bruce malone, an outstanding scientist has absolute scientific proof that evolution is not scientific!.
bruce, a leading researcher for dow chemical for 30 years; he is one of the top 100 inventors eighteen of his inventions raised millions of dollars; and has a b.s.
degree in chemical engineering.
What did you think, Christian's don't fight back. As I said, if you want to dish it out, be prepared to receive it back.
i first do not think they will change anything about 1914 for at least 20 or more years but one day it will have to happen.
since 1914 is their meal ticket and they have it in print prior to the year happening, they will never abandon the year altogether.
they have too much tied into 1914-1919 as well as have held onto it for too long.
Nice idea.
What I think they will do is leave 1914 as the year Jesus was enthroned and his presence began as well as satan being cast to the earth.
One problem is that they tie in Christ beginning his heavenly rule in 1914 after casting out of Satan and his Demon hordes. Which in turns kicks of the Last Days.
So if he's ruling since 1914 what happened to Satan and his gang? They still up there? Or out of heaven but mooching around as the Last Days hasn't started yet?
JW theology is like jenga blocks. You can pull so many bits out but it will all fall down at some point.
deborah relates her experiences of being a jw in this bbc radio 4 broadcast.. deborah frances white - rolls the dice.
very funny and by and large very accurate.. fruit based economy indeed!.
Deborah relates her experiences of being a JW in this BBC Radio 4 broadcast.
Deborah Frances White - Rolls The Dice
Very funny and by and large very accurate.
Fruit based economy indeed!
the witchtower is being more careful now about putting a date.
out there for the beginning of the great tribulation.
they have learned their lesson from 1975. however they sure.
guess what, that darn number keeps popping up. 1,200 and 3 score = 1,260 X 2=?
It crops up amongst crazy end-timers. Not human beings who have powers of reason and logic.
i've posted evidence elsewhere indicating that ancient israel was at times part of the egyptian empire.
that means that the exodus documents incorporated into the old testament, is a mythical story.
the israelites did not leave egypt.
SimonSays
This however does not exclude the exodus as archeology has since then found Egyptian chariot wheel frames in the ocean floor in the red sea.
Not so:
the latest phase of the uk charity commission case included this:.
subsequent to the opening of the inquiry, in a letter dated 10 july 2014, mr cook of the watchtower informed the respondent that the disfellowshipping hearing for mr rose had in fact been carried out by the elders of a different congregation, so the charity had played no role in that process.
mr cook (who is the in-house solicitor at the watchtower) later elaborated on his own letter in a witness statement for the tribunal.
did not select the elders who conducted the disfellowshipping and had no control over the process they followed
Had no control over the process they followed?
What?
So these elders didn't use the Shepherd the Flock book then?
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Well done for moving the thread forward with some definitions of your idea of God and the fact there is no empirical evidence.
But where does this leave us?
Absentheism is perhaps a new expression that I am now coining, but I posit that it's the truest expression of skepticism regarding the existence of deities, because it makes a positive claim ("God is absent") rather than a negative claim ("There's no evidence that supports the existence of deities"), and therefore, the burden of proof falls mainly on the negative claim rather than on the positive claim. I CAN prove that God is absent, but I CAN'T prove that God doesn't exist. Can you see the difference?
Eden
which can easily be changed to:
Absentheism is perhaps a new expression that I am now coining, but I posit that it's the truest expression of skepticism regarding the existence of fairies, because it makes a positive claim ("The tooth fairy is absent") rather than a negative claim ("There's no evidence that supports the existence of the tooth fairy"), and therefore, the burden of proof falls mainly on the negative claim rather than on the positive claim. I CAN prove that the tooth fairy is absent, but I CAN'T prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist. Can you see the difference?
Eden
Do you see the problem? It's a pointless piece of pondering. It add no value.
That's why it's a bizarre position to take.
As the old maxim goes, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Since there's sufficient evidence that Santa Claus' story has been developed and embellished from a real life character, and we know pretty accurately how it came to present form, there's no need to be 'absentheist' about it, and it can be dismissed as legendary stuff.
I could re-do the above for the traditional idea of God:
Since there's sufficient evidence that the God story has been developed and embellished from real life tribal beliefs, and we know pretty accurately how it came to present form, there's no need to be 'absentheist' about it, and it can be dismissed as legendary stuff.
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Cofty and Wizztick, that may be true for the type of "omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent" deity that you so fondly oppose to, but fact is, I have shown you a different type of deity, complete with a priesthood, temple and followers, and its existence is entirely verifiable by evidence. And you dismiss it just because it doesn't fit on your own definition of 'deity'?
NO!
Once you've defined God or a deity as the sun, totem poles, people etc. then you can discuss whether (a) they are or are not a God or a deity and (b) whether they are or are not absent and what that means with regards them being god/a deity.
But given you refuse to define what you (not other people) mean by (a) we're stuck!
It really is that simple.
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
a) "What can be said about God (or deity) is that it's absent".
b) The definition of absent was given: something for which no evidence of presence has been found.
c) This definition of absence has not been refuted yet. It does NOT presuppose existence.
d) Both claims that "God exists" or that "deities don't exist" are so grandiose, that demand extraordinary and unequivocal evidence.
e) Theists provide evidence for the existence of deity that can be debunked, while atheists don't provide any evidence for the non-existence of God.
f) Therefore, the most sound assertion is that God is absent, or not present. This is verifiable and adheres to reality more closely than theism or atheism, and reflects the skeptical approach more accurately.
Once again, you're happy to provide a definition of 'absent' yet not of 'God' or 'deity'.
Why?
