The Scotsman

Joined

• started 33 topics
• posted 394 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by The Scotsman

• 
  48

  Brazilian Billboards having impact

  by Gayle in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  The Scotsman

  That is brilliant.

  An english translation would be good though....

  I wonder how the local JWs are reacting - have the org reacted with letters to the congregations.
• 
  13

  Trying to Know God and/or Christ...

  by AGuest in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  solely by means of the pages of the bible... is like trying to know someone based on what's written about them in their high school year book.

  while what others write there may say a lot... oh so much is left out.

  best way to get to know that person?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  The Scotsman

  God or Jesus NEVER answer back.

  Many would disagree with you.

  Many have had prayers answered.

  Many have said they have seen little green men from Mars and had cattle abducted by aliens in space ships.

  Does this make them right or wrong?

  Eh... I was just saying that some would disagree with the comment from 3mozzies.

  The discussion of little green men is for another thread I think.
• 
  13

  Trying to Know God and/or Christ...

  by AGuest in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  solely by means of the pages of the bible... is like trying to know someone based on what's written about them in their high school year book.

  while what others write there may say a lot... oh so much is left out.

  best way to get to know that person?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  The Scotsman

  God or Jesus NEVER answer back.

  Many would disagree with you.

  Many have had prayers answered.
• 
  26

  From Richard Dawkins' Preface to "The God Delusion"

  by AK - Jeff in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.infoamerica.org/documentos_pdf/dawkins10.pdf.

  the word delusion in my title has disquieted some psychiatrists who regard it as a technical term, not to be bandied about.

  three of them wrote to me to propose a special technical term for religious delusion: relusion.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  The Scotsman

  If you are suggesting I beleive in that then you are mistaken. As usual.

  Not at all - just bringing balance to the discussion.

  As usual???? You must have me mistaken for someone else....he he he......
• 
  26

  From Richard Dawkins' Preface to "The God Delusion"

  by AK - Jeff in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.infoamerica.org/documentos_pdf/dawkins10.pdf.

  the word delusion in my title has disquieted some psychiatrists who regard it as a technical term, not to be bandied about.

  three of them wrote to me to propose a special technical term for religious delusion: relusion.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  The Scotsman

  Yes, believing in silent invisible sky people is totally rational.

  Yes, just like believing everything came from nothing is totally rational - sheesh....
• 
  38

  The Evolution of the Eye.

  by whereami in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  fascinating stuff.. .

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb9_x1wgm7e.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  The Scotsman

  Not true at all. I learned that you don't understand biology, chemistry, genetics, don't want to learn them.

  Ah - now comes the arrogance. You nothing of me or about me. I do not need to have full understanding of biology, chemistry etc to believe that someone / something made/designed the human eye.

  Just like I do not need to understand the full mechanics / details of how my 10 megepixel camera works to KNOW that someone (or a group of people) designed and built it.

  God did it....that's easy. It's...comfortable.

  Easy??? - do you think so??? I don't think its easy at all. I did not mention God - I merely stated that intelligence existed before the eye did - but your probably right - it probably was God....
• 
  38

  The Evolution of the Eye.

  by whereami in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  fascinating stuff.. .

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb9_x1wgm7e.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  The Scotsman

  I know. Learning it hard. It's easier to just believe what you want. Keep up the good work.

  Your right - learning "can" be hard for all of us. I have learned nothing on this thread and neither have you - which pretty much solidifies my point - debates on this subject are pointless, they very rarely, if ever change someone's pre-position.

  And it is not about taking some easy route because I maintain my own beliefs.

  To believe the eye evolved without intelligent input - now thats far from easy....
• 
  38

  The Evolution of the Eye.

  by whereami in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  fascinating stuff.. .

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb9_x1wgm7e.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  The Scotsman

  It's irrelevant what most people think. The camera is inorganic, not self re-producing and isn't combing it's parts with another camera to make new models. Your analogy doesn't make sense and collapses.

  The argument makes perfect sense and by stating that a camera is inorganic is irrelevent - the camera exists because an intelligent being created it - simple really. If the intelligence was not there "first" we would have no camera.

  Evolution is by no means random.

  To deny the basic fact that the premise of evolution is in fact random processes does not help your argument. If not random - what is it? Controlled? If so - who / what is the controller?

  If i pick up pots of paint and just through them at the canvas - THATS random. This will produce a very colourful canvas - but it is not going to be a portrait, or a landscape.

  But if someone were to take some time, use brushes and use their talent they could produce beautiful artwork - same canvas, same paint - just not random. The key though is this - to produce the beautiful artwork requires understanding, tools and some talent BEFORE the painting is produced.

  Anyway - I am breaking my own rule here - "never engage in a creation / evolution debate" - it is uttely pointless. You believe what you want and I will do the same.
• 
  57

  When You First Saw This Place What Was Your Reaction?

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  were you shocked?.

  was it eye opening?.

  did you think these "apostates" were pretty much right?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  The Scotsman

  I thought you were all crazy - and still do in some cases.

  I was really shocked at first but then it started to all make sense.
• 
  38

  The Evolution of the Eye.

  by whereami in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  fascinating stuff.. .

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb9_x1wgm7e.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  The Scotsman

  Hey Caedes

  You did not deny that my digital camera had a designer - in fact you stated that it definately did.

  Now we will put the "human eye is a botched job argument" to once side for a moment.

  I would wager that most people would agree that the human eye is more impressive than my cluncky 10 megapixel camera. Your view is that my inferior camera "definately" had a designer and yet tthe vastly more superior human eye did not - argument collapses.

  As I said at the start - it is truly laughable that people actually believe wonderful, beautiful, detailed objects like the eye are the result of random processes. Of course the evolutionist community have got to attempt to explain the eye from a non creator perspective - but it seems to dig evolutionists into a deeper hole.

  Anyway - no big deal - we agree to disagree.

  The Scotsman -