles music.
but now it is rap and heavy metal that is distasteful to jehovah.
i suppose it used to be rock&roll in the 1950s, and before that were bing crosby or glen miller the ones singing and playing the devil's music?
-
-
Qcmbr
EF I agree with you on Christian Rock - it makes me want to puke to. That said I like IONA but only because they don't ram too many religious references into every song and I like celtic music..
-
15
How could Jehovah alter his musical taste so much?
by jaffacake insomeone told me that not so long ago it was to some extent unacceptable to listen to beatles music.
but now it is rap and heavy metal that is distasteful to jehovah.
i suppose it used to be rock&roll in the 1950s, and before that were bing crosby or glen miller the ones singing and playing the devil's music?
-
-
Qcmbr
..then again maybe its more what the music is associated with than just the music. Anyone who values fidelity and chastity and clean language will probably need to stay clear of swathes of modern music. The beatles themselves were associated with a lot of behaviour that was not moral despite making great songs. Those listening to the beatles today probably would be doing it for the music as opposed to the lifestyle as well. Ironically I have a TV music channel playing in the background and the girls are wearing revealing clothes etc.. I don't think their is any real doubt as to what they are promoting.
Don't knock people who want to live a clean life.:) -
43
Creationism - is purely a myth that is untestable - maybe not!
by Qcmbr ini've been doing my homework having been stung by the vehemence of the evolutionary believers - i've got some interesting things that maybe science in the classroom could approach.
some premises - .
evolution is only a theory - its not a fact any more than newtonian physics was a fact.
-
-
Qcmbr
Abbadon - since you take the considerable time to respond to my posts -
You said:
However, I'd like it if you'd actually respond to my post, for example, on point 1, are you now clear on evolution as a fact (fossil record) and evolution as a theory (Darwinism) being analogous to G at sea level (a fact) and Newton's Law Fg= G m1m2/r squared (a theory)?
I say:
Sometimes I don't have the answers to your points. In this particular case I see fossils as the fact. I see micro evolution (adaptation) as a fact. I don't see macro evolution as a fact. However, to be even, I don't see the ark or a seven literal days of creation as a fact either.
As for gravity I was trying to suggest an example of a theory that explained the observed facts but was in itself superceded (there is a deeper level of laws that are still being discovered) by further knowledge. I wasn't trying to define what a fact is. Although I am an argumentative a$$hole sometimes and I often do sound arrogant I assure you that I am a whole lot more amenable and open minded than often appears on the message board. It is often difficult to write clearly what I mean when I cannot use inflection, body language and the fact that I often agree with points made against what I'm saying - I normally get sidetracked however, with comments that refer to me in a condescending way. I am also not a professional writer and I get a little frustrated when people look at my words for holes as opposed to giving the benefit of the doubt - I think we all have experience of seeing someone respond to our post and wanting to shout at the pc screen 'that's not what I meant at all!'
I want truth plain and simple but just because someone else says it so doesn't mean I have to accept it - I learnt that from church:) It also doesn't mean that once I find something I think is true I'm not willing to look at all the angles. I get a little hurt when people say I believe such and such just because I'm 'in a cult.' I've spent hours and hours soul searching with the most difficult questions I can find and in the end I got answers that satisfied me - I'm still highly puzzled by some things however the whole creation thing is one and that's why I'd like a chnace to experiment on creationist ideas - I'd have loved to try experiments at school etc.. but of course we just cut frogs up.
I read, I see and my intellect doesn't come to the same conclusion from the observed facts that some other people come to - that's individuality I guess. -
270
Are you an atheist?
by hibiscusfire inwhy are we here?
what is the purpose of life?
an atheist has many questions but no answers.. .
-
-
Qcmbr
GBL if I ever cast aside my beliefs and ditch my God I'll tell you first:)