Posts by wizzstick

284

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

by EdenOne in

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.

wizzstick

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?

284

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

by EdenOne in

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.

wizzstick

Many teenage girls worship One Direction.

Therefore One Direction are deities?

284

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

by EdenOne in

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.

wizzstick

The Sun, people etc. all exist. They are real. It's a separate discussion as to whether they are a deity.

284

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

by EdenOne in

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.

wizzstick

If I said: "Is there a lkahlkaksshalks present in this room or is it absent from this room?"

What would you say?

284

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

by EdenOne in

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.

wizzstick

Unicorns can exist, even if, as Simon said, the possibility that they exist in the form that we expect them to exist is so hugely remote that we chose to embrace the notion that it may just as well be inexistent. However, because we haven’t made a research so wide as to scan the entire universe and all the known dimentions (not to mention those dimensions who aren’t known yet, but merely theorized that exist), no one can say with a 100% degree of absolute certainty that “no unicorns exist”. As per the example above, they do exist. Hence, I stand by the proposition that “The only thing that can be said about unicorns is that they're absent”- absentunicornism.

Can you see how absurd the above looks? You could do the same for pixies, Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy and so on. And again, you need to work from a position whereby people have an agreed idea of what you mean when you talk about unicorns, pixies, Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy etc.

284

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

by EdenOne in

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.

wizzstick

Modern atheism is obsessed with presence.

No. Let me correct that for you.

Modern atheism is obsessed with evidence. A very different proposition indeed.

What a bizarre thread. EdenOne, you were on a losing streak with this one. If I stated;

"The existence of ThoBerras can't be proved, neither is there evidence of ThoBerras inexistence"

I doubt most people would say "Fair enough". I would suggest most people would immediately say "Who or what is ThoBerras?".

To have a meaningful discussion on any subject you have to check your audience understands what that subject is. If you won't or can't provide an answer to what the subject is then how can the discussion proceed?

201

These guys crash a Kingdom Hall on Memorial, video included

by Crazyguy in

jw
friends

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7mars2mtaui.

to funny nice job....

wizzstick

I'm in the no camp for this kind of stunt.

It just fuels the JW persecution complex. Such as the end is sooo close now...they are getting attacked in their Halls during the memorial...things going from bad to worse...blah blah.

It does nothing except look self congratulatory for the instigators.

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

they take pride in obedience.

wizzstick

Oh and also:

The thing that many people just cannot see is the historical references from the bible such as the circle of the earth.

The Hebrew word Chug does not mean sphere. It's meaning is more like the circle of a compass:

Chug

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

they take pride in obedience.

wizzstick

those dead sea scrolls, which no one edited or changed was found in the 20th century and contains the same text as the Hebrew bible. So no man could change it because it's sacred text.

No man could change it? Apart from the person that left out an entire Psalm!

Q: Are there substantial differences between the text of the Hebrew Bible manuscripts found at Qumran and the Masoretic Text?

A: Yes … and no. On the one hand, they show a stability in the text. We see how faithful the Masoretic tradition was, that it could preserve a lengthy ancient text for over a thousand years. On the other hand, there are some key differences. An extra psalm. Slightly different wording. Most important is the occasional variation that clarifies something that was puzzling in the Masoretic Text. A good example is Isaiah 53:11. The translation of the Masoretic Text reads: “Out of the suffering of his soul, he will see and be satisfied.” He will see what? The word “see” has no object. But in the Isaiah scrolls found at Qumran, we find that verse 11 contains the missing object: “Out of the suffering of his soul, he will see light.” And guess what? The Septuagint also has the missing word.

Click on:

Secrets of the Scrolls

You need to research more on the Christian Greek Scriptures pressman. Read Professor Bart D. Ehrman's. Scholar's have to guess which translation to use at times. And then there's the internal discrepancies between the Gospel accounts. An example:

Barton and Muddiman cite inconsistencies between the gospel writers about what happened at Christ's tomb. They note that "In Mk 16:1 there are three women at the tomb, in Mt 28:1 two, and in Lk 23:55-24:10 more than three. In Mark and Luke they come with spices to anoint Jesus, but in the Fourth Gospel this has already been done.

Internal Consistency of the Bible: Examples

You've got lots of reading to do if you want to learn the truth...

5

BBC blatantly begins advertising!

by The Searcher in

the bbc receives miion$ every year from the tv licence fee which is imposed on folks with a tv.

due to that source of income, they cannot advertise as other channels do to raise money.. however, the bbc has changed its web site to include video adverts which have to be viewed prior to seeing the news video - bank of america in this one.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-32158049.

wizzstick

It's not coming up now.

As Simon says, the BBC (BBC Worldwide actually) have been doing this for years. It's perfectly legit. The licence fee has been frozen so the Beeb looks to outside the UK to pay to see its services. And therefore generate revenue streams for the BBC in the UK.

But it's ad-free within the UK.

Fair enough surely?